Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:05, 4 September 2012

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Mitt Romney, his campaign or his policies. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Mitt Romney, his campaign or his policies at the Reference desk.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

	Mitt Romney has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 29, 2006 WikiProject peer review Reviewed December 30, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed March 15, 2011 Good article nominee Listed May 12, 2012 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 21, 2012 Good article reassessment Kept Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article has had a peer review which is now archived. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Latter Day Saint movement Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Brigham Young University Mid‑importance Mitt Romney is part of WikiProject Brigham Young University, an attempt to write quality articles about Brigham Young University. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Brigham Young UniversityWikipedia:WikiProject Brigham Young UniversityTemplate:WikiProject Brigham Young UniversityBrigham Young University Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Massachusetts / Presidential elections / Governors High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. governors (assessed as Low-importance). This article has been selected for use on the Massachusetts portal.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Alex Fitzpatrick (20 April 2012). "Is The Race For the White House Being Fought on Misplaced Pages?". Mashable. Juli Weiner (2 April 2012). "Mad Men's Henry Francis Calls George Romney a Clown!". Vanity Fair. "Mitt Romney Misplaced Pages entry locked down". BBC News. 10 August 2012.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Religion

Could we add the fact that if he wins the election, the USA will have its' first non-christian President. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.40.32 (talk) 10:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

No. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, we could add it if it were true, but it's not. Mormons are Christian. That what our sources say and we are slaves to our sources. Speaking of which, this really didn't need to be hidden, did it? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 11:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I could ask an administrator to scrub it entirely as infammitory and meant to insult an entire group based on religion. Would that be better?--Amadscientist (talk) 11:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

No, leave it be. Let others read it and understand why we didn't make that change. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 12:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

There's a minor typo in paragraph four: "a system that give states more control". Seepieceeggshell (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Personal wealth

There is very good information about Romney's personal wealth in this article by Businessweek, which could be used to expand the couple of paragraphs in this biography: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-26/romney-tax-returns-show-strategy-for-moving-money-to-kids#p1 Cwobeel (talk) 02:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree, good article, and I've added something from it. I'm trying to structure this section so one paragraph deals with all net worth, one deals with income and taxes, and one deals with charitable giving, rather than them being all jumbled as before. I really can't understand why you reverted this before - the two things you added, carried interest and three offshore accounts, are still there, just more concisely and with less duplication. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

He's rich. Very, very, rich. But do we really need upwards of 275 words to say so? Trim, trim, trim:

71.88.58.198 (talk) 05:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Not going to happen, FLAYWIP. I'm struggling just to keep it at its current length, and I don't agree that the campaign section should carry this freight. Cwobeel, we don't need to say something as verbose as "Benjamin Ginsberg, Romney campaign's legal counsel, reported that Romney earned $7.4 million in carried interest from Bain Capital in 2010." All we need to do is include carried interest as among the types of investment income he has (if it's a third of the pie, and we gave three types, that gives the right impression). We don't need to say "and that he had a "bank account, security account or other financial account" in Switzerland; according to Romney's aides, this account was closed in 2010. Financial accounts in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands were also reported that year." All we need to say is "financial accounts", the exact type is not the point at this level of detail. And whether they are currently closed or not is not the point either; he could have been sanitizing his holdings prior to running. And I know you don't care about MoS conformance, but per WP:OVERLINK and general practice, names of countries are usually not linked. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This "freight" as you call it is extremely boring, overly detailed, and verbosely worded. But if you keep it all in this article, move some of it to the 2012 campaign section. You must realize that much of this information is being used to discredit Romney as an out-of-touch rich guy who wants to use public policy to defend his own wealth. That's campaign info, far exceeding ordinary biographical info.64.134.98.120 (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Boring is in the eyes of the reader; if a particular section doesn't interest someone, they can skip to the next section. I see the distinction as this: facts about Romney's wealth and tax payments and whatnot should go in this section; campaign arguments about whether he should release more returns should go in the 2012 campaign section. When you run for president, every aspect of your life gets magnified and you get a long WP article; this is a reasonably appropriate coverage of his wealth, which is one of his more notable characteristics. As for your 'public policy' angle, you're off target: every Republican wants to do the same stuff (cut marginal tax rates, cut investment income rates even more, eliminate the estate tax), whether they are worth $250M or only $1M. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to accommodate some of your edits, but it seems that it is your way or the highway. You have changed the meaning of the source stating that "Romney's holdings have included financial accounts in Switzerland, Bermuda, and the Cayman Islands." "Have included" is in the past and portrays that he has no longer have these holdings but that is not true. Regarding the linking of countries, you may but many people do not klnow where these countries are, or that they are used as tax heavens, and links are useful. Cwobeel (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Rather than reverting your edit, I encourage you to accommodate my edits. Cwobeel (talk) 14:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I assure you it's not 'my way', since I wouldn't include any of the overseas holdings, as I don't think they're numerically significant. But I realize others are fixated on this subject. I believe the "have included" phrasing includes both past and current, which is what I intended, but in any case I have reworded it to say that explicitly. As for country linking, that's just not done these days, and any GA/Peer/FA review will flag it (indeed the peer one did a few days ago). The powers that be are against a "sea of blue" appearance for any article. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting that, but note that you have not added that the Switzerland was closed in 2010. That is a significant fact, which is still missing. As for the links to the countries, I still believe it is relevant. If during a GA process that is challenged we can remove them at that time. Cwobeel (talk) 03:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is Switzerland closing in 2010 significant? How much money was in the Switzerland account? What kind of account was it? What was it there for? How long was it there? Was it a tax shelter or were normal taxes paid on it? All of those other questions are more significant than what particular year it closed in. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It is significant as reported. I have made some small tweaks and added also the date of release of the 2011 return, as reported by a Romney advisor. Cwobeel (talk) 03:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

To your question: - Brad Malt of the law firm Ropes & Gray: Q: "Why was that Swiss bank account closed in 2010?" A: "I previously said that I regularly review Gov. Romney's investments and just in connection with one of my periodic reviews, I decided that this account wasn't serving any particular purpose. It might or might not be consistent with Gov. Romney's political views. You know, again, taxes were all fully paid, etc., but it just wasn't worth it, and I closed the account." Cwobeel (talk) 03:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

So if the Swiss account wasn't a tax dodge, why are we even describing it? What difference does it make if he keeps his money in a Swiss bank or a Massachusetts bank? Never mind, it's a rhetorical question, I already know your answer. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, Malt says it wasn't. We should include what he says, but shouldn't let him have the final word. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Unless you have proof that it was, it is little more than subjecture. Arzel (talk) 14:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not up to us to prove anything; this isn't a court. We just report what the mainstream and minor reliable sources say. This is certainly one reliable source and we should report it. We should not, however, report it to the exclusion of all else. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not the purpose of WP to imply that Romney did something illegal either, which is apparently the angle you are trying to work. Arzel (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The article says he currently has holdings but the citation is taking about the past. He could still have them, but that is just speculation. The bigger point is that this is not notable so why include it? It would be notable if he didn't have accounts all over the world it seems. --Mollskman (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I pop in and out on this article, but I don't see why the info on the Cayman Islands, Switzerland, etc. is being removed. It's verifiable information that he's had money there, and it's reported that he's the only presidential contender in history with this sort of offshore money. We don't know exact amounts because the Romneys have not been forthcoming with that information. But why is this not enough to say that "In 2010, he reported significant holdings..." or something of the like? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I also would like to understand why this factual information is being deleted. Cwobeel (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Was it reported that he is the only presidential contender in history with this sort of offshore money? Maybe I missed that. Still not sure how notable that is, but that might move me. At the very least, this needs to be worded better it seems. Also just because it is factual doesn't mean it belongs. --Mollskman (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Facts don't warrant inclusion. Naapple (Talk) 21:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a remarkable assertion for Misplaced Pages. Please read WP:NPOV. Facts, as presented by reliable sources, should be included to the extent that they represent widely held views in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. You seem to be arguing that facts can be excluded from the article just because you don't like them. Wrong. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Your reply to everyone you disagree with seems to be "because you don't like them". It's getting old. Your argument is weak and baseless. Facts indeed don't warrant inclusion. Just because it's true doesn't mean it is relevant or appropriate to the article. Naapple (Talk) 00:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

A better phrasing would be, "being factual is not a sufficient condition for inclusion in Misplaced Pages". In this case I believe the objection is not that the material is counterfactual, but that it is overburdened by inconsequential details that weigh down the article. alanyst 21:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that a short sentence will burden this article, see also WP:NOTPAPER. I think the reasoning for exclusion is purely political. Some operatives or supporters of Romney believe that his finances are a "distraction", but they fail to understand that this is a biography and people thirst to know more about this person. Cwobeel (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the reasoning FOR inclusion is purely political too. HiLo48 (talk) 23:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

But this is not opinion. This is facts; big difference IMO. Let the reader decide should be our motto. Cwobeel (talk) 00:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I agree, it's good that it's true, but that's not enough either. We don't include every fact. We include notable ones. As I have already said, every US President in my (longish so far) lifetime has been a lot richer than me. Where Romney sits in that range of "a lot richer than me" isn't really important. HiLo48 (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. What matters is that reliable sources have shown the notability of his wealth. We have to follow our sources. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The interesting thing is that we are already speaking of his wealth in the article, in fact we have a section dedicated to it so that is not the issue being argued. What is being argued is the inclusion of a sentence properly sourced (including sources close to Romney) about foreign accounts and blind trusts. How come this is not useful while other material is? That is the question which no one has answered yet, besides bromides about undue weight, too long, overwhelming the article and other nonsense. And the simple reason is that it is political and that is why we are having this discussion. Forget the wikilaywering. There is no consensus for inclusion and there is no consensus for exclusion. I guess it all will dissipate after the upcoming elections. Cwobeel (talk) 03:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I have the same question. I agreed that it should be included. It's notable, as no other president has had holdings in the Caymans and Switzerland. I don't understand the argument for omission.Jasonnewyork (talk) 03:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

After reading all of the comments on here, it seems the sticking point for inclusion is "notability." I did some searches, and the topic of his Swiss bank accounts and holdings in the Caymans are everywhere, even on Fox News and even in the ultra conservative National Review. Here's an article: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/289248/gingrich-romney-lives-worlds-swiss-bank-accounts-and-cayman-island-accounts-katrina-tr. I think when it's been such a large point of contention from not only democratic but also republican circles, you can't claim it isn't notable.Jasonnewyork (talk) 04:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

That article clearly shows it is a political talking point, this article is not about the 2012 presidential election, this article is about him personally. Granted, as a presidential candidate it is not possible to completely seperate the two, but are other people with various holdings held to such a scrutiny here? It is quite clear that this is purely a political hammer with which to hit Romney and WP is simply not the place to push a political point of view. Arzel (talk) 05:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

On the one hand, I agree with you. On the other hand, he's a politician running for president, so everything becomes political, so you could use that argument to exclude just about anything that doesn't paint him in a perfect light. There must be some sort of guidelines for inclusion of content in an article or is it always just majority rules?Jasonnewyork (talk) 05:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Though I have, admittedly, made the error myself, notability is not, strictly speaking, a criterion on which to base article content. It is a criterion on which to determine whether an article should exist at all, not on what the specific content of an article should be. See WP:NNC. Dezastru (talk) 04:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Step outside the definitions of Misplaced Pages for a moment. Based on the discussion in this thread, the barrier to inclusion is the content's notability. Yes, I understand it is also a term in Misplaced Pages lore that allows for the weighing of information to determine inclusion of an article, not content, but the word "notable" has other uses too. How about this...to avoid confusion, we could say the sticking point is "relevance" - same idea. The barrier to inclusion is relevance. It seems that if even Fox News and The National Review are talking about it, then it is relevant.Jasonnewyork (talk) 04:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I think what you're referring to is WP:WEIGHT: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." - SudoGhost 05:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

So, if the concern is that his holdings in the Caymans and Switzerland, etc, are getting undue weight, can we compromise and cut the information down?Jasonnewyork (talk) 05:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

ROFL! How can you remove what we want to include? You will end up with nothing. This is the entire sentence: Cwobeel (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Financial accounts in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands are currently part of his holdings; an account in Switzerland was closed in 2010.

That's it? One sentence? LOL. Well, that makes my comments under biased article all the more relevant.Jasonnewyork (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. Much of a do about nothing, IMO. That sentence should go back in. Cwobeel (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, under the personal wealth section, the term "blind trust" is used three times, making it seem as if he has no control over his funds. We can certainly state that he has said he has no control over those blind trusts, but we should also state that in 1994 he said that the blind trust is "an old ruse" and that you can direct what to invest in and what not to invest in. If you leave that out, you're not telling the whole story.Jasonnewyork (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Based on this conversation, I restored the Bermuda line. Let's see who wins the race to revert this. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Can people at least try to rewrite this to gain consensus? I wouldn't include it, but if it has to go in maybe something like his returns showed holdings in the Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, ect? --Mollskman (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. I don't really see a marked difference in the two, but happy to endorse Mollskman's version.Jasonnewyork (talk) 21:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if using "currently" was appropriate since that seems specultive. Again, I would leave it out unless there was a "bigger story" like he denied those accounts. Also, was it ever answered about Romney being the only candidate in history to ever have these types of accounts, is there a citation for that since it keeps getting repeated here? --Mollskman (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

That claim is unprovable. I used it. I shouldn't have. It's one of those "You can't prove a negative" fallacies. I looked for a source anyway and came up empty handed. Yes, I realize that's a knock against inclusion, but I think we've provided sufficient support without that argument.Jasonnewyork (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, Wasted R's comments from earlier were never addressed regarding the Swiss Bank account. Also, what is the story that some editors are trying to tell? These kind of statements with a "wink wink" are little more than political talking points. Arzel (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Arzel, everything about a presidential candidate is political. You keep using that as an argument for exclusion. No one is saying Romney did anything wrong or illegal. All the line says is that he has holdings in the Caymans, Bermuda and Switzerland (in 2010). There's no judgment placed on that statement. It's a fact, just like the rest of the information in the section. By your reasoning we shouldn't include his total wealth because that's a wink-wink to say "hey, this guy is really rich and not like us." As I said, everything about Romney is political. Everything about Obama is political. That's not a reason for exclusion. If I step back from all of this, I think fellow editors should ask themselves this question - is it slanting the article more to include it or to exclude it? And I say whatever consensus says to that question should stand.Jasonnewyork (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is it noteworthy that he has off shore bank accounts? If it is, include it. If it isn't, don't. The judgement placed on the statement is that its noteworthy of inclusion. Is it? --Mollskman (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Should it also be mentioned he had accounts in the U.S.? If it's not political, how are the offshore accounts different than domestic ones? 72Dino (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The noteworthy argument was made above, but here's the quick recap: It's a story that was featured in all the major news outlets (including Fox and National Review). Arzel claimed it's just a political hammer. My counter to that was that he's a presidential candidate - everything about him is political. That's not a reason to exclude. Here's the thing - we provide the fact: he had holdings in these countries. People make up their mind what that means to them. That's it. To some people it will mean that he's a savvy investor and has managed his money wisely. To other people it might mean he avoided paying taxes. We're not providing judgment on the fact (which is only about 10 words long), and to exclude the information is depriving the reader from making a decision about what that fact means to them. It also prevents them from doing further research on whether these tax loopholes are something they support or oppose. The more I think about this, the more I'm convinced this information should really be included. To say this information is not notable is a big stretch.Jasonnewyork (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Your response makes me more inclined to not include. Whenever I hear "include it and let the reader decide what it means and how to interpret it" I cringe. Why is it so important that it be included? What value does it add? Your response reinforces the idea that it is being included for political reasons. --Mollskman (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Or, in short, it's noteworthy because our sources say it is. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

That is such convuluted logic, I really wish you would stop trying to use it. By that argument, every single thing published in any reliable source is, by your definition, noteworthy. Arzel (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

What I don't get is this - people are throwing around this word noteworthy as if it is a measurable attribute. If there is no definition as to what constitutes "noteworthy" then this debate is pointless and it all comes down to how people feel (welcome to Misplaced Pages). Also, Mollskman, I am struggling to understand your argument. If someone says let the reader decide, that's somehow a red flag? Can you elaborate on how that disqualifies this entry? As to what value it adds, I've stated that - again and again. Having holdings in those locations has meaning. As to it being political - good grief, I've said this again and again. He a candidate for political office. Yes, of course it's political. Everything about him is political. The amount of scuff on his shoes is political. Whether a fact is political or not has no bearing on inclusion or exclusion.Jasonnewyork (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

But when the inclusion of content is being pushed for what seem exclusively political purposes, we must object. And as for being well sourced, that's an essential requirement for inclusion, but it is never sufficient. Hollywood babies, their weird names, and their parents' relationships are very well covered in reliable sources, including some otherwise regarded as being high quality, but we ignore most of that sort of content. We are ALWAYS making judgements on the significance of news for inclusion in this quality encyclopaedia. Simply telling us that it's well sourced is never enough. HiLo48 (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Part of the problem here, is that some aspects of his wealth are really related to his presidential run and are being used for political purposes. The sources referencing them are in that context, and if not for the fact that he is running for president no one would ever know of them. As such they belong, if at all, in the article related to his presidential run. Another issue is that some of this stuff is timely, as in "right now Romney has investments in...." which is not in a historical perspective, these issues further illustrate aspects which are exclusively related to the 2012 election. My approach in these articles is to forget that he is even running for office. Compare the article to other BLP's and see if it is written in a similar manner. Certainly his wealth would be reported, but investment holdings would not, and from what I have seen are not reported on other BLP articles. Now look at the specific issue here. Jason says "let the reader decide". What is the reader to decide? The articles which mention it, imply that this is somehow nefarious or possibly illegal. So if we just list the fact the implication is clear. Romney is doing something bad, we don't say so specifically since we just report the fact without the commentary, but if you check the source the commentary is clear. Like Molksman, whenever I hear that logic red flags go up, because the goal is to lead the reader to the conclusion that the editor has already made. In conclusion, much of this doesn't belong in the main article because it is specifically related to the 2012 election, and not his personal bio. If included in the sub article it has to be put into context, in which case it becomes a bloated section in violation of due weight, and if a ton of text is required to put something into context, in general it is going to violate WP:Weight unless is a extrememly noteworty. Arzel (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

If we write this as if he's not running, we'll have an article that's out of touch with reality. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say to write it as if he is not running, only that aspects which are part of the 2012 election politicking do not belong in the main BIO. Arzel (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

He had these offshore accounts before he ran, he'll have them afterwards. This isn't an election-only thing. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Now you're speculating. We can't do that here. HiLo48 (talk) 01:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm just going to point out how ridiculous your comment is and walk away. You have no valid objections, so we're done here. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to see everything in purely partisan terms, then your argument can easily be reversed. By your logic, failing to mention the Bermuda and Cayman accounts is clearly an example of political whitewashing by conservatives such as yourself. See how that works? Bet it's not as much fun when it's applied to you.

False assumption (and rude post). I'm opposed to ALL partisan behaviour on Misplaced Pages. It's possible to try to be objective, especially when one is not an American and is 12,000 kilometres away HiLo48 (talk) 01:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Being objective means going with what our sources find worth reporting on, such as these bank accounts. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read my post just above, at 00:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC) HiLo48 (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Instead, I suggest that we put aside any arguments based on partisanship and focus on whether a reasonable person would be surprised to hear that we failed to mentioned these accounts. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

@Jasonnewyork, I wouldn't say that it disqualifies the material, it just always makes me wonder about the quality of the aurguement for inclusion when people say, just include it and readers can decide for themselves whether its noteworthy. And yes, noteworthyness :) comes down to editorial consensus and not just include it since it has been reported. Cheers. --Mollskman (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The argument from inclusion is based on what our secondary sources show to be important, not whether it pleases conservatives or liberals. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you actually read my post just above, at 00:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)? It's rude to post as if contrary comments have not already been made. HiLo48 (talk) 01:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Let Detroit Go Bankrupt

I don't think that the title of his op-ed should be used in the text of this article. Romney wrote the op-ed in The New York Times on November 18, 2008 but his title was "The Way Forward for the Auto Industry." It was the newspaper that changed the title to "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt". According to Time Magazine, "It’s worth noting that Romney did not write the Times headline, which gives the impression that Romney thought the companies should be allowed to fail completely. He didn’t think that." Even if the title "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" is used only in a footnote, that footnote also ought to indicate that that misleading title was not Romney's.71.88.58.198 (talk) 06:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, and so done. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Abstinent before marriage

I attempted to add the following, referenced, biographical information about Romney to this article. It was reverted on three occasions on different pretenses ("Seriously? This is not the National Enquier ," "Not encyclopedic," and "actually rumour from a relative and not fact-checked by anyone - trivia at best as a result").

What appears below is a veritable fact (Romney's mother did, in fact, make this assertion and the Romney campaign did not later refute it), it was published in a reputable source (the New York Times, not the National Enquirer) and by all appearances is encyclopedic (it speaks to Romney's upbringing, religion, character, values, and politics).

Apart from general prudishness, is there any reason the following should not appear in this article?

According to Romney's mother, the couple did not have sexual intercourse prior to marriage. (source here: )

--Kairotic (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this is trivia and not useful biographic information. Cwobeel (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree. This information is trivial. Let's focus on details that relate to why Romney is a notable figure. Dezastru (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Explain, then: How is it any less trivial--i.e., less a part of the story of who he is and what makes him notable--than the following?:

• "Romney developed a lifelong affection for France and its people, and speaks French."
• "Romney was nervous that she had been wooed by others while he was away, and indeed she had sent him a 'Dear John letter' of sorts, greatly upsetting him; he wrote to her in an attempt to win her back."
• "At their first meeting following his return, they reconnected and decided to get married immediately, but subsequently agreed to wait three months to appease their parents."
• "...they were undergraduates at BYU and liv in a basement apartment."

Perhaps these remarks be removed too; they don't say nearly as much about Romney's character, outlook on social issues, and personal biography as the above quoted fact does.

--Kairotic (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Do not include. This is primarily a matter of privacy. I would agree with Kairotic if the info had been provided by Mitt or Ann Romney. But here we're talking about a statement by an 85-year-old third party. Yes, the third party is a family member, but that fact is not enough to justify inclusion in a BLP.64.134.98.120 (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This is in no way a privacy issue; this has been on the public record (The New York Times) for some 18 years. Mrs. Romney's age at the time is also completely immaterial. It goes without saying, of course, that the elderly aren't inherently disreputable. Mrs. Romney (a politician herself at one time) made the comment on the record in the context of a political campaign. I'm not sure what doubt there is about the veracity of the comment and the privacy argument is clearly specious.

I haven't seen any persuasive lines of reasoning here.

--Kairotic (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

These matters are sometimes not cut and dried. Reasonable people can differ. But it seems telling that the factoid has not reappeared anywhere during the past 18 years, unless you have yet to disclose further sources. If the NYT has decided to sit on it for 18 years after their initial publication, doesn't that tell us something? We are supposed to factor in human dignity and personal privacy. See WP:BLP. Maybe that's what the NYT has been doing for the past 18 years. But even if you can show publication during the past several years, I would still be very leery.64.134.98.120 (talk) 02:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

"Mrs. Romney (a politician herself at one time) made the comment on the record in the context of a political campaign. I'm not sure what doubt there is about the veracity of the comment"

I take it your mother also knows when the first time you had sex was? Or maybe this kind of trivial nonsense would be better placed in the elder Mrs. Romney's article, if anywhere in Misplaced Pages. Dezastru (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I did include this in the Lenore Romney article, when I was writing it on the road to GA a few months ago. It does say something about her boldness and values that she would say it, and it also fit into the comparison against Kennedy on personal character issues that was one of the subcontexts of that campaign. I don't think it belongs in the Mitt or Ann articles, however, for the reasons given here. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The proposed addition has very little to do with Mrs. Romney or her biography, so it doesn't belong on her page. But it is a salient fact about Mitt Romney, his values, his character, and his story. Since it relates to his political and social outlook as he seeks the presidency of the United States, it is anything but trivial.

So far, the attempts I've seen to turn this argument toward the veracity of Mrs. Romney's claim itself have been weak. In particular, they assume that the proposed addition is purporting more than it really is—that she made this comment in 1994 is an objective fact, and that's all the proposed addition claims. They also suggest without warrant that Mrs. Romney was not a credible, authoritative source for this information; that she was not speaking in good faith; or that she was somehow incompetent (there seems to be a particular insinuation about her age at the time).

To go back to an earlier point, if the proposed addition is "trivial nonsense," than why aren't the following as well?: "Romney developed a lifelong affection for France and its people." Or ""Romney was nervous that she had been wooed by others while he was away, and indeed she had sent him a 'Dear John letter' of sorts, greatly upsetting him; he wrote to her in an attempt to win her back." How are they more notable or veracious than the proposed addition?

I accept that there can be different interpretations of this issue, but let's try to develop lines of reasoning and provide substantiation for our arguments (and leave our mothers out of it, no?). This article is really not helped by an aversion to facts, editorial skittishness, or pressure to keep this article in line with the official Romney campaign biography.

--Kairotic (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The proposed addition has everything to do with Mrs. Romney's values and character — and political judgment. Since she apparently followed her son and future daughter-in-law around 24 hours a day, and slept in the same bed with them, surely this is appropriate content for her WP bio. Dezastru (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Please provide substantiation and lines of reasoning to support your perspective, Dezastru. Let's keep this productive.

--Kairotic (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Unless Mitt or Ann confirm it, I see it as a BLP problem. Best left out. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Is the statement plausible? Yes. From a reliable source? Yes. Of sufficient weight to deserve mention in the article? Perhaps barely; as noted, other lightweight trivia has found its way into the article. Intrusive of the subject's privacy? Absolutely. If the Romneys have not themselves publicized their sexual history, it is a violation of WP:BLP for Misplaced Pages to further intrude on that private aspect of their lives. On BLP grounds alone, the material should not be included—and I would make the same argument for the Obamas or any other living couple whose sex lives are similarly private. alanyst 18:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

References format

Question:

In the References section, these books first appear as a secondary reference format, not as a primary reference format followed subsequently by their secondary reference format:

^ Kranish; Helman, The Real Romney, pp. 12–13.
^ Mahoney, The Story of George Romney, pp. 59–62, 63–65, 94–96, 104, 113, 159.

These books are fully listed farther down the page in the Bibliography section, but that is beside the point. Can someone please explain this to me? Thanks, Wordreader (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This is per the WP:CITESHORT style. One thing that could be done is add the {{harvnb}} links to it. GabeMc was hot on doing that, until he disappeared from this article and devoted himself full-time to WP's greatest edit war of all ... whether you should write "The Beatles" or "the Beatles". Wasted Time R (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought you weren't interested in harv or sfn templates Wasted. If there is a consensus to switch to them here, I could likely be persuaded into helping out with the transition. FTR, I devoted myself to ending WP's lamest edit war of all-time. ~ GabeMc 22:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Footnote question

In footnote #1, it states, in part:

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.

The reference to long hair is, of course, significant to the act, but the reference to "bleached-blonde" is completely superficial and insignificant. Why does it stand this way? I think the phrase should be deleted. Thanks, Wordreader (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

He was attacked because he was different. This is the main way he was different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.69.94 (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that "bleached-blond" should be removed as superfluous. The scissors were aimed at hair length, not hair color. If Mitt Romney had wielded hair dye, that would be another matter.64.251.57.46 (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No, read the Horowitz story again: "Now he was walking around the all-boys school with bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye, and Romney wasn’t having it. “He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!” an incensed Romney told Matthew Friedemann, his close friend in the Stevens Hall dorm, according to Friedemann’s recollection. Mitt, the teenage son of Michigan Gov. George Romney, kept complaining about Lauber’s look, Friedemann recalled." Remember that dyed hair in guys was a lot more unusual in 1965 than it is today. And the cutting of hair serves to shame both the length and color of it.

Furthermore, the current language is the result of a compromise at the end of a lonnnnnng series of discussions and arguments, spanning four or five talk archives. And it's a compromise which you (FLAYWIP) endorsed. We do not want to open this one back up!! Wasted Time R (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have thoroughly searched the archives for "hair" and "FLAYWIP" but come up empty (I may have to start calling you Wasted One!). Anyway, perhaps you've heard about the protestations of the alleged Fort Hood killer, who doesn't want the Army to forcibly shave his beard even though he's a major in said Army. My opinion is that the Army wants to do it for the sake of conformity rather than for the sake of shaming. Whether bleached-blond stays in or comes out is no big deal, but I don't think anyone has before made that particular suggestion.64.134.98.120 (talk) 00:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

here Wasted Time R (talk) 01:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Upon reviewing the cited source, I think it's okay to leave in "bleached-blond". The source indicates that the incident induced the boy to get rid of the bleached look: "he returned days later with his shortened hair back to it's natural brown". Plus I can now cite this discussion if WTR ever wants to restore the dog details.64.134.98.120 (talk) 02:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Political Bias of Article

Not considering myself a republican or democrat, reading this article has a strange bias about it. There is almost no criticism anywhere on the page about this man. It was written more as a life story trying to give all of the reasons why he is such a fantastic person. I'm not saying this because I wish to attack, but as a Misplaced Pages principle, articles should be viewed from an objective stand-point.

This one feels like it was completely written by a member of his election team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.132.70 (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Vague complaints of bias are of little value unless you can point to some specific issues. Arzel (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I tried adding some minor balance...it was quickly reverted. Meh, the republicans have taken over this page. My favorite has to be "Romney was restless to own his own company." - LOL. It starts like a Harlequin novel. I tried to adjust it, but NOPE, not happening. If you're interested in trying some more, there are tons of counterpoints in this article http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-federal-bailout-that-saved-mitt-romney-20120829#ixzz254MDYXXz that dispute the claims made under the Bain section. But currently this page is not going to be anything but a prop for the Romney campaign, so good luck adding any balance.Jasonnewyork (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

So what are you really here to do? Accuse editors of being Republicans here? If you are, you don't have much of a future here. Now you were employing weasel statements which are noted in your talk page. Meanwhile, address your issues here and let Wasted do that himself since he's been the top neutral editor here. ViriiK (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I actually agree with Wasted's challenges. Concede that point. And I conceded your point about the use of "some" but the "Mitt Romney was restless to start a new business" - come on...you think that is encyclopedic tone?Jasonnewyork (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with JasonNewYork on this particular phrase. How about, "Mitt Romney aspired to start a new business". Saying hexwas restless does sound a bit corny.64.134.98.120 (talk) 02:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Look, I have no objections per my talk page. My reverting was purely to remove the weasel statements. ViriiK (talk) 02:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

If the biggest issue of alleged bias in this article is between the semantics of these 2 sentences, then I think this article is doing pretty good. Naapple (Talk) 02:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not the biggest issue. I was just wondering what might actually be agreed upon and thought if the Halequin romance line couldn't get removed then there was no hope at all. And judging from Napple's response (he didn't say he'd remove it) it sounds like that's staying in. Gotta love Misplaced Pages. ViriiK, I'm not sure you saw what you were reverting. Napple did a mass undo of several edits, one of which had the "some" words in there. So you by proxy backed him up on all his other reverts.Jasonnewyork (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not that. I read the revert you made back to your preferred version and I saw the two weasel statements. As for the NYT change, that was based on the above discussion since a copyeditor did that job of making the title on their own decision, not Romney's. Romney had a different title set out aside for the piece he penned but that was not reflected in the print. ViriiK (talk) 03:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. If Romney really didn't choose the title, then happy to leave the title out. So, if I remove "some" and reword that passage, you're ok with it? It was just the weasel words?Jasonnewyork (talk) 03:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The 'restless' is supported by the source, but no worries, I've switched the text to FLAYWIP's suggested replacement. I've also briefly clarified that the 'Bain techniques' are the ones from the management consulting practice. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

As for the Rolling Stone piece, that concerns a different part of the narrative than what Jasonnewyork was trying to edit. It concerns Romney's return to Bain & Co. in 1991-1992. I'll take a look at it. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Tim Dickinson comes out of Mother Jones, which means the piece is likely well-researched but also likely to reach certain kinds of conclusions. Other editors are already adding material from this story to the Bain & Company article, which is where most of it should go. I'd wait a bit for this article to see if there's some follow-up or reactions. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I still think that "have them benefit from Bain consulting techniques" is biased. It's like Burger King saying, "We make sure our burgers benefit from BK grilling techniques."Jasonnewyork (talk) 03:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Read the BG bio series installment on this: "Bill Bain, meanwhile, was exploring a new frontier for his own firm - and for Romney. His notion: combining Bain's consulting expertise with investments in promising or underperforming firms. Bain consultants found that the stock prices of its clients had risen significantly higher than those of competitors. While Bain & Company had been well paid, Bill Bain and his senior partners decided they were reaping only a small share of the value of their work. The new venture would be called Bain Capital. It would buy companies, retool them with Bain techniques, and resell them at a profit." That was the 'secret sauce' idea behind Bain Capital and the philosophical connection between the two firms. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I read that earlier, as a huge part of the page is sourced to that article (which is really a fluff piece). I can tell I'm in the minority, but I stand by my opinion that it still reads like PR materials for Bain Capital. "benefiting from Bain techniques" makes it sound like no one else had ever thought of the things they were doing. It's just repackaged private equity/venture capital strategies. I'm not going to persuade anyone on this page of anything (apart from changing the word restless to the word "aspired"), but the whole Bain section reads more like a promo for Bain and Romney rather than saying anything of real substance. There isn't one mention of a failed deal. There isn't one mention of the issues they had with their creditors. There isn't one mention of Romney's role in squeezing the FDIC to allow them to pay back their debt at $.35 on the dollar or he was going to pay out massive bonuses to everyone so that he would essentially raid the coffers of the company (all sourced from the rolling stone article I mentioned). But like I said, I'm not going to convince anyone on this page. I suspect this information will be rated as "undue" and that will be the end of the discussion.Jasonnewyork (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you should review what exactly a private equity firm does. They buy/invest in companies and then run them so that they're more profitable. The sole objective of a PE firm is to have that company benefit from its consulting so that it can be more profitable and the PE firm makes a profit as the company grows. It's not a perfect system, and it doesn't work 100% of the time, but that is their purpose. To extend your analogy, it's more like Burger King stating that their burger business benefits from Bain's consulting techniques. Now the irony in all this is that Burger King was in fact invested in by Bain Capital in the early 2000's, benefiting from its consulting techniques and staging an epic turnaround. Naapple (Talk) 03:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

That's actually pretty funny. Though, concluding a cause and effect in those sorts of business arrangements is shaky at best (and we'd have to review a lot of balance sheets to make the determination), it's still funny.Jasonnewyork (talk) 03:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, you're wrong. The sole purpose of a private equity company is to make money for its investors.Jasonnewyork (talk) 05:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Any company makes money for its investor regardless of purpose. He was talking about the EXACT purpose of a private equity company. Does a private equity company stay a private equity company when they change their business operations to say semi-conductor manufacturing like AMD or Intel? Heck, what about a non-profit business like Goodwill Industries or Deseret Industries? Their purpose is to earn revenues in order to help provide job training, employment placement, community services, etc. ViriiK (talk) 05:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you don't know what you are talking about. The purpose of a private equity firm is solely to make a return on their investments. Much of the money the have to invest is provided by high net worth individuals that have no specific interest in creating companies, hire people, or improve communities. They also use leverage to get somebody else money to invest via debt. Nothing wrong with that at all, that is part of what capitalism is and it works just fine. Just please don't try to sell this for what is not. Cwobeel (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Money is a by product of the success of a company. The purpose of a private equity firm is to create successful companies which will result in a positive return on their investment. The most successful people, and companies are able to identify the most basic aspects which will result in success. Arzel (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Arzel. Are you guys being deliberately dense? The objective of ALL companies is to make a return on their investments for their investors. PE firms accomplish this goal by making the companies they invest in profitable. Jason, how old are you? Naapple (Talk) 02:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Peer review

Just a reminder: there is an ongoing peer review of this article here.64.251.57.46 (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

What is the difference between that page and the talk page?Jasonnewyork (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It's mainly so that a neutral third-party editing expert (in this case BrianBoulton) can review the article and make suggestions with an eye toward this article eventually satisfying the featured article criteria. Wasted Time R is the primary editor for this article, so he is primarily responding to Brian Boulton's comments.64.134.98.120 (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

2nd paragraph of political positions section

The second paragraph under the political positions section starts off with "Romney has called for cuts." Two sentences later it says he is calling for large increases in military spending. Is that a contradiction that we care about fixing? Seems the paragraph should be about the stuff he wants to cut.Jasonnewyork (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you reading the sources? Plus federal spending and military spending are not the same thing. Federal spending encompasses the entire government which includes military spending. It is possible to increase military spending and cut federal spending at the same time. So there is no contradiction here. By the way, when you use quotation marks, be sure to use the exact sentence as "Romney has called for cuts." does not exist. Quoting works by using the exact sentence or phrase without any interference from you instead of paraphrasing as you did there. ViriiK (talk) 05:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware that you can cut fed spending while increasing military spending. That wasn't the point. It was a point on consistency within a paragraph. If you start a paragraph out talking about cuts to fed spending, you'd think the paragraph is about cuts to fed spending (e.g. the spending cuts that would occur within fed spending) rather than including a sentence about spending increases. It's just grammatically unseemly. But I don't feel strongly on this point. It sounds like you do, so I'm happy to leave it alone.Jasonnewyork (talk) 05:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The whole paragraph itself is leading up to the Paul Ryan budget which is a mixed bag of increased or reduced spending in their respective areas. I don't think it's inconsistent at all rather. Then again, the whole paragraph focuses on his positions of how he views the United States federal budget. ViriiK (talk) 05:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Heads up

There is now an article titled Business career of Mitt Romney. It draws together relevant info from this article and other articles, and adds some additional info. It may be appropriate, therefore, to trim the Business Career section of this main Mitt Romney article, per WP:Summary style.64.134.98.120 (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

What additional info? Can you list these additions? It seems you just copied and pasted from other articles. IMO, that is an unnecessary fork and should be put up for deletion. Cwobeel (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This adds nothing.Jasonnewyork (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Cwobeel has raised this objection in two places, and I think it would be better to continue at one place. So, I'll respond at Talk:Business career of Mitt Romney.71.88.58.198 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Obstruction

I have to say that I'm disappointed by the tendency of conservative editors to obstruct reasonable changes.

In both cases, it's rather clear that the only reason the change was reverted was in an attempt to make Romney look better. In other words, it's whitewashing. I challenge you to join the rest of us in building a neutral article instead of standing in the way. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

To whom is that directed? HiLo48 (talk) 08:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG comes to mind. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

That second edit was also WP:OR in its presentation. Arzel (talk) 12:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Collect, with the "boomerang" being about actually doing such. North8000 (talk) 12:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Considering this thread was open by an editor who has been rightfully blocked for edit warring recently and continues to throw accusations around and edit against consensus, we can probably close this thread now. --Mollskman (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

StillStanding-247, this is what the second diff you gave above removed:

• Paul Krugman's opinion of the similarity between Romney's Massachusetts health plan and the Obama administration's health plan
• A sentence structure that reads, with details elided, "Although Romney supported X, which - as Person K points out - is similar to Y, he pledges Q, but did not reveal Z."
• An uncited opinion that the Patriot act "represses many basic civil rights"
• An assertion that Romney supports interrogation techniques that violate international law and are equivalent to torture

Is that revert what you intended to present as an example of whitewashing and obstruction of a reasonable edit? alanyst 14:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the first edit mentioned above is a major left POV push. Napple correctly reverted that one. I don't however understand why the simple fact that Romney has/had holdings in the Caymans (without any judgment associated with that fact) keeps getting reverted. For comparison, I looked at Obama's page to see what sorts of things appear in his profile, and I found several obscure facts about his belonging to a gang that was known for doing drugs. I have to say that there is a right of center POV slant in the political pages. The solution is not to edit-war for left of center POV pushes, but to find a neutral balance, and I do think there are very few neutral voices on here.Jasonnewyork (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I would say go fix the Obama article and the two are not comparable. There is a difference between Obama writing about his life and having some of those aspects included, and Romney releasing tax returns for the 2012 presidential election and then having politically biased people highlight specific aspects which they think makes Romney look bad in his non-2012 presidential election article. Arzel (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Arzel. Am I hearing support for the removal of that info from the Obama page? Happy to move that discussion there. Appreciate the neutrality.Jasonnewyork (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Caymans, etc.: The difficulty is that there are factoids that can be verifiable, published in reliable sources, and only significant in terms of political talking points.

A hypothetical illustration: An article published in a reliable source mentions in passing that Romney keeps a plastic bottle of water in his car. This factoid gets noticed by a conservative commentator who opines that having it on hand in case of thirst shows Romney's foresight and habit of careful preparation. Progressive bloggers counter that his choice to use plastic demonstrates his disregard for the environment and his ties to the oil industry. Much speculation is made regarding whether the brand of bottled water is a cheap generic one or an expensive premium brand and what it says about Romney's lifestyle. A New York Times columnist satirizes Romney about being a distilled water guy while claiming to be a glacier-fed spring guy. A Wall Street Journal article examines his bottled-water choices dating back to his failed Senate campaign. Eventually, a well-meaning editor adds to Romney's bio He keeps a plastic bottle of water in his car (with appropriate citation). Those who want to remove it, citing insufficient significance to the biography of Romney, are accused of acting politically to obstruct the truth. (One could imagine this accusation being made from either end of the political spectrum.)

Now, this is a bit of argumentum ad absurdum, since the issue of tax returns and overseas accounts is more consequential than the existence of a bottle of water. The point is, there can be good-faith, apolitical reasons for objecting to the inclusion of certain verifiable, reliably-sourced factoids in a particular article. In this case, the significance to his biography of such details as when accounts were opened or closed and in which countries he had holdings has not been established, particularly because the crucial contextual information of the value of those holdings is unknown. (Does the existence of accounts in tax havens such as the Caymans indicate a tax dodge? Unknown, since the impact on his tax liability can only be known from the value of the accounts. Do the offshore funds indicate savvy investing? Unknown, since their present and original value are unknown. Is his use of offshore holdings unusual for a person of similar wealth? Unknown, since the amount and distribution of those holdings are unknown. Then what do the details add about Romney's life and character?)

At best, the details have relevance to the political campaign article(s) insofar as they have become fodder for rhetoric, but for this biography, in the absence of additional context, the appropriate level of detail would be along the lines of He has some financial holdings in offshore accounts and investments. alanyst 18:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Well stated. Arzel (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

No, not well stated. On the contrary. We have sources and these are reliable. Why to mess around with oblique mentions, beating around the bush, when the data is straight forward and simple to express in a few words? Please read WP:NOR. Do not interpret the sources. Cwobeel (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You're not arguing that summarizing or paraphrasing constitute original research, are you? What concept does my suggested wording introduce that was not in the cited source? alanyst 21:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Analyst, I agree with all of your statements. I just differ on your conclusion. I still think that holdings in the Caymans says something significant about a presidential candidate, and it's not for us to speculate as to what that means to the reader. That said, if all you're willing to concede is the text "he has some financial holdings in offshore accounts" then let's add that in and move on.Jasonnewyork (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Since there has been no further comment on this point, I'm taking the compromise put forth by analyst as the final word. Though I'm going to take out the word "some" and go with "A portion of his financial assets are held in offshore accounts and investments."Jasonnewyork (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

It is a holiday weekend in the US; many are on holiday trips, and many are busy with preparation for the new school year. It may be premature to conclude that there is agreement based on a lack of additional comments in the past day or so. Dezastru (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, it seems like a pretty innocuous statement as inserted (doesn't mention Caymans or Switzerland or any countries for that matter). If someone feels strongly about reverting, we can discuss it then.Jasonnewyork (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

2002 Olympics

The sentence "When the offer came for him to take over the troubled 2002 Winter Olympics and Paralympics, to be held in Salt Lake City in Utah, she urged him to take it, and eager for a new challenge, as well as another chance to prove himself in public life, he did." is poorly written. Also, none of the associated references mention a conversation between Mitt Romney and his wife regarding taking the position. Perhaps better wording would be "When the offer came for him to take over the troubled 2002 Winter Olympics and Paralympics, to be held in Salt Lake City, Romney seized the opportunity to prove himself in public life". A discussion of his desire to prove himself in public life is in the third associated reference. Ahnika1

Overseas Trip

Can we have some mention of his disastrous trip to the UK, Israel and Poland. He managed to upset Britons, Palestians and Journalists. 109.155.46.193 (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe, add to the 2012 presidential article, but even then, wikipedia is not the news. I would not include in here unless in 2 years its some big deal. --Mollskman (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but have you actually read WP:NOTNEWS? It doesn't say what you think it says. We are definitely allowed to mention this trip. We just need to avoid recentism by not allowing the most recent events to predominate. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

We absolutely need to add once sentence in the 2012 Presidential campaign section summarizing his first visit abroad as the presumptive nominee. Cwobeel (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a proposal for how that sentence should read, something that won't trigger an edit war? Wasted Time R (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I will give it a try, and you and others can help correct or improve. Cwobeel (talk) 00:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of the endorsement by Lech Walesa, the only event of substance during his trip? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.222.12.65 (talk) 12:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The improvements by others, omitted completely the vast majority of the coverage in the sources we have. I have restored some of it, but it may need some work. Cwobeel (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

@Arzel: Can you join us in the discussion instead of summarily deleting well sourced content? Cwobeel (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

How about you join me below where I continued on your discussion on this topic. Arzel (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

this is the section on that subject. In any case, lets resume it here as it will be easier for others to follow. Cwobeel (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You refer to WP:SUMMARY. If that us the case, why are you deleting the sentence I added? The fact is that the trip had a substantial number of sources referring to purported gaffes or blunders, and we need to include something more than a mere "he had a rough start", which is by all measures a completely whitewash and unrepresentative of the situation. Cwobeel (talk)

You argued for a single sentence and seem intent on content creep. That section is a summary of the entire article, you are giving it far to much weight to present all of your criticism of Romney within the summary. The only way to adress your POV is to then include the other side resulting in a section that ends up as bloated as the one in the sub-article. Leave out the opinion, just report that the trip was made along with the notes of general issues and the Poland endorsement. Arzel (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Please go push your POV somewhere else. WP is not the place to present Democratic talking points. Arzel (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

We are summarizing this: Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2012#International_trip. Now, explain to me how the current sentence is a good summary of that. As for your comment about my POV, you are assuming I am a democrat, but I am not. @Wasted Time: can you help on this? You seem to be a level headed person. Cwobeel (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to add my 2c, the current summary seems very POV. Its first sentence has the statement "Romney undertook a trip to London, Poland, and Israel to demonstrate his foreign policy expertise", which is itself a contentious claim. That Romney committed several gaffes while in London, two of them undiplomatic and reported as such by the UK press - both quality and popular and across the political spectrum - is not a trivial point, but demonstrates Romney's (seriously wanting) diplomatic skills in a nation which as a rule has been warmly supportive of America politically. To try to keep this out of the article is certainly not NPOV and, with due respect, looks rather like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Alfietucker (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I've just tweaked that opening sentence make it NPOV. Alfietucker (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

That is a good start, thanks. But we ought to add a short sentence about the purported gaffes/blunders as widely reported by the British media and other international outlets. Cwobeel (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've added a bit with solid citations. Alfietucker (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have gotten away from the original issue, which is whether there should be anything about the trip in the first place. I'm in rare agreement with Arzel and feel strongly that any mention of the trip in this article (as opposed to the campaign article) is a prime example of WP:RECENTISM and should be removed. Seriously, if anything is news of the day, this is it. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

My view and the view of others is that we should have a small sentence, as this is Romney first (and possibly only) trip overseas in the campaign as presumptive nominee. Cwobeel (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

That's an argument for why it should be included in the campaign article, not in the Romney article. Plus, who cares about Romney's trips overseas? All the polls show that foreign policy is a low priority to the vast majority of voters. There are so many other things about his general election campaign so far that are more notable. If it turns out that Obama clobbers Romney on foreign policy in the debates and this trip is seen as a turning point then we can revisit. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

To say that Romney's foreign trip should not be in the article just because it is "a low priority to the vast majority of voters" is a poor reason on several counts, not least that this is, to put it kindly, a US-centric view which does not acknowledge that Misplaced Pages has an international readership: even assuming it is true that US readers consider Romney's trip abroad of no account, it is of great concern to non-US readers what Romney does and says during this trip - witness all the press coverage. Alfietucker (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Unfortunately there are some contributors here that think this article is all about US politics and voter sentiment. Cwobeel (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I recently read that Romney has been to Israel four times. I see no reason why the most recent trip is so much more notable than the others in an article about Romney the person (as opposed to in an article about the campaign). You won't find anything like this in the Obama article. Obama made a huge foreign policy trip in 2008 that included a very famous and very noteworthy speech in Berlin. And foreign policy was a much bigger deal in that election, both domestically and internationally. But it's still not in the Obama article. This trip of Romney's is paltry compared to that one. --Nstrauss (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

This is his first visit as presumptive nominee for the GOP, and that is on the Presidential campaign section. if Romney ever becomes the President of the US, his biography will change; expanding certain sections and reducing others. That is a natural progression. Check the history of the Barack Omaba article during 2008 and you will see what I mean. Cwobeel (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Your argument is antithetical to WP:RECENTISM. Of course sections expand and shrink over time, but the fact that the Obama article's 2008 campaign section grew and then shrank only confirms that much of it was recentism and should not have been included from the beginning. As the policy suggests, a good rule of thumb is, ten years from now, will the addition still seem relevant? In this case, unless something unexpected happens in the future, absolutely not. --Nstrauss (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Come on - this is arguing over a couple of succinct sentences which are well-cited. This is hardly over-representation. Alfietucker (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

First off, we have an obligation to edit in compliance with all policies, not just WP:RS. Second, it is in fact over-representation when a nothing-special trip to Europe gets more space in the article than the recent uproar over Romney's tax returns. --Nstrauss (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The article currently describes Romney's trip as follows:

"In July 2012, Romney undertook a trip to London, Poland, and Israel. After a rough start due to what was perceived by the British press as undiplomatic comments about the readiness of the 2012 Summer Olympics, Romney went on to receive support from Israeli Prime Minister (and former BCG colleague) Benjamin Netanyahu and an endorsement from former Polish president and Nobel Peace Prize winner Lech Walesa."

There are a few major issues. The phrasing "after a rough start" misleadingly implies that it was smooth sailing for Romney after the comments on the Olympics statement in London, a view not supported by most sources. The passage also fails to mention that the current leadership of Lech Walesa's labor union Solidarność took pains to denounce Romney's anti-union policies and to re-affirm Solidarność's support for collective-bargaining rights. The passage does not offer any explanation of why Romney undertook the trip — he went to the UK, Israel, and Poland for what purpose? Solely to receive the support of Netanyahu and Walesa? Why did he go to the UK? Dezastru (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

A quick google about Romney's reasons for the London visit brings this , and this which says "The Republican candidate is using the trip to raise campaign funds and canvass for support among London's large American community." Another says "Mitt Romney has travelled to Britain to meet David Cameron and Ed Miliband ahead of the Olympics". Both reasons, of course, are valid, and unless someone can find a source which says which was Romney's prime reason it's probably best to give them "equal billing". Alfietucker (talk) 08:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Re. Poland, there's this on the Polish visit : "The two-day trip to Poland is aimed at Polish-American and Catholic voters in the U.S. and will highlight Romney's stance toward Russia." And this : "Romney's visit to Poland could have an impact well beyond Eastern Europe because a large portion of the Polish-American community resides in critical swing states — especially Pennsylvania and Michigan, according to a 2010 survey of Polish-Americans by the Piast Institute." Alfietucker (talk) 08:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that "rough start" needs to get reworked. But a discussion of the motivations for the trip and why these three countries were picked (the reason I read is that Romney thinks Obama has diplomatically mistreated all three) is better handled in Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 than here, less the weighting get thrown off. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Dezastru makes some good points. I think it will not be that difficult to re-work this section. Cwobeel (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Lech Walesa is a nobel laureate who is well known champion of civil rights in Europe. If there is any mention of the trip it would be fair to point out the most important event of the trip at least from the European perspective. Whether Solidarity agreed with Walesa's endorsement or not is irrelevant given that today Solidarity is merely a local trade union with little influence over Polish or European politics. To even suggest that it has significance betrays a deep misunderstanding of the nature of European history and politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.222.12.65 (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to add his name to List of Mitt Romney presidential campaign endorsements, 2012. But in terms of U.S. politics, the Walesa endorsement is no more significant than any of those, none of which are included in this main article. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The passage as currently written demonstrates why it should be removed entirely. An endorsement from Lech Walesa? Do we make a habit of listing every endorsement from every head of state for every presidential candidate? Otherwise, what's the point of including this? --Nstrauss (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I've made an attempt to add some detail to the summary to provide some of the missing info identified by Dezastru (e.g. reasons for visiting those three nations, and the fact it wasn't all smooth-going after the UK). It maybe needs something on statements by the current Solidarność leadership, or perhaps this is better placed in the Presidential Campaign article? Alfietucker (talk) 23:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

For some reason the discussion seems to have stalled out. I'm going to delete the paragraph -- not to step on anyone's toes, but just to get debate going again. --Nstrauss (talk) 03:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Probably the best solution is to put it back, but much shorter, as it seems to have been one of those passing uproars.108.18.174.123 (talk) 04:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

What do you have in mind? I just don't see anything noteworthy about the trip in a 6-month timeline, let alone in a 10-year timeline. --Nstrauss (talk) 08:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you checked with the folks in London about that? They probably won't be watching this article, but they will remember an insulting American. HiLo48 (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

We're trying to write history as it happens in this section, which is inherently a fool's errand. This section will get rewritten sometime in the next year or two, when books start coming out framing the whole election in better perspective. Until then, though, we still have to make an effort to describe what has happened. I think there's a chance this trip will be portrayed as significant and a chance it won't. If we shorten the existing text, I think the Walesa endorsement should go - it's hard to see how that is going to matter much. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

That post highlights a problem for this article right now. It's called Mitt Romney, but you write as if it's about an election. Londoners, with perhaps less immediate interest in the election, will continue to remember a rude American politician. HiLo48 (talk) 11:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I agree, the article is a biography, and if the London episode has lasting biographical significance for Romney (or for Londoners), then I agree it deserves to be in the article, regardless of its effect on the election. It's just hard to know right now. I was reconciled to it being in for now, but I can live with it being out for now as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ha ha, if we were to write up every time a politician insulted a group of people then we could almost double the size of Misplaced Pages! Wasn't insulting France part of the George W. Bush reelection platform? I don't see anything about that in his article. --Nstrauss (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Dezastru came back and readded the trip to the article, at twice the length. It contained too much detail and is way overweighted compared to the rest of the section. I think the best compromise is to re-insert the previous text on the trip, which everybody was more or less living with until Nstrauss removed it. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? Dezastru re-added the paragraph with no explanation whatsoever. This isn't editing by consensus. No one has responded substantively to my WP:RECENTISM concerns; the paragraph violates Misplaced Pages policy, pure and simple. And your proposal isn't compromise either, since you're talking about restoring the very language I originally objected to. If we're aiming for compromise we should have a single sentence about the trip. But mark my words, come back here a year or two from now and there won't be anything about this silly trip (which is already practically forgotten). --Nstrauss (talk) 04:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about whether Romney's trip has been "practically forgotten" in the US, but Misplaced Pages is not only read by citizens of the US and the trip has most certainly not been forgotten in the UK. Alfietucker (talk) 07:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

And if Romney did become President, the UK tabloids would have a ball coming up with some very creative headlines about that insulting American. The UK tabloids don't forget such things. That means that the UK populace will be reminded. HiLo48 (talk) 07:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Nstrauss, WP:RECENTISM is an essay, not a hard-and-fast guideline, and mention of the trip being in the article is a judgment call, not a 'violation of Misplaced Pages policy, pure and simple'. I'm certainly open to a shorter version than what I re-added, and Dezastru's twice-as-long version is a non-starter to me. But I don't see much support for not mentioning it at all either. Try formulating a shorter version that gives you the least amount of heartburn and see what others think about it. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is the version I suggest:

In July 2012, Romney undertook a three-nation tour to enhance his credibility as a world statesman and raise campaign funds. The trip was planned to coincide with the 2012 London Olympics, as a reminder of his leadership of the 2002 Salt Lake Winter Games. Comments Romney made during an interview in London in which he referred to press reports that questioned London’s readiness for the Games were widely viewed as a diplomatic blunder. In Israel, he met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (a former Bain Capital Group colleague) and President Shimon Peres and discussed the possibility of a pre-emptive military strike to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Romney’s remarks on the political status of Jerusalem drew a standing ovation from an audience of supporters but were criticized by Palestinian leaders; and his suggestion that cultural differences explain the economic disparities between the Israelis and Palestinians (and between the United States and Mexico) were denounced by some as offensive. In Poland, Romney received an endorsement from former Polish president and Nobel Laureate Lech Walesa, although the current leadership of Walesa’s trade union movement, Solidarność, criticized Romney as hostile to unions and labor rights.

It is well-sourced. It is factual. It is neutrally worded, describing what an objective reader might consider both positive points (eg reception by foreign heads of state and warm reception of remarks during a speech) and negative points (eg criticism by the press and others). On the subject of the comments Romney made questioning the readiness for the London Olympics, it notes that Rommney was referring to statements reported by the press (as opposed to spontaneously voicing his own personal concerns). It indicates that Romney is friendly with Israel's PM from their having worked together at Bain. It notes that the major foreign-policy topic that Romney discussed with foreign government leaders (and disclosed to the public) during the sole foreign tour of this campaign involved possible war with Iran. It shows that Romney is strongly supported by an anti-Communist hero (and Nobel Peace Prize winner) in the person of Lech Walesa.

The paragraph I suggest is a mere 6 sentences long. Romney visited three different countries, and there were notable moments in each; describing them requires three sentences at the barest minimum. The paragraph could be pared to remove the first two sentences (leaving the reader to draw his or her own conclusions as to what Romney's stated motivations for the trip might have been), and the third sentence (the response to Romney's remarks on London's readiness for the Olympics). That would leave something along the lines of:

In July 2012, Romney visited the UK, Israel, and Poland. In Israel, he discussed the possiblity of a pre-emptive military strike against Iran with Israeli leaders. In Poland, he was endorsed by former president Lech Walesa.

This is a much less-informative, sadder description of this trip, which was a highlight of the 2012 general election campaign, and which provides insights into Romney's worldview that are not mentioned anywhere else in the article (eg, the contribution of culture to a society's economic prosperity). Dezastru (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

What you want is way too long. It would be about double the length of our description of any of the primary contests, which is way off balance. Furthermore you treat it like a presidential trip, not a presidential wannabe trip. What wannabes say is non-binding and in fact often never lived up to: in 2000, GWB campaigned against 'nation building', but ended up doing it big time in Iraq and Afghanistan; in 2008, Obama campaigned to close the Gitmo camp, but hasn't. So what Romney says now about Israel and Iran is of no relevance to what he'll do if he becomes president. And nothing in this election is going to hinge on what anyone in Poland thinks of Romney. The only real lasting thing that came out of the trip is the sense that Romney bolloxed the London/Olympics part, which contributed to a generally bad month of July for him. But even the import of that bad month is still unknown. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Wasted Time R, while WP:RECENTISM is indeed an essay, it is a helpful guide to determining what violates WP:NOTNEWS (which is a policy) and what does not. It seems that aside from Dezastru, who clearly does not "get" this policy, most of the editors who insist on including something about the trip want something about Romney's criticism of how the Olympics were run. HiLo48's justification for inclusion is that it will be British tabloid fodder for years to come... So Misplaced Pages is now basing notability on what the tabloids are reporting on? That seems exceedingly silly and violative of WP:NOTNEWS. In any case, in the spirit of compromise I propose: "During an overseas trip to England, Israel, and Poland, Romney questioned London's readiness for the 2012 Olympic Summer Games." --Nstrauss (talk) 03:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Nstrauss, I am well aware of the concepts behind WP:recentism, WP:notnews, and WP:notability. The question I ask in this case is how would a more traditional encyclopedia published 5 years from now treat this information? Would it leave any mention of Romney's international trip out completely? Would it say, "In July 2012, Romney undertook a trip to London, Poland, and Israel. After a rough start due to what was perceived by the British press as undiplomatic comments about the readiness of the 2012 Summer Olympics, Romney went on to receive support from Israeli Prime Minister (and former BCG colleague) Benjamin Netanyahu and an endorsement from former Polish president and Nobel Peace Prize winner Lech Walesa"? Or would it provide a balanced summary of the trip, mentioning the gaffes in London and the controversy surrounding the remarks made in Jerusalem?

Yes, it would leave any mention of Romney's international trip out completely. Otherwise there is really little difference between an encyclopedia and a newspaper. --Nstrauss (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

That's wildly inaccurate. It would cover the whole thing, gaffes as well as endorsements, instead of picking and choosing to support POV. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Any encyclopedia has to decide what topics (not just viewpoints) are sufficiently historically noteworthy for inclusion. IMO this trip wouldn't come even close to making the cut. --Nstrauss (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Duly noted as your personal opinion. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Wasted_Time_R, is the fact that Romney, who could become the president of the United States 5 months from now, is discussing starting a war with Iran less notable than the fact that as a child he was the ice hockey team manager and a member of the pep squard, and that he started the Blue Key Club booster group in high school? Or that in the speech opening his 2012 campaign he said, "In the campaign to come, the American ideals of economic freedom and opportunity need a clear and unapologetic defense, and I intend to make it – because I have lived it"? Or that John Huntsman finished third in the New Hampshire primary? Or that Mike Pence, John Thune, Haley Barbour, Mike Huckabee, and Mitch Daniels were potential Republican presidential contenders who decided not to run? Perhaps you are using a very selective metric for deciding what elements are noteworthy enough to not throw off the balance of the article. Dezastru (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, in turn:

• The high school material tells you what kind of person he was. Remember back in when you and I were there, there was one group of kids who was rah-rah and joiners, and another group who were cuttingly cynical about that sort of thing? Very different personality types, right? This tells you which Romney was.
• Gives Romney a chance to explain the rationale for his candidacy in his own words.
• I tried to work in the names of his major rivals at least once, so that years from now people would know who he ran against. Can you quickly remember all the major contenders who Dole ran against in 1996 or Bush in 2000?
• This is very important. Romney is at best a mediocre candidate; he won this year, after much time and effort, because he was running against a very weak field (Perry self-destructed, while Gingrich Santorum Cain and Bachmann were all viewed as bad jokes when the campaign started) while many potentially stronger candidates stayed out.

As for weighting, I've now removed the endorsements/oppositions from Poland from the article. They don't have any consequence at all in the election. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

So how about my proposed compromise? "During an overseas trip to England, Israel, and Poland, Romney questioned London's readiness for the 2012 Olympic Summer Games." If we're going to give the trip any real estate in the article, then at least this proposal doesn't give it more real estate than other much more notable events, such as Romney's tax returns or his choice for running mate. --Nstrauss (talk) 05:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't convey that he got a lot of negative reactions to his comments on the games, which is the most important aspect of the whole trip. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

This version (below) leaves out the discussion of anything that occurred in Poland, as WastedTimeR has requested. It removes the part about meeting heads of state, as he didn't meet the head of state of the UK (Queen Elizabeth). It notes that the comments he made on Olympics readiness were in reference to press reports rather than his own spontaneous opinion on the matter. It avoids the error (ie unsupported by sources) of stating that there was "positive publicity" from meeting with Netanyahu. It notes that a major part of the trip was his discussion of possible war with Iran. It is three sentences long.

In July 2012, Romney undertook a trip to the United Kingdom, Poland, and Israel in an effort to raise his credibility as a world statesman. Comments he made at the start of the trip referring to press reports questioning the readiness of London for the 2012 Summer Olympics were widely regarded as a diplomatic blunder. In Israel, Romney discussed the possibility of a pre-emptive military strike to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons with Israeli Prime Minister (and former Bain colleague) Benjamin Netanyahu. Romney's remarks on the political status of Jerusalem and his suggestion that the economic disparities between the Israelis and the Palestinians are due to cultural differences were a source of controversy.

Dezastru (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You continue to treat this as a presidential trip when it is not. Romney is a private citizen with no connection to the U.S. Government, therefore he cannot commit a "diplomatic blunder". He has no say in whether there is a strike on Iran or any other country and therefore any "discussions" he had on the subject are immaterial. And you continue to give more importance to the whole trip than it deserves. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

"Diplomatic blunder" is a term taken verbatim from various RS's (although not cited in the article). And it is ludicrous to suggest that there is a substantive semantic difference between saying Romney was perceived as having made a "diplomatic blunder" and saying he was perceived as having made "undiplomatic" comments, the latter being the phrasing that you continue to maintain in the article. More generally, no one has said or implied that Romney was acting in an official capacity as a representative of a government; the term "diplomatic" is widely understood to encompass a broader meaning than what you have indicated in your argument. The discussions about possibly launching a war that Romney had during his sole foreign trip of the campaign, and the remarks he made during one of the very few foreign-policy addresses he has made as a national figure, are a notable part of his biography, regardless of whether what he says directly determines what the government does. Dezastru (talk) 05:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

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. Comments Romney made about the readiness of the 2012 Summer Olympics were perceived as undiplomatic by the British press. In Israel, Romney was embraced by Israeli Prime Minister (and former BCG colleague) Benjamin Netanyahu, though he was criticized by some Palestinians for suggesting that Israel's greater economic success was due to "culture".

Is there, as a starting point, agreement on this phrasing? Dezastru (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"Heads of state" should be "leaders" because as you pointed out earlier, he didn't meet the Queen. It wasn't just the British press that gave a reaction, Cameron and especially Boris Johnson did too. I'd still rather not use the term 'undiplomatic' because Romney didn't embarrass the U.S., just himself, but you're right, a lot of sources use that. Am okay with the Israel wording. As for his 'launching a war' remarks, you're interpreting this as some kind of thoughtful, major foreign policy address, when in fact it was just some bluster intended for U.S. domestic political consumption. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Wasted Time R, you seem to be taking a middle ground between Dezastru and me. Rather than react to our two sets of proposals while we talk past one another, why don't you show us both what you have in mind, and let us each react? --Nstrauss (talk) 07:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I've made a few small changes to make it what I think it should be:

In July 2012, Romney undertook a trip to the United Kingdom, Israel, and Poland to meet leaders to raise his credibility as a world statesman. Comments Romney made about the readiness of the 2012 Summer Olympics were perceived as undiplomatic by the British press and some British politicians. In Israel, Romney was embraced by Israeli Prime Minister (and former BCG colleague) Benjamin Netanyahu, though he was criticized by some Palestinians for suggesting that Israel's greater economic success was due to "culture".

Fixes the trip order, fixes the 'heads of state' problem, makes brief mention that British pols rebuked him too, leaves 'undiplomatic' untouched. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me, except if we're going to mention "British politicians" at all, then it would be more precise to say "leading" rather than "some": we are, after all, not talking about some random MPs but about the UK prime minister and the Mayor of London. Alfietucker (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay with me. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

"BCG" should be "Bain." Dezastru (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be useful for other editors to comment. Is the consensus that Romney's discussions in Israel on Iran are too insignificant to mention? Dezastru (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe there should be a section on his foreign policy positions on this page (to align with how other politician principle pages are laid out), and I think some of this information would fit within that section. The overseas trip in itself doesn't fit here - it fits in the campaign page. The arguments that Romney is a private citizen and thus his comments abroad are irrelevant is a naive argument. (something tells me the Dixie Chicks' overseas statement is on their page, and they're not even in politics). He was speaking for his campaign and for republicans (at least 40% of the country) as the presumptive nominee when he traveled abroad. His comments are of course pertinent. I just think that they fit better on the campaign page, with elements from that speech regarding his foreign policy philosophy fitting into a foreign policy section on this page.Jasonnewyork (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that is exactly how I feel. --Nstrauss (talk) 09:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Hooray! Dezastru mentioned that a lot of people are possibly away on holiday in the US until Tuesday because of a national holiday, so why don't we wait till Tuesday to figure out next steps on this one.Jasonnewyork (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

New Section

Could we have a new section on Romneys' plans to attack Iran and drag the US into another stupid war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.12.9 (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

How about an article on stupid MSNBC hosts trying to extraplolate Romney's remarks into a call for war on Iran? Arzel (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

See my above comments on a foreign policy section. While we don't want to say "Romney plans to attack Iran and drag the US into another stupid war" it does make sense to make his foreign policy positions (including his stance on Iran) known in a neutral tone.Jasonnewyork (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 August 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

It should be pointed out that the statement that while on mission in Paris, Mitt "enjoyed Palace-like accommodations", is merely an opinion of a writer for The Daily Telegraph, not fact. CJ (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed that statement altogether per WP:POVPUSH. If anyone has a valid reason for keeping it, they can discuss it on this page. If it is placed back in the article, I agree 100% that it should made clear that it is the writer's comment, rather than a verified fact.--JayJasper (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

"the statement that while on mission in Paris, Mitt 'enjoyed Palace-like accommodations', is merely an opinion of a writer for The Daily Telegraph" — on the contrary, it is an opinion, as reported in the Telegraph article, of Romney's fellow missionaries, who described it as "a house built for rich people," featuring stained glass windows, chandeliers, an extensive art collection, guilded interiors, very large rooms, a magnificent staircase, a refrigerator, a washer-dryer, full plumbing, central heating, and en-suite baths in many of the apartments. It was staffed by a chef and a houseboy. It was located in a chic arrondissement. The building later became the embassy of the UAE. That sounds pretty palatial for 1960s Paris. At a minimum it describes luxurious accommodations. Inclusion of this information shows that Romney did not spend all of his time in France "facing physical and economic deprivation in ... cramped quarters," as described earlier in the paragraph on his French missionary time. It would be acceptable to attribute the description to his fellow missionaries rather than to state it in the Misplaced Pages narrative voice. Complete removal is not acceptable. Dezastru (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Did he enjoy this type of accommodation for the full 2-1/2 years, or just the few months as an assistant to the president? Like all missionaries, he moved around during his mission. 72Dino (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

According to the source cited, he spent a significant amount of time there. If you're looking for an exact percentage that's not going to happen. It wasn't a hotel with a registry.Jasonnewyork (talk) 22:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The Boston Globe and New York Times make no mention of luxurious accommodations, just the more modest ones. 72Dino (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that whether the NYTimes mentions something or not means you exclude it or exclude it. Still, I have some good news for you. Here are the answers to your questions (and a counterpoint argument for you Dino), from (a source you can't quibble with) the WSJ. It states that Romney was in Paris 20% of the time. The guy interviewed takes issue with the description of "luxury" but he does call it beautiful and gets teary eyed when talking about it. Read the whole thing and you have both sides of the discussion. Maybe you include the facts and say fellow missionaries described it as palatial and luxurious while a fellow housemate (who lived with Romney for six months) disagreed and said "no one was living in luxury in France in the 1960's. - something like that?Jasonnewyork (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Forgot the link: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/12/16/romneys-life-in-france-posh-in-paris-austere-elsewhere/

So 80% of the time he lived in very modest conditions, and 20% of the time he lived in the nicer mission home. The weight should address that. He lived a full two years under stark conditions, which was the main point of the other reliable sources. 72Dino (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

My understanding (from other sources) is that he was there for a total of 2 years, not two years in austere housing, but maybe I'm wrong - dezastru seems more up to speed than I. Also, we're taking the 80/20 estimate from the conservative source (an off the cuff estimate from his old housemate), but unless there's other information that contradicts that, it seems reasonable to include that information with the source.Jasonnewyork (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Missions were 2-1/2 years back then according to the sources I've seen (2 years now for men), so he was in austere housing for 2 of the 2-1/2 years according to the sources. 72Dino (talk) 02:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm hoping more editors will discuss this. I'm not really in favor of including it as you're getting differing opinions of luxury from those that were there and it was a fraction of the time spent on his mission. 72Dino (talk) 04:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

If you read the actual descriptions of the place (and see the pictures), it is obvious that it is a plush mansion. I think allowing the opposing viewpoint to say that it wasn't posh, more than balances it out. The majority of the people calling it luxurious were his fellow missionaries. The one saying it wasn't was a friend of the family. As long as it's cited that he was there 20% of the time (6 months) I don't think that's slanting it. Ultimately, this isn't the type of information that's demonstrably political one way or the other so I don't see it as a big deal. Everyone knows he's rich - this just adds a little more color to his missionary trip overseas. If other editors felt really strongly about removing it I could be persuaded to agree.Jasonnewyork (talk) 05:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

If it is going to be included, I agree with Jasonneewyork that the opposing viewpoint should be included, and that he spent about 20% of his time there noted, for neutrality and accuracy.--JayJasper (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

That should already have been clear from the chronology that was described in the article: "In July 1966, he left for a thirty-month stay in France as a Mormon missionary.... He arrived in Le Havre.... In Nantes, he suffered a bruised jaw.... He was promoted to zone leader in Bordeaux in early 1968, then in the spring of that year became assistant to the mission president in Paris.... In the Mission Home in Paris he enjoyed palace-like accommodations. By the end of his stint in December 1968, he was overseeing the work of 175 fellow members.... At their first meeting following his return, they reconnected and decided to get married immediately, but subsequently agreed to wait three months to appease their parents. At Ann's request, Romney began attending Brigham Young, in February 1969." He was at the Paris Mission only from the spring of 1968 to December 1968, out of a 30-month mission. Dezastru (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes, you're right, Dezastru. Does seem a little overkill to give the exact dates and then the percentages too. If the dates are in there, then I think we're covered.Jasonnewyork (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Futurespeak

There are many things that Mitt Romney might be in the future. However, WP is not the place to list almost any of them regardless of how interesting you think it may be. There seems to either be a lack of understanding or simply an unwillingness to even acknowledge the WP:CRYSTAL guidelines. Why do some editors believe that various statistics about Romney if he is elected president are relevant to the article and not in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Unless some good reasoning can be made this kind of crap does not belong in the main bio. Arzel (talk) 04:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The section you're deleting is not a future prediction. It is his current wealth measured against past presidents.Jasonnewyork (talk) 04:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Before you revert that again, please explain what text is causing you to see it as future speak. I've reviewed it carefully and I don't see anything to that effect.Jasonnewyork (talk) 04:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Saying what he WOULD be IF he became president is doubly speculative. HiLo48 (talk) 04:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Now that I agree with. That wasn't the only thing removed - a giant section was. I edited to address your concern and thank you for providing a real argument. Cheers.Jasonnewyork (talk) 05:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

List of richest American politicians includes a list of rich presidents and also a separate list of other rich presidential candidates. Why ignore the latter list? At most, the present article should say that Romney is among the wealthiest candidates to have sought the presidency. Any more detail belongs in the sub-article about Romney's 2012 campaign.24.181.178.235 (talk) 05:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Because the article states that the list of candidates is incomplete and that "not necessarily adjusted for inflation so comparing to each other is speculative." That's not something you want in a WP:BLP. 72Dino (talk) 05:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

He's rich. Every President in my longish life has been a lot richer than me. I'm not sure that being a thousand times richer than me rather than a hundred times (like some other candidates) makes much practical difference. HiLo48 (talk) 05:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Jason, consider "If Romney wins the presidency, he would be the first Mormon to do so". This isn't a prediction, it's a statement of fact. If he doesn't win, then he won't be the first Mormon to win. In the same way, you were right all along when you said that there's no crystal ball required to determine that Romney is richer than all but a handful of previous presidents. This is true regardless of whether he becomes president himself. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

It's true, but so what? As I've repeatedly said, they're ALL a darn sight richer than me. SO why should we make a fuss about his particular degree of richness? And that "statement of fact" above isn't quite. To be literally true, you would need to say "If Romney wins the presidency, he would be the first Mormon to do so, so long as he is still a Mormon at the time." Small point, but do be careful when claiming absolute truth. HiLo48 (talk) 08:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Nobody's comparing Romney to you. They're comparing him to those who've been president, which is appropriate given what he wants to be. Now, you might not find that interesting, but our reliable sources do. In the end, I'm not sure what your argument is. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

My argument is encapsulated in "So what?" Being reported doesn't make it notable. Hollywood romances get reported a lot, and we make judgements that they're not important. Why is degree of richness important? HiLo48 (talk) 10:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

It's an American thing. We still have this idea about equality plastered all over our posters and billboards. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 11:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

New info about Bain and Romney

• The Federal Bailout That Saved Mitt Romney by Tim Dickinson, Rolling Stone magazine.

We should parse that article and add some from it. Cwobeel (talk) 04:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I tried. It all got reverted by the Nappler. Try try again. Lots of interesting facts in there.Jasonnewyork (talk) 04:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

It may very well go to the WP:RSN. It's not like Rolling Stone is a peer-reviewed academic journal. The publication has a clear bias (and has for years). A different source would be helpful. 72Dino (talk) 04:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Let's wait for other sources to investigate. They will.Jasonnewyork (talk) 04:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Though Rolliing Stone is as good a source as Fox or Vanity Fair or National Review. Some sources have a clear POV. That doesn't mean we throw out their reporting. But let's see what else turns up.Jasonnewyork (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Matt Taibbi cover story

• Rolling Stone's latest cover story is entitled Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital, by Matt Taibbi.

Because of the high profile nature and potentially damning allegations in this lengthy exposé / hit-piece (this may depend on one's political persuasion), I would imagine it may become a recurring potential reference to this article. As such, perhaps this space could be used to judge the veracity of any of those potential additions that users may want to include – and be a place to discuss possible source corroboration from other references (because of Taibbi’s polemical style). Or maybe the talk page WP:Consensus will be to exclude this article altogether?  Redthoreau -- (talk) 07:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Rolling Stone needs to be treated carefully. Taibbi writes that Romney is, "self-righteously anal, thin-lipped, Whitest Kids U Know”. I've summarized already at the sub-article Business career of Mitt Romney. I don't think it needs to be covered here in this article too.24.181.178.235 (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the points in the RS article that contradict statements in the Bain section on this page should be addressed. There should also be a link to the sub article you've created within this Bain section. Bain is who Romney is. It's a core part of his profile, and we should include a well rounded picture of his time there.Jasonnewyork (talk) 06:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this source, like any others, needs to be used carefully. If there is opinion in it, we labelled as such. If there are facts, we use them and attribute them. It is not easy, but that is the way of the land. Cwobeel (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Taibbi's article, at lease this portion, is based on a 2001 Sports Illustrated article on the games. This is not new information and it's coming from multiple sources. --RadioFan (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The article linked above is not the article everyone is talking about. This is: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-federal-bailout-that-saved-mitt-romney-20120829 Taibi's takedown piece is less interesting than the information in the Bain bailout piece, as this includes much about the innerworkings of Mitt's time there, complete with correspondence from the FDIC.Jasonnewyork (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

But regarding Taibi's piece, Business Insider has already put out a more manageable summary without all of the outrage. This should be parsed and included, as well as the other piece I linked. http://www.businessinsider.com/matt-taibbi-mitt-romney-bain-rolling-stone-2012-8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonnewyork (talk • contribs) 15:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

What kind of a name is "Mitt", anyway?

I've never seen this name anywhere before. I'd be interested in seeing where his parents got this name. Were they baseball fans or what? Terry Thorgaard (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

It's already mentioned. He was named after his fathers cousin Milton Romney who also was nickname Mitt.--70.49.74.113 (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Bain Section Cleanup

I am cleaning up a lot of the Bain section. There's too much romanticism in it. Let's just stick to the facts. We don't need stuff like "in the face of skepticism" and "Romney aspired to do more" etc etc. Just the facts, ma'am.Jasonnewyork (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

sounds good, especially if the fluff isn't sourced, isn't that notable, and dosen't improve the article. --Mollskman (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Whew, that took a lot of work. Please respect the time it took to go through all the sources and make all of those changes. If you have any issues, please provide a rationale for the change.Jasonnewyork (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Trivia about who is roommates were

Please let'

Grammar

“newly bought firms assets as collateral” should have an apostrophe: “firms’”.

“remembers received a phone call from Romney” should say “receiving”.

Can someone please fix this? Thanks.64.134.98.120 (talk) 03:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. It is now fixed. Cwobeel (talk) 04:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Wealth

This article says: "Although he reportedly lost tens of millions of dollars during the stock market crash of 2008, in 2012, it was estimated that Romney had amassed twice the net worth of the last eight U.S. presidents combined (unadjusted for inflation)."

I object to not giving readers a link to List of richest American politicians so they can see how Romney's wealth fits in historically. I also object to comparing him to the last eight presidents as opposed to, for example, Ross Perot, Ted Kennedy, Steve Forbes, Al Gore, John Kennedy, and other presidential candidates throughout US history. Just because a source singled out the last eight presidents doesn't mean we have to do exactly that too. Romney's notability at this point is as a candidate not a president. I suggest rephrasing:

"Although he reportedly lost tens of millions of dollars during the stock market crash of 2008, he is among the wealthiest candidates to seek the presidency."

I also don't think that details about his taxes and donations in 2010-2012 belong in the section on his "Business career". Thanks.64.134.98.120 (talk) 03:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree about adding in that link. If you want to, go for it.Jasonnewyork (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

There is simply no rational for this statement at all. Romney is not president, it is completely pointless to compare his wealth to a group from which he does not belong. I simply don't understand why editors continue to try and do this kind of editing. Arzel (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Curious that no one is disagreeing to the article's saying that the tall, handsome, distinguished-looking Romney looked like what a president should look like. Isn't that statement just as objectionable according to your rationale for opposing discussion of Romney's financial status?

Romney aspires to be president, and according to most polls, could very well be elected president in just a few weeks from now. To the extent that the topics are dealt with in reliable sources, it is appropriate for the article to discuss how he measures in comparison to other candidates for the office and to consider where he fits among those who have held the office. Dezastru (talk) 00:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments about his looks are just as lame and do not belong. My main objection is that USA Today considers the value of a dollar in 1969 when Nixon began office to be the same as in 2012. It's an apples to oranges comparison and overly simplistic. It's an invalid comparison, even if it is published. 72Dino (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

No, the estimates are using figures corrected for inflation, based on 2010 dollars. Dezastru (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I read the USA Today article a couple of times and couldn't find where it was based on 2010 dollars. Would you mind letting me know which paragraph that's in? Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 02:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

"Research by 24/7 Wall St., a news and analysis website, estimated Washington's wealth at the equivalent of $525 million in 2010 dollars.... Calculations from 24/7 Wall St. of the peak lifetime wealth (or peak so far) of Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama add up to a total $128 million — while Romney reports assets of up to $250 million." USA Today/AP

"The net worth figures for the 10 wealthiest presidents are in 2010 dollars." 24/7 Wall Street

Thank you. 72Dino (talk) 02:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

None that matters because Romney is NOT president. Arzel (talk) 03:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to remind you, WP:CRYSTAL does not apply because we're not making a prediction. If we said Romney will win, that would take a crystal ball. If we say, "If Romney wins, that would make him the 45th president", no prediction is involved. Ditto for, if he wins, he would be one of the 10 richest presidents. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to remind you, there are other relevant policies that you are ignoring. This is trivia and has no place here. Arkon (talk) 05:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to remind you, you need to leave meaningful edit comments instead of abusing pop-ups. You may not agree with my edit, but it's not vandalism and shouldn't be treated as such. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

So you have no actual reason why you made this edit? I told you why it was reverted, and it was never stated by me that it was vandalism as you claim. Careful now... Arkon (talk) 23:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The actual reason I made the edit is that the information is relevant and well-cited. When you reverted me, you did not leave a comment at all, which is typically how we treat vandalism. I'll also note that those who delete this material keep invoking policy that does not apply. Any edit whose stated reason is nonexistence or false is suspect. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Factually incorrect. I gave my reason here. If you can't even get that right, I don't know why you'd expect others to take your comments seriously. Arkon (talk) 05:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

This is neither civil nor productive. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Precisely what would be the point of including this comment about his wealth? HiLo48 (talk) 08:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Because SS wants Democratic talking points to be included in this page. I don't see him fighting to have John Kerry's wealth detailed. Hot Stop 14:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

John who? If I were paying any attention to him, I'm sure I'd be fine with having his wealth detailed. But I wouldn't be fine with your assumptions of bad faith. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

you're the first person to comment on others' motives so why can't we comment on yours? Either way, our act is getting old. Hot Stop 17:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I don't remember commenting on your motives. But "act" is certainly offensive. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe he didn't single anyone out individually, but SS is quickly becoming a Facepalm factory.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, if you don't stop at the diff but actually look at the fruitful discussion it led to, there's not a whole lot of face to palm. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Wanted to point out SSs' thoughts on what a consenus and building a world class encyclopedia should be. "If you can keep up the stream of irrelevant acronyms long enough, you can "win". Or so I've noticed." The following quote was Copied from Stillstandings comments. Viewmont Viking (talk) 19:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Want some acronyms? Try WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA. Those aren't about the article, though, just your comment about me. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you explain this? I don't see why you would intentionally use my signature. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Aside from the other problems, readers should be given the data and do not need contrived comparisons added to give a particular impression. Secondly, for any comparison that doesn't adjust for inflation you can add the word "deception" to "contrived comparison". North8000 (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Cost of Olympics

This article says: "The over $1.5 billion in federal aid to support the games proved to be a record level for a U.S. Olympics, 1.5 times that of the previous 7 U.S. olympics games since 1904 combined (adjusted for inflation)…. Federal spending on the games averaged $625,000 in taxpayer money per athlete participating."

This presentation is skewed. According to FactCheck.org and the Government Accounting Office, the federal government’s share of the total overall direct cost of hosting Olympic Games in U.S. cities generally decreased over time, from a high of 50 percent for the 1980 Winter Olympics in Lake Placid, N.Y., to 8 percent for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta. For the Salt Lake City Games, the federal government share was 18 percent.

So I object to us providing just raw numbers without any percentages. The feds provided 50 percent for the 1980 Winter Olympics in Lake Placid compared to only 18 percent for Salt Lake City, and of course the security expenses for Salt Lake City were pretty high in the wake of 9/11. I'd suggest this:

"The over $1.5 billion in federal aid to support the games proved to be a record level for a U.S. Olympics, though the percentage of federal money was relatively low."64.134.98.120 (talk) 04:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Whitewashing

"A portion of Romney's financial assets are held in offshore accounts and investments". Read the source. Cwobeel (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

This post originally read that a portion of his assets were held in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland (and now it seems it's been completely deleted). I still say this is significant and should be included. Again and again we hear the argument that it isn't noteworthy. How about this, if someone can find proof that any other president in the last 50 years had an account in the Caymans, then we'll drop this. If it's so common and irrelevant then show us some other presidents who have held assets there. If they exist, then you're right, the information is irrelevant. If they don't, then it is significant, as no other president has maintained these sorts of assets.Jasonnewyork (talk) 23:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It is nice to see you present your bias so clearly. No need to fill up his bio with democratic talking points and imply that he is doing something illegal. Arzel (talk) 00:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Trivia. Arkon (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

:::Arzel's response is that it's a Democratic talking point. If he's right, then it's not trivia.

Arzel is wrong on the matter of illegality; it appears that Romney legally ducked taxes. However, legally ducking taxes might be embarrassing, and that is apparently why Arzel wants it stricken from the record.

So, no matter how you interpret it, the reasons for not mentioning the specific locations of these banks can only be whitewashing, just as Jason said.

In the meantime, this is a good moment for me to remind Arzel that statements of the form "if x happens, then y" are not predictions of the sort that WP:CRYSTAL applies to. Nobody is saying he will or won't become president, only what necessarily follows if he did. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

"Legally ducked taxes" what exactly is that supposed to mean? I suppose the opposite would be that he didn't "Stupidly pay more taxes than required by law". Why does the left view others peoples money as theirs which was taken from them? Arzel (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

None of your comment is in argument of inclusion other than personal attacks and agenda driven drivel. Arkon (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA are three policies your comment violates. Do you want to say anything relevant to building a better article? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to do something about your imaginary violations. In the meantime you might want to make a substantial argument for your actions. Arkon (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

And to preempt you, yes, I've lost good faith with you. AGF is not a suicide pact. Arkon (talk) 00:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, then you're not going to be able to interact with me productively. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

And speaking of not being productive, you do not have anything approaching a consensus for removing the section about how rich he is. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You've been here long enough to know better. Consensus to -remove-? Really? Arkon (talk) 01:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

If we removed anything that both you and Arzel objected to, there wouldn't be an article left. So, no, that's not sufficient. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

And you again put your competence to shame. Please, count out the edits I've made to this page. Stop trolling. Arkon (talk) 02:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Who collapsed this thread? Leave it visible for discussion. I think that the offshore accounts are notable and should be covered. They've been the subject of multiple news articles. I also think it's bad form to use an article talk page to accuse another editor of trolling. If you have evidence of trolling, go present it at WP:ANI, but first read WP:BOOMERANG. Jehochman 14:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, every time we try to have a serious discussion on this point it devolves into name calling and uncivility of various incarnations. It's clearly not trivia, or else people wouldn't feel so strongly about it. There was a tentative compromise reached (that made no one happy but at least it was a compromise), but even that compromise was ultimately deleted.Jasonnewyork (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

That is an illogical statement. I feel strongly about not including stupid trivia on articles all the time. The fact is, this trivia is being used as a Democratic talking point to imply that Romney is doing something bad or immoral. This not only makes it Trivia, but POV pushing as well. Arzel (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Look up the definition of trivia. It can't be both trivia (unimportant) and a dem talking point (important enough to highlight on a campaign trail).Jasonnewyork (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you are missing the obvious. Democratic Talking Points are not important, hence they are trivial. Even moreso this year as the Dems can't seem to decide which talking point to stick with. Is Romney a far steadfast right radical or a flip-flopper without any core beliefs? Is Romney rich and out of touch and an evil business owner or a radical theologist that will use the whitehouse to promote the morman religion? Is he a warhawk or weak? Look, if you want to go work on the Obama campaign, then by all means, go right ahead, just don't do it here. Arzel (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 September 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

mitt romney's campaign is called, 'believe in america' ///you should talk about this in the article. 68.192.117.0 (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. RudolfRed (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

1. Groeger, Lena (January 24, 2012). "Inside Romney's Tax Returns: A Reading Guide". ProPublica.
2. Rimer, Sara (25 October 1994). "THE 1994 CAMPAIGN: MASSACHUSETTS; 'Perfect Anti-Kennedy' Opposes the Senator". The New York Times. Retrieved 28 August 2012. Where Senator Kennedy, who remarried two years ago, is still known for his hard-drinking, hard-living bachelor days after his 1981 divorce, Mr. Romney's mother, Lenore Romney, who is 85, volunteered in an interview last week that her son and Ann waited until they were married to have sex.

• Requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Social sciences and society good articles
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class biography articles
• GA-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Mid-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• Old requests for Biography peer review
• WikiProject Biography articles
• GA-Class Conservatism articles
• High-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• GA-Class Latter Day Saint movement articles
• Mid-importance Latter Day Saint movement articles
• WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement articles
• GA-Class Brigham Young University articles
• Mid-importance Brigham Young University articles
• WikiProject Brigham Young University articles
• GA-Class United States articles
• High-importance United States articles
• GA-Class United States articles of High-importance
• GA-Class Massachusetts articles
• High-importance Massachusetts articles
• WikiProject Massachusetts articles
• Massachusetts articles with to-do lists
• GA-Class United States presidential elections articles
• High-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• United States presidential elections articles with to-do lists
• GA-Class United States governors articles
• Low-importance United States governors articles
• WikiProject United States governors articles
• United States governors articles with to-do lists
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press