Talk:Mitt Romney/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Romney's time as governor

The article about Mitt Romney claims that he signed budgets that cut state government spending. But as this article explains...

http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/25/2012-gop-candidates-have-fiscally-moderate-records/

...Romney did in fact preside over a 42-percent general fund increase. Either the article needs a substantiation of its claims about spending cuts, or you need to correct the statement.

SRLarson (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Cher new editor - read the Wikipedia policies please before leaping suddenly into a topic. The article you cite does not contradict the claims made by reliable sources in this BLP. It could be used for a claim that Sven Larson considers Romney a "fiscal moderate." Collect (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The effect of Romney's term on state spending levels is not that easy to determine. If you look at this Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center chart, for instance, you can do an inflation-adjusted comparison between FY 2003 and FY 2007, which shows that state spending increased from $34.9B to $36.2B. That's not 42 percent, it's more like 4 percent. But Massachusetts' fiscal year Y runs from July 1 of year Y-1 to June 30 of Y. So the first half of FY 2003 is not Romney but the second half is, while the first half of FY 2007 is Romney while the second half is not. So how do you factor that in? Anyway, the Daily Caller piece is saying "Massachusetts’s general fund increased 42 percent under Romney", but the link given to support that doesn't resolve. So I'm not sure what to make of that. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

SRLarson, are you the author of the dailycaller article that you linked to above? It's not clear from the article what the base figures were that the author used to calculate 42%. The article links to the National Association of State Budget Officers, but not to any specific article or report on that website. If you are the author, perhaps you can share which specific data you were referencing?

General fund allocations for Massachusetts can be seen in the fiscal surveys of the states published each fall by the National Association of State Budget Officers. I've looked through some of the numbers but have not been able to figure out where that 42% is coming from.

Here are a few articles that comment on MA budgets during Romney's term.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/06/23/pawlenty-ad-an-obscure-barb/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/10/romneys-initiatives-miracles-or-gimmickry/print/

"At the same debate, Pawlenty, the former Minnesota governor who has since dropped out of the presidential race, said that Romney had run up spending 40 percent while running Massachusetts. 'Mitt ran up spending in his watch as governor 40-plus percent over his nearly four years,' said Pawlenty. 'That’s not going to contrast very well with the president.'"

http://cnsnews.com/node/114955 Dezastru (talk) 02:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The numbers that add up to a 42-percent spending increase are available in the National Association of State Budget Officers' annual State Expenditure Reports. The first table in every report is for total state spending, divided into General, Federal and Other Funds. That is the source of the 42-percent spending increase number. Find it by looking under Publications and Data at the nasbo.org website. /SRL 174.45.137.83 (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, from NASBO State Expenditure Report 2007 (Fiscal 2006-2008 Data) and NASBO State Expenditure Report 2004 (Fiscal 2003-2005 Data) there are the following numbers (which are different figures from what are published in the NASBO's fall editions of the Fiscal Surveys of the States for those years):

year 2003 general fund $19,412

year 2007 general fund $27,586

The difference between $19,412 and $27,586 does work out to a 42% increase. (However, adjusted for inflation, it's only 26% — still large, but not quite so dramatic as 42%.) Dezastru (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment:. I recently remove his wikilink at the Flip-flop (politics) article under the 'see also' section. Someone may wish to see who had added it and possibly look into that editor's history. I don't really care, and sorry for posting in this section. If it seems out of place I will just remove it, or feel free to do it yourselves.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Viewmont Viking (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

"impersonation of an officer"

Is a criminal charge - hence needs very strong sourcing per WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I reversed before I was aware that you opened a discussion. What's wrong with the reference? Gandydancer (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The way you are wording it implies that he was committing a crime. You need a strong source for such a statement. I toned it down to remove that implication, but I don't know if it really belongs. It is a nice little political hit piece though. Arzel (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Why does this hopefully NPOV article need a "nice little political hit piece"? HiLo48 (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic. That article strongly implies that Romney was recklessly breaking the law, and I find it extremely distressing when people today judge actions of the past through the prism of today without any context. Pretending to "be the cops" to scare the crap out of your friends was one of the most common pranks I remember from high school. Anyone of Romney's generation likely knew many people that did something similar, or possibly did it themselves. I am guessing it is still done today by kids around the world. Yet somehow it is portrayed that Romney is unique, and what he did was illegal. Arzel (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney’s prankster ways continued in college ~ GabeMc (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually I didn't add it and only reversed it because I didn't see anything wrong with the ref. I don't have any strong feelings about keeping it. I agree that childhood pranks should not be used as political ammunition. College age is a little more iffy. Gandydancer (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The alleged Lauber incident (as the WaPo article describes it) is not really a "prank" IMO. One of the witnesses, Phillip Maxwell, now a lawyer, described the incident: "I’m a lawyer. I know what an assault is. This kid was scared. He was terrified. That’s an assault." ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are right - I had forgotten that incident... That was beyond a childhood prank and deserves to be mentioned. Thanks for reminding me. Gandydancer (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a Straw Poll above in which we are gaging consensus for the inclusion of this and other "prankster" material. Your input would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

GabeMc I disagree with you undoing my edit. You mentioned I should have brought it to the talk page. I agree things should be brought to the talk page if they could cause controversy that is why I believe the "impersonating" a police officer should never have been added in the first place, it had not been brought to the talk page before being added. However, I did not want to get into an edit standoff so here I am bringing it to the talk page. I believe it should be removed until the editors have come to a consensuses. Viewmont Viking (talk) 06:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It's there to denigrate the man. Remove it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The recent Boston Globe article I linked to above corroborates the 2012 Karnish-Helman bio (p.20-21), so that's the most recent printed biography and a recent newspaper article in agreement, both WP:RSs, both saying the same thing. It's certainly verifiable, so are you contending its notability? ~ GabeMc (talk) 08:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Precisely. Something can be perfectly sourced, but still be WP:UNDUE. HiLo48 (talk) 08:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

While I would rather not have to invoke WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST, look at Barack Obama's page, on election day 4 November 2008. It included this, in the THIRD paragraph:

As an adult Obama admitted that during high school he used marijuana, cocaine, and alcohol, which he described at the 2008 Civil Forum on the Presidency as his greatest moral failure.[9][10]

So within three paragraphs the article was establishing that in his high school years, he broke the law. Also:

"With his Kenyan father and white American mother, his upbringing in Honolulu and Jakarta, and his Ivy League education, Obama's early life experiences differ markedly from those of African American politicians who launched their careers in the 1960s through participation in the civil rights movement.[176] Expressing puzzlement over questions about whether he is "black enough," Obama told an August 2007 meeting of the National Association of Black Journalists that the debate is not about his physical appearance or his record on issues of concern to black voters. Obama said that "we're still locked in this notion that if you appeal to white folks then there must be something wrong."[177]"

There is a double standard developing here that is down right creepy IMO. ~ GabeMc (talk)

When you write about someone's early life, you describe what they were like at the time. Were they a good student, were they a jock, were they popular, what extracurricular activities did they participate in, what was their personality type, did they get in trouble, what was their outlook on life, etc. This is fair ground for any in-depth biography, be it a politician, a musician, a businessperson, whatever. Contra HiLo48, this material is not here to denigrate the subject, nor does it mean the person couldn't do great things later on. There is an unfortunate syllogism that some editors are using here: Romney is running for president, therefore any newspaper story written about him now that describes any kind of negative thing he ever did is a 'political hit piece', therefore none of those stories can be used here. That's silly. Newspaper editors assign reporters to do biographical profiles and investigations of political figures when they are running for national office, not before and not after. Ditto many books - it's no accident that the Kranish-Helman bio came out when it did, or the Maraniss bio on Obama around the time of his re-election campaign. If a story is poorly sourced or oddly constructed, then its use here can be questioned (a good example is the NYT article on the McCain - Vicki Iseman relationship four years ago, which was a real mess and ended up in a legal battle). But that's not the case for this or the other stories about Romney's pranks and the Cranbrook incident. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Well said Wasted! ~ GabeMc (talk) 11:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I don’t understand how you can invoke WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST and arguing that back in 2008 the article stated. I would hope we have since worked to improve WP. If Mitt Romney adds the Police prank in his autobiography and mentions how it was a great moral failure but helped him push questions of who he was out of his mind, then great let us include that, which would fit into OTHERTHINGSEXIST. Until then it seems to be a political talking point to say that Romney broke the law. Viewmont Viking (talk) 11:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The difference here is, Obama owned up to the drug-use, Romney has not really owned up to the pranks that allegedly may or may not have pushed the legal boundries a bit, maybe, sorta. If Romney later admits to the Lauber incident would your now arguement be made moot? ~ GabeMc (talk) 11:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Viewmont Viking, the criteria for inclusion in biographies here is not whether the biographical subject includes something in their autobiography. And the point of inclusion here is not to say that Romney broke the law, because while he might have in a technical sense, it's unlikely he would have been arrested or prosecuted for it. It's to say that Romney was engaged in this unusual behavior - which contra Arzel, I never knew or heard of anyone doing. Who puts on a fake uniform, put a whirring cherry top on his car, and ride around giving fake tickets to people making out? And contra one of the edits to the article, at Stanford at least it wasn't just done to friends but to strangers as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I realize it does not need to be included in their autobiography. I was making a point that it does not invoke OTHERTHINGSEXIST. You are correct he has not really "owned" up to the pranks. How does that make it notable and relavant. I agree adding things about his pranks could be okay, depending how it is done. It is the way this one was done, without discussion. It was just added without being discussed, then when I went to remove it I was told it had to be discussed. Why not discuss before being added? Viewmont Viking (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me. However, it seems like anything potentially negative to Romney's image is deemed a "political hit piece", while flattering, or beneficial material is deemed notable enough for inclusion. Why include all the bragging points without any balance? The point of this article (within the scope and limitations of WP:BLP) is not to "protect" Romney's public image, but to inform readers of the notable aspects of his life that can be verified by reliable sources. This "impersonating a cop" bit meets that criteria. ~ GabeMc (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it just you if you believe this "cop business" falls under notable aspects of his life. --Mollskman (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

However, this article will never pass FA without some inclusion of this verifiable and long-standing aspect of his personality. The Kranish-Helman book calls Romney, an "inveterate" prankster, and indeed Romney's own campaign has used this to manipulate his public image. ~ GabeMc (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Question - Why was Obama's drug use included in the third paragraph of his article the day of the 2008 election? Was it that notable that a HS kid used drugs recreationally to be covered in the first five graphs? ~ GabeMc (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Again mentioning what Barack's page looked like in 2008, I do not see the relevance. Don't we strive for continual improvement? The drug use is also currently the only negative item in Obama's youth that has been included and it appears that is included because it was a point Obama himself made in his book that it was a growing experience. Anything negative added about Obama is also considered a "political hit piece", or just crazy right wing bigots. I mentioned possibilities of adding pranks may be notable, I have not heard much about these pranks after the initial week after the original article ran. I try to look at a number of news sources each day from a number of areas around the country. Finally it was how this impersonating a police officer section was added, it was added without a consensus, or even before it was discussed. When tried to remove was told it had to be discussed on the talk page. It should have been sent to the talk page before it was even added. Viewmont Viking (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Romney's predilection towards pranks has been the subject of many news pieces, including this 2007 Boston Globe installment in their multi-part series, this 2007 Boston Globe story by a different writer, this 2007 AP story, this 2007 Fortune magazine article, this 2012 Washington Post story, this 2012 NYT story, and this 2012 Boston Globe story, just to name some. It's not just some whim of Wikipedia editors to include this; it's a significant aspect of Romney's early life. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree, its obviously not a whim, but I still disagree that its really a significant aspect of Romney's early life. I chalk it up to political motives. --Mollskman (talk) 03:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

So Mollskman, do you think that Romney was a booster, a cheerleader, a Hockey manager and that he ran cross-country are significant aspect[s] of Romney's early life? Because they are all included, and no one, to my knowledge, has challenged the inclusion of those bits. ~ GabeMc (talk) 03:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Political motives on the part of whom? Newspaper writers/editors/publishers? The people being interviewed? Wikipedia editors? Do you have any evidence that any of these pranks stories were fabricated? Or that any of these people are operating based upon political motives? Wasted Time R (talk) 03:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

@GabeMc, not really. I probably wouldn't get into that much detail, but thats me. I might take a look at what the article looked like 4 years ago, before the really really silly season started.

@Wasted Time,Wikipedia editors and talking heads mostly. No, no evidence of fabrication, not even saying that, that is a strawman. Just not that significant to warrant inclusion. --Mollskman (talk) 04:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

As usual, excellent points Wasted. Also, for Mollskman and/or others, if there are any political motivations apparent here, they are not negatively influencing Wasted's editorial discretion. They have put in way too many hours into the Romney family articles, and are far too astute an observer to be fooled by these "silly season" tactics, to then sabotage Mitt's page, it's absolutely ridiculous actually IMO, to even think that. If Wasted is not worried about WP:UNDUE or WP:NPOV, then that should hold some significant weight here, IMO. ~ GabeMc (talk) 04:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The source does not say that Romney impersonated a police officer but that a classmate claimed he did. Incidentally police impersonation is not necessarily a crime. TFD (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

IOW it is pure rumour, which is also not valid in a WP:BLP. Thanks. Collect (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

No, Collect, it is not a "rumor". The story names four former Stanford classmates on the record in separate interviews (Lewis Black, David Lee, Richard Wall, Robin Madden) who each relate Romney engaging in 'pretending to be an officer' activities. It is published by a reputation writer at a reputable, mainstream newspaper, the Boston Globe. Romney has not denied this behavior. A similar 'pretending' episode at Cranbrook has been described in several different newspaper and book accounts, again by former classmates on the record (Graham McDonald and Candy Porter), and in this 2005 Boston Globe story Romney acknowledges that it happened ("Romney recalled in an interview ... He remembers dressing up as a police officer himself and startling his friends and their girlfriends by rapping on the steamed up windows of their parked cars.") Thus the likelihood that four different Stanford classmates are concocting this story is negligible. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

It's still irrelevant trivia. HiLo48 (talk) 11:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure whether you are talking about merely covering what happened vs. assigning that word to it. The common meaning of that particular term is the legal name for a crime for those particular cases where such is the case and it is being discussed as a crime. Whether it be for policy reasons (wp:blp, wp:npov)or article quality/neutrality, there is no reason to be putting that spin/slant on the description.North8000 (talk) 11:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

At culturally conservative BYU...

Not sure how failing to protest against the war or the Mormon church policies is relevant. Even though it has been argued that it is relevant "since some Mormons did." Not sure about Romney specifically but some people find it more advantages to work within the system instead of protesting the system. It is also like saying we should include he is for the belief that the moon landing was staged because he has not spoken out against those who believe it was staged. Recommend removing this sentence. Viewmont Viking (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• cmt - According to this account by Mitt's cousin Edward Kimball, the LDS church leader (viz, Spencer W. Kimball: note that Kimball's wife was Camilla Eyring, of the Romney family) that reversed the LDS racialist policy had himself long been philosophically opposed to it. So, Mitt's father George was known to be at least philosophically opposed to the policy, as was Mitt's relation-by-marriage, Spencer Kimball, and it was Kimball who ended up changing it, for whatever this off-topic factoid may/may not be worth.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

In case Romney is elected President...

I thought of a design like this:

[... infobox deleted ...]

I have done a design of adding elect to several articles and I believe that this is a good idea. Though, it is my opinion.

GameGuy95 (talk) 02:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the infobox would say he's President-elect. That was done four years ago too. No one would disagree. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Techincally, and constitutionally, a winning Romney would be president-designate, until the actual electing body, the electoral college met and the votes were counted, upon which time he properly would be called president elect. But few people, and certainly not the mainstream media care a whit about actual timing and process.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 12:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Wife is two years younger

I removed the two years his young bit. Not sure that is really relevant unless we are trying to show maybe he was jobbing the cradle or banging a minor or what have you. Maybe someone will explain the relevance? Thank you. --Mollskman (talk) 04:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Holy cow. It's standard biographical stuff when high school sweethearts end up getting married. It can be reworded to say he was a senior and she was a sophomore if that makes you feel better. It's even in Romney's stump speech and videos: see http://www.mittromney.com/news/press/2012/04/romney-president-releases-new-web-video-happy-birthday-mom MITT ROMNEY: “Ann and I fell in love when we were in high school. It doesn't happen to a lot of people. She was fifteen years old when I really took notice of her, and I was a senior and she was a sophomore. I gave her a ride home from a party. She had come with someone else. I kissed her at the door, and I've been following her ever since.” For you to think there's some slant or implication of immorality in this is absolutely paranoid and crazy. Mitt and Ann Romney are two of the most moral people in this sense ever to have walked the earth. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Should we add the I kissed her at the door part as well? I was just asking why is it relevant to note that? This is not standard biographical stuff to note the age difference. If you want to note that they were high school sweet hearts that one thing. --Mollskman (talk) 04:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Also, why would you note that he was a senior and she was a sophomore? If they were both seniors, would you point that out? Or if she was a junior, would you point that out?--Mollskman (talk) 04:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My guess here is that anything that might possibly suggest something inappropriate or even unseemly should not be included in the article with the rationale that "it's a hit piece" or that "it's only there to disparage the man", and other variations of that strawman, all the while, honest neutral editors are being accused of political sabotage for including basic notable facts. This page almost needs an admin or two to oversee/monitor contribs for the next five months IMO, not sure if "they" ever do that, might be a good idea. Seems like the content editing has been almost completely de-railed here at times by this constant talk page trolling. ~ GabeMc (talk) 04:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Is it ironic that the same editors who feel the need to look out for Mitt, and watch his back here are the same people that will make it more difficult, if not impossible to improve the article to FA status? ~ GabeMc (talk) 04:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

look out for Mitt, and watch his back and constant talk page trolling comments about editors, nice work, way to go. --Mollskman (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Adding crap about his wife being two years younger is NOT a step towards FA status. HiLo48 (talk) 04:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

To Mollskman: The fact that she was two years younger is noted not just for normal biographical reasons but also because it helps explain what happens. It means she was still in Bloomfield Hills after he had left, which explains why during his year at Stanford, Mitt kept coming home to see her. It also means that when she decided to convert to Mormonism while Mitt was away as a missionary, George Romney was around to help guide the process. To HiLo48: This is not being added now. It's been in the article since March 2010 ("In March of his senior year, he began dating Ann Davies, two years behind him, ...") when I began my expansion/rewrite of it, and has been in it ever since. No one has even remotely objected to it until now. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't change the fact that it's insignificant trivia, likely to be fodder for misuse by political opponents. HiLo48 (talk) 10:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is a silly claim. Romney has run for senator, governor, and president twice. Show me the evidence for any attacks on him based upon his wife being two years younger than him. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is insignificant trivia; if it were removed, the article would not be diminished in any way, and I suspect 99% of readers could not care less about this little bit of information. The age difference is too small to be of any interest. I would support removing this content; I think its inclusion lends a bit too much sentimentality for an encyclopedic entry on a currently-active politician. However, Wasted is absolutely correct that the fear that its inclusion is "likely to be fodder for misuse by political opponents" is utterly preposterous. When the point has been reached that even mentioning in an article that a political figure was two years older than his spouse during their courtship (50 years ago) seems to be cause for concern, it's time to take a step back and ask yourself whether you have become overly invested in portraying the subject of the article in a particular (POV) light. Just my two cents, for what it's worth. Dezastru (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

@Dezastru, see GabeMc comments below. Our fears have been realized. --Mollskman (talk) 00:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Your two cents is so far of the mark it's laughable. All I'm trying to do is keep crap out of these articles which are ONLY receiving attention now because of the US election. I'm not American. I live 14,000km away. The folks over at Obama's article think I'm pushing a pro-Obama POV there too. [Sorry. Forgot to sign. Done now.] HiLo48 (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I assume the above comment is from HiLo48. If people are making similar complaints about your positions at Barack Obama then perhaps you are in fact pushing a "pro" stance, at both pages. The thing is, neither article should read as "pro" or "against". Neutrality does not mean avoiding anything and everything unflattering to the subject or potentially damaging to a political career. Should Michael Jordan's article avoid his gambling? Should Woody Harrelson's avoid his marijuana use/advocacy? They may well enter politics at some point, it's not impossible. Should Bill Clinton's article avoid the Lewinsky scandal, or Newt Gingrich's his marriage issues? Should Eliot Spitzer's article detail the prostitution scandal of a few years ago? And no, I'm not comparing as though these issues are all equal in notability, apples and oranges, but in principle, to the right person, these issues could damage the public opinion of the subject, which seems to be your overriding philosophical position on content inclusion. Should Mark Zuckerburg's article avoid the recent FB stock scandal? Should the Russell Brand article avoid his drug/legal issues? If Pete Coors were running for governor of Utah, or mayor of Grand Rapids, Michigan (a "dry" city), then his background as a brewer of alcohol could "disparage the man" as well. Should we white-wash Coors' history so he does not offend people who are against consumption of beer? At Oprah Winfrey, should we avoid the fact that she admits to being a sexually promiscuous teen who gave birth at age 14? She is a great candidate for a future politician, yet these details about her teen years could seem unacceptable to some, so by your logic then, should this be removed from her article as well? Her article also claims that she broke off a relationship with John Tesh "over the pressure of having an interracial relationship", sourced to a biographer. Her 26-year relationship with Stedman Graham, whom she has at times co-existed, might seem offensive to those who insist on marriage before sex/living together, so should this also be white-washed so Oprah is not portrayed as an amoral fornicator, a valid point to some I am sure? The list could, and does, go on and on ad infinitum. ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

All those examples above are not similar in any way, shape or fashion, I think that has already been agreed upon by all parties except you. The "material" in question is included why again? Wasted did at least try to put some context on it above, which I appreciate, but I still think its very trivial and not needed and its certainly not white-washing anything which is beyond ridiculous to say. --Mollskman (talk) 00:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

When taken in context of the Cranbrook incidents and the "impersonating an office" claim, then yes, my examples are relevant. This section does not exist in a vacuum, nor does the requested removal of a piece of verifiable information that Mitt's wife was a minor when they started dating despite Mitt being a legal adult. In totality, I have been watching this type of white-washing here for two months and they do not seem as unrelated, unconnected contended inclusions, there is an overriding theme developing here, IMO.~ GabeMc (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Just so I have this straight, not to put words in your mouth, you want to keep this "material" because to remove it would be white washing the fact that Mitt's wife was a minor when they started dating despite Mitt being a legal adult? And this "material" rises to the same level of significance as all the examples you gave above? Does ANY other editor feel this way as well, just curious.--Mollskman (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I am making assumptions and "putting words in your mouth", in your defense this is the first I've seen you here, so I do not include your input in the "two months of white-washing" comment, but cumulatively, there is an effort here to remove unflattering material from the article, IMO anyway, whether or not that is your intent, I should not judge, so I apologize if I offended you. I assumed you wanted the "two year his younger" removed because it indicates Mitt, as an 18-year old legal adult was dating a minor. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, the "reason" I would remove it or question it is WHY is it included? Is it relevant and does it add to the article? Like I said, Wasted Time mentioned that it explains why during his year at Stanford, Mitt kept coming home to see her which could be or is a reasonable explaination possibly. The point is, there should be a reason or significance for ALL material that is included, thats all, no more no less. --Mollskman (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)also, I do agree with all of the examples you used above about possibly unflattering material being included in bios as long as it is well sourced, significantly covered, not undue weight, and written in a NPOV tone. I would say this trivial inclusion does not fall under that relm, BUT could still be included for other biographical reasons as Wasted Time pointed out. --Mollskman (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

This has got to be one of the most discouraging discussions I've seen in seven years here. This is a high school senior dating a high school sophomore. It happens a million times and there is nothing untoward about it, whether or not the senior is over eighteen or not. (And it's not like anything was going on; Lenore Romney publicly stated in 1994 that Mitt and Ann waited until marrying to have sex.) HiLo48, I think your motives are well-meaning but I think your perception is misguided and sometimes you lack "feel" for what is and isn't controversial and what is and isn't significant to include in a biography. Maybe you can't tell from 14,000km away, but the age difference between the Romneys has never been an issue in any campaign or anywhere else (other than here in the inexplicable fever swamp of WP editors). And for sure you've misunderstood my motives. This "crap" you keep referring to has got nothing to do with sudden interest due to the current U.S. election; I wrote it two and a half years ago. I've written similarly detailed biographies of George Romney (dead and gone for 15 years), George McGovern (still alive but out of office for 30 years), Ted Kennedy (also now gone), and so on. I write the Mitt article, and every article, for how it will read ten or twenty years from now, in addition to how it reads now. I wrote the age difference as part of doing standard biographical narrative, like I do on all the other articles; I never ever could have guessed that this innocuous biographical fact would have been perceived like it has. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, apologies for misconstruing your intent, but maybe you've provided ammunition to those of us also saying it's unimportant, by saying "It happens a million times and there is nothing untoward about it." It IS common. Why include it? HiLo48 (talk) 11:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Nevertheless, the numbers are 4-2 against this (counting Arzel's edit and edit summary), so I've taken it out. I've also taken out the two statements dependent upon it: Mitt's trips home from Stanford to see her, George's role in Ann's conversion. (The latter is included in both the George and Ann articles, and I will argue strongly to keep it in those contexts, since it directly involved them.) I've also taken out that Mitt and Ann had originally known each other in elementary school, since that level of detail doesn't make sense here given the class difference removal. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I've also removed the mention of Mitt having chores and summer jobs growing up. This is to keep a consistent level of detail once the Stanford job is removed. Also a couple of editors railed against it during the Cranbrook incident debate, on the grounds that everyone has summer jobs. My original motivation in including it was to illustrate that despite their affluence, George was determined that Mitt not be spoiled growing up. But that really tells us more about George than Mitt. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Wasted, I respect your choice to appease the editors here, however, I completely disagree with removing all that pertinent biographical data. The "Early Years" section is no longer comprehensive as a result. Don't sacrifice the quality of the article. This never went to a straw poll, and this discussion does not warrant these material deletions. ~ GabeMc (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

There's no magical line for a section being "comprehensive", just a series of judgement calls. And it's not practical or wise to resort to straw polls for every little decision. In this case, there's material I didn't choose to add when I first wrote it and material I've moved out since then, so this isn't the first to go. The Ann Romney article already has more detail about their relationship and wedding than this one does, due to there being more space there and because the conversion factor directly affected her, so that particular material isn't gone completely. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• cmt - Wasted Time R wrote, "...really tells us more about George than about Mitt...". ---- This is silly. IMO, re-contribute info about subject's summer jobs.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

As one editor pointed out a while back (John in DC if I remember), we don't usually include summer or side jobs, even in the more comprehensive articles, unless there's something especially noteworthy. For example, one American political figure spent a summer working around Alaska, cleaning dishes and gutting fish (until getting fired from the latter for registering a protest against health law violations). That was worth including. I thought Romney's jobs and chores were worth including because it showed his famous CEO/Governor father made him work and didn't want him to have a spoiled, rich kid attitude. But editors have complained it is trivia. In reality (especially in light of recent press stories), looking at Romney's character up through his Stanford year, there is little evidence of the diligence or maturity or compassion his father tried to instill into him. So if the jobs and chores didn't have much effect, they aren't especially noteworthy and don't need to be here. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Template organization discussion

See Template talk:Mitt Romney#Politics for discussion about whether Romney's Olympics link(s) should be grouped under "Olympics" or "Politics" in his nav template. Needs more opinions. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

sealed records of a charge dismissed by a judge

I suggest that where an arrest was apparently so weak as to warrant sealing of the record by a judge at the time, that iterating such charges in a BLP is violative of that policy regarding allegations of crimes. And that a possible $50 fine, at best, which was never levied, is "trivia" in any biography. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME says "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." Romney is not exactly "relatively unknown". The lake arrest incident has been in the article for two years, as a Note only so as not to give it undue weight. But it happened, and the facts are not in dispute. I continue to believe it should be included as it has been. As for Mitt and Ann being arrested or detained by police in the golf course ice blocking incident, which you also tried to remove, that is included to indicate that the scope of his pranks sometimes bordered on illegality. This has also been in the article for two years, and given that recent reports indicate that pranking was a major occupation of his in those days, I continue to believe it should be included. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

BLP violations do not become non-violations as a result of ripening somehow. Thay remain violations. And adding tons of anecdotes is not the same as paying attention to the obligation to actually write encyclopedia articles. A sealed record about a bad arrest is, in fact, not "encyclopedic". We ought not be Triviapedia, folks. Collect (talk) 12:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

This arrest has been reported in ->

• The Boston Globe [1]
• The Deseret News [2]
• Fox News [3]

Amongst others. There is no BLP violation here.Hipocrite (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

We can have a sensible discussion about whether this issue merits inclusion -- but a sensible discussion cannot be had on the basis that it's a BLP violation, that's preposterous. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

In BLPs, the issue of a BLP violation is properly raised. It is not "preposterous" to use WP:BLP when dealing with BLPs -- in fact that is the strongest basis for discussion. Cheers. By the way, newspapers are not bound by WP:BLP so if a newspaper says spmepne planted the Atlanta Olympic bomb - they are not bound by WP rules. We are. We, of course, know what the truth was with regard to what the reliable sources wrote about a living person. Collect (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Newspapers are bound by journalistic ethics are report retractions when they are wrong. I do not see any reason to believe that the media lied about this. The only possible issue is weight. WP:BLPCRIME is there to protect people whose only mention in rs is unproved criminal allegations. It would be unfair for example to report the names of the hundreds of suspects in the Atlanta bombing, but we can mention falsely implicated Richard Jewell. TFD (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The primary concern should be the context in which it is being reported. The focus of the paragraph seems to be that he was arrested, and the fact that all charges were dropped is left until the very end. The section could be reworded so that it does not violate NPOV and Weight. Arzel (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

We need to stop him from getting elected. Anything that sounds bad about him should go in. And use wording to make it sound even worse. If you could use a really big font for "Arrest" and really small print about the charges being dropped, that would be even better. North8000 (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

This does not really merit mention in the main text, and certainly not in the Early life section where it is badly out of chronological order. I have restored it to being in a Note. The discussion about the ordering of the words seems kind of unnecessary to me – the whole thing is short enough that people will read it in one gulp. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"Mitt Romney Cranbrook incident" - let's agree on some text

The standalone Mitt Romney Cranbrook incident article has been deleted. This article linked to it before and with it gone we now need to describe it here, at least in passing, particularly if we are going to discuss other aspects of his high school career - ice hockey coach, noted prankster, etc. Here is proposed language, edited down a bit from what we've considered before:

Romney was involved in a variety of pranks, including sliding down golf courses on large ice cubes, dressing as a police officer and tapping on the car windows of teenage friends who were making out, and staging an elaborate formal dinner on the median of a busy street. In addition, during the 2012 presidential election, four former Cranbrook classmates stated that as a senior in 1965, Romney was offended by the sight of one non-conformist boy who had dyed his hair blond. The classmates stated that Romney led them in pinning the boy down and forcibly cutting the boy's hair off with scissors. When reports of this came to light decades later, Romney said that he did not remember the incident, but acknowledged that he may have taken some high school pranks too far and apologized for any harm that may have resulted from them.

(Links to sources as appropriate.) The events described above are undisputed and the tone is neutral - avoiding loaded words like "bully" and "assault". Again - if the article includes anything about his high school career, it must include this, or something like it; of all the things he did during those 6 years, this has received the most coverage. Comments, proposed edits welcome. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 12:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I definitely support adding something close to this in. But I'm concerned that compared to the "Yea or nay" proposed text earlier, this one removes "quiet" from the description of the boy and removes "crying" from the description of the boy's reaction (which, in the WaPo story, is "As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help ..."). Someone could read this text and perhaps get a picture of a loud, antagonistic non-conformist who didn't mind too much some prankish horseplay that went a bit too far, but that would be a misreading of what the four classmates described. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Would adding back in one of the adjectives suffice? JohnInDC (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

To me, "cutting the boy's hair off" suggests that there was nothing remaining, as one might cut an ear off, perhaps. As far as I know, Romney did not render the alleged victim bald. I would suggest not including the word "off" or instead adding something to clarify the wording. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

John, I generally support what you wrote, but I have a few suggestions. "[F]our former Cranbrook classmates." The correct number is 5, not 4. 4 are named and 1 is unnamed. "The classmates stated that Romney led them in pinning the boy down." Not exactly. This implies that all the witnesses participated in the attack, but that's not what the article says. We only know that "Buford … said he joined Romney in restraining Lauber." As for Friedemann, "[he] followed them" and is currently "expressing remorse about his failure to stop it." Maxwell "was in the dorm room when the incident occurred." Seed was "among those who witnessed the Romney-led incident." And the unnamed person is described as "another former student who witnessed the incident."

So only Buford is explicitly described as an active participant. The other four were present and perhaps were providing some degree of moral support to Romney, but we are not told that they ever touched Lauber.

Also, I think it would be a slight improvement to avoid describing Lauber as a "boy." Were they all 'boys?' Were they all 'men?' Romney was a senior and almost undoubtedly 18. Lauber was a year behind. Technically, Romney was a man and Lauber was a boy, but I think we should stay out of these weeds, and can do so easily by avoiding the word "boy."

Also, I think it's important to indicate that Romney was the person holding the scissors. Also, I agree with Wasted that it's important to describe Lauber's reaction.

Blue: "To me, 'cutting the boy's hair off' suggests that there was nothing remaining." This is what the article says: "as Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors." And Maxwell said "it was a hack job." I've tried to create language which takes all this into account.

I'm suggesting this text:

"… five former Cranbrook classmates stated that as a senior in 1965, Romney was offended by the sight of one non-conformist student, Lauber, who had dyed his hair blond. The classmates stated that Romney led a group which tackled Lauber and pinned him to the ground. Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with scissors, while Lauber cried and screamed for help."

I think this is a simple, accurate, neutral description of the bare facts as described in the article. (FWIW, this version is 60 words and the earlier version is 49 words.) Jukeboxgrad (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Better than what I wrote. (I used "boys" because that's how the school always described its pupils, but "students" is better in any case.) Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with some of the points here. But I don't see why the name 'Lauber' has to be introduced; I would just say "the student" on the second and third references. Also, giving three sentences to this rather than two will make it a harder sell to the people who don't want it in at all. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I just used the word "Lauber" as a way to avoid overusing the word "student." Either way is OK. "[G]iving three sentences to this rather than two." I think the shorter sentences are clearer and more readable, but I think either way is OK. (Mad, it looks like your edit at 18:42 accidentally deleted this, which I had posted earlier.) Jukeboxgrad (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

POV by adding an assault to the a section on pranks. This information currently has no consensus for inclusion regardless of article being deleted.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The proposed text is not saying it was a prank, but we're describing it in the same paragraph because this is the paragraph that deals with Romney's extracurricular activities while at Cranbrook. The reader can judge the severity of the incident and Romney's statement in reaction to it for themselves. As for consensus, it was 6–4 in favor of including the previous proposed text, and that may change now that the other article is gone and it's here or the memory hole for it. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Describe it in the section that many of the objectors stated it should be....if consensus agrees to inclusion it should go in the 2012 election section. But I am against inclusion altogether.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

"[I]t should go in the 2012 election section." That's not appropriate, because the incident did not happen during the 2012 election, and it's not about the 2012 election. It's about something Romney did at Cranbrook. Wiki/Mitt_Romney currently describes his time at Cranbrook in some detail. It tells us, for example, that he was "a member of the pep squad." How can it be material to mention that he was "a member of the pep squad" and not be material to mention that he led a violent assault? It can't, if you have a neutral point of view. To mention that he was "a member of the pep squad" and not mention that he led a violent assault is to confirm what has been said about this page: it is "a carefully polished campaign puff piece." Jukeboxgrad (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I am making the same point John made. I should acknowledge that he said it first and he said it better: "if the article includes anything about his high school career, it must include this, or something like it; of all the things he did during those 6 years, this has received the most coverage." Jukeboxgrad (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

This became a story during the 2012 election. It is clearly a story as a result of Romney being the presidential nominee. Arzel (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It should not go in the 2012 election section, it has nothing to do with that and has had no effect on that. The fact that the story came out during the 2012 election is immaterial. If you look at the most heavily used cites in this article, most of them were published in 2007, followed by 2011-2012. That's because that's when newspapers and other media outlets do their heaviest biographical reporting on political figures, when they are running for national office. But the biographical material itself goes into the appropriate chronological section. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Content is decided by consensus. I love the fact that you are discussing this, but many editors have disagreed with placement in the section as well as in the article altogether. I do not believe the prose thus far is neutral and it's placement in the section related to pranks indeed does compare an assualt to a minor prank and is POV in my opinion.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• In my opinion - __I.__ Tho I myself tend to be an inclusionist, there are not a few Wikipedians that interpret AfDs closing Delete, as opposed to a wide consensus for Merge, as putting a kibosh on any detailed description of the subject in question on WP. __ II.__ Per the Obama blp, et al (Rand Paul, John McCain, and so on), such controversies tend to be either (A.) not mentioned at all in the main article despite their nonetheless being covered in (a) subarticle(s) or else are (B.) referenced as being considered the most notable within the period of the subject's political campaign. __III.__ Thus although I completely disagree with (A.)--being of the opinion that links always should be included in main article to existing subarticles, even if only in "See also"--still I think (B.) is often the most appropriate placement, esp. an at-the-time almost non-noted escapade only later becoming analyzed in great detail.

  So briefly allude to in the early life section (perhaps more in a footnote) and/or w/i the campaign section (leaving any eventual major impact to be expanded upon w/i the campaign subarticle).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

That seems like a very logical compromise, how would you propose to allude breify in the early life section? What text do you propse for the election section?--Amadscientist (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this, see my comments below under "Presidential Article". Wasted Time R (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Since I offered no text but simply chimed in with an overall analysis, how can what you wrote below, Wasted Time R, be thought to strongly disagree with this overal analysis? The elephant in the room is that to talk about "closeted" etc., in the context of 1963 is anachronisitic. Full stop. (Like an offhand mention that an elephant is in a way like a boulder, but also like a rope and a tree trunk, you below refine the rope by putting a brush on its end. I'll accept your refinements of a thread, as it were, of my offhand descriptions as just that. But I don't see much if any actual contridiction of my points in the discussion below--and think "strongly disagree" is hyperly off base w rgd such efforts, fwiw.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't care where it goes. I just know that if the article can include an entire paragraph of gauzy biographical material about Romney's Cranbrook days, this has to be included as well. Somewhere, somehow. JohnInDC (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Incorporating several of the changes proposed so far:

Five former Cranbrook classmates later recalled that as a senior in 1965 Romney had been incensed by the sight of a soft-spoken, non-conformist student with long, bleached-blond hair and had led a group in pinning the crying student down and forcibly cutting his hair. When reports of this came to light during the 2012 presidential campaign, Romney said that he did not remember the incident; but he apologized for any harm that may have resulted from any of his highschool "hijinks and pranks" that might have gone too far. Dezastru (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems far from encyclopedic or neutral. Still compares a violent attack on a student with pranks and the description of the "crying" victim supposes he was crying before he was brutally attacked.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, with regard to your concern about how crying is phrased, change to:

"and had led a group in pinning the younger student down and forcibly cutting his hair as he cried and screamed for help." Dezastru (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

As for violent attack and pranks, the proposed text does not state in the voice of WP that the incident involved a violent attack or a prank. "Prank" is Romney's term, and it is written in quotation marks in the proposed text to signify as much. "Violent attack" is your opinion, but is not the term used in the original reporter's narrative, so some will argue that inclusion is a violation of WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. (Yes, at least one of the former classmates does regard the incident as a violent attack, but an encyclopedic summary, if we are limited to just a couple of sentences, does not allow elaboration on this amount of detail in a NPOV way; readers may refer to the cited source for details of this degree). Dezastru (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Not seen anyone claim that Romney was "incensed by the sight" of Lauder, and that is a pretty strong statement to make. Arzel (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The verbatim text from the WaPo Horowitz article is "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...." So our proposed "incensed by the sight of" is very close to the original. Dezastru (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I am hoping you can see for yourself the misuse of the terms in that statement. The statement "incensed by the sight of" implies that Romney had some strong angry feelings towards Lauder all the time, and today he was going to do something about it. Where as the actual quote has another person saying that Romney was incensed that Lauder had died his hair blond. There is a subtle but clear NPOV violation in the wording you suggest. Furthermore, we cannot under any circumstances, word anything as if Romney had actually made that statement, with the exception of what he has actually said. Any variation of the wording which implies Romney said or acted someway by his own admission, which is not explicity stated by Romney, is a violation of Synthesis, BLP, and Libel. Arzel (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Five former Cranbrook classmates later recalled that as a senior in 1965 Romney, incensed by the sight of a soft-spoken, non-conformist student with long, bleached-blond hair, led a group in pinning the younger student down and forcibly cutting his hair as he cried and screamed for help. When reports of this came to light during the 2012 presidential campaign, Romney said that he did not remember the incident; but he apologized for any harm that may have resulted from any of his highschool "hijinks and pranks" that might have gone too far.

• Presidential Article This incident has been unambiguously connected to the 2012 election. I am unaware of any significant coverage that is not making the presidential connection. Certainly all of the critical responses have been specific to the presidential election. The now deleted article was quickly turning towards the presidential election consequences, to claim that it is unrelated is hard to accept. Arzel (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The fact is, this incident coming to light has had no effect on the president election. Romney's favorability numbers have continued to drift upwards, which they have been doing ever since the competitive primaries ended. His polls relative to Obama haven't been changed by this either. As I said above, practically everything written about Romney's early life and business career has been written since he entered electoral politics; if you do a news search for articles on him prior to 1993 you won't find much of anything. For example, most of the material on his Bain Capital years cited here was researched and written during one or another of his campaigns. Our article does briefly mention in the 1994 and 2012 elections sections that his Bain record became an issue, but the actual description of what Romney did during the Bain years is all in the business career section. If the Cranbrook incident turns out to become an issue in this campaign, we can briefly mention it in the 2012 election section, but that hasn't happened yet. But the actual description of what the Cranbrook incident was needs to be contained within the early life section. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how you can compare Bain with this. Since he worked at Bain for a number of years, that information was certainly relevant to his career regardless of how it came about. This, however, was written specifically in response to his anticipated nomination. It is a little early to know what kind of effect it will have on the presidental election as it is still relatively new. Much of his other bio information was relatively known by many people and he himself has made specific references to much of it. This however, was dug up for a specific purpose. Arzel (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's how I can compare Bain. I did a Google News Archive search, and the total hits for "Mitt Romney" "Bain Capital" for 1984-1993, his first ten years there, are 2. Two stories, that's all. Then he runs for the Senate in 1994 and there are some stories. Then for the rest of his Bain Capital career, 1995-early 1999, there are a total of 19 stories. Compare this to the 26,600 hits for stories on "Mitt Romney" "Bain Capital" from 2007-present. So virtually everything that's every been written about Mitt Romney's time at Bain Capital, including almost all of the sources used in this article, were written specifically in response to his presidential campaigns. The stories of companies that succeeded under Bain, of companies that failed under Bain, of companies where Bain made money but workers were laid off, all of it was "dug up" as you say for the specific purpose of shedding light on Romney's business career now that he had entered electoral politics. Just like all the material on Cranbrook, good and bad, was dug up to shed light on Romney's early life now that he had entered electoral politics. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You said this above: "This became a story during the 2012 election. It is clearly a story as a result of Romney being the presidential nominee." The same is true regarding most or all of the other Cranbrook facts that have already been judged notable enough to include in his biography. No one would care that he "started the Blue Key Club boosters group" if he was not the likely GOP candidate for POTUS. That fact came from precisely the same article which reported the violent assault he led. To include one fact and not the other is a brazen example of biased editing. "I am unaware of any significant coverage that is not making the presidential connection." If this incident ends up playing an important role in the election, then it should be mentioned in the 2012 election section also. However, there is no excuse for failing to mention it in the Cranbrook section, unless you can explain how it's less material than the fact that he was "a member of the pep squad." "This, however, was written specifically in response to his anticipated nomination." Precisely the same thing is true regarding "the Blue Key Club boosters group." Horowitz uncovered that information in the process of conducting interviews "in response to his anticipated nomination." You need to explain why that information is in the Cranbrook section if the Cranbrook section is supposedly not the place for anything "written specifically in response to his anticipated nomination." As it is, it appears that it's fine for that section to mention material "written specifically in response to his anticipated nomination," but only if it's positive. "This however, was dug up for a specific purpose." All the information Horowitz "dug up" was for the "specific purpose" of helping the public know more about the early life of a POTUS candidate. This includes both positive information and negative information. A neutral POV requires that both kinds of information are treated in the same way. "There is a subtle but clear NPOV violation in the wording you suggest." I'm sure you could suggest wording that would not present this problem. What is the wording you suggest? Jukeboxgrad (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Most of that other stuff is not contensious or being used for political attacks which is why it is not under discussion. Arzel (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

English translation: 'it's fine to include all sorts of old information but only if it's positive.' By definition, any negative information would be "contensious" and "used for political attacks." If the story was about Romney saving a bunch of nuns and kittens from a terrorist attack, of course that would be worth mentioning, because it is not "used for political attacks." But any negative anecdotes must be purged, because they are "contensious" and "used for political attacks." In other words, old information is relevant only if it contributes to the creation of "a carefully polished campaign puff piece." One more time: neutral POV means that positive information and negative information must be treated in the same manner. Neutral POV means that information is not excluded because it's potentially "contensious" and "used for political attacks." Jukeboxgrad (talk) 00:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

And purely speculative, "If...then..." claims add even less to this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I used an example to illustrate the point. Arzel is essentially advocating that only positive information can be included (example: Romney was on the pep squad). If we think it's worth mentioning that Romney was on the pep squad, then we would also surely mention it if we heard that Romney did some heroic act. But a negative act? Nah, that must be excluded, because it's potentially "contensious" and "used for political attacks." If we must exclude information because it can potentially be "contensious" and "used for political attacks," that is indistinguishable from saying that the article should be edited as if it's a campaign brochure. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 01:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

How about this for working prose;

During his time at Cranbrook, he was often involved in practical jokes: for example, sliding down golf courses on blocks of ice, impersonating a police officer to pull-over frightened friends, and staging an elaborate dinner on the median of a busy street.[15][21][nb 3] In 2012, five former classmates accused Romney of taking the lead in holding down a younger student, while forcibly cutting his long hair with scissors.[22] Romney said he does not recall the incident, though he acknowledged that he may have taken part in some high school pranks that went too far, and he apologized for any harm that may have resulted from them.[25] — GabeMc (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that's good. "Pair of scissors" could probably be "scissors." Jukeboxgrad (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I fixed it. Any other thoughts, suggestions? — GabeMc (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Should it be led a group? Juke had a good point above, pointing out only one other is actually reported as touching him. Or is "group" what sources say? - Xcal68 (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. My mistake. I expressed my support for Gabe's text without noticing that he reintroduced a problem that I had pointed out in John's original text. "[I]s 'group' what sources say?" Yes, there is no doubt that Romney led a "group." The issue is that the group of witnesses and the group of assailants are overlapping sets, not identical sets. So the text should say "led a group." Not "led them." Jukeboxgrad (talk) 00:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Fixed — GabeMc (talk) 01:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

No doubt that Romney led a "group."? I'd love to see that claim of "no doubt" tested in court. Testimonies of possibly biased witnesses from 50 years ago, during an election campaign, do not remove all doubt. HiLo48 (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

"I'd love to see that claim of 'no doubt' tested in court." Of course you would, but you're applying the wrong standard, as I already explained on another page. Wikipedia is not a courtroom. We accept that things are probably true and worth mentioning if they are reported by multiple credible sources, even if they have not been "tested in court." If Wikipedia decided to forbid all material that had not survived the process of being "tested in court" then it would have to shrink radically. "Testimonies of possibly biased witnesses from 50 years ago." This applies equally to various positive claims that we have no problem including. If I wanted to adopt your approach, I could challenge those claims by saying they are based on claims by witnesses who are "possibly biased" in favor of Romney. One more time: neutral POV means that positive information and negative information must be treated in the same manner. Have we already included all sorts of positive anecdotes even though they have not been "tested in court?" Of course we have. We do that all the time, and neutral POV requires we do that for both positive information and negative information. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 01:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Well said Jukeboxgrad, and may I suggest that we consider refraining from repeated replies to redundant comments that seem to do nothing but delay, drerail, and distract from the work at hand? This will likely come down to a straw poll anyway, so lets not bother wasting time and space trying to win a vote or two. IMO, most have already made up their minds anyway, except perhaps a few with actual prose issues. Lets get back to the work of improving the article shall we? — GabeMc (talk) 01:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48, we are not in a court room, this is a wikipedia discussion page, Jukeboxgrad was speaking freely assuming good-faith that other editors will use the space here constructively versus wasting time with meaningless semantic battles about talk page comments. Its the prose that will be added to the article that matters, and to attempt to derail the discussion by nit-picking comments here is not helpful. It really does not matter what we think, it matters what can be reliably sourced, so unless you want to head a discussion that that WaPo is not a RS, I suggest you accept that five witnesses coroborate the story, and move on. We have already heard your reasons for opposing inclusion, so unless you have something new and constructive to add, please stop re-stating the same points over, and over, and over, derailing this discussion and prolonging the inevitable. FTR, if we were in a court of law, five witnesses would likely be enough for a conviction. — GabeMc (talk) 01:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

"[I]f we were in a court of law, five witnesses would likely be enough for a conviction." Indeed. Especially since Romney has responded to those witnesses by saying this: "not going to argue with that." The legal term for that is 'Nolo contendere,' which means 'I do not wish to contend.' Jukeboxgrad (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I wasn't the editor who used the words "no doubt"! We just need to be a little more cautious than that. HiLo48 (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I used the words "no doubt" because there is no doubt. The reports from five witnesses, coupled with Romney's reaction, are sufficient to establish that there is no doubt. "We just need to be a little more cautious than that." What you are doing is not properly described as 'being cautious.' What you are doing is properly described as 'ignoring all inconvenient facts.' On other pages there have recently been all sorts of vague and wishful claims about the supposed "debunking" of the WaPo article, but those claims were never substantiated. Also, you should sign your comment. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 01:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Whoops. Sorry. Signed now. I still have concerns about such old stories. IMHO, there has to be doubt. Maybe we just have to agree to disagree on that. And I hope that in using the word "inconvenient" you're not suggesting that I'm pushing a pro-Romney POV. I would recommend great care on that front. HiLo48 (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

"IMHO, there has to be doubt." Yes, and "there has to be doubt" about where Obama was born, and whether or not men actually landed on the moon. Absolute metaphysical certainty is a hard thing to achieve. "I hope that in using the word "inconvenient" you're not suggesting that I'm pushing a pro-Romney POV." Here's what I'm suggesting: that you are failing to be objective. There are many possible reasons why you might fail to be objective, and "pro-Romney POV" is just one of them. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 02:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Boy, you ought to see my comments over at Barack Obama! The Obama haters are starting to hate me. I'm not American. I don't live there. I cannot vote in your election. I'm probably the most objective editor here. My goal is to make this a great encyclopaedia. Inevitably, right now there are dozens of editors trying to add trivial, undue, POV content into articles to do with the Presidential election. I've managed to keep a fair bit of bullshit out so far, and am not giving up yet. "Trivial, with the hope that it hurts the candidate I hate" is probably the worst kind of stuff going around right now. The media is obviously full of it, because it thrives on it. Wikipedia doesn't need it. HiLo48 (talk) 02:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

"Boy, you ought to see my comments over at Barack Obama!" Your comments elsewhere don't give you a license to fail to be objective here. "[R]ight now there are dozens of editors trying to add trivial, undue, POV content." A candidate for POTUS leading a violent assault fits no normal understanding of the word "trivial." Jukeboxgrad (talk) 03:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Your persistent allegations of non-objectivity are trending towards personal abuse. We have different opinions. Leave it at that. HiLo48 (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, that wording implies that Romney was incensed by the mere site of Lauder. We cannot make such statements per BLP without quotation of Romney himself making such statements. Also, this belongs in the 2012 presidential article if anywhere. Arzel (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. The WaPo article uses the word incensed". — GabeMc (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I've never heard of Romney commenting on or characterizing the specific golf course, police, and median dinner episodes as pranks or hijinks, so that's a stretch. "Alleged" is a bad choice, just say "stated". Adding in "presumed homosexual" is going to get less support for this being included, not more. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I've made the changes, any other thoughts or suggestions? — GabeMc (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the whole thing is wrong. If it is going to be mentioned it should not be mentioned in this manner. The entire reference should not be treated as undisputed if Romney himself still says he does not remember it. Why so much POV discription. Brevity is needed here if it is going to be used and I see no reason for the descriptive play by play of the inccident at this point. Just say "Romney was accused, along with a group of friends, of holding down a fellow student and cutting his hair."--Amadscientist (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it goes too far to say that Romney, by declining to argue the statements, has "admitted" or "confessed" his participation; but I don't know how much more you need to say something is "undisputed" than the fact that no one is disputing it. JohnInDC (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Also the sentence needs to make it clear the act was forcible or against the victim's will. Come on. You leave those words out and it might as well be a "prank". JohnInDC (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

In regards to brevity, the current proposed text is three sentences long, in terms of the play-by-play, its important to indicate why they cut his hair, or this anecdote is meaningless trivia. For example, in college Romney and some fellow students chased down a college kid from a rival school and shaved his head, then painted it red. Out of context this would be confusing, if not described as a college "prank" played amongst rivals. In other words, the why is as important as the what. — GabeMc (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you seriously think that anybody, this far removed in time from the incident, can possibly say WHY it was done. That would be pure speculation. Massive proportions of words currently being spoken and written on Romney are politically motivated. To take the statements of anybody without some sort of absolute verification or court confirmation is very dangerous. None of this stuff belongs. HiLo48 (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

"Do you seriously think that anybody, this far removed in time from the incident, can possibly say WHY it was done." The witnesses say they know WHY it was done. They were there. Occam's Razor tells us that they are saying they know WHY it was done because they actually know WHY it was done. It's not unusual to be able to clearly remember something that happened a long time ago, if the event was unusual and significant. The article says "the incident was recalled similarly by five students, who gave their accounts independently of one another." This adds to the credibility of the five accounts. A reader can make their own judgment about this. It's not up to us to dismiss what was said simply because we don't like it. "To take the statements of anybody without some sort of absolute verification or court confirmation is very dangerous." Except that you have no problem whatsoever reporting all sorts of positive statements from long ago even despite the complete absence of "absolute verification or court confirmation." One more time: neutral POV means that positive information and negative information must be treated in the same manner. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 03:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The claim that the stories were independent of each other is strongly undermined by the inclusion of the interview with one of the students who was only told about it by other students a few weeks ago; in other words, there was communication between at least some of the students; WaPo may not have coordinated the stories, but 5 witnesses retelling any event, particularly if that event was traumatic, 47 years later, are going to give conflicting stories unless they have had a chance to align them. The motive is not definitively given in the story, and would be speculation even if it was. Occam's Razor is not RS.Jamesofengland (talk) 07:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The five witnesses to the event confirm the why, and readers will realize that the alledged events occured nearly five decades ago, lets leave it up to them to question the WaPo source. It belongs because Romney's campaign has itself used his image as a prankster to bolster public opinion. Thus to avoid his "prankster" image is to fail to be comprehensive in our coverage of him, and to avoid the Lauber incident is to selectively censor the article in Romney's favor. — GabeMc (talk) 00:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

"At Cranbrook, " is wrong, the three mentioned pranks happened off-campus. No need to include mention of the Washington Post, what's key here is what the former classmates state, not who published it. The use of the blind quote "incensed" is no good, the reader will have no idea who said that (Romney? The other classmates? A newspaper writer?). To be honest, I think we're better off working from JohnInDC's proposed text as a base than yours. And the shorter the better. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Points well taken, I trimmed down the graph. — GabeMc (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Still not encyclopedic and I'm not sure what you used from JohnInDC's suggestions.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could provide specific suggestions to improve its encyclopedic quality, also, the proposed version is a mix of JohnInDC's, Jukeboxgrad's, and other's comments. If any important clauses are missing, please do point them out. — GabeMc (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Uhm....I did.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see my points on brevity and the play-by-play above. — GabeMc (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see my comments above on none of this stuff belonging in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

As long as 50 year old trivia like fancy dinners on medians and pep club membership remain in the article - matters I would reiterate having received a tiny fraction of the (still undisputed!) media attention accorded the hair cutting incident - then the latter has a place in the article. The only discussion here should be the language by which it is included. JohnInDC (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I respectively disagree that these other things are trivial. The pep squad membership shows that even though he was a lousy athlete and couldn't be on the football team himself, he still yearned to be a part of the scene. The pranks show an aspect to his personality that surprise most people who only know his current political persona. Starting the Blue Key Club boosters shows he was willing to take the initiative and had a strong love for tradition, something that was also borne out at Stanford. The Lauber incident may be related to all these impulses and feelings, albeit in an obviously darker way. Now of course the article doesn't draw these conclusions or make these connections, but giving this description of his time at Cranbrook allows readers to do so on their own, or at the very least get an idea of what Romney was like at the time. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed! Any specific thoughts or suggestions to improve our current working prose? — GabeMc (talk) 01:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the new wording of "...offended by" is not good. What makes you think he was offended by it? My experience of these kinds of events is that they happen just because the victim looks or sounds different. We really must avoid speculating on the "why". If you must include something, just say what some people claim happened (emphasising the sources). Don't try to attribute reasons. HiLo48 (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Good point HiLo48, I originally had "incensed", which is the term WaPo uses, but that drew complaints, then I changed it to "annoyed", now "offended". Perhaps "annoyed" is better, less of a loaded term. Any thoughts? — GabeMc (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

We could take Amadscientist's advice and trim the play-by-play a bit. Perhaps we should force the reader to look at the sources for the details. How about, "In 2012, five former classmates stated that during his senior year in 1965, Romney took the lead in holding down a younger student, while forcibly cutting his long hair with scissors as he cried and screamed for help." Is that too vague? Also, does it now sound like we are calling the incident a "practical joke"? Is there a better term we should be using there? — GabeMc (talk) 02:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I also trimmed out, "as he cried and screamed for help", which should improve brevity and acceptability. Any thoughts, suggestions? — GabeMc (talk) 02:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

If it should be decided to include...although I am still oppossed, perhaps you would consider this: "In 2012, five former classmates accused Romney of taking the lead in holding down a younger student, forcibly cutting his long hair with scissors." The need to describe the victim in the other manner is not warrented.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to your suggestion, but I think Wasted Time R and others may be, perhaps I assume too much, lets make the change and let them weigh-in if they have concerns. — GabeMc (talk) 02:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Straw poll

Please indicate below whether you support or oppose inclusion of the following text in Mitt Romney: Heritage and youth. (Please include a rationale and/or suggestions for improvement). — GabeMc (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

During his time at Cranbrook he developed a reputation for practical jokes, including: sliding down golf courses on blocks of ice, impersonating a police officer to pull over frightened friends, and staging an elaborate dinner on the median of a busy street. 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. Romney said that he does not recall the incident, though he acknowledged that he may have participated in some high school "hijinks and pranks" that went too far, and he apologized for any harm that resulted from them.

References

• Support - With the current draft I see no issues with WP:BLP, or WP:UNDUE, nor are we ignoring a notable aspect of his youth. To cover Romney comprehensively we need to include some details about his youth, of which, his pranks are argueably the most notable. — GabeMc (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The words are nice, but definitely undue. (And don't bother trying. You won't convince me otherwise.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Neutrally and sufficiently briefly describes what is known about Romney's actions and the 2012 controversy in three sentences. Only suggestion is to change the semicolon in the first sentence into a colon and remove the following "including". alanyst 03:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I made the changes, thanks for the suggestions. — GabeMc (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I like your suggestion, but it implies that the list is comprehensive (because you dropped "including"). This problem can be solved by putting "for example," after the colon. I like short sentences, so another approach is to start a new sentence that begins as follows: "These included …" Jukeboxgrad (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Good point, looks better now. — GabeMc (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, your latest edit addresses all this. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I think the gravity of the incident calls for the inclusion of a bit more detail (especially that Lauber reacted by screaming and crying), but I think this text is a reasonable compromise. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - If consensus is for inclusion I can live with this. Seems a reasonable and neutral way to include the infomation in this particular section at this time.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support - But I'm not sure about the "practical joke" grouping. It almost takes away from the gravity of that specific incident. - Xcal68 (talk) 10:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Trivia about a teenager is still trivia. If we had a source saying he used to wear purple underwear, would that be utile? Paper does not refuse ink - the whole concept of editing is that we use editorial discretion and consensus about non-utile information. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support Regarding the Lauber part, I wish it said "long, dyed-blond hair" as more descriptive, and I wish it said "holding down a crying student" since I think Lauber's reaction is more important than the fact that he was a year younger. But I can live with this. Regarding the pranks part, I don't like the "often" – it suggests a total number of pranks that is larger than what sources indicate. I would have phrased this simply as "... he oonducted practical jokes, including ..." And I don't think "pull-over" should be hyphenated. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree Wasted Time R, great points, I have made your suggested changes to the working prose. — GabeMc (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Well-written and more concise than the last version. Seems NPOV and free of BLP problems. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Sorry it's still trivia. He was never disciplined by the school for the jokes, so how can they be suddenly important 50 years later. Hot Stop 13:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

"[I]t's still trivia." Yes, leading a violent assault is "trivia," while his membership on the "pep squad" is a matter of great gravity. Your vote reflects this belief: that thinly-sourced trivia should be included as long as it's positive, while deeply-sourced serious information should be excluded if it happens to be negative. How this is compatible with a neutral POV is a mystery to me. If you can offer a serious explanation I'll seriously consider changing my vote. "He was never disciplined by the school for the jokes." One more in a long series of claims that are based on imagination rather than evidence. You're not in a position to claim "he was never disciplined by the school for the jokes," because the school has said that its records are sealed. "[S]o how can they be suddenly important 50 years later." The logic is impeccable: 'if I commit a crime and manage to hide it for a long time, then obviously what I did was not important.' Jukeboxgrad (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I would caution you against calling it a crime, since obviously no charges were ever brought against Romney. And again, there were five witnesses (at least ones quoted by WaPo), and a "victim" and any of them could've come forward over the last five decades. But none did until he became his party's nominee for president? And if you want to attack my POV, it should be noted that everyone of your edits [4] has been to pages on so-called controversies by Republicans. Hell, you even took four years off before returning just as the election was heating up. Hot Stop 15:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

"[E]veryone of your edits [9] has been to pages on so-called controversies by Republicans." That doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not my edits have been fair and correct. If you can show otherwise, that would be helpful. "I would caution you against calling it a crime, since obviously no charges were ever brought against Romney." With all due respect, your reasoning is deeply bizarre. Things should be called by their proper name. If I commit a crime, the fact that I am not prosecuted does not make the thing I did something other than a crime. It's simply an unprosecuted crime. By the laws of Michigan in 1965, the attack on Lauber was a crime, based on the basic facts of the incident, which are well-established and undisputed. Violent assault is a crime, all over the US. And has been, for a very long time. "[A]ny of them [the witnesses] could've come forward over the last five decades. But none did until he became his party's nominee for president?" There is nothing surprising or sinister about the way this story came out. The witnesses didn't spontaneously "come forward." A reporter dug it out of them, with an ongoing process of patiently asking many different people many different questions. Questions that people would naturally be reluctant to answer, but which they eventually answered because the reporter was skilled and persistent. Why did this never happen before? The number of reporters currently investigating him is commensurate with the importance of the job he's currently trying to get (and he's been trying to get it for a long time, but lately he's come much closer to getting it than he ever has before). Things are going to come out that never came out before. This pattern is not unusual. GWB managed to hide his 1976 DUI until 2000. Again, if you can seriously explain how a neutral POV can allow reporting his pep squad membership while excluding his violent assault on Lauber, I'll seriously consider changing my vote. It's a serious offer. I'm a seriously open-minded person. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

You have a severe misunderstanding of neutral POV. It does not mean "We have too much positive information, we need to include some negative stuff to balance it out." Romney has not been charged with any crime. Your continued attacking of a living person is a BLP violation, please stop. Arzel (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

"We have too much positive information, we need to include some negative stuff to balance it out." Where did I say that? I didn't. You should refrain from putting words in my mouth. What I have asked you to do is explain the logic behind reporting his pep-squad membership while not reporting his violent assault on Lauber. You tried to answer this question earlier on this page (22:35, 19 May), but you never responded when I explained why your answer didn't make sense. "Your continued attacking of a living person is a BLP violation." Making accurate statements about Romney is not "a BLP violation," and you should refrain from claiming that it is. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it may speed the polling process to try to resist being drawn in by straw man arguments and non sequiturs. Arzel contends that we shouldn't talk about this because it is an accusation of a crime without a conviction, and a BLP violation (it isn't BTW); Hot Stop says we shouldn't talk about it because he was never prosecuted and therefore trivial and unencyclopedic. It's all beside the point. If this article delves into Romney's high school history beyond stating what school he attended, then this information warrants inclusion. JohnInDC (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It is an accusation of a crime without even being charged with one, which to me is nothing more than WP:BLPGOSSIP Arzel (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

"Gossip" is information from unreliable sources. This information is from five credible witnesses, and has been disputed by no one, including and especially Romney. You and various other people have claimed various alleged problems with the WaPo article, but those claims are either demonstrably false or wholly unsubstantiated. If you need reminders about your false claims and where you made them, I can provide that. Therefore this is not "gossip." Words don't mean whatever you find convenient in the moment. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Gossip can be information from any source. Reliable sources are clearly able to repeat gossip. Here you have some accusing Romney of a crime (some of you editors have already convicted him of it) and he has not even been charged with anything. This little story has already all but faded thanks to Cory Booker. Arzel (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. For similar reasons; it does not appear to be possible to write an account in a sufficiently brief manner, particularly not while including the emotionally impacting clauses (younger, crying, etc.). It's undue to have more detail on this than on Staples. I would support the reduction of much of this section, and the creation of a "youth of Mitt Romney" article that would appropriately cover this in greater detail. There is a considerable amount of information on his youth here that probably does not need to be on the main page, both positive and negative, and even this very long page omits considerable amounts of important information. There should probably be a Business Career of Mitt Romney subsection, too. As both campaigns keep Bain in the news, it is likely that more stories will appear, and it would be good to be able to include the encyclopedic elements without bogging down the main page with too much. At the moment there is almost four times as much content on Romney's pre-political career on Romney's main page as there is on Obama's, partly because this strategy of creating a space for stuff like this has been followed in Obama's case. Some attention to the youth of political figures is important, but this much is probably undue outside appropriate pages.Jamesofengland (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. But I'd reword it a bit: "In 2012, five former classmates described an episode wherein Romney, then a senior, forcibly cut clumps of hair from the head of a younger student while some of the classmates held the boy down." "Accuse" strikes me as the wrong word, a bit too formal and harsh for what seemed to be simple recollections on the part of the classmates. Emotional recollections to be sure but just - recollections. Then too, inasmuch as at least some of them participated in the thing as well, "confess" might be arguably appropriate as well. "Describe" or "recall" avoids that issue. JohnInDC (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It cannot be worded such that Romney matter of factly did some action without him explicitly stating as such. "Accuse" is proper since they accused him of doing this. Also, "clumps" does not appear in any sourcing that I have seen. Arzel (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Also "accuse" has a kind of he-said, she-said feel to it. How do we know that the accusers aren't just making it up? Perhaps it should say, "In May 2012, five classmates confessed to participating in, and accused Romney of leading, an incident in which they held down a younger student while Romney forcibly cut his hair". The fact that they confessed their own participation in the thing makes it clear that they're not just throwing about accusations. Food for thought. JohnInDC (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

"Participating in" reintroduces the problem I pointed out much earlier: we only know that Buford was an active participant. The other four were present, but we don't really know if they were participating, objecting or just witnessing. I think your neutral "describe" is better than "accuse." Also neutral: "said."

How about this: "In 2012, five former classmates said Romney, then a senior, used a scissors to forcibly clip the hair of a younger student while a group held the student down." Quite short (the sentence, not the hair). Quite neutral. I think "screaming" and "crying" is an important omission, but I can live with it. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Add "repeatedly" in there, as the Post does, and I think that's okay. "Forcibly and repeatedly". While it's now quite neutral, the essential cruelty of the act has been bleached out of it. I don't think that that needs to be emphasized particularly, but as it now reads it almost mis-describes the episode. Also you might reword the first part to say, "said that in 1965, when Romney was a senior, he". Just copy-editing, that. JohnInDC (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I've made the changes you and Wasted have suggested, how does it look now? — GabeMc (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

"Forcibly" is not needed. If they have him "pinned" down it is assumed that they did this with force. Accusing Romney of taking the lead implies that the act itself is not in question, only who led the act. Not all of the accusors take any ownership in the act. I think only one of the four claims that he took any part in the supposed act. Only four are named, the annoynmous classmate should be left out since his word means nothing unless he is willing to put his name behind it. Arzel (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

"Only four are named, the annoynmous classmate should be left out since his word means nothing unless he is willing to put his name behind it." No, it is not the case that "his word means nothing." WaPo cited him because his identity is known to them and they deem him to be a reliable source. And WP deems WaPo to be a reliable source. If you want WP to stop treating WaPo as a reliable source that's a separate discussion you should start somewhere else. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

If the annoynmous classmate is unwilling to put his name behind his accusations then they are worthless. They certainly would be dismissed in any court. Arzel (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a court. We rely on the judgmenet of third parties to vet information; that is the very essence of the concept of reliable sources. Jukeboxgrad is right, you are wrong. Wefa (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP is an overriding policy. Un-named accusors have no place. We rely on editors to neutrally include information from RS's. If you think otherwise than there is no point for editors at all, you could just have someone program a information aggregator to collect everything in all RS's and include it regardless of weight, NPOV, or BLP policies. Arzel (talk) 01:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I hear you on the inherent redundancy, and would generally agree that holding someone down does imply resistance. "Forcibly" is needed here to impart to the reader that Lauber was in no way agreeable, or even passively going along with the hair-cut, which believe it or not, many kids do when being confronted in this way. — GabeMc (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support, but I'd remove the WP:UNDUE "crying and screaming" and "repeatedly and forcibly" phrasing. The latter is especially problematic. Ylee (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed "screaming" as redundant with crying, though in actuality, according to the witnesses, he was crying due to the incident, and screaming for help, two separate intentions/actions, though for the sake of compromise I think that's good. I also removed "repeatedly", and though some may argue for its inclusion, I think again, for the sake of compromise, its not that needed. I have to assume anyone who reads this graph and is at all moved to learn more will go tp the WaPo article where all these details are readily available. — GabeMc (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I support the current version. It needs to not get weaker, because that would whitewash the intensity of what happened. Recall that Maxwell, a witness, said this: "I'm a lawyer. I know what an assault is. This kid was scared. He was terrified. That's an assault." (CNN) Maxwell also said it was "vicious" (in the WaPo article). The WaPo article cites another witness (Buford, the wrestling champion who helped pin Lauber) describing Lauber as "terrified." We don't need to quote these accounts, but what we say needs to be congruent with these accounts, and not a laundered version.

As it is, I think it's a problem that we don't mention that Romney clipped Lauber's hair "repeatedly" even though Lauber "screamed for help." But I also understand the need for compromise. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - I removed my ealier opinion since the text has changed again. I think the original prose should be restored and a "break" in the voting established where the votes were for the altered text. My opinion about neutrality no longer applies as well as my living with this text. LOL! Sorry. But, no. I think the text is just not woth addition and the changes at least show there is no consensus on how it would ever be inserted.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

In regards to a "break" in the straw poll, I strongly disagree. We could have an infinite number of polls with variations in prose, and still get nowhere. This is a better way IMO, to have a working prose that is altered in response to the suggestions of voters, who can always change their votes should a substantive alteration of the text lead them to do so. Specifically, which parts of the text do you currently oppose and why? — GabeMc (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support - (See opening comment in "addl. commentary" section below a bit.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• oppose. This is trivia and nonotable except for the fact that it surged as part of the campaign. Wait untill after the elections and see if people are still interested int this. We should err on the side of caution and on the opposite side of recentism in this case. (and yes this is recentism even though it happened 40 years ago - it is part of the election campaign, and wouldn't have been part of ROmney's biography if he hadn't run for president)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Per: "wouldn't have been part of Romney's biography if he hadn't run for president" - Well, if he wasn't a politician/leader, he may not even have a wiki page. Either way, its crystal ball territory IMO. Why does this logic not apply to his managing of the ice hockey team? Or his school participation? — GabeMc (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support, the episode is well sourced and it's relevant since it provides an illuminating frame to the subject's character. Frankly, I am shocked and appalled about the cavalier attitude some here exhibit on the subject of bullying; independently of the article at hand, this has to stop. Wefa (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support Listing every positive thing about his activities in school but not mentioning the hair-cutting incident would fail WP:NPOV. This is not a campaign biography. The well-sourced WashPost story and the widespread followup coverage "derailed" his 2012 campaign for some time, per news coverage of the campaign. It is not just a madeup hoax, and it is not a trivial incident. His response to the reports of alleged high school bullying has also received widespread coverage. The incident thus deserves appropriate brief mention here as well as in the article about the 2012 campaign. Edison (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is trivia that does not warrant even one paragraph in this biography and inclusion would violate WP:DUE. Jogurney (talk) 03:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support The text is brief and neutral, and it describes incidents that help provide insight into Romney's youth as well as into how that time in his life has been recalled by his peers. His responses to questions about his peers' recollections reflects on his own judgment and character as a public figure and leader. The text might still be improved, however, with a few slight adjustments: The term pranks in the last sentence should be placed in quotation marks (viz, "hijinks and pranks") as an indication that it was Romney himself who suggested that the hair-cutting incident, if it did occur, was a prank. Perhaps "forcibly cutting" should just be rendered "cutting" alone since the facts that the student was being held down and was crying imply that the shearing was forced against the younger student's will. And "he conducted practical jokes" seems a bit terse; I'm wondering whether there is a smoother way to convey the same info while remaining faithful to the sources (he enjoyed participating in, he developed a reputation for practical jokes he conducted, etc). Dezastru (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Great suggestions. I have incorporated them now, thanks for your input. — GabeMc (talk) 04:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Apparent Support, relabeled :::McGabe, Thanks for the invitation to comment. I think the paragraph is fine enough. (Readers can consider the source as Wikipedia, which they know from their prior reading is very reliable, to some, and rather 'Liberal' to others.) At any rate, I would take out the word 'crying' since it does a disservice to the "younger student". Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Great suggestion Charles Edwin Shipp, one others have also voiced, I went ahead and removed "crying" from the prose for the reasons you and others have stated. Thanks for your input. — GabeMc (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose He does not even recall this happening, the sources are biased, and it could hurt him. Get the FACTS, not liberal fodder! A possible BLP violation as well, this content is not encyclopedic and has no place on the Wiki! Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 19:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose including. The implication that Romney (as a child) may have been a gay-basher seems grossly prejudicial. Even the current material implying he was a lay-defying teenager seems WP:UNDUE (also at Mitt Romney#Heritage and youth). If Wikipedia respectfully obfuscates Obama's college years, we can do the same for Rommey's high school years. My argument is not WP:OTHERSTUFF, it's just consistency. --→gab 24dot grab← 18:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
• Apparent Support, relocated here Not sure where to put this, but it goes against everything that Wikipedia stands for when relevent, newsworthy and factual information is be excluded for political reasons. When people check Wikipedia for information about the "Cranbrook hazing incident" and don't find it, they just move on to other sources for their data. This destroys Wikipedia's credibility as a comprehensive source. Is that what Wikipedia's editors want? Fielding99 (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
• Obviously include some form, even if it's this watered-down version, That Romney plotted for days on end to assault the femme kid, who later came out, and led a group to assault him - ever been pinned down while screaming and had your hair forcibly cut? - and deny's any memory of the incident! If he weren't vying to become the most powerful person on the planet this might not matter as much, but it does give a window into the man's character while he and his campaign have worked very hard to keep the press away. Insomesia (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
• Apparent Support, relocated here I have no intention of getting involved in a partisan slugfest, but I want to voice my opinion in favor of including some version of this material, for what it's worth. It's notable, and I agree with a previous poster who said that it was certainly no less trivial than a lot of the stuff in that section. Being a prankster or on the pep squad, or not excelling athletically are all trivial too. It feels like this content is being kept out because it's potentially negative, not because it's more trivial than anything else.204.65.34.171 (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, Since the initial article and subsequent gotcha week of news cycles this has hardly come up, i.e. not notable. In addition the sister of the alleged victim says the factual content is wrong and her brother never mentioned it to her. Her other sister said he would not have mentioned it but that is all we know. In addition the "assault" "illegal" these words are very charged and can cause a NPOV issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viewmont Viking (talk • contribs) 00:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, this goes against everything that Wikipedia stands for when non relevent, non newsworthy, and questionably factual information is included for political reasons. When people check Wikipedia for information about the "Cranbrook hazing incident" and don't find it here, they shouldn't. Adding this would destroy Wikipedia's credibility as an encyclopedia. Is that what Wikipedia's editors want? --Mollskman (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support. This is an notable event in Romney's early life. Gay rights is an major issue in America and the episode at Cranbrook is germane and may be a reflection of Romney's stance on gay rights. Nevertheless, the facts of what happen should be told. It should be assimilated into the article. Ziggypowe (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:undue for the top level Romney article. North8000 (talk) 23:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Purely political attack. Thought I had opposed already, but I see I have not. Arzel (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose A singular event as a youth almost 50 years ago (as memories of details fade), and one not that uncommon as "long-haired hippies" came on the scene at that time. This is only news at this late date because of elections, not notability. 72Dino (talk) 03:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support Well documented facts, even if embarrassing, are appropriate for inclusion. If undue for the top level article, please suggest an article it is appropriate for and include it there. Hipocrite (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

"Well documented facts, even if embarrassing, are appropriate for inclusion." This is true. It is not WP:UNDUE, as we are not dealing with viewpoints. The Cranbrook episode transpired and no one is contending that as its occurrence has been well substantiated. The Cranbrook event meets the criteria of WP:WELLKNOWN.--Ziggypowe (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Arb break

• You may have read . . . The family of the now deceased student says that media accounts are not accurate and decry the politicization. For legal reasons, Wikipedia should stay away from this incident. I searched and do not see it currently in the article, although 'pranks' are noted in the notes at the bottom of the article. FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

"The family of the now deceased student says that media accounts are not accurate." A specific claim about a minor factual error in the WaPo article was quietly withdrawn (probably because the claim was false). As far as I can tell, no one anywhere has noticed that withdrawal, other than me. See here and here.

All we are left with is that a sister (not "the family") has said "the portrayal of John is factually incorrect," but they have not disputed the account of the attack on Lauber, and they have pointedly refrained from saying exactly what's incorrect: "She did not say specifically how the Washington Post story was incorrect."

It's not hard to imagine all sorts of reasons why this sister would not be happy to see a newspaper article about her dead gay brother, but what she has not done is claim that there is anything incorrect about the WaPo description of the attack on Lauber. Although it's not hard to find people who are pretending that she (or "the family") did so.

John said: "it's hard to see how they could substantiate any claim that the incident was inaccurately described." Correct. And it's important to notice that they never said that "the incident was inaccurately described." What one sister said was this: "the portrayal of John is factually incorrect." That's quite different from disputing the incident. Frankly, it sounds like they never accepted, and still don't accept, that he was gay. Which would explain why he never told them this story. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I saw comments from the family around the time of the story saying that they had been unaware of the incident, and that the victim would not like the coverage if he were alive, and they were unhappy about what they called politicization, but I don't see any legal claim against anyone in there. It's also worth noting that the family of the victim lacks firsthand knowledge of the incident - and secondhand knowledge for that matter inasmuch as the victim never discussed it with them - so barring some new information it's hard to see how they could substantiate any claim that the incident was inaccurately described. JohnInDC (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect to Lauber's family, and to you Charles Edwin Shipp, their wishes are irrelevant here, sorry to seem cold, but hey, there are likely thousands of articles that families would rather we deleted. And, as John points out above, they are not claiming to have any first-hand knowledge of the incident, so they really offer us nothing either way. — GabeMc (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Are the views of the Lauber family irrelevant if they sue Wikipedia? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

There are about fifty different reasons not to be worried about this. Here's one of them: under the terms of the Communications Decency Act, they would have no grounds to sue WP unless they specifically notified us that they wanted us to take something down and we refused to do so. So you shouldn't lose any sleep until they issue that notification. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Their views? Yes, those are irrelevant. Their evidence could be another matter but I havent seen any. You can't sue for being unhappy or for believing something is wrong when you yourself have no knowledge. JohnInDC (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Charles Edwin Shipp, the Lauber fam would have no legal recourse against wiki, (based on our current proposed text) and the fact that he is now dead, so WP:BLP does not apply to him. They could sue WaPo maybe, but really only for alledging that Lauber was "a presumed homosexual", not for reporting the eye witness accounts of the incident. — GabeMc (talk) 00:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

In America, many sue others with (or without) good reason. Even without winning, there could be bad publicity for Wikipedia. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

In America, anyone can attempt to sue anyone, at anytime, for no reason at all. If we decided to worry about this, then we should never write anything about anyone, ever. And if WP really did widely adopt your mentality, and let irrational fear of lawsuits prevent us from writing things that need to be written, then the result would be this: "bad publicity for Wikipedia." For good reason. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

My mentality is that in this instance, the family wants no comment. This is not like any and every article. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

One sister (or even two) is not synonymous with "the family." Also, I am not aware of any legal principle which empowers them to control what other parties say about their deceased brother. We're saying something about him, not them. Also, I am not aware of any WP policy which states that we should refrain from covering a subject because there is some party which prefers that we refrain from covering that subject. If you think there should be such a policy, then you should take steps to establish it. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

There questioning of the report puts it in dispute. Hot Stop 02:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Except that they didn't question "the report" of this incident (and as John patiently explained, they are, in any event, in no position to do so, because they were definitely not present). One of them only made a vague claim that "the portrayal of John is factually incorrect." They made only one attempt to specifically indicate what was "incorrect," and this claim of theirs was quietly withdrawn because their claim itself was incorrect. I already explained all this. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 03:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

But their questioning of the report is too vague to be unambiguously verified. Also, as I said above, unfortunately for him, Lauber is no longer living, and since his family is not mentioned in the proposed text, BLP criteria do not apply to him or his family, at all, so your point is moot. — GabeMc (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

To soon for a poll it would seem. Needs a great deal more discussion. Many issues and disputes to sort out.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist, I notice that on the AfD page you voted Delete, saying this: "I find it hard to believe an incident from nearly 50 years ago that is claimed in news sources and an article is created that day for an accusation not yet actually confirmed and the accuracy of informtion is questioned by the original source changing their story somewhat." I pointed out to you that the only person "changing their story somewhat" (in a manner that is not material) is Stu White, and he is not "the original source." WaPo did not cite him as a witness, although various people have been pretending that they did. More details about the Stu White situation can be found here. You made that statement nine days ago, and I wonder if you're still under that same mistaken impression regarding "the original source changing their story somewhat."

"Needs a great deal more discussion. Many issues and disputes to sort out." You raised that alleged 'issue' about "the original source" on 12 May, and I responded to you on 13 May, explaining that there is no 'issue.' Subsequent to my response, you never spoke up again on that page. If you see a need for "a great deal more discussion" because there are "many issues and disputes to sort out" then I find it hard to understand why you said nothing at all when I addressed this 'issue' you raised nine days ago.

I would like to ask you to enumerate the "issues" you now have in mind, because I'm sure they can be promptly addressed (in fact, I'm sure they were addressed many days ago).

Also, I find it hard to grasp that the same person said both this: "If consensus is for inclusion I can live with this. Seems a reasonable and neutral way to include the infomation in this particular section at this time." And this (about 24 hours later): "To soon for a poll it would seem. Needs a great deal more discussion. Many issues and disputes to sort out." Jukeboxgrad (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, these are the same discussions we have been having over and over again all week. Strawmen, red herrings, filibustering even, but some cannot resist the urge to attempt to convert those who have already made up their minds. I wish you would give some specific suggestions as to what it is about the current language that you oppose. — GabeMc (talk) 07:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Arb break

Perhaps the time has come to invert the question and agree that if this well-sourced, widely reported and undisputed incident is too trivial and too remote in time to tell us anything meaningful, then we should remove all other descriptions of Romney's various curricular and extracurricular activities and interests while he was in high school. I think the scissors incident should be included, because it wasn't trivial; but if we can't reach agreement on that there is no coherent reason for keeping the fluffy stuff in and the awkward stuff out. Here's how I would write it:

He attended public elementary schools[14] until the seventh grade, when he began commuting to Cranbrook School in Bloomfield Hills, a traditional private boys' preparatory school. During his sophomore year he participated in the 1962 campaign in which his father was elected Governor of Michigan.[nb 2] George Romney was re-elected twice; Mitt worked for him as an intern in the governor's office, and was present at the 1964 Republican National Convention when his moderate father battled conservative party nominee Barry Goldwater over issues of civil rights and ideological extremism.[15][17]

This pulls out all the stuff about other kids maybe being wealthier; the pranks, his activiites, his shift from day boy to boarder. I left in the parts about campaigning for his father, to show is lifelong exposure to politics, but took out the stuff about summer jobs. Everyone had summer jobs back then. JohnInDC (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That is probably the most encylopedic paragraph I have seen proposed in some time. Arzel (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I very much agree.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Note: I accidentally voted the opposite way than intended so I rmvd. Mea culpa.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose strongly. This is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It seems to be based upon the fallacy that unless we can draw a direct line from some biographical event to Romney being a candidate for president, it shouldn't be included. By that logic we should remove his year at Stanford (his life probably would have ended up the same if he'd started at BYU), his law degree from Harvard (it isn't clear that it ever made a difference in his professional career), his time at BCG (Bain & Co. turned out to be more influential), his return to Bain & Co. as CEO for two years (made no difference in his political career compared to staying at Bain Capital during that time), and so on. That's not what biography is. That's not what The Real Romney does, that's not what the Boston Globe seven-part series does, that's not that the accumulated biographical profiles of the New York Times or Washington Post do. They all cover his time at Cranbrook, and they all mention him not being a star student, and not being athletic, but being in lots of clubs, and conducting pranks. If we summarily throw this out, we won't be reflecting the best sources in our weighting in the article. Whatever the best resolution to the Cranbrook incident impasse is, this isn't it. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - Per Wasted's excellent reasoning above. Assuming we are opposing the latest proposed text above offerred by JohninDC. Can we stay on track here please, and finish one poll before beginning another, though based on John's stated position, I am confused by the latest proposed text utterly and completely, assuming the proposal is indeed sincere. — GabeMc (talk) 01:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It was sincere but perhaps not fully thought through. I do think it is true that if the scissors incident is out, then all of high school should be out; but applying the same logic on an item-by-item basis to the entire article, a case can easily be made that about 50% of the text is really sort of beside the point. But that's a pretty rotten biography, and certainly would be sparer than almost any other comparable article in Wikipedia. In the interest of moving things forward - and in keeping with my underlying point of view that this significant, heavily covered, well-sourced and undisputed event should be included herein, I withdraw my proposal to strip Romney's adolescence entirely from the article. JohnInDC (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Unless his hair was white, it was bleached blond, not dyed blond. Dru of Id (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• 'Oppose inclusion. This trivial factoid doesn't pass WP:DUE and smacks of political hijinks. – Lionel ^(talk) 05:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Break for subsequent commentary

• Cmt/ersatz !vote: I support only non-anachronistic stuff in the early life section and oppose anything akin to foreshadowing or "crsytal balling."
  -No "closeted"
  -No "gay" (although, possibly: "alleged to be effeminate")

  Sample: "In an incident that would in 2012 become grist for the political mill, Romney is said to have forcefully trimmed the hair of a long-haired [long for the era, in any case] dormmate.

  Then, mention any political ramifications in the 2012 campaign section, when or if they occur.

  Also, probably a sentence could be added in the 2012 section now and if nothing else happens to amplify the controversy's impact, perhaps even this sentence could be removed in a month--which would be my own approach, fwiw. (In any case, only in the 2012 section would such language as "alleged to have been closeted" be encyclopoedically appropriate, since such allegations thus far seem anachronistic to 1963, or at least would fail sourcing to indicate that Wikipedia endorses the assertion that the victim had been alleged to be homosexual during the era of the early sixties.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

No. I say we stick to the proposal made by JohninDC with no additions at this time.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hodgdon, the reason I strong disagreed with you earlier is that this incident has had no effect on the 2012 campaign. It gave cable yakkers and paper columnists something to talk about for a few days, until the next thing comes along. It's had no effect on Romney's poll numbers, either fave/unfave or vs Obama. In the end it's no different from all the other three-day flaps that the 2012 campaign section in this article has ignored ($10K bet, I like to fire people, Etch a Sketch, et al). I agree with you that the text shouldn't mention "bully" or "gay" or "assault", and for the most part the proposed texts being discussed above don't. But again, the significance of this is what happened in 1965, not what hasn't happened in 2012. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This will probably be my last comment here, since I am more interested in Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012. To rephrase what I stated: (1) the reason this hair-cutting story came up was because of politics. (2) Reports in media may (or may not) be about as inaccurate as three major news sources were with "White Hispanic" & Trayvon Martin case. (3) Bank on it being politicized in October. (4) The family may not sue Wikipedia if they perceive their son being politicized but an opportunist lawyer may persuade them. (5) What has the family (or sister) said? They said that they are not going to give but the one statement; and, they don't want it politicized. Oh, and they said that reporting is inaccurate. — . . . So here's my bottom line: Whatever Wikipedia does, it needs to be in the best light, in case the spotlight shines on Wikipedia over this. Thanks for listening, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I completely disagree. If the light shines on Wikipedia, Wikipedia should be able to credibly claim that it was portraying things in the most neutral, rather than "best", light. JohnInDC (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't see that anyone is going to persuade anyone else at this point. Perhaps it's time to consider other ways of breaking the logjam, e.g., Wikipedia:TALKDONTREVERT#Consensus-building_in_talk_pages. JohnInDC (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Arzel: "Gossip can be information from any source. Reliable sources are clearly able to repeat gossip." English translation: 'I use the word gossip to refer to any information I don't like.' By definition, gossip is unreliable information. By definition, reliable sources do not convey unreliable information. One more time: words don't mean whatever you find convenient in the moment. Someone who lacks respect for the meaning of words should not be editing an encyclopedia. Information from a reliable source does not magically become "gossip" simply because the facts being reported are inconvenient to you. Yes, any reliable source might fail to be reliable in a particular instance, but you need to demonstrate that failure, not simply assume it exists because that's your personal preference.

You're still doing what you've been doing all along: treating this information as unreliable even though you have no basis for doing so. And, ironically, you invent your own facts for the purpose of rejecting information you don't like. This is what you said on 11 May: "Given the fact that WaPo has seriously f'd up this story and new information coming out contridicting many statements let us wait to find out the true story." Those claims are false. Several times I have challenged you to substantiate these false claims, and other false claims you have made, and you have refused to do so. On the AfD page you said this: "WaPo calls the one guy an 'independent' whereas the automobilemag.com source quotes him 'I am a Democrat.' " That statement is blatantly false, and you refused to correct it. Your practice of making false claims discredits both you and WP.

Anyone can make a false statement by mistake, but when you make multiple false claims and then refuse to take responsibility for them, it becomes reasonable to conclude that you are being deliberately deceptive. I'm sure you know that Civility is one of Wikipedia's five pillars. You should also know that lying is defined as a form of uncivil behavior. Further, you should know that by refusing to respond when I questioned your false claims, you are behaving as "One who ignores or refuses to answer good faith questions from other editors," which is a characteristic of tendentious editing. You also exhibit another characteristic of tendentious editing: "One who disputes the reliability of apparently good sources." I notice that you have a long history of other editors making similar complaints about your behavior, but I'm focusing just on recent examples that are part of my personal experience. You should explain how these examples of your behavior that I have noted (and there are many other examples) are compatible with Wikipedia policy.

"We rely on editors to neutrally include information from RS's." Naturally. That's why this article mentions his pep squad membership but not his violent assault. Even though both those facts come from the same article, and even though there are zero named witnesses confirming the former fact and four named witnesses confirming the latter. For the purpose of this article, "neutrally" has been defined as follows: 'include it if it's positive and leave it out if it's negative.' There is plenty of room here for thinly-sourced trivia as long as it's positive. Next up: Young Mitt's Potty Progress.

Edison said this on the AfD page almost two weeks ago: "Well, no one should !vote 'merge' here with any expectation that it will be mentioned at all in the Mitt Romney article when the dust settles there. That article tends to be a carefully polished campaign puff piece." The dust has now settled, and we can see that he was prescient. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - this is trivia that does not warrant even one paragraph in this biography and inclusion would violate WP:DUE. Jogurney (talk) 03:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Cranbrook Incident, new source/details

From: "Parker on Politics: Fort Myers attorney recalls high school classmate Mitt Romney"

Henderson has his own memories of what happened. A newer student, John Lauber — who’s now deceased — “was a little different,” Henderson said. “He had long hair and it was dyed yellow blond. Rumors started going around that some students just didn’t like his attitude, and they were going to do something about it.” Henderson said he didn’t pay much attention to speculation that something was going to happen to Lauber, who seemed to particularly irritate Romney and his friends. “I just didn’t pursue it, didn’t get into it,” he said. “Then I heard it happened.” The headmaster discussed the altercation at the next daily assembly. “He made it clear that what happened was bad, that it was contrary to our moral standards,” Henderson said. “But nothing ever happened to the perpetrators that I know of; no student was seriously chastised.”

Is the headmaster bit new? Any thoughts, comments? — GabeMc (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It's new to me, and yes it provides additional corroboration that something happened and also shows that the school was aware of it. But of the seven opposes in the last straw poll, four were on the grounds of trivia and two on the grounds of undue weight. Those people just see the article in a different way, and seem to think that material like this has no place in a biography of a presidential candidate no matter how true it is. I doubt anything could convince them otherwise. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I hear you, but on the four "trivia" opposes, well, the article is full of trivia, depending on who you ask, so I'm not sure that rationale would hold up to a RfC. The two "undue" weight opposes would also need further rationale, afterall, how could this article ever achieve FA, if his HS pranks are not summarized? To avoid the issue of pranks, or to omit this most notable of his pranks is to fail FAC 1(b), isn't it? His campaign has used "prankster", sources used in the article refer to his pranks, and the Kranish-Helman book does also. So how can we justify not including this notable character trait, and how can we comprehensively cover the issue while also avoiding the Cranbrook incident? — GabeMc (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that info. I probably would not have seen it otherwise. The fact that the headmaster actually made a statement about it, referring to the school's moral standard, the next day indicates that even then it was thought of as more than just boys being boys having good wholesome fun. And that last quote by Henderson is a key to the significance of the episode: "Looking back, and thinking ahead to the presidential race, Henderson said most people have something in their past they regret. 'I don’t think it disqualifies (Romney) from being president, but it’s disappointing that he hasn’t really owned up to it. To me, that speaks to his character.'” Dezastru (talk) 01:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't really do anything but add more context and yet it doesn't give it more weight to Romney's overall Biography. I see no reason to include this material as it was never a question of whether the material was true or not, or even how seriously the school took it (and from this one could say it collaborates that the school really didn't take it that seriously if no one was repremended), but whether the information was relevent enough for inclusion and right now I still think it's being used to push a certain point of view of Romney which is not to Wikipedia standards in my opinion.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

While I respect your opinions, the stance: "the school really didn't take it that seriously if no one was repremended" fails to take into account that two of the five involved included the governor's son, and the school's wrestling champion, so that they were not formally punished is not that surprising to anyone who has experienced social Darwinism at a private school level. It also assumes no one was "talked to" in private. What's important here is that the headmaster addressed the entire school to tell them the incident "was contrary to [their] moral standards". The first evidence that authority figures at the time felt this was crossing a line. Kranish & Helman also think Romney's pranks sometimes crossed the line.(pp.20-21) They go so far as to call him an "inveterate [Long-established and unlikely to change] prankster". So I'll ask, IYO, do we ignore his well-established/sourced reputation as a prankster, or just the Cranbrook incident? What's your solution to this problem? — GabeMc (talk) 05:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see this as a problem. In fact I, as well as a handful of other editors have all cited policy and guidelines. As I said it isn't a matter of whether it is true or not or if the school took it seriously or not. The value of this information is balanced with it's long after the fact, sudden importance for politcal reasoning. I still see no reason to include it. It isn't notable enough in terms of punishment, attention at the time or overall importance to the history of events of the time up till now. Look, I can agree that romney attacked another student in a violent manner and we can disect the stituation all we want.....but it still doesn't change the relevent reasons for including material with due wieght and i see this as a non-notable event for many reasons and the need to be cautious is simply in keeping with Biographies of Living Persons Guidelines.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

IYO, should we ignore his well-established/sourced reputation as a prankster? Should we cover the topic at all, IYO — GabeMc (talk) 05:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Where does this POV term "Prankster" come from? Is this a fact or is this some point of view of Romney himself or as seen through the eyes of particular people? This should be attributed as opinion as far as I am concerned. Attribute the claim to the source.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, "Romney Campaign Helped Cultivate Candidate’s Prankster Image"; Mitt Romney: "I participated in a lot of hijinks and pranks during high school, and some might have gone too far, and for that I apologize." — GabeMc (talk) 07:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist, you like some of the other objectors are still stuck on the fact that this came out during one of Romney's campaigns. But pretty much everything in this article came out during one of his campaigns. All the "positive" material, all the "negative" material, and all the "neither" material. Most of the sources in this article come from 2007, followed by 2011-2012. That's when newspapers and other media outlets do their reporting and publish their biographical profiles, when political figures run for national office. Should we exclude the fact that he rallied other missionaries to the most baptisms in a decade, just because that was published in 2007 while he was running for president? Or that he turned Bain & Company around after being brought back as CEO, also published in 2007? Should we exclude the fact that a number of local church members later credited him with turning their lives around or helping them through difficult times, just because that was published in 2011 when everyone knew he would be running for president? Look at this Google News Archive search. There are exactly four results for "Mitt Romney" published from 1947 through October 1993, with little biographical content other than the wedding story. So for his early life, missionary years, college years, his church leadership years, and most of his business years, there's nothing written about him at the time. It all comes later, when he enters politics and starts running for office, and most of it comes when he starts running for president. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Prankster image

Mitt Romney’s prankster ways continued in college

This is becoming harder to ignore/neglect while also maintaining the article's comprehensiveness. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It is a matter oif how relevant it is to the BLP looked at as a whole. The amount of trivia muddying the biography is already substantial, and it is not encyclopedic to list every event in a person's life where such events then overshadow the actual substantive events in the person's life. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this belongs and I've added it to the Stanford material: "He continued one of his pranks, that of impersonating a police officer and pretending to stop or arrest people.[30]" This activity is sufficiently unusual, and of questionable propriety, and done in both prep school and college, to merit in-text description. And I disagree that this biography is full of "trivia"; if you look at any of the book biographies or newspaper and magazine biographical profiles written about Romney, they cover the same territory as this article. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I am treading very carefully in phrasing here, so please consider I am not attempting to offend or push a partisan POV. I have read through this exhaustive debate about the inclusion of the Cranbrook prank stuff. And honestly, I see a lot of what could be construed as POV pushing on both sides. But when I look at the content that exists, including how many organizations he was in, stories about arrests for speedboats on lakes, and a host of other minor (but certainly not unwelcome) trivia, I find it very hard to support the thought that somehting that was notable enough to make media headlines and involves accusations (not convictions) is somehow more trivial than some of the content already in place. We may not think that attention was warranted, or we may ascribe political motivations to it, but that doesn't mean that attention didn't happen...i.e. the attention to the incident is itself notable, and not trivial. We don't have to hold that the incident was worth the attention, but we cannot deny that it gained a lot of it. I think we (not excluding myself) need to, well, "put on our big boy/girl pants" and have some consistency in our approach. Either we get rid of all the trivia for a slimmed down approach, or we recognize that if we're going to call some admittedly serious allegations "trivia" in an attempt to exclude it, then we need to be honest and get rid of the real trivia. Personally, I favor complete inclusion.Jbower47 (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I demur. We do not so treat others in BLPs and the requirement that BLPs be conservatively written is policy. Collect (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)