Talk:Mitt Romney/Archive 20

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

→

'France Mission' section

Parts of the section regarding Romney's mission in France seem to be rather strange, in particular: 'The nominally Catholic but secular, wine-loving French people were especially resistant to a religion that prohibits alcohol.'

Quite apart from seeming to go against Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Five Pillars, the sentence sounds like a direct quote from one the books cited in the paragraph, in which case it ought to be changed. NIN (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not a direct quote, it's our own wording based on three different sources. As for neutrality, let's say you are sent out to country C to be a missionary for religion R. What are you going to ask yourself about how easy or difficult this task will be? First, what is the current predominant religion in C? And how intense are peoples' feelings for that current religion? And how likely are they to be searching for deeper or different religious meaning? Second, are there are tenets of R that will bring special appeal, or lack of appeal, when presented to the people of C? That's what this sentence is answering, for C = France and R = Mormonism. It's a perfectly neutral thing to describe in terms of the challenge that Romney faced. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Federal money for the 2002 Olympics

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

But FactCheck.org says:[1]

“

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

”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Olympics box quote

Per WTR:

“

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

”

The current box quote is:

“

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

”

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

Here's a humorous alternative:

“

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

”

Here's a serious alternative:

“

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

”

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

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

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

Olympics box quote, take two

Here are some more possibilities for the Olympics box quote:

“

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

”

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

“

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

”

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

“

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

”

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

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

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

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

That would be an equally good rationale for deleting the entire article. But blockquotes are standard fare in Wikipedia articles, so we have to deal with it. How about this one: "The Olympics needs to be about the athletes, not the old fogies running them."[2] Romney fans could admire how self-deprecating he is, while opponents can say he hasn't followed his own advice.108.18.174.123 (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Block quotes give too much emphasis to the quotes of the figure and are undue weigh to the opinion of the figure which is NOT a part of the biography. They create a pamplet out of an encyclopedic article and have dropped the quality of the GA article. I think it is time for the GA reassement.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I would recommend that we consult Wikipedia policy and guidelines on quotations, and discuss the matter with an eye toward improving the article, before jumping into a GAR reassessment prematurely. Per WP:QUOTATIONS: "As a matter of style, quoteboxes should generally be avoided as they draw special attention to the opinion of one source, and present that opinion as though Wikipedia endorses it. Instead of using quoteboxes to highlight its notability, explain its importance before introducing the quote or in an introduction to the quote."198.228.200.161 (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Considering that I was voicing concern over this article needing reassement weeks ago, I do not feel it is premature. It is very matue. But we can still consult the policy and discuss the guidelines here and on the GAR.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

There is already a pending request for peer review, so maybe we could get that done first before a GAR. I'm sure that peer review could address whatever concerns you have. And we have yet to have any talk page discussion whatsoever about Wikipedia's blockquote policy, which is a very good reason to not leap into simultaneous reviews.198.228.201.153 (talk) 04:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No, that peer review is an attempt to get advice for FA which the article just failed. It needs to have GA criteria addressed before it has any chance at FA. A GA reassesment improves the article so that it may pass a peer review towards FA status.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

A quote from Romney, in one or two places in regular block quote may be fine, but the use of boxed quotes is being done here for emphasis. They all are attributed to Romney in the box itself which is not needed per MOS.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I've nuked all the box quotes. Regular block quotes to me are even more obtrusive, since they stop the text in place instead of letting the text flow. So if people don't like the box quotes due to adding emphasis, they surely won't like the block quotes either. Two of quotes I especially like, so I kept them ... buried in Notes, where nobody will see them. So nobody can possibly object to that. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead photo (yet again...)

I have enough experience here to know that this may -- inadvertently, I insist -- rehash an old argument about the lead photo... But I don't believe that the following two were ever considered:

1
2

After just now reading through the archived discussion on the most recent change, the main concern among editors was to avoid darkness around the eyes. But that is relatively absent in both of those above (at least better than in a lot of others) and both can easily be cropped. They're properly framed -- and image 1 shows him truly relaxed and smiling, not to mention that the camera is not looking up at him. A stellar portrait.

Trust me, I don't want to rehash an old argument. But I think it is necessary to raise these two options (particularly option number 1) because of these new alternatives. An improvement on what we've got, IMHO. My best, Happyme22 (talk) 04:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Nearly all of Gage Skidmore's Romney photos have been discussed. I even uploaded one I thought would work and it was reverted.

another option declined

--Amadscientist (talk) 04:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Choice one looks good, but it could use some cropping. And maybe some light color correction (seems to have a bit too much yellow-orange/pink cast).

(Still wondering why Romney campaign or a friendly PAC doesn't just cough up an excellent unrestricted-license photo for Wikipedia. In a $500 million campaign, seems like a no-brainer.) Dezastru (talk) 05:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone actually checked the campaign's flickr account? Meg Whitman took a while but did release her major campaign image as CC license to be used on commons and Wikipedia? It is possible there is an offical image released into a free enough license to use here.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

1 is bad due to his eyes and his hair being too mixed in with the background. 2 and 3 have the same issue with the background. However I'm aware that Skidmore #6 has that same issue as 1 2 3 regarding the background however it has been the lead photo for a while. Skidmore #6 is good since he's almost looking directly at the camera. I got to ask. Why the request to change the lead photo? Is there some issues you have with the current one? ViriiK (talk) 07:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I've checked MittRomney.com a few times but have never found an official-looking image there of either him or Ann. Otherwise I would have asked them for rights to use it. Where does the campaign have a Flickr page? I just did a site search there and I pretty much see the same kind of event photos that we aren't happy with here. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney's Flickr photo stream--Amadscientist (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I like the second photo with the hint of the American flag and Romney's expression. Photo one is even better. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The campaign has a Flickr account but you may have to dig real hard if there is anything with a free enough license. It has a lot of photos as I believe this was started from his previous campaign.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

New info on Romney and Bain Capital

Romney has long claimed, despite evidence to the contrary, that he retired from Bain Capital in 1999. The Bain documents we obtained indicate that his involvement with the company extended years past that date.

http://gawker.com/5936873

Cwobeel (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Also: http://gawker.com/5933641 Cwobeel (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Silly season again? I would point out that agreements may absolutely encompass entities not in existence at the time of the initial agreement - which is simple logic. Making any claims otherwise is silly season rhetoric at best, and disingenuous political activism at worst. The only rational issue would be whether Romney was actively involved in day-to-day operations at Bain, and, so far, no one has shown that he was. Cheers - but this sort of silly season trash belongs in no articles at all. Collect (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

You may call it "silly season", but for me it is a fascinating view of the financial contortions that are available to high net worth individuals (read, very rich) in the US. Cwobeel (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

You may want to find a better source than Gawker for a BLP. There is not a consensus on WP:RSN that Gawker is a reliable source (some say yes, some say no). 72Dino (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The source is not gawker, but the documents. In any case, this cache of docs will likely be analyzed by others soon. Cwobeel (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

did not take long ... Cwobeel (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

That'll do. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks, those are better sources. Fortune, which had an interesting headline, states that "There is nothing in there that will inform your opinion of Mitt Romney." The article basically states how useless the information posted by Gawker is. I don't see where this will add anything to this BLP. 72Dino (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Have to see if secondary sources reviewing this material come up with anything significant to add to what the article already says. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: has spread to the UK - [3]. Black Kite (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Political positions

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

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

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

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

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

Please restore photo of father

Per this discussion, please restore the image of a George Romney poster. Thanks.71.88.58.198 (talk) 07:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason the poster cannot be used except for any particular consensus, however I was able to show that the poster does not have a copyright notice as needed for this date and is truly in the public domain.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, then please restore the image. This article is short on images in general, and short on images of the Romneys. The poster image is larger than the little bumper sticker image, and it also includes a good photo of a Romney. The image was in the article for weeks without objection, and it turns out that the removal was unnecessary. I'm 71.88 by the way. Thanks.64.134.98.120 (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

If you want it back you can do so. The only reason I don't is because in the GAR another editor raised concerns that have nothing to do with copyright. It isn't an image of Mitt romney, but of his father. I have left a message on the editors talkpage asking if he thinks I should re-add it. I personally think it is not needed on this page, but it certainly can if everyone agrees it should. I just see it as a focus issue. This isn't the BLP for George Romney. Also the article is not short on images.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The article has lots of images of Mitt from age 60 to now, and one from age 55, but zero from any age before then. Not good! As a result all of the early sections are hard-pressed for any image to use. One of George and Mitt together would be best, but failing that, ones of George and Lenore are better than nothing. So I would say, yes, restore the George poster-photo one now that its PD-ness is okay. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Also worth noting is that the article includes a picture of his wife Ann without unduly shifting the focus off her husband.64.134.98.120 (talk) 02:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)(also 71.88)

We may need to upload an image under fair use for the earlier stuff. Also, I just discovered the image in the 1968 poster is still copy protected by Getty images. The photgrapher was Alan Band.[4]--Amadscientist (talk) 03:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The poster (including the cropped photo of George Romney) is very clearly in the public domain, regardless of whether the original uncropped photo is copyrighted. See the discussion at Wikipedia Commons. There is no question about it, so please restore the poster. Thanks.24.181.178.157 (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)(also 64.134 and 71.88)

I read the whole discussion there (longer than the link indicates) but I still feel queasy about it. I believe in cases like this, the benefit of the doubt should go with the creator. And the image is not essential to the article (the picture-less bumper sticker gets the same idea across). But of course I am not a lawyer ... Wasted Time R (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, give the benefit of a doubt to the creator, who chose to release this image into the public domain. WTR, if the folks at Wikimedia Commons decide (correctly) to keep the image, I don't see any grounds not to use it here. I am concerned that for months this article had a lousy POV image of Richard Nixon, which was finally replaced by this PD image of George Romney. I do not want Nixon coming back here, and I do not think that the George Romney poster has any problems with it whatsoever, except that he's smiling which may turn off some people. The PD question is being fully aired at Wikimedia Commons. Would I have succeeded in getting rid of the Nixon image by raising some invalid PD argument? I think not.63.119.36.186 (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)(also 64.134 and 71.88)

Use your creative legal knowledge to find us a picture of George and Mitt together that has any kind of rationale that lets us use it here, and I'll be sure it gets in and stays in. That's what we really need ... Wasted Time R (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Nice dodge. That's what you said to justify keeping the Nixon image. The George Romney image has been removed deliberately or accidentally on false pretenses, and I think it sucks.63.119.36.186 (talk) 01:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The random IP user has NOT demonstrated that the photographer has released the image, therefore his stement is innaccurate at best and benefit of doubt is not to just give away another person's rights to their intellectual property. The commons discussion brought a few issues that the IP editor is dismissing and taking a blind eye too in order to justify use in almost any way...even when the arguments are in favor of keeping the image for now. However, all that is needed is to demonstrate where copyright belongs and then this can be brought up again. The cropped image has no copyright notice and even though current copyright is being claimed by three seperate parties, no eveidence shows a notice of such or publication PRIOR to the 1968 poster. the only reason the image remains is PRECISELY because we are giving the image the benefit of the doubt and erring with the freer license. However...if it can be proven that the image is the legal copyright of any entity with proper notice then that doubt evaporates and the image would not be in the public Domain. For this reason I have returned the image and any removal should be based on what is best to move the article to FA. If the peer review sees nothing wrong with using it for Feature status, then we should be "Golden". Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 01:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Correction...that and consensus, that is. I still support its removal, but returned it as having no copyright issues at this time. Whether or not it stays on the article is a matter of consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

If consensus of others is that the image is okay for use here, I'm okay with it being here. In other words, I'm not going to add it and I'm not going to remove it ... Wasted Time R (talk) 10:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Romney's position on abortion

There seems to be some disagreement on what the article should say with regard to Romney's position on abortion.

The previous version, in the section on Political Positions, said:

Romney has identified himself as "pro-life" since 2005: having previously favored access to legalized abortion during his Massachusetts runs for the U.S. Senate and governorship, he now opposes access to abortion "except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother."

That has been changed to:

Romney has identified himself as "pro-life" since 2005. Having previously favored the current state laws allowing legalized abortion during his Massachusetts runs for the U.S. Senate and governorship, he now opposes access to abortion "except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother."

The new version is misleading to the extent that it suggests that Romney supported, as a matter of law (as opposed to his personal opinion on the morality of the subject), access to abortion only within Massachusetts, where it was legal under the laws in existence at that time. However, as noted in the WP article on Political positions of Mitt Romney, during his 1994 Senate campaign, Romney was very clear in his support for access to abortion in all of the states. He said at the time, "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country.... I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law, and the right of a woman to make that choice...." So the original version of the current article is more accurate, even if we need to tweak the citations. There are a number of ways that the "run-on sentence" could be rewritten in a fair way, if editors are concerned that the sentence is too long. But changing a broad statement on Romney having favored access to abortion to a more limited statement on his having favored access under the then-current laws within Massachusetts would not be one of them. (Incidentally, we should probably change the phrasing "access to legalized abortion" to just "access to abortion.") Dezastru (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree on both counts, but editors keep reverting instead of discussing. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with Dezastru and StillStanding. First version is better (whether or not the semicolon is turned into a period). Wasted Time R (talk) 00:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The first version seems more accurate. The second seems to make it a legal matter of supporting specific laws.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree as well. Cwobeel (talk) 02:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to say we have a consensus. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

References? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The existing references (immediately after this quote) support it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"As Governor, Mitt Romney would protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts. No law would change" That's where this came from. If you wanna argue he said one thing in '94 and another in '02 then that would be fine. I could actually keep the way it is now, but it should be noted that when Romney was holding political office (MA Gov) he always took the side of pro-life. Naapple (Talk) 06:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

And 9 hours is hardly time enough for a consensus. Naapple (Talk) 06:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Since no one objected and still isn't...I think it is.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Convenient, since that's also the position you took. Charles asked for references and I'm disputing it now. Stating that Romney is "pro-life" as a blanket statement is incorrect.

I’ve always been personally pro-life, but for me, it was a great question about whether or not government should intrude in that decision. And when I ran for office, I said I’d protect the law as it was, which is effectively a pro-choice position.

“On a personal basis, I don’t favor abortion, However, as governor of the commonwealth, I will protect a woman’s right to choose under the laws of the country and the commonwealth. That’s the same position I’ve had for many years.”

Probably from a political standpoint and a personal standpoint, the greatest mistake was when I first ran for office, being deeply opposed to abortion but saying, “I support the current law,” which was pro-choice and effectively a pro-choice position. That was just wrong. And when I became a governor and faced a life-and-death decision as a governor, I came down on the side of life. That was a mistake before that.

This clearly shows that he supported the current abortion laws, not abortion. And again, his voting record/governance is entirely pro-life. Naapple (Talk) 06:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Uhm...that supports the text. Look, what YOU want is to emphasize the whole "Current law" thing, but are dismissing what the figure is saying about it. He is saying that the statement was a mistake and was not what he believed. You are trying to parse words and make this something it is not in my opinion.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

By "current law" I meant the laws at the time. That's what his platform was when he ran for governor. That's what the quote up top is, taken at the time he ran for governor. He supported the current laws at the time. Did you bother reading the quotes? Naapple (Talk) 06:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't get it. If a politician says he's personally not in favor of abortion but supports it politically, we call him pro-choice. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

We explain the difference. Liberty can be a difficult concept to understand for some political ideologies. Naapple (Talk) 06:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

My point is that we don't take the op-ed of the figure to make a claim not being said. He is in effect, if not outright saying that he really didn't support a pro-choice position and that when he was governor he was on the side of life. However if you read the whole article it also says that his decision didn't change state law and that he had promised to sign no law in either direction as Governor. So we don't state that he had effectively supported the current law without mentioning the fact that he is saying that was a mistake on his part and that he felt (whether we agree or not) that his not signing the legislation was siding on the side of life. Perhaps there is come criticism he recieved for this to counter what he is saying, but I agree the original version was more accurate.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I read what you wrote several times and re-read both the original version and mine. I agree with you. Trying to explain it all would be unnecessarily long. I really think my run-on sentence fix was better, though.

Romney has identified himself as "pro-life" since 2005: having previously favored access to legalized abortion during his Massachusetts runs for the U.S. Senate and governorship. He now opposes access to abortion "except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother."

Naapple (Talk)

Yes, I can agree with that. Absolutely.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I would even say it is accurate enough that it should be adapted into the setion now. It doesn't change the consensus here in my opinion and only adds to improving accuracy in a good copy edit to correct the run-on sentence as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the version I added based on apparent consensus was:

Romney has identified himself as "pro-life" since 2005: having previously favored access to abortion during his Massachusetts runs for the U.S. Senate and governorship, he now opposes access to abortion "except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother."

As far as I can tell, aside from a period/comma distinction, it differs only in removing "legalized", as it was pointed out that this is confusing. (It makes it sound as if he wants to make legal what was not already legal.) I have no strong feeling about breaking the sentence before "he now"; it's not really a run-on, but it's a bit long. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Although if we do break it there, we should also change the colon into a period. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"a supporter of the directions of the federal Paul Ryan Budget"?

The political positions section read "He has been a supporter of the directions of the federal Paul Ryan Budget". I think that sentence is WP:OR as that does not reflect neither the sourced offered, nor other sources on the subject. (also, the grammar can be improved "Federal Paul Ryan Budget ????) Cwobeel (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It's difficult to summarize this succinctly. First, there have been multiple Ryan budgets and plans, and you have to make clear which ones you're talking about. Second, when Romney says he would have signed the Ryan budget had it (hypothetically) come to him, that doesn't mean he liked everything about it, just that signing it would have been preferable to not signing it. Of course, that's the way it works for real as well; by the time legislation gets to the president, Congress has done its tricks to it.. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

If it is difficult, that should not stop us from trying. Cwobeel (talk) 02:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The Ryan "plan" is best refered to as the "House Budget Committee spending plan of (add date)". There really is no reason to mention Ryans plan by name as they are too close in name and cause confusion as well as partisan bickering about promoting politics etc.. Another way is to refer to them as simply Ryan's proposed budget plan as ammended on (add date) or "the Ryan, House budget plan or proposal from (add date).--Amadscientist (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with the previous version, which actually summarized the source quite nicely. As opposed to Cwobeel's POV edit, which improperly cherry-picks a photo caption and uses it to insert the NYT's spin into our encyclopedia. The problem is that photo captions are editorial in nature, and are not equal in weight or relevance to the contents of the news story, which talks about "Romney’s embrace of the Ryan plan", not the Ryan budget. Belchfire-TALK 04:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

There was something wrong with the previous version that you restored. It says "he has been a supporter of the directions of the federal Paul Ryan Budget". But that is WP:OR. Both articles are unambiguous in their assessment that he embraced (not supporter of the direction) Ryan's budget. Why to make it ambiguous when the sources are not, that is WP:OR, and frankly, POV. Also the grammar is weird. Cwobeel (talk) 05:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It's also awkwardly phrased. As for the idea that captions are editorial, citation needed. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

BTW, the "going in the right direction with his budget" is the new slant put recently by the Romney campaign. But he initially supported it, so you are welcome to add that. Cwobeel (talk) 05:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

"Gov. Romney applauds Paul Ryan for going in the right direction with his budget, and as president he will be putting together his own plan for cutting the deficit and putting the budget on a path to balance."

Arbitrary break

We may want to change what is there now. It seems far too close to what the source actually says and could be a copyright concern.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

This seems a good time to recall the previous discussion about how this material might be worded. From the Archives:

Extended content

from the Archives (Talk:Mitt Romney Archives 18) The material in this section is reproduced here for convenience. Please do not modify it.

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

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

“

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

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

”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dezastru (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Romney said this of the March 2012 version of Romney's budget plan, as quoted by Alexander Burns in Politico:

I'm very supportive of the Ryan budget plan. It's a bold and exciting effort on his part and on the part of the Republicans and it's very much consistent with what I put out earlier.... this budget deals with entitlement reform, tax policy, which as you know is very similar to the one that I put out and efforts to rein in excessive spending. I applaud it. It's an excellent piece of work and very much needed.

Based on that, can we get a consensus to say the following:

He has also strongly supported the directions of the federal budget proposed by Paul Ryan in March 2012.^[1]^[2]

Romney himself said he was "very supportive of." That is the same as our saying "strongly supported." Since his own words were "the Ryan budget plan," we needn't argue pointlessly over "budget" vs. "plan." The proposed statement also specifically makes reference to the March 2012 version of Ryan's budget proposal, avoiding confusion with earlier versions. Romney himself, and various newsmedia sources, describe this plan as the Ryan budget plan, so there is no need to get hung up over whether it is the "House Republicans' plan" vs. "the Ryan plan"; there's no difference there. The only issue for disagreement might be over saying "directions of." That was compromise wording to satisfy concerns that "framework" did not express clearly enough that Romney might have had disagreements with some of the finer details of the Ryan plan. Dezastru (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Good. That is accurate and NPOV. Cwobeel (talk) 23:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Upside down

More and more info about his income and tax returns and financial issues is going into this article. The place for stuff like that is the section titled "tax returns" in the sub-article about his presidential campaign. Weirdly, that section now has a hatnote with a link to this article, so readers can get more info on the topic. That is upside down. Please review WP:Summary style.64.251.57.34 (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have consolidated the recent addition to the "Personal wealth" section and made it more succinct. I have no control over what is in Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, nor do I want to. This main article has to have correct weighting for its contents, regardless of what is or is not in that subarticle. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Let Detroit Go Bankrupt

I don't think that the title of his op-ed should be used in the text of this article. Romney wrote the op-ed in The New York Times on November 18, 2008 but his title was "The Way Forward for the Auto Industry." It was the newspaper that changed the title to "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt".[5] According to Time Magazine, "It’s worth noting that Romney did not write the Times headline, which gives the impression that Romney thought the companies should be allowed to fail completely. He didn’t think that."[6] Even if the title "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" is used only in a footnote, that footnote also ought to indicate that that misleading title was not Romney's.71.88.58.198 (talk) 06:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, and so done. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Abstinent before marriage

I attempted to add the following, referenced, biographical information about Romney to this article. It was reverted on three occasions on different pretenses ("Seriously? This is not the National Enquier [sic]," "Not encyclopedic," and "actually rumour from a relative and not fact-checked by anyone - trivia at best as a result").

What appears below is a veritable fact (Romney's mother did, in fact, make this assertion and the Romney campaign did not later refute it), it was published in a reputable source (the New York Times, not the National Enquirer) and by all appearances is encyclopedic (it speaks to Romney's upbringing, religion, character, values, and politics).

Apart from general prudishness, is there any reason the following should not appear in this article?

According to Romney's mother, the couple did not have sexual intercourse prior to marriage.^[3] (source here: [7])

--Kairotic (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this is trivia and not useful biographic information. Cwobeel (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree. This information is trivial. Let's focus on details that relate to why Romney is a notable figure. Dezastru (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Explain, then: How is it any less trivial--i.e., less a part of the story of who he is and what makes him notable--than the following?:

"Romney developed a lifelong affection for France and its people, and speaks French."
"Romney was nervous that she had been wooed by others while he was away, and indeed she had sent him a 'Dear John letter' of sorts, greatly upsetting him; he wrote to her in an attempt to win her back."
"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."
"...they were undergraduates at BYU and liv[ed] in a basement apartment."

Perhaps these remarks be removed too; they don't say nearly as much about Romney's character, outlook on social issues, and personal biography as the above quoted fact does.

--Kairotic (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Do not include. This is primarily a matter of privacy. I would agree with Kairotic if the info had been provided by Mitt or Ann Romney. But here we're talking about a statement by an 85-year-old third party. Yes, the third party is a family member, but that fact is not enough to justify inclusion in a BLP.64.134.98.120 (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This is in no way a privacy issue; this has been on the public record (The New York Times) for some 18 years. Mrs. Romney's age at the time is also completely immaterial. It goes without saying, of course, that the elderly aren't inherently disreputable. Mrs. Romney (a politician herself at one time) made the comment on the record in the context of a political campaign. I'm not sure what doubt there is about the veracity of the comment and the privacy argument is clearly specious.

I haven't seen any persuasive lines of reasoning here.

--Kairotic (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

These matters are sometimes not cut and dried. Reasonable people can differ. But it seems telling that the factoid has not reappeared anywhere during the past 18 years, unless you have yet to disclose further sources. If the NYT has decided to sit on it for 18 years after their initial publication, doesn't that tell us something? We are supposed to factor in human dignity and personal privacy. See WP:BLP. Maybe that's what the NYT has been doing for the past 18 years. But even if you can show publication during the past several years, I would still be very leery.64.134.98.120 (talk) 02:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

"Mrs. Romney (a politician herself at one time) made the comment on the record in the context of a political campaign. I'm not sure what doubt there is about the veracity of the comment"

I take it your mother also knows when the first time you had sex was? Or maybe this kind of trivial nonsense would be better placed in the elder Mrs. Romney's article, if anywhere in Wikipedia. Dezastru (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I did include this in the Lenore Romney article, when I was writing it on the road to GA a few months ago. It does say something about her boldness and values that she would say it, and it also fit into the comparison against Kennedy on personal character issues that was one of the subcontexts of that campaign. I don't think it belongs in the Mitt or Ann articles, however, for the reasons given here. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The proposed addition has very little to do with Mrs. Romney or her biography, so it doesn't belong on her page. But it is a salient fact about Mitt Romney, his values, his character, and his story. Since it relates to his political and social outlook as he seeks the presidency of the United States, it is anything but trivial.

So far, the attempts I've seen to turn this argument toward the veracity of Mrs. Romney's claim itself have been weak. In particular, they assume that the proposed addition is purporting more than it really is—that she made this comment in 1994 is an objective fact, and that's all the proposed addition claims. They also suggest without warrant that Mrs. Romney was not a credible, authoritative source for this information; that she was not speaking in good faith; or that she was somehow incompetent (there seems to be a particular insinuation about her age at the time).

To go back to an earlier point, if the proposed addition is "trivial nonsense," than why aren't the following as well?: "Romney developed a lifelong affection for France and its people[...]." Or ""Romney was nervous that she had been wooed by others while he was away, and indeed she had sent him a 'Dear John letter' of sorts, greatly upsetting him; he wrote to her in an attempt to win her back." How are they more notable or veracious than the proposed addition?

I accept that there can be different interpretations of this issue, but let's try to develop lines of reasoning and provide substantiation for our arguments (and leave our mothers out of it, no?). This article is really not helped by an aversion to facts, editorial skittishness, or pressure to keep this article in line with the official Romney campaign biography.

--Kairotic (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The proposed addition has everything to do with Mrs. Romney's values and character — and political judgment. Since she apparently followed her son and future daughter-in-law around 24 hours a day, and slept in the same bed with them, surely this is appropriate content for her WP bio. Dezastru (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Please provide substantiation and lines of reasoning to support your perspective, Dezastru. Let's keep this productive.

--Kairotic (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Unless Mitt or Ann confirm it, I see it as a BLP problem. Best left out. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Is the statement plausible? Yes. From a reliable source? Yes. Of sufficient weight to deserve mention in the article? Perhaps barely; as noted, other lightweight trivia has found its way into the article. Intrusive of the subject's privacy? Absolutely. If the Romneys have not themselves publicized their sexual history, it is a violation of WP:BLP for Wikipedia to further intrude on that private aspect of their lives. On BLP grounds alone, the material should not be included—and I would make the same argument for the Obamas or any other living couple whose sex lives are similarly private. alanyst 18:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Personal wealth

There is very good information about Romney's personal wealth in this article by Businessweek, which could be used to expand the couple of paragraphs in this biography: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-26/romney-tax-returns-show-strategy-for-moving-money-to-kids#p1 Cwobeel (talk) 02:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree, good article, and I've added something from it. I'm trying to structure this section so one paragraph deals with all net worth, one deals with income and taxes, and one deals with charitable giving, rather than them being all jumbled as before. I really can't understand why you reverted this before - the two things you added, carried interest and three offshore accounts, are still there, just more concisely and with less duplication. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

He's rich. Very, very, rich. But do we really need upwards of 275 words to say so? Trim, trim, trim:

“

As a result of his business career, ~~by 2007~~ , Romney and his wife had a net worth of between $190 and $250 million as of 2012, most of it held in blind trusts since 2003.[93] The couple's net worth remained in the same range as of 2011, and is still held in blind trusts.[94] In 2012, it was estimated that he had amassed twice the net worth of the last eight U.S. presidents combined,[95] and He would rank among the richest presidents in American history if elected.[95][96] An additional blind trust exists in the name of the Romneys' children and grandchildren that ~~was valued at between $70 and $100 million as of 2007.[97] That trust, created in 1995, allows~~ has allowed the Romneys to transfer ~~money~~ around $100 million to their heirs ~~outside their estate, taking advantage of sophisticated tax planning~~ via techniques that other high-net-worth families use.[98]

In 2010, Romney and his wife received $21.7 million in income, almost all of it from investments, of which about $3 million went to federal income taxes.[99] His federal tax rate of 13.9 percent, based upon the beneficial rate accorded investment income such as dividends, capital gains, and carried interest by the U.S. tax code,[99] would be lower than that of any of the last five U.S. presidents.[100][101] Romney's holdings have included accounts in Switzerland, Bermuda, and the Cayman Islands.[101] {The only reason any of this is the least bit remarkable for a person of his wealth is because of the campaign, and this could all be moved to the campaign article's section on "Tax returns."}

~~Romney has always tithed to the LDS Church, including stock from Bain Capital holdings.[13][102][103]~~ In 2010, he and his wife gave $3 million to charity, including $1.5 million to the church.[99] The Romney family's Tyler Charitable Foundation gave out about $650,000 in that year, with some of it going to organizations that fight specific diseases such as cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis.[104]

”

71.88.58.198 (talk) 05:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Not going to happen, FLAYWIP. I'm struggling just to keep it at its current length, and I don't agree that the campaign section should carry this freight. Cwobeel, we don't need to say something as verbose as "Benjamin Ginsberg, Romney campaign's legal counsel, reported that Romney earned $7.4 million in carried interest from Bain Capital in 2010." All we need to do is include carried interest as among the types of investment income he has (if it's a third of the pie, and we gave three types, that gives the right impression). We don't need to say "and that he had a "bank account, security account or other financial account" in Switzerland; according to Romney's aides, this account was closed in 2010. Financial accounts in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands were also reported that year." All we need to say is "financial accounts", the exact type is not the point at this level of detail. And whether they are currently closed or not is not the point either; he could have been sanitizing his holdings prior to running. And I know you don't care about MoS conformance, but per WP:OVERLINK and general practice, names of countries are usually not linked. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This "freight" as you call it is extremely boring, overly detailed, and verbosely worded. But if you keep it all in this article, move some of it to the 2012 campaign section. You must realize that much of this information is being used to discredit Romney as an out-of-touch rich guy who wants to use public policy to defend his own wealth. That's campaign info, far exceeding ordinary biographical info.64.134.98.120 (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Boring is in the eyes of the reader; if a particular section doesn't interest someone, they can skip to the next section. I see the distinction as this: facts about Romney's wealth and tax payments and whatnot should go in this section; campaign arguments about whether he should release more returns should go in the 2012 campaign section. When you run for president, every aspect of your life gets magnified and you get a long WP article; this is a reasonably appropriate coverage of his wealth, which is one of his more notable characteristics. As for your 'public policy' angle, you're off target: every Republican wants to do the same stuff (cut marginal tax rates, cut investment income rates even more, eliminate the estate tax), whether they are worth $250M or only $1M. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to accommodate some of your edits, but it seems that it is your way or the highway. You have changed the meaning of the source stating that "Romney's holdings have included financial accounts in Switzerland, Bermuda, and the Cayman Islands." "Have included" is in the past and portrays that he has no longer have these holdings but that is not true. Regarding the linking of countries, you may but many people do not klnow where these countries are, or that they are used as tax heavens, and links are useful. Cwobeel (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Rather than reverting your edit, I encourage you to accommodate my edits. Cwobeel (talk) 14:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I assure you it's not 'my way', since I wouldn't include any of the overseas holdings, as I don't think they're numerically significant. But I realize others are fixated on this subject. I believe the "have included" phrasing includes both past and current, which is what I intended, but in any case I have reworded it to say that explicitly. As for country linking, that's just not done these days, and any GA/Peer/FA review will flag it (indeed the peer one did a few days ago). The powers that be are against a "sea of blue" appearance for any article. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting that, but note that you have not added that the Switzerland was closed in 2010. That is a significant fact, which is still missing. As for the links to the countries, I still believe it is relevant. If during a GA process that is challenged we can remove them at that time. Cwobeel (talk) 03:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is Switzerland closing in 2010 significant? How much money was in the Switzerland account? What kind of account was it? What was it there for? How long was it there? Was it a tax shelter or were normal taxes paid on it? All of those other questions are more significant than what particular year it closed in. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It is significant as reported. I have made some small tweaks and added also the date of release of the 2011 return, as reported by a Romney advisor. Cwobeel (talk) 03:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

To your question: - Brad Malt of the law firm Ropes & Gray: Q: "Why was that Swiss bank account closed in 2010?" A: "I previously said that I regularly review Gov. Romney's investments and just in connection with one of my periodic reviews, I decided that this account wasn't serving any particular purpose. It might or might not be consistent with Gov. Romney's political views. You know, again, taxes were all fully paid, etc., but it just wasn't worth it, and I closed the account." Cwobeel (talk) 03:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

So if the Swiss account wasn't a tax dodge, why are we even describing it? What difference does it make if he keeps his money in a Swiss bank or a Massachusetts bank? Never mind, it's a rhetorical question, I already know your answer. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, Malt says it wasn't. We should include what he says, but shouldn't let him have the final word. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Unless you have proof that it was, it is little more than subjecture. Arzel (talk) 14:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not up to us to prove anything; this isn't a court. We just report what the mainstream and minor reliable sources say. This is certainly one reliable source and we should report it. We should not, however, report it to the exclusion of all else. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not the purpose of WP to imply that Romney did something illegal either, which is apparently the angle you are trying to work. Arzel (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The article says he currently has holdings but the citation is taking about the past. He could still have them, but that is just speculation. The bigger point is that this is not notable so why include it? It would be notable if he didn't have accounts all over the world it seems. --Mollskman (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I pop in and out on this article, but I don't see why the info on the Cayman Islands, Switzerland, etc. is being removed. It's verifiable information that he's had money there, and it's reported that he's the only presidential contender in history with this sort of offshore money. We don't know exact amounts because the Romneys have not been forthcoming with that information. But why is this not enough to say that "In 2010, he reported significant holdings..." or something of the like? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I also would like to understand why this factual information is being deleted. Cwobeel (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Was it reported that he is the only presidential contender in history with this sort of offshore money? Maybe I missed that. Still not sure how notable that is, but that might move me. At the very least, this needs to be worded better it seems. Also just because it is factual doesn't mean it belongs. --Mollskman (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Facts don't warrant inclusion. Naapple (Talk) 21:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a remarkable assertion for Wikipedia. Please read WP:NPOV. Facts, as presented by reliable sources, should be included to the extent that they represent widely held views in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. You seem to be arguing that facts can be excluded from the article just because you don't like them. Wrong. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Your reply to everyone you disagree with seems to be "because you don't like them". It's getting old. Your argument is weak and baseless. Facts indeed don't warrant inclusion. Just because it's true doesn't mean it is relevant or appropriate to the article. Naapple (Talk) 00:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

A better phrasing would be, "being factual is not a sufficient condition for inclusion in Wikipedia". In this case I believe the objection is not that the material is counterfactual, but that it is overburdened by inconsequential details that weigh down the article. alanyst 21:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that a short sentence will burden this article, see also WP:NOTPAPER. I think the reasoning for exclusion is purely political. Some operatives or supporters of Romney believe that his finances are a "distraction", but they fail to understand that this is a biography and people thirst to know more about this person. Cwobeel (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the reasoning FOR inclusion is purely political too. HiLo48 (talk) 23:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

But this is not opinion. This is facts; big difference IMO. Let the reader decide should be our motto. Cwobeel (talk) 00:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I agree, it's good that it's true, but that's not enough either. We don't include every fact. We include notable ones. As I have already said, every US President in my (longish so far) lifetime has been a lot richer than me. Where Romney sits in that range of "a lot richer than me" isn't really important. HiLo48 (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. What matters is that reliable sources have shown the notability of his wealth. We have to follow our sources. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The interesting thing is that we are already speaking of his wealth in the article, in fact we have a section dedicated to it so that is not the issue being argued. What is being argued is the inclusion of a sentence properly sourced (including sources close to Romney) about foreign accounts and blind trusts. How come this is not useful while other material is? That is the question which no one has answered yet, besides bromides about undue weight, too long, overwhelming the article and other nonsense. And the simple reason is that it is political and that is why we are having this discussion. Forget the wikilaywering. There is no consensus for inclusion and there is no consensus for exclusion. I guess it all will dissipate after the upcoming elections. Cwobeel (talk) 03:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I have the same question. I agreed that it should be included. It's notable, as no other president has had holdings in the Caymans and Switzerland. I don't understand the argument for omission.Jasonnewyork (talk) 03:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

After reading all of the comments on here, it seems the sticking point for inclusion is "notability." I did some searches, and the topic of his Swiss bank accounts and holdings in the Caymans are everywhere, even on Fox News and even in the ultra conservative National Review. Here's an article: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/289248/gingrich-romney-lives-worlds-swiss-bank-accounts-and-cayman-island-accounts-katrina-tr. I think when it's been such a large point of contention from not only democratic but also republican circles, you can't claim it isn't notable.Jasonnewyork (talk) 04:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

That article clearly shows it is a political talking point, this article is not about the 2012 presidential election, this article is about him personally. Granted, as a presidential candidate it is not possible to completely seperate the two, but are other people with various holdings held to such a scrutiny here? It is quite clear that this is purely a political hammer with which to hit Romney and WP is simply not the place to push a political point of view. Arzel (talk) 05:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

On the one hand, I agree with you. On the other hand, he's a politician running for president, so everything becomes political, so you could use that argument to exclude just about anything that doesn't paint him in a perfect light. There must be some sort of guidelines for inclusion of content in an article or is it always just majority rules?Jasonnewyork (talk) 05:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Though I have, admittedly, made the error myself, notability is not, strictly speaking, a criterion on which to base article content. It is a criterion on which to determine whether an article should exist at all, not on what the specific content of an article should be. See WP:NNC. Dezastru (talk) 04:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Step outside the definitions of Wikipedia for a moment. Based on the discussion in this thread, the barrier to inclusion is the content's notability. Yes, I understand it is also a term in Wikipedia lore that allows for the weighing of information to determine inclusion of an article, not content, but the word "notable" has other uses too. How about this...to avoid confusion, we could say the sticking point is "relevance" - same idea. The barrier to inclusion is relevance. It seems that if even Fox News and The National Review are talking about it, then it is relevant.Jasonnewyork (talk) 04:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I think what you're referring to is WP:WEIGHT: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." - Sudo Ghost 05:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

So, if the concern is that his holdings in the Caymans and Switzerland, etc, are getting undue weight, can we compromise and cut the information down?Jasonnewyork (talk) 05:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

ROFL! How can you remove what we want to include? You will end up with nothing. This is the entire sentence: Cwobeel (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Financial accounts in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands are currently part of his holdings; an account in Switzerland was closed in 2010.^[4]

That's it? One sentence? LOL. Well, that makes my comments under biased article all the more relevant.Jasonnewyork (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. Much of a do about nothing, IMO. That sentence should go back in. Cwobeel (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, under the personal wealth section, the term "blind trust" is used three times, making it seem as if he has no control over his funds. We can certainly state that he has said he has no control over those blind trusts, but we should also state that in 1994 he said that the blind trust is "an old ruse" and that you can direct what to invest in and what not to invest in. If you leave that out, you're not telling the whole story.Jasonnewyork (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Based on this conversation, I restored the Bermuda line. Let's see who wins the race to revert this. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Can people at least try to rewrite this to gain consensus? I wouldn't include it, but if it has to go in maybe something like his returns showed holdings in the Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, ect? --Mollskman (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. I don't really see a marked difference in the two, but happy to endorse Mollskman's version.Jasonnewyork (talk) 21:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if using "currently" was appropriate since that seems specultive. Again, I would leave it out unless there was a "bigger story" like he denied those accounts. Also, was it ever answered about Romney being the only candidate in history to ever have these types of accounts, is there a citation for that since it keeps getting repeated here? --Mollskman (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

That claim is unprovable. I used it. I shouldn't have. It's one of those "You can't prove a negative" fallacies. I looked for a source anyway and came up empty handed. Yes, I realize that's a knock against inclusion, but I think we've provided sufficient support without that argument.Jasonnewyork (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, Wasted R's comments from earlier were never addressed regarding the Swiss Bank account. Also, what is the story that some editors are trying to tell? These kind of statements with a "wink wink" are little more than political talking points. Arzel (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Arzel, everything about a presidential candidate is political. You keep using that as an argument for exclusion. No one is saying Romney did anything wrong or illegal. All the line says is that he has holdings in the Caymans, Bermuda and Switzerland (in 2010). There's no judgment placed on that statement. It's a fact, just like the rest of the information in the section. By your reasoning we shouldn't include his total wealth because that's a wink-wink to say "hey, this guy is really rich and not like us." As I said, everything about Romney is political. Everything about Obama is political. That's not a reason for exclusion. If I step back from all of this, I think fellow editors should ask themselves this question - is it slanting the article more to include it or to exclude it? And I say whatever consensus says to that question should stand.Jasonnewyork (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is it noteworthy that he has off shore bank accounts? If it is, include it. If it isn't, don't. The judgement placed on the statement is that its noteworthy of inclusion. Is it? --Mollskman (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Should it also be mentioned he had accounts in the U.S.? If it's not political, how are the offshore accounts different than domestic ones? 72Dino (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The noteworthy argument was made above, but here's the quick recap: It's a story that was featured in all the major news outlets (including Fox and National Review). Arzel claimed it's just a political hammer. My counter to that was that he's a presidential candidate - everything about him is political. That's not a reason to exclude. Here's the thing - we provide the fact: he had holdings in these countries. People make up their mind what that means to them. That's it. To some people it will mean that he's a savvy investor and has managed his money wisely. To other people it might mean he avoided paying taxes. We're not providing judgment on the fact (which is only about 10 words long), and to exclude the information is depriving the reader from making a decision about what that fact means to them. It also prevents them from doing further research on whether these tax loopholes are something they support or oppose. The more I think about this, the more I'm convinced this information should really be included. To say this information is not notable is a big stretch.Jasonnewyork (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Your response makes me more inclined to not include. Whenever I hear "include it and let the reader decide what it means and how to interpret it" I cringe. Why is it so important that it be included? What value does it add? Your response reinforces the idea that it is being included for political reasons. --Mollskman (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Or, in short, it's noteworthy because our sources say it is. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

That is such convuluted logic, I really wish you would stop trying to use it. By that argument, every single thing published in any reliable source is, by your definition, noteworthy. Arzel (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

What I don't get is this - people are throwing around this word noteworthy as if it is a measurable attribute. If there is no definition as to what constitutes "noteworthy" then this debate is pointless and it all comes down to how people feel (welcome to Wikipedia). Also, Mollskman, I am struggling to understand your argument. If someone says let the reader decide, that's somehow a red flag? Can you elaborate on how that disqualifies this entry? As to what value it adds, I've stated that - again and again. Having holdings in those locations has meaning. As to it being political - good grief, I've said this again and again. He a candidate for political office. Yes, of course it's political. Everything about him is political. The amount of scuff on his shoes is political. Whether a fact is political or not has no bearing on inclusion or exclusion.Jasonnewyork (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

But when the inclusion of content is being pushed for what seem exclusively political purposes, we must object. And as for being well sourced, that's an essential requirement for inclusion, but it is never sufficient. Hollywood babies, their weird names, and their parents' relationships are very well covered in reliable sources, including some otherwise regarded as being high quality, but we ignore most of that sort of content. We are ALWAYS making judgements on the significance of news for inclusion in this quality encyclopaedia. Simply telling us that it's well sourced is never enough. HiLo48 (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Part of the problem here, is that some aspects of his wealth are really related to his presidential run and are being used for political purposes. The sources referencing them are in that context, and if not for the fact that he is running for president no one would ever know of them. As such they belong, if at all, in the article related to his presidential run. Another issue is that some of this stuff is timely, as in "right now Romney has investments in...." which is not in a historical perspective, these issues further illustrate aspects which are exclusively related to the 2012 election. My approach in these articles is to forget that he is even running for office. Compare the article to other BLP's and see if it is written in a similar manner. Certainly his wealth would be reported, but investment holdings would not, and from what I have seen are not reported on other BLP articles. Now look at the specific issue here. Jason says "let the reader decide". What is the reader to decide? The articles which mention it, imply that this is somehow nefarious or possibly illegal. So if we just list the fact the implication is clear. Romney is doing something bad, we don't say so specifically since we just report the fact without the commentary, but if you check the source the commentary is clear. Like Molksman, whenever I hear that logic red flags go up, because the goal is to lead the reader to the conclusion that the editor has already made. In conclusion, much of this doesn't belong in the main article because it is specifically related to the 2012 election, and not his personal bio. If included in the sub article it has to be put into context, in which case it becomes a bloated section in violation of due weight, and if a ton of text is required to put something into context, in general it is going to violate WP:Weight unless is a extrememly noteworty. Arzel (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

If we write this as if he's not running, we'll have an article that's out of touch with reality. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say to write it as if he is not running, only that aspects which are part of the 2012 election politicking do not belong in the main BIO. Arzel (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

He had these offshore accounts before he ran, he'll have them afterwards. This isn't an election-only thing. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Now you're speculating. We can't do that here. HiLo48 (talk) 01:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm just going to point out how ridiculous your comment is and walk away. You have no valid objections, so we're done here. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to see everything in purely partisan terms, then your argument can easily be reversed. By your logic, failing to mention the Bermuda and Cayman accounts is clearly an example of political whitewashing by conservatives such as yourself. See how that works? Bet it's not as much fun when it's applied to you.

False assumption (and rude post). I'm opposed to ALL partisan behaviour on Wikipedia. It's possible to try to be objective, especially when one is not an American and is 12,000 kilometres away HiLo48 (talk) 01:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Being objective means going with what our sources find worth reporting on, such as these bank accounts. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read my post just above, at 00:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC) HiLo48 (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Instead, I suggest that we put aside any arguments based on partisanship and focus on whether a reasonable person would be surprised to hear that we failed to mentioned these accounts. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

@Jasonnewyork, I wouldn't say that it disqualifies the material, it just always makes me wonder about the quality of the aurguement for inclusion when people say, just include it and readers can decide for themselves whether its noteworthy. And yes, noteworthyness :) comes down to editorial consensus and not just include it since it has been reported. Cheers. --Mollskman (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The argument from inclusion is based on what our secondary sources show to be important, not whether it pleases conservatives or liberals. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you actually read my post just above, at 00:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)? It's rude to post as if contrary comments have not already been made. HiLo48 (talk) 01:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Footnote question

In footnote #1, it states, in part:

In 2012, five former classmates described a 1965 episode wherein Romney, then a senior, took the lead in holding down a younger student while cutting his long, bleached-blond hair with scissors.[20] [My bold emphasis.]

The reference to long hair is, of course, significant to the act, but the reference to "bleached-blonde" is completely superficial and insignificant. Why does it stand this way? I think the phrase should be deleted. Thanks, Wordreader (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

He was attacked because he was different. This is the main way he was different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.69.94 (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that "bleached-blond" should be removed as superfluous. The scissors were aimed at hair length, not hair color. If Mitt Romney had wielded hair dye, that would be another matter.64.251.57.46 (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No, read the Horowitz story again: "Now he was walking around the all-boys school with bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye, and Romney wasn’t having it. “He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!” an incensed Romney told Matthew Friedemann, his close friend in the Stevens Hall dorm, according to Friedemann’s recollection. Mitt, the teenage son of Michigan Gov. George Romney, kept complaining about Lauber’s look, Friedemann recalled." Remember that dyed hair in guys was a lot more unusual in 1965 than it is today. And the cutting of hair serves to shame both the length and color of it.

Furthermore, the current language is the result of a compromise at the end of a lonnnnnng series of discussions and arguments, spanning four or five talk archives. And it's a compromise which you (FLAYWIP) endorsed. We do not want to open this one back up!! Wasted Time R (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have thoroughly searched the archives for "hair" and "FLAYWIP" but come up empty (I may have to start calling you Wasted One!). Anyway, perhaps you've heard about the protestations of the alleged Fort Hood killer, who doesn't want the Army to forcibly shave his beard even though he's a major in said Army. My opinion is that the Army wants to do it for the sake of conformity rather than for the sake of shaming. Whether bleached-blond stays in or comes out is no big deal, but I don't think anyone has before made that particular suggestion.64.134.98.120 (talk) 00:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

here Wasted Time R (talk) 01:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Upon reviewing the cited source, I think it's okay to leave in "bleached-blond". The source indicates that the incident induced the boy to get rid of the bleached look: "he returned days later with his shortened hair back to it's natural brown". Plus I can now cite this discussion if WTR ever wants to restore the dog details.64.134.98.120 (talk) 02:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Peer review

Just a reminder: there is an ongoing peer review of this article here.64.251.57.46 (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

What is the difference between that page and the talk page?Jasonnewyork (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It's mainly so that a neutral third-party editing expert (in this case BrianBoulton) can review the article and make suggestions with an eye toward this article eventually satisfying the featured article criteria. Wasted Time R is the primary editor for this article, so he is primarily responding to Brian Boulton's comments.64.134.98.120 (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

2nd paragraph of political positions section

The second paragraph under the political positions section starts off with "Romney has called for cuts." Two sentences later it says he is calling for large increases in military spending. Is that a contradiction that we care about fixing? Seems the paragraph should be about the stuff he wants to cut.Jasonnewyork (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you reading the sources? Plus federal spending and military spending are not the same thing. Federal spending encompasses the entire government which includes military spending. It is possible to increase military spending and cut federal spending at the same time. So there is no contradiction here. By the way, when you use quotation marks, be sure to use the exact sentence as "Romney has called for cuts." does not exist. Quoting works by using the exact sentence or phrase without any interference from you instead of paraphrasing as you did there. ViriiK (talk) 05:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware that you can cut fed spending while increasing military spending. That wasn't the point. It was a point on consistency within a paragraph. If you start a paragraph out talking about cuts to fed spending, you'd think the paragraph is about cuts to fed spending (e.g. the spending cuts that would occur within fed spending) rather than including a sentence about spending increases. It's just grammatically unseemly. But I don't feel strongly on this point. It sounds like you do, so I'm happy to leave it alone.Jasonnewyork (talk) 05:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The whole paragraph itself is leading up to the Paul Ryan budget which is a mixed bag of increased or reduced spending in their respective areas. I don't think it's inconsistent at all rather. Then again, the whole paragraph focuses on his positions of how he views the United States federal budget. ViriiK (talk) 05:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Heads up

There is now an article titled Business career of Mitt Romney. It draws together relevant info from this article and other articles, and adds some additional info. It may be appropriate, therefore, to trim the Business Career section of this main Mitt Romney article, per WP:Summary style.64.134.98.120 (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

What additional info? Can you list these additions? It seems you just copied and pasted from other articles. IMO, that is an unnecessary fork and should be put up for deletion. Cwobeel (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This adds nothing.Jasonnewyork (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Cwobeel has raised this objection in two places, and I think it would be better to continue at one place. So, I'll respond at Talk:Business career of Mitt Romney.71.88.58.198 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

References format

Question:

In the References section, these books first appear as a secondary reference format, not as a primary reference format followed subsequently by their secondary reference format:

^ Kranish; Helman, The Real Romney, pp. 12–13.
^ Mahoney, The Story of George Romney, pp. 59–62, 63–65, 94–96, 104, 113, 159.

These books are fully listed farther down the page in the Bibliography section, but that is beside the point. Can someone please explain this to me? Thanks, Wordreader (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This is per the WP:CITESHORT style. One thing that could be done is add the {{harvnb}} links to it. GabeMc was hot on doing that, until he disappeared from this article and devoted himself full-time to WP's greatest edit war of all ... whether you should write "The Beatles" or "the Beatles". Wasted Time R (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought you weren't interested in harv or sfn templates Wasted. If there is a consensus to switch to them here, I could likely be persuaded into helping out with the transition. FTR, I devoted myself to ending WP's lamest edit war of all-time. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

New Section

Could we have a new section on Romneys' plans to attack Iran and drag the US into another stupid war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.12.9 (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

How about an article on stupid MSNBC hosts trying to extraplolate Romney's remarks into a call for war on Iran? Arzel (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

See my above comments on a foreign policy section. While we don't want to say "Romney plans to attack Iran and drag the US into another stupid war" it does make sense to make his foreign policy positions (including his stance on Iran) known in a neutral tone.Jasonnewyork (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Obstruction

I have to say that I'm disappointed by the tendency of conservative editors to obstruct reasonable changes.[8][9]

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)

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 [10], and this [11] which says "The Republican candidate is using the trip to raise campaign funds and canvass for support among London's large American community." Another [12] 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 [13]: "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 [14]: "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)

^ Burns, Alexander (March 20, 2012). "Romney endorses Ryan budget". Politico.
^ Landler, Mark (April 4, 2012). "Budget author, a Romney ally, turns into campaign focus". New York Times.
^ Rimer, Sara (25 October 1994). "THE 1994 CAMPAIGN: MASSACHUSETTS; 'Perfect Anti-Kennedy' Opposes the Senator". The New York Times. Retrieved 28 August 2012. Where Senator Kennedy, who remarried two years ago, is still known for his hard-drinking, hard-living bachelor days after his 1981 divorce, Mr. Romney's mother, Lenore Romney, who is 85, volunteered in an interview last week that her son and Ann waited until they were married to have sex.
^ Groeger, Lena (January 24, 2012). "Inside Romney's Tax Returns: A Reading Guide". ProPublica.

[1] Burns, Alexander (March 20, 2012). "Romney endorses Ryan budget". Politico.

[2] Landler, Mark (April 4, 2012). "Budget author, a Romney ally, turns into campaign focus". New York Times.

[3] Rimer, Sara (25 October 1994). "THE 1994 CAMPAIGN: MASSACHUSETTS; 'Perfect Anti-Kennedy' Opposes the Senator". The New York Times. Retrieved 28 August 2012. Where Senator Kennedy, who remarried two years ago, is still known for his hard-drinking, hard-living bachelor days after his 1981 divorce, Mr. Romney's mother, Lenore Romney, who is 85, volunteered in an interview last week that her son and Ann waited until they were married to have sex.

[pp-taxes-4] Groeger, Lena (January 24, 2012). "Inside Romney's Tax Returns: A Reading Guide". ProPublica.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]