Talk:Mitt Romney/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

Salary

The sentence starts with:

During his leave of absence, Romney continued to be listed in filings to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission as "sole shareholder, sole director, Chief Executive Officer and President"

The disputed section is at the end:

and continued to receive a salary of at least $100,000 from Bain Capital.

Now, I can't imagine how someone could keep a straight face while saying his salary while on leave is irrelevant, so I'd love to hear a legitimate and compelling reason to hide this fact. Ball's in your court. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Mainly because it is general practice for a person "on leave" to be paid. Thus it is a totally non-exceptional situation for us to give weight to. Teachers on sabbatical? Paid. Policemen on suspension? Paid. Businessmen on leave to teach at universities? Paid. Ministers on sabbatical? Paid. What is remarkable is the small amount involved at this point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea if it's good or bad. It may well be standard practice in such situations. I don't think we should try to prejudge this, just report it at face value. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, it's general practice for people on leave to not be paid. (And comparing Romney's situation to a minister or teacher on sabbatical, or to a police officer on suspension, is comparing apples to oranges.) Regardless, whether his leave was paid or unpaid is highly relevant information in understanding the nature of his relationship with Bain during the period. Agree that this information should be reported so that the reader may draw his or her own conclusions. Dezastru (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, I added the word "paid" for precisely the reason you mentioned. I'd prefer that the dollar amount be mentioned, as it establishes that it wasn't some token payment (unless you think that $100k is just a token for someone as rich as Romney). I'd be glad to add it back in, but I'm not interested in an edit war. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the dollar amount should be mentioned. Dezastru (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

To avoid the perception of an edit war, I'm not going to make this change, but I believe that you are free to do so and I encourage you to go ahead. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the 100 grand, I'm not sure "salary" is the correct word. The source doesn't use that word: "And Romney's state financial disclosure forms indicate he earned at least $100,000 as a Bain executive� in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings." He still gets money from Bain separate from investment earnings, as this Wikipedia article describes: "a passive profit share as a retired partner in some Bain Capital entities, including buyout and investment funds.[73][89] Because the private equity business continued to thrive, this deal brings him millions of dollars in annual income."198.228.201.161 (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The payment of $100,000 was not a dividend or investment earning. Cwobeel (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, if we don't know whether the 2001-2002 money was a profit share or salary, we should probably not say it was salary.198.228.201.156 (talk) 23:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
That seems fair. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Given that we don't describe Romney's yearly income in any of the years in which he was actively working at Bain Capital, it is poor writing to suddenly give (part of? all of?) his yearly income in the years in which he was not actively working. Yes, it's a "fact", but it makes no sense to include it. It's like not giving a player's batting average for most of his career as a star, then suddenly giving it during the final two seasons he spent on the bench. There's no frame of reference to process it with. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I made an article edit with the edit summary "There". For some reason, the rest of the edit summary was cut off. I meant to say: "There's no need to give the $100,000 figure twice. See the last paragraph of the section.". The last paragraph if the section talks about him still getting "millions" from Bain.198.228.201.147 (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd also remind people that this 'separation from Bain Capital' matter has been kicking around in the media for three weeks now (first Mother Jones story on July 2), and there is still no evidence that Romney played an active role in any Bain Capital decisions after February 1999. If it stays that way, then the details of the 1999-2002 period are a technicality of no great significance and can be relegated to a Note. It's far better to spend the article space on what Romney did do, good bad or indifferent, during the years up until 1999 when he really was running the show. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

A note sounds good. He who suggests writes.198.228.201.147 (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I will, once the story has totally faded away. I also have to reduce the number of, and correctly format, the cites used for this. Right now the article wouldn't pass GA standards, much less FA. But I'm not going to do any of that until I'm sure it won't get reverted. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
"There's no need to give the $100,000 figure twice. See the last paragraph of the section." — I had missed that other mention of the salary in the recent run of edits until you pointed it out just now. Leaving a single mention in that paragraph is fine. Dezastru (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no need to list it at all as it adds nothing and the reason is clear because of the editorialization of "Still substantial". No one knows the context of what this was, it was pulled from the SEC filings, so let us not try to imply what the context was. Arzel (talk) 02:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Arzel, you're edit-warring. You absolutely do not have any sort of consensus for this change and you're jumping the gun by cutting the $100,000 out of the article. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No, he isn't. You are not the arbitrator of what is what and what is not. In fact, you're the one with the impression that there must be consensus to remove, not consensus to change. Sorry buddy, doesn't work that way. ViriiK (talk) 02:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, we talked about restoring the $100k here and came to a consensus. And then Arzel came along and edit-warred. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Consensus reopened. No. There, we don't have consensus. I'm sorry but your attitude here at Wikipedia is bad especially given how you go ahead and accuse people of vandalism so easily. Why do I say this? You admit "I'm less patient" therefore you will hastily wrap up conclusions and say "CONSENSUS HAS BEEN REACHED!" How about Wasted comment on this instead? He does a far better job than you ever would. ViriiK (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm really not interested in this sort of comparison. I'm here to focus on the article. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Of course you're not. I just call into question of your standards. You are particularly interested in ignoring just about a lot of rules that are set for on Wikipedia. You have rashly accused people of edit-warring just as you do here, you try to make the final say yourself when that is not your right to do so, you do not work well with other editors here and at other articles such as User:Belchfire. ViriiK (talk) 03:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Good to know, but how does it relate to the bad decision behind removing the $100k figure? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Now it's a bad decision? Just because you disagree does not make an editor's change a bad decision. ViriiK (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
This is nonsense. if there is stuff that is not worded neutrally, make an effort and re-write it for neutrality, but please don't delete it outright. These are facts and facts can be described as such. Cwobeel (talk) 03:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I didn't revert the change. The problem is here is that User:Still-24-45-42-125 believes that every change that was reverted or modified contrary to his wishes is his definition of edit-warring or vandalism. He has used this accusation at other pages and here quite easily. Just as he tried to interject the whole polygamy nonsense in this article when it didn't belong at all and tried to exclude me he accused me of having a "conflict of interest" contrary to the rules set forth by WP:COI although I am in no way related to Mitt Romney nor do I have any association with him in the real world. If he can throw disparaging terms or accusations around easily, I can call him a bad editor then. ViriiK (talk) 03:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I generally support Cwobeel's recent changes. In particular, their use of the POV tag is appropriate. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This AP piece from yesterday is the best report I've seen yet on the level of activity Romney had at Bain Capital during his leave of absence. The first two paragraphs give the conclusions, the rest is the detail reporting behind it. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Current State of Residence?

In what state does Romney Reside? In what state did Romney vote in 2012? In what state did Romney file state tax returns?68.48.204.94 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Massachusetts. As the article states: "Romney maintained his voting registration in Massachusetts, however, and bought a smaller condominium in Belmont during 2010.[257][260][nb 15]" That's no doubt where his state taxes are filed as well. The California and New Hampshire ones are alternates and for vacations. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent edit by ‎Still-24-45-42-125

Still, if you are going to claim BRD on edits like this you better damn well come here and discuss, and your understanding of WP:BRD is severely misunderstood. It is not to make pointy comments like this "the spirit of BRD, I'm restoring this to see who actually objects. Please only revert if you're willing to explain why in Talk". Your continued misuse of WP policies is quite distressing. Arzel (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a hostile and pointless response, as I did open up a section to discuss this topic. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I was in the process of creating this section when you did, but your approach does not change that you don't understand the purpose of BRD. Read the discussion on the archives and attempt to bring forward that way. Arzel (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Still-24, you have been misrepresenting and misusing BRD. North8000 (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
No, actually, I haven't. If you think so, you'll need to explain how and why. If you won't, then there's no reason to listen to you. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, the first area is obvious in 1 second; you are violating the core sequence defined by it. North8000 (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't find that convincing at all. The point of BRD is that nothing short of making that bold edit is going to get people who disagree with it to pay attention. It's better to edit first, even if it gets reverted, than to try to find people willing to discuss it. By reverting, you put yourself in a position where you are obligated to discuss. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
You are miles off and just firing volleys. There's no dialog happening here, so I'm signing off on this thread... North8000 (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, yes, if you walk away, there will be no dialog. Self-fulfilling prophecy, really. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Separation from Bain Capital

Our article currently states that Romney left Bain Capital in 1999. The Boston Globe reported today that federal filings suggest that Romney remained "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president" of Bain Capital through at least 2002 ([1]). I'm not going to rush this into the article, per WP:NOT#NEWS, but would be interest in some thoughts about how to handle this. I think at the very least we should acknowledge the conflicting reports about when Romney actually left Bain, but it's possible that additional sources will come to light over the next few days/weeks which will clarify the issue. Thoughts? MastCell Talk 17:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the wisest course of action might be to wait say a week or so and see what comes of it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm fine with that, although I do wonder if we should at least allude to the lack of clarity for now. MastCell Talk 19:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I think that defeats the purpose of WP:NOT#NEWS. Arzel (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
He was still CEO/Chairman/President until 2002 but Romney and Bain say he left active management of the firm during that time. Same way Steve Jobs was still CEO of Apple even if he wasn't active CEO during some of his cancer treatment.Froo (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it was quite the same as that. Arzel (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering why this was a topic at all since I found an article discussing the issue. Apparently it is campaign material being distributed by Obama's presidential campaign claiming that he was still at the head of the company and trying to allege a felony here. Then I saw an article by the WaPo discussing this [[2]]. I understand it's a blog but there's also a statement from Bain Capital [[3]] and from what I understand, Bain was required by the SEC to report who owned the company because otherwise it would have been illegal to omit this fact. I'd say it's a non-issue. ViriiK (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
This already was raised above in the #Romney Invested in Medical-Waste Firm That Disposes of Aborted Fetuses, Government Documents Show section, but yes it keep percolating. Our article currently states "Romney took a leave of absence from Bain Capital in February 1999 to serve as the President and CEO of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games Organizing Committee.[52][79] ... In August 2001, Romney announced that he would not return to Bain Capital.[79] He transferred his ownership to other partners and negotiated an agreement that allowed him to receive a passive profit share as a retired partner in some Bain Capital entities, including buyout and investment funds.[71][80]" I think this is consistent with the facts, although we could certainly add per this Boston Globe story that his separation from the firm was made final in 2002 (haven't seen precisely what month). Someone on a leave of absence will often still be on the books and the person of record for official filings and things like that, even if they aren't really involved. So the question becomes, did he actively participate in Bain Capital affairs after Feb 1999? This Mother Jones piece says yes, while this FactCheck.org piece says no. Given the split, at this point I think it's best to pass and for further developments. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Per what I said, I've added "His separation from the firm was finalized in 2002;[80]" to the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Was reading this thread. Thought I'd add this link to the pot:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/12/mitt-romney-bain-capital-live
According to the guardian, the boston globe is standing by the accuracy of their report and refusing the retraction that was requested by the romney campaign. They say they have official SEC filings that list Romney as "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president" of Bain until 2002. " And that they have state level financial disclosure forms which indicate that Romney was paid by Bain as an executive in 2001 and 2002. Guardian also claims that AP is picking up the story with another set of newly described documents. I don't think either the Mother Jones article or the Fact Check article are really relevant as they predate this new information. But clearly things are changing so quickly that nothing should go into the WP article until the facts get sorted out. 75.84.186.29 (talk) 02:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that the BG apparently also looked at one of the Bain investment funds ("VBain Capital VI") which is not the same as "Bain Capital" as a corporation. [4] Collect (talk) 11:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Under no circumstances should we "he said she said" between the Boston Globe and the Mercatus Center. One is a relatively unbiased fair source. The other is a "think tank affiliated with the Koch family." Hipocrite (talk) 11:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
And, as an additional note, reviewing the document, shockingly enough, the Mercatus Center failed to review the entire document (IE, wrong). The 13-d in question is [5]. Search it for "Bain Investors VI." Oh, obviously they are right! He was only the CEO of one fund. Unless you go down one paragraph - "Mr. W. Mitt Romney is the sole shareholder, sole director, Chief Executive Officer and President of Bain Capital and thus is the controlling person of Bain Capital." Hipocrite (talk) 11:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Who cares about the whole "Koch" source. The Koch's has been attacked constantly and have been accused of being masterminds behind just about everything when that wasn't the case. It is true that Romney was the sole shareholder as he left Bain Capital rather suddenly to go manage the Olympics. When they interviewed him the job, he left the firm 9 days later [6] Unfornately Mother Jones accused Romney of managing the Stericycle deal although the only people listed for managing the investment were Thomas R. Reusche and John P. Connaughton. In the same document, Mark C. Miller is listed as "President, Chief Executive Officer and Director" [7] and this is a 1999 document which is the same one that Mother Jones has been using to bolster their argument. Another article by CNN [8] comes up with more reasoning to support Romney's argument and Bain's statement regarding Romney's role in the company. Right now, people are arguing over schematics and trying to navigate the mess of SEC filings just to try and find one gotcha line. ViriiK (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The BG is a contested source and in no way should be used as a final factual say in the matter. Furthermore, as Collect stated, the BG is clueless about the difference between Bain Capital and Cain Capital IV. Arzel (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think anyone has proposed using the Globe as the "final factual say" in the matter. It is a reliable source, so it's not really OK to just excise an uncontroversial fact (that Romney's separation was finalized in 2002) with the edit summary "contested source". If other reliable sources reach different conclusions, we can summarize them as well. In the end, it's hard to disentangle the facts from the dueling campaign narratives, so I think the right course of action is a simple factual annotation (Wasted Time R's edit works for me) and further attention once the news cycle has moved on and the situation is clearer. MastCell Talk 16:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
A source which implies that he is lying is not a valid source when factchecking of those statements shows the BG to be wrong. Arzel (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Except that fact checking the fact checker shows the fact checker was wrong, and all. Hipocrite (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
BS. http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/07/factcheckorg-little-new-in-globe-story-128751.html Arzel (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I see you've shifted arguments away from the failed "Bain Investors VI." Your new argument is that the "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president," is not the same as "actually managing." Hey, that's fine - the article dosen't go into the quibbles about how he left and what was involved with leaving. What is, apparently, at this point, undisputed is that he was "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president," until 2002, correct? Hipocrite (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I stand by the fact that while officially he was a sole stockholder of the management company during the transition, he was not actively managing any part of Bain Capital at the time. We have factchecker verifing this, and you are wrong about them being wrong. I realize the left is trying to mislead on this given it is the political season, but that is no reason for editors here to push that POV crap as well. Arzel (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
No POV is being pushed by linking to reliable sources and stating "His separation from the firm was finalized in 2002." Perhaps you should seek consensus on this talk page before reverting yet again? Hipocrite (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually I do agree with Arzel. Right now it's coming out that the entire thing is in its entirety is false and it just comes across as politics as usual trying to get something to stick. 1. [9] 2. [10] 3. [11] - 3 Democratic members of Bain Capital says that Romney did not have any role after his 1999 departure. I would take a breather, Hipocrate. ViriiK (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any POV problem with what Hipocrite is trying to keep in. Nowhere in that text does it say Romney actively ran Bain into 2002. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
No, but all of those sources are saying that, sutble POV pushing to be sure, but still POV pushing. Arzel (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/12/mitt-romney-bain-departure_n_1669006.html Romney's sworn testimony was given as part of a hearing to determine whether he had sufficient residency status in Massachusetts to run for governor.

So Romney either lied about his qualifications to run for governor or is lying now. Hcobb (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Or neither and you're the one making that judgment. ViriiK (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Writing article and 'making judgment' what to write is indispensable. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Welcome back 99., he defined the goal posts here and he has to maintain a NPOV per the rules of Wikipedia. Something you should read up on, WP:NPOV. Also it's 'making that judgment' just so you know how to quote people correctly, you can't shorten people's statements. ViriiK (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
We should not be using the Huffington Post as a source for this kind of stuff. If this is a real issue, it will get picked up by more reliable sources. There's no deadline, and no reason to rush poorly sourced material into the article. MastCell Talk 17:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
All this goes to show just how absolutely clueless the left is on how business' are run. This is not like working for a company and quitting your job, when you are a primary stockholder in a company you can't just divest yourself overnight. Arzel (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
This is not helpful. Do you have any new information to add to the discussion? 128.97.68.15 (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
What is not helpful is the number of editors using WP for political purposes. Here is a better more current source backing up the claim, it also mentions the stericycle controversy that a few editors tried to insert recently.....it is all making sense now! http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/12/politics/john-king-bain/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 Arzel (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Whether the edits are politically motivated or not is somewhat irrelevant as long as they're factual, notable, and written with NPOV. Which is a good thing for you. If that was not the case, your blanket statements insulting the left(and revealing your political motivations) would disqualify you from wikipedia.
One clarification on "Bain Capital VI". The VI is meant as roman numeral 6. Fund 6 was created as a limited partnership in 1998, but private equity funds are actively managed for many years after their formation.(Until they can close out the investments). The "smoking gun" documents that are being reported by the Boston Globe and Huffington post show Romney listed as chief executive for fund 6 while the statements that Fortune claims contradict the Globe story indicate that Romney was not the CEO for fund 7.(fund 7 was formed in 2000) The relevant political question(with respect to Romney's responsibility for failures and outsourcing), probably hinge on whether the failed investments were in fund 7 or later(when romney was not listed as CEO in 1999-2002) or in fund 6 or earlier(when Romney was listed as CEO in 1999-2002).128.97.68.15 (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's yet more sourcing on this, in an article with links to the confirmation all over the place. http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/07/bain-hes-drowning-not-waving-ctd.html Hcobb (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The Sullivan piece isn't worth the electrons its written on. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. IMO at this point none of the coverage is reliable. At the present time the only way to handle this would be to construct something along the lines of "The BG reported... while the WaPo contradicted... which was substantiated by ... yet contradicted by ..." This is not the way to write an encyclopedia. – Lionel (talk) 01:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Sullivan is a pure advocacy writer, and skilled at that, but worthless as a source. There aren't really any contradictions between the good sources - it's clear that Romney was listed on paper as still having his titles (which is consistent with taking a leave of absence), but so far there is no direct evidence of him being active in any business decisions of the firm after February 1999. Until there is, this article should stand pat. As MastCell said, WP:TIND. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
That isn't entirely accurate. Romney and his Lawyer stated that he was still involved in Bain during the committee hearing determining whether he should be considered a Massachusetts state residence for the purpose of running for governor in 2002. That sounds like direct evidence to me. Agree that Sullivan is not an RS, but he may be a source of links to RS.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/romney-testified-in-2002-that-he-sat-on-boards-of-bain-investments-20120713
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/07/13/516951/romney-interview-directly-contradicts-his-previous-statements-about-bain-tenure/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/12/mitt-romney-bain-departure_n_1669006.html
75.84.186.29 (talk) 02:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, he continued to sit on the boards of other companies - in this case, Staples Corporation, Marriott International, and the LifeLike Corporation. Indeed, our article already states that he was on the Staples board for a long time and on the Marriott board through 2002. But most directors do such stints with little effort or influence, and there's no evidence yet that he attended board meetings or any other meetings at Bain Capital itself. That's the question of interest here. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Lifelike was owned by Bain until 2001. How can being on the board of Lifelike while Bain owned Lifelike not constitute evidence that Romney was involved with Bain after Feb 1999? You think that Bain invested all this money in Lifelike and put Romney on the board, but that was that? That is not how private equity works. The skepticism expressed in the linked articles is well placed.75.84.186.29 (talk) 02:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The Bain Capital guys calling the shots at LifeLike would have been the managers they put into place, not the board members. Traditionally in American corporate life, at least in the pre-Enron/pre-WorldCom days, being a board member was a cushy job requiring little attention. See this piece and this piece and this piece for example. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Nonsense. Read Board of directors. Cwobeel (talk) 03:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Why don't you get the minutes then of these meetings? Only you are pushing this angle claiming this without any sources. You are aware that board members can delegate their seat to other people which in this case can be the CEO of Bain Capital at the time which was Mark C. Miller. I would encourage you to go find the SEC filings to back up your arguments. What about this article? [12] “I wasn’t with him every day, but from every indication he was working 12-14-16 hour days on the Olympics,” said Jim Jardine, an outside counsel for the Salt Lake City Olympic Organizing Committee ViriiK (talk) 04:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
ViriiK is correct. If and when people come forward and say that after February 1999, Romney was in Bain Capital meetings and pushed for certain deals to take place and argued against other deals and proposed using new financial instruments and recommended personal changes in companies and so forth, then yes, we can say that Romney was still active in Bain Capital during 1999-2002. Given how much attention this has gotten, I think that if this did in fact happen, news stories will soon come out saying so. But if they don't come out, then we're just left with a guy who wasn't actively involved but still held his titles, which after all is the whole point of taking a leave of absence in the first place. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
So I went directly to the sources which I'm noticing all over the SEC forms that says "Attorney-in-Fact". So I was wondering what does an Attorney-in-Fact do and I found a website that gives me the run-down [13] which it says Regardless of the estate planning method used, I always recommend that my clients also have a Healthcare Directive and a Power of Attorney in place. A Healthcare Directive allows a client to decide what they would like their doctors to do if they are ever in a “permanently vegetative state”. This document can help relieve the client’s family of the difficult decisions that can arise in this very specific situation. The Power of Attorney document allows the appointed “Attorney-in-Fact” (e.g. the client’s spouse) to make financial and healthcare decisions on behalf of the client if the client is ever incapacitated (whether temporarily or permanently) or otherwise unable to act. The Power of Attorney document can either be currently effective or it can “spring” into place if the client is ever diagnosed (by his or her doctors) as incapacitated. In either case, the client must be very careful not to name someone as Attorney-in-Fact that might abuse their power. For real estate investors, it is particularly important that bills are paid and properties are managed appropriately, regardless of the mental state of the property’s owner. So the "signed" may have been just a simple stamp that was held by his Attorney-in-Fact. An example is here [14] where it says By: Bain Capital, Inc., its Attorney-in-Fact So those SEC filings that the Boston Globe has been using? Almost every document I've found has Mitt Romney using an Attorney-in-Fact in his place. ViriiK (talk) 04:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Found a better source. [15] A person who is authorized to perform business-related transactions on behalf of someone else (the principal). In order to become someone's attorney in fact, a person must have the principal sign a power of attorney document. This document designates the person as an agent, allowing him or her to perform actions on the principal's behalf. ViriiK (talk) 04:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Cwobeel. It is nonsense to suggest that the board of director membership in general, constitutes non-involvement in a company, but it is particularly nonsensical in the case of private equity firms which operate by (1) buying publicly traded companies, (2) using their shares to vote their people onto the board of directors. (3) using the board of directors to appoint management.
But stepping back from this particular issue, what we think doesn't really matter. You can't just insist this out of the Romney article by continually raising the bar.(For example, by asserting that the Boston Globe is not an RS, or that SEC filings are insufficient because we need first person testimony from people that were present in private meetings.) At this point, this story has been re-ported by plenty of reliable sources. If there are no retractions, I don't see any reason why what is currently in print would not be sufficient to allow presentation of both sides of the story. I'm comfortable waiting a little while longer to see if there are any further developments, but there is no sense insisting that there is nothing here. 75.84.186.29 (talk) 05:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe there is anything new that isn't covered in the article. It is well known that Romney was the sole stock older and what not. I own stock in companies and I am not involved in running them. The SEC has many statutory requirements and would require disclosure listing Romney and probably anyone that owned more than 5% stake regardless in their involvement. It appears Romney has explained this many times int the past and his role with BC also brought many times in the past. Virtually all the SEC disclosures being pointed at are signed by someone other than Romney and only attest that Romney, by virtue of his stockholder position, owned the company. He has never stated otherwise. The article states accurately when it says he took a leave of absence from management in 1999 and subsequently divested himself in 2002. As owner he would be required to attend, pro forma, certain board meetings and file certain documents. There is simply nothing new here that the article doesn't already cover from a NPOV voice. All companies have leave policies due to FMLA. None require selling stock, giving up your titles or make it so the SEC is unaware of your stock holdings. Virtually all corporations say that you cannot work during a leave even if you have a title that implies responsibilty. Managers don't manage while they are on leave though they still have their title. There is simply nothing to add here that wouldn't violate either NPOV or BLP --DHeyward (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Re the above comments on boards of directors, the membership in total is obviously important, but assuming the board is stuffed with management loyalists (or in this case, Bain Capital loyalists), the involvement of any one particular board member is often minimal. There's a reason why "board of directors" "rubber stamp" has over 100,000 search hits. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
If the only new information was SEC documents that listed Romney as owner of Bain Capital, I would agree. But new documents list him as CEO until 2002. Membership on the board of directors of Bain companies also directly contradicts previous Romney statements that he was completely uninvolved with Bain. I would recommend adding some thing like "Romney took a leave of absence from Bain Capital in February 1999 to serve as the President and CEO of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games Organizing Committee, but some Bain filings to the SEC list Romney as CEO until 2002. He also served on the Board of Directors for some companies owned by Bain until 2002" Phrasing may not be perfect, but that is the gist.75.84.186.29 (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I think this is an accurate statement of facts. I would edit it slightly to include the fact that he continued to receive a salary (six figures) [16]. The implication in the article right now is that he left Bain with a suggestion that the separation was clean. Clearly it took a bit to disentangle everything, and I think drawing a salary from a company is a pretty strong indication that the company expects you to be somehow providing a service to that company. The argument I see above that he simply owned stock is weak in this light - what responsibilities did he perform to merit a 6 figure salary?Joelmiller (talk) 03:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Excellent points about the salary. Agree completely. Dezastru (talk) 04:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't like the proposed change, because the "but" is a WP:WTA in that it implies something is wrong or unusual in keeping your title during a leave of absence. If I had a complete list of all the companies Romney served on the boards of I could include LifeLike in a Note, but I've never seen such as list and I'm reluctant to include it otherwise. Regarding using Gail Collins as a source for anything about Romney, that's obviously a no go. As for the $100K salary he got from Bain during the Olympics years, to be real that was chump change compared to what he was making off his Bain investments. The most important thing about his separation from Bain is what has been in this article all along: "he transferred his ownership to other partners and negotiated an agreement that allowed him to receive a passive profit share as a retired partner in some Bain Capital entities, including buyout and investment funds.[71][82] Because the private equity business continued to thrive, this deal brought him millions of dollars in annual income.[71]" But again, there's no rush; we can wait to see what further comes of this whole story. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Apparently the BG reporters that wrote the book The Real Romney wrote of how Romney's sudden departure from Bain caused turmoil. Doesn't sound like he was still running Bain in any capacity by the investigative reporters that wrote that book. Arzel (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

hey, Wasted Time: Removing these facts four times in one day, does not make them less factual. And we are not rushing here, the press has covered these facts extensively. Cwobeel (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't removed the additional text four times - I removed it twice, since you gave a different edit summary the second time from the first, and then DHeyward and Arzel have removed it once each. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

In thinking this over, my take is that attempting to summarize this controversy in one short line isn't going to work given the abundance of sources. I suggest a new article gets created in which all sources can be described, as well as the positions expressed by sources about this issue, very much along the lines of what has been captured at John_Kerry_military_service_controversy and Jeremiah_Wright_controversy and thus create a neutral article about this subject. Cwobeel (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

What additional aspect do you think needs to be added? Here are the facts. Romney left Bain in 1999 to run the Olympics, His sudden departure cause some turmoil at Bain capital and resulted in some restructuring of the companies management organization. Romney played no part in Bain after 1999, this is verfied by several Bain employees, some of whom are Democrats. This is also backed up by several fact checks and the book The Real Romney which was written by Boston Globe investigative reporters. Untill 2002 Romney remained on several documents in order to satisfy SEC legal requirements, several sources and fact checkers have verified that Romney was required by law to remain on these documents even though he had not been an active part of Bain for several years. Why should we use WP to promote the political talking points that would say otherwise? Arzel (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Really? This is an encyclopedia that supposed to present facts and opinions as reported by sources deemed reliable. And there is plenty to report. Just Google Romney Bain. Cwobeel (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
What I mean, is that there are the facts, some of which you have described, and there is the controversy. Both are worth reporting. I am speaking about the latter. Cwobeel (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
That exact quote you're using is the one that's being pushed from a certain point of view (not neutral) to attack Romney on issues. Do you have a more neutral tone? Also, as Azral noted above, right now it's coming apart and a lot of news organizations are easily debunking this "controversy". You're heavily invested in inserting this quote though. ViriiK (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Please provide proof from credible entities to substantiate your assertion of "a lot of news organizations are easily debunking this "controversy".[sic]"--Ziggypowe (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Wouldn't evidence of disagreement between reliable sources constitute addition evidence of controversy. As for $100k being chump change to Romney, I would agree, but that doesn't mean it isn't meaningful. Small sallaries for CEOs are often used to legally validate a contract. Many CEOs who are compensated mostly in equity are paid salaries of $1. No one is arguing the Meg Whitman isn't CEO of HP because she got paid $1 or that Vikram Pandit isn't CEO of Citigroup, or Larry Page for Google, or Mark Zuckerberg for Facebook. http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/03/06/the-1-dozen-these-ceos-practically-work-for-free/
Since Romney also owned Bain, he would qualify as heavily equity compensated. (Also,since income is taxed at a higher rate than Capital, it makes sense to receive a smaller proportion of total compensation as salary.) By receiving the salary, it makes Romney legally responsible for responsibilities of a CEO, and would preserve his position; preventing anyone from trying to take his place while he was out of state.75.84.186.29 (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. See http://www.dypadvisors.com/2011/09/06/fiduciary-duties-of-officers-of-corporation/ - If Bain had been sued in 2001, Romney would be liable. As a CEO, and sole owner, reported in SEC filings, he can't claim no responsibility even if he did not attend a single meeting or made any decision. And that is at the core of this controversy. Cwobeel (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no doubt that this is is a controversy; saying that it is not is a disregard of the facts. I am not advocating for this or that position or who is right, just that the controversy needs to be described. Cwobeel (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

@Collect. You say "we would not wish to mislead Wikipedia readers as to the actual meaning of such filings". But the sentence you removed does not make any claims about the meaning of SEC fillings, it just states a fact which is not disputed. Cwobeel (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I concur. The dispute is whether Romney actually left Bain. It is not disputed that Romney remained "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president" is stated in the SEC fillings.--Ziggypowe (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Cwobeel is correct, and per WP:BALANCE the controversy should be described regardless if some reliable sources contradict each other. This is why we describe the controversy from a "disinterested viewpoint" by giving the commentary of the repugnant entities and present the facts in a objective manner and let the reader decide.--Ziggypowe (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Why not just report the facts of what his involvement was when instead of trying to interpret/spin them into a controversy? Of course, political opponent operatives will say everything Romney-related is a "controversy" so they have no credibility as sources. North8000 (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I stated: "This is why we describe the controversy from a "disinterested viewpoint" by giving the commentary of the repugnant entities and present the facts in a objective manner and let the reader decide." We will report the facts and only the facts as you stated and that is what we have been championing and saying the entire time. No one here is spinning this episode into a controversy--Ziggypowe (talk) 23:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
And it's already covered so until it actually becomes something different than what has already been said, WP shouldn't be reporting the "spin" (and the spin is that this is a controversy). He took leave of Bain capital. He didn't divest himself of ownership or give up titles. That's what a "leave of absence" is. Pointing out that he still had titles and still had stock while he was on leave is like saying the sky is blue. Spinning "leave" into "divestiture" and then finding a document that says he wasn't divested doesn't rise to anything beyond spin. --DHeyward (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Your argument notwithstanding, it does not refute the inclusion of the totality of this sentence: "Romney took a leave of absence from Bain Capital in February 1999 to serve as the President and CEO of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games Organizing Committee, and according to SEC fillings, remained "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president" of Bain Capital through at least 2002." DHeyward, what you stated may very well be true, but your statement is not inconsistent or antithetical to the aforesaid sentence. The totality of this sentence is apt for inclusion. --Ziggypowe (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd urge everyone to stop edit warring over this statement. It doesn't matter if it's in now or not in now, just stop. It's not that important either way. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree that is silly to keep deleting and adding that sentence, and best would be to come to an agreement on how to present these facts. But disagree that is not important; it is crucial to this article. Cwobeel (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
How is something as routine as retaining a title yet ceding management of an organization during a leave of absence crucial? 72Dino (talk) 00:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, why is it crucial? Arzel (talk) 00:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
It is crucial, if you understand anything about fiduciary responsibility of owners, CEOs and officers. Some people her are accusing others of spin, but wear their shoes for a minute. Cwobeel (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
"ceding management of an organization during a leave of absence" - You can't cede management unless you have a legal contract in place. Retroactively is not a legal term (but is a fun one, just check Twitter for #retroactive) . Cwobeel (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Nobody has seriously accused Romney of shirking any fiduciary responsibility. The original and ultimate point of this whole controversy is political: whether people who don't like what private equity firms do can slag Romney for what Bain Capital did in 1999-2002, or whether they can only slag him for what Bain Capital did up until 1999. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
If that is your position, I welcome you adding something about this issue in the article. He is a politician, after all. Cwobeel (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
If it turns out to be one of the major issues of the whole general election campaign, yes I will add it in the "2012 presidential campaign" section. But we don't know that yet. We have no obligation to try to keep up with the controversy-of-the-week pace of the campaign, and indeed WP:NOTNEWSPAPER encourages us not to. Even during the primary campaign, where there were sometimes important developments at a rapid rate (unexpected primary victories and challengers rising, falling, dropping out), I tried to lag the updating here by a week or two. The general election is still four months away. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, in reading some of the news about this, the issue of why this may be politically relevant is related Brookside Capital Partners Fund (BCP) acquisition of Stericycle stock in November 1999 (Stericycle, is a medical waste disposal company that among other things disposed of aborted fetuses, which will not be well received by Romney's political base, to say the least). In the SEC filing of Nov 22, 1999, Mitt Romney is listed as "the sole shareholder, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of BCI, BCP VI Inc., Brookside Inc. and Sankaty Ltd" - Signed: Date: November 19, 1999 s W. Mitt Romney. Cwobeel (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Already discussed in the section above this one and a strong consensus to ignore it. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I don;t see any such strong consensus there, but in any case this issue is far from over. Having attracted the attention of the public, I would expect a massive crowdsourcing effort to find more information about Bain and Romney. All will come out in the wash, and I predict that we shall have a full article on the Romney Bain Controversy before this election cycle is over. Cwobeel (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

@ Wasted Time: You referred above to "people who don't like what private equity firms do". The problem is: there are private equity firms and there are private equity firms. Private equity firms provide capital for companies to operate and grow, and that is absolutely fine and part of our system of capitalism. The problem with Romney's Bain is that he used excessive debt leverage (when debt was cheap and readily available) creating enormous returns to their partners while not always having the best interest for the companies or their workers. So, this is not about people that don't like VCs or private equity firms, it is rather about how useful is that experience in the context of the current political discourse about economic recovery. Cwobeel (talk) 02:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

All private equity firms have the same top three priorities:
  1. Make money for the partners
  2. Make money for the investors
  3. Repeat #1 and #2
If companies grow in the process, great. If companies get broken and busted in the process, that's great too. Capitalism is red in tooth and claw, and Bain Capital was no better or worse than any of the other private equity or leverage buyout firms. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I fully concur. That is what VCs and private equity firms do (although Bain used leverage more than many others, and was quite successful at that for its partners and investors, not so much for some companies and their workers). Now, I think that the current controversy is how that applies to making claims about how that experience applies (or not) to fixing the economy of a country. After all, it was the Romney campaign that promoted the view that it indeed applies, that prompted the current scrutinity on his record at Bain, and that is not a surprise. Cwobeel (talk) 04:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I vote that the statement indicating that he was listed as CEO until 2002 stay in. What I saw in the article earlier today was phrased neutrally and was about the bare minimum that could be said about the issue. Considering that one half of the political spectrum that thinks this is an enormously huge issue, what was present in the article was about as cursory an acknowledgement of the issue as could be.(for example, the removed sentence ignored the fact that he was paid as CEO, which I would expect would not happen if he wasn't doing *something* for Bain.) The reason it is important is because "leave of absence" is ambiguous. If we include the previous statement we can let readers decide if they want to trust Romney's statements that he was uninvolved or SEC filings that suggest that he is not.75.84.186.29 (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Signed in now. I also don't think that the statements about the SEC will "mislead readers" as we're not citing the SEC statements themselves, but reliable news sources which were happy to interpret them for us.Pcruce (talk) 03:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The SEC component statement is apt and vote for its inclusion: "Romney took a leave of absence from Bain Capital in February 1999 to serve as the President and CEO of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games Organizing Committee, and according to SEC fillings, remained "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president" of Bain Capital through at least 2002." The SEC component statement is factual, and the validity of such statement is not in dispute, as it is not stating whether or not Romney actually left Bain, but it delineates what the SEC filings state.--Ziggypowe (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Another link on the topic: http://www.forbes.com/sites/tjwalker/2012/07/14/35-questions-mitt-romney-must-answer-about-bain-capital-before-the-issue-can-go-away/
It sums up numerous different sources. Also, this is Forbes; hardly biased against Republicans.128.97.68.15 (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to raise a point I raised earlier that got a little response, but seems to have dropped from discussion by the time the current version went up. Romney continued to receive a salary from Bain during the time he was on leave. It's certainly true that this is small in comparison to what he earned from his investments (presumably), but it's relevant to the question of whether he was involved with Bain - not only was he legally the owner etc, but he was also effectively an employee. There is no question about that fact: the edit I would propose is "During his leave of absence, Romney continued to be listed in filings to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission as 'sole shareholder, sole director, Chief Executive Officer and President' and continued to receive an annual salary of at least $100,000" I haven't found the original financial disclosures showing this, but the source would be the Boston Globe article: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2012/07/12/government_documents_indicate_mitt_romney_continued_at_bain_after_date_when_he_says_he_left/ Joelmiller (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I find this section an interesting read, but also one with a lot of blind alleys and tangential walks. If we wanted the low hanging fruit, we'd look for the public documents that show Mitt Romney received income at Bain Capital in 2001 and 2002. That is as low hanging as it gets. Also, the sources for that, i.e. Bain tax returns and the such, would be as reliable as it gets. Instead, we dissect a thousand articles. Isn't there FOIA coverage for these tax returns? Or perhaps they're already online somewhere. If the tax returns show that the subject was paid by Bain Capital in 2001 and 2002, then it would be reasonable to call this case settled. Otherwise, the search would provide little insight into the subject's involvement with Bain was and we could go for the higher hanging fruits, i.e. the thousand articles, upon finding that. Viridium (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Seamus dog-gate

This is relevant to his bio (Obama and Romney). I added it with 4 references from top notch news sources, including a mention that it is important. To be fair, I also added a similar comment about a similar dog issue to the other candidate's bio.

It is very easy for political supporters to be upset and want it censored. However, it is clearly a big development in the campaign and, therefore, the bio.

Background: Obama ate dog meat and admitted it in his own book. Romney put his dog on a specially made carrier, not inside the car. Evergreenme (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

In both cases it's irrelevant political mud dredged up by political opponents. Please don't clutter up this great global encyclopaedia with political trivia which has only surfaced because of an American election campaign. HiLo48 (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Couple things... first, search the archives. This subject is not new, and it's already been beat to a bloody pulp (and you'll notice it wasn't in the article, which should give you a hint about the consensus).
Second, what goes on in other articles has no bearing on this article. If you take issue with the contents of an Obama article, you know what to do, but balancing this article to make it even isn't part of that process. Just sayin'. Belchfire-TALK 23:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
And by the way, the topic is anything BUT "censored". Criminy, it has it's very own article. Belchfire-TALK 23:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok. Obama's dog meat is an interesting fact just like the elite and famous high school he went to. As far as Romney, there are factoids in the article that sounds like it is trying to convince the reader that Romney is a rich fat cat...the part that says if he is elected, he'd be the fourth richest and that he is richer than the previous presidents. Oh, in the interest of full disclosure, I am an American voter and I voted for Obama. Evergreenme (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I should start over again, I was too sharp with you and I owe you an apology for that. Please understand, these serial issues get tiresome after the eleventeenth time. I realize you are working for the good of the encyclopedia, your contributions are valuable, and I hope you will settle in and stay with us.
Anyhow, please be aware that many articles connected to the upcoming election are subject to a great deal of mischief (just speaking generally, I'm not including you specifically here), and it's a good idea to move cautiously before making changes. So... check Talk pages, and search the archives. More often than not, you will find that the material you have in mind has already been covered. Oh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Belchfire-TALK 23:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
It may be important to the election but not to his biography. Include it in the election article, maybe. —Designate (talk) 23:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
He's trolling. New account, provocative content on highly viewed articles. No. Arkon (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. I looked at his contribs. Good faith is pretty evident. He's means well, he's just green. Belchfire-TALK 00:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm also of the opinion that this user was fairly excited to insert something that he thought was meaningful. Given his new history, it's likely possible that he didn't know that we've already discussed this and also that he didn't know there was a separate page dedicated to this. ViriiK (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I am at a loss as to why you think all 21 edits of this user, with nearly half existing on the highest viewed topics in the wiki, are ok. But good luck to you. Arkon (talk) 00:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Akron, I'm just as skeptical as you are. I appreciate that you do have this attitude and are wary of big changes especially to a BLP. Since I reverted his change, I would say that the situation is resolved and over with now. ViriiK (talk) 00:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Come on,guys. Don't bite the newbies. (And mea culpa for doing just that.) Look at his contribs - he's not a POV-pusher; he's interested in dogs generally. Everybody was new once. Every newbie has to acclimate before they fit in here (and some never do). Belchfire-TALK 00:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd usually be right there with you, but there is a context to this. I'll leave it to you guys to take care of it, but I must say I warned you. Arkon (talk) 02:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been completely off-track. The dog on the roof story has been in the article, based upon a consensus that was reached a while ago ... it was just removed the other night as an accidental byproduct of the "Political positions and public perceptions" section emptying. I'm going to restore it shortly - don't get crazy! Wasted Time R (talk) 02:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Now done. Again, this is the identical text that has been here for a while, both in the main text and in the Note, just relocated to a chronological location instead of the section that was repurposed. Again, a consensus was in favor of this before (and it does belong, it's still being discussed five years after first being made public) (and its justification for inclusion has nothing to do with Obama's Indonesian diet). Wasted Time R (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Maybe not, but it is all to do with the fact that there's an election on and Romney's opponents want all possible dirt on him to be made highly public here. HiLo48 (talk) 02:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I realize that you see this in terms of dirt, but some of us see this in terms of honest reporting. Please don't ascribe your motives and biases to others; you need to WP:AGF. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Story's been around for five years - usually these things die out long before, but this one captured the public interest in some strange kind of way, and remarks about it often occur in cultural not political contexts (late night tv comedy shows, things like that). If the Romney remarks about the London Olympics are still being talked about in five years, it will definitely deserve to be in the article too! :-) Wasted Time R (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Does that include being talked about in London, and on UK TV shows? Will you check? HiLo48 (talk) 06:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

(Undent) The Seamus saga deserves at most one brief sentence in this article. Not a four-sentence dissertation:

Here's what one reliable source says about its notability:

---Bill Wasik. And Then There's This: How Stories Live and Die in Viral Culture, page 145 (Penguin 2009).

And here's another reliable source:

---Mike Allen and Evan Thomas, Inside the Circus (Random House 2012).

Devoting so much space to this forgettable story is ridiculous. And saying that it proves Romney is "emotion-free" is directly contradicted by Mike Allen and Evan Thomas. These notes at the end of the Wikipedia article are not a license to slip in anything and everything, and they could all use a forcible haircut.108.18.174.123 (talk) 03:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The main article space for this is one clause: "and persistent interest in a 1983 episode in which Romney kept his family dog on the roof of his car during a long road trip." The presumption of articles that use Notes is that relatively few readers reader them, and thus detail can be given without derailing the main text. The 2009 conclusion about how forgettable the story is would be more convincing if it hadn't gained even more attention in 2011-2012. And the "emotion-free" is in how Romney responded to the situation on the road, not how he behaved to the dog in general. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
That's a fair analysis but I think that 108.18.174.123 is engaging in far too much original research. It's enough that the secondary sources consider it notable. It's not our call. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, 108.18.174.123, there is no guideline against using Notes like this. In fact, the Paul McCartney article has over 50 of them, and it has Featured Article status, the highest you can get. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Wasted Time, if there is no sub-article where we can direct readers for details, then a long explanatory footnote may indeed be sensible and justified. But here, we can send obsessed readers to Mitt Romney dog incident. The pertinent guideline is WP:Summary style: "Summary sections are linked to the detailed article". I guarantee that this slow-loading article will load faster if you adhere to this principle: don't include detailed explanatory notes if the details are available in the linked sub-article.108.18.174.123 (talk) 04:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I understand the point you're making, but in this case the subarticle is very volatile - it's been subject to a number of deletion attempts, merge attempts, renamings, edit wars, changes of focus, etc. I think it's better if the main article takes responsibility for giving a brief explanation of the event and its significance itself, and then also links to the subarticle. As for load times, I'd be interested in knowing what platform you are using to view the article (desktop or laptop or mobile, what vintage, what kind of Internet connection). Wasted Time R (talk) 12:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
When that sub-article stabilizes, please consider my recommendation again. I use many different computers. It loads most slowly on smartphones (e.g. iPhone).108.18.174.123 (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Just as with the "forced haircut" section above, this discussion doesn't seem likely to yield any useful results. Were it not for a newbie editor starting it earlier today, it wouldn't be happening at all. It's old business. Does anybody object to archiving? Belchfire-TALK 06:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, of course I object. I will always object to archiving active discussions. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
"your opinion is completely irrelevant" as you like to say. ViriiK (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
If you close thread by archiving them against the objections of the people in those threads, you're going to have a bad time. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Inline Citations in Synopsis

Minutes ago, I requested that inline citations be included into arguably the most read part of this page, chiefly the synopsis. I did so by employing "citation needed" and "more footnotes" templates. Surprisingly, these were removed promptly. I believe citations should be added immediately to support the various claims made in the synopsis of this biography of a living person. While the various claims may be substantiated later on using references, some readers do not have the desire to read through the entire article in order to confirm the various references. Please include inline citations in the synopsis or re-add the missing templates. Viridium (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Viridium, I removed your tags because this article's style is to not include citations in the lead section, but instead repeat the same information in the article body and cite it there. This same style is used by FA article Barack Obama, FA article John McCain, GA article Joe Biden, and countless other high-profile articles similar to this one that have been through review processes. As for users finding those citations in the body, a simple click on a Table of Contents section, or a simple text search in the browser, will take them there. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanation. I am concerned by your examples of similar Wikipedia articles on other politicians. The goal here is not to provide electoral equality on Wikipedia, but rather to meet the encyclopedic standards set forth by this website. If other articles suffer from the limitation hereby brought to light, then they too fail to meet the verifiability standard. Of course, we can provide countless examples of articles, biographies and beyond, that consistently provide inline citations in synopsis and beyond. Wikipedia requires that content be verifiable. This does not mean web searching or document investigation to find the sources, and this cannot be overturned by appealing to this or that article style. Therefore, I am compelled to repeat my plea that references be included consistently, including in the synopsis, especially relating to statements concerning the person's education and activity that concerns public matters, like budget deficit reductions or net worth. Viridium (talk) 13:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
The thought is the the lead is a summary of the article, so everything that is in lead came from the article where it should be appropriately sourced/cited. North8000 (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
WP:LEADCITE is the guideline for this, and it explicitly allows both models (leads without cites, leads with cites) as a matter of editorial decision, and the editorial decision of this article, as with many others like it, has long been to not use cites within the lead. If these articles were in violation of the core content verifiability requirement, I assure you that none of them would have passed their GA or FA reviews! And it's hardly a burden to find these sources; it does not involve "web searching or document investigation", but simple clicking on the appropriate section name in the Table of Contents. One click on the "Personal wealth" link in the Table of Contents, for example, will take you to the article body statement that gives the statement about his net worth and the source for it. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
North8000: if people wish to choose to read a portion of an article -- and the synopsis is the best candidate for that by virtue of its unique position as an overview -- then they should be able to do so while being offered the sources. By not offering sources, we force readers to refer to the article and to spend time to sift through detail they may not desire to read. Since citations are non-intrusive, I find that it is reasonable to just include them. I have entered a similar request for the Barack Obama page, but will leave it to others to repeat it for other articles. Viridium (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Wasted Time R: While both standards are possible, it should be simple to infer from the standard statement as linked to by you that references must be included once the lack of references has been challenged. In other words, the absence of inline references in the summary of an article is a convenience that can only be used until and unless readers express a desire for full verifiability. And I believe I've expressed this very desire in the above. After all, readers like me are the ultimate beneficiary of this information. I suspect that in the face of controversy regarding claims made in the summary you could refer those complaining to the relevant sources in an offline setting like the one nere, but that approach will not benefit a majority of the readers, who will not go through the effort to ask about the missing references. This request is also on their behalf. Viridium (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
No, the challenge would be to the verifiability and truthfulness of the statements - which you have not been challenging - not to how where the verifiability is presented by editorial choice. And by the way ... You've made about twenty edits lifetime on WP and this request is your first contribution in four years? And you're right and all these other FA and GA writers and reviewers are wrong? Wasted Time R (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I indirectly challenged the content by requesting that the source be listed. In case that wasn't clear, you now have it obviously stated. And please let's keep your ad hominem attacks for other contexts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viridium (talk • contribs) 14:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I will park this, but not before noting that the polarization of politics seems to thicken even the educated amongst us. Take a step back and weigh this request on its merit. The article is huge and it's impractical for people who do not wish to read it entirely to refer to it in order to find inline references. Having pointed out this limitation, I should have been greeted with a "thank you", not this babble and sterile references to the standard. As far as your ad hominem attack, it's typical of a political context. Also note that there was no mention in my objection of the disproportionate detail regarding the subject's education, or the lack of a section regarding controversies that naturally arise with politicians running for the US Presidential Office. I left out such objections knowing that pages like the one being discussed are typically run by highly polarized individuals. However, I felt and still feel that the summary section must include inline references.
Regarding your mention of verifiability, please not that it is not absolute verifiability that is required as the basis for a challenge, but rather direct verifiability. To give you an example, the statement "Michael Jackson is dead" is easily verifiable by pulling a variety of sources on a Google Search. Nonetheless, this weak verifiability standard does not meet Wikipedia's standard and the content must typically be referenced inline. It is this stronger standard of verifiability that I requested here, as the article itself contains a wealth of information that is not easily verifiable without reading the entire article. And with no offense intended, many readers, myself included, will read the summary but never read the entire article. Viridium (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Viridium, you are promoting a novel new personal idea, that a repetition of sourced statements (the lead) must be sourced in case there is someone who doesn't want to read the article. North8000 (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I question an aspect of Viridium's reasoning: Is a reader who is not sufficiently interested to search the article body for details all that likely to concern himself with citations in the lead? My reading of WP:LEADCITE is that it chiefly supports citations of material likely to be challenged. I don't think it supports placing inline citation in a lead merely for window-dressing. Belchfire-TALK 00:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
If we're using WP:LEADCITE as our foundation here, what's the point of this discussion? Even at the Barack Obama page, the editor, Tarc, has already rejected his suggestion as well. It's pretty clear that everyone here and at Barack Obama's talk rejects the idea. So I will say that I also reject the idea. ViriiK (talk) 00:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Real name

What is the real second given name for which 'Mitt' is an abbreviation? Mitchell? Mitt would be a nickname, baby name, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.54.222.19 (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Mitt is actually his middle name. He was named for Milton Romney (nicknamed Mitt) a Chicago Bears quarterback. All of this is in the article already under the early life section. Hot Stop 16:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and the article even gives you in footnote #1 this link to his birth certificate, where you can see it really does say "Mitt". Wasted Time R (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality

I was thinking about the bigger issues with this article and I saw that a lot of reader feedback was complaining that this article read like it was written by the Romney campaign, so I went through with some neutrality edits. I tried to be conservative(small-c) in my approach. Removing some material that wasn't sourced and in other cases, replacing statements of opinion(presented as fact) with the original quotes and source.

Most importantly, there were several instances where statements which quoted opinions in the original news source went into the Romney article but they were stated as facts AND the statement of the original speaker was clipped so as to omit the counter-balancing,moderating, or qualifying portion of the speaker's statement. (If I found 3 instances, I'm guessing that there are more. It got to feeling like a pattern. What I would give for a WP:blame command.) Pcruce (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The blame's all on me if there is any. As for your individual changes:
  • Removing "He continued to work hard; having grown up in Michigan rather than the more insular Utah world, Romney was better able to interact with the French than other missionaries." This is supported by the two sources given: first this part of the BG series: "In the Conversion Diary, then a newsletter of the French Mission, he is mentioned repeatedly for standout numbers of hours spent door-knocking, numbers of copies of the Book of Mormon distributed, and numbers of invitations for return visits." And then in this WaPo story "Romney had thrived during his mission by defying convention and sometimes bending the rules to get results. Most of his peers in France had grown up in Utah, the bedrock of Mormonism, but Romney was comfortable in the presence of outsiders. He had attended a private school as the lone Mormon in his class and watched his father serve alcohol to visitors. He had become adept at explaining his faith -- and defending it." Maybe you missed this in one of the page continuations on the WaPo site. I have restored it. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Changing "He appealed to Utah's citizenry with a message of optimism that helped restore confidence in the effort." This text has been objected to before. Adding another Ken Bullock quote, as you did, isn't appropriate, since he's already quoted later in the section and his minority perspective shouldn't be overweighted. So I've just taken this text out. As your edit summary said, there's no poll behind this one. We'll let the later statement in the section, "His performance as Olympics head was rated positively by 87 percent of Utahns.[133]", convey this conclusion. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Changing "An additional federal $1.1 billion was spent on indirect support in the form of highway and transit projects." to "An additional $1.1 billion of indirect federal funding came in the form of highway and transit projects." Your wording doesn't quite make sense to me - Congress gives funding, not the projects themselves. But we'll see what others say. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of time for this morning, will finish responses this evening ... Wasted Time R (talk) 11:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I reverted the change to restore the claim that he worked hard and better related until we can form consensus on the issue. My opinion is that it is fine if you want to include it, but it is an extremely broad generalization, thus it should be treated as an opinion and directly attributed to a speaker. To say you relate better to an entire diverse country of people, is well..., hard to state as an encyclopedic fact. I fully agree that the sources said that he stood out and that he did an excellent job. The closest direct quote that I found in a source was that he fit in because of his Michigan background, but not that he related well to the French because of his Michigan background. I found one particular sentence in one of the sources, which I'm pretty sure was the origination for the claim(although what was said was somewhat different than was was in the original, not biased, but not what the source actually said), I'll see if I can track it down and we can use that.
  • Here is the quote:

    Romney had thrived during his mission by defying convention and sometimes bending the rules to get results. Most of his peers in France had grown up in Utah, the bedrock of Mormonism, but Romney was comfortable in the presence of outsiders. He had attended a private school as the lone Mormon in his class and watched his father serve alcohol to visitors. He had become adept at explaining his faith -- and defending it.

  • Also, just saw Collect's edit. Find it acceptable. Although I'll note the irony in considering Boston Globe an RS for this sort of claim, but denying it when it comes to the Bain issue.Pcruce (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I've replaced the generic 'worked hard' with the specifics of what gained him note within the mission and led to his promotion. This is not opinion on the part of the BG writers, but simple reporting based upon mission documents from the time. Thus there is no need for in-text attribution. As for the Michigan vs Utah background being a help to him, I'll leave it out for now, and look for a confirming source (maybe the Ostlings book) that this was a general differentiating characteristic. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree on Bullock, somewhat ambivalent about the funding. Saying federal dollars justs sounds weird to me. (All dollars are technically federal since the fed prints the dollars.)Pcruce (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Who actually prints money has nothing to do with it, by that logic I paid for my lunch today with Fed money. However, when people refer to federal money they are referring to money specifically from the federal government which has been designated via some act in congress. Arzel (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Like I said, I don't care that much about the funding claim, I just thought it would be clearer. But if you guys think this is a big deal, I'm not gonna push back on this one.Pcruce (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
On the "attack ads" revert from Arzael. The article called Kennedy's ads in the 1994 Senate campaign "attack ads". I'd be fine calling neither instance an attack ad or both instances an attack ad, but I'm not okay with applying the label only when his opponents run them. In both cases, the sources didn't explicitly say that they were "attack ads" (as far as I could tell) but they made statements indicating that the ads were negative and misleading; using guilt by association. (That is, both the ads that Kennedy ran against Romney and the ads that Romney ran against Shannon O'Brian. Pcruce (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Those sections are completely different and unrelated, why are you comparing apples to oranges? Arzel (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Are you saying that NPOV only needs to be maintained within a section but not across the entirety of the article? They're two different sections, each describing campaigns, which use specific terminology to describe the advertisements. The section where Romney is running the ad uses a neutral term. The section where the ad is being run against Romney uses a negative term.Pcruce (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I've changed all uses of 'attack ads' to just 'ads', since in each case the description of the ads make it clear they were attacking the other candidate. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Replacing "Less an entrepreneur than an executive running an investment operation," and "Romney was skilled at presenting and selling the deals the company made." with long quotes from former Bain partners. I don't see these as opinions, but I have switched to the Kranish-Helman bio and replaced both of these with one factual statement that delineates the role Romney played within Bain Capital, based upon their full set of interviews with partners, examinations of who did what in deals, etc: "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." Hopefully this will get across the idea of 'less an entrepreneur than an executive' without saying so in so many words, and will alleviate your concern that the former text was too anti-Romney (since the public generally admires entrepreneurs more than exectives). Wasted Time R (talk) 02:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The original quotes from the Bain partners(on which the statements in this article were previously based), were much more moderated and qualified. Moreover, quoting the partners made clear where the statements about his business expertise was coming from. My thinking was this, from the WP:NPOV article:
"Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views,"
Mitt Romney's performance as a business person seems to be an opinion not a fact.
and
"As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. "
It seems like you've determined that what your sources *actually said* wasn't positive enough, so now you want to dump the material for something more favorable. Which as per the statement above, would be a violation of the neutrality guidelines.Pcruce (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The new text, "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.", is not a description of Romney's performance (how well he did something) but of his role (what he did). As such it is a factual question - either he was the "idea person" who thought up lots of investment opportunities and found lots of new deals, or he wasn't. And the answer is, he wasn't. That answer is based not upon one or two quotes from people, who might not be representative, but instead upon the overall reporting of his biographers, based upon all their interviews, all their examination of documents, all their reading of previous secondary sources, etc. However, if you think this text is too pro-Romney, I can add that of the opportunities he did come up with, they were often failures. That's also a factual statement, direct from the same source. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I opened the Mitt Romney Wikipedia page for the first time in my life today, wanting to learn about what the people think about him. I was hoping to get an idea of the person, including the good and bad that is being claimed about him, from the lead portion (summary/synopsis/introduction), because, hey, Wikipedia is the place to learn these things. I was surprised to see that no inline references were present (for which I opened a separate talk topic), and that all the statements are about the good deeds done by this guy. His education has been given very much detail, too much in my opinion for a summary, and much more relative to other, more pertinent aspects of the individual's life. Also, there is no talk about controversies in the summary, let alone pointers to detailed articles. Politicians and especially politicians having such visibility are always the subject of controversies. Not to see mention of these in the summary is a bit disappointing for a high profile Wikipedia article, and it suggests heavy bias in the editorial work. In this context, and to promote the neutrality of this article (and noting that I'm not a US voter, so take off your political hat for a second), I suggest including a "Controversies" section in this article and mentioning a few of these controversies in the summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viridium (talk • contribs) 16:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

First, separate "Controversies" sections are a non-starter; they are a poor practice that leads to junk accumulation and are considered a violation of WP:NPOV and multiple other guidelines. In particular, back in 2007 a special effort was undertaken to rid all 2008 presidential candidates' biographical articles of such treatment — see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections/Archive 1#Status of "controversies" pages for the history of that effort — and the same thing has been done for all of the 2012 contenders. Controversial matters are discussed in chronology with everything else, where the proper context and weighting and balance and understanding can be maintained.
Regarding lead sections, it's very difficult to keep anything referring to controversial matters in there. For example, I tried a couple of times to add to the lead that Romney has faced characterizations that he is an opportunist without core ideological convictions, but it never lasted long. Regarding education in the lead, I've been on the fence ever since someone added "Baker Scholar" to it - it's not a common term, we don't usually include honors or class rank in the lead section, and it's a bit complicated since it only applies to the business school and not the law school. So I've taken that out. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
That part about controversies is a bit of a loss, I guess. Needless to say, people should have easy access to more than the accepted norm. Taking Bill Gates's page, there's little in there about the antitrust fights his company has been fighting in Europe, and that hurts. Had a Controversies section been put up, we might have read about that today. We should encourage talk about controversies, not wash it into the article. By the same token, controversies are a topic of interest for people wanting to learn about politicians. Junk accumulation can be mitigated by using standard review processes that are already in place in articles in the absence of such sections. But, if others feel we're better off without a Controversies section, then so be it.
Insofar as education is concerned, you're pointing out that it used to be even worse. As far as I'm concerned, it's still heavy compared to the remainder of the summary, and the mention that he dropped out of Stanford I find completely grafted. Right now, the whole summary looks like it was written for the subject's campaign with details in areas that the subject finds interesting, so I still can't draw some informed conclusions out of it.
The Bill Gates article provides a good lead example; not only is the dropout part not mentioned in the lead, but education is not mentioned period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viridium (talk • contribs) 18:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I've never wanted Stanford mentioned in the lead either (note he didn't drop out, he took a leave of absence while doing missionary work, then decided to go to BYU once he came back) ... I'll have to go back and see who added it and why. But I remain skeptical that anyone should be able to draw "informed conclusions" from reading just the lead. Yes, you'll get a summary of the who-what-where-when. But you'll rarely get an inkling of the how or why; for those you need to read the article itself. If you don't have time to read the whole thing at one sitting, that's fine. Do a section now, a section later ... it's not going anywhere. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I couldn't find a discussion of Stanford in the lead in Talk, it must have been in edit summaries ... anyway, I've removed it from the lead, we'll see if anyone objects. The education that remains is BYU undergrad and Harvard joint law/business, those deserve to remain. And by the way, if I were working on the Bill Gates article, I would include his never finishing Harvard in the lead; it's one of the best-known things about him. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

It appears that Romney supporters have captured this article and sanitized or at least minimized any critical material. Romney has faced considerable criticism from Republicans and Democrats alike for refusing to release more tax returns.(1) He has also been criticized for his retroactive retirement from Bain, profiting from the offshoring of jobs(3) and moving money through offshore tax havens and Swiss bank accounts.(2)

  1. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303612804577531334183103956.html
  2. http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/global-filipino/world/07/04/12/romneys-offshore-wealth-deeply-hidden-report
  3. http://www.salon.com/2012/07/17/bain_off_shoring_victims_ask_romney_for_help/

A balanced biography presents both strengths and weaknesses in the subject's reputation. Until this is resolved there is an NPOV dispute. Jehochman Talk 14:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that what happened is that most of the controversial stuff has been placed in other related articles, leaving here just short summaries. Cwobeel (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I would probably support briefly mentioning all three of these recent criticisms in the section on the 2012 general election campaign. But I'd want to hear what other editors think first. In any event, the tag should be moved to the 2012 election section, rather than being a badge for the whole article. I'm not even sure that the tag is appropriate anywhere, since no one has objected in this talk page section to doing what Jehochman suggests.198.228.201.161 (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Interesting that the person who added the NPOV Dispute has not made any comments before adding the tag. I believe we should remove the NPOV Dispute tag and let us talk about the neutrality issues. Many of which have been discussed and compromises made. Viewmont Viking (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
The point of the tag is that there is a neutrality dispute. The article is not neutral; it is hagiographic. Once that problem is resolved, the tag can be removed. Please leave the tag while this discussion is ongoing. Jehochman Talk 16:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) We need to agree where to put the content, and it is potentially contentious, even if nobody has specifically objected. Better to discuss first and get a consensus, in this particular case. I'd agree with moving the tag to a particular section if we can agree which section that should be. It should not be a "criticism" section. More likely it would be the section about the 2012 campaign since that is when these issues became notable. Jehochman Talk 16:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Jehochman that the tag would be better in the 2012 campaign section, and accordingly inserted it there. So, the tag at the top can be removed.198.228.201.160 (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I am okay with moving the tag to the 2012 campaign section. Viewmont Viking (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Where exactly is that section not neutral? I get the sense that some people will see whatever they want to see. Some people hate Romney, and will see ANY perceived good thing in the article as making the entire article biased. I disagree with this tag after reading the section in it's entirety. Several compromises have been made throughout the page, and if there's something specifically non neutral than by all means point it out. Where exactly was the neutrality disputed anyway other than you stating today that it is? Where is this discussion? Naapple (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
See the first comment in this talk page section, where three specific objections are made. Maybe the best way to proceed would be if Jehochman would address the archived arguments that previously prevailed.198.228.201.148 (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Yea, I see 3 news articles that a user feels should be entered into the page. It's non inclusion doesn't mean that the article is NPOV, just that it might be incomplete. In any case, a lot of the material in those articles is included throughout the article anyway. This editor jumped in, scanned the wiki, tagged the entire page with an NPOV tag, then when it was determined that the entire page wasn't POV, had it moved to the campaign section which I doubt he read either.
If there's some argument on the neutrality of a particular point or fact, then the tag is appropriate. I don't see such a discussion anywhere. In fact, there have been many compromises and the editing of the page has gone rather smoothly considering the contentious material of a topic debated in ever heating exchange until Nov 6.
Romney's biography shouldn't read as a newspaper. If you want to put material in from the latest Dem/Rep tv commercials, the main 2012 Romney Presidential Race may be slighly more appropriate. Naapple (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I did not say these sources should be included. These were the first I could find, and they were cited because it is forbidden to discuss living people in a controversial way without citing sources. Jehochman Talk 19:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This will be resolved when the article documents the notable objections to Mitt Romney's candidacy. Wikipedia is not a PR platform for the RNC. It is evident that several accounts have been sanitizing the article to remove any negative content. This is not acceptable. I will restore the NPOV tag to the top of the article until these concerns are addressed. Such tags are not to be removed until the dispute is resolved. Jehochman Talk 18:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I notice that a few single purpose accounts are dogging this article. That's not good. Please let other editors have a say, especially those who have a lot of experience writing high quality articles. Jehochman Talk 19:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Jehochman, I think the three points you listed (in your initial comment) are valid concerns. But the prevailing arguments in the archives were not trivial (WP:Recentism et cetera). I'll probably come down on your side, but please engage with the archived arguments, and try to AGF. Thanks.198.228.201.144 (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Sort of like WastedTime? He/she seems to have been a big part of this article for a long time. He/She has been involved in many of the discussions. There are others as well. Please also remember to not bite the newcomers. I am going to step away for awhile since I feel the "Please let other editors have a say, especially those who have a lot of experience writing high quality articles" was attacking the newcomers and those who feel the article was going along just fine without the NPOVE tag. Viewmont Viking (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Obama supporters will and do purport that everything about Romney is a "controversy". Such does not make it actually so. North8000 (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Jehochman, there are accounts on both sides with a single one sidedness. If we're naming names, look at Cwobeel's contributions. Just because in your opinion the campaign section feels biased doesn't mean it is. You've yet to give a single example of how the article is slanted. Reading the talk page, there have been several compromises by people on both ends. The NPOV tag goes until you can name a single dispute on this talk page where we haven't reached consensus for the campaign section.
I encourage you to re-read both the article and the discussions on this talk page and name where such a slant is so that it can be fixed. Naapple (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
What about my contributions? Can you point out what was that I did wrong? In fact, I was attempting to correct and improve the article, as I had the same feeling as Jehochman first time I read it: a whitewashed article. Cwobeel (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Some people are going to say it's biased just because it isn't biased to their liking. That's just politics. Belchfire (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you one one thing: It is political, as Romney is a politician. And we ought to represent his in his biography. If he was a baseball player, that would be different. Cwobeel (talk) 22:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the POV tag going by the guidelines under Template_talk:POV because: "It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given." The only debate is whether the POV tag should exist for reasons that have yet to be explained. Give a quote from the article where the slant is and we can go from there. Naapple (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Jehochman, other than the three items that you have mentioned, what else in the whole article leads you to characterize it as a hagiography and a PR vehicle for the RNC? Please list as many specific items as possible - general statements like this don't help when it comes to making actual changes. Thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Jehochman, I have added mentions of the things you wanted to the 2012 presidential campaign section (one of them had also been requested by Cwobeel above). See what you think. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed the tag again. The tag is meant to be temporary, in that something needs fixed. It can't be fixed and removed if something specific isn't actually pointed out to be biased. Point out something in the article that's biased and we can discuss it. So far, nothing has been mentioned as bias, and no one's preventing someone from adding in material from those articles. A lack of information on a recent news subject is not a bias. Naapple (talk) 02:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Removing the tag, does nothing to making this page neutral and balanced. When you read it, besides an item here in there, this page reads like a hagiography and apologetic piece. You say, to add materoal to balance it, but each time one tries to do that we get this BS about no consensus, or worse, you and others remove it without saying why. Cwobeel (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I consider the tag symbolic. Let's focus on improving the article. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I am trying, but there are some people here that delete any material that they see as "controversial".Cwobeel (talk) 04:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of "politician", I have restored identification of Romney as such to the first sentence of the lead. This was the prior consensus, but got accidentally lost along the way, maybe when he became the presumptive nominee. The wording as it stood before the restoration could give the wrong impression that Romney was an active businessman who had decided to stage a campaign for president, à la Ross Perot or Steve Forbes. In fact, Romney has been a full-time politician for the last ten years. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the lead says: "Willard Mitt Romney (born March 12, 1947) is an American businessman and politician who is the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party for President of the United States in the 2012 election. He was the 70th Governor of Massachusetts (2003–07)." It is impossible for a person to have been Governor from 2003-2007 and now a GOP nominee, without being a politician. Perhaps we should add in the first sentence that he's also a lawyer, a rich guy, and an old white male? That's a jest, by the way.108.18.174.123 (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Leave politician. That's his current profession. His former profession was corporate executive. I could run for president, but unless I am elected, that does not make me a politician. Jehochman Talk 19:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone re-added the neutrality tag to the 2012 campaing section. In the interest of not starting an edit war, what exactly needs to be done to remove it? Naapple (talk) 04:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments in London About the Olympics

Cwobeel, adding today's UK Olympics flap to the main article is really off the mark. There has been a 'controversy of the day' in this election all the way going back to last year, and there will be ones all the way to November. The main article is not the place for them! The vast majority of these are two- or three-day affairs that keep bloggers and the cable news yakkers (and their British cousins, the tabloids) busy until the next "nontroversy" (great term, see this Time mag piece) comes along. Your duty as a WP editor is to keep a saner head than the rest of these people; most of these things don't even belong in the campaign article, much less here, and in any case you wait until importance is established. In other words, if people want to know what happened on the campaign trail today, WP is the last place they should look. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not the controversy of the day. This is Romney's first visit as presumptive nominee to a foreing country and very significant. We will add also stuff about Poland and Israel when he gets there. Cwobeel (talk) 04:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Bloggers? Tabloids? Please take a few minutes and check any news aggregator. Cwobeel (talk) 04:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Here are just a few. Neither bloggers, nor tabloids: LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-romney-london-20120727,0,4672751.story , BusinessWeek http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-07-26/romney-goes-to-europe-causes-international-stir , Associated Press http://www.wsbtv.com/ap/ap/top-news/romney-goes-to-europe-causes-international-stir/nP4X8/ There are dozens more from UK, and all of Europe. Cwobeel (talk) 04:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
WP is not written in response to news aggregators. Even if every newspaper in the country runs a story that Candidate X made a gaffe today, that does not mean we have to include it in the main article about X. Anyway, if what you say about importance is true, give me some historical examples of the "very significant" things that have happened when past nominees (presumptive or actual) have visited foreign countries. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Take some time and search Google in French, Italian, German, Danish. You will find the top newspapers in all Europ reporting on this. Wikipedia needs to reflect what the sources report, in proportion to the sources that report it. This idea to "wait and see" I don't buy it. If it is significant enough to be reported widely around the world, it is significant to be added to his biography. Cwobeel (talk) 04:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
You ask for an example? here is one Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign,_2008#Middle_Eastern_and_European_tour Cwobeel (talk) 04:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
It didn't make his main article. I haven't checked, but I would guess there isn't any main biographical article on any major party nominee that covers a foreign trip made during the nominee period. Interesting question though whether there's some famous trip I'm not thinking of. (Obama's Berlin speech got a lot of attention, but I don't think much of anything came out of the rest of the trip. Generally nominees generally do these for domestic consumption - foreign leaders usually prefer the devil they know over the devil they don't, although Netanyahu is an obvious exception. I've been looking for an excuse to add that he and Mitt worked together at BCG to the article ... Wasted Time R (talk) 04:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I concur with earlier comments vis-a-vis this is Romney's biography, not his diary. If there is something significant or historic about his travels, it can be added. Failing that, it's just clutter that crowds out the stuff that matters. Belchfire 04:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
When I noticed the addition of the whole Olympic trip comment, the problem was that it doesn't get much notice here in the media particularly on television. Yes, there are plenty of reliable sources but it was a domestic issue which spilled over to the United States because the news needed something to write about regarding the presidential nominee. If we were tracking every move of Mitt Romney, this article would have been a lot longer than it is now. Now the trip was a political trip for his own candidacy so it would be notable in those other articles but definitely not this one. As Belchfire pointed out, this is not a diary. ViriiK (talk) 05:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

(Undent) This is not exactly conforming with WP:Not News. Moreover, Cameron later denied that he had referred to Utah when Cameron made the statement quoted in this BLP.

"We are holding an Olympic Games in one of the busiest, most active, bustling cities anywhere in the world. Of course it's easier if you hold an Olympic Games in the middle of nowhere," Cameron added. His aides said that was not intended as a jibe at Romney or Salt Lake City.

Of course, one may doubt if the disclaimer was truthful, but good editing would seem to require us to include both the quote and the disclaimer, or neither, in this summary article.

198.228.201.146 (talk) 05:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

In 6 months, will anyone be talking about Romney's comment in London? I don't think so. This isn't a newspaper, it doesn't belong. I get how his tenure at Bain capital could be relevant, or the fact that he still received a salary, but this is a freaking visit to London. Its nothing in the grand scheme of things. The fact that he was even in London is not even worthy of mention in the article, let alone what he said.
Like Wasted Time said, if you can find a piece about Barack Obama overseas during his '08 primary on his page, then maybe this is relevant too (but you won't!). Naapple (talk) 07:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Cwobeel, rather than pulling stuff from the daily news on Romney, why not fix that section you had Wasted Time rip out at your behest? This is an encyclopedia, not a diary. Naapple (talk) 07:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Most of Romney's progress has been non-news outside the US. But this is international news. (It's big in Australia.) This belongs in this global encyclopaedia much more than most of the local trivia his opponents keep pushing. HiLo48 (talk) 07:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
It's already noted in the other articles of Mitt Romney's so why the need to mention it again here in the main article? It was almost verbatim. We might as well move this article to those pages since it's given the same treatment. ViriiK (talk) 07:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

(Undent)There is also the problem of cutting off the next sentence that Cameron uttered, which corroborates that Cameron was not talking about Romney or Utah:

"Of course it's easier if you hold an Olympic Games in the middle of nowhere. I visited Naypyidaw recently, in Burma, they've got six-lane highways and no cars on them. This is a busy, bustling city so inevitably you're going to have challenges."

. 198.228.201.157 (talk) 07:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, they won't be talking about this in 6 months and so it doesn't belong in his general biography. His 2012 campaign page? Perhaps so. I haven't looked but it sounds like it is already there. Naapple (talk) 08:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Cheyeah, they won't be talking about this in six days is more like it. I can see maybe a sentence on the Campaign page, maybe two (but I doubt it), but on the bio? Nu-uh. Not sufficiently notable. Belchfire 08:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
How do you guys know this? As I said above this IS the first big international news on Romney from this campaign period. If he does become president, I could almost guarantee that the British media at least will bring it up again. HiLo48 (talk) 08:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
How dare you accuse their crystal ball of being biased?! :-)
Alternately, we could just report the events just like our reliable sources say, and let the future decide if it's important in the future. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

In which planet do you live? US is not the world. The gaffes in London, during his first visit as presumptive nominee is all over the news in Europe, Australia, and the rest of the world. This is not a diary, but a biography, and as such we need to document and report how Romney is received and perceived in the world. Cwobeel (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

WP is WP:NOT#NEWS a news paper, what is so freaking hard for some editors to understand about this. And who the hell cares what Carl Lewis has to say about it? Arzel (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

My 2 cents here, such as it is, is that this isn't particularly relevant to Mitt the man, but it is relevant to the Romney campaign. It belongs in the campaign article, but not in his biography. Not unless the passage of time proves it belongs here. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Arzel has tried to remove any mention of the Olympics from the campaign article as well[17]. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I removed it because WP is not a newspaper, a fact which seem completely lost on both you and Cwobeel. Arzel (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

@Arzel: Who cares?, the readers or Wikipedia. This is a biography in Wikipedia, and that means "means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." If Romney was received with enthusiasm in Britain and with glowing reports in the press, would we not be publishing that in this page? Of course we would. Cwobeel (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

WP is not a newspaper. I will continue to repeat that to you until it resonates. Go edit wikinews if you want to cover current events. Arzel (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
WP is indeed not a newspaper, but that doesn't mean that all recent happenings are against policy to include. It simply means we have to take extra care to make sure recentism doesn't factor into the decisions of what to include/exclude and the level of detail given to included items. We can handle this appropriately with a sentence or two. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the people who think this London trip is overemphasized. But Mr. Romney really is prone to gaffes. If you don't list the recent ones, then you ought to include an overview (or subsitute the summary of your choice). -SusanLesch (talk) 15:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I love that there are 57 states! Lets make make sure to add all of Obama's to his article as well. Romney is no more prone to gaffes than any other politician. Arzel (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Can we all agree with the comment, "It belongs in the campaign article, but not in his biography. Not unless the passage of time proves it belongs here." made by Muboshu? [User talk:Carlos] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.7.156 (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Can we? Arzel is edit-warring right now to keep it out of the campaign article. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Another edit-warring accusation. Surprise! ViriiK (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

At the Obama presidency article the Obama campaign workers warred to keep out out the entire Solyndra affair as "too minor to include", and here they consider every supposed gaff as suitable for inclusion in the top level Romney article. And not only that but using an attacker as the source who ascribes motives to his speeches and calls the overall visit "marred". North8000 (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

So what you're saying here is that you believe that something done by other people at another time on another article was wrong, so you want to do the same wrong thing to this article as well? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
This is not the place to make decisions about the campaign article, and nothing said about the campaign article here holds any currency there - just to make that perfectly clear for certain editors. Belchfire 16:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I was using that other extreme for perspective on where the middle ground is, and how these wp:undue negative attempted additions miss it by a mile. North8000 (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree that this doesn't belong in the article, regardless of whether it's been covered by reliable sources. Reliably sourced coverage is required for inclusion, but doesn't mandate inclusion, especially in a biographical article. These mildly amusing missteps may or may not be a factor in the election (more likely, they're just filler in the 24-hour news cycle), but they're clearly not up to the level of notability for an encyclopedic biography. MastCell Talk 17:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the Solyndra affair, whatever that was, wasn't international news. This is. Do other editors not see the significance of that? So far my pointing that out seems to have been studiously ignored. HiLo48 (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm inclined to the view that some mention of this visit should be made here. Here's a nice Guardian article that lists them. --John (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
WP:Not news applies to national news, international news, interplanetary news, interstellar news, intergalactic news, et cetera. For example, Vladimir Putin was widely reported to have kissed a boy on the stomach in 2006, but you won't find that in his BLP.107.56.175.106 (talk) 01:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Everything in this article was news first, so being reported is a requirement, not an excuse for removal. You need to argue that it's too minor to matter, but you haven't even tried to do that. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Unlike BRD or "consensus to remove", WP:NOTNEWS is a policy. ViriiK (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah, but WP:NPOV is. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
And? We're following NPOV here which you tried to defend POV pushing. I'm following policy. You tried to make up policy in order to dissuade fellow editors and I from making changes. ViriiK (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
HiLo48, this is not a now-or-never decision. If it turns out that Romneyshambles was the turning point of the election and that Obama ended up winning by 15 points because American voters were repelled that someone would treat the British this way, we will surely describe that in the article. If it turns out that Romney wins the election but 10 Downing hates him so much that the break all their alliances with the U.S. and join the Euro, then we will include that in the article. If it turns out that Obama wins the election by 2 points and half of that is attributable to Romney's epic Olympics fail, we will state that. But if they job numbers really tank next week and Romney suddenly surges to a lead in all the polls, people are going to forget about Middleofnowheregate really fast. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Do you mean the British people? HiLo48 (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Just heard this mentioned on a radio program about Australian Football in Melbourne, Australia. And it sure wasn't a positive mention. Romney has certainly hit the international big time. HiLo48 (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

So the world is becoming more aware of who is Mitt Romney? Good news I guess. ViriiK (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
The comments made are important and should be included. TFD (talk) 03:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
May I suggest those here could weigh in on the comments at Mitt Romney Presidential campaign 2012 talk page, I strongly feel the section that mentions his Olympic comments could expand on the international coverage it has received.Nasir cast (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I would have no trouble including this at Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. When I worked on both Hillary and McCain's BLP and campaign articles in 2008, the approach was to be liberal about adding material to the campaign article and conservative about adding it to the main BLP article. Thus, the 2008 presidential campaign section in the John McCain main article is 1,522 words, while the campaign article is 13,960 words. For Hillary it's 1,125 words and 21,026 words (spread across three pages). It's even more drastic for Obama: it was about 700 words (at time of election), now down to 379 words, in the main, compared to 16,598 words (spread across two pages). These are big ratios, 10:1 or more. But for Mitt 2012 right now it's 1,0003 words in the main compared to 2,326 words in campaign article. That's only a 2:1 ratio, which tells me that the campaign article needs to have more content in it. Which I've stated before - 2011 is completely missing and the 2012 primary coverage is thin and then stops. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, as much as the comments have attracted international media, it's pretty clear it shouldn't be added here for now, I still feel as though the work that is put in here should also be undertaken at the campaign page, no mention of the threat from Perry or his debates with Gingrich both earlier in the primary, it's still missing quite qa bit.Nasir cast (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I truly don't get it. Romney is not campaigning for President of the world, only the USA. This story is about his impact OUTSIDE the USA, i.e. the world, not the US, so why stick it in the campaign article? HiLo48 (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
This story has no impact in the world. Romney brought up the well known fact that Londan was having security problems and given the current world threats of terrorism he was a little concerned about the reports. Hell you would think that Romney gave the Queen an IPOD with his speaches on it, or gave Britan back the bust of Churchil...wait? Those international incidents did happen...by someone.....hmmm, I can't seem to remember. I can't believe that anyone seriously believes that this stupid story has any longlasting impact. Arzel (talk) 12:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
And that would have to be the silliest post in this thread. No impact on the world? LOL. Have you actually read what others have posted here? No impact? ROFLMAO!!!!! Oh, and BTW, I have no idea what the references to an IPOD (sic) and bust of Churchil (sic) are about. You seem to think that your perspective is global. Sorry. No. Wrong. And THAT'S the problem. Believe it or not, some people see the world differently from you. Some see it differently from me too. But I know that! HiLo48 (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree: Arzel's claim that the story has no impact is silly. Let's ignore his personal opinion and stick with the reliable sources. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
In such situations we need to be very careful of WP:POVFORK. The danger is that the parent article can become too sanitised and all critical material is relegated to the daughter article, out of the way. This is not how we are supposed to work. The material in the parent article should be a fair summary of that in the daughter articles. There is currently a similar situation at Barack Obama, interestingly enough. --John (talk) 12:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you can fairly compare this to the Obama article, that one is more sanitized than and Operating Room that has just been cleaned.....and there is no chance in hell that it is going to change. To suggest that Romney's article has been sanitized too far is hard to reconcile. Arzel (talk) 12:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
LMFAO!!! – Lionel (talk) 11:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

(Undent) There seems to be quite a strong sentiment among experts that this incident is basically a flash in the pan. As such, it falls squarely within WP:Not news. For example, CBS has a piece out titled, " "Mitt Romney screwed up in London. So what?" An excerpt:

Incidentally, please note that I have commented elsewhere in this thread under various IPs (I'm travelling and using different computers & such).108.18.174.123 (talk) 16:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Whoever you are, why don't you register, and log on whenever you post, rather than expecting us to know which posts are from you? At this stage, every post you make appears as just another random post from a random, unregistered editor, who seemingly doesn't really want to be part of this community. As for CBS being the global experts (you used that word) on the global impact of this, LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I like being random and mysterious.  :-) But I'd be glad to list the IPs I've used at this talk page this week.108.18.174.123 (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Nah. Don't bother. Most humans aren't designed to deal with numbers up to 12 digit long. I, for one, would just get confused. And if you ever found yourself at a site using IPv6, God helps us... HiLo48 (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
108, your contributions are valuable. But I think their value could be enhanced if you adopted a moniker. Your call, of course. Belchfire-TALK 21:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

How it is possible that this article and the 2012 Presidential campaign get so white washed? This POV tag will remain there for as long as needed to ensure that the article becomes neutral and balanced. Cwobeel (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Lede

The lede says only this about Romney's governorship fiscal policy: "During his term he presided over a series of spending cuts and increases in fees that eliminated a projected $1.2–1.5 billion deficit." But that is not a balanced view of that period. Either we remove that sentence or we expand on other policies. Cwobeel (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

What would be needed to make it more NPOV? At this point it looks quite dispassionate - is there another way to reduce projected deficits other than what is stated? Collect (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I will echo Collect's question, and point out that the statement appears facially balanced. We can't evaluate the complaint without specifics. Belchfire-TALK 17:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Is there an article that explains it differently? Is anyone refuting that he eliminated the deficit, hiked fees, or enacted spending cuts? Naapple (talk) 04:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are a few issues that are as notable as what it says there currently: From January 2003 to January 2007, employment grew by just 1.5 percent compared with 5.2 percent for the nation as a whole, and MA went from 36th to 47th in terms of job creation among states. These facts has been widely reported. Cwobeel (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

A few more: State spending rose by 22% nearly double the rate of inflation. Romney increased corporate taxes and state fees by $750 million a year, outstripping his tax cuts. Cwobeel (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

And in what way did Romney have direct control over the unemployment rate? Also I would point out your job creation "facts" seem to get Pinocchios. [18] "if you take each year of job growth under Romney’s governorship using the number of jobs every January, Massachusetts was dead last in 2003, 46th in 2004, 40th in 2005 and then 30th in 2006." [19] Washington Post regarding Massachusetts debt: "The first is that Massachusetts ranked first and second respectively during the two years before Romney took office, so high debt was nothing new. In fact, the Bay State has ranked in the top five for decades." ... "Romney actually slowed the annual rate of debt growth from 5.8 percent to 1.9 percent, as we pointed out in our previous column." IOW, Romney was not the person responsible for high MA debt. As for unemployment: "True to what the ad states, Massachusetts ranked 47th in the nation in job creation during Romney’s tenure. But that’s an average that doesn’t reflect the fact that he improved the state’s standing. Massachusetts started out at 50th when Romney entered office and ended at 28th by the time he left, as our colleagues at FactCheck.org noted in an article." At the end of his term, Romney did not leave Massachusetts at 47 - but at 28 -- a noticeable improvement over yur claim. Per the Washington Post. Two Pinocchios. The sentence as originally given is NPOV - your suggestions are very POV. Collect (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Everything can be explained, and so the elimination of the projected $1.2–1.5 billion deficit reduction. What I am advocating is not to provide explanations or analysis, but to provide data and facts. Cwobeel (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


This is what I mean: the sentence in the led summarizes this, which is by no means a neutral summary. Cwobeel (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

A windfall in capital gains tax revenue caused by a previously enacted capital gains tax increase reduced the deficit by $1.3 billion. Romney approved $128 million in tax changes such as sales tax from purchases on the Internet[1] and raised another $181 million in additional business taxes in the next two years; businesses called these changes tax increases, but Romney defended them as the elimination of "loopholes".[2][3][4] Over his full term, over $300 million of such loopholes were closed.[2][4] The loophole actions, fueled by Romney's sense of rectitude in the face of conservative and corporate critics, initially won plaudits from legislators as an example of political courage, before Romney backed away from further closings towards the end of his term.[4] The state also cut spending by $1.6 billion, including $700 million in reductions in state aid to cities and towns.[5] In response, cities and towns became more reliant on local revenue to pay for municipal services and schools. This had the effect of causing property taxes to rise by five percent, their highest level in 25 years in Massachusetts.[6] In 2005, Romney signed legislation allowing local commercial property taxes to be raised, which resulted in $100 million more in property taxes from local business owners.[7]"

I would say that these are entirely valid points. We need to restore WP:NPOV. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept the sentence about the cuts and provided context on the how. Cwobeel (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
As usual, I find your changes reasonable. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

(Undent) I disagree with the recent expansion of the lead, to include this italicized stuff: "During his term he presided over a series of spending cuts and increases in fees that eliminated a projected $1.2–1.5 billion deficit by reducing state funding for higher education and state aid to cities, raising fees, collecting Internet sales taxes, raising additional business taxes, and benefiting from a windfall in capital gains tax revenue."

The unitalicized stuff is plenty for the lead, and details are in the body of the article. Furthermore, it's not helpful to say that there were "increases in fees...by...raising fees". And it's false to say that elimination of the projected deficit of 1.2 to 1.5 billion benefited from a capital gains windfall, because that revenue was already factored in to the calculation of the projected deficit (the body of this article says that, "Unexpected revenue of $1.0–1.3 billion from a previously enacted capital gains tax increase and $500 million in unanticipated federal grants decreased the deficit to $1.2–1.5 billion"). The bias of the italicized material is further evidenced by selective omission of: removal of corporate tax loopholes (see footnote 172 and accompanying text in the body of the article), the creation of surpluses of around $600–700 million (see body of the article), raising fees on gun licenses, et cetera. We ought to at least present a veneer of neutrality, no?108.18.174.123 (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

read the section on his tenure, all the sources are there: [8][9][8] Cwobeel (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Loopholes are what Romney called these tax increases. Cwobeel (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
According to Grover Norquist's Tax Pledge, closing a loophole so as to increase tax revenue counts as increasing taxes. I think it's fair to follow this interpretation, as it's what the GOP runs on. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

First, the capital gains windfall is a red herring. That happened early on, when the projected deficit was $3B, and before Romney and the legislature had a chance to do anything. After the windfall, the projected deficit was $1.2-1.5B, and the closing of that is what we are describing. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Second, Grover Norquist is a blooming idiot, and we don't follow what he says when we describe things. What Romney did was enforce existing business taxes, not create new ones or raise business tax rates. Thus "removing corporate tax loopholes" is the correct wording. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Third, the lead has to summarize what this article says, not what the Governorship subarticle says. Internet sales taxes is not in this article (I'll look into whether it should be), so it can't be the lead either. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

This Boston Globe story from 2005 is a good story on the loophole closing efforts. It's behind the firewall but you can also see it here. The general thrust was fairness in businesses paying what they should owe by the spirit of the law. On the other hand, the changes did require legislative action to implement - it wasn't all executive branch action. In any case, the Internet software sales tax thing is lumped in with the other loophole closures, and not a separate thing - the idea was to tax a purchase of a downloaded software product the same if it had been bought on CD in a store. I'll clarify the subarticle. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Fourth, as to whether the lead needed to be expanded in this area or not, I'm okay with doing it as I have just changed it to, but I'm also okay with the older version. "During his term he presided over a series of spending cuts and increases in fees that eliminated a projected $1.2–1.5 billion deficit." would appeal to libertarians (cut spending good, fees instead of taxes good), somewhat appeal to most conservatives (depending upon how beholden to Norquist they are), and repel most progressives (spending cuts usually hammer the poor and disadvantaged the most; fees are almost always regressive). So I don't think the old wording was pro-Romney in the first place, but I'm okay with this as the new wording: "During his term he presided over the elimination of a projected $1.2–1.5 billion deficit by reducing state funding for higher education, cutting state aid to cities and towns, raising various fees, and removing corporate tax loopholes." Wasted Time R (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, one editor seems determined to include the capital gains tax windfall, so this has now been adjusted to the $3B projected figure, which means the unanticipated federal grants need to be brought in ... also a different editor thought 'windfall' was objectionable ... so the text now reads: "During his term he presided over the elimination of a projected $3 billion deficit by reducing state funding for higher education, cutting state aid to cities and towns, raising various fees, removing corporate tax loopholes, and benefiting from unanticipated federal grants and unexpected revenue from a previously enacted capital gains tax increase." Wordier but still accurate. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Very good, Thank you for making the effort and correct that sentence. Cwobeel (talk) 14:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I strongly object to including the capital gains tax revenue/windfall in the lead, because Romney essentially had nothing to do with it. Therefore, I also strongly object to changing the figure to $3 billion. That renders the lead ambiguous about whether Romney really did anything significant at all, and whether the capital gains money by itself would have substantially eliminated the deficit. And God forbid that the lead should mention that Romney created a $600–700 million surplus.108.18.174.123 (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
It was about half and half, as is the text, so the reader is unlikely to draw that conclusion. And if the reader suspects that it's better to be lucky than good as a state executive, the reader would be right. As for the surplus, that's a more complicated story, Note 11 tries to tell it. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Internet sales should be taxed, Romney says". Daily Free Press. Retrieved 2007-06-17.
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference bgseries6 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ "Romney often casts himself as budget hero; But speeches omit some important detail". Greenberger, Scott S. (Boston Globe). Archived from the original on May 22, 2006. Retrieved October 28, 2006.
  4. ^ a b c Barbaro, Michael (October 1, 2011). "Seeking Taxes, Romney Went After Business". The New York Times. Retrieved October 2, 2011.
  5. ^ Viser, Matt (December 18, 2005). "Property taxes still on rise in Mass". The Boston Globe. Retrieved December 7, 2006.
  6. ^ "Smooth Talking Romney Brings His Ever-Changing Views To Michigan And Pennsylvania". Democratic National Committee. 2007-04-27. Retrieved 2007-06-17.
  7. ^ "In Wake of Tax Cut Flip Flops and Flubs, Romney Returns to Florida". Democratic National Committee. Retrieved 2007-06-17.
  8. ^ a b Landrigan, Kevin (December 13, 2007). "Taxing Matter". The Telegraph. Nashua, New Hampshire. Archived from the original on December 21, 2007.
  9. ^ "More Mitt Missteps". FactCheck. July 9, 2007.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mitt_Romney/Archive_17&oldid=1073141346"