Talk:Mitt Romney

Religion

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Cmt - Mormons may not be Christian, depending whom one asks. That said... the denomination with the highest number of US prezzes? Unitarian. Presently perhaps one in ten Unitarian's self-identify as "Christian."--and, furthermore, many orthodox Christians question the right of any members to do so due to their view on the trinity, et al.
  <p<>Point two: Some U.S. presidents really didn't have a religion (eg Abraham Lincoln).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Cmt - The uniformity to either Protestant or the one Catholic, definitely doesn't apply to the early Republic in particular. But he would be a sharp break from what's been the case since Garfield. To be clear, it's false, anti-Chrsitianity reached it's peak in the early Republic and his sect solidly claims at least to be Christian unlike Deists and Unitarians. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Political Bias of Article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The personal attacks on this section go well with the bias of the article as a whole. 24.197.137.25 (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Please try to make your own contributions more constructive than that. HiLo48 (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Obstruction

I have to say that I'm disappointed by the tendency of conservative editors to obstruct reasonable changes.[1][2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2002 Olympics

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

The second source supports this: "He was not the first choice for the job in Salt Lake City. Romney said he would have turned it down, too, but his wife convinced him that it perfectly combined his skills." I've read this in other places too, can dig them out if necessary. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Overseas Trip

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To say that Romney's foreign trip should not be in the article just because it is "a low priority to the vast majority of voters" is a poor reason on several counts, not least that this is, to put it kindly, a US-centric view which does not acknowledge that 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 [3], and this [4] which says "The Republican candidate is using the trip to raise campaign funds and canvass for support among London's large American community." Another [5] 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 [6]: "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 [7]: "Romney's visit to Poland could have an impact well beyond Eastern Europe because a large portion of the Polish-American community resides in critical swing states — especially Pennsylvania and Michigan, according to a 2010 survey of Polish-Americans by the Piast Institute." Alfietucker (talk) 08:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ha ha, if we were to write up every time a politician insulted a group of people then we could almost double the size of 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)

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the version I suggest:

In July 2012, Romney undertook a three-nation tour to enhance his credibility as a world statesman and raise campaign funds.[337] The trip was planned to coincide with the 2012 London Olympics, as a reminder of his leadership of the 2002 Salt Lake Winter Games.[338] Comments Romney made during an interview in London in which he referred to press reports that questioned London’s readiness for the Games were widely viewed as a diplomatic blunder.[339][340] In Israel, he met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (a former Bain Capital Group colleague) and President Shimon Peres and discussed the possibility of a pre-emptive military strike to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.[341] Romney’s remarks on the political status of Jerusalem drew a standing ovation from an audience of supporters but were criticized by Palestinian leaders;[342] and his suggestion that cultural differences explain the economic disparities between the Israelis and Palestinians (and between the United States and Mexico) were denounced by some as offensive.[343] In Poland, Romney received an endorsement from former Polish president and Nobel Laureate Lech Walesa, although the current leadership of Walesa’s trade union movement, Solidarność, criticized Romney as hostile to unions and labor rights.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, in turn:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In July 2012, Romney undertook a trip to the United Kingdom, Israel, and Poland to meet leaders to raise his credibility as a world statesman.[332] Comments Romney made about the readiness of the 2012 Summer Olympics were perceived as undiplomatic by the British press and some British politicians.[333][334] In Israel, Romney was embraced by Israeli Prime Minister (and former BCG colleague) Benjamin Netanyahu, though he was criticized by some Palestinians for suggesting that Israel's greater economic success was due to "culture".[335]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit request on 31 August 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dezastru does indeed have a point. The dates should cover it.--JayJasper (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

If we're going to describe the cramped quarters of the initial assignment, we should also describe the much better quarters in Paris. I've restored this, but I've swapped out 'palace-like' for 'far more comfortable'. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that palace-like is not the appropriate descriptor, as it imposes a POV, but "far more comfortable" doesn't do it either. If you look at pictures of the place online, it's really quite an astonishing mansion. Suggestions for a compromise? If there were statistics on its square footage or number of rooms or something that might be the most neutral way to describe it. A "10,000 square foot residence" for example.Jasonnewyork (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Do we know how many toilets it had? That would tell us alot and should go in the article as well. Agreed? --Mollskman (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we should use the word "mansion". I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

We can only use terms applied by reliable sources as statements of fact. I know my college dorm room at 180 sq. ft. was "luxurious" compared with some doubles which were only 150 sq. ft. at the time ... there is no quantifiable measure as to what you would call a "mansion" to be sure. Collect (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I wonder what would happen if someone Googled "Romney mansion France missionary"... I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You got to add the number of toilets, see above. --Mollskman (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Futurespeak

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New info about Bain and Romney

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matt Taibbi cover story

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I indicated in the peer review responses, Taibbi is completely unusable as a source. He's deliberately working a different schtick from what WP:RS is looking for. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

And what's that criteria? I don't completely disagree, but he is a National Magazine Award recipient. Just wondering how that conclusion was reached. I posted a new category below regarding the Tom Dickinson article, which seems more relevant to me anyway, as it contains new facts.Jasonnewyork (talk) 03:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Taibbi won an award for being a columnist and a commentator, which is fine on its own merits, but not the kind of objective reporter source we use here. We use Fox News reporters and MSNBC reporters here, but we don't use Fox News commentators and MSNBC commentators here. Taibbi is a Rolling Stone commentator and gonzo wannabe (I don't think he's quite the living reincarnation of Hunter S. Thompson that he seems to think he is, but whatever ...). Dickinson is a little grayer case. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Wasted, I saw you were still against using Rolling Stone, claiming Matt Taibi as unrelaible source. Are you throwing out Tom Dickinson too? The whole magazine?Jasonnewyork (talk) 00:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Rolling Stone pieces have to be judged on a case-by-case basis. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Bain Section Cleanup

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

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

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

Jasonnewyork, you're losing the portrayal of the person, which after all is what a biography is about. What kind of businessperson was Romney? A daredevil, wheeler-dealer who made and lost multiple fortunes? No, he was risk-adverse and supercautious. His initial declining to even take the Bain Capital job until Bill Bain eliminated any downside for him has often been remarked upon - both in the context of his business career and as a window into a possible presidency. I can add multiple cites to this effect if you want. And this supercautiousness is not "romanticism" - the romantic entrepreneurs are those who see a vision and bet everything on it - Romney is an anti-romantic if anything. Pretty much every in-depth biographical profile of Romney that covers his business career delves into what kind of businessperson he was, and this article should too. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Trivia about who is roommates were

Please let'[s remove the following: “Romney's roommate that year was future Stanford head baseball coach Mark Marquess; their dormitory RA was anti-Vietnam War activist David Harris.” This is trivial, and undue weight. We don't say who all his other roommates were, or who his next-door neighbors were, or who his colleagues at work were.64.134.98.120 (talk) 03:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, especially since Mitt didn't become a coach or a radical. I've removed it. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Grammar

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

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

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

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

Wealth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe he didn't single anyone out individually[8], but SS is quickly becoming a Facepalm factory.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Viewmont Viking placed an "edit war" warning on my talk page. Can anyone explain why he did that or what the implications of such a warning on my page are?Jasonnewyork (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Cost of Olympics

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

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

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

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

I backed out the change, since it was all based on the Rolling Stone Taibbi rant. The article really doesn't need to get into the weeds on this. Romney's job as Organizing Committee head was to get as much of all kinds of funding as he could. Anything else would have been a fiduciary irresponsibility. Discussion of the general arguments around public funding of Olympics games belongs in some other article, not this one. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Whitewashing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you capable of making a statement without including an ad hominem attack with it? Because that's what you've done in every single one of your comments. It seems you're violating Wiki civility rules pretty consistently. That aside, under the trivia clause it states clearly in the wiki lore that you cannot use "trivia" as a reason for exclusion.Jasonnewyork (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Where did you read that? To start with, such is firmly embedded within wp:undue/wp:npov. North8000 (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

From the trivia guidelines within Wikipedia itself. Let me quote it for you:

• • This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all.
  • This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. Some information is better presented in list format.
  • This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policiesJasonnewyork (talk) 04:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The questions I'd ask about the offshore accounts are: Is he in full control of them (as opposed to being governed by a blind trust)? Has he used them to lower his tax burden? Are the amounts in them numerically significant, compared to his overall wealth? If the answer to all of these is 'no', I don't see the importance of these accounts, no matter where they are located. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

After reading the all the comments, I can no longer view Arzel as objective when it comes to edits on this page. You need to recuse yourself. Larylich (talk) 20:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Um -- I think you should understand that editors do not "recuse" themselves on Wikipedia, nor can I find any indication that you have been involved in any discussion at all on this topic, thus your "no onger view" seems a teensy bit odd here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

After reading all the comments on this page, I chose to enter it; we all have to begin somewhere. Arzel clearly has a proven a bias in his comments (on this page) and that will effect what gets put in, or left out of the article. Larylich (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I find it odd that an editor with almost no edit history would jump in here an attack me. What comment led you to this conclusion? Arzel (talk) 00:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't. Don't be coy; there's good reason why your behavior might be noticed. Still, I don't think the topic ban path outlined below is worth pursuing. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

If following WP policies is a badge of shame, then it is one I will wear proudly. What is this topic ban you are throwing about, I am not the one here trying to use WP for politiking. Arzel (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm explaining that, as it's unlikely you'll voluntarily recuse yourself, the closest thing is a topic ban. I am, at the same time, not endorsing such a ban. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That is rich. You are the subject of a possible topic ban, (one which I have not endorsed to this point I should say, because of your battleground attitude), and you only antagonize the issue further by suggesting that I should get a topic ban? I think I will support a topic ban on you because it is clear you have no intention of ever working collaboratively with anyone that does not hold your personal beliefs. Arzel (talk) 01:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

We are all biased, but some of us believe our bias is truth, which makes us unable to edit neutrally. I won't defend Arzel, but the reality is that he's not going to voluntarily recuse himself. There is an involuntary process, but it's complicated. I know about it because it's being aimed at me right now, but the short version is an RFC/U followed by a trip to ANI. The short version is much shorter than the reality. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 September 2012

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

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

RfC: Mention how Romney's wealth compares to past presidents?

Is a mention of Romney's wealth in comparison to past presidents appropriate for the article? Dezastru (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The matter of contention is whether the article should include a statement along the lines of:

In 2012, it was estimated that Romney had amassed twice the net worth of the last eight U. S. presidents combined,(1) and would rank among the four richest in American history if elected.(1)(2)

(1) Romney would rank among the richest presidents ever USA Today, January 28, 2012

(2) How Romney would rank among the richest U.S. presidents Forbes, January 24, 2012

Please begin your comments by indicating whether your recommendation is to:

• Delete
• Keep
• Keep with modification

and provide an explanation of the reasoning behind your position. If you recommend inclusion but with a modification, please state how you would rephrase the material. Dezastru (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TRIVIA. The most basic reason is that Romney is not president and to compare a living person to a group of people which are not within the same frame is pointless for a BIO. The are clearly tons of various trivia which could be used to compare Romney to other people or previous presidents, none of which add anything of value. Part of the problem here is that you are comparing a business person against largely career politicians, which alone creates a baseline difference which makes any comparsion flawed. Plus this leaves out every politician that has previously run for office, some of which would be just as wealthy if not moreso. Additionally, this particular comparison is for purely political pusporses and the desire here is to use his personal wealth section to make political comparisons. I could see an arguement for including this into the 2012 presidential article, but not in his main bio. Aside from policy violations, can't we simply agree to not use WP for pushing political talking points? Arzel (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Absent any sound basis for even making the comparison, and absent using current dollars as a measure, the entire claim is simply useless in a BLP entirely. As I understand it, our task is to write articles of long-term encyclopedic value. This bit misses that mark. Collect (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment - the estimates are based on 2010 dollars. Dezastru (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete and only add if he becomes president. Cwobeel (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Clearly we should mention Romney's wealth, but we do not need to put it in context. Notice that the first article says that it is hard to compare his wealth to that of earlier presidents and also that he does not rank among the wealthiest in the US. We would need to add that for neutrality, but that would be excessive information. TFD (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment (reply to Arzel): You clearly haven't read WP:TRIVIA, and we disagree on how WP:CRYSTAL would apply in this case. So let me turn to your remark that you "could see an arguement for including this into the 2012 presidential article, but not in his main bio." The first line of the main bio article reads, "Willard Mitt Romney (born March 12, 1947) is an American businessman and politician who is the nominee of the Republican Party for President of the United States in the 2012 election," and the last three sentences of the lede of the article deal with his campaigning for the presidency. These lines have not been controversial. Several large sections of the bio are devoted to discussions of his presidential aspirations. Given that, I don't see why a statement discussing where he falls among individuals who have held the office is too political or too campaign-oriented to be included in the bio and is more appropriate for an election article, particularly when the statement deals not only with his presidential candidacy but also with his personal wealth, a subject that is discussed in the main bio. Dezastru (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment (reply to Cwobeel): Would you agree to including, as an alternative, a statement such as, "He is one of the richest candidates for president in recent history"? Dezastru (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

If we're including people who lost I'm not sure that is a true statement. He's definately not as rich as Ross Perot. You could debate John Kerry depending on how you dealt with his wife's net worth. That's just off the top of my head.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

And not even in the same ballpark as Steve Forbes (and not sure what "recent" history means). 72Dino (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Number 1 in the past 10 years. Number 3 in the past 20 years. [9][10]

• Delete All Presidents are richer than most people. That he is among the richer of this list of rich people is of no REAL significance to almost everybody. It IS of significance to his opponents, who want to use this as a political point scoring device. Not a good look for Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
• Delete As mentioned above, he's not that rich compared to other recent candidates, and other pols are richer. Hot Stop 22:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Not notable all per HiLo48. I will add he isn't even the richest nominee in the past decade, as John Kerry was worth much more when his family assets are factored in. We don't mention that on his page and there is no reason to do so here; it simply is trivia that just isn't important or relevant to the page. Now, if there was a page such as List of U.S. Presidents by wealth, that would be able to go there if Romney is elected, but not here - it is a really minor detail. Toa Nidhiki05 22:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - In an effort to get people to read their own shorthand acronyms (which seem to be used in lieu of original arguments with logic and reason provided), here's what it says about trivia:

What this (trivia) guideline is not:

• • This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all.
  • This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. Some information is better presented in list format.
  • This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies.Jasonnewyork (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
• Delete / keep out #1 People don't need us to tell them what a number is in a spun way. Articles should have information, not spin. #2. Comparison without adjustment for inflation is deceiving at best. North8000 (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you read the posts or just reply with rants based on your assumptions? It was stated multiple times above that the numbers were adjusted for inflation. It's an irrelevant point, since everyone is voting for deletion.Jasonnewyork (talk) 05:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Jason, if you read WP:CLOSE, you'll find that the closing admin is not supposed to just count up votes. Instead, when a vote is contrary to policy, it must be ignored. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Jasonnewyork, I did read the talk posts, perhaps you didn't. It is mentioned in two places. One is a WP editor saying that they were adjusted, the other gives a quote from the article whichs says unadjusted. It might be either way, but there is certainly no basis for your ridiculous, rude, baseless comment "Do you read the posts or just reply with rants based on your assumptions?"? North8000 (talk) 10:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Provides a simply fact that is sourced. WP:Censor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs) 02:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Keep/Redact is pointless without an adjustment for historical comparison. He's certainly not the richest candidate. That would probably be Perot, and also there was a Rockerfeller VP. As I thought the Atlantic confirms Washington as wealthiest. FWIW, the google top inflation calculator lists $250 million in 2010 as $19 million in 1800, and TR and at least two or three others would be ahead of Romney so no way would he be the inflation adjusted richest ever. Similarly, a sense in which he had a greater net worth than everybody back to and including Kennedy, combined, needs to be clarified. Lycurgus (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry forgot about Ford, and actually, Kennedy would be wealthiest actually elected, looks like. Lycurgus (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

So I would propose (with the support collected in this thread): "If elected, Romney would be between the 3rd and 5th wealthiest president ever and the wealthiest by far since Kennedy." Lycurgus (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Would the most wealthy president ever not be Georg Washington? [11] He was worth about double of Romney. Kennedy was not very wealthy, his fathers (and family) estate was worth 1 billion (double of the worth of Washington), but that was not his money but his father and it was a family estate and President Kennedy was not the only one in the family. And where does Ford come in, he was only worth 7 millions. Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Ford is one of the eight presidents back from the current one in the proposal opening this thread. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - As a sourced statement of fact I'm not even sure why this is being contested. From the article lead: "Later serving as its chief executive officer, he helped bring the company out of financial crisis", "In 1984, he co-founded and led the spin-off Bain Capital, a private equity investment firm that became highly profitable and one of the largest such firms in the nation. His net worth is estimated at $190–250 million, wealth that helped fund his political campaigns prior to 2012", "During his term he presided over the elimination of a projected $3 billion deficit by reducing state funding for higher education, cutting state aid to cities and towns, raising various fees, and removing corporate tax loopholes; Massachusetts also benefitted from unanticipated federal grants and unexpected revenue from a previously enacted capital gains tax increase." From the article body: "Romney and his wife contributed $1 million to the Olympics, and he donated to charity the $1.4 million in salary and severance payments he received for his three years as president and CEO", "despite the initial fiscal shortfall, the Games themselves ended up clearing a profit of $100 million. Romney was praised for his efforts by President George W. Bush and his performance as Olympics head was rated positively by 87 percent of Utahns". So I'm not sure why this datum would need to be removed while others more flattering remain. Why mention his charitable donations or his success as a business man but not put his wealth into perspective. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - After reading other editors comments, I've been convinced by their arguments and switching my vote to "keep."Jasonnewyork (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
• Keep stop the whitewash! 69.5.89.109 (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Infobox image

Current

Proposed

What are the community's thoughts regarding replacing the current image with what I've proposed? The current image has low resolution and a shadow on his face, and he has a odd smirk. The proposed image has good resolution, a natural and casual smile, and good lighting. —Eustress ^talk 14:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Current is better, comparable to the one on the incumbent's article. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm asking the community to offer input between two Romney pics, not a Romney pic and an Obama pic. —Eustress ^talk 17:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the he looks old in the new one (I know that he is, but still) Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Current one is simple, professional. Stick with it. Proposed makes him look haggard.Jasonnewyork (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jasonnewyork, except I am not sure why the author of the photo reverted my retouch that removed the distracting glare from the upper corners of the image. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Current is better, with or without retouch. Proposed looks old and haggard, which is atypical for him. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The current one makes him look more attractive and young. Because it was taken in 2011 it will be hard to replace. But I bet in real life he looks a lot more like the proposed picture. So I vote for the new one, because it's more encyclopedic. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The current image has a more professional look and is more encyclopedic. Stick with it.--JayJasper (talk) 06:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney Story by Tom Dickinson

I proposed incorporating this information into the article a while back. A few people objected saying Matt Taibi is not a reliable journalist. But he's not the author of this piece. Thoughts? http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-federal-bailout-that-saved-mitt-romney-20120829 Jasonnewyork (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Dickinson doesn't appear to be any better. His entire recent history of articles is nothing but partisan attacks on Romney. It would be hard to believe that anything in that article is presented in anything close to neutral point of view, as such I don't see why his opinion should be given any weight. If their are some more mainstream news reports about this present them here to establish weight for this point of view. Arzel (talk) 02:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't get more neutral than the Economist. Lots of interesting information in here. http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/08/mitt-romney-and-bain-company Jasonnewyork (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

That article is a discussion of the Dickinson article, and doesn't do the Dickinson article any favours (even pointing out a couple of the problems with the article). It is too early to start including such highly subjective material into this bio without some additional checking. Arzel (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it provides a more balanced perspective. That's why I provided the link. The editors at the Economist go through the same documents, they look at the evidence. It isn't just a commentary on Dickinson's article, it's a distinctly different analysis of the facts.Jasonnewyork (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

But after reading it again, I also see how the analysis is not complete, so let's see what else turns up.Jasonnewyork (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Cautiousness

I've noticed a couple of attempts to add in editorial about how cautious Romney is. In addition to this sounding like a campaign talking point, "cautiousness" is relative and subjective. It has no place in an encyclopedia. One man's risk aversion is another man's tempting fate. There were plenty of deals Romney undertook that were risky, plenty that were not risky. Trying to generalize his overall character into one of cautiousness is not our purview and it isn't even accurate. Nor does it have any place on widipedia.Jasonnewyork (talk) 05:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Not encyclopedic to characterize him as "cautious".--JayJasper (talk) 06:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not encyclopaedic. HiLo48 (talk) 07:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The main text in question is: "He initially refrained from accepting the offer, and Bain re-arranged the terms in a complicated partnership structure so that there was no financial or professional risk to Romney." This is a simple, factual description of how Romney's career at Bain Capital began. Mitt didn't want to take any risk onto himself in the new venture. The word "cautious" is never used in this text. Jasonnewyork's edit summary on removal is on other grounds: "We don't need every twist and turn of his employment negotiations". This particular twist was considered biographically significant by the three sources given, as well as by this recent Time magazine cover story and others.

But, I can see everyone is stacked up against this and that we should ignore all these sources. So to be consistent with this removal, I've removed the other parts of the negotiations with Bill Bain. The 1983 to 1984 wait for Bain Capital to get underway, for example, makes no sense to include if we aren't describing what the negotiation was about. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

How far does the new ban on describing this part of Romney's business nature go? What about this text: "Romney's wary instincts were still in force at times, and he was generally data-driven and averse to risk.[60][83] He wanted to drop a Bain Capital hedge fund that initially lost money, but other partners prevailed and it eventually gained billions.[60]" Does it have to be removed also? Wasted Time R (talk) 11:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Potentially, anything, subject wise, is encyclopaedic. I'm pretty sure there are mythologic or folkloric antecedents where excessive caution is the theme. It also may ba an aspect of being either unprincipled or devious. So it's a matter of degree, caution is a virtue, the thing being noted might not be. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 13:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

All of those comments are editorial in nature, not encyclopedic. "his wary nature" "Mitt proceeded with caution" Jasonnewyork (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, we are the editors and we built this, this encyclopædia thing.Commentary like this is how we work out stuff in potentially contentious subjects like this. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Jasonewyork, let me try to explain why I think you're mistaken here. While you may quibble with some of the language that was used, such as 'wary' or 'cautious', being risk-averse is an objective characteristic of a businessperson, just like being a singles or homerun hitter is an objective characteristic of a baseball player or having a low or high voice is of a singer. It's not a value judgement or a campaign issue or editorializing. Have you ever picked mutual funds for a 401k or IRA? The guidance you're given always talks about how accepting of risk you are, in helping to form your portfolio. It's the same for businesspeople, only moreso. Please look through this Google News archive search ... there are dozens and dozens of mentions of Romney as risk averse. Again, this isn't a "good" or "bad" thing about Romney, but it is one of the defining characteristics of him. By removing all mention of this from the article, you are leaving the reader with the "what" and "when" of his business career, but depriving the reader of some of the "how" and "why". You say in an edit summary that you want to keep in "data driven" but would like examples ... well, the "He wanted to drop a Bain Capital hedge fund that initially lost money, but other partners prevailed and it eventually gained billions" that you allowed to stay in is an example of him being risk-averse. That's why I included it at the time. Why is the example okay but the characteristic that it is illustrating is not?

If you can quantify the risk aversion (as you do when picking stocks or mutual funds), then by all means you should include it (as I noted in one of my edit commentaries). I think your example is fine - it's when you draw a conclusion from that example that you get into trouble. To state "Romney's wary instincts kicked in again" or something like that is just not encyclopedic. It's like labeling Obama with "inspirational" - you just wouldn't do it. "Obama's inspriational tone soared through the auditorium" - that's editorial. We don't do that. Even if thousands of people think it sounds true. Ultimately, cautiousness (as a generalized trait) is a judgment. So keep the example, but drop the editorial. If there were a metric for cautiousness/risk aversion - like say, an outside agency that rated financial institutions on their aversion to risk, now then that makes sense to include. If you can quantify that risk aversion in some way. But to just say he was cautious and continually plug that in as an adjective - it's just not what wikipedia is. If you want a wikipedia acronym, it approaches OR.Jasonnewyork (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit War?

Help me out. Is there an edit war going on at this page? Two editors have warned me that I'm engaging in an edit war.Jasonnewyork (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

And now three editors have warned me.Jasonnewyork (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

And that's pure BS. One editor placed a warning template on your talk page after your third revert within a 24-hour period. You came here and asked for someone to explain the template in this edit. I did. You responded by questioning the accuracy (and motive) of my explanation and stated that the policy is ridiculous. Another editor confirmed the policy. Perhaps in the future you should try reading the policies themselves if this is your reaction to people responding to your requests for explanations. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

All of my edits were explained on the talk page and were met with consensus (and if not, that's news to me). By backing up the editor who placed the warning on my page you were joining his argument. You didn't "explain it," you justified his decision to place it there without considering the talk pages and discussions that went into each edit. As I stated, all of my edits have been discussed in the talk pages. To join in/condone his decision to place an "edit war" warning on my page and to imply that my edits were part of an edit war is absurd. Sorry to bring this to the Romney talk page, but it was from this page that the warning came, and I felt others should know this happened. Intimidation is not the way to handle disputes (and I don't even understand the dispute).Jasonnewyork (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You asked for an explanation. You got one. Actually, two. If what you were looking for was someone to pat you on the back murmuring "there, there, don't worry about the big bad editor warning you about possibly violating the rules", you came to the wrong place. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

And now patronization. Way to stick to the topic and address the statement that all edits were covered in the talk pages.Jasonnewyork (talk) 20:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

No, "the topic" of this whole page is (supposed to be) improving the Mitt Romney article. WP:ANI is thataway. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, if there were in fact an edit war on this page (as was implied on my talk page), that sounds like something that should be resolved if you're going to move forward with improving Mitt Romney's page. Since you don't seem to be staking a claim to the existence of an edit war (just the mild implication on my talk page that there "might be" one), I assume that there is none and this topic is closed.Jasonnewyork (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see any edit-warring by Jason. Could someone point it out with diffs? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I kept asking for an answer to this one, and I kept getting some red tape reply that because I'd removed content (even though there was editor consensus) 3 times in a 24 hour period, even though it wasn't the same content, and it all was edited with clearly documented commentary, they claimed it was edit warring and posted a giant official warning on my talk page. I don't know the implications of that action on their part, but it seems that it could easily be claimed now that I have been cited by multiple editors for edit-warring, which is not the case. It just smacks of intimidation tactics to me. It smacks of bullying, and people should stand up to bullies.Jasonnewyork (talk) 03:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Around this time, AGF runs out of steam and it becomes clear that someone is trying to make trouble. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Its definitely being stretched, but less experienced editors should probably be given a bit of leeway as they get up to speed on the rules like WP:3RR and WP:NPA. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Help us out here, F&H, what are the three RR's - specifically that warranted the warning? And look at the talk page comments before you reply...dig through the edits and find those three occurrences that triggered the "edit war" alert on my talk page. Enlighten me. help me learn, so that I don't make that mistake again. You've leveled the accusation multiple times now. Back it up.Jasonnewyork (talk) 05:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I have not leveled any accusations regarding your reverts, but I did already list the times of the four edits which probably triggered the original warning; all you have to do is look at your talk page and the article history page. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I explained that those edits were covered in talk page (over and over) and your response was to imply that I'd still violated the 3RR rule...just look at your last post. You guys posted to my page alerting the world that I'd engaged in "edit warring," and you couldn't provide any specifics beyond "look at these 4 edits" - which were all backed up by editor consensus with clear commentary provided. It's nonsense to claim that's edit warring. It's unfortunate to take up space on this talk page for this, but if you claim there's an edit war going on, there has to be a resolution of that accusation. People have to know that these things are being posted to people's talk page without merit.Jasonnewyork (talk) 05:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Repeating myself is getting tiresome, so since you plead "Enlighten me. help me learn, so that I don't make that mistake again", here's a suggestion: take the time to actually read WP:3RR, several times if necessary, and determine which, if any, of the clearly stated exceptions to the rule your edits fall under. Then read the entire WP:EW overall policy of which WP:3RR is a part. And again, rather than wasting space here by continuing to accuse other editors of bullying you and posting meritless warnings, you might consider raising those complaints in the correct venue. Fat&Happy (talk) 06:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Stop the whitewashing of this article! 69.5.89.109 (talk) 22:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)