Talk:Mitt Romney

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well the whole article is extremely misleading claiming that Stericycle supposedly makes their revenue when one can investigate their 10Q or 10K filings whichever a person wants to use and find this to be false. On the user's talk page, he actually commented saying this And from what I understand a large portion of revenue is generated due to disposal of dead bodies. But when I look at Stericycle's 10Q filing, it says We serve over 485,000 customers worldwide, of which over 13,000 are large-quantity generators, such as hospitals, blood banks and pharmaceutical manufacturers, and over 472,000 are small-quantity generators, such as outpatient clinics, medical and dental offices, long-term and sub-acute care facilities, veterinary offices, municipalities and retail pharmacies. Based on the proxy's claim, all of those customers are abortion clinics? Well, with that many customers, the odds would be extremely high that some of them do performed abortions. If abortion was their niche, it would have been obvious in the 10Q or 10K filings but it's not. Now the people assigned to Stericycle were Thomas R. Reusche and John P. Connaughton and they had authority overseeing Bain's investment in Stericycle [1]. Over at this page for Reusche's executive profile page [2], he was a director there from 1999 to 2009. Another thing is that it make sense why they made the investment in the first place if you look at their stock price. Stericycle in 1999 had their stock price at $4-5ish and now today, it's at $92. So they must have saw an unexploited sector of the medical industry and made a killing (figuratively) on it. Now the other critical part of their business is Medical Waste Management which is just about anything in the medical industry. Used IV bags, soiled gauzes, fat, urine, feces, needles, arms, legs, missing limbs, and yes I'm sure in some cases, fetuses of legal or spontaneous abortions based on this document I found here [3]. I don't think Bain Capital just up and decided to fund a business going "Let's go into the abortion business". ViriiK (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 ([4]). 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 [[5]]. I understand it's a blog but there's also a statement from Bain Capital [[6]] 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. [7] 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 [8]. 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 [9] 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" [10] 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 [11] 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. [12] 2. [13] 3. [14] - 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?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=071312&utm_medium=email&utm_content=FeatureTitle&utm_term=Daily%20Brief 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? [15] “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 [16] 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 [17] 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. [18] 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) [19]. 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)

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)

'Medicine' quote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No involvement

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

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

Picture

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

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

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

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

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

Fully protected for a period of 3 days.

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

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

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

Romney's behavior at Cranbrook school

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[fox news]

[nytimes]

[christian science monitor]

[reuters]

[bbc news]

[abc news]

[cbs news]

[boston globe]

[ny daily news]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 16th entangled bundle of POV edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personal wealth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overnight edits

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

Political positions and public perceptions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LDS church

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(ec) Some thoughts:

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

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

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

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

I support Susan's change because it accurately reflects the LDS "separate but equal" policy in which men (and some boys) have the priesthood and women have (as a consolation prize) motherhood.[20] Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The p-word.

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

It turns out that the only reason these Mormon colonies existed was to continue the practice of polygamy. And, in fact, that's why the Romney's were in Mexico: Miles Park wanted to keep all of his wives and add some more.[21]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is why we already mention the Mormon colonies. As for polygamy, you're simply mistaken about its importance.[22][ http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,254362,00.html]. It keeps coming up, so we can't pretend that it's some secret that we're digging up here. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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[23]. 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)

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)

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)