Talk:Mitt Romney/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Futurespeak

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grammar

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

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

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

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

Edit request on 4 September 2012

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

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

Political Bias of Article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trivia about who is roommates were

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

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

Religion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2002 Olympics

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

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

Bain Section Cleanup

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

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

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

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

Wealth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe he didn't single anyone out individually[1], but SS is quickly becoming a Facepalm factory.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cost of Olympics

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

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

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

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

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

Mitt Romney Story by Tom Dickinson

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit request on 31 August 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Serving as assistant to the Mission President, young Elder Mitt Romney would have been in the mission home, not in a missionary apt in the city. FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

New info about Bain and Romney

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matt Taibbi cover story

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rolling stone isn't a creditable source for political info I would suggest to find another source if you believe it is wiki worthy 24.101.172.61 (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the discussion was to not include information of comparative estimates of how much money Romney has compared to other presidents/candidates. Regards, — Moe ε 02:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete
• Keep
• Keep with modification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Number 1 in the past 10 years. Number 3 in the past 20 years. [2][3]

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

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

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

What this (trivia) guideline is not:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Would the most wealthy president ever not be Georg Washington? [4] He was worth about double of Romney. Kennedy was not very wealthy, his fathers (and family) estate was worth 1 billion (double of the worth of Washington), but that was not his money but his father and it was a family estate and President Kennedy was not the only one in the family. And where does Ford come in, he was only worth 7 millions. Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

• Keep - After reading other editors comments, I've been convinced by their arguments and switching my vote to "keep."Jasonnewyork (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
• Keep stop the whitewash! 69.5.89.109 (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Keep The covering up of information in this article is sickening, what a joke, no offfense but really this is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. 176.222.33.57 (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Lets attempt to remain neutral here people. I hate to agree but this article is being whitewashed. 72.11.140.159 (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cautiousness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're completely mistaken to call this OR; if dozens of sources say that Romney was risk-averse, it's hardly OR for the article to say Romney was risk-averse. Your real case is that this is the kind of thing the article shouldn't be saying at all, no matter how many sources say it. I disagree, but if examples of it, without saying it, are okay, then I've added some examples: his declining of the Bain Capital position until there was no downside risk to him; his setting up a system whereby any partner could veto any deal, and his personally finding many faults in deals, which led to very few deals being done in the first two years; and his data-driven, devil's advocacy approach to examining deals. Hopefully these will get the idea across. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The point people are trying to make, I think, is that this article reads like an "authorized" complementary bio in places and has crossed the line into essay at this point, hence the OR complaints. 95.110.194.103 (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, being risk-averse is not a complimentary thing, nor is it a derogatory thing, it's just a descriptive thing. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit War?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, you keep repeating yourself - and keep missing the point. So, I'll repeat myself once more. An allegation of edit warring pertaining to this page was placed on my talk page. Instead of looking at the edits in question and comparing them against Romney's talk page, you listed 4 edits underneath the allegation saying that those edits "triggered" the warning, thus adding an implicit agreement with the edit war warning. I've stated multiple times that if there were indeed an edit war on this page, then it should be resolved. To which you keep replying "I showed you the four edits that triggered the warning" and "this isn't the venue to discuss it." This is called the red tape runaround. You won't conclusively say that there is no edit war. You instead keep it vague enough to where you could still allege that there is one since the warning was placed and you provided the edits that triggered it. The long and the short of it is that there is no edit war, and you know it and everyone else here knows it. You just seem to want to keep the possibility alive instead of doing the stand up thing and admit there wasn't one. I know this isn't the venue to lodge a complaint. I'm not lodging a complaint. I'm just shining a light on a problem related to this page, a problem that is glaring in its obviousness.Jasonnewyork (talk) 03:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

No, you completely fail to grasp the most basic point; the three-revert policy does not make an exception for edits you have mentioned on the talk page, or even edits for which you believe (since there was no formally closed WP:RFC involved) there was a consensus. You asked for an explanation of the message. You got one. Perhaps instead of continuing this interminable whining and disruption of the article talk page, you should do the stand-up thing and admit that I supplied accurate information in response to your request and you were in fact close to violating the rule another editor warned you about. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

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

"Both"?

"In 1978 the Mormon church announced the reversal of its policy regarding black people being priests.[64] Until then, both had been discouraged." Both what had been discouraged? Both black people and priests? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.240.121 (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Cruft from churn on the subject (see previous section); now gone. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

50% my fault. Sorry about that. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Infobox image

Current

Proposed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Though the second one seems sharper, I think Romney in a suit seems more appropriate to this article. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Use the second one since it is more accurate to the way the man looks today. 176.222.33.57 (talk) 00:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe we came to a consensus before on the same proposed picture earlier, here: Talk:Mitt Romney/Archive 13. I argued for the current proposed picture, but now I believe that it is too informal. Harpsichord246 (talk) 06:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

GabeMc, is it possible for you to fix the image again to remove that issue? Except leave the glare in the eyes, it's barely noticeable here on Wikipedia anyways. ViriiK (talk) 06:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I should be able to make time tomorrow. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

"the punishment for which was death"

Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether or not Richard Dawkins is a reliable source for this contention, what exactly are the details here? It may have been that there was an "on the books" rule giving death as the proper punishment for interracial marriage, but surely this punishment was never carried out. Or are there verifiable cases where people were, in fact, killed as punishment for marrying outside their own race? Regardless, this article is desperately in need of more clarity on this point. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Didn't you know, nothing that sheds an unfavorable light on Mormons or Romney can be added to this article? Where have you been Evan? J/k. 176.222.33.57 (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a new, bad addition, which I reverted once. Dawkins' opinionated rant is irrelvant. The LDS policy on interracial marriage was never an issue during the 1960s and 1970s. The issue was whether blacks could join the lay priesthood. We used to have something in the article about Romney being silent on this issue while in college, while some other Mormons protested it, but we removed it on the grounds that (unlike his parents) he wasn't in a public, responsible political position at the time, and thus his inaction doesn't carry notable weight. We also removed his later 'weeping by the roadside' statement because there is no independent, verifiable source that he did this; it's just a self-serving statement he made later once he was running for office. So I think we were right to leave the whole subject out, and I hope somebody else reverts this bad addition. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "independent, verifiable sources", WP doesn't demand such things all the time. The Obama article is happy to underline that it's merely reporting his own version of things: 'Obama [...] wrote in The Audacity of Hope that he "was not raised in a religious household". He described his mother, raised by non-religious parents (who Obama has specified elsewhere as "non-practicing Methodists and Baptists"), to be detached from religion, yet "in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I have ever known". He described his father as a "confirmed atheist" by the time his parents met, and his stepfather as "a man who saw religion as not particularly useful". Obama explained how, through working with black churches as a community organizer while in his twenties, he came to understand "the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change"' How is it different to say what Romney has described? Malick78 (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree, this is not the article to get into LDS policy issues, not to mention there appears to be some synthesis of material going on here regarding the punishment of death aspect. Arzel (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the article to mention it. Romney reacted by "weeping", hence it was a notable moment in his life. Even if he's lying that he wept, that he lies in such a way makes it doubly notable. See my comment below.Malick78 (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

What's still in the article still isn't very good. It's all sourced to an op-ed column at an opinion website who's trying to make a point vis à vis Obama and Jeremiah Wright. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I added it because a) it's highly relevant that a man adhered to an officially racist religion for 31 years without significantly questioning whether he should still believe its tenets, b) he himself has tackled the subject. There doesn't need to be a witness to verify it: the importance of it (hence it being referenced by the Telegraph 4 years later) is that Romney claims to have had a reaction to the change in Mormon rules, and quite a significant reaction. Weeping. Even a claim of this is worth mentioning and notable. All we have to do is state that it's Romney's unsubstantiated claim that this took place and let readers come to whatever conclusions they want. That's not against WP policies at all.

It seems to me that this article goes to absurd lengths to avoid much substantive discussion of the issue of his faith. It is a subject in its own right (just as Obama's faith is) and shouldn't be ignored (I'm new on this page but I get the feeling certain editors want to hush the issue up). That the world's most famous atheist thinks it's an issue (plus much of the media), makes it even more absurd that we aren't tackling it. Certainly edit what I added, but please don't ignore the subject completely.

Lastly, I'm a Brit. Just so no-one suspects me of being particularly partisan :) Malick78 (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you are conflating religious views with religious policies. It is one thing to discuss Romney's religious views, but an entirely different thing to debate religious policies on his article. I am not aware of any religion that is completely free of historical transgressions. We don't into the sorid details of other religion' sins of the past on other individual bio's, so why should Romeny be different? Why do you mock Romney's reaction? Arzel (talk) 13:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

There was no mocking, I must have expressed myself badly. As for "religious policies", sure, most religions have had bad pasts, but here there was a change during our subject's lifetime and he claims to have had a highly emotional reaction. It's inherently notable and of interest to readers.Malick78 (talk) 14:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you would find it hard to find a religion that has not made a major policy change in your lifetime. I suppose this might be a bigger issue, if it were even an issue at all right now. I can't recall it even being brought up this election season. Arzel (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Neither argument is relevant, it seems to me. Whether a policy change has happened in my lifetime is neither here nor there; Romney, when asked about it, said it had a huge impact on him. His words. His choice to mention the "weeping". Why not report it? I can't think of another politician who's made a similar claim regarding their faith. (For the record, Catholicism's last thing as big as this, IMHO, was when they stopped blaming Jews for Jesus's death at Vatican II in the 60s.) Secondly, whether the issue has been brought up in this election cycle doesn't decide everything we include. This is an encyclopaedia - it should have a bigger view than that.Malick78 (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, if it's going to be included, it has to be done right. I've restored the old text about not joining protests against the policy while at BYU and put it in the BYU chrono. I've then added the out-of-chrono 1978/2007 weep tale as a parenthetical. I've junked the bad opinion cite and used the regular NYT and WaPo cites (the former has the first reporting of the weep tale, as far as I can determine), but also added the MtP transcript since it fleshes out Romney's story on this more. I've removed the claim that in 2007 Romney refused to criticize the old policy; it's not supported by the MtP transcript. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for the changes. I think, however, that if you watch the video of the Romney interview (that was in my original ref link) it's clear that Romney does refuse to condemn the old policy. The transcript is perhaps ambiguous (MR. RUSSERT: But it was wrong for your faith to exclude it for as long as it did. GOV. ROMNEY: I've told you exactly where I stand. My view is that there--there's, there's no discrimination in the eyes of God, and I could not have been more pleased than to see the change that occurred.), but to me the video confirms that he avoids condemning it (watch the last 30 seconds). Can we readd that sentence?Malick78 (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Malick78, which reliable secondary sources make a notable claim that Romney refused to criticize the policy? alanyst 18:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It was in the original ref I used when I added to the article "He also refused to say that his church was wrong to have excluded black men from the priesthood".Malick78 (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That's an opinion column. It's not appropriate to restate opinion in Wikipedia's voice, and even if it were, there's nothing obviously notable about this opinion relative to the many other opinions out there about Romney or the LDS church. The source is clearly a partisan rebuttal against the right's rhetoric about Pres. Obama and Rev. Wright, attempting to tar Romney with the brush of racism in the same way Obama's opponents have attempted to tar him with Wright's polemics. Wikipedia doesn't need to be part of that WP:BATTLE. alanyst 22:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

As I said earlier, and as Alanyst is saying as well, this is an opinion column at an opinion site and is not usable as a WP:RS. If you look at some of the mainstream straight news reports of the MtP appearance, such as this NYT piece or this ABC News piece or this AP story, none of them support your interpretation. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

For god's sake, your links don't even analyse the interview in depth. Your second link is an article about crying (which only mentions Romney in passing), and the third is about Romney exaggerating various claims (and only mentions the Meet the Press thing in passing). Your NYTimes one is a mish-mash of various topics, but does say

'Without criticizing it, he said, “I was anxious to see a change in my church.”'

- i.e., confirms he avoided criticising the church's policy. My ref, while being partisan perhaps (others would say 'logical and reasonable'), dealt with the whole interview in depth. It can also be confirmed by using your own god-given ears and eyes and watching the interview - and seeing Romney avoid criticising the church. True, we need RS, but when your eyes and ears can see the primary source and that it confirms the secondary source's interpretation, the secondary source has become reliable for this one fact. It's times like this that WP:COMMONSENSE are the most important policy of all. Malick78 (talk) 10:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree; our sources are clear enough to allow us to say that Romney does not criticize the church over its former policy of excluding blacks from the priesthood. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 10:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Horsefeathers! Saying one must criticise a church of which one is a member or else be labelled on Wikipedia as therefore supporting that position is absurd, and has routinely been found so at WP:BLP. Joe Lieberman is an Orthodox Jew, and we do not say "he believes the earth was created exactly 5773 years ago. We do not say of a Roman Catholic "he believes he eats the flesh and blood of Christ at mass" and so we can not rationally ascribe specific positions of any religion to any member of that group unless they make substantive statements other than in a religious context (reciting the Apostles Creed does not count in ascribing the individual claims therein to a person). So your claim is not only invalid, it is contrary to accepted Wikipedia policy and practise. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

He was asked a direct question and avoided answering it. As a politician, that's notable. We are not raising an issue that was never even addressed to him (like in your Catholic eating the flesh of Christ scenario).Malick78 (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Malick78, Mormons generally believe that policies like this are divinely inspired, and that this reversal was divinely inspired as well. So if you look at the NYT story that is used as a cite here, it says "“I hoped that the time would come when the leaders of the church would receive the inspiration to change the policy,” Mr. Romney said. When he heard over a car radio in 1978 that the church would offer blacks full membership, he said, he pulled over and cried. But until then, he deferred to church leaders, he said. “The way things are achieved in my church, as I believe in other great faiths, is through inspiration from God and not through protests and letters to the editor.”" Or in the MtP interview, "I was anxious to see a change in, in my church ... I could not have been more pleased than to see the change that occurred." Yes, it's a very passive kind of stance - you can't change the church yourself, you have to wait for top church leaders to get divine inspiration to do - and to skeptics it all sounds bogus. But it's not fair to take turn this around and to put in the article, as you want to, "He refused, however, to say that the church had been wrong to exclude black priests." If he says he was anxious for the policy to change, then he is saying that he did not think the prior policy had been desirable. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

If the guy becomes president and the church reverses its position, then sure as hell people will expect him to condemn it. Seriously though, just because he thinks he has no right or reason to condemn his church's views, I think normal people with no link to his church (hmm, 99% of people) expect him to be able to condemn it and therefore it's of interest if he can't. (Saying institutionalised racism is bad is a no-brainer in politics, isn't it? If he wants to be a politician, he should accept that.) It's also factually correct - if you watch the video, he goes out of his way to avoid criticising. We deal in facts and this one is notable. That said, many Catholics are able to criticise past actions by Rome, so again, we can expect Romney to say something and indeed we should expect him to. (Btw, WTR, you describe yourself on your user page as "the lead writer" of this article - I hope you realise yours is just one of many views to be taken into account.) Malick78 (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

He said he was anxious for the old policy to change. If he had approved of the old policy, then he would have been anxious for it to stay in place. Right? If in 2007, he said something like, "I had no problems with the old policy, but the church was forced to cave in due to political pressure," then you would have a case. But if your case relies upon interpretation of manner in a video compared to words in a transcript, that's too subtle for something like this. If you're going to write that a BLP subject favored a racist policy, you've got to have something really clear-cut to back it up.

As for me, yes I am the lead writer of this article by any metric (edit count, share of material in current article, role in GA/GAR/PR/FAC, perspective on article as a whole, etc). But rest assured, I been on WP for 7½ years, and if there's one thing I know, it's that no amount of subject matter knowledge, WP experience, specific article experience, or previous accomplishments on other articles, counts for anything. When it comes down to numbers, the editor who's maxed out on these characteristics counts for the same 'one' as the new guy who has none of them. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Removal of passages

I reverted a significant removal of material because it seemed insufficiently explained by the edit comments.[5] I'd rather we discuss such large changes here, in advance of editing. This will also help avoid article churn and head off edit wars. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

And I undid your poorly explained revert since you didn't actually bring up the specific issues you have with it here in talk. Burden's on you to revert. Naapple (Talk) 07:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You're quite clearly in the wrong here, Naaple.Malick78 (talk) 10:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The specific issue is that you removed material on a flimsy basis. For example, you complain that you personally can't verify a particular page in a book, therefore you're rejecting the citation. I am concerned about your behavior here.[6] This article is on probation so reverting after a BRD was a really bad idea. I would like you to revert yourself and discuss the drastic changes that you want to make. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm also going to point out that when I sent you a message expressing my concerns, you reverted it with "lol" as your edit comment.[7] This is not good behavior, and we need to be on our best behavior for sensitive articles such as this. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you've brought that into here. I've told you several times to stay off my talk page, and yet you continue. Not exactly civil behavior on your end. If you can't respect my wishes on my own talk page, how am I to take anything you say seriously and not as a not-so-subtle slight at me? Naapple (Talk) 08:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't visit your talk page for casual conversation, but I'm obligated to post warnings there. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath. Naapple (Talk) 07:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Your answer is antagonistic and not particularly civil. Perhaps you should consider editing other articles instead of this one. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

"You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." Naapple (Talk) 07:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a personal attack. I suggest that you redact it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the actual substance of these changes:

1. "this has nothing to do with "Management Consulting" - the article is organized chronologically, and the section headers represent the main topic of the section, but other topics can appear too, in the proper chronological context in which they occurred. This is such a case, just like Ann's MS and breast cancer diagnoses appear in sections that are primarily devoted to other topics. The 'dog on the roof' story is quite famous at this point and a mention of it needs to be in the article. The park ranger incident should also be here; it's handled quite conservatively, such that the word 'arrest' doesn't even appear in the main text, but only in a Note.
2. "convenient non-verifiable link in an opinion piece. Bring their citation to prove it" - The Kranish-Helman biography The Real Romney is not an opinion piece, but the best biography written about Romney, by two Boston Globe reporters. There is no prohibition against using book sources in WP, in fact many FA articles consist almost solely of book sources. The actual text on page 155 is: "But he was never an expert at finding new deals. Indeed, he brought few investment proposals to the table, and when he did, they often flopped." What you removed from the article was a close paraphrase of that.
3. "Summary in the lead of the actual material in the article" - I personally have no problem with this change, as I would rather the lead not get into the nitty gritty of the state budget changes; I think it was either Dezastru or Cwobeel who wanted this.
4. "fixed incorrect summary of the citation. Both in his book and and recent republican primaries, he's stated the same view" - you are incorrect, that has been a change, as the CBS News story used as a cite indicates. His 2010 book: "I believe that climate change is occurring. ... I also believe that human activity is a contributing factor. I am uncertain how much of the warming, however, is attributable to man and how much is attributable to factors out of our control." His October 2011 statement during the run-up to the primaries: "My view is that we don't know what's causing climate change on this planet." That's a shift from saying he believes at least some of the change is due to human activity, to saying he doesn't know whether any of the change is due to human activity. And the source itself thinks he has changed, since it begins the piece with: "The longer he runs for president, the more doubts Republican front-runner Mitt Romney seems to have about the science behind global climate change."

So my position is that the first, second, and fourth original texts be restored. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I liked the original version of the third, but it's not as significant a change as the rest. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with WTR's proposal: restore items 1, 2, and 4; leave out item 3 since it presents too much detail for the lead. —Eustress ^talk 16:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Winter Olympics

I find this section troubling. Much is made of how Romney saved the games, as per his own spin, yet little is critical. For example, we make him sound heroic: "Romney had been in Washington during the attacks and had driven past the Pentagon right after it had been hit, as his car filled with smoke.[147][152]" - yet the second ref is to Fraser Bullock, a guy Romney hired and who didn't actually witness his car filling with smoke. (Remember how some above complained about the "weeping" incident that no one witnessed it, it was only Romney's word - well, this guy wasn't there at all to see the smoke!). As for the first ref, it merely says "Romney had witnessed the horror of the attacks, having ridden through the smoke billowing from the Pentagon..." Nothing about smoke in the car. But, it does have such gems as:

Jon Huntsman Sr., the father of Utah's current governor, assailed Romney for exploiting his ties to the church. [...] We've got a chairman who is active LDS, now we've got a present CEO who is active LDS, Huntsman was quoted in the Salt Lake Tribune as saying of Garff and Romney. They claim they're going out [to] really scour the world to find the best person, and Mitt brings in one of his cronies to be the COO. Another broken promise. Because we've got three LDS folks who are all cronies. Cronyism at its peak. ..... These are not the Mormon Games.

which we've ignored (we mention cronyism that's unrelated to Romney, but not related to him! Why have we picked the heroic from this article, and ignored the bad?) As for the truth, well, Romney has now toned down his description: '"I could smell burning fuel and concrete and steel. It was the smell of war, something I never imagined I would smell in America," Romney said in a speech he gave today to the National Guard Association Conference in Reno.' Nothing about smoke in his car (probably just the smell through his air-con.) So, how'bout we delete the smoke thing? Sheds no light on his personality, just glorifies him and is more likely to be a lie than the 'weeping' thing.Malick78 (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

We don't include the Huntsman quote because it's blatant opinion. How do we know this guy who was the COO is a "crony"? How do we know that Romney said "he'd scour the world". Again this is all opinion from what looks like a fellow presidential candidate who basically appears to be throwing out typical defamatory rhetoric aimed at an opponent.

I do agree, however, that if "we" can't independently verify the "car filled with smoke" section, it should removed as typical political fluff that every politician is guilty of. Ckruschke (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Well, we can say something like "Huntsman claims that...", but my point was really that an article with lots of negative info about Romney was cherry-picked by someone as a ref for one piece of pro-Romney info - yet it didn't even corroborate it. There's plenty more good stuff in the article though...

But anyway, I'm glad you agree the smoke thing is inappropriate. I think Romney was alone in the car and there'll never be corroboration for it "filling" his car. It should go.Malick78 (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence doesn't fit in the narrative of the Olympics section, and I support its removal. But it's not obviously partisan. (How does it glorify Romney to speak of smoke filling his car as he drove past a conflagration?) It's also fairly credible; Romney phoned Bullock when it happened so Bullock would have had immediate secondhand knowledge, and it would have no particular value as an embellishment (again, because there's nothing obviously heroic about the detail). As far as "little is critical" is concerned, the entire fourth paragraph in that section reads to me as (appropriately and objectively) tempering the notion of Romney singlehandedly saving the Games, and nicely balances the (again, appropriate and objective) mention in the next paragraph of the accolades he received after the Games ended. Perhaps the gain on your personal hagiographimeter is dialed higher than mine though. ;-) alanyst 22:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Say, "I breathed in smoke from 9/11" seems, in my view, to be an attempt to link Romney very closely with the event, in order to somehow suggest he "understands terrorism" or "was affected by 9/11, like other ordinary Americans" - it quite clearly, at least to me, is an attempt to make him seem less distant, more human, and more able to understand terrorism. Therefore it's better to say it than not say it (which is exactly why Bullock goes to great pains to mention it - he knows it helps). As it is, it's unwitnessed and seems unlikely (really? he saw a smoking building and didn't wind up his windows? And can you imagine a car "filled" with smoke? You couldn't drive it. It's hyperbole). So, I'd cut it.Malick78 (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I never wanted the 9/11 thing in the article in the first place: Durindaljb added it the first time, I subsequently reverted it, Durindaljb later added it again, I made it more succinct. Many people who were around NYC or DC at the time saw the horrible effects; it's just not that unique. But I can live with it in in its present form as well (or with the 'filling car' removed if that is objected to). Regarding the cronyism charge, that is in the article: "Romney was chosen by Utah figures looking for someone with expertise in business and law and with connections to the state and the LDS Church.[147] The appointment faced some initial criticism from non-Mormons, and fears from Mormons, that it represented cronyism or gave the Games too Mormon an image.[41]" I don't get the statement above that this text is "not related to him" - 'The appointment' is a reference to Romney. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

True, it doesn't quite fit in. As for cronyism - that Romney was appointed via it is bad, but that he then appointed Bullock is even worse. He's the nepotiser now, no longer the nepotisee. If you get my drift :) We don't include that. Malick78 (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all, nepotism isn't involved here. As for Romney picking Fraser Bullock, he had past experience working with him at Bain Capital. That counts for a lot in every industry (look at Linked In's popularity). Yes, Bullock being LDS may have made him more likely to move to Utah and fit in there, but so what? Charges of cronyism are usually only relevant if the people being hired turn out to be unqualified for the position. But Romney and Bullock both did well and the SLC Games were a big success, so there's nothing further here that merits inclusion in the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Simple error

Under the "Political Positions" heading, the word "the" is used twice in a row, in the last sentence of the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.116.149 (talk) 09:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for the spot. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you like the new black background?

On the main picture: File:Mitt_Romney_by_Gage_Skidmore_6.jpg — Harpsichord246 (talk) 02:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

No, that's terrible. Revert it back. ViriiK (talk) 02:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll expand. Look at the change that Gabe made to the picture. He took out the grey from the picture that was noticeably obvious but left the blue which you removed. Leave the blue in since it makes him stick out rather than him being a part of the black background. ViriiK (talk) 02:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• That is the same blue background but without the weird blue bar coming out of his head. Harpsichord246 (talk) 03:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

No, the "weird" bar is a necessary part to define where the background is. Right now, it looks like he's a part of the background. ViriiK (talk) 05:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to wait for someone else to comment before changing it back. Harpsichord246 (talk) 06:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

No, your image is already uploaded to commons. Do not change it back until you allow people to review your image proposal change vs the original which has been the default for months. Your proposed change vs Current image ViriiK (talk) 08:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Another issue is that you removed a chunk of his hair, readjusted some parts of his hair, made the background extremely black that it literally matches his hair color thus merging him into the background. ViriiK (talk) 08:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Where does his hair start and where does the background begin? It's good effort and all, but I think I like the original.Naapple (Talk) 07:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It may look good on some screens, but on my laptop, the hair, the suit, and the background have no clear delineation. HiLo48 (talk) 08:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's the original image Gage Skidmore's Flickr Account ViriiK (talk) 08:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

In general, messing with any picture of a living person is a bad idea. During campaign season it's even worse. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Seb_az86556; when in doubt, go with the actual image that the camera took. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Alright, that is fair enough. Harpsichord246 (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Mostly all the original picture needs is some gamma correction. That increases the contrast in the darker areas. SteveBaker (talk) 07:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Problem on related article

Mitt Romney dog incident could use some additional attention as there is an edit-warring problem. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

There's always edit warring there. But if it bothers you, get the admins to put it under the community sanctions umbrella. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

As an election-related article, I believe it already is. There's also specific edit-warring that concerns me, but I'd rather not bias anyone by discussing it in any depth. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was only those articles where clicking Edit gives you the pink "WARNING This article is under a community general sanction until 11 December 2012. ..." banner that are under sanction. But maybe I'm wrong. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, all election-related articles are under community probation. The first thing an admin would do when encountering bad behavior in such an article is to add the template that displays the warning and leave template warnings on the talk pages of the editors who are behaving badly. That's likely what should happen to Mitt Romney dog incident. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

If ya'all see anything, feel free to give me a heads up. It seems like it's only me patrolling these articles and I can't do it all. You are also welcome to add the warning and put the general sanctions general sanctions warning on user talk pages; that's not limited to sysops but the warning of sanctions is a requirement before sanctions can be enforced.--v/r - TP 00:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Text on Mormon factor in 2012 election

I'm removing this text from the 2012 campaign section:

Romney has also largely shied away from discussing his Mormon faith on the 2012 campaign trail.[14] Political theorists have noted that were he to highlight his religion, he could run the risk of alienating voters; as a June 2012 Gallup poll found that 18 percent of Americans would not vote for a Mormon for U.S. President, and more than 40 percent of Americans were still unaware that Romney was even a Mormon.[14][339]

There are several problems with it. Most of it is a copyvio in wording from the HuffPo piece given as a source. The first sentence is no longer fully accurate, since Romney's time as church leader in the Boston area was highlighted at the convention (see this BG story for example). The 'political theorists' label is inaccurate as well, this is really just the opinion of the one HuffPo writer. And that conclusion is largely contradicted by the Gallup Poll source that was given, which says that "It is unclear how the current level of resistance to the idea of voting for a Mormon presidential candidate will affect the election. History shows that these types of attitudes in and of themselves are not an impediment to victory. For example, a May 1960 Gallup poll found that 21% of Americans said they would not vote for a well-qualified candidate who was a Catholic, but Catholic John F. Kennedy went on to win the presidency that fall." The 40 percent unaware figure is interesting but at the end of the day isn't having an impact on the race either. There have been a spate of articles in Politico and elsewhere in recent days about why Romney's campaign has been faltering, but his Mormonism has not been one of the reasons listed.

I agree that the effect of Mormonism on this campaign should be included in this article, but after the election is over and after political scientists have had a chance to analyze how much of a factor, if any, it was. This is how it's handled in the section about his 2008 candidacy. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Isn't waiting until after the election a classic case of ignoring the elephant in the room? I'm not American, so won't be voting. It also means I know little about Mormonism. I would truly be interested in how it will/might/could influence a President. HiLo48 (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Wasted Time R. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. We can wait a couple of months before jumping to conclusions about the effect of Mormonism, per WP:RECENT. Cresix (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

His Mormonism isn't news, nor is it recent. It's been part of his whole life, and presumably will continue to be. It must have an effect on what he would do if elected. Surely it's an issue? HiLo48 (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Of course his Mormonism isn't new, but the issue of its impact on the current Presidential election is much more recent, especially since no other Mormon has been a candidate. It was the same for JFK and Catholicism in 1960; only with the passage of time could we have the appropriate perspective in that election. And since we're in the midst of the current campaign, I think it's premature for Wikipedia to have very much speculation. That's for the newspapers, news magazines, and political commentators; if you want more information right now, I suggest consuming that information from those sources. After the election, there will be no shortage of information that can be compiled and reduced to encyclopedic proportions. There is no rush. Cresix (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Not really. The Obama campaign declared it 'off limits' early on (see this LAT story with a statement by Axelrod, for example). The attacks on Romney have focused on his business background and practices (Bain Capital layoffs and offshoring, etc) and his economic worldview (47% are moochers, etc), not his religion. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, we're not Obama, nor do we take orders from him. The fact that Romney would be the first Mormon president is significant. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

No one is saying that Wikipedia must take orders from Obama. And the key words in your comment are "would be". We can wait until it actually happens (or doesn't happen). It's significant, but it's not urgent for an encyclopedia. Cresix (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I truly don't understand. I am interested. Something like Mormonism is a presumably a significant part of someone's persona. Maybe Americans think they know what it means, because they see a lot more of Mormonism, but we don't see many Mormons where I come from, so I'm truly interested. I don't see it as a positive or negative. (Obviously I don't get to vote.) I'm just interested. Leaving it until later looks an awful lot like censorship to me. HiLo48 (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, JFK's Catholicism was in many ways a bigger issue before he got elected than after. So, yes, I agree with HiLo48. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Clearly not censorship, which on Wikipedia means removing content because someone might find it offensive (such as nudity); such censorship is not allowed. The issue is WP:RECENT. There's a big difference. Click the links to read the difference. The election is six weeks away; there is no urgency to adding a lot more to the article until the election is over and the analysis of the impact on Mormonism gets into full swing. As a comparison, when Clint Eastwood made his "empty chair" speech at the Republican convention, editors tried to flood the article with extensive details. It was a daily battle to keep that section of the article down to reasonable proportions. Now that the dust has settled, however, WP:RECENT has become more apparent and the event is not seen as a huge event in the overall life of Eastwood; very little editing to that section has occurred in the last few days. Similarly, we need to let the dust settle on the impact of Mormonism on the current election before we load the article up with details. As for JFK, I didn't state that the issue was not big before the election; my point is that we could only understand clearly the impact of JFK's Catholicism with the passage of time after the election. Cresix (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Your Clint Eastwood comparison is just silly. That was a one-off event, and actually wasn't about Romney. It should never have been considered for inclusion. But Romney's Mormonism is lifelong (well, so far anyway). And why should the content of this global encyclopaedia depend on the date of an election in one country? HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

This article talks about Romney's Mormonism a lot, in several different sections. That's not the point. What's at issue is the specific text that I removed, which I don't think was an up-to-date or accurate portrayal of the effect of his Mormonism on his general election campaign. And I don't think we'll have a good analysis of that effect, if any, until the election is over. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what difference will the election being over make? HiLo48 (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Political scientists will study exit polls and other election data and analyze how much of a factor his religion was in the result. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll support removal. The concerns about copyvio and inaccuracy are completely unrelated to censorship. Moreover, I did a word search of this article for "Mormon" and came up with 41 hits; there would be plenty about Mormonism in this article without this passage.68.114.90.53 (talk) 02:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

As a comparison, let's return to the JFK-Catholicism issue. That was 52 years ago, quite a bit of time for perspective and an issue as bothersome to a significant portion of the electorate at the time, if not more. The Romney article already has as much or more on his Mormonism as the JFK article has on Catholicism. The issue is quite adequately covered right now. If you want more information, read the newspapers. And HiLo, in response to your question "Exactly what difference will the election being over make?", the answer is we don't know until the election is over. That's the point. Cresix (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

However, I did realize that our article never stated that Romney is the first Mormon to win a major party presidential nomination. That's something definitely noteworthy, that a lot of press stories have mentioned, so I've added it to the campaign section. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

airplane windows incident

Romney Doesn’t Know Why Airplane Windows Won’t Open, Calls The Closed Window Policy ‘A Real Problem’

Should that be in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.49.167.127 (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

You know it is the political silly season when you can't even make a joke without being criticized. Arzel (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I thought he was serious. Blame the reporters for that one; when I read an article I don't go looking for sarcasm. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Affirmation of faith as a matter of routine per anti-Mormon sites

AFAICT "I know that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that the church is true" is a routine affirmation of faith used before testimonies, similar to such affirmations of faith in other churches, and cited in anti-Mormon sites as being routine. We ought to so label it, as it is clear that it was not anything unusual, any more than a person reciting the Apostles Creed would be. [8] The church pushes people to say they "know" the church is "true". etc. [9] They were the exact wording of so many of those I had heard and shared myself while an active Mormon years before.:

"I bear you my testimony that I know the Book of Mormon is true (or the Word Of God), I know that Joseph Smith is a true Prophet of God (and that Gordon B. Hinckley is the true prophet of God today) and I know that the Church is the only true church on the face of the earth today,

In short - Romney used ritual wording as the prologue to his testimonies, shown as such by anti-Mormon sites, and we ought to specify that it is a form of affirmation of faith. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Eustress has removed the whole sentence and I'm okay with that. I don't think that HuffPo story was necessarily the best assessment of Romney's religious belief levels. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Placement of ranger and dog information

The content about a ranger and about the dog is currently placed under the Business career section and under Management consulting. This content has nothing to do with those topics. As these sections are about a specific topic rather than a specific timeframe, it seems the info should be placed elsewhere. 72Dino (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The article is organized chronologically (with a couple of concurrency cases where activity overlap occurred), with the section headers corresponding to the most important things that took place during that period, but not necessarily the only things. For example, the "University, France mission, marriage, and children" section has content which doesn't fall under any of those specific items but does in that time period, and the same is true for the "1994 U.S. senatorial campaign", "2002 Winter Olympics", and "Activity between presidential campaigns" sections as well. And in this case, the wording used - "Two family incidents during this time ..." make it clear that these incidents were not connected to his business activities. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Bishop

The lead says he was a "bishop" in his church. This is misleading, because the LDS concept of "bishop" differs significantly from the same word in other Christian denominations. It's no problem to say he was a "bishop" in the text of this article where there's room to briefly explain what that means, but it ought to be removed from the lead where it will just give a false impression.198.228.201.153 (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the lead says "bishop of his ward". Since bishops in other Christian denominations are in charge of things other than wards, this should clue the reader in that this bishop is different from other bishops they may know. And the link to the Bishop (Latter Day Saints) article will explain how. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Please reconsider. Here's the full sentence in the lead: "Active in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, he served as bishop of his ward and later stake president in his home area near Boston." If you want to retain the word "bishop" instead of paraphrasing (which I would recommend), then at least insert "local" before "ward". Not only does the word "ward" have various definitions, but in this instance readers may have no clue about which is the technical term, "bishop" or "ward". As it happens, they both are. See Bishop (Latter Day Saints) and Ward (LDS Church). You are correct that readers might click on the wlink to the bishop article, and then click on the wlink from there to the ward article, but how many readers do you think do that, maybe one in a hundred million? If you read Wikipedia policy, such as WP:Manual of Style/Linking, you'll see that we're not supposed to make a reader chase links, and we're not supposed to force a reader to use a link to understand a sentence. That applies in the body of some trivial Wikipedia article, as well as the lead of a high-profile article. Kindly clarify this sentence, because now it suggests that he may have been high in the church hierarchy. Thanks.24.181.178.235 (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)(I began this talk page section.)

FLAYWIP, readers have to read in context. I believe that in every country, 'ward' always means a subdivision of a city or town, and usually a small subdivision intended for election purposes. Therefore 'local ward' would be redundant, and even if the meaning of an LDS ward is not known, the rough scope of Romney's bishop position would be accurately understood. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I started this section, and FYI my IP has changed. WTR, you're mistaken. First and foremost, a reader would have no way of knowing from the lead's context whether "bishop" has an unusual Mormon meaning, or instead "ward" has an unusual Mormon meaning. Inserting the word "local" would obviously clear that up. Moreover, the word "bishop" almost always has one single meaning: a high official in a church. In contrast, the word "ward" often means many different things, including a section of a prison or hospital, or a person for whom one is a guardian, et cetera. I am frankly surprised that you do not see the obvious impact that the word "bishop" is going to have, and that you view inserting the word "local" as redundant, and that you're unwilling to paraphrase in any way. As you know, many readers will not read past the lead, and any reader --- stupid or intelligent --- will have no idea whether "ward" or instead "bishop" is being used here in a technical sense. Many will assume that the word "ward" is a large division of the Mormon church, having a size that befits a bishop. If we were speaking about a governmental or geographic division, then the word "ward" signifies a small area, but the lead is not talking about a governmental or geographic unit.68.114.90.53 (talk) 03:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the issue of redundancy, I don't think adding the word "local" to "bishop of his ward" adds anything for the reader. If readers don't already understand the meaning of "bishop" in the LDS sense, and don't want to bother clicking the links to find out more, there is little (if any) more meaning conveyed by inserting the word "local". If the reader is ignorant of LDS, "ward" and "local ward" has the same meaning. I had no idea what "bishop" in the LDS church meant until I read more about it; "ward" and "local ward" would have made no difference in my understanding until I actually read the details. Cresix (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

To the extent that most people are familiar with the notion of a bishop, it is typically in the Catholic context. I think that it's pretty well known that Romney is not Catholic, so that should be enough of a red flag to prevent people from assuming he's a bishop in that way. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

No, a "bishop" is generally understood to be someone in various different Christian demoninations who is in the highest order of the ministry. Romney was not. Here's an excerpt from a piece by Peggy Fletcher Stack in The Salt Lake Tribune:

“ Romney, though well-regarded in his area, was never a "high-ranking religious official." In Mormon circles, that designation would more fittingly apply to general authorities — men who serve as so-called seventies, apostles or as members of the First Presidency. The LDS Church is run locally as an unpaid, lay clergy, so while Romney devoted countless hours to his assignment as Mormon bishop, he also ran Bain Capital at the time. He had no particular theological training nor did he preach on a regular basis. A Mormon bishop is essentially an administrator who oversees weekly worship services while advising and ministering to members of his congregation. ”

I don't see any need for technical terms in the lead, especially if they are not explained in the lead, or are likely to be misleading. Anyway, I started this talk page section (as 198.228.201.153), and I guess I'll bow out now and let this talk page section run its course (and the same for this article in general).71.255.172.80 (talk) 06:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not what that dictionary link said. First, it said that a bishop "supervises a number of local churches", and then went on to say that, under Roman Catholicism and two closely-related sects, "the highest order of the ministry". The first part mostly applies to Mormon bishops (depending on how you consider a ward and its branches), but the second does not. As for ordained clergy, Mormons have lay priesthood, which is yet another key distinction. Really, it's so different that it would be hard to confuse the two. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

That linked definition refers to the "Greek, Roman Catholic, Anglican, and other churches" without even hinting that there may be sects that use the word differently.71.255.172.80 (talk) 06:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, this turns out not to be the case, in two ways. Trivially, the list of sects ends with "and other churches", most likely to account for such groups as the Old Catholics. More importantly, it is phrased so that the part about being the highest order is only applies to Catholic-related churches. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The dictionary in question says otherwise.71.255.172.80 (talk) 07:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're simply mistaken. I quoted relevant parts and explained. All you did was express disagreement. As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing more to discuss here. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Your narrow interpretation of "other churches" is unwarranted and incorrect. Some Protestant churches have bishops serving similar functions to Catholic bishops. Methodist Bishops give general oversight to the worldly and spiritual interests of the Church, and are responsible for seeing that regulations developed by their General Conference are carried out; Methodist bishops are also responsible for clergy appointments in the regional conferences they serve. Episcopal bishops are considered successors to the Apostles, commissioned in the name of Christ to ordain the clergy and confirm the laity.

No common dictionary definitions identify any churches that use the word "bishop" the way Mormons do. See also The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: "A high-ranking Christian cleric, in modern churches usually in charge of a diocese and in some churches regarded as having received the highest ordination in unbroken succession from the apostles." It's unfortunate for the lead of this article to confuse readers in this way, when it could be so easily fixed.71.255.172.80 (talk) 07:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)(I began this talk page section.)

I can understand why you'd be worried that a casual reader with no familiarity with Romney might confuse his LDS activity with being a Christian bishop, but I don't feel it's actually a problem. I'm not very familiar with the LDS church, so the phrase "bishop of his ward" seemed quite alien, and significantly different from the way Christian bishops are usually styled, e.g. "the Bishop of the Diocese of New York". Furthermore, the beginning of the sentence clearly implies that this bishop-ing is in a LDS context. While this is confusable with the more commonly used Christian sense, it is the term that the LDS uses, and as such, is the proper term for that role. The following term "stake president" would likely also clue a reader in that commonly used terms are being used in a LDS-specific manner. If this information is to remain in the lede, I don't think it needs to be changed. Whether or not it should be removed is a different argument entirely, and seems to be more for the discussion above this one. Jonathanfu (talk) 09:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

While it is factual that he was a "bishop" we should make sure that he is not given the honorific of "Bishop" as that would, indeed, be misleading. Further it is clear in many articles that some people do read the word as indicating a specific "rank" as a result of its unusual usage in the Mormon church. Thus it is proper for Wikipedia to use the clarifications used in reliable sources to indicate that it was a minor position, and not a profession for Romney. Sound about right? Collect (talk) 12:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

{Outdent} I have inserted into the lead a shortened version of the parenthetical that's already in the body of this article: "(i.e. head of his local congregation)." This also includes the word "local" from the wlinked article about bishops in the LDS church. (Note that I started this section as an IP. I strongly prefer to act at this article as an IP, but will reluctantly use my named account to edit this talk page and the article itself, because the lead editor insists upon further identification.)Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)