Talk:Mitt Romney

Overseas Trip

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article currently describes Romney's trip as follows:

"In July 2012, Romney undertook a trip to London, Poland, and Israel. After a rough start due to what was perceived by the British press as undiplomatic comments about the readiness of the 2012 Summer Olympics,[331][332] Romney went on to receive support from Israeli Prime Minister (and former BCG colleague) Benjamin Netanyahu and an endorsement from former Polish president and Nobel Peace Prize winner Lech Walesa."[333]

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

A quick google about Romney's reasons for the London visit brings this [1], and this [2] which says "The Republican candidate is using the trip to raise campaign funds and canvass for support among London's large American community." Another [3] says "Mitt Romney has travelled to Britain to meet David Cameron and Ed Miliband ahead of the Olympics". Both reasons, of course, are valid, and unless someone can find a source which says which was Romney's prime reason it's probably best to give them "equal billing". Alfietucker (talk) 08:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Re. Poland, there's this on the Polish visit [4]: "The two-day trip to Poland is aimed at Polish-American and Catholic voters in the U.S. and will highlight Romney's stance toward Russia." And this [5]: "Romney's visit to Poland could have an impact well beyond Eastern Europe because a large portion of the Polish-American community resides in critical swing states — especially Pennsylvania and Michigan, according to a 2010 survey of Polish-Americans by the Piast Institute." Alfietucker (talk) 08:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saving the Olympics

Its very surprising how much you've changed the summary of Mitt's page here. Over the past year, you've added the duration of his Mormon (that's not the legal term of the church) missionary work in France along with his leadership roles in the church (failing to list other community roles he's served on - point of lights foundation). Now you've completely gutted the sentence in the summery "Romney organized and steered the 2002 Winter Olympics as President and CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee, and helped turn the troubled Games into a financial success." that was part of his Wikipedia page for years. He is most well known for his turn around skills, especially for saving the 2002 Salt Lake Games. Just because people are raising doubts about it doesn't mean you not include documented facts. Even the NBC commendatory during the London 2012 opening games stated "no matter what your political beliefs no one can deny what he did to the save the 2002 games". People are raising more doubts about the legitimacy of Obama's origin of birth, but I don't see it mentioned in his summary page. Please fix this back to what it was before. Thanks!

Reference from liberal NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/us/politics/19romney.html?pagewanted=all

99.7.171.138 (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC) JS

I think mentioning the length of his mission is appropriate, because it's a long time and a very significant time for him, although I could live with it back the old way. As for terminology, the article uses both "Mormon" and "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"/"LDS Church" in accordance with the house style guide - see MOS:MORMON - and in fact the full term appears later in the same paragraph. As for his church leadership positions, they were important and definitely warrant mentioning. As for his other community roles, what are they? Points of Light Foundation gets mentioned in the article body, but I've never read anything that says Mitt had much of an impact there. (In contrast, volunteerism was a lifelong passion of his father, and that article has a whole section on it.) If you have any sources about Mitt's other community roles, please bring them forward. As for the Olympics, yes, it's on my list of things to do to get some more descriptive text there. But at this point in the game, lead wording gets very hard to do without someone or other thinking it's too positive/too negative ... Thanks for your comments. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Getting back to this, I have added to the lead: "The once fiscally troubled games completed with a $100 million surplus." It's factual, without getting into the mire of how much Romney deserves the credit and how exactly it was done. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with this addition, in particular as it is not sourced in the body of the article and it is inconsequential for the lead. Cwobeel (talk) 13:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I see it is sourced, but nevertheless, there is also other information about the rescue that is not reflected in the lead. Let's keep it out and allow the reader to explore the article for full context. Cwobeel (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with WTR (and the IP 99.7.171.138) about this. All the lead says about the Olympics is: "In 1999, he was hired as President and CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the 2002 Winter Olympics and Paralympics." And all WTR added was "The once fiscally troubled games completed with a $100 million surplus." There is always going to be other information about stuff in the lead that is not reflected in the lead. Did you have some particular thing in mind Cwobeel? If you say what that particular thing is, then we can check the sources to see how it stacks up to the sentence WTR inserted, in terms of notability.108.18.174.123 (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of saying nothing at all, because the lead says something about his time at Bain Capital, as Governor, and his 2008 presidential race. So I've tried a different sentence: "The visibility he gained from this stint gave him the opportunity to relaunch his political career." Clearly true, stated and sourced in the body. Implied but not stated is that his stint was a success (otherwise it wouldn't have been a springboard) and that burnishing his image during it was a factor (something touched on in the body section). Wasted Time R (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The role that his Mormon family members played in the olympics has not been fully vetted. The olympics is considered by some to be the greatest multilevel marketing scheme ever conceived. (sources tba). The state of Utah and the epicenter of Mormon connections needs much more investigating in order to fully plot Romney's flightpath to success. Wikipietime (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Would it be worth mentioning that Romney registered as a lobbyist in or near the sentence about lobbying the government? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/26/mitt-romney-olympics_n_1704261.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.229.174.138 (talk) 08:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

So

The federal government provided between approximately $400 million[139][140][141] and $600 million[142][143] of that budget, much of it a result of Romney's having aggressively lobbied Congress and federal agencies.[143][144]

could be

The federal government provided between approximately $400 million[139][140][141] and $600 million[142][143] of that budget, much of it a result of Romney's having aggressively lobbied Congress and federal agencies as a registered lobbyist.[143][144][145] [ 08:09, August 8, 2012‎ Jensiverson ]

This January 2002 Salt Lake Tribune story is what the HuffPo piece is referring to. But the story talks about Romney and the other SLOC officials holding "state lobbyist licenses". The text you want to change concerns federal lobbying, not state. I agree that it's tempting to point out that he was a registered lobbyist during this time, but since our article doesn't talk about efforts to get state funding for the games, saying he was a lobbyist to the state wouldn't seem to fit in. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Qualifications for Governor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reliable sourcing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Separation from Bain Capital

The part of the article dealing with Romney's leave of absence and departure from Bain has been tweaked.

Does everyone accept the current version?

Extended content

Here is the present text:

Romney took a paid 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.[88][89] Billed in some public statements as keeping a part-time role,[90][88] Romney remained the firm's CEO and sole shareholder, signing corporate and legal documents, attending to his interests within the firm, and conducting prolonged negotiations for the terms of his departure.[91][88] He was not involved in day-to-day operations or in investment decisions for Bain Capital's next private equity fund.[88][91]

By 1999, Bain Capital was on its way to being one of the top private equity firms in the nation,[74] having increased its number of partners from 5 to 18, with 115 employees overall, and $4 billion under its management.[65][75] Bain Capital's approach of applying consulting expertise to the companies it invested in became widely copied within the private equity industry.[25][75] Economist Steven Kaplan would later say, "[Romney] came up with a model that was very successful and very innovative and that now everybody uses."[76]

In August 2001, Romney announced that he would not return to Bain Capital.[92] His separation from the firm was finalized in early 2002;[88] 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.[80][93] Because the private equity business continued to thrive, this deal brings him millions of dollars in annual income.[80]

My concerns are that, first, the paragraph that begins "By 1999, Bain Capital was on its way to being" should be moved to the position before "Romney took a paid leave of absence." Second, the new version has reduced the description of his role from sole shareholder, sole director, chief executive officer, and president to just "CEO and sole shareholder" and has left out mention of a dollar amount for the non-investment compensation he received as a Bain executive in 2001 and 2002. Third, the text should not gloss over the discussion there has been about the Romney campaign's characterization of Romney's role during the leave of absence. Fourth, the sentence which reads "he was not involved in the day-to-day operations or in investment decisions for Bain Capital's next private equity fund" would be more informative as "he was not involved in the day-to-day operations or in investment decisions for Bain Capital's next private equity fund, which was launched in 2000." Dezastru (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

1) Yes, the second paragraph should be first, so that it's chronological.

2) There's room for the full description, so we should use it.

3) There is genuine controversy, so we should report on it.

4) Mentioning the year is helpful.

I agree with all of your suggestions. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

On 1, I've swapped the order, that was an oversight on my part, it's much better this way. On 2, the previous text said "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." That makes it sound like some kind of the paper-only technicality. The newer, more comprehensive sources that I based the revision on (AP story, BG story) offer a stronger statement - he was still the CEO and sole shareholder, in deed as well as on paper. As for two positions rather than four, if you are CEO then the president title is redundant and if you are sole shareholder then the director title is redundant. Note the BG story says near the top, "... but would retain his title as chief executive officer and sole shareholder." Those are the important ones. I've left out the dollar amount of non-investment compensation - the previous text was "At that time, he was receiving $100,000 from Bain, apart from investment earnings." - because that was a number devoid of contextual meaning. Was it salary or something else? Was he also receiving non-investment compensation before 1999? If so, was this amount during the leave the same, a lot less, less, more, a lot more? We have no idea. The new text says this was a paid leave of absence, that is the important point and all that need be said. On 3, I've now added a sentence to the 2012 campaign section, "A related issue has been whether Romney was responsible for actions at Bain Capital after taking the Olympics post.[89][91]" It belongs there rather than here so that the biographical narrative doesn't get cluttered with "and this later became controversial in the such-and-such election" asides. On 4, I agree and have added the year. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

"The newer, more comprehensive sources that I based the revision on (AP story, BG story) offer a stronger statement - he was still the CEO and sole shareholder, in deed as well as on paper. As for two positions rather than four, if you are CEO then the president title is redundant" — Whether it is redundant in an individual editor's eyes or not, Romney's having held both positions has been reported in a number of RS, including in the Braun AP article you chose (quoting a law professor/private equity expert), and Romney himself registered both of those roles in his SEC filings.

"and if you are sole shareholder then the director title is redundant" — assuming there are no outside directors, something most readers would have no way of knowing, especially since Romney had announced a leave of absence.

(Btw, the AP article link may be dead.) Dezastru (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed the AP cite by using the same thing as in a newspaper. Meant to do this early but didn't get around to it. Thanks for letting me know. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you find any sources describing Romney's fully active, pre-1999 years at Bain Capital, or that were written before this whole separation issue came up, that stress his role as "president" or as "director"? That's a good indicator as to whether these roles were of any tangible importance, or just pieces of minor evidence reporters found when they began deconstructing the leave period and wrote up whatever they found. If you can't find such sources, then these roles are of no significance in the Olympics leave period either and don't need to be mentioned in the article. If you can find them, they we will modify the infobox at the top and the positions box at the bottom to include them, because clearly by only listing him as founder and CEO we are not giving him his just due. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

"That's a good indicator as to whether these roles were of any tangible importance, or just pieces of minor evidence reporters found when they began deconstructing the leave period and wrote up whatever they found. If you can't find such sources, then these roles are of no significance in the Olympics leave period" — Nice straw man, but how the media described Romney's positions at Bain Capital prior to the 2012 presidential campaign are, presumably, a reflection of how he portrayed himself publicly in the past. For the purposes of marketing the company and of campaigning for public office, it would have been sufficient for him to describe himself solely as "founder and CEO." The purpose of the particular section of his bio that we are considering, however, is broader. It discusses the discrepant characterizations of his roles at Bain during the 1999—2002 period, including his legal responsibilities for actions of the company; and several RS have presented his other roles at Bain, apart from his having been founder and CEO, as being of relevance to that discussion.

Regardless, the current text of that part of the section on Private Equity looks good enough now, so if you are not objecting to it, I have no complaint. And my previous criticism was only for the body of the article, not for info in the infobox, which should be very brief. Dezastru (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm still objecting to it. It's bad writing, since it introduces two positions out of the blue at the end of the section for no apparent reason. If these roles are really important, we have to describe them at the beginning of the Bain Capital section and stress what it is that they entailed that wasn't covered by his other roles. So tell me, other than the titles on the SEC report - and we are stipulating that he was still the guy who signed off on all the corporate and legal documents, that's not in dispute - what RS says that his specific activities as "president" or as "director" were significant, that were above and beyond what he was already doing as CEO or sole shareholder? Wasted Time R (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

"we have to describe them at the beginning of the Bain Capital section and stress what it is that they entailed that wasn't covered by his other roles" — the way we explained how being president was distinct and different from and went above and beyond his being CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee? Right? Dezastru (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Have been going back through old news articles. It turns out that Romney's most commonly given title during the early years at Bain Capital was ... none of the above. It was "managing general partner" (or sometimes just "managing partner"), which makes sense for a small firm like this. Also saw "president" used once, didn't see CEO appear until later. Am starting to flesh this out in the article, and I also added that Romney remained managing general partner of Bain Capital during the time when he went back to Bain & Co. Will keep looking at this. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Saw in total five different titles for Romney at Bain Capital: president, managing general partner, managing partner, managing director, CEO. Article now mentions all five near the start of the section, as well as being sole shareholder. So at least there's a referent when the section later describes him still holding some of these positions during the 1999-2002 period. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Mormon Mission Sentence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donation of Olympics Salary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2002

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Letting Detroit go bankrupt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fundraising abroad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ryan Plan

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

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

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

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

”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Romney Picked Paul Ryan

At some point, Romney and Ryan met and got to know each other. When and why? I started thinking about this in view of the hidden Mormon connection between Romney and Marco Rubio. From the below, it appears that Romney and Ryan got to know each other when they both were speakers at the 2004 Republican National Convention. At the convention, they both were tasked to speak out against John Kerry and say things like "God bless you's" and "God bless America" where as other speakers at the convention used theological language in the context of reminiscences of Ronald Reagan. They both were speakers at the Jan. 26 - 28 2007 Conservative Summit. In June 2007, GOP candidate Romney personally wooed U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan for Ryan's vote. So, Romney and Ryan knew each other well at least by 2004. The date in which they got to know each other could have been earlier in 2002 (when the both won their respective political contest) or in the late 1990s when Romney was president of the Salt Lake Olympics and may have needed Ryan's Wisconsin political connection (I didn't really find anything on this other than Speed Skating moving it's Headquarters from Wisconsin (where it had been since 1900) to Utah).
With the above, I then did a search to see whether any reporters figured out the 2004 connection between Romney and Ryan. The only thing I found was an August 12, 2012 New York Times article having the photo caption: "YOUNG VOICE: At the Republican National Convention in 2004."[23]. So, the connections assertions above are OR for now. However, the article can include info from some the following news articles mentioning intersections between the two:
Source information: There's a December 1, 2002 article that list both of them as winning their separate political contest,[24] but there doesn't appear to be any intersection between the two. On August 12, 2004, it was announcement that Governor Mitt Romney and Rep. Paul Ryan would be speakers at the 2004 Republican National Convention.[25] There was an August 28, 2004 list for the 2004 Republican National Convention, that had the following arrangement

"These people also are scheduled to speak, but just when has not been determined:
* Michael Reagan, oldest son of former President Ronald Reagan
* Mitt Romney, Massachusetts governor
* Paul Ryan, U.S. representative from Wisconsin"Speakers: Center stage

Their last names both begin with "R", so would see their names next to each other on such a list. (Yea, I know names on a list by itself is a weak connection. It's interesting how their names fell next to each other and then next to "Reagans" name.) There was a September 1, 2004 Washington Post news article "Republicans heard the harshest ... " that noted:

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney blasted Kerry over what he described as vacillating positions on the war in Iraq. "He's campaigned against the war all year, but says he'd vote yes today," Romney said. "I don't want presidential leadership that comes in 57 varieties. I want a strong president who stands his ground. I want George W. Bush." Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin said, "During his 20 years in Washington, John Kerry never met a tax increase he didn't like. . . . John Kerry believes that government can spend our money better than we can. But most Americans don't share this view. That's why John Kerry has to preach the politics of division, of envy and resentment. That's why they talk so much about two Americas. But class warfare is not an economic policy. And the politics of division will not make America stronger, and it will not lead to prosperity. I say to them: Anger is not a governing philosophy."

A Boston Globe September 2, 1994 news article noted regarding the 2004 convention: "Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and Gov. Mitt Romney focused on Mr. Kerry's Senate voting record."[26] In, The Language Of Faith And The 2004 Democratic And Republican National Conventions, Encounter Vol.66, No.2 Spring 2005 p16 W Bailey 2300, it notes: "On the third night of the Republican National Convention, except for a couple of "God bless you's" and "God bless America" (Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney), theological language emerged in the context of reminiscences of Ronald Reagan." At the Jan. 26 - 28 2007 Conservative Summit hosted by The National Review Institute, there was a "7 a.m. Dinner address by Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. 8 a.m. Breakfast address by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. 9 a.m. Panel Session, "Is "Small Government" a Big Joke?." with Pat Toomey, Marvin Olasky, Paul Ryan, and Ed Feulner." AP Alert January 26, 2007 Daybook Sat General[27] June 24, 2007: "says U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Janesville, who has been personally wooed by several GOP candidates, from former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney to the Kansas senator Ryan once worked for, Sam Brownback.[28] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

"However, the article can include info from some the following news articles mentioning intersections between the two" — no it should not, because it is of insufficient importance. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Simplified, I think Romney selected Ryan to fold the Tea Partiers into the fold and more importantly, because he is somebody he can silence. Examine the 60 minutes interview, the portion cut, and you will detect the first glimpses of disdain Mitt has for Paul. So much, that interrupting Paul and commandeering the answer. It was a natural for Mitt and Paul will yield, obediently. Wikipietime (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I've seen at least a half dozen explanations for why Romney picked Ryan (thinks he's going to lose and needs a game changer; thinks he's going to win and wants someone who'll be an effective veep in office; thinks exciting the base is more important than capturing swing voters; wants the election to be 'about something'; was bullied into it by conservative elites; Ryan's the kind of guy he used to hire at Bain Capital). Until some more definitive accounts come out after the election, it's best the article not try to advance a reason right now. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

This article says: "He was not involved in day-to-day operations or in investment decisions for Bain Capital's next private equity fund, which was launched in 2000." Why is this one particular equity fund singled out? What is so important about it, that it should be emphasized above and beyond all the other funds supervised by Bain Capital? And does the reference to "day-to-day operations" refer to that particular fund, or to the whole company?108.18.174.123 (talk) 04:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It is true. There are many variations of Bain Capital from Bain Capital Fund I up to VIII I think. Bain Capital Fund VII, L.P. was formed after Romney had left the organization which they started procedures to remove Romney from all capacities. You can go read it at Bain Capital. ViriiK (talk) 05:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Does the reference to "day-to-day operations" refer to that particular fund, or to the whole company? After 1999, didn't Bain make investment decisions for old equity funds as well as new ones? Was Romney involved in investment decisions other than investment decisions for the next private equity fund? This sentence of the article is extremely unclear and confusing. Was Romney involved in investment decisions for the subsequent fund after the next private equity fund? If not, it makes no sense for us to focus exclusively on that one particular fund. The following is much more clear, assuming that it is correct: "He was not involved in day-to-day operations of Bain Capital, nor in investment decisions for Bain Capital's private equity funds, after February 1999." Does anyone object to this revised sentence? If not then I'll make an edit request.108.18.174.123 (talk) 05:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I object. There is still too much uncertainty concerning the full nature of his involvement in investment decisions at Bain in 1999—2002 to make such a categorical statement in the Wikipedia narrative voice. Why not choose a phrasing that avoids the issue that is likely to provoke controversy? I think everyone, both within and outside of Wikipedia, accepts the accuracy of this: "Romney and several of his Bain associates have said that he was not actively involved in the day-to-day operations of Bain Capital after 1999." Dezastru (talk) 06:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Obvious question: are there any non-fringe sources that dispute this claim? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Try the AP etc. Romney was on a leave of absence, and that specifically means he was not involved in "day to day" operations. Not just the word of "several of his Bain associates" which is not borne out by the people who saw him daily in Utah working on the Olympics, etc. The Boston Globe specifically says: There is no serious debate about whether Romney took a leave of absence to run the Olympics. He did. And there is no serious debate about whether Romney continued to run the day-to-day affairs of Bain Capital. He did not. In short, per the BG, Romeny did not have day-to-day involvement with Bain. Their cavil was only that he signed documents as the sole stockholder and therefore sole person in ultimate charge per Massachusetts laws etc. Cheers - the original wording was correct per the BG. Collect (talk) 08:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

(Undent)The version I suggested is supported by the sources. I'm not aware of any non-fringe sources that dispute it.

The Boston Globe wrote: "He was not a partner in the new private equity funds launched in 2000 and 2001, meaning he had no role in assessing new investments, his partners said — a departure from his having previously had the final say on every deal." See Healy, Beth; Kranish, Michael (July 20, 2012). "Romney kept reins, bargained hard on severance". The Boston Globe.

FactCheck.org wrote: "As we have written repeatedly in the past, Romney left day-to-day operations at Bain Capital in early 1999 to head up the Salt Lake City Organizing Committee...." See Is Romney to Blame for Cancer Death?, FactCheck.org (August 8, 2012).

All I'm proposing to do is to take a confusing sentence and remove its confusing aspects that do not properly track the cited sources. The FactCheck.org statement is unequivocal, and does not merely says "Romney claims...." And then there's this from the New York Times: "Indeed, no evidence has yet emerged that Romney exercised his powers at Bain after February 1999 or directed the funds' investments after he left...." See Confessore, Nicholas and Shear, Michael. “In Tracing Romney's Role at Bain, a Convoluted Timeline”, New York Times (July 15, 2012). 108.18.174.123 (talk) 08:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

And the Boston Globe says specifically: There is no serious debate about whether Romney took a leave of absence to run the Olympics. He did. And there is no serious debate about whether Romney continued to run the day-to-day affairs of Bain Capital. He did not. Seems quite clear. Collect (talk) 08:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yup, that Globe piece is by Callum Borchers, “Mitt Romney and backers use ‘day-to-day’ to reshape questions about Bain”, Boston Globe (July 16, 2012).108.18.174.123 (talk) 09:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the wording to be "He was not involved in day-to-day operations of the firm, nor was he involved in investment decisions for Bain Capital's next private equity fund, which was launched in 2000." This should make clear that the first clause covers day-to-day operations concerning anything, and the second clause refers to finding new investments. The latter is still important to include because it's the most definitive, specific statement of non-involvement from the sources given - since Romney had been heavily involved in improving investments and finding investors up through Bain Capital Fund VI, people were worried that with his non-involvement in Bain Capital Fund VII, it might not be successful. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You're still saying he was not involved in investment decision for only one particular fund, whereas the NYT says there is no evidence he was involved in any investment decisions for any fund whatsoever after February 1999. Right? Who cares whether he was involved in investment decisions for one particular fund? A company like Bain makes investment decisions for lots of old funds and lots of new funds, all the time. You are giving undue weight to one particular fund, and giving the implication that he was involved in making investments for funds other than that one particular fund. His partners said he had no investment role after 1999, and the NYT confirms that there is zero evidence to the contrary.[29] Even your cited article by Beth Healy refers to "new private equity funds" (plural).108.18.174.123 (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

"He was not involved in day-to-day operations of the firm, nor was he involved in investment decisions for Bain Capital's next private equity fund, which was launched in 2000." That is fair and clear. I support it. Dezastru (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Dezastru, do you believe the following is a correct statement or not? "There is no evidence that he had a role at Bain after February 1999 directing the company’s investment funds, and his former partners have said that Romney had no role in assessing new investments after February 1999." If it is true, then why should this article only say it is true for one single investment fund among many? It is misleading to do so.108.18.174.123 (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm opposed to basing a categorical Wikipedia statement on a controversial matter on argumentum ad ignorantiam.

"Romney left day-to-day operations at Bain Capital" =/= "He was not involved in any investment decisions for Bain Capital's private equity funds after February 1999"

"He was not a partner in the new private equity funds launched in 2000 and 2001, meaning he had no role in assessing new investments" =/= "He was not involved in any investment decisions for Bain Capital's private equity funds after February 1999"

"A clear accounting of Romney’s contacts with Bain has been hampered by his presidential campaign’s reluctance to discuss the period in detail and complicated by conflicting accounts in some of Romney’s comments and financial reports. Both the Romney campaign and Bain have declined to provide documentary materials that could shed light on Romney’s role after 1999."

"corporate documents obtained by the AP show Romney’s personal signature at least 10 times on large stock transactions or ownership statements tied to Bain investment deals at the time. Those documents include Romney’s signature on federal stock forms approving the sales of large stakes in circuit board manufacturer DDi Corp. The company went into bankruptcy in 2003."

"Cox said, Romney’s statement that he had no involvement with 'any Bain Capital entity' appears 'inconsistent' with his actions."

"'It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to say he was technically in charge on paper but he had nothing to do with Bain’s operations,' Karmel continued. 'Was he getting paid? He’s the sole stockholder. Are you telling me he owned the company but had no say in its investments?'”

Dezastru (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Dezastru, are you saying that you do not believe the following is a correct and fully sourced statement? "There is no evidence that he had a role at Bain after February 1999 directing the company’s investment funds, and his former partners have said that Romney had no role in assessing new investments after February 1999." I wrote that sentence for the sub-article, and included two footnotes for it. Did I make a mistake?108.18.174.123 (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Language like "There is no evidence that he had a role at Bain after February 1999 directing the company’s investment funds" is not desirable, because it reads like it's written in response to an accusation, but no such accusation has been made in the text. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that that particular sentence be put into this article, just like Dezastru wasn't suggesting putting a bunch of blockquotes in. I was just trying to reach some common ground about what the facts are. The problem is that this article only addresses Romney's investment role (after 1999) with respect to one particular fund among many, which is undue weight, weird, and confusing (though perhaps understandable given the touchy nature of the issue). There are at least two ways to solve the problem. The first is to write something like "He was not involved in day-to-day operations of Bain Capital, nor in investment decisions for Bain Capital's private equity funds, after February 1999." The other way would be to phrase it in terms of accusation and response (or skepticism and response). Maybe like this: "He was not involved with day-to-day operations of Bain Capital after February 1999, and skeptics have not found evidence that he was involved with investment decisions for Bain Capital's private equity funds after that time." Ms. Karmel seems more like a skeptic than an accuser, at least on this point.108.18.174.123 (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The "skeptics" approach is a non-starter. But I did overlook Bain Capital Venture Fund, started in 2001. So I've changed it to "He was not involved in day-to-day operations of the firm, nor was he involved in investment decisions for Bain Capital's new private equity funds.[99][102]" The "after February 1999" that you proposed is already implicit, since that's what this whole paragraph is talking about. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Unconstructive thread; feel free to continue constructive discussion below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Christopher Hitchens 2007: "Why Romney needs to talk about his faith " "It ought to be borne in mind that Romney is not a mere rank-and-file Mormon. His family is, and has been for generations, part of the dynastic leadership of the mad cult invented by the convicted fraud Joseph Smith. It is not just legitimate that he be asked about the beliefs that he has not just held, but has caused to be spread and caused to be inculcated into children. It is essential. Here is the most salient reason: Until 1978, the so-called Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was an officially racist organization. Mitt Romney was an adult in 1978. We need to know how he justified this to himself, and we need to hear his self-criticism, if he should chance to have one." Mitt the Mormon - Why Romney needs to talk about his faith.. Nemissimo (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Hitchens wrote that in November 2007. Romney obliged in December 2007.108.18.174.123 (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Not really - "Faith in America" didn't say much of anything about Mormonism - but neither Mitt nor this article has any obligation to respond to peoples' opinions about the religion. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Interesting. However, as a newer participant of wikipedia; It seems highly unlikely that facts of this nature will ever make it beyond the talk pages. There seems to be a consortium of editors who have a bias unfavorable to those who would speak ill of such topics. Wikipietime (talk) 23:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Welcome to Wikipedia. Not only are you correct, but you're expected not to mention this ugly fact because it's not "collegial" for us to notice it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind, please...

Talk pages are not forums for editors to air their views about the subject, and this talk page is not a forum for editors to air their views, either pro or con, about Mr. Romney. This talk page exists as a place to discuss how to improve the article and that is the only reason for its existence. The relevant guidelines for talk page behavior can be found at: How to use article talk pages and good talk page practices. Thanks to all, Shearonink (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

2008 presidential campaign section revision

I've done a bit of a rewrite of this section, partly to make it shorter (after all, the campaign didn't get past early February), partly to avoid a blow-by-blow of the primaries (there are several other articles that do this, and there's no need to mention states like Wyoming and Nevada, especially since the 2012 campaign section doesn't go into that level of detail either), and partly to recover a little bit of the old "Political positions" section that described the reaction to Romney's ideological shift before and into the campaign. I haven't added anything that wasn't already in the article before or in the past, and I haven't removed anything that wasn't written by me in the first place. The section has gone from 1,140 words to 935, which is something of a savings. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Unconstructive thread; feel free to continue constructive discussion below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Mormonism and its meanings Add The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the psychology of Romney in reference analysis ... I, Nephi; Mormonism and its meanings by Adam Gopnik in August 13, 2012 New Yorker 108.195.136.231 (talk) 06:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC) The wikilink to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is already included several times in this Wikipedia article. Is there something in particular in the New Yorker article that you think should be included in this Wikipedia article?108.18.174.123 (talk) 08:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Here are the main keyword Romney' quotes I found ... "his image of Nephi is canonic among believers, and, it must be said, looks exactly like Mitt Romney." then The most striking feature of Mitt Romney as a politician is an absence of any responsibility to his own past—the consuming sense that his life and opinions can be remade at a moment’s need. Romney, according to Romney, never favored the individual mandate, or supported abortion rights, or opposed the auto-industry bailout, or did any of the other things he obviously, and on the record, did. and You could find, or think you’ve found, a similar logic behind Romney’s blithe amnesia when it comes to the things he used to think and say. Romney is better understood as a late-twentieth-century American tycoon than as any kind of believer. and finally In another way, though, this is precisely where faith really does walk in, since commerce and belief seem complementary in Romney’s tradition. It’s just that this tradition is not merely Mormon. Joseph Smith’s strange faith has become a denomination within the bigger creed of commerce. 108.73.115.62 (talk) 05:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC) These posts are from the 'Climate change IP user' and both of these accounts have already been blocked, so no need to respond here. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Federal money for the 2002 Olympics

This Wikipedia article says: "It would prove to be a record level of federal funding for the staging of a U.S. Olympics.[151][154]"

But FactCheck.org says:[30]

“ One other caveat, the GAO report notes that the federal government’s share of the total overall direct cost of hosting Olympic Games in U.S. cities generally decreased over time, from a high of 50 percent for the 1980 Winter Olympics in Lake Placid, N.Y., to 8 percent for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta. For the Salt Lake City Games, the federal government share was 18 percent. ”

If Romney got only 18% from the feds, even after 9/11 necessitated increased spending for Olympic security, it seems messed up to say that Romney was pigging out at the federal trough. The box-quote in the Olympics section conveys this same misimpression. Why have a misleading gotcha-quote in the box, instead of, say, something about how he turned the games around?108.18.174.123 (talk) 07:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Is "record level" about the percentage or the total? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Cwobeel will have to defend the Olympics box quote, I've never thought it was very apt. See Talk:Mitt Romney/Archive 16#'Medicine' quote for the original discussion. As for the record level of federal spending, that is correct in absolute dollar terms. Additional metrics could be percentage of Olympics budget, or percentage of federal budget, or percentage of federal GDP. Which one is "best"? Hard to say. I think Lake Placid took place in a different era, before large scale corporate sponsorships (which I believe Ueberroth pioneered for the 1984 summer games). I think giving all these different metrics would overweight the federal funding question, which (minus the box quote) I think is correctly weighted now. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I already advocated for the removal of *all* quotes. So we can go ahead and remove them. Cwobeel (talk) 04:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You mean all quotes, or just all the box-quotes? If the former, that is ridiculously and utterly absurd, but if the latter then I very respectfully beg to differ. I'll assume the latter. The problem is that we're short on pictures. The block quotes are a poor substitute, perhaps, but the they are much better than nothing at all. We do apparently agree that the box-quote about pigging out on federal earmarks should be removed, though I would prefer to replace it with a more notable quote about his supervision of the Olympics.108.18.174.123 (talk) 07:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

"If Romney got only 18% from the feds, even after 9/11 necessitated increased spending for Olympic security, it seems messed up to say that Romney was pigging out at the federal trough. The box-quote in the Olympics section conveys this same misimpression. Why have a misleading gotcha-quote"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09rG3OBqY-g

Dezastru(talk) 09:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The greater point is, there is nothing wrong about Romney getting federal money for the Olympics. As head of the organizing committee, he had a responsibility to get as much money as he could, whether from ticket sales, merchandise sales, corporate sponsorships, federal funding, whatever. If government funding of Olympic Games is a bad idea, that's Congress's fault, not the head of the organizing committee. In other words, getting a record level of funding speaks well to Romney in that role, not poorly; we shouldn't go off track here just because Santorum tried to use this as an attack vector ten years later. As for the box quotes, they add to the article both in terms of visual layout and in terms of providing interest. 108, if you have a better candidate for a quote, come forward with it. The previously established criteria for the quotes are that they have to be something Romney intentionally said, they have to contain full context, they should illuminate some aspect of Romney, and they should be double-edged, in the sense there's something in the quote that will appeal to some readers and that will bring about a negative reaction from other readers. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Olympics box quote

Per WTR:

“ The previously established criteria for the quotes are that they have to be something Romney intentionally said, they have to contain full context, they should illuminate some aspect of Romney, and they should be double-edged, in the sense there's something in the quote that will appeal to some readers and that will bring about a negative reaction from other readers. ”

The current box quote is:

“ 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. ”

This was said in private and taped secretly, so I'm not sure it qualifies as intentional. In any event, its meaning is somewhat unclear, because we can't tell from the quote if he's talking about federal money that is already available from federal agencies for states who apply for it, versus new earmarks from Congress. (There's also the implication that this is all he learned from the Olympic experience, which is incorrect.)

Here's a humorous alternative:

“ My sons actually pointed out that there is no conceivable circumstance under which they would have been able to predict that I would appear on the front page of the sports section. ”

Here's a serious alternative:

“ Money and branding: they are part of the Olympics. But in my view they are not at the heart of what the Olympics is about. In my view, the Olympics is the most effective platform for celebrating character on the world stage. ”

I got them at Google Books.108.18.174.123 (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Alas, inclusion of anything humorous seems to be in violation of multiple WP guidelines. As for the serious one, it's a platitude; who would disagree with it? Wasted Time R (talk) 02:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the second one practically contradicts the box-quote that's there now. But I'll get another one.108.18.174.123 (talk) 02:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Olympics box quote, take two

Here are some more possibilities for the Olympics box quote:

“ I would not have come out here to save some corporation. But the Olympics are important to me — these athletes are kids’ heroes. ”

The one immediately above is from here. From the same source comes this quote from Ann Romney:

“ After raising five boys, running the Olympics should be easy. ”

Finally, I suppose that a quote from the New York Times might be apt. Here's a report from that newspaper that includes the following:

“ He brought the Olympics back from a deficit and the stain of scandal, pulling it off despite security concerns that had some people urging him to cancel the Games after Sept. 11. Elevating the schmooze to an art form, he has broken the record for raising private money for the Olympics -- even more than Peter Ueberroth, who translated the 1984 Los Angeles Summer Games into national prominence. …[I]t would be so easy to hate him; raised the son of a governor in the wealthy Michigan suburbs, educated at Harvard, he gives the impression of living a life where nothing has gone wrong. Yet it is hard to do so, perhaps because he seems to have patented Utah's particular brand of earnest enthusiasm. Even his critics say that he has seemed to be everywhere at once, working hands-on to make the Games a success….One of the items stripped from the budget was $10,000 for motivational speakers for the volunteers, because as one executive said, "Who are we going to get better than Mitt to motivate our people?" ”

You could pick a sentence or two out of that NYT report.108.18.174.123 (talk) 03:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Number one is another platitude. (And since some Olympic sports have a high rate of doping scandals, not even a good platitude.) The other two aren't from Mitt. I'd rather stick to him; once we open the door to everyone, it really becomes impossible to narrow down. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Oy vey. Alright, hold on a few more minutes.108.18.174.123 (talk) 03:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I say: delete all quotes. Otherwise will be cherry picking based on our personal opinions. Cwobeel (talk) 03:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That would be an equally good rationale for deleting the entire article. But blockquotes are standard fare in Wikipedia articles, so we have to deal with it. How about this one: "The Olympics needs to be about the athletes, not the old fogies running them."[31] Romney fans could admire how self-deprecating he is, while opponents can say he hasn't followed his own advice.108.18.174.123 (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Pats on the back

I've just spent a good bit of time reading this article from top to bottom, following a few links and references and comparing it with similar articles I am more familiar with. It's a fascinating read, with high-quality writing, excellent sourcing and a nice balance of important information with interesting tidbits about the subject. I've learned much about Romney that I didn't know and I really can't find anything significant to criticize about the article. I think the regular editors here deserve pats on the back for their achievement. This is great work that deserves to be a featured article. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yikes – real praise! Rare in this business :-) Thanks very much. I put it up for peer review this morning, then plan to go to FAC after that. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Olympics section not neutral

Here is one example: Romney was widely praised for his efforts with the 2002 Winter Olympics[145] including by President George W. Bush,[25] and it solidified his reputation as a turnaround artist.[149]

Reference 149 is this: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/06/28/in_games_a_showcase_for_future_races/ that entire article is represented here by stating "and it solidified his reputation as a turnaround artist.". But (a) the source uses scare quotes around "turnaround artist") and that source also includes these points:

• "Romney knew his political future hung on the fate of the Games".
• "But Romney's other agenda - buffing his own image for a political career - was never far from the surface, according to many former associates."
• "The man who was famous at Bain Capital for letting others take the credit suddenly was giving his permission for a series of Olympics promotional buttons bearing his own likeness, accompanied by slogans like Hey, Mitt, we love you! and Are we there yet, Mitt? There was even a superhero pin depicting Romney draped in an American flag. "
• His determination to present himself as a white knight came at a cost: Some colleagues now say he magnified the extent of the Olympics committee's fiscal distress, risked some possible conflicts of interest among board members, and shunted aside other people whose work had been instrumental in promoting the Games."

This needs to be fixed. Until then, I am adding a POV tag to that section.

Cwobeel (talk) 04:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Reference 149 says: "Thus began an experience that cemented Romney's reputation as a 'turnaround artist' - a manager so competent that he could turn deficits into surpluses, and who might one day be able to guide the nation." I don't think those are scare quotes, but I have no objection if "turnaround artist" is replaced with "competent manager".

Cwobeel seems to overlook that Reference 149 is used eight separate times in this article, not just once. In particular, Reference 149 is used to support the following: "Romney wanted to use the Olympics to propel himself into the national spotlight and a political career.[149]....Bullock said: 'He tried very hard to build an image of himself as a savior, the great white hope. He was very good at characterizing and castigating people and putting himself on a pedestal.'[149]"

This amply covers the material that Cwobeel asserts is missing. So, I disagree with the POV tag on that basis. I think the box-quote is relatively obscure compared to other notable Romney quotes about the Olympics. And we should point out that the feds provided 50 percent for the 1980 Winter Olympics in Lake Placid compared to only 18 percent for Salt Lake City.108.18.174.123 (talk) 07:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

There are many sources that refer to Romney gaining a reputation as a turnaround artist, see this Google News archive search for some. I've added two more to the article as cites, including one that uses it in a headline. Some sources put the term in quotes, some don't, but I have changed the article to put it in quotes.

But as for the POV tag, Cwobeel, I think you didn't read the whole section. Each of your four points is covered by text that is already there:

• "The role gave Romney experience in dealing with federal, state, and local entities, a public persona he had previously lacked, and the chance to re-launch his political aspirations.[144]"
• "Robert H. Garff, the chair of the organizing committee, later said that "It was obvious that he had an agenda larger than just the Olympics,"[144] and that Romney wanted to use the Olympics to propel himself into the national spotlight and a political career.[149][157]"
• "Romney emerged as the public face of the Olympic effort, appearing in photographs, news stories and on Olympics pins.[144]"
• "Garff believed the initial budget shortfall was not as bad as Romney portrayed, given there were still three years to reorganize.[149] Utah Senator Bob Bennett said that much of the needed federal money was already in place and an analysis by The Boston Globe stated that the committee already had nearly $1 billion in committed revenues.[149] Olympics critic Steve Pace, who led Utahns for Responsible Public Spending, thought Romney exaggerated the initial fiscal state in order to lay the groundwork for a well-publicized rescue.[157] Kenneth Bullock, another board member of the organizing committee and also head of the Utah League of Cities and Towns, often clashed with Romney at the time, and later said that Romney deserved some credit for the turnaround but not as much as he claimed:[144] Bullock said: "He tried very hard to build an image of himself as a savior, the great white hope. He was very good at characterizing and castigating people and putting himself on a pedestal."[149]"

If you think the existing text on these points needs to be slightly altered for one reason or another, fine, bring it up here and we'll discuss. But slapping a POV tag on the article is a draconian measure that was not warranted here, and I am removing it. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I have added a few more pieces there, but I still have concerns. For example, the section ascribes Romeny's decision to take on the Winter Olympics to "Ann Romney was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998", which is anecdotal at best. We should look for sources that better describe the reasons for Romney's interest, or move some of the reasons presented later in the section to the beginning. I will not add the POV tag, as I can see that it upsets you, but please help fix this section. Cwobeel (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, please check "Romney was widely praised for his efforts with the 2002 Winter Olympics" sourced to this http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/12/sports/olympics-the-man-in-charge-romney-s-future-after-salt-lake-a-guessing-game.html. Either remove that sentence, or find a better source. Cwobeel (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing that sentence. I'm fine with adding the pin and button descriptions. But I took out the addition of "Some of his colleagues said that he magnified the extent of fiscal distress, and did not give credit to other people who were involved in promoting the Games." Based upon the prior discussion in Talk:Mitt Romney/Archive 14#Olympics criticism text, we are only including criticism that is attributed in text to named people, and not to vague "some of his colleagues said". And in this case, the statements by Pace and Bullock follow in the same paragraph, so your addition is redundant as well as not in conformance with that discussion. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

As for Romney's motivations in taking the post, all reasons are "anecdotal" in the sense that we can't retroactively read his mind. Ann's symptoms had gotten better when she'd spent time in Utah, so that legitimately was a reason. And clearly he gave up a lot of money by leaving Bain Capital – he could be worth $500M or $1B or who knows by now if he'd stayed – so the waning interest in getting even richer has some credence. But I've also now added that it gave him another chance to prove himself in public life, which is I think what you were getting at. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Finally, as to getting upset by putting a POV tag on, yeah. When you do that, even on a section, you're telling readers that the whole article is junk. Based on the current readership stats, this article gets about 25,000 views a day, or roughly 1,000 views every hour. The tag was on for six hours, meaning 6,000 people thought the article was junk. That was unnecessary, given that your objections have come down to 'turnaround artist' not being in quotes, a lack of description of the pins and buttons, and the 'wide praise' sentence. All three of these could have been addressed just as easily without the tag as with it. You and every other editor here has been treated with respect and civility and a willingness to make changes in the article. You can return the respect by not slapping on tags. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it worked, no? Now it is fine. I will try not to add tags in the future, unless there is no willingness to speedily correct what is wrong. Cwobeel (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Where'd this go?

The following disappeared from the article:

Some of his colleagues said that he magnified the extent of fiscal distress, and did not give credit to other people who were involved in promoting the Games.

Why? StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

See what I just posted just above. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that explains it. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Political positions

That section should be placed higher on the page, after all this is a biography and his political positions may be better placed after the Business career section. Thoughts? Cwobeel (talk) 03:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it's a 'reference material' section that goes after all the chronological narrative sections. It's like that in pretty much every article that has such a section. And bear in mind there's a Table of Contents at the top; the section is one click away from there. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

But it provides context for the reading of his political career. As a reader, I would prefer to know what the person believe in, before I read the details of his career. It seems weird to have it at the end. Cwobeel (talk) 03:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no law that says you have to read it in the order it's given; if someone wants to jump back and forth, they can. But this is a biography, not a voter guide. The biographical narrative comes first. If you look at Rick Perry or Ron Paul or Rudy Giuliani or John McCain or Newt Gingrich or Ted Kennedy or Fred Thompson or so on, they all have them after the chronological narrative sections. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. Cwobeel (talk) 03:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead

Let's discuss this: [32]/ I think it is relevant, very relevant to the lead, as a summary of what this person is. Not trivia, at all. Cwobeel (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Where it says:

Romney would rank among the four richest presidents in American history if elected.

This doesn't look like trivia to me. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems kind of like trivia to me. We could also say in the lead that he would be one of N presidents whose fathers ran for president, or N presidents who went to graduate school at Harvard, or N presidents who took office after the age of 65, et cetera.108.18.174.123 (talk) 04:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The reason it's not trivial is that reliable sources have characterized him as being out of touch with the common folk. The standard Romneyism is to say, "Oh, you like those? One of my good friends owns the conglomerate that owns the company that imports those from China." :-) StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging your political motivation, but that's not the reason this verbiage isn't going to be added to the lead. It's trivia, and it's cherry-picking. Belchfire-TALK 04:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, wanting the article to reflect reliable sources is most definitely a political motivation. Thank you for assuming good faith.

If we pick it, it's cherry-picking. If we report it, it's not. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Instead of using his wealth to make a point in the lead, why not come right out and suggest we say in the lead that he's accused of being out of touch? Good luck with that. The bit about him potentially being one of the four wealthiest presidents is already mentioned in the body of the article. Not as wealthy as Thomas Jefferson, by the way. Was Jefferson out of touch with the people and values of his time?108.18.174.123 (talk) 04:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Wealth was different in the day of plantations, but regardless, the fact that it's in the article is the justification for why it can be in the lead. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Incivility
Are you sure it really has to be in the article? I mean, if you're going to invent policy as you go, why not think big? Belchfire-TALK 04:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Every president for the past 50 years has had a level of wealth that would have put them out of touch with the common folk, if that's what having lots of money does. (I wouldn't know.) Not notable. HiLo48 (talk) 04:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's your personal opinion, and you're entitled to it. You're not entitled to basing Wikipedia articles on it, though. Our policies say that we go by reliable sources, not original research. But thank you for sharing. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

My point was not about whether the fact about his wealth is sourced. It obviously is. My question is, so what? HiLo48 (talk) 05:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

USA Today and #4 wealth

Belchfire recently removed the part about how Romney "would rank among the four richest in American history if elected". The stated reason is that USA Today was iffy. Now, that's actually not a good enough reason to remove anything, but even if we grant it for the sake of argument, it turns out that there are better sources. Forbes puts Romney at #3. [33]

I'm going to suggest reverting but adding this citation. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)