Talk:Mitt Romney/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico

Therefore Mitt Romney is of Mexican descent. Add "American people of Mexican descent" to the bottom of his article. 09:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC) 71.212.234.183 (talk) 09:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Mitt's grandparents were American born, American citizens living in Mexico when Mitt's father was born, so Willard is not really of Mexican descent in the technical sense. ~ GabeMc (talk) 09:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

@71.212.234.183 Actually, technically not true. His father was from an American family, the Romney family, that was asked to go to the Mormon colony in Mexico, Mormon colonies in Mexico. If he was of Mexican descent, it would have included some history of Mexican ancestors in his heritage. Now descendants of the Romney family that still resides in Mexico is another story since I would assume some of them have married some Mexican locals. ViriiK (talk) 09:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

"I would assume some of them have married some Mexican" < This is unsorted in naked fact they do them do but without marriage. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 07:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing "racial" about being a citizen of Mexico. Anybody can be a citizen of Mexico. Mitt Romney is the son of a person who had Mexican citizenship. 76.120.17.197 (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Do me a favor and find one source which labels Mitt as having Mexican descent. Hot Stop 16:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

@71.212.234.183Actually there is in this case. George Romney had two American parents, (Gaskell Romney & Anna Pratt born in the United States). They chose American citizenship for their children over Mexican citizenship so in a sense they were illegals in Mexico. However George Romney was born before the 1917 Constitution that defined citizenship which had just as strict requirements similar to that of the United States. If I see the category that goes up on this, I'll remove it. I don't know why you care so much about this. Maybe we should create a new category that labels all Utah residents "American people of Honeybee (Deseret) descent"? Another thing to note is that George Romney only lived in the Mormon colonies for 5 years of his life before the 1910 Revolution forced them out. Last of all, you're missing in your entire argument is that the category isn't noted on George Romney's biography page. Also I agree with Hot Stop, find an ancestor to have Mexican descent. On the wiki page for Mexican, it clearly says "Mexican people, ethnic people inhabiting Mexico". There's something to note, there were 5 categories conducted back in the 1921 Census (Which George Romney had left the country way before then) which asked if people A) "Indígena pura" B) "Indígena mezclada con blanca" C) "Blanca" D) "Extranjeros sin distinción de razas" E) "Cualquiera otra o que se ignora la raza" which translate to A) pure indigenous heritage B) mixed indigenous and white heritage C) White or Spanish heritage D) Foreigners without racial distinction E) Other or won't say. George Romney would easily fail A, B but somewhat pass C although he did not have a heritage in Mexico. ViriiK (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• cmt Fwiw, although Mitt's grandparent (singular, male) apparently was never a Mexican citizen, it's at least possible that his grandmother was.... (Anna Pratt Romney's father, Helaman Pratt's, naturalization papers can be found here.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Mit Romny stadiums demos

for "2012 Republican National Convention" (see lade and talk) may be linked article or section about M Romney stadium speech (s?) with hundreds tthoousand of people. If somebody knew about such section please provide links or refs. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of Cranbrook incident

There should be an inclusion of the Cranbrook incident in the article. Romney forcefully shaved a student's head because he perceived the student as strange because of his hair, and Romney perceived him as homosexual. Gay rights is an major issue in the United States and the Cranbrook episode may be an reflection of Romney's old or current stance with respect to the LGBT community. This incident is notable and germane to Romney's character at the time. Nevertheless, the facts of the what happen should be told and should not be precluded from inclusion in the article. It should be assimilated into the article. Let us reach consensus so we may include it. Ziggypowe (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

See many prior discussions. What was true then remains true - the clear consensus is that the material does not belong in the BLP per WP:BLP concerns. And Wikipedia articles are not campaign pamphlets. Collect (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

As stated, the facts should be told - not the implications of his stances on gays. Also, I can find no clear consensus that it should not be added. Moreover, it should still be added and we should reach an updated consensus to add it. Ziggypowe (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Why should we reach an updated consensus to add it? Maybe we should reach an updated consensus not to add it. From what I can tell that makes about as much sense. Viewmont Viking (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I see no sound argument not to add it. If the content is well sourced, objective, and factually correct it should added as it is an notable event in Romney's early life. The suggested paragraph given in the straw poll was good. Some form of that should be added. Ziggypowe (talk) 21:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree Ziggypowe, and for the record Collect, the consensus was ambiguous at best, see the straw poll above, still taking place. ~ GabeMc (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like another wp:undue for the top level Romney article. North8000 (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"Ambiguous at best"??? Really???? I sugegst anyone reading the discussions will not have that particular opinion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, actually, the !votes currently stand at 17–11 in favor of inclusion, which is over 60 percent. That kind of !supermajority would be enough to break a filibuster in the U.S. Senate, for example. If this were an AfD, it would probably be decided upon strength of argument. Maybe it's time for some admins to take a look at this. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

As I count 17 clear opposes, I fear the math is wrong. Including supports from SPAs. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, not that I'm counting, but I think there are about 16 clear supports as well, and 50/50 is not a clear consensus either way. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Well this is another case where wp:notvote is a good idea. That would be mostly a measure of how many re-elect Obama folks are working the article. Including selected trivia like this in the top level Romney article is certainly wp:undue. PS I just put my comment in, never did before) North8000 (talk) 23:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we don't count votes here. Quality of argument is FAR more important. For example, any post that says "it's well sourced, objective, and factually correct, so we should include it" should be ignored. All sorts of meaningless trivia can be "well sourced, objective, and factually correct". If we included it all we'd have the first megabyte article. HiLo48 (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Some people assert this event as trivia. Please tell how it is trivia. Please elaborate on how forcefully shaving the head of a student because he is perceived as different because of his hair and homosexual is trivia. The fact is it is not trivia, as it is not inconsequential. HiLo48, we are speaking on a singular notable event, not about adding a myriad of trivia. A user stated something to the effect of: If Romney wore purple underwear would you add it? This was a poor attempt to equate things that are patently different. The purple underwear is trivia because it is unimportant, but the forced shaving is not tivia or unimportant because it is morally reprehensible and notable due partly to the distress it may have caused the aggrieved party. Moreover, in 2012, Romney apologized for his actions at Cranbrook. His actions were notable and significant enough to warrant an apology many years later. This is ,again, a notable event in Romney's early life and warrants inclusion in the article. We do not espouse the addition of this to debase the character of Romney. It is to provide a comprehensive, sound, objective, and factually correct account of the life of Romney whether it reflects positively or negatively on the subject. It is erroneous to preclude the inclusion of this in the article. The paragraph offered in the straw poll is sound. Some form of it should be assimilated into the article. Ziggypowe (talk) 01:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

DO read what I wrote more carefully please. I didn't say it was trivia. I was condemning vote counting, and arguments saying we should include it because "it's well sourced, objective, and factually correct". My view on the head shaving is that was ages ago, and therefore irrelevant. I am around Romney's age, and I'm definitely not the same person I was as a teenager. Those supporting inclusion are doing it for political reasons. That's the worst reason to be editing here. HiLo48 ([[User talk:|talk]]) 05:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48, this is a full biography of a person's entire life. It doesn't matter whether it's relevant to his presidential candidacy or not, it only matters whether it was an important occurrence in his life. And the people arguing for its inclusion believe that it is. And your blanket statement that "Those supporting inclusion are doing it for political reasons" is just plain, flat, insultingly wrong. I've inserted equally 'negative' material in the articles on Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy, for example. Even from 14,000km away you should know that they are from the opposing party. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe the strength of argument is the other way from what HiLo48 says. And that's because WP:BLP gives more latitude to articles like this than Collect and some of the others here seem to think. See for instance the part labeled as WP:WELLKNOWN: "Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources." Now here we have a major, very well-known politician in Romney, who hasn't even denied the Cranbrook incident. The account of the incident was published by one major newspaper, The Washington Post with four on-the-record witnesses; at least one of the witnesses confirmed his account in The New York Times; and there's further corroboration in a Florida newspaper that GabeMc mentioned in an earlier section. The BLP guidelines do not forbid inclusion of this material. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

And there's more bullshit saying that becasue it's well sourced we should include it. WRONG! HiLo48 (talk) 05:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the inclusion of this material has been argued against on three different bases: 1) it's a violation of BLP; 2) it's not important enough; 3) it's politically motivated. In the above post I was just trying to refute #1. In other posts here I try to refute the other two. And by the way, using curse words and big fonts generally doesn't impress anyone with the strength of your argument. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48 mentioned: "All sorts of meaningless trivia can be "well sourced, objective, and factually correct". If we included it all we'd have the first megabyte article." That is what I was speaking on in one sentence. Moving along, per WP:WELLKNOWN, the Cranbrook episode is legitimate content. This content meets the criteria for this policy and is thus apt for inclusion. "I am around Romney's age, and I'm definitely not the same person I was as a teenager" stated HiLo48. You are misapprehending the intention of users who wish to include this account. The goal is to state the facts of what happened and that is it - like it is done in the suggested paragraph of the straw poll. We will not add to the article any implications that what he did is indicative of Romney's current (or former) character. There will be no claims of Romney's character. We will only report the facts. It is apt for inclusion.

I simply do not believe that there is no political intent in dredging up ancient past "misdeeds" during the Presidential election campaign. And you still clearly haven't understood my earlier point about trivia. HiLo48 (talk) 06:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48, IMO, you are missing the point completely, that it does not really matter, at all, what the purpose of the WaPo story was, that's a WP:CRYSTALBALL, and that sort of reasoning does not belong here. What would you have advocated for during Watergate? Had wikipedia existed, should they have included the Watergate info as it was coming out, or should they have waited to see if it had any lasting impact? I guess a couple of years or so. By your logic, if a true event were uncovered for political reasons, then wikipedia should not cover it out of principle. That's not neutral. Let the reader decide, they are not as stupid as you seem to think they are, and they do not need you to protect them. ~ GabeMc (talk) 06:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

See WP:DEADLINE. BTW, "pinging" other editors to get them to a page is considered "WP:CANVASS". Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

GabeMc - What's a WaPo? And I'm not interested in hypotheticals. They usually only arise as displacement responses to successful debating points. HiLo48 (talk) 06:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) , WaPo is a shorthand for The Washington Post, the newspaper who ran the story. At any rate, my point still stands, the purpose of the story is not relevant to its inclusion. Collect, right you are, file an ANI report, and since I find you to be the most hostile, difficult, and uncivil editor I have ever encountered in 2.5 years on wikipedia, your opinion means absolutely nothing to me whatsoever. ~ GabeMc (talk) 06:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Then reread WP:AGF and WP:NPA. I now have a full three decades online and your "persobal opinion" is of no value to this page whatever. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48, although malicious intent is not ideal, the political intent is irrelevant. Stating Romney is a homophobic, bigoted, greedy bastard for what he did is a political attack. That is a claim. That is not what we wish to do. Stating the facts of what happen is not a political attack - whether it reflects negatively or positively on Romney. In the Barack Obama FA article is included a section mentioning Obama's former drug use. This is not a political attack on Obama. Stating Obama is a crackhead would be an attack, as it is a claim, rather than stating the facts of his drug use. The Cranbrook content is in conformity with Wikipedia's policies, per WP:WELLKNOWN (PLEASE READ IT), and is sound, unprejudiced, and factually correct. You stated "I didn't say it was trivia." What argument is left to oppose inclusion?--Ziggypowe (talk) 06:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Ziggypowe, Obama's article not only mentioned his cocaine, marijuana, and under-age drinking, it did so in the third paragraph of the article body. On election day. And the article was FA status! Collect, I don't care how long you've been online, as far as I can tell, many of your edits are dedicated to trolling around bothering other people, and not helpful at all, IMO. ~ GabeMc (talk) 06:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Romney is the candidate positioned to appeal to more conservative voters. Adding negatives about his behaviour won't make anyone vote FOR him, but could quite likely have the opposite effect. That's a POV change to the article, during an election campaign. If it MUST be included, why not wait five months? HiLo48 ([[User talk:|talk]]) 07:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48, show me the WP guideline that says that no material can be added to an article about a politician if that addition might cost the politician votes in the next election. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Again mentioning what Barack's page looked like in 2008, I do not see the relevance. Don't we strive for continual improvement? The drug use is also currently the ONLY negative item in Obama's youth that has been included and it appears that is included because it was a point Obama himself made in his book that it was a growing experience. Anything negative added about Obama is also considered a "political hit piece", or just crazy right wing bigots. A number of books published from reputable publishers recently have been published about Obama that portray Obama in not the best light, you do not see us having discussions on his page to include this information because this in an encyclopedia not the talk page of your local newspaper. Viewmont Viking (talk) 09:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

By "trivia", folks mean that it is too trivial to be in the top level Romney article. North8000 (talk) 13:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48, Wikipedia is not concerned with whether the inclusion of the Cranbrook episode will cost Romney votes or not. Saying it may cost him votes is not a sound argument. "If it MUST be included, why not wait five months?" This sounds like you may be just deferring the inclusion until the election is over. This is wrong and goes against WP:WELLKNOWN. The event patently meets the criteria codified under WP:WELLKNOWN (PLEASE READ IT and you will see). The Cranbrook incident is apt for inclusion.--Ziggypowe (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

With a major election on, well known is a very subjective criterion. HiLo48 (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Maybe they meant that the arguments made after the election are more likely to be valid / motivated by validity. Conversely, where's the urgency if not intending the reverse? North8000 (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The motivation is irrelevant, as there is no sound method of determining motivation, nor should we try. What is germane and relevant here is that the Cranbrook content is in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and principles, including WP:WELLKNOWN. Thus it is apt for assimilation. The urgency is that the content is legitimate and should already be a part of the article. Wikipedia does not defer adding content for political reasons.--Ziggypowe (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I echo Collect, first and last, and whoever said this is yet another example of WP:UNDUE in a top-level Romney BLP. It also appears that most everything required for Wikipedia is lacking, and it is being pushed by one editor vociferously supported by a small cadre of editors: we must beware, or else the article becomes a WP:COATRACK. Wikipedia - especially BLP - is not a campaigning vehicle. St John Chrysostom ^{[[User talk:|Δόξα]]}_{τω ^Θεώ} 21:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

JohnChrysostom, you and others, should give reasons to support your stance, instead of just stating it. It is not WP:UNDUE, as we are not dealing with viewpoints. The Cranbrook episode transpired and no one is contending that as its occurrence has been well substantiated. Moreover, there is virtually just as many proponents for its inclusion as there is opponents. I would not call that a small cadre as if we are in some vast minority. We are diligently trying to include it because no one has presented any sound argument against its inclusion and the content is in conformity and consistent with the policies of Wikipedia. The Cranbrook content specifically meets the criteria of WP:WELLKNOWN (READ IT AND DISCUSSIONS ABOVE). Please someone offer a refutation in detail of how it does not meet the criteria of WP:WELLKNOWN. If no one cannot or will not do so, then there is no sound argument against its inclusion and it may be included as quality if argument preempts the number of supports or opposes. --Ziggypowe (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Ziggypowe. there is a structural flaw in your arguments. You are in essence saying that since a few selected guidelines do not forbid it's inclusion, that they are are a force or mandate for its inclusion. Such is simply not correct. North8000 (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Well put North. We could probably find perfectly sourced information on the date he started grade school, or had his first immunisations, but we don't put them in the article. The push is only for something that has value because there's an election on.HiLo48 (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The "date he started grade school, or had his first immunisations" would not meet the criteria of WP:WELLKNOWN, as they are not "noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented." The date he started school or had his first immunization is not the same as forcefully shaving the head of a student because the student did not conform to what Romney thought was correct at the time - causing the student distress and warranting an apology from Romney many years later. Also, the "date he started grade school, or had his first immunisations" would not end up in the national discourse as did the Cranbrook incident. I don't see a flaw. I never said it was compulsory that it is added, but there is no reason not to add it, as it meets the criteria WP:WELLKNOWN, as it is "noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented." and is consistent with all other policies. In other worlds, North8000, you are saying we can add it but it is not required. If the content is legitimate and its inclusion is not prohibited then it may be added and nobody has any valid reason to take it down. Thank You.--Ziggypowe (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It happened half a century ago. It's WP:UNDUE HiLo48 (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Using that logic we should not have an "Early life and education" or "Heritage and youth" section at all. We should not even mention he went to Cranbrook at all then, since it "happened half a century ago". Also, point out what specific attribute(s) of WP:UNDUE you claim the Cranbrook episode is. It is not WP:UNDUE, as we are not dealing with viewpoints. The Cranbrook episode transpired and no one is contending that as its occurrence has been well substantiated.--Ziggypowe (talk) 23:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is not just about viewpoints. The UNDUE section of the WP:NPOV policy states the following: "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. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and NPOV, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

I think this is the area of WP:UNDUE that applies. 72Dino (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

They are still speaking with respect to viewpoints. Look at the statements given by Jimbo Wales in the policy. That does not include to the Cranbrook incident, as it is of just as much or more weight then most of the content currently in the "Early life and education" section. Moreover, that does not mean it can't added at all. It simply may not be given too much attention or space. The Cranbrook incident still warrants inclusion in some form. We are not going to give the Cranbrook episode its own section, just a concise paragraph under the "Early life and education" section - that is not undue weight. We will add something like the following:

"During his time at Cranbrook he developed a reputation for practical jokes. For example, he would take part in sliding down golf courses on blocks of ice, impersonating a police officer to pull over frightened friends, and staging an elaborate dinner on the median of a busy street. In 2012, five former classmates described a 1965 episode wherein Romney, then a senior, took the lead in holding down a younger student while cutting his long, bleached-blond hair with scissors. Romney said that he does not recall the incident, though he acknowledged that he may have participated in some high school "hijinks and pranks" that went too far, and he apologized for any harm that resulted from them."

Some form of this should be included in the article. --Ziggypowe (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we know you think that way. Many of us don't. HiLo48 (talk) 03:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Many of us do. How do you justify the Mitt Romney dog incident having it own page and also being mentioned in Romney's main page but the Cranbrook episode is not worth inclusion at all. Also, nobody has still not stated why the Cranbrook incident is not in conformity with WP:WELLKNOWN.--Ziggypowe (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't "justify the Mitt Romney dog incident having it own page and also being mentioned in Romney's main page". What makes you think I would? I argued very strongly against it. HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

What was the rationale behind its inclusion in the main Romney article, the creation of its own page, and the page subsistence? --Ziggypowe (talk) 03:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm really the wrong person to ask. IMHO, the "rationale" was "let's dig up dirt on Romney and put it in Wikipedia to make it harder for him to win the election". HiLo48 (talk) 03:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Well if that was the reason you did not want the dog incident included that is probably why you lost the debate. Wikipedia does not defer or preclude the addition of content because it may have a negative political effect on the subject. Moreover, in regards to the Crabbook incident, I am confident that if Romney loses it will not be because of a paragraph added to Wikipedia per WP:WELLKNOWN. Also, nobody has still not stated why the Cranbrook incident is not in conformity with WP:WELLKNOWN.--Ziggypowe (talk) 04:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Wrong again. You asked me what the rationale was. I told you what I perceived the rationale to be. I did not tell you what my reasons for opposing it were. The fact that you consistently misunderstand my points here (I'm pretty sure I understand yours) suggests that there is little point in trying logic with you much more. HiLo48 (talk) 05:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I stated if that was the reason. Also, I am all about logic and you may want try to be more keen and attentive on what and how I state things. In addition, I see no times where I keep missing your points. Again, still nobody have not refuted the point that the Cranbrook incident is in conformity and accordance with WP:WELLKNOWN. What specific characteristic(s) of WP:WELLKNOWN ( I find it hard to believe you have read the policy and is remain against its inclusion) do you claim the Cranbrook incident does not meet. If it cannot be refuted, my many aforementioned points still stand and it is apt for inclusion. --Ziggypowe (talk) 05:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, trivial, unimportant matters can be well known. It's not enough on its own to justify inclusion. HiLo48 (talk) 05:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Prediction - If and when this goes to arbitration, I predict the arb will decide in favor of including a neutrally worded paragraph summarizing his "pranks". It will look quite similar to the one proposed at the current straw poll above, and it will include a mention of the Lauber incident. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this dispute on its way to arbitration? How will it get there? I would not mind it, as this dispute is starting to become tedious. "I predict the arb will decide in favor of including a neutrally worded paragraph summarizing his "pranks"." Would that be classified as a prank? I'm not sure it would be, but maybe.--Ziggypowe (talk) 06:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom has a strong rule against ever deciding content disputes. Meanwhile I note the vast amount of verbiage from a small number if editors who are intent on adding derisory material in this BLP without a WP:CONSENSUS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, still nobody has refuted the point that the Cranbrook incident is in conformity and accordance with WP:WELLKNOWN. Someone please refute this specific point. What specific characteristic(s) of WP:WELLKNOWN ( I find it hard to believe you have read the policy and is remain against its inclusion) do you claim the Cranbrook incident does not meet. If it cannot be refuted, my many aforementioned points still stand and it is apt for inclusion. --Ziggypowe (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The "noteworthy" and "relevant" parts of WP:WELLKNOWN are in dispute. You clearly feel the topic is noteworthy and relevant, others do not. Also, that is only one section of one policy. 72Dino (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:WELLKNOWN states: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." The Cranbrook event is well documented, as we have multiple reliable sources. It is noteworthy, as it reached national discourse and was notable enough to warrant an apology from Romney many years later. It is relevant, as bullying and gay rights are an major issue in America, and Romney is a hopeful to become America's leader. But I emphasize, we will not add any implications or claims of his political stances or character based on this event. We will only report the facts of what transpired at Cranbrook. Thus, it is apt for inclusion. --Ziggypowe (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Wp:blp centers on cautiousness regarding BLP's. That carelessly writeen sentence, if taken out of that context would violate other policies. The policy that really addresses inclusion, and sets the Due/Undue conditions for that is wp:npov. North8000 (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

What carelessly written sentence?--Ziggypowe (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

'as we have multiple reliable sources'. Can you list those for me? ViriiK (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

References

Here some of are the references. See references in Straw poll section above also I could not seem to move all the references down here. --Ziggypowe (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You showed me the stories based on it but I was talking about the people who confirmed it. I only count 1 which is Maxwell. We can't verify with Lauber since he's dead and his family disputes the episode. Stu White wasn't there and got the story implanted in his head. Seed isn't reliable since we're talking about a Dead Man's quote going against the Confrontation rule. Are you going to be an advocate to include the quotes by Lauber's sisters denouncing the entire thing? If no, why not? The only people I see to be a big advocate of this story to be a big central piece against Romney has been you from what I've observed. And it isn't WP:WELLKNOWN anymore because the WAPO stopped pushing the story. Why? The Bush 'Fake but Accurate' got more push from CBS than this story did. I can cherrypick but how are you proposing to integrate this into the article? ViriiK (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

In WP:WELLKNOWN, it lists the following: Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. This applicable to the Cranbrook case, as Romney faced allegations and the story was published by multiple news entities. Likewise, just because a company stops pushing a story that does not repudiates it as WP:WELLKNOWN. No news entities is currently pushing the Bill Clinton affair scandal. That does not mean it is not WP:WELLKNOWN and should not be in the Bill Clinton article, as all news stories eventually fade. Also, I do not wish for the Cranbrook episode to be a "a big central piece", just an concise paragraph. And if we can assimilate quotes from Lauber's sisters and keep balance against the commentary of the former Cranbrook students and retain objectivity, that is fine with me and it even may sound like a good idea.

I suggest some form of this:

"During his time at Cranbrook he developed a reputation for practical jokes. For example, he would take part in sliding down golf courses on blocks of ice, impersonating a police officer to pull over frightened friends, and staging an elaborate dinner on the median of a busy street. In 2012, five former classmates described a 1965 episode wherein Romney, then a senior, took the lead in holding down a younger student while cutting his long, bleached-blond hair with scissors. Romney said that he does not recall the incident, though he acknowledged that he may have participated in some high school "hijinks and pranks" that went too far, and he apologized for any harm that resulted from them."

Suggestions for prose and content is welcome.--Ziggypowe (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Such has a false implied premise of having decided to put it in. North8000 (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, take in account everything that has been said and state why it should be not added.--Ziggypowe (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand your motive in pushing so hard for this story. Just how significant are you trying to make this story out to be? Also in WP:WELLKNOWN as you state, there is really no public scandal at the moment and won't be. Heck, was there even a scandal? No, the WaPo did try to make one but it failed. Why? The reporting organization which is singular in this case, is the Washington Post, has stopped pushing this story. Why? I'd be interested to know your answer. ViriiK (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Another thing, when this category was created, you mentioned Romney perceived him as homosexual. Where is that mentioned at all in any of the articles? The authors of the WaPo are trying to imply it when they mentioned Lauber came out but it leaves that up to interpretations to the reader. None of the witnesses say that Romney was acting as a gay-basher. Is that your agenda here? In fact, I read a story yesterday that implied that Romney was attacking Lauber for not looking the Cranbrook part. I went to a Catholic school when I was a kid and I had to follow a strict uniform code. If I was out of place, I could have been teased for it as others were. Now, based on actual facts, Romney has a history of hiring homosexuals into his organizations whether political or non-political. So right now, if the message you're trying to convey is that "Romney is a gay-basher", that's libel. ViriiK (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It was stated here [[1]] in the first paragraph. There is no motive outside of to include sound content that is consistent with the policies of Wikipedia which includes the Cranbrook episode per WP:WELLKNOWN. Not that motives matter in regards to editing or adding content, as Wikipedia has policies to prevent the inclusion of inappropriate content. Conversely, I could ask the same question. We must stop trying to discern abstract things, such as motives, that are undiscernable and irrelevant in the eyes of Wikipedia, and deal with the facts. Although I don't believe the Cranbrook incident should have its own page, it is just as notable as the Mitt Romney dog incident and that has its own page and is mentioned in the main article. The Cranbrook incident still warrants mention in the Mitt Romney article. As we are only trying to present the facts of what transpired and not claims of Romney's character, we are not trying to convey, as you mentioned, Romney is a gay-basher. --Ziggypowe (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The WaPo implies that as I mentioned where it says presumed homosexuality but it is not based on facts at all. So you insinuated it as fact when it is not. You defined it to be consistent with that policy based on a very small argument which I don't think it flies. Only the WAPO is the reporting organization because they investigated it albeit with a lot of holes and trying to imply homophobia tendency in the end. The story in the first place was supposed to be about bullying which I understand but the subliminal message here is trying to be "Romney is a gay-basher". If you want to talk about how notable it is, stick to the bullying fact, omit the homosexuality because it's not there although you tried to perceive it as there. It's not even notable? Why? This is high school from 48 years ago. The dog on the roof has more effect due to the fact a lot of Americans are dog owners (6 in 10) so there's a common theme that they share with Romney vs a supposed bullying incident that people will chalk up as "Welcome to High School". ViriiK (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I was simply speaking about the facets around the incident. "Romney perceived him as homosexual" was not something I wished or championed to include in the article. Reread what I said. It was a reason I said "Nevertheless." "Romney perceived him as homosexual" was not in the paragraph I suggested for inclusion below, above, or in the straw poll paragraph.

"During his time at Cranbrook he developed a reputation for practical jokes. For example, he would take part in sliding down golf courses on blocks of ice, impersonating a police officer to pull over frightened friends, and staging an elaborate dinner on the median of a busy street. In 2012, five former classmates described a 1965 episode wherein Romney, then a senior, took the lead in holding down a younger student while cutting his long, bleached-blond hair with scissors. Romney said that he does not recall the incident, though he acknowledged that he may have participated in some high school "hijinks and pranks" that went too far, and he apologized for any harm that resulted from them."

We maybe could omit the first two sentences as it is covered in notes adequately. If you wish to add something about it being allegations, that is fine and we can discuss it. Maybe it could be like this:

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

This would be reasonable. --Ziggypowe (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Do we have any idea, from an objective, reliable source, how common behaviour of the kind Romney is alleged to have been involved in was? If it was simply the culture of the place at the time, as would seem likely, this is even less notable. If we don't know, we cannot place any emphasis on it at all. If it was rare, and that can be proven using objective, reliable sources, then a stronger case may be able to be presented. At the moment, it just looks like a another example of election time dirt from ancient history. HiLo48 (talk) 00:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Holding down another person and shaving their head against their will is not part of a culture within the United States, if so, Lauber did not subscribe to that culture. We must use common sense. Also, the derivation of the story does not matter. Presidential hopefuls are incessantly vetted and scrutinized, so it is almost inherent to the process of running for president that some information will come up and out that was not known before. Generally speaking, if a presidential candidate is discovered or alleged to have murdered someone 40 years ago by people looking for so-called "election time dirt from ancient history," should we preclude it from the article of that person? Of course not. I say that to refute the gist of your argument about where the story may or may not have come from.--Ziggypowe (talk) 01:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Romney didn't murder anyone, so I don't see how this correlates with that scenario. Arzel (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Ziggypowe - That's a stupidly arrogant post, and does not answer my question ABOUT THE SCHOOL 50 years ago in any way at all!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

This story in a Florida paper, which came out after the initial WaPo story, sourced from another classmate at the time (not one of the ones in the WaPo story): "The headmaster discussed the altercation at the next daily assembly. “He made it clear that what happened was bad, that it was contrary to our moral standards,” Henderson said. “But nothing ever happened to the perpetrators that I know of; no student was seriously chastised.”" So it was uncommon enough to warrant official attention at an assembly. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

If it was bad then why was no student seriously chastised? Common sense tells us that this wasn't apparently not that big of a deal...until now...hmmm. Arzel (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course the headmaster had to publicly disapprove. That wasn't what I asked about. HiLo48 (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It is common for people of authority or people who are rich and powerful to get away with things average people would not. For example, the Rodney King beating, the police officers who beat King were patently guilty, as there is a video showing their wanton attack, yet half of the officers got off. I am not surprised it inspired the LA riots ( although I do not condone violence of course). That is likely why the perpetrators where not held culpable and censured at Cranbrook. HiLo48, what is it you asked about? I believe I addressed that inquiry.--Ziggypowe (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a supposition. Another supposition could be that the school administrators lacked the guts to go against the students and their parents, and/or were also offended by Lauber and so went light on the attackers, and/or wrote it off to 'boys will be boys' ... justice is not always served. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. So you will agree that we simply don't know how serious this actual event was at the time. It hardly justifies the undoubted seriousness with which it's being presented during an election campaign half a century later. HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

If Romney loses the election in November, which will mean his political career is over, will you object if the proposed material is added then (when any political motivation will clearly be gone)? Wasted Time R (talk) 03:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't do hypotheticals. HiLo48 (talk) 03:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Why not? Are you apprehensive we may make a point you can't refute? HiLo48, you stated "If it MUST be included, why not wait five months?" so the question is apt.--Ziggypowe (talk) 04:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems evident nobody may have anything to refute with.--Ziggypowe (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Name = Willard Milton ("Mitt") Romney

Shouldn't his name be correctly written as Willard Milton ("Mitt") Romney? After all, "Mitt" is just his self-chosen nickname. Perhaps with an image of his birth certificate, or link to a birth record database? Just because he thinks "Mitt" sounds nicer, or more electable, or whatever, doesn't make it so. Heck, the article should be titled "Willard Milton Romney" with "Mitt Romney" redirecting to Willard Milton Romney. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.128.11.246 (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:COMMONNAME and look through the archives of this talk page. The name has been discussed before and the consensus is to keep it as is. 72Dino (talk) 03:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure about the first part but the article should not be at Willard Milton Romney per the reason mentioned above. For example, Bill Clinton is not at William Jefferson Clinton or, Jimmy Carter is not at James Earl Carl Jr. etc. A request to move the article will almost certainly be strongly rejected.--174.93.167.177 (talk) 03:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Also Rick Perry is not at James Richard Perry, Woodrow Wilson is not at Thomas Woodrow Wilson, Jerry Brown is not at Edmund Gerald Brown, Jr., and Bobby Jindal who is not at Piyush Jindal. This means that this articles follows standard practice and should not be moved.--174.93.167.177 (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hehe, no. If you want to impose that standard on Mitt Romney. Then Barack Obama should be renamed Barack Hussein Obama II, Joe Biden Joseph Robinette "Joe" Biden, Jr., Nancy Pelosi Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi, Newt Gingrich Newton Leroy McPherson, etc. You see the problem here yet? No one refers to those people by their birth name in politics. ViriiK (talk) 07:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

In addition to what the others said, "Mitt" is his actual middle name, not "Milton". See his birth certificate image here. Which is also part of footnote 1 in the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes it is as fun reading the TALK as it is the Article—I'm sure WP readers come here also. Tnks, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Please put this BirthCertificate.pdf in ref (if sourced properly and not fake) to avoid another Barack Obama birth controversy 99.90.197.87 (talk) 07:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It already is; see footnote 1 in the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

a) since "Romney's birth certificate evokes his father's controversy" perhaps DNA may resolve father controversy. b) the 'document' you put is "VOID" - read up to down (vertical) on both sides. Beside those two problems there is no nationwide debate if the paper is fake or no fake so how one may know ? 99.90.197.87 (talk) 13:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The actual title is Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. And you are free to start the Mitt Romney citizenship conspiracy theories article. (Believe it or not, there are actually a few birther theorists out there who claim Mitt is ineligible.) Wasted Time R (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

theorists? nobody believe Romney will be sworn, so such art will never have a motive . Anyway your *VOID* pdf still hangs without any referrals as wp:pol you should link to article with author not to a file.picture. Aren’t you curious who made this VOID pix? 99.90.197.87 (talk) 05:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Footnote 1 is this Reuters article in the Chicago Tribune, which talks about "according to a copy of Romney's birth certificate released to Reuters by his campaign", and at the end of the article says "To view Romney's birth certificate, go http://static.reuters.com/resources/media/editorial/20120529/RomneyBirthCertificate.pdf". That link is also included in the footnote so that readers can find it directly. The "Void" markings that have you so concerned are either (a) the markings within original legal documents that intentionally surface when photocopied, so as to prevent them from being passed off as originals, or (b) evidence that the Kenyan-Mormon presidential manufacturing facility is at it again, creating weird unnatural entities to be inserted into the highest office in the land in place of a True American. Take your pick. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

"to be inserted into highest office" ; no, this won't hapen they just trying. If you want to help them rather find (as in preceding example) a color pix having COPY insted of VOID. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 06:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Winter olympics "success"

The wording in the lede says romeny "helped turn the games into a sucess". This is not eneutral because som of the sources cast doubt on Romney being solely responsible for the sucess of the games. It should be worded differently. Pass a Method talk 08:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The wording said "..., and he helped turn the fiscally troubled games into a success." Nobody is claiming he was solely responsible, that's why the word "helped" is there. Here's a quote from the New York Times source used in the article body: "As president of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee, Romney appears poised to carry off a successful international event, one that has brought him prime-time television coverage. He brought the Olympics back from a deficit and the stain of scandal, pulling it off despite security concerns that had some people urging him to cancel the Games after Sept. 11." Here's a quote from the Boston Globe source used: "Thus began an experience that cemented Romney's reputation as a 'turnaround artist' - a manager so competent that he could turn deficits into surpluses, and who might one day be able to guide the nation. Romney would run the Games with a strong hand, personally lobbying business leaders such as D'Alessandro to maintain their Olympic contributions and helping bring new financial backers on board. Along the way, he managed to remove the stink of scandal and replace it with the glow of success." And here's what the New Yorker source used says: "In 1999, he took over the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the Olympic Winter Games of 2002, which was then mired in a bribery scandal. The tainted officials had been ousted, but a significant financial problem had emerged: there was a projected budget deficit of three hundred and eighty-seven million dollars. Romney cut costs, raised money, and successfully lobbied the federal government to allocate more funds for the Winter Olympics. By all accounts, he was an extremely competent manager of the enterprise, and his public cheerleading for the games refurbished their reputation." And those are just the sources the article body uses; more could be added. The simple fact is, Romney's stint as Olympics head was very successful, he did help turn those Games around, and the lead should indicate that. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Federal goverment do not print money all they have is only tax money. So resume his quoted motive and method:: poised to carry off prime-time television coverage raised [taxpayers] money by successfully lobbing the federal government to allocate more funds. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Still, even if we do decide to keep that sentence, the wording "he helped turned the game into a sucess" is not a neutral way to word it. Furthermore, some analysts have questioned his contributions. Pass a Method talk 19:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right, the sentence is too leading and should be reworded or removed. Ovr'apint (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The question of Romney's contributions is dealt with in the article body in the paragraph that begins "Romney emerged as the public face of the Olympic effort ...". But overall, the games were clearly a success, and Romney clearly had a significant role in bringing that about. Even his critics from the time concede this. (If you want to see an example of an Olympics effort that was not a success, read 1976 Summer Olympics#Legacy.) If you go back into Google News Archives for early 2002, you can see plenty of articles that proclaim Romney a success, such as this AP story "Mitt Romney turned scandal into success as chief organizer ..."; this UPI story "Romney is seen as a shining success for reforming the scandal-plagued Olympics"; this Salt Lake City Tribune story "Mitt Romney, fresh from success in reinvigorating the Salt Lake Organizing Committee and staging one of the best Winter Olympic Games on record,"; this Worcester paper "With the success of the Winter Olympics still fresh in the public's mind, Mr. Romney is touted by Mr. Manzoli and others ..."; and on and on. If all these sources characterize Romney's stint as head of the Olympics as a success, we can too. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I know that the sources are pretty overwhelmingly saying it was a success and he contributed substantially. But we should be trying to get Obama elected. We should take out anything positive-sounding like that and work to make it sound bad somehow. And we should look really hard....there must be people who don't like him that said something bad about him regarding the Olympics; we should find something bad that they said and put it in. North8000 (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Romney Invested in Medical-Waste Firm That Disposes of Aborted Fetuses, Government Documents Show

>>The current version of the wiki page states that Romney generally does not support abortions. In all fairness the fact also should be stated that he made many millions of dollars with investments in a Stericycle, a Medical-Waste Firm That Disposes of Aborted Fetuses.

Sources: Documents of the Securities and Exchange Commission showed large investments in Stericycle by Romney and Bain Capital, a private equity company founded by him .

A SEC document filed November 30, 1999, by Stericycle names Romney furthermore as an individual who holds "voting and dispositive power" . (Search for "Romney" in the document) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.19.178.7 (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Now I know a hack article when I see one. Basically, they're trying to say here is that Bain bought funded a company that handled all bio-waste materials for their clients including those that happened to be servicing those that either performed abortions or handled abortions. What they fail to realize is that miscarriages are actually spontaneous abortions and women have to go to the hospital to handle the miscarriage. Why? Not only they are having a spontaneous abortion, they are also bleeding which in a good number of cases requires hospitalization or at least visiting a doctor. Now judging from the comments and the whole gist of that article, they fail to acknowledge this either. Not notable at least to me. ViriiK (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I went to investigate the IP address and it is a proxy. ViriiK (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

There are two points to Corn's article, the Bain funding of Stericycle and the timeline of leaving Bain. On the first point I don't see anything of interest - remember that Romney was politically pro-choice during his entire time at Bain Capital; his conversion to pro-life didn't happen until 2004-2005. So investing in a medical waste company that may have had some abortion connection wouldn't be anything surprising or hypocritical. On the second point, our article currently has him taking a leave of absence from Bain Capital in February 1999 and announcing his departure in August 2001. I'll take another look at newspaper archives as well as Corn's piece to get the best set of dates. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

To follow up on the leaving Bain timeline, this FactCheck.org piece from a few days ago disputes the idea that Romney was doing any part-time work for Bain Capital once he took on the Olympics position, and is in accordance with our article. Lacking solid sources that say otherwise, I'm making no change in this area. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

In other news the American people do not believe Romney would handle and ExtraTerrestrial Invasion as well as President Obama. "More than two-thirds of Americans reckon Barack Obama would deal with an extra-terrestrial invasion better than his Republican Party rival Mitt Romney.: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2165963/Obama-deal-alien-invasion-better-Mitt-Romney-believes-thirds-Americans.html#ixzz1zmq2vvG8 Viewmont Viking (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Well the whole article is extremely misleading claiming that Stericycle supposedly makes their revenue when one can investigate their 10Q or 10K filings whichever a person wants to use and find this to be false. On the user's talk page, he actually commented saying this And from what I understand a large portion of revenue is generated due to disposal of dead bodies. But when I look at Stericycle's 10Q filing, it says We serve over 485,000 customers worldwide, of which over 13,000 are large-quantity generators, such as hospitals, blood banks and pharmaceutical manufacturers, and over 472,000 are small-quantity generators, such as outpatient clinics, medical and dental offices, long-term and sub-acute care facilities, veterinary offices, municipalities and retail pharmacies. Based on the proxy's claim, all of those customers are abortion clinics? Well, with that many customers, the odds would be extremely high that some of them do performed abortions. If abortion was their niche, it would have been obvious in the 10Q or 10K filings but it's not. Now the people assigned to Stericycle were Thomas R. Reusche and John P. Connaughton and they had authority overseeing Bain's investment in Stericycle [2]. Over at this page for Reusche's executive profile page [3], he was a director there from 1999 to 2009. Another thing is that it make sense why they made the investment in the first place if you look at their stock price. Stericycle in 1999 had their stock price at $4-5ish and now today, it's at $92. So they must have saw an unexploited sector of the medical industry and made a killing (figuratively) on it. Now the other critical part of their business is Medical Waste Management which is just about anything in the medical industry. Used IV bags, soiled gauzes, fat, urine, feces, needles, arms, legs, missing limbs, and yes I'm sure in some cases, fetuses of legal or spontaneous abortions based on this document I found here [4]. I don't think Bain Capital just up and decided to fund a business going "Let's go into the abortion business". ViriiK (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Unless this story gets a lot more media coverage, I don't think we should mention it in the article. It's basically an attack ad. Lots of people have investments in companies that at some point may engage in activities that they don't approve of. It doesn't mean anything. Ashbrook Station (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Another note, "Invested in" is not a connection of the type that would count as a link to make it germane. Roughly like saying "inhabited the same planet as.....". North8000 (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The firm likely disposed of HIV blood, radioactive waste, discarded organs from transplant operations and more such stuff -- but the silly season tactic of focussing on one type of waste is more suited to a political campaign pamphlet than to a genuine encyclopedia article. Collect (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You would need to show that there has been significant reporting in the media linking Romney and MwM. ~ TFD (talk)

It is as easy as to type the right search qurey Romney+aborttion+profiteering !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Well all of the latest google results provided by 99.90.197.87 points to the article being mentioned here. Basically they took what Stericycle actually does and twisted it to fit their narrative. ViriiK (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

None of the hits on the first page are from the media and most of the hits do not even mention the story. TFD (talk) 21:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the first two hits on that result page are exactly about that story. The 75 million dollar investment in Stericycle, a medical waste management company, by members of Bain Capital. ViriiK (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, this story is predicated on the insistance by the Left that Romney was running Bain at the time, and explains partially why this is such an issue right now. http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/12/politics/john-king-bain/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 Arzel (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

'Medicine' quote

I am restoring the "Sometimes the medicine is a little bitter ..." sidebox quote, removed by Cwobeel with the edit summary "this page should not be used for campaigning". This a concise statement of Romney's economic philosophy, spoken during an interview with a business writer. Articles about politicians are able to quote the politician's beliefs! And it has no value for or against Romney's campaign, since for every person attracted by its endorsement of unfettered capitalism and the wonders of creative destruction, another person will be repelled by the contrast with Bain's actual track record and the perceived smugness of a man who's never had to worry about how to make ends meet in his whole life. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem with quotes is that there is a massive pool of quotes to choose from, so what is the criteria? What about having this quote instead: “I’m not familiar with precisely what I said, but I stand by what I said, whatever it was.”, Or what about this one, who also represents some of his political views: "I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there." So, I suggest to not having any quotes whatsoever. Cwobeel (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Both of those quotes are incomplete and taken out of context. This one isn't. Side quotes are useful way of adding perspective on the regular text, lending visual interest to an article's layout, and are a technique often used by Featured Articles. See Zoo TV Tour for a good example. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Quotes for Zoo TV Tour may be OK, but in this case if you add a quote you are making an editorial decision on what to include and by extension what not to include. If you insist, though, I will add another quote as well. Your choice: either none or several. As for the out of context, here is the context: "I'm in this race because I care about Americans. I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it" and the other one: "I’m not familiar with precisely what I said, but I stand by what I said, whatever it was, I’ll go back and take a look at what was said there." Cwobeel (talk) 04:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

First, editorial decisions on what to include and what not to include are what we do every day here. (You think there weren't willful discussions about what to include and not include in the Zoo TV Tour article? Ha!) Second, as I'm sure you know, you still haven't given the full context of the first quote; it's: “I’m in this race because I care about Americans. I’m not concerned about the very poor — we have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich — they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling. [interruption by interviewer] I said, I’m not concerned about the very poor that have a safety net, but if it has holes in it, then I will repair it. But my campaign is focused on middle-income Americans. My campaign — you can choose where to focus. You can focus on the rich. That’s not my focus. You can focus on the very poor. That’s not my focus.” Or of the other quote, it too lacks the context of the subject matter (a question about whether Romney should criticize a proposed SuperPAC ad about Obama and Jeremiah Wright) and the time span between statements (three months). It's really just one of those campaign trail blunders that every candidate makes. I picked the side quotes in the article because they are all illuminating about Romney but also are double-edged; there's something in each of them that will appeal to some readers and that will bring a negative reaction from other readers. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I still believe that quote has been cherry picked, and that makes it not neutral. Either we find an additional quote to counter-balance the apologetic one currently there, or we remove it all together. Cwobeel (talk) 04:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

So you want to find some quote which you feel sufficiently makes Romney look bad in order to balance out what you think is a pro-Romney quote? I think you fail to understand NPOV. Arzel (talk) 05:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

NPOV is about describing what sources say about a subject, and has nothing to do with quotes. Cwobeel (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Cwobeel, if you can find a different quote from Romney, describing his time at Bain Capital, that both illuminates his economic/business philosophy and is double-edged in the way I described, then we can consider replacing the current one with the new one. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think we need other quotes for other sections such as:

For Olympics section: March 2012 "I have learned from my Olympic experience that if you have people who really understand how Washington works and have personal associations there you can get money to help build economic development opportunities."

For 2012 campaign section: May 5 2012 "Corporations are people, my friend. Of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people. Where do you think it goes?" or "April 30 2012: "This kind of divisiveness, this attack of success, is very different than what we’ve seen in our country’s history. We’ve always encouraged young people: Take a shot, go for it, take a risk, get the education, borrow money if you have to from your parents, start a business."

Cwobeel (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The first one is not fully representative of all his Olympics work, and using the third one would seem intended as a jibe at his affluent background. But I think "Corporations are people", with the full quote and context given, could definitely be used as a side quote in the "2012 presidential campaign" section. It succinctly encapsulates what Romney and a lot of people sincerely believe about the relationship of business entities with the public and private good, and of course a lot of other people sincerely don't believe that (with Elizabeth Warren for example making a spirited attack on the notion). And it's relevant because much of both the primary and general election campaigns has revolved around Romney and his business record and beliefs. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I think all three apply. The third one in particular, reflects Romney's views about entrepreneurship and self-reliance. Do you want to propose a different quote for the Olympics, of that does not work for you? Cwobeel (talk) 01:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

@Arzel: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."

To this point, the corporations are people quote, was widely reported in a multitude of reliable sources (293,000 hits in google). The bitter medicine quote was not as widely reported in reputable sources (141,000 hits on Google, mostly blogs, and oh! this Wikipedia article). So, if to follow NPOV as you request, we need to make sure to understand what that means. Cwobeel (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You should read up on Selection Bias and see how your approach is the very opposite of NPOV. While selection bias specifically applies to statistical analysis, the basic idea is the same. Romney made a campaign stop to illustrate that corporations are important to the economy, which was then twisted to attack Romney. Stuff which is used to attack others politically recieves more attention while generally being less valuable in general to understanding the person. Arzel (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I read the entire NPOV Wikipedia page and couldn't find anything remotely related to "selection bias". The closest thing I found is WP:BALANCE, that reads: "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance." Cwobeel (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Added a couple of quotes. I think they add value and balance. If some people here don't like my selection, I suggest we remove all quotes alltogether. Cwobeel (talk)

@Wikifan12345: you removed the "corporations are people" quote with a "no firm consensus in talk. placement is awkward and unnecessary". Can you please provide some commentary why it is awkward and unnecessary so that we can debate this and come to an agreement? Cwobeel (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

For starters, the quote is just placed in the middle of the article. Those sorts of edits belong at wikiquote, not wikipedia. Second, the quote was frequently used by Mitt Romney's opponents in the campaign, so we have to be careful . Third, there is no consensus to support the edit and because it is a controversial edit there needs to be a more firm consensus. And finally, the placement of the quote was more or less awkward in terms of how the article is supposed to appear to the reader. Wikifan^{Be nice} 17:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You may want to read this entire thread. My suggestion was to remove all quotes, or to have representative and balanced quotes for the main sections in the page. I am still very much open to the removal of all quotes, as there is a link to http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney in the "external links" section at the bottom of the page. Cwobeel (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Representative and balanced quotes are fine, campaign slogans from opposing candidates is not. Editors aren't going to insert "If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen" at Barack Obama. Any statements that have been used by other politicians for or against Romney should be held with suspicion by editors. Wikifan^{Be nice} 01:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This one cold work :) “You Olympians, however, know you didn’t get here solely on your own power. For most of you, loving parents, sisters or brothers encouraged your hopes. Coaches guided, communities built venues in order to organize competitions. All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them. We’ve already cheered the Olympians, let’s also cheer the parents, coaches and communities.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwobeel (talk • contribs) 21:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

What would that add to the article? Where would it be placed? How relevant is it? Quotes independent of the body should be used sparingly. Wikifan^{Be nice} 22:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It is relevant to highlight Romney's position about the Olympics. It can go on the 2002 Olympics section. Cwobeel (talk) 23:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No involvement

The article now reads: "In 2012 former Bain colleagues reported that Romney had no involvement with Bain after his departure to run the 2002 Olympics.", but that is an interpretation of what Bain partners said on the CNN interview. The exact quote is "Both partners with whom I spoke firmly and unequivocally said that after he physically left in February 1999, Romney no longer made decisions for Bain regarding investments, hiring, firing or any other management issues.". There is a difference between "no longer making decision", and "no longer being involved", in particular as Romney was (and this is not disputed) the sole owner, President and CEO until 2002. Therefore the article should reflect what the partners said, i.e. "In 2012 former Bain colleagues reported that Romney no longer made decisions about investments, hiring and firing or other management issues with Bain after his leave of absence to run the 2002 Olympics." Cwobeel (talk) 03:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I concur. It is best to assimilate the direct quote in the article, rather than a possible interpretation.--Ziggypowe (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Picture

I am not able to change the picture due to the editing lock. There was a large discussion about Romney's main portrate a month or so ago and it was decided to have the picture that showed Romney's eyes better. Can one of the editors with access please change the picture back to what it was? Thank you. Viewmont Viking (talk) 08:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit: Actually now I see what you are talking about. Who made the change to #3? It should be on #6. ViriiK (talk) 08:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I was unable to find discussion that chose #6 in the archives. Without proof that consensus was there, I am unable to fulfill this request. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 10:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

ViriiK is right, it should be #6. I meant to revert it last night but got caught up in other things. Talk:Mitt Romney/Archive 13#Lead photo has the discussion leading up to the change. "Perhaps someone could contact the author so he/she may allow us to use this photo" in the fourth-to-last paragraph is the switch to #6 (after a cropping). While not perfect, it was pretty clearly better than the other contenders, so there wasn't much discussion after that. Then it has some alterations made to it as part of the discussion in Talk:Mitt Romney/Archive 14#Main image. So it's been the top photo for almost two months. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

He has edited the image to reflect #6. I had a talk with him on IRC regarding the main image and he understood the chain of event that led up to the Skidmore #6 being used. ViriiK (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 3 days.

So this occurs on a Monday and there will be zero changes made because you guys can't stop arguing over a stupid single line? Can the entire subject be dropped because it is ridiculous. This bickering over Bain Capital should be treated as ongoing news and should be left alone until the topic dies then it should be added later. ViriiK (talk) 08:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree ... but hey, it could be worse, you could be working on articles about that famous group from Liverpool. They are currently in their umpty-umpth, all-out, edit-and-insult war over the momentous question of ... whether you write "The Beatles" or "the Beatles". There's something about the psychology of WP that gets people locked into their positions long past the point of rational evaluation of the importance of the debate at hand. And yes, I've been guilty of it too, but I try to be self-aware and avoid it. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I was hoping the WP:NOTNEWS arguement initially would have been sufficient. Arzel (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Romney's behavior at Cranbrook school

Shouldn't Romney's gay-bashing while at Cranbrook school be mentioned? He attacked and cut off the hair of a non-conforming gay student while there. This type of behavior appears significant for a potential President. Tcolgan001 (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

No. Two things wrong with your questions. A) There is no evidence of "gay-bashing" nor was it stated outright in the reporting story, only subliminally which tried to insert that thought into the reader's head B) We've already discussed this. You can look at archives. ViriiK (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The term "gay-bashing" should not be used in the article. The facts of the Cranbrook episode, however, should be included objectively and let the reader decide. This has been discuss before and there was no consensus for or against inclusion. I believe the Cranbrook event is apt for inclusion, as WP includes the facts whether they may reflect positively or negatively on the subject.

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

This would be reasonable.--Ziggypowe (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The whole point was that he wanted the accusation of gay-bashing in the article. It has nothing to do with how you wanted to phrase the incident. Where do you plan on inserting that paragraph? You give it undue weight compared to the other facts of Mitt Romney's life which are little in details so we'd have to reform his entire biography to give them equal weight. ViriiK (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if this incident is notable enough to be described in the article. Cwobeel (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how I or anyone here gives the Cranbrook episode undue weight, nor why we would have to reform Romney's entire biography. As far as where to insert it, it may be most appropriate in the "2012 presidential campaign" section, since these allegations came about in 2012 during Romney's presidential campaign. Or possibly the "Heritage and youth" section since the context of the allegations is in Romney's early life at Cranbrook. I currently would prefer inserting it in the "2012 presidential campaign" section.--Ziggypowe (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

If you want to insert it into the main article, I assume you volunteer to increase the amount of information of his heritage and youth including other sections so that the Cranbrook incident is not given undue weight? ViriiK (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

If I were researching Romney’s background I would want to know about this incident. I’m sure many others would as well. The previous discussion appears to have reached no consensus. In any case, this pertinent fact should be included with reference to the article. How about modifying the following sentence (at the end of the “Heritage and youth” section): “Romney was involved in many pranks including an incident of forcibly cutting off a gay student’s hair.” [add highlighted text and link] I would not object to referencing Obama’s smoking marijuana as a youth. I see no less significance of this event.Tcolgan001 (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Not with the way you're phrasing it. You're the one saying here "gay-basher gay-basher!" If you go back to the article and read it again, there was nothing to indicate that it had to do with homosexuality! The editors just chose to imply the message that it perhaps had to do with gay-bashing later on in the piece. It's basically saying "Romney cut off some kid's hair in high school. Oh did you know he came out of the closet later in life? Do the math!" ViriiK (talk) 03:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is full of red herrings. The proposal at the time made no mention of gay or bashing. Nor was weighting a concern; the proposed wording was stated tersely and could be moved partly into a Note if necessary. The people blocking the inclusion simply did not want it mentioned in the article in any wording or in any weighting. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I ardently concur with Wasted Time R. The content proposed and championed by me and others in the archived discussion was neutrally worded and only reported the facts. In the proposed content was no implications or claims of Romney's character. People just didn't want it in the article, as stated by Wasted Time R.--Ziggypowe (talk) 05:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, leave out the word "gay". The important thing is that it is mentioned and that there is a link to the article. This is a significant, documented, corroborated event in Romney's life and those researching the man should have access to this information.Tcolgan001 (talk) 13:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

True, it should be added. Some seem to try to preclude inclusion despite there being nothing wrong with the proposed content:

"In 2012, Romney faced allegations as five former classmates described a 1965 episode wherein Romney, then a senior, took the lead in holding down a younger student while cutting his long, bleached-blond hair with scissors. Romney said that he does not recall the incident, though he acknowledged that he may have participated in some high school "hijinks and pranks" that went too far, and he apologized for any harm that resulted from them." --Ziggypowe (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Why should it be added? It has almost certainly been raised by Romney's political opponents as election time mud. It's not confirmed. Its significance among other incidents involving other students at the school at the time is not clear. It may have been quite a common thing. Convince me that it was significant. Not now, but then. HiLo48 (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Not confirmed? It was corroborated by five others who were present including one who assisted Romney in the act. It’s fine to leave out any reference to the assaulted student being gay. But the fact is, this was a blatant act of bullying when Romney was a senior in high school. It does reflect on his personality! Tcolgan001 (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It may reflect on his personality 50 years ago! It's election time. Do you really trust every witness these days? Its significance among other incidents involving other students at the school at the time is not clear. It may have been quite a common thing. Convince me that it was significant. Not now, but then. HiLo48 (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It's one thing to inquire into why it's being excluded from the main article but your attitude is very telling about this. You're stating your opinion on this is a blatant act of bullying and reflecting on his personality. Do you have another example how certain events affect his personality other than high school? What sort of personality are you implying? Deceitful? Caring? Hateful? Loving? ViriiK (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

To whom is that post addressed? HiLo48 (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Not you. ViriiK (talk) 02:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I find bullying hateful. But I’m sure that many others consider it a useful qualification for president. But our job is not the make that decision. Our job is to lay out the facts and let the readers decide. The fact is that the Washington post researched and reported the incident. That is what we should include.Tcolgan001 (talk) 22:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I don’t understand the argument “we wouldn’t be discussing it if he weren’t running for president”. Yes, a presidential candidate is placed under extreme scrutiny. That is the nature of the endeavor. Moreover, people considering electing a person for president are likely to visit wikipedia to learn all they can about the person. And many would consider this incident significant.

Moreover, the fact that bullying was more acceptable in 1965 then it is now is no argument. Most people in 1965 did not get a gang of friends together to tackle and cut off someones hair that they found unacceptable.

The fact that the following news sources (among many others) reported on the alleged act illustrates that many people find it has importance:

[fox news]

[nytimes]

[christian science monitor]

[reuters]

[bbc news]

[abc news]

[cbs news]

[boston globe]

[ny daily news]

Tcolgan001 (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Tcolgan001, the community has discussed this at great length and have come to the general consensus that the incident is not verifiable enough for inclusion, though some say it is not even notable enough for inclusion as well. Please take a look at the archive which contains this discussion. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I don't think complaints about verifiability were the blocker - the original story was well sourced and WP:WELLKNOWN permits mention of it for public figures like Romney. Inclusion was blocked by those saying it was a trivial incident, that it was 50 years ago, and that it was only being published and included as part of a campaign-season political hit piece against Romney. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The issue is not if this is acceptable or not because it may have been a political hit piece. The issue is that it is not that notable or relevant an incident. Cwobeel (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to re-litigate the whole thing, but I feel strongly that is a significant event biographically, given that this article is covering his whole life at a 10,000 words level of detail. Other editors view the criteria for inclusion as whether it should affect someone's decision about whether to vote for him, but that's not how I frame this at all. Anyway, I'll come back to this someday, but not now. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, I think several people stated that the alleged incident was not proven/verified, and that Romney has never admitted anything about it, which would imply it is not unambiguously verifiable. I do agree that the incident was largely overlooked with the rationale that the event was trivial, but I stand by my comments that many editors found the claim dubious as well. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Given that this is a BLP article, verifiability trumps all other considerations. Belchfire (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Sigh ... read the WP:WELLKNOWN portion of WP:BLP, example #2: "A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources." And in this case Romney hasn't even denied it. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I read it. Moreover, I understand it. If the Cranbrook incident was something that happened while Romney was an adult, you would probably have a point. But since it happened in 1965 while he was still in high school, you don't. There's no way to insert it into this article without giving it undue weight, and it isn't likely that anybody would try to insert it if he wasn't running for president. Why don't you go edit into the article about Obama's 2012 campaign? That's where it would be relevant. Belchfire (talk) 03:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

GabeMc. Please give references to "editors" who found the claim dubious. By "editors" do you mean wikipedia editors or msm editors? Tcolgan001 (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a non-issue, not relevant in the context of a one page article about Romney. Lets drop this and move on. Cwobeel (talk) 05:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I assume you are going to be replying to my question directed at you? Now, the discussion was here Talk:Mitt_Romney/Archive_16 which discussed the issue at length. The decision was no inclusion. The article will always be archived with the Washington Post so I doubt it'll "disappear". By the way, Wikipedia is not meant to be a source for first hand research and people have to work hard to find first hand sources which I'm sure wouldn't be difficult given the amount of tools out there like Lexis. ViriiK (talk) 05:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

For clarity, there was no clear consensus for or against inclusion.--Ziggypowe (talk) 06:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. The Romney apologists have hijacked the debate and refuse to compromise. Removal of the word “gay” has not appeased them. They insist that bullying as a high-school senior is irrelevant to other people. They call an article written in a major, respected, MSM publication supported by five first hand witnesses, and not refuted by Romney, “dubious”. How can this be brought to consensus? [Note WP:CONSENSUS stresses that compromise should be sought and that “In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say” and "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. This means that decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms."] Tcolgan001 (talk) 12:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Romney apologists? ROFLFMAO! You have no idea. HiLo48 (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I'm willing to pretend the story is Gospel truth. It doesn't matter - it still doesn't belong in Romney's biography. It's too trivial of an incident within the context of the man's life and everything else he's done. The place to put it is in the article about the presidential campaign, because it's a campaign issue. That's where it matters, not here. Belchfire (talk) 12:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

So let's have consensus? No. The user is emotionally invested in having this part added especially his intentions of trying to label Romney as a gay-basher. ViriiK (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is the version I attempted to add - [archive] (search for “including an incident”). It is 10 words in the main article plus a nota bene including the text suggested by Ziggypowe and a link to the article. The word “gay” has been removed completely. Please end arguments which are invalid. My emotional investment is not a counter-argument to inclusion. References to gays is not a counter-argument. That a majority of people don’t find it pertinent while a significant minority do, is not a counter-argument. Please reference WP:CONSENSUS and make your best argument for exclusion. Apply Occam’s razor - state your principle reason for exclusion and refrain for muddling the discussion with a multitude of fallacious arguments. Tcolgan001 (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I stand by what I said. No. ViriiK (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Tcolgan001 - many reasons have been given. You have refuted none. HiLo48 (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Tcolgan001, I share your frustration that any mention of this incident has been blocked from inclusion in this article (and anywhere in Wikipedia, for that matter), but after beating my head against this particular wall for long enough, I can tell you it just isn't going to happen under the current conditions. Sometime down the road, maybe after the election or after Romney's political career is over, I'll try again. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

July 16th entangled bundle of POV edits

There was a flurry of POV edits with misleading summaries on July 16th, entangled so that they could not be individually reverted. For example, one had an edit summary that mentioned only a possibly valid change (the "restored confidence" comment) but in fact, unmentioned, deleted a substantial amount of other factual material and sourcing and substituted a selected negative comment from one person. Then the remainder of the run of edit entangled that one it so that it could not be selectively reverted. I reverted the whole bundle and the someone reverted my revert. When this is unlocked, it should be reverted to the early July 16th version and started from there. North8000 (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you post here the diff for the revision you want restored? There are many early revisions on that day. Thanks. Cwobeel (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The final diff is this. Ignore the intermediate changes and ignore the separation from Bain Capital part - that can get straightened out later once the story's faded away. The rest of it is this:

• "He continued to work hard;" → "He gained note within the mission for the many homes he called on and the repeat visits he was granted." More specific, show don't tell.
• "having grown up in Michigan rather than the more insular Utah world, Romney was better able to interact with the French than other missionaries." → out. Per discussion, needs more general confirming source.
• "Less an entrepreneur than an executive running an investment operation, Romney was skilled at presenting and selling the deals the company made." → "Romney discovered few investment opportunities himself, instead focusing on analyzing the merits of possible deals that others brought forward and recruiting investors to participate in them once approved." More factual, less judgmental.
• "attack ads" → "ads" Avoids redundancy, since each ad's description clearly indicates it was attacking an opponent
• "He appealed to Utah's citizenry with a message of optimism that helped restore confidence in the effort." → out. Subject of several complaints; ultimately unnecessary given the more concrete 86 percent Utahns approval poll given later.
• "An additional federal $1.1 billion was spent on indirect support in the form of highway and transit projects." → "An additional $1.1 billion of indirect federal funding came in the form of highway and transit projects." Word order, no change in meaning.
• "His religion" → "As a Mormon" This one is probably unnecessary/pointy and could be reverted.

With the exception of the last, I think these changes are for the better and should stay. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Wasted Time R seems pretty neutral and I'd go with their thoughts on this. Regarding the edit that I was most concerned about, due to display issues I mistakenly thought that much more material and sourcing was deleted than actually was. North8000 (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Personal wealth

I see no mention in the personal wealth, or the public perception section anything about the tax returns conundrum. Given that Romney would be one of the richest POTUS if elected, and given how widely the controversy about the tax returns is being reported, we ought to include at a minimum short paragraph about it. Cwobeel (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a mention of of the tax returns conundrum in Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, but I don't see a compelling reason not to include at least a brief mention of it in this article as well, given the vast amount of coverage it has received and the brouhaha it has stirred.--JayJasper (talk) 05:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I think a good test of whether something potentially controversial should be in the article is "Would anyone be interested in including this if he wasn't running for President?" HiLo48 (talk) 08:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's legit. He's a pretty rich guy, and that sort of thing becomes notable on its own (Fortune 400, etc.). It's not 100% tied to his candidacy. Belchfire (talk) 08:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

There's already a mention in the "2012 presidential campaign" section of this article about the tax returns issue during the primaries: "However, during two debates, Romney fumbled questions about releasing his income tax returns" and "and he decided to release his tax returns quickly.[300][302]" If releasing more of the tax returns than he already has becomes one of the major issues during the whole of the general election campaign, we can mention it again in this section. But we don't know that yet. Yes, it's been in the news a lot the last couple of weeks, but will it be in October? Will any swing voters base their decision upon it? Will it be a determining factor? Ideally, we should wait until the election is over to write most of the "2012 presidential campaign" section, but I realize no one here is that patient :-) Wasted Time R (talk) 10:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I am. But I'm not American, and I live half a world away. It helps provide perspective. HiLo48 (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

@Wasted time: I don't understand the connection between the fact that there is a controversy about his tax returns and swing voters in this election. This is a biographical article about Romney. Cwobeel (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If the issue were someone not paying the taxes they owe, and being in trouble with the IRS, then it would be a biographical issue and relevant to someone in any occupation. But that isn't the case here; no one is saying Romney has done anything illegal with his tax returns. The question rather is how many years of tax returns he should make public. Who in American life ever makes their tax returns public? Not business tycoons, not corporate executives, not famous sports stars, not wealthy entertainers, no one. Only a handful of politicians running for high office are ever expected to make their tax returns public. So the question of when to do it and how much to do it is only relevant to a campaign, and the question of whether we describe this in a campaign section depends upon how much importance it has in that campaign. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I have patience. We can wait, but I am certain that the tax returns conundrum will be remembered as pivotal in this election. Cwobeel (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Overnight edits

I made several edits on my iPhone, by cover of darkness. The explanations are in the edit summaries. I hope they will be found acceptable. In any event, I will not be hanging around to find out. I suggest that you utilize the peer review process, which can be very helpful in between good article promotion and featured article promotion. Cheers.198.228.201.159 (talk) 11:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The p-word.

I'm glad to see that the article mentions the Mormon colony in Mexico, but there's a missing word.

It turns out that the only reason these Mormon colonies existed was to continue the practice of polygamy. And, in fact, that's why the Romney's were in Mexico: Miles Park wanted to keep all of his wives and add some more.[5]

I don't think we should go into this in great detail, as it would be distracting and there are other articles for those who want to know more, but I'd like to add the word "polygamous" before "Mormon colony".

I would argue that it's verifiably correct, not undue and improves the article by adding insight. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If you want to include this, include it in the Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints page. Mitt Romney's bio is not the place for this line. It is WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:DUE it does not add anything to this article. The only reason to include it is to make the Mormon church look bad and by extension Mitt Romney for taking a "leadership" position in the Church. Viewmont Viking (talk) 14:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, your response makes no sense whatsoever. This isn't about criticism of Mormonism, it's about explaining -- in one word -- why his family was in Mexico. Instead, you're violating WP:AGF by impugning my motivations, which is reprehensible. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I did not mean to assume bad faith. I do not feel as though it belongs in Romney's biography. This may belong in an article about Romney's Grandfather. Polygamy may have been the original reason the "Mormon" colonies in Mexico existed. However that is NOT the case now. The only reason the State of Utah exists as it does is because of the Mormon church trying to find somewhere they could settle without have an extermination order placed on them. Does that mean we need to mention that every time we mention someone coming from the state of Utah? I see this as an attack on the Church to make Romney look bad and include Polygamy. I see this as giving Undue weight to something that happened over 100 years ago. Viewmont Viking (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Think like a reporter. You only mention things that the reader is unlikely to know. Most Americans have some grasp of Utah history, at least in the broad sense. They know that the Mormons ended up there after being kicked out of every other place they tried to settle, so there's no reason for us to repeat it.

On the other hand, how many Americans have any clue of why there are Mormon colonies in Mexico and Canada? If you exclude educated Mormons and the few million who watch "Big Love", I think it's safe to say that almost nobody does. That's why, in all fairness, we should mention it. It's a single word that's unquestionably true, well-supported and adds genuine insight. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice and the insight. I disagree, with the inclusion, however unless there are no other objections, from other editors, I will make no further arguments against inclusion. Thank you also for taking it to the talk page first. Let us wait a few more hours, for further input. Then if there are no further objection I will not undo any edit to this point. Viewmont Viking (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm absolutely not rushing this change in. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec)This information is irrelevant to the subject of this encyclopedia article. Why a person's ancestors were in a location belongs in the article about the ancestors, not this person. It does not add insight into Mitt Romney as a WP:BLP at all. Of course, this is my opinion, just as your statements are your opinion. 72Dino (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Whether it adds insight depends on what we can expect the reader to know. I've personally had to explain the Mexico thing to a number of my associates who don't happen to be familiar with that chapter of Utah's history. These are people who are more educated in history than the average American, yet they were scratching their heads at it. When I mentioned the p-word, there was an immediate "ah-hah!" reaction as it finally made sense. Their nagging confusion was finally gone.

Based on these experiences, I've come to the conclusion that using the p-word here will likewise dispel at least one confusion that the readers here will have. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The fact that George Romney was born there is also irrelevant to this article about Mitt Romney, who was not born there. I think the information on where his parents were born (both of them) should be removed, too. That would eliminate people being confused about the issue. 72Dino (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, the ancestry of presidential candidates has become a very significant issue. In the last election, we had one candidate who was born outside of the USA proper but, by legal standards, was American-born, while the other was American-born but repeatedly accused of being born in Kenya. That Romney's ancestry includes a diversion into Mexico is of obvious interest, particularly given the issue of how to deal with illegal immigration from that country.

For these reasons, removing the location of his parents' birth would be completely contrary to Wikipedia rules and the quality of this article. On the other hand, I still haven't seen a clear argument given against mentioning in passing just why these Mexican colonies exist. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

In the cases you mentioned (McCain and Obama), those were both issues about the subject of the article, not their ancestors. In the case of Romney, there is no question regarding where he was born. The argument for not including it is because you are adding information irrelevant to the subject of the article. I'm not sure what "Wikipedia rules" you are referring to regarding the location of his parents' birth. 72Dino (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

In the case of Obama, it's his father's ancestry that's the issue. It's been used to cast doubt upon his Christianity, his status as American-born, and more. In the case of Romney, his Mexican ancestry is relevant as it related to illegal immigration from Mexico. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree about Obama, but that's off topic here. In the case of Romney, it has been discussed here numerous times that he does not have Mexican ancestry. His father was born in Mexico of American parents. And illegal immigration issues belong on a campaign WP page, not a biography. 72Dino (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

1. Wait, what do you disagree about regarding Obama? Do you think he was born in Kenya?!
2. Romney unquestionably has Mexican ancestry. He has recent ancestors who were born and raised in Mexico. And that's all it takes. I know that there are bigots out there (and I don't mean you) who think that being Mexican requires being darker-skinned, but that's just not the case.
3. The prominence of the immigration question is one reason why we already mention his Mexican ancestry. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the first question, I personally do not believe in the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. I just want to keep this topic about Romney, not Obama. And regarding ancestry, the consensus at Talk:Mitt Romney/Archive 11#Is Mitt Romney of Mexican descent? is that he is not of Mexican ancestry. I think that is all the time I can devote to the topic. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The included link to the Mormon colonies in Mexico article that notes that the colonists were seeking to escape persecution for practicing polygamy is the best way to include this information. Romney himself has never resided in Mexico, has apparently never sought to portray himself as being of Mexican ethnicity in any way, and has never practiced or promoted the practice of polygamy. So discussion of the Mexican colony's polygamy connection would be putting undue attention on a topic of only tangential interest for Romney's biography. Dezastru (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

We obviously agree that the colonies should be mentioned. What I'm not clear on is your argument for excluding the mention of their reason for existence. Could you state it? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It's off-topic. As I was trying to explain in the previous post, Romney himself has no direct connection with Mexico or polygamy, so there is no reason to elaborate within his biography on these topics. Dezastru (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

@24-45-42-125, Chiming in. No to this topic. A) It's irrelevant. Why? Romney has no current connection to the Mormon colonies other than being distant cousins. It's one thing to work on an article talking about the Mormon colonies regarding the Pratt-Romney family but including it in a Mitt Romney article is a bit unnecessary. People have tried to imply the whole "Romney is a Mexican" but without any good evidence other than his grandfather supposedly getting Mexican citizenship which even then would have stopped at George Romney (should he have decided to taken on Mexican citizenship) since Mitt Romney was not born in Mexico nor did he live there at all in his life with George Romney. B) It's more relevant in the George Romney article because he dropped out of the Presidential race back in the 70's because of questions about his being born in Mexico. C) Polygamy has no bearing whatsoever on Mitt Romney's history other than the fact he's related to Helaman Pratt through Anna Amelia Pratt (who married Gaskell Romney, father of George Romney) but as for any members of the Romney family that went to Mexico, none of them were polygamist. Now his great-grandfather, Miles Romney, on the other hand did marry three women but did not go to Mexico instead went to Arizona. ViriiK (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Unless there's some new kind of birther, nobody's claiming Romney's a Mexican. He's American-born and is legally qualified to serve as President. Having said that, there's no question that he's of Mexican ancestry.

Now, if we just said his ancestors came from Mexico, that would be misleading, because Mexico was just a side trip for his family, a place they went to in order to escape American laws that they refused to follow.

For that matter, his family didn't move back to America even after polygamy was no longer an issue. They moved only when the events of the Mexican revolution compelled them to, showing that they had developed roots there.

This is why we already mention the Mormon colonies. As for polygamy, you're simply mistaken about its importance.[6][ http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,254362,00.html]. It keeps coming up, so we can't pretend that it's some secret that we're digging up here. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. He's not of Mexican ancestry. There is no one in his family that are ethnically Mexican. George Romney was born in Mexico of American parents but as far as citizenship goes, he had the right to receive one but to imply that he is ethically Mexican is 100% false and inaccurate. There are many ethnic groups in Mexico and Romney has no heritage to any of those. His distant cousins may because I wouldn't be surprised if they had married some of the Mexican locals. I'm not mistaken about its importance. That's exactly what it is, it's irrelevant. You wanted to insert the whole polygamy discussion but none of the Romney family that went to Mexico did it to conduct polygamy. Gaskell Romney certainly didn't. ViriiK (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to be "ethnically Mexican" to be of "Mexican descent". There is no question that his father was born in Mexico, and that's sufficient. There are many ethnic groups in Mexico, and Mormons are one of them. As for why they moved to Mexico, there's also no doubt that it was to allow them to continue to practice polygamy. These are simple facts; you don't get to disagree with them, and if your opinion is based on rejecting these facts then your opinion has no weight. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That's your definition. There were only 5 categories in the 1921 census taken at the time and "Mormons" certainly wasn't one of them. These are the simple facts; you don't get to disagree with them, and if your opinion is based on rejecting these facts then your opinion has no weight. See how I turned that around on you? Now Romney is not an ethnic Mexican by any legal definition. Another thing I noticed is that you linked me an old article back from 2007 making this a very OLD issue here. Another thing I'm still trying to understand here is what does polygamy have to do with Mitt Romney's current life other than the fact he's related to Miles Romney and Helaman Pratt? Nothing. Here's a fun fact, I'm related to the Tanner Family of Utah which some settled in the Mormon colonies of Mexico & Canada (Cardston) but I in no way practice polygamy nor do I have any intentions of doing so. I'm no different from Mitt Romney in this case because polygamy has no bearing on my life nor does it on his. ViriiK (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, that does explain your conflict of interest. As for the rest, it's already been refuted. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

There's a wikipedia rule around here stating because I supposedly have a "conflict of interest" therefore I must abstain from the conversation? Again, explain why you want to discuss this. What does Mitt Romney have to do with polygamy other than being related to those two men? ViriiK (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Does not belong and was consciously omitted by me, just as a discussion of the polygamy background behind the Mexican colonies was consciously written by me into the George W. Romney article. Why the difference? Because George's life was directly affected by being born in Mexico, coming to the U.S. as a displaced person and struggling for years, being teased about being Mexican, etc. So explaining why he was came from Mexico in the first place is important. Mitt, on the other hand, was born into affluence in Michigan, has never been affected by this aspect of history, is three generations removed from any polygamous forebears, has never visited his distant relatives in Mexico. No connection at all. And the idea that having tangentially mentioned the Mormon colonies, we have to explain why they existed, is silly. That's what the blue links are for. We also mention the Vietnam War without explaining what it was about, we mention the policies of Reagan and Bush 41 without saying what they were, we mention abortion without describing why it is such a hot-button issue, and so forth. There is no rationale for adding polygamy to this article (and a big rationale against it if you known anything about his article's history in the 2007-2008 period). It would be better to take out the tangential mentions of George's and Lenore's places of birth than to drag polygamy into here. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

LDS church

Greetings. Collect, I am reverting your revert of my addition because it is sourced to Vanity Fair which whoever wrote this article used as a source for most of the paragraph. If you would like to look this up, it's on page 2. I didn't come here to start an edit war, only to state the obvious for which we have a good reference. My addition makes perfect sense in context. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

And I'm reverting it as well. It implies that only men are members of the church which they're not. ViriiK (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't "imply" any such thing (just to you perhaps). Here is a quote from LDS Handbook for Administering the Church in the chapter "Melchizedek Priesthood": "The priesthood is the power and authority of God. It is conferred upon worthy male members of the Church." (Source is lds.org.) Also Wikipedia's article The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says in the lead: "Worthy male members, after reaching age 12, may be ordained to the priesthood. Women do not hold positions within the priesthood, but may occupy leadership roles in Church auxiliary organizations." -SusanLesch (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Susan on this. It's a good source, she hasn't misused it, and adding the words 'male-dominated' doesn't impart a POV either for or against Romney. Susan, perhaps it would be helpful to import the relevant bit of verbiage into your citation using the quote parameter. Belchfire (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Belchfire. I can try the quote parameter tomorrow. Also here is a fourth supporting source: Wikipedia's article about "Ordination of women". -SusanLesch (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The information you brought up from the "LDS Handbook for Administering in the Church" mentions the priesthood, however the priesthood is not the whole church. There are many women in leadership positions in the Church. Even though this may not be a POV either for or against Romney, it is a POV issues against the mormon church. Viewmont Viking (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand what your issue is here. A) It's an editorial/opinion piece meaning anything goes! B) It's a POV issue. If you go to the Wikipedia for the church, is it going to say "Male-dominated"? What about Catholics? Should we start labeling all of John F Kennedy's article with "Male-dominated catholic church"? ViriiK (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Only if JFK acted in some official role of the Catholic Church, which I don't believe he ever did, would this even come up. The paragraph is here only because Romney took a leadership position and then had to deal with the women of LDS who bothered to question. I was raised Episcopalian and am happy to say that the presiding bishop in the United States today is a woman, Katharine Jefferts Schori. That didn't happen without discussion. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Both JFK and Romney sought nominations from political parties that are de facto male-dominated (in the sense that males always seem to get the nominations), and of course the presidency itself Is male-dominated in the same sense. Not that I wish it were so; it would be great to have female leaders, with the usual caveat: that they are fully competent (as many are) and agree with my politics (as many do). But I don't agree that this type of Wikipedia article is the correct forum.198.228.201.149 (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Some thoughts:

• "Male-dominated" can be interpreted in more than one way. ViriiK appears to have initially (mis)interpreted it in terms of population, as if "the male-dominated church" implied incorrectly that males greatly outnumber females. It can also mean a balance of institutional power or control, which is what the Vanity Fair article appears to aim at, and which fits the text into which SusanLesch inserted the term. It can also mean a system of repression or coercion by males, which is a view that some people hold of the church but (per WP:NPOV) would not be appropriate to state in Wikipedia's voice. This last interpretation is perhaps what Collect objected to, though that's just a guess on my part.
• The Vanity Fair article immediately explains its use of the term as referring to the church's practice of restricting priesthood offices (especially the bishop and stake president offices) to males. Importing the term without the accompanying clarification into this article leads to the ambiguity problem mentioned above.
• It's not clear to me what additional clarity the term "male-dominated" provides here, especially in light of the ways it can be misinterpreted by a reader. At the very least, it needs to be phrased less ambiguously. But if that cannot be done without violating WP:DUE, it might be best to omit it and let the context of the paragraph (with relevant wikilinks) speak for itself. alanyst 19:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I did not misinterpret it in any way. Without reading the Vanity Fair article, it could imply a disproportionate population to the average user. We're talking common readers here, not wikipedia users here so people aren't up to tune in associating "patriarchy" with male-dominated. Plus the "male-dominated" phrase is buried in page 2 making it not easy to find if one were to actually read the source. A majority of people on the internet do not read, they skim. So yes, it would be a violation of WP:DUE. Another thing is that I don't get is how it improves on a Mitt Romney article when that term would be better used over at the church's wikipedia article. One other thing is that it could also imply that Mitt Romney had something to do with the policy regulating the Priesthood of the church. ViriiK (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, where a fact is in a multi-page web site story is completely immaterial to our using it as a source. There is no requirement that sources be in one page or even online. That's like saying 20 years ago that you couldn't use a newspaper source if the fact is past the continuation onto a different page. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with SusanLesch's change, but I'm also okay with it being out. I think most readers will understand the existing text ("Romney tried to balance the conservative dogma insisted upon by the church leadership in Utah with the desire of some Massachusetts members to have a more flexible application of doctrine.[66] He agreed with some modest requests from the liberal women's group Exponent II for changes in the way the church dealt with women, but clashed with women whom he felt were departing too much from doctrine.[66]") to mean that the LDS Church leadership has been male-dominated and patriarchal when it comes to gender roles. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I support Susan's change because it accurately reflects the LDS "separate but equal" policy in which men (and some boys) have the priesthood and women have (as a consolation prize) motherhood.[7] Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Please don't use this article (or talk page) as a soapbox. alanyst 03:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If you want to include this, include it in the Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints page. Mitt Romney's bio is not the place for this line. It is WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:DUE it does not add anything to this article. The only reason to include it is to make the Mormon church look bad and by extension Mitt Romney for taking a "leadership" position in the Church. As for John Kennedy not holding an official role in the Catholic church argument. I do not consider these the same things. The Catholic church sets up their "leadership" in a much different way than the Mormon church.

Bishop (Latter Day Saints) and Stake Presidents are lay clergy. My understanding is most Catholic Priests and Bishops are not.

You do not ask to serve as Bishop, you are called, you can choose to decline, but again you do not ask.

There are many woman serving in the Church. See Relief Society.

One last thing, try looking at it through the lens of if this were in added into the Barack Obama main biography would it be permitted to stay. Obama was baptized at the Trinity United Church of Christ, a black liberation church, in 1988, and was an active member at this male dominated church for two decades. Would anyone allow this to be inserted into President Obama's main biography page. There is no way, and it should not be. Same with Mitt Romney, it should not be included in his main biography page. Viewmont Viking (talk) 06:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

We're supposed to be working here to get OBama elected. Even though "male dominated" has nothing to do with the subject of the article, it is an unpopular / negative term in US culture, and so will make Romneny look bad so we should put it in anyway. North8000 (talk) 12:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

We are? I thought we were accurately reporting on Romney's background. We're not responsible for how popular male-controlled organizations are. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I think our mission here is to make Romney look bad so that Obama gets re-elected. So bad-sounding stuff should go in, even if it really isn't about him. North8000 (talk) 14:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, that may be your mission, but it's not mine and it's not Wikipedia's. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to refrain because User:Wasted Time R said the article makes the same sense without the "male-dominated" modifier (which I inserted to clarify what was already here) and because I don't want to argue with you guys. By the way, drawing JFK and Obama into this discussion makes absolutely no sense (unless you know that either one held office in a church). The United Church of Christ, of which President Obama was a member as User:Viewmont Viking decided to say above, ordained Antoinette Brown Blackwell in 1853. (Source is ucc.org.). -SusanLesch (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Political positions and public perceptions

This section does not represent a good and balanced summary of Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney. It is a bit of a whitewash, IMO, with the exception of the Romnyecare/Obamacare comparison. For example, there is no summary on Romney's change of heart on climate change, immigration, and other key policies. Cwobeel (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The section does not attempt to be a summary of the individual positions given at Political positions of Mitt Romney. The whole reason for those separate political positions subarticles is to present positions and stances fairly, with nuance and context and timeline intact, instead of in oversimplified one sentence summaries. This is especially true for anyone accused of being a flip-flopper – even John Kerry's infamous "I voted for it before I voted against it" remark makes some sense once you realize the context it happened in in the Senate.

This main article section instead tries to give some general description of his political ideology and approach to issues. It's not just this article that does this; look at FA John McCain#Political positions or GA Joe Biden#Political positions or GA Hillary Rodham Clinton#Political positions or GA Ted Kennedy#Political positions for example. All of these articles have separate political positions subarticles that deal with positions on individual issues, and then the main article section tries to give a more general overview. Now, it's easier for those examples, because they were all in Congress and cast a lot of votes and have a bunch of ratings that various journals and interest groups have given them, that serve as a way of describing their positions and ideology. With someone who was only a governor, there are no such votes and no such ratings. And with Romney, it's especially challenging, because of his history in this regard. But that's what the section tries to do.

Yes, two specific sets of issues were covered in this section anyway. The switch on abortion is one, because it was the price of admission to the 2008 Republican primaries. And health care is an obvious choice because it is the biggest accomplishment of Romney's term as governor, because it's one of the top two or three national issues, and because taking a pretty ludicrous stance (great innovation for a state! unconscionable abuse of power for a country!) was the price of admission to the 2012 Republican primaries. Once you get past those, I think it's better to let the subarticle handle the rest.

Finally, as to whitewashing, it's hard for me to see that. Read the fourth, fifth, and sixth paragraphs again. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

"The section does not attempt to be a summary of the individual positions given at Political positions of Mitt Romney. " Well, it should! You can read WP:SUMMARY Cwobeel (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This deliberately departs from that practice, as do other articles, in order to make a better set of articles for the reasons stated above. You can read WP:COMMON and WP:IAR. We aren't sheep here :-) Wasted Time R (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

If that is the case, then this section is completely non-neural. I will add a non-neutral tag, so as to alert other contributors to help make the section neutral. Cwobeel (talk) 03:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Please help make this section neutral, by adding Romney's evolution on key issues, such as whether humans contribute to global warming, gun policy, economic stimulus, the no-tax pledge, on TARP, on gay marriage, on his view of Reagan-Bush policies, on immigration, and so on. Thank you. Cwobeel (talk) 03:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There is an entire article just for Romney's political positions. This is his biography - no politics are needed other than a narrative of what offices he's held or run for. The section that's there now can be knocked down to 1/4 the size it is now without hurting the article. Belchfire (talk) 03:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I was just responding to Wasted Time R' argument, but I agree fully with you. Go ahead and do it! Cwobeel (talk) 03:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

When I'm finished with my current project, I probably will. Belchfire (talk) 04:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like people are not saying that this section is slanted, but rather that it is too long. I'll modify the template accordingly. If you really want to shorten this section, probably the first step would be to copy it all to the sub-article so that none of the material is lost.198.228.201.160 (talk) 06:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

These arguments don't add up to me. Whether the section in this article tries to summarize Romney's political positions by describing all of them briefly, or tries to summarize them by describing the basis for Romney's positions in general, is a matter of organizational strategy, not a matter of neutrality. You can do either approach well and give a neutral treatment or you can do either approach poorly and give a non-neutral treatment. So putting a neutrality tag on this section, when no lack of neutrality in the approach taken has been demonstrated, is not appropriate. As for not discussing this material at all - the idea that this article should be solely about offices held or run for, with no description of positions taken or of general evolution of positions - that seems kind of empty to me. It would be like an article about a musician that described all the albums she released and the chart positions she attained, without ever describing the themes of her albums. Even if the album articles went into themes, the main article would still be lacking. As for length, the 'agreement' between Cwobeel and Belchfire doesn't make sense to me. You're going to reduce this section to 1/4 its current size and at the same time include a fair and neutral description of all of Romney's positions on all the issues that Cwobeel wants mentioned? The current section is 1,363 words. The current material in it on the abortion and other social views shift, and on Romneycare/Obamacare, both of which Cwobeel would presumably want to maintain (having already praised the latter), is 386 words. That's 28 percent right there. No room for anything else. Does not compute. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

We're mostly thinking along the same lines - in terms of organization. The key question is: How much material should we keep in the bio when there are articles available for both of Romney's presidential campaigns plus one dedicated to his political views? What's the point of repeating 1000+ words of content? And how credible is our encyclopedia if one or more of these articles conflicts with the others? The obvious fix is compartmentalization. Furthermore, we run serious risk of a POVFORK if we allow multiple articles to contain too much of the same material. We have the groundwork in place for a logical division that is highly workable - bio, campaign histories, political platforms. But if drive-by POV warriors are allowed to continually expand the articles beyond their scope, we'll wind up with a freaking mess. We're well on our way to that now, if it isn't brought under control. Belchfire (talk) 11:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Your general concerns are a valid criticism of WP:Summary style's requirement for summary sections and one I sometimes worry about. I don't know if you have any computer science background, but WP's article content is an absolute disaster when looked at in terms of database normalization. The same information and relationships between information are often represented using separate instances of text in multiple different articles, with the obvious and real possibilities of inconsistencies, anomalies, errors, and so forth. But in terms of the specific summary section in question, I think there is actually very little overlap between it and Political positions of Mitt Romney. They are approaching the subject from two different perspectives. To me that's one of the advantages of the current section. As for the scope of the section, it's been pretty much the same since I first wrote it up a couple of years ago; it's not a result of out of control editing. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

My point exactly! If there is no overlap, that is a problem. Nothing should appear in the political section of this article if it is not covered in the more detailed article about Romney's politics. In this environment, the only plausible way to control that is to pare this one down to bare bone, and funnel the detailed coverage into a central location. Belchfire (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

My point is that we can't present this aspect from two different perspectives, otherwise this will become a WP:POVFORK. So, we need make this section a very short paragraph referring back to the full article of the Political positions or make this section better representative of that article. Cwobeel (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

One way to make this section better representative would be to copy this section into the sub-article. Also, merely because an article and a sub-article are edited by different editors and evolve in different directions does not necessarily mean that either one is non-neutral. If one of them is non-neutral, it could be the sub-article instead of this article. So, I object to the POV tag; a "very long" tag seems more than adequate. Also, including third-party opinions about the positions is rarely useful, so they ought to be eliminated from both articles.198.228.201.144 (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

"including third-party opinions about the positions is rarely useful" - On the contrary ... the only way to have a neutral article is to report what different sources say about the subject. As for the POV tag, I know it is not "nice", but I think the whole idea is to prompt contributors to make an effort and correct the section. Cwobeel (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to POV tags when there's a real POV issue, regardless of whether the tag is nice or not. But here the "very long" tag is more accurate, and is sufficient to get users motivated to fix the problem. I admit that a big swastika might get users more motivated, but it would hardly be accurate. Third-party reporting is fine, but reportage is not the same as opinion, and we could do without the latter.198.228.201.152 (talk) 02:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I follow your thinking about the POV tag, but I question the propriety of placing it pre-emptively. I wonder if it wouldn't make more sense to put a hidden HTML comment in the text, cautioning partisan editors that they are being watched closely and that any horse do-do they insert is likely to be quickly reverted. Belchfire (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, following your last edit, I'm going to agree with you. I endorse the need for and the appropriateness of the section tags that are there now. Belchfire (talk) 02:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'm conceding on this. I still think my approach had merit even if a little unorthodox, but I have to admit that no one else over the last two years was equally enthusiastic about it, and now there's this discussion. I've taken a little bit from the very start of the section that deals with Romney's politics pre-1994 and moved it up to the bio section, where it works just as well. I've nuked everything else and removed the tags. So you guys now have a clean slate to work with for whatever you want to put here. Good luck, and I mean that sincerely. I can't remember the last time I deleted an entire section I had done all the writing on, so don't say I've never done anything for ya :-) Wasted Time R (talk) 04:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, well done, I admire your courage to delete that long section. I just added the short lede from the sub-article as a start. Cwobeel (talk) 04:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It needed to be done. The section was approaching article-length, and we already have an article covering the topic. Now, the trick will be to keep it sufficiently short so as not to weigh down the rest of the biography. Belchfire (talk) 04:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)