Talk:Mitt Romney/Archive 13

High school, college and postcollege pranks: why not a "prank" section?
Perhaps there should be a dedicated "pranks" section in the article. His campaign has been presenting him as quite a prankster, to lighten up his image. Present footnote 3 contains descriptions of a number of his pranks, such as impersonating a policeman while in high school. The Cranbrook haircutting "prank" is not yet included in this article. Additionally, his father in 1970 described another prank, per an April 17, 2012  Washington Post article: while in college, he and friends captured students from a rival college and "shaved their heads and painted them red." In another incident not yet included in this bio article, from the same WaPo article, a friend says that while on his mission in France after college, Romney disguised himself under a sheet, then knocked on the door and in French ordered the man to "put his hands behind his back, turn around and not utter a word," causing the man to flee out the back door of the house, until Romney laughingly removed his disguise. Edison (talk) 03:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

See Also: Link to List of Richest American Politicians?
An editor objects to including a link to the List of richest American politicians in the See Also section of this article. According to the comments posted when this link was being deleted, the objection is based on:
 * questioning whether the information is relevant to Mitt Romney's biography
 * noting that the list is incomplete
 * arguing that inclusion of the link places undue weight on the subject of Romney's wealth because Romney's wealth is already discussed in a section of the article
 * noting that Barack Obama holds a JD degree yet Obama's article does not include any links to lists (presumably meaning a List of American Politicians with JD degrees)

Should a link to the List of Richest American Politicians be kept off of the Mitt Romney main page? If so, why? Dezastru (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Nope (i.e. do not include such stuff -- the wording of the question is awkward here). It is not encyclopedic, and is of no benefit to the reader.  I realize that silly season is in swing, but Wikipedia is not a tabloid and is not a newspaper, and is not a reality show.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment this is not as cut and dry as some other issues, but my question would be- is Romney known for his incredible "wealth". That can be a yes or no answer, but we do know the issue has been around Romney since he entered politics. Wasn't he a politician that had self funded his own camopaign at one time? I don't know the quality of the list article, but it seems at least to be of general interest to Mitt Romney as a subject and is a legitimate issue or subject to cover. I see no real problem but would like to hear more from others.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No The problem with these kinds of lists are that they are ill-defined.  What qualifies someone as the "richest"?  Based on current classifications of who is rich, it could be defined as anyone making more than $250,000 a year, or at a minimum $1,000,000 a year.  However, that itself is fuzzy because many "wealthy" people don't actually make that much money every year (Warren Buffett for example).  Total wealth is also difficult to discern completely and where is the cut point?  Obama, for example, has an estimated "wealth" of between $7.5 and $10.1 million, is that "wealthy"?  These kinds of list simply open themselves up to partisan bikering, and since many of these politicians are already in the top 1% (another classification of "rich") you could potentially have almost every single politician be on the list.  Arzel (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There are references to confirm their wealth. The list doesn't mention year by year income, but total wealth.   D r e a m Focus  23:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The term "wealth" itself is a point of view, but the context here is simply "richest politicians in America". How that is defined is generally net worth. Where is Romney on the list and how relevant is he in that context? Top ten, bottum ten or middle. Anything in the top ten I might be inclined to include a link to. Part of this is simply a matter of undisputable facts. Is the net worth of American politicians notable? I'd have to say yes.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support ~ Inclusion of link to the List of Richest American Politicians in the Mitt Romney article. Its notable, and verifiable, and non-contentious. — GabeMc (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose List article is incomplete and his wealth is already established in the body. "Rich" is a loaded word.
 * While his wealth is established in the article, his relative wealth is only related by comparison to others, thus the list. Aslo, while rich may well be a loaded term, a $250 million net worth is certainly a rich person. In fact, Romney is richer than the last eight presidents combined, and would be among the richest US president ever, if elected. This is certainly notable. — GabeMc (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No it's not. ALL American Presidents are rich. THAT'S notable. That some are richer than others is inevitable and not notable. This is not a pissing contest. HiLo48 (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not accurate. "Beginning with Millard Fillmore in 1850, the financial history of the presidency entered a new era. Most presidents were lawyers who spent years in public service. They rarely amassed large fortunes and their incomes were often almost entirely from their salaries. From Fillmore to Garfield, these American presidents were distinctly middle class. These men often retired without the money to support themselves in a fashion anywhere close to the one that they had as president. Buchanan, Lincoln, Johnson, Grant, Hayes, and Garfield had almost no net worth at all." — GabeMc (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely correct. I should be more careful. I shall rephrase. ALL Americans Presidents for the past 50 years, i.e. in living memory, at least for me, have been rich. THAT'S notable. Romney's relative status among them is largely irrelevant. HiLo48 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Why can't we just $%^&**&^ cover the topic instead of dealing with a continuous stream of these games from the "reelect Obama" campaign? North8000 (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith. Why do you believe every time someone tries to add something, they are supporting Obama?  The mayor of New York city has 22 billion dollars, but he had no trouble getting elected.  People don't vote against someone because of how much money they have.   D r e a m Focus  23:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * When there is a preponderance of evidence, it goes beyond "assuming" to "knowing". North8000 (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose I'm not American, and there's no way I could vote for Romney even if I had the opportunity, but this is just biased political garbage. List articles are some of the worst in Wikipedia. They should never be referenced as quality sources for anything. HiLo48 (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support He gets coverage for being wealthy, having $250 million now. Politicians have to reveal financial information about themselves.  References confirm their wealth.   D r e a m Focus  23:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not about him being rich. It's about this particular list being referenced, and its presence would not be a response to your point. HiLo48 (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is about him being wealthy. I couldn't give a hoot whether this link is included in the See Also section or not. What I object to is the persistent effort to sanitize any discussion of Romney's wealth in this article. We are now to believe that "wealth" is a partisan term and must be substituted by "net worth"? Including a link to a See Also article that lists him among the wealthiest politicians is "undue weight"? Ridiculous. Dezastru (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The edit summary that changed "Wealth" to "Net worth" was "Wealth is POV and not what the section is about". I disagree about the pov part, but in fact the section is about current-day income, net worth, blind trusts, taxes, and charitable giving.  It's included in the "Business career" section because all the money still comes from Bain Capital-related activities.  I've changed the section name to "Ongoing finances" in an effort to capture this, but am open to other ideas.  Wasted Time R (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose inclusion. That list is pretty embarrassingly bad as it exists.  If it weren't so shabby I'd say link to it. - Xcal68 (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't help but think the answer here is to improve the article and then decide if it meets editor approval...but it isn't that big a deal to me. =).--Amadscientist (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Like I said before, the article is incomplete - and "rich" is a loaded word. And an entire section is devoted to his wealth, I believe that is more than sufficient. Wikifan Be nice  00:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's in prose and relevant to the topic, yes. If it's in the See also section, no absolutely not (and the current link to List of JD/MBAs should be removed as well - See Also is supposed to be about giving you resources for research on the same or similar topics and both of these links are not helpful for that purpose). --B (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The topic of the article being what exactly? Dezastru (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Meaning not a contrived sentence just for the sake of working in the link. --B (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose the list appears to be a synthesis of information. If a reliable source published an list of wealthiest politicians (like the Forbes list of billionaires (2011), that'd be different.  Also, the list is currently incomplete as the countries wealthiest Senator isn't even on the list.  Hot Stop   19:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC) In the interest of full disclosure I nominated the list for deletion based on the same criteria.  See here.

Text on rich presidents
A closely related question is whether this recent addition belongs in the "Wealth"/"Net worth" section:
 * It has been estimated that Romney has amassed twice the net worth of the last eight presidents combined, and would rank among the four richest in American history if elected.[75]

The source is this posting from Huffington Post. I'm against including it, partly because HuffPo is not a great source, but more importantly because the text gives a distorted perspective on rich people running for president. In fact it's fairly common – John Kerry (richer than Romney if you count his wife) and John McCain (also rich due to his wife) both became major-party nominees, Ross Perot staged a very credible third-party bid, Steve Forbes ran twice, and so on. In the modern era, rich people running for various offices in America has been rather common, and this text implies the opposite by using some selective statistics (such as ignoring candidates who don't win and making the cutoff just after JFK). Wasted Time R (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Just goes to show you that trying to make a big deal about the wealth of your opponent is a good political move. Clearly this is a political talking point, it is every election regardless of which party is running.  If your opponent is wealthy you point it out and say that he/she is out of touch with the common person.  If you are wealthy you try to make a point of saying that you should be elected because you successful and know how to make other people successful.  The most annoying aspect about this, is that most people running for high public offices are already relatively wealthy compared to most people.  Has there been a "poor" presidential candidate that has made it to the point of getting either the Dem or Rep nomination within the last 50 years? But I suppose the general population is easily fooled so it continues to be a talking point.  Arzel (talk) 13:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Wasted Time R says, "I'm against including it, partly because HuffPo is not a great source." Well, although the citation offered for the WP article is from HuffPo, this is actually an Associated Press piece that was widely carried by US news outlets, such as the Denver Post and the Seattle Times. The article is based on an article published by 24/7 Wall St.
 * The text as written correctly notes that Romney is not just wealthy — which would not be surprising since, as already noted here, most presidential candidates are wealthy — but is extraordinarily wealthy even among an already-wealthy group. And the text is not commenting on candidates for office so much as on those who have actually served as president. It indicates where Romney would fall among the ranks of that rarefied group if he were elected. The WP article is about Romney, not about other wealthy candidates for office, such as Kerry, Forbes, and Perot. If it were about wealthy candidates for office as a broader category, then your complaint would be appropriate about them not being included in the discussion. As the article currently stands, including a link to a list of wealthy politicians in the See Also section would be the more appropriate way for making tangential information of that nature available. Dezastru (talk) 17:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the original source is higher quality. But I still don't think this material belongs here.  When and if Romney gets elected president, then maybe it could be included.  But right now he's just a candidate, and any comparison should be to other candidates, and based on that comparison he really doesn't stand out that much.  Wasted Time R (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I just noted the fundamentally faulty/deceptive structure of this. Comparing someone who is not a president to presidents, and failing to make the actually applicable comparison (to candidates) North8000 (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

This is highly notable, and should most certainly be included in a section about his wealth. Imagine a section in Michael Jordan's article that is called "Scoring titles", but that does not compare him to other high scorers. HuffPo is reliable IMO, but as Dezastru pointed out above, this was an AP story that could be sourced to several more reliable articles. — GabeMc (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That is a flawed argument. To put your argument into context it would be like comparing College Basketball Players hoping to make it into the NBA with the current NBA MVP.  Arzel (talk) 01:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The text string reads "would be", "if elected", so the matter of apples and oranges (strawman) is mediated by the prose. — GabeMc (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is WP:CRYSTAL. What if he ends up spending some of his own money in the general election?  What if the market takes a dive during 2012 and his trust funds turn south?  His net worth by January 2013 might be a lot less than it is now.  If and when he become president, you can compare him to other presidents.  For now, you can only compare him to other candidates, and in that case, his wealth is not that exceptional.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "His wealth is not that exceptional." The mainstream news media disagree with you. Scores of articles have been published and broadcast by the American and the international press remarking on Romney's exceptional wealth, and placing that exceptional wealth in the context of his tax proposals, his economic policy proposals, his challenges connecting with potential voters, and criticism he has received from his rivals. Dezastru (talk) 08:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ha, not often my previous comments are relevant within the same followup of of comments. I just wrote above, perhaps you did not see this.  Thanks for illustrating my point.  Just goes to show you that trying to make a big deal about the wealth of your opponent is a good political move. Clearly this is a political talking point, it is every election regardless of which party is running. If your opponent is wealthy you point it out and say that he/she is out of touch with the common person. If you are wealthy you try to make a point of saying that you should be elected because you successful and know how to make other people successful. The most annoying aspect about this, is that most people running for high public offices are already relatively wealthy compared to most people. Has there been a "poor" presidential candidate that has made it to the point of getting either the Dem or Rep nomination within the last 50 years? But I suppose the general population is easily fooled so it continues to be a talking point.  Arzel (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

"The Making of Mitt Romney: Parts 2 and 4" Linkrot
RE: Kranish, Michael; Paulson, Michael (June 25, 2007). "The Making of Mitt Romney" The Boston Globe. Parts two and four do not link for me, can anyone please archive it like part one? And then teach me how to do it as well please. — GabeMc (talk) 07:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The best solution is to buy the stories from the Boston Globe paywall and save them on your hard drive for future reference. That's what I've done.  Wasted Time R (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Or if they are still giving out free HighBeam accounts, get one of those. They are invaluable for Romney work since they have all the Boston Globe and Boston Herald stories from about 1993 on forward.  Wasted Time R (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Belmont Temple
User Collect made this diff, which removes all ties between Romney and the Belmont Temple from the article. If this is "Mitt's temple", and his tithes helped build the $30 million structure, than it should be mentioned in Mitt's bio per Featured article criteria 1(b). — GabeMc (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And again - a parenthetical comment which is not remotely relevant to the biography does not belong in the BLP. I would note further the comments above where total misapprehension as to what a Mormon Temple is and is not is relevant to this.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The point here is not the function of a Mormon temple, its that contributing to a $30 million temple, referred to as "Mitt's Temple" is certainly notable enough for inclusion, and required under FAC 1(b). — GabeMc (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that GabeMc doesn't understand what a Mormon temple is, but I added the parenthetical originally, not him. It's biographically relevant because it shows how closely Mitt is associated in the public mind with the religion in the Belmont/Boston area.  But adding "derisively" to the parenthetical, as GabeMC wants, would be uncalled for, especially given that Mitt didn't play a major role in its approval and construction process. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We have no RS sources for making any such derisive claim AFAICT. And the claim that it is "required" is sufficiently absurd as to be of no utility on this talk page. Collect (talk) 12:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wasted Time, yes, perhaps I have much to learn about mormonism, as I'm sure many of our readers do. But as you said "You cannot assume that readers will look at subarticles, because in fact, they won't." Keep in mind that there are only about 14 million mormons in the world, making them one of the smallest religious minorites on Earth. So you will find that many readers are not 100% up to speed on what it means to be a mormon. Afterall, they constitute less than 2% of Americans, about the same as muslims. — GabeMc (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fwiw - accdg to the 2008 Pew survey link, self-described LDS and Jewry were respectively 1.7% of US pop.; Muslims, 0.6%.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction, my source was off, should have double checked, US muslim population is expected to hit 1.7% by 2030, but currently it is more like .8%. The point being, it should be of no great surprise if wiki editors are not 100% familiar with the details of mormonism, since less than 2 out of 100 Americans self-identify as such. — GabeMc (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm a lifelong Mormon. If I can be of any assistance to help the fine editors here reach an informed consensus, let me know. (Disclosure: I am ambivalent about Mitt Romney politically, counting myself neither as a supporter nor opponent at present, in case anyone worries about bias in that respect.) alanyst 22:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Alanyst, I am sure your insights would help the article's accuracy and tone. I hope you continue to monitor these discussions and chime in often. — GabeMc (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Split?
Per the criteria at wp:SPLITOUT, I believe the subject's early life qualifies for a separate treatment/subart to, among other things, allow notable information currently hidden in footnotes on this page be rendered in main text.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

There's one big problem with doing that: the readership of biographical subarticles is very small. Here are some page view figures from April 2012:


 * Barack Obama 677,582 views, Early life and career of Barack Obama 14,340 views
 * George W. Bush 277,750 views, Early life of George W. Bush 1,430 views
 * Sarah Palin 162,166 views, Early political career of Sarah Palin 402 views
 * Abraham Lincoln 600,264 views, Early life and career of Abraham Lincoln 4,250 views
 * Julius Caesar 242,098 views, Early life and career of Julius Caesar 1,215 views
 * Marilyn Monroe 735,163 views, Early life of Marilyn Monroe 3,558 views

I've collected figures like these for several years and they don't vary over time or subject or by era that the subarticle covers. It's generally a 100:1 dropoff or worse between the main article and the subarticles.

So this means that when you move a piece of material out of the main article and into these subarticles, you are effectively deleting that material for 99% of the readers. That's not a great deal for readers. And the added maintenance cost of the subarticle for editors is considerable (duplicate source maintenance, deadlink fixups, factual corrections, etc), and often doesn't get done. So to me the "Notes" system used in this article is preferable; we don't know how many readers discover the Notes, but we do know that all of them have the chance to, whereas we know that 99% of the readers wouldn't discover the same material if it were in a subarticle. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That shouldn't be a concern of editors.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course it should be of concern to editors. The problem lies in some combination of 1) Search engines only finding main articles; 2) "Main article" xrefs not being very visible; and 3) People being incurious.  I wish I had a way of fixing 1 and 2, since in the past I've sunk lots of effort into biographical subarticles with poor readership.  Of course if Romney gets elected president, then split-offs will be inevitable.  But until then they aren't, and until the reader dynamic changes, we need to adapt to the way the world is, not the way we might like it to be.   Wasted Time R (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Local church leadership; leaves from firm for public svc
It appears we have some issues here? The Template:Failed verification (which appears on the article as as well as a few other templates,,  and , that direct to various project pages, Project clean-up, Wikipedia:Please clarify and one MOS guideline page. These will need to be discussed. Thoughts?--Amadscientist (talk) 06:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I fixed the inconsistant tag, after some double checking, minister is more appropriate than pastor. — GabeMc (talk) 07:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless I missed it, Semuels, Alana (December 7, 2011). "Romney, an active man of faith". Los Angeles Times. does not mention Romney using the bible, it mentions scriptures, which is vague, as it could mean another LDS doctrine. At any rate, scripture does not denote the bible per se. If Romney lead congregatins using the Bible, I'm sure it can be reliably sourced. — GabeMc (talk) 07:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, (Kranish, Michael; Helman, Scott (February 2012). "The Meaning of Mitt". Vanity Fair.) says nothing about Romney mediating between LDS conservatism in Mass., the liberal women's group Exponent II, abortion or adoption. — GabeMc (talk) 07:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my absence ... have been struggling with a root canal procedure (ugh) that apparently became infected and has been very painful ... will work as I can on the points raised in this section and elsewhere. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I see what happened here ... the 'view as single page' URL to the Vanity Fair piece got broken, such that it only showed the first page and not the rest. I've replaced it with the regular entry URL, so you can page through it and see the whole piece.  An alternative approach would be to replace all of these cites with the appropriate book and page number cites to the Kranish-Helman book, since the Vanity Fair piece was just a book preview.  Wasted Time R (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Along with 72Dino's edits on 'scripture', and a couple other that I made, all the tags in this section are now resolved.  Wasted Time R (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * When did Romney's LDS leadership role end? Its not made clear in the section, or the article (unless I missed it). — GabeMc (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You missed it: "He stepped down from his position at Bain Capital, and from his church leadership role, during the campaign.[12][83]" ... "He no longer had a church leadership position, although he still taught Sunday School.[81]" Wasted Time R (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I missed it because its not in the LDS leadership section, why not? The chronology is already broken there, as it jumps back to 1977 and the 80s, so why not make the LDS leadership section comprehensive, and include this vital piece of info there? — GabeMc (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, this brings to light an apparent contradiction, as the article first states: "Romney left Bain Capital in February 1999 to serve as the President and CEO of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games Organizing Committee.[48]"; later, "He stepped down from his position at Bain Capital, and from his church leadership role, during the campaign.[12][84]" So which is it? Did Romney leave Bain in 1999 due to the Olympic committee position, or because of, and during the 1994 senate race? — GabeMc (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph of the "2002 Winter Olympics" section covers Romney returning to Bain after the unsuccessful 1994 race: "Romney returned to Bain Capital the day after the election but still smarted from the loss.". In full, Romney was at Bain Capital from 1984 to 1999, except for 1991-1992 (return to Bain & Company) and 1994 (absent while running for Senate).  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Right on, still a bit confusing though, but I'm sure as I become more familiar with the article I'll be better able to resolve issues such as this. Question, why is the section being renamed "Local church leadership" versus "LDS church leadership", why avoid the specificity here? Is there some reason why we should be vague about what religion he practices? — GabeMc (talk) 01:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As noted in both my edit summaries, the title of this section has been discussed before. LDS Church leadership was rejected because it implies he is part of the leadership in Salt Lake City instead of one of thousands of stake presidents.  I just changed it to "Local LDS Church leadership" to hopefully clarify his position. (ec) I am also not clear on the edit summary that states Mormons do not attend church.  They do and they use the term "church". 72Dino (talk) 01:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)The current article uses "Mormon" 17 times and "LDS" 9 times, I don't think there's any danger of the reader not knowing what religion he is! The problem with "LDS Church leadership" is that it implies something national in scope, such as Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS Church), or at least regional, such as Regional representative of the Twelve. Mitt did not achieve either (although his relatives have); his largest scope was Eastern Massachusetts, which is thus fairly local in scope. And by the way, you never write "LDS church", it's always "LDS Church". See WP:LDSMOS, which is the house style guide for LDS stuff. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Good points on local/national, I see the important distinction now, so thanks for taking the time to explain it. I think Local LDS Church leadership is a more descriptive heading for the section. As far as church/meetinghouse. Right, some Mormons call it a church or a chapel, others a meetinghouse. I think the article should adopt consistant usage, so as to not confuse readers not familiar with Mormonism, whether that be church, chapel, meetinghouse, or any other variation I am not aware of.  — GabeMc (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Cmt - Did anybody fix the apparent contradiction mentioned here? diff - From what I understand, people who take a sabbatical (or whatever corp. pres.es take) to run a Winter Olympics or some other prestigious yet temporary thing often do not lose their position but it is held sort of in abeyance for them till they get back. Which option, in Romney's case, he apparently did not exercise and begin running Bain hands-on again, after his Salt Lake City stint, instead to entering the U.S. Senate race in Mass. (Correct me, tho, if I'm wrong.) Does the way the article is now worded reflect my understanding, (if I'm actually correct) or is it still unclear?--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops, I just read Wasted Time R's comment above and I see now that apparently Romney returned to Bain for a couple of years after SLC and then simply went into another "abeyance," as I term it, when he unsuccessfully ran against Kennedy.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * He took a leave of absence from Bain in November 1993 (I've just added a source with the date) and returned to Bain the day after the election in November 1994. He also had an option of returning to Bain after the SLC Olympics were over in 2002, but by then he had decided to retry electoral politics.  I chose not to include this option in the article, on the grounds it was too much detail that didn't end up mattering.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Better source for born in Detroit?
There must be a better source than this for where Romney was born. — GabeMc (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a Detroit News story, why are they are bad source for something that happened in Detroit? Wasted Time R (talk) 02:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying Detroit News is a poor source, but it is a pay article, and I would assume the fact that he was born in Detroit could be sourced to a Romney bio. — GabeMc (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to find what hospital it was at, and I finally came across it. And it's a USA Today cite, which usually don't get paywalled.  Enjoy.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Mexican American?
Rather than edit war over a task force, I'd like to say here that the Mexican American task force should be removed. Mexican American says an American of Mexican descent, which Romney is not. Of course, I'm presuming that something about his parents' status meant that Romney has always been considered American, despite being born in Mexico. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I just reverted back (before I saw this discussion). This issue has been discussed numerous times on this talk page as shown in the archives.  Although I may have missed it, I believe the consensus is that a person being born to an American parent who was born in Mexico does not make one Mexican-American. 72Dino (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Strawpoll: include information about bullying story and reaction?
See: Why the Romney bully story matters

Question: Should any information about Romney's bullying behavior in high school be included in this article? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

!votes
Please indicate Support if you support inclusion of the information; Oppose if not, followed by your reasoning and a signature.
 * Support ~ Its notable and verifiable, and with Romney's apology the story can be told without WP:UNDUE concerns. — GabeMc (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC) I'm retracting my retraction in light of the "blind-teacher" door prank story, which I just found out about. Now that there are two incidents, this allegation of cruelty is not only notable, but more likely, and not an isolated accusation. We should cover this issue of "innocent pranks" in his article to maintain WP:NPOV.  — GabeMc (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Putting the dog on the roof story raised questions that this story answers. His reaction today is arguably even more important.  Even if you accept him on his word that he can't remember something that 4 or 5 witnesses remember, he doesn't deny it, and dismisses assault and battery as a "dumb prank".  If someone told me I did something like that, I would deny it, because I would know I would never have done something like that.  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope Not notable - and few people recall every detail of their lives a half century ago. The fact is that it is a minor incident if it occurred at all as the four remember it, as aopposed to the one who specifically was cited by WaPo as being troubled by it -- when he had not even heard the tale.  This is "silly season" stuff again - as the AfD discussion for the separate article makes clear.  And making a windshield for the crate for the dog shows what?  Recall that animals are routinely shipped for far more than 12 hours at a time in crates in airplanes.  Cheers.  Now can we deal with genuine issues here?  Collect (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Would it be notable if he were accused of a hate crime while in high school? Because that's really what we are talking about here. If indeed the alledged attack was motivated by the victim's sexual orientation, then this alledged assault and battery becomes a retro-active hate crime. — GabeMc (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I note a clear POV there. WP is not an allegationopedia based on non-verified, and intrinsically non-verifiable, silly season attacks. Cheers - and I think you just need to read the attack-of-the-day blogs, and not try injecting them into an encyclopedia. Collect (talk) 11:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose if this is an encyclopedia, support if we're satisfied being a piece of crap blog.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not yet, not unless it becomes important part of the campaign and not just Twitter's latest tempest in a teapot. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Twitter? How about, The Washington Post, ABC News, The New Yorker, Fox News, and Forbes? — GabeMc (talk) 00:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose at this time. We are not a newspaper, and Romney himself has stated twice in different sources that he has no memory. The main point is, at this point it is an accusation and the addition of it as a "prank" is questionable.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- notable and verifiable. Certainly no less notable than the claims that he did not particularly excel at athletics, that his social skills were very good, and that he was an energetic child who enjoyed pranks. The issue isn't whether the incident actually occurred (since some seem to doubt it, given Romney's not having said that he does recall it — although the fact that 6 others reportedly recalled the incident makes it seem very unlikely that it did not occur); seeing how Romney has been remembered by his peers and, even more importantly, how Romney has responded when asked about the incident is of great value to the reader in forming an understanding of the life he has led and the man he has come to be. Dezastru (talk) 00:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If it is true....then eventually we will include it within policy and guidelines in an accurate and encyclopedic manner not from any particular point of view to persuade readers about the man.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support It is notable and has ample coverage. Credible witnesses to the event have been found.  The radio interview where he claims to not remember, sounds like he is lying, as many sources have pointed out.  Wikipedia includes active controversies in articles, it does not censor them.  This has always been how its done.   D r e a m Focus  01:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Faulty wording The wording of the question is badly flawed and would tend to create a particular outcome. While the real question at hand is is whether to include a particular incident at this time, the literal wording is such that in order to vote "no" one has to essentially say that they categorically rule out ever putting in any material related to bullying, a true straw man choice. North8000 (talk) 01:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? The question asks specifically about Romney's bullying behavior in high school.  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose using WP for political attacks. There seems to be a common theme that since he did not remember this incident that it is somehow worse, which is strange logic to say the least.  The fact that this is coming out now, only when Romney is the actual presidential nominee (and not in 2008 when he was also running, or earlier when he was Governor) is a pretty clear indication that no one remembered or cared much about this incident.  Can any of the glass house living people here remember every single thing they have said or done in the past?  It is highly unlikely that this event happened the way it has been described today, for if it were it would have come out a long time ago.  The victim certainly did not make any remarks about this event to anyone, ever, from the evidence presented.  All we have are known biased sources conveniently trying to make a gay bashing story the day after Obama (barely) comes out in favor of gay marriage.  Is this really the best that the left can come up with to attack Romney?  A fifty year-old non-story, that only a few Obama supporters can remember.  Can't they at least find a past DUI or Cheating or Draft Dodging or something?  Perhaps this is retribution for the Swift Boat story.  Arzel (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Some of what you state is dead on...but a lot of what your are saying has nothing to do with the article or the subject and is speculating. I will tell you this, as i have told others (and i am opposed to inclusion at the present) when a "Haircutting' incident occured at my school in 1979...it wasn't even the same thing and no one had their hair actually cut or anyone actually touched...but i rtemeber it like it was yesterday and still have documentation about the situation that occured. No...this isn't about whether or not it's true, but how the sources are using the information, who is making the accusation and how it is being documented here. It may well be EXACTLY as everyone is reporting (probably is) but the point is we don't add accusations the same day they are made. Please...none of the sources are that strong at this point.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Romney cannot remember his own policy positions of just a few years ago and is totally messed up about what happened in his childhood, so why would anybody expect him to remember what he did several decades ago? A brief list of the things he's forgotten about his own life would make for one of the longest articles in Wikistan. So selecting incidents at whim to list gives them undue weight. Hcobb (talk) 10:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Cube lurker. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support The incidents of alleged homophobic bullying, and the "prank" of causing a nearly blind teacher to walk into a closed door, have had significant coverage in mainstream newsmedia worldwide, and have been described as "derailing" Romney's campaign for a while, This means it should be reported in his bio article as well as the article about his 2012 campaign. To do otherwise would fail WP:NPOV and would fail to give due weight to the reported incidents. This is not a campaign biography to be polished to a rosy hue by his staff and supporters. Edison (talk) 04:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not in those words. Romney has apologized for "pranks" and so certainly a statement that he participated in pranks as a youth is not out of bounds.  But to characterize it as "homosexual bullying" when we don't have any idea if the alleged victim was even gay (beyond the apparent stereotype being perpetuated that anyone in 1965 with long blond hair was obviously gay) is absurd. --B (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, using this language that was in the article briefly: "He also led a serious bullying episode against another student (which, when it came to light decades later, Romney said he did not remember, but apologized in general for any such behavior)." Tied to explanatory Note saying: "As a senior in 1965, Romney was offended by the sight of a quiet, non-conformist boy (who later came out as gay) who had dyed his hair blond. He led a group of students who pinned the crying boy down while Romney forcibly cut the boy's hair off with scissors. When the incident came to public attention in 2012, Romney said he did not remember it, but that, "There’s no question that I did some stupid things in high school, and obviously, if I hurt anyone by virtue of that, I would be very sorry for it and apologize for it."" Cited to the original WaPo story and a NYT story on the reaction.  Wasted Time R (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your sentence is problematic on several points. (1) It states as a fact that the allegations are true rather than stating it as an unproven claim.  Generally, when there is a controversial allegation, we report it as an allegation unless the person has admitted it, has been convicted in court, or there is incontrovertible proof. (2) The characterization as a "serious bullying episode" is injecting a 2012 opinion into it - in 1965, it was just "boys will be boys" - nobody would have called it "bullying".  (3) The claim that Romney apologized for "any such behavior" is false - he apologized for "pranks", not for "serious bullying".  (4) Maybe I just haven't seen it (and if that's the case, I apologize - I've been out of town this weekend), but did the alleged victim actually come out as gay at some point?  My understanding was that the characterization of him as gay was a guess, not something actually established. --B (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Re 1), the core part of the WaPo piece is heavily sourced (four on the record sources, who in some cases have repeated what they said to other publications) and has not been denied by Romney. None of the criticisms of the story that I've seen (the mistake about it haunting one of the other students, the victim's family protesting that it was a political piece, disagreements about how to characterize the rest of the victim's life) affect the core part.  Re 2), the notion of school bullies was quite prevalent back then too, as this sample of Google News Archives stories from 1963-65 should indicate.  Re 3), I agree the wording should be tweaked, but note that per this NYT cite in what I originally added, one of his quotes is "There’s no question that I did some stupid things in high school, and obviously, if I hurt anyone by virtue of that, I would be very sorry for it and apologize for it."  'Stupid things' sounds like a broader class of actions than just 'pranks'.  Re 4), the original WaPo story says the victim later "came out as gay to his family and close friends".  Wasted Time R (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Including the haircutting as part of a section on pranks (including other haircuts, this time with apparently heterosexual victims) makes sense, but including the sexuality of the victim in a way that supports a hate crime reading goes dramatically beyond the facts, and BLP does not encourage unsubstantiated claims of reprehensible behavior. Jamesofengland (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Framing this incident as a harmless childhood "prank" would be a mistake. A prank is generally understood to mean a silly act, often a good-humored trick or joke played at someone else's expense. The incident Romney's peers have described sounds more malicious than a mere prank. One of Romney's classmates who spoke on the record said, "to this day it troubles me," and another called it "vicious" and "an assault." The victim is described as having appeared terrified, with tears in his eyes. That doesn't sound like a prank done all in good fun. It sounds like bullying.
 * Wasted Time R, your proposal above (15:23, 13 May 2012 [UTC]), drawing on the language used in the Post article, is one reasonable way to begin to include discussion of the incident and Romney's response to questions about it. Dezastru (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that the use of the word "harmless" would be out of place, and would not/ did not propose it. The reason the context is important is not because, in context, it sounds harmless, but because, in context, it's clear that he did the same thing (cutting hair) to heterosexual, athletic, victims, and his "prank" victims included a broad strata of society. The haircutting is well sourced, but the bite comes from the unsourced claim of homophobia. I've cursed out a gay friend before. If I were notable enough to have a wiki bio, including that would primarily convey not the true claim that I sometimes curse, but the false claim that I'm prone to homophobic abuse. You didn't sign your post, btw.Jamesofengland (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The question was, "Should any information about Romney's bullying behavior in high school be included in this article?" You voted Oppose, and you have said, "in context, it sounds harmless, but because, in context, it's clear that he did the same thing (cutting hair) to heterosexual, athletic, victims, and his 'prank' victims included a broad strata of society." I am trying to follow your logic. You seem to be arguing the following: "Homophobic bullying involves unique forms of harassment that are reserved exclusively for sissies. The Lauber incident did not involve a unique form of harassment reserved for sissies. Therefore, the Lauber incident was not a case of homophobic bullying." If that’s your argument, your logic is flawed. Moreover, have you considered that a single kind of assault may have very different meanings for a victim depending on the particular characteristics of the victim? Would the typical teenage boy and typical teenage girl be distressed to the same degree by having their heads shaved against their will, or might one of them be very likely to consider the experience more distressing than the other? Similarly, would being called a ni**** be as distressing for someone who is white as for someone who is black? Getting back to my point about the incident not being a prank, The Horowitz WaPo article says, "John Lauber, a soft-spoken new student one year behind Romney, was perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality. Now he was walking around the all-boys school with bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye, and Romney wasn’t having it. 'He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!' an incensed Romney told Matthew Friedemann.... Romney, kept complaining about Lauber’s look, Friedemann recalled. A few days later, Friedemann [found] Romney marching out of his own room ahead of a prep school posse shouting about their plan to cut Lauber’s hair." Note that Romney was "incensed." Again, this is more than just a "prank." It wasn't about everyone having a good laugh. It was a group singling someone out for physical assault because his nonconformist behavior made them angry and he needed to be punished. That's bullying. Dezastru (talk) 04:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting that homophobic bullying required unique forms of harassment. I was suggesting that it would have to be bullying and would require homophobia. That might be implied by homophobic language (as racism would be implied by your non-comparable racist epithet example), or it might be implied by a pattern of behavior. In this case, circumstantial evidence goes against a homophobic motive, although I agree that the WaPo strives to imply that it was present. Wikipedia's standards are higher. I don't know how much you know about the politics of long hair in the sixties, or Romney's objections to it at Stanford, but the non-conformity that bothered him in his next school was political. You separately make the claim that it was bullying, which comes down to a different question; I don't believe your definition has majority academic support, and definitions requiring a pattern of behavior are not satisfied by the single incident. Regardless, I was not suggesting that the fact of the hair-cutting be omitted, merely that it be presented alongside other "pranks", which were also sometimes violent. Jamesofengland (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It might not even have been political, but in fact personal and in a very high-school, confused-youth kind of way. I found this little essay by Edmund White (Cranbrook alum, also gay) to be particularly perceptive:  http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/05/cranbrook-and-romney.html JohnInDC (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose If it's true, it was a shitty thing to do. That said, it's WP:UNDUE to discuss, especially given the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH I see going on in regards to conclusions people draw about Romney from it. As a corollary, I'd like to point out that nowhere on Rand Paul can you find the words "Aqua Buddha". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: If the consensus at the AfD is that there is relevant information in the article, this discussion (which has been participated in by much fewer people) should not override it p  b  p  04:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Further discussion
I agree with Born2cycle's comment above, Romney's apology opens him up, and is proof enough that on some level, he thinks it occured, otherwise he would have denied it. — GabeMc (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh? Show me where any Wikipedia policy remotely endorses that type of reasoning.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I just mean its notable, and his apology make it even more notable. — GabeMc (talk) 22:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Romney's non-apology apology does not mean that, on some level, he must think the incident occurred. But the way he has responded to questions about the allegation is notable. The way he has "apologized" is notable. He has an opportunity to flatly condemn bullying, including bullying of individuals based on perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. How is he using that opportunity? Readers may reasonably disagree on how he ought to react to the allegation(s). But WP has a responsibility to at least make the information available and let the reader decide for him- or herself — not to prejudge the answer for the reader and censor out the information. If there is a BLP concern about whether the incident actually occurred, the text should simply state that Romney said he did not recall the specific event although 5 of his classmates did. Dezastru (talk) 00:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I need some clarification here. Are we talking about Romney's general propensity for "pranks and hijinks", or the specific hair cutting incident, or both? bd2412 T 22:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would assume both, though it should be made clear that while he has apologized for the "pranks and hijinks", he has denied remembering the hair-cutting incident. — GabeMc (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment ~ Its no less notable or verifiable than, "He was not particularly athletic and at first did not excel academically.", or "Initially a manager for the ice hockey team and a member of the pep squad and various school clubs,[1][18][21] during his final year at Cranbook, Romney joined the cross country running team[12] and improved academically, but was still not a star pupil.[13][19] His social skills were good, however, and he won an award for those "whose contributions to school life are often not fully recognized through already existing channels".[19] Romney was an energetic child who enjoyed largely innocent pranks." This also brings into question the article's claim that his pranks were "largely innocent" (highly subjective), and that his "social skills were good". — GabeMc (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're on point with that comparison. I personally would remove that phrase about social skills, leaving just the verifiable part about the award, and delete the entire sentence about energetic child & pranks.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think trimming the pranks out now would be getting into WP:UNDUE, per ABC News: "Romney Campaign Helped Cultivate Candidate’s Prankster Image". The pranks are most certainly notable at this point, to exclude them to avoid the subject is to censor the article. — GabeMc (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Pranks. OK...but something that would garner him a federal hate crime today is still not a prank in highschool. If it is true, it is defined a particlur way...he attacked another student and from all reports over his perception of the other student being homosexual. I think this needs a great deal of very strong references and only when we know exactly waht is what. Right now is far too soon. --Amadscientist (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, he has been accused of a hate-crime, that is notable enough for inclusion, or at least a link to its own article, but editors are now trying to get that article deleted. His campaign has used his pranks as a political ploy, which makes this incident all the more notable. — GabeMc (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You might want to review BLP policy. An accusation is not encyclopedic nor neutral. When all the facts are out it may or may not be something to include but as an accusation for a presidential candidate on a Wikipedia Article rated GA and currently in review for Feature status...this is ridiculous.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not to compare apples to oranges but, this article, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories is 3.5 years old, and was started before Obama took office. Nobody deleted it because it might not prove notable enough for inclusion. For all we know more and more may come out on this incident, perhaps even others like it if history is any indication. — GabeMc (talk) 02:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That is an argument for the AFD of whatever article is being considered. This is not that article and this is not an AFD. Please explain how this information as sourced is ready for includion in this article.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to link to an article on the incident, versus describing the incident here, but that article is likely going to be deleted. We should allow the article to exists until it becomes clear that this is not notable enough for inclusion IMO, as we did with the Obama citizenship BS, which as it turns out, is actually notable. — GabeMc (talk) 03:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Uhm...no on all of the above...except allowing that article to stand because of some perception of another situation that has nothing to do with this one.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

At the very least, this info should be merged with Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012: Media Issues, and not completely swept under the rug. — GabeMc (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The "blind teacher prank", and the hate-crime allegation coupled with this: Romney Campaign Helped Cultivate Candidate’s Prankster Image make it an issue that needs to be covered somewhere in wikipedia. — GabeMc (talk) 04:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Listen to Romney laugh about the "hair-cut" incident here, at 1:18. — GabeMc (talk) 04:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Should we include Mitt Romney Cranbrook incident in "see also", "further reading" or any link at all in the article at this time?

 * Oppose We have no consensus for inclusion of the material, the consensus appears to be leaning towards delete at this time and using the page on the article in anyway right now seems wrong for the same reasons as the information itself, on top of ists pending deletion.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion in main article, along with the "blind-teacher" and "atta girl" anecdotes, as a pattern of mean spirted, versus "innocent" pranks is emerging. — GabeMc (talk) 04:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC) No consensus to include, pending deletion. I agree with several editors who have suggested waiting this one out a bit, and letting secondary sources weigh-in. Someone suggested three months, seems perfectly reasonable to me. If more comes to light however, reinstatement might be the only alternative to outright censorship. Also some of the claims made in the article about his "good" social skills are now somewhat dubious I think.  — GabeMc (talk) 06:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC) I just read up on the "blind-teacher" prank, and now I realize that this is a pattern that needs to be addressed for NPOV concerns. Anything less, would be censorship for Romney's sake.  — GabeMc (talk) 04:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah....I have no idea what happened to this article. I am half tempted to delist it from GA. Seriously. It has fallen so far in quality recently it is a little disturbing.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I would be more than happy to help in anyway that I can, because it should be brought up to FA by November, earlier if possible. — GabeMc (talk) 07:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have my doubts this can achieve FA right now. I am not sure it meets GA criteria at this point and at the very least a community reassessment may be in order. Once the question of GA is settled (or improvements made to meet criteria) then FA will be a consideration. I suggest viewing the version of this article as it was when it was originally listed to see where it went astray.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This article has not "gone astray". It's easy to see from the Talk page milestones history that this is the version of the article that went GA and it's largely the same as the current article, especially as his Cranston years are concerned.   Wasted Time R (talk) 13:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Suppose As is common throughout Wikipedia, the "see also" section of an article will list articles closely related.  D r e a m Focus  09:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose If material fails AfD, then it is clearly not deemed properly included in WP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't likely to fail AFD though. Most likely a no consensus since people are fairly divided on this.  If it does get deleted, then nothing to link to anyway, and if not, it is a valid link since it is related.   D r e a m Focus  15:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Collect, strictly speaking, an AfD does not determine whether material is fit for inclusion in Wikipedia, but merely whether it merits a separate article; AfD's fairly regularly end with the material at issue being merged into an article that can support it. bd2412  T 17:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC) @Dream Focus, I disagree with your assessment; if I were closing that AfD, I'd read the current !vote tally as favoring deletion.  bd2412  T 17:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Merging content is still very much a consensus thing, even in an AFD. If the content is not suggested to be merged in the AFD an admin can recommend it, but the actual merge into the article is still up to the article's local consensus to determine if it is kept or not. Merging content during an AFD is not encouraged and such controversial edits during the AFD, while not strictly prohibited can creat drama. Best to see where the AFD goes and decide from there what, if anything, to do with the content and references.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree; I was only pointing out that a consensus to delete an article is not the same as a consensus against having the information presented anywhere. bd2412  T 19:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose For reasons described above, highly problematic to include this in this article in any way. North8000 (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per North8000. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, per mentioned reasons. - Xcal68 (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Obviously it should be included in the main article as part of his high school years. If, due to partisan politics or for whatever reason, it is censored out of there, then by all means include it somewhere in the article. Edison (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Should we include a link to a DailyKos hit piece that is about to be deleted as soon as the formality of process finishes? --B (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Temples versus "churches" or "houses of worship"
Why does the article avoid the use of the term temple, which is where Mormon's go to worship. — GabeMc (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If you are referring to "the congregation rotated its meetings to those houses of worship while theirs was rebuilt", it's because that's a reference to the Catholic St. Josephs Church, an Armenian church, and the Plymouth Congregational Church. If you are referring to some other text, what is it?  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point, I've now differentiated between the temporary "houses of worship" and their "temple". — GabeMc (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * But really, in a bio about a devote and active Mormon, one would expect the mention of "temple", which wasn't there until I added it, so it seems the article wants to avoid the topic. Imagine a bio of a Jewish candidate that does not mention the word synagogue. This relates to featured article criteria 1(b). — GabeMc (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You're getting confused between Temple (LDS Church) and Meetinghouse: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) uses the term "meetinghouse" for the building where congregations meet for weekly worship services,[1] recreational events, and social gatherings. A meetinghouse differs from an LDS temple, which is a building dedicated to be a "House of the Lord" and is reserved for special forms of worship." It was a meetinghouse that burned down and was being rebuilt, not a temple.  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Another good point, yes the meetinghouse was rebuilt, then ten years later a temple was built on Belmont Hill. I have clarified this now in the article. — GabeMc (talk) 23:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The article already has a discussion of the Belmont temple, but it comes later in chrono sequence, after he stepped down as a church leader. And the article already includes that one of their marriage ceremonies took place at the Salt Lake Temple.  So no one is suppressing the idea of temples.  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Where specifically is the Belmont Temple mentioned? — GabeMc (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "He no longer had a church leadership position, although he still taught Sunday School.[82] Fearing he would be a focal point for opposition, he had a limited, behind-the-scenes role in attempts to ease tensions between the church and local residents during the long and controversial approval and construction process for a Mormon temple in Belmont (nevertheless, it still was sometimes referred to as "Mitt's Temple" by locals).[79][82][83]"   Wasted Time R (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why exclude "derisively" from "it still was sometimes referred to as "Mitt's Temple" by locals", seems to be inaccurate/non-neutral to the source, which implies it wasn't a flattering comment, as the article currently implies. — GabeMc (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC) "Later, when his official duties were complete, he contributed handsomely to the construction of the grand — and controversial — Boston Temple, high on a hilltop in Belmont, its steeple topped by a golden angel, just minutes from the Romney home. “Mitt’s Temple,” some local residents called it derisively."  — GabeMc (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Mainly because you misapprehend the use of "temple" for a site where specific rituals are held, but not where people attend weekly religious services etc. It is in no way the equivalent of a synagogue (shul) or the like - and inserting erroneous claims does not benefit the article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A Jewish synagogue is a place of worship, as is a Mormon temple, that's all I meant, and as far as I can tell, with the exception of "special" worship, they are analogous in that regard. — GabeMc (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually - wrong. The "temple" in Judaism is akin to a Mormon temple -- that is a place for special and specific rites.  A shul is not the same as a temple.  Really.  Now go and please read up on the topic before averring what is not so. Collect (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "A synagogue is a place of worship and study"; are you suggesting that Mormon's do not worship in their temple? — GabeMc (talk) 01:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Temples are used for specific rituals for the LDS and not for routine worship.  Period.  End of story. Collect (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So Mormons do indeed worship in their temples (albeit only "specific" services), well that's all I was claiming. — GabeMc (talk) 02:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But really, in a bio about a devote and active Mormon, one would expect the mention of "temple", which wasn't there until I added it, so it seems the article wants to avoid the topic. Imagine a bio of a Jewish candidate that does not mention the word synagogue and Why does the article avoid the use of the term temple, which is where Mormon's go to worship? were, and remain, inapt.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As the article's main contributor has pointed out, "nobody reads the sub-pages", so if Romney's article is confusing in this regard, we should expect that this will be the case for more than one (non-Mormon) reader, as only 1.7 out of every 100 Americans self-identify as Mormon. If confusion about places of worship is created in Romney's article, it will only serve to increase the problems associated with mis-information about Mormon religious practice in general. — GabeMc (talk) 02:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

High school, college and postcollege pranks: why not a "prank" section?
Perhaps there should be a dedicated "pranks" section in the article. His campaign has been presenting him as quite a prankster, to lighten up his image. Present footnote 3 contains descriptions of a number of his pranks, such as impersonating a policeman while in high school. The Cranbrook haircutting "prank" is not yet included in this article. Additionally, his father in 1970 described another prank, per an April 17, 2012  Washington Post article: while in college, he and friends captured students from a rival college and "shaved their heads and painted them red." In another incident not yet included in this bio article, from the same WaPo article, a friend says that while on his mission in France after college, Romney disguised himself under a sheet, then knocked on the door and in French ordered the man to "put his hands behind his back, turn around and not utter a word," causing the man to flee out the back door of the house, until Romney laughingly removed his disguise. Edison (talk) 03:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

These revisions could form the start of a prank section. Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Why not? Because the only people contributing to such a section would be his political opponents, guaranteeing non-neutral POV. I'm not American. I cannot vote for your President. Maybe it makes me more objective. The behaviour of the opponents of Romney AND Obama here at the moment is heading down the path of destroying any encyclopaedic value these BLPs have. Grow up and treat this place as an encyclopaedia, not a campaign opportunity. HiLo48 (talk) 12:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that you coined a statement that about 100 articles can use, starting with the Obama and Romney-related ones: Grow up and treat this place as an encyclopaedia, not a campaign opportunity. North8000 (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree; there is no way for Romney to come out looking good from this sort of section, esp, when his inicdences in college of shaving suspected homosexuals. There is no possible spin on that sort of bullying. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * With whom are you agreeing? HiLo48 (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Contra the claim "the only people contributing to such a section would be his political opponents," I am sure that his supporters as well as absolutely neutral editors would read the part about this being "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" and ensure that the section was referenced to reliable sources, and NPOV. It is a failure of WP:NPOV and of WP:UNDUE to censor from the article any mention in the main text of his pranking, a topic which has gained importance in the 2012 campaign.  Google News presently has 610 stories dealing with "Romney, campaign, and prank." In April, his wife released a video saying "He would be as mischievious and as naughty as the other boys." "There were a lot of pranks, a lot of pranks."  After the haircutting episode was written up, Romney went on Fox News to say "I participated in a lot of hijinks and pranks during high school, and some might have gone too far, and for that I apologize." Pranking as part of his nature and habits is thus not something made up by Democrat strategists. The Obama article is not polished to remove mention of his bad habits, so why should the Romney article be polished up like an official campaign biography? Edison (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I say again, this is a global encyclopaedia, not an American Presidential campaign opportunity. I have said the same at the Obama article. HiLo48 (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * A separate pranks section in the article is a non-starter, but it's possible the Lauber incident could be included in the current Note that deals with pranks. That would be one way of handling it.  As for the question of "campaign opportunity", that's really irrelevant.  The best way to look at this, and what I do, is to pretend the article is being read by somebody ten or twenty or fifty years after the subject has been retired from political life.   What's biographically relevant to understanding that person's life?  It doesn't matter if it's a piece of information that came out in the heat of a campaign or in a biography much later ... if it belongs it belongs and if it doesn't it doesn't.  As a general rule, most newspaper and magazine stories research and report their subjects in the middle of campaigns, while most biographies and other books research their subjects between or after campaigns, sometimes long after.  Either kind of source is fully valid to use in a biography (assuming of course that it meets the usual requirements for accuracy, fairness, etc). Wasted Time R (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I very much agree with trying to take that long term perspective when judging the notability of potential article content. HiLo48 (talk) 08:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "It's possible the Lauber incident could be included in the current Note that deals with pranks." No, as I've just commented above under the !Votes section considering how to handle the Lauber incident, describing this as a prank would be incorrect. Pranks are remembered as fun-filled tricks, not as vicious attacks. Dezastru (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

"Prankster" is certainly part of his public image, from the Detroit News: "The Detroit News Michigan's native son Long before Mitt Romney became a candidate for president of the United States, he was a lanky teenager in Bloomfield Hills with a penchant for practical jokes rather than for politics. During one such elaborate prank, Romney dressed in a uniform, put a flashing light atop a borrowed car and impersonating a police officer pulled up behind a car with two of his friends and their dates." — GabeMc (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You know, impersonating a police officer is a crime, as would the "hair-cut/hate-crime/assault and battery" incident if it did indeed occur. One could possibly argue that making an elderly person bump into a door is a type of 5th degree assault, and the "atta-girl" comments, if they occurred as often as alledged, and for the purpose of taunting gay students, might constitute harrassment and hate-crime charges. So really, we have allegations of potentially four or five crimes involved with his pranks. Pretty notable I would say. — GabeMc (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Calling them crimes without 3rd party sources stating that ie original research WP:OR, synthysis WP:SYNTH which equals one nice violation os WP:BLP.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Cube, for a third-party source and the criminal ramifications of "the hair-cut incident", "impersonating a police office in Massachusettes", "harassment", "blind-teacher door assault", and the Massachsettes "hate-crime" law. — GabeMc (talk) 22:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That is all OR. Arzel (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Bingo. Taking a law statute and personally saying what he did equals this crime is textbook original research.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not suggesting we refer to the incidents as crimes in the article, so its not OR, to report the more notable of Romney's "pranks", and allow the reader to decide what meaning to attach to them. Also, all we need is a couple RSs to make the criminal connection and then suddenly its not OR is it? — GabeMc (talk) 22:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:SYNTH. Please do so before making more suggestions.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Here are five sources that refer to the alledged behaviors as criminal in nature. Still OR? SYNTH?
 * "Roberta M. Helming: Bill O'Reilly-How Is Romney's Criminal Behavior A Prank"
 * "It’s laughable for Kathleen Parker to ask if Mitt Romney’s prep-school prank (which would now be classified as a hate crime in many states) is an appropriate presidential campaign issue."
 * "whether you are inclined to dismiss it as an adolescent prank or prone to regard it as a criminal assault"
 * "It started out as a ribbing, sort of a ribbing about his hair, but it very quickly became an assault, and he was taken down to the ground, pinned."
 * "Far from being 'hijinks' or a 'prank,' Romney's behavior toward his high school classmate amounted to harassment and assault." — GabeMc (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1-3 don't appear close to RS. Seriously a letter to the editor?  Be better than that.  4&5 at most could be used to cite the opinion of the quoted person.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A lot of the arguments for including and excluding content like this were also addressed at the Barack Obama article regarding Obama's use of illegal drugs. The archives at that article, such as, discuss the same issues so we may be able to draw the same conclusions regarding the issue of pranks here. (No, this is not a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, just a way to not go over the same discussions about an entire section on these kinds of items from a person's youth). 72Dino (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * GabeMc, the article has long described three of his pranks, in a Note, and has included that one of them got him and Ann arrested/detained by the police. If we do include the Lauber hair-cutting incident, which I hope we do in the main text with added detail in a separate Note, it should just describe what happened.  Speculation about whether it was a crime then or now is pointless and will violate all the norms of BLP, OR, SYNTH, etc as others are pointing out.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wasted Time, I never said (nor do I think) we should describe the pranks as crimes in the article, that's (IMO) a strawman arguement others have attached to this point/thread. I was merely pointing out that several of his known "pranks" constitute crimes, then and now, which makes me think a separate section that can give proper weight to this issue should be drafted, hence the heading of this section. A "Pranks" section or sub-section may well be the only way we can address this issue in a balanced and comprehensive nature worthy of a future FA status. Surely we could balance the "offensive" pranks with anecdotes about harmless ones. As it stands now, the media is painting a picture that all his pranks were mean-spirited, and some illegal. I don't think wikipedia should characterize them as crimes in our voice, but if witnesses are quoted using the words "assault", or "hate-crime", or "gay-bashing", then why would we intentionally avoid this? On the other hand, why not include the impersonating a police officer prank as a notable hijink? We don't need to point readers to the obvious conclusion that to do so is illegal, do we? Many FA level articels describe the subjects drug-use without always having to explain which crimes were being committed when and why. Also, an important point I have raised here more than once, that no one will address, is that Romney's campaign has used the prankster image to manipulate his public image, so UNDUE is not an issue here. — GabeMc (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * 72Dino, if you mean to argue that the "pranks" should not be included because Obama's drug-use wasn't, 1) I think Obama's drug use should have been covered. Why hide it? Its verifiable, self-admitted, and certainly notable to many, users and non-users alike. 2) Obama wasn't running with a "drug-user" image as a campaign tactic, as Romney is with "prankster", which to me, is a key point, as I said above more than once I know. If Obama was running on an image of "drug-user", than his previous drug-use would certainly be notable and appropriate for inclusion, at least at the campaign or public image page. I think it should be included here as a notable aspect of Romney's personality, afterall, he is known for little else in that department as far as the media is concerned. — GabeMc (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I was not indicating that if Obama doesn't have a section on his drug use then Romney shouldn't have a section on pranks. I just thought it would be a good idea to look at past discussions  of what should be in these articles of the two leading candidates for content and format.  Obama's drug use is included in two sentences of his article.  We may arrive at similar conclusions based on prior discussions at both these articles. Like many of us, both Romney and Obama did things as youth that they wish they hadn't.  It needs to be put into perspective of their overall lives. 72Dino (talk) 02:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the Mitt Romney Cranbrook incident is sufficiently notable or weighty to warrant its own article on Wikipedia, and have said so at the AfD; it's a bit NEWS-y, and given that everyone who is in a position to say something about it has said something, it's unlikely (in my mind) to expand much, factually. That being said, I don't think it's right for it to pass without any mention at all. I think the place for it is in this article, just a quick unadorned factual statement, perhaps along these lines:


 * In May 2012, the Washington Post reported that in 1965, as a high school senior, Romney and four (?) other classmates pinned down and forcibly cut clumps of hair from the head of another student. In response the report, Romney said that he did not remember the incident, but acknowledged that he may have taken some high school pranks too far and apologized for any harm that may have resulted from them.

Add the two or three refs as appropriate. This formulation steers clear of loaded phrases ("bullying", "assault") and contentious inferences ("homophobic"), and sticks to the - as far as I can tell - undisputed facts. I don't see anyone with knowledge or potential knowledge of the event who denies that it took place. Not Romney, who doesn't remember; not Lauber's family, who simply note that he never mentioned it to them (and then go on to say he probably wouldn't have anyhow). This is also a marked improvement over the cryptic, and somewhat misleading, phrasing now in the article which describes Romney's history as a "prankster" and then murkily mentions his participation in this other, not-quite-so-funny event. Thoughts? JohnInDC (talk) 03:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You're on the right track, but it sugar-coats it a bit too much. How about this:
 * As a senior in 1965, Romney was offended by the sight of a quiet, non-conformist boy who had dyed his hair blond. He led a group of students who pinned the crying boy down while Romney forcibly cut the boy's hair off with scissors. When reports of this came to light decades later, Romney said that he did not remember the incident, but acknowledged that he may have taken some high school pranks too far and apologized for any harm that may have resulted from them.
 * Also sticks to the undenied facts, but conveys the motivation and gives an idea of the reaction on the part of the victim. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The only problem is most of this is alleged. Everything that is reported as factual is the statement of someone else.  We don't know what Romney was thinking and in no way can we give the perception that this is what he thought.  The statements must be written from the point of view of the accusors.


 * During the 2012 presidential election, four former high school classmates stated that in 1965 Romney, a senior in high school, was offended by the sight of a quiet, non-conformist boy who had dyed his hair blond. They state that he led them in pinning the crying boy, one year younger than Romney, down while Romney forcibly cut the boy's hair off with scissors. When reports of this came to light decades later, Romney said that he did not remember the incident, but acknowledged that he may have taken some high school pranks too far and apologized for any harm that may have resulted from them.
 * I don't prescribe to the idea that this should be included since it is purely a political attack on Romney, however if it is it must be stated properly. Arzel (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that this is a "purely political attack" - my guess is that the Post sent in writers to research the presumptive Presidential nominee's school days, and came across this bit of unexpected information. Who knows why they chose to run the story when they did.  There's also not a shred of doubt in my mind that the incident took place largely as described - I went to that school, not quite at that time but a bit later, and the story rings true.  Here, collapsed, is what I said over at the AfD page for the article on the incident:


 * I think it's a good idea to keep an open mind about the inferences to be drawn from this episode. I attended Cranbrook, arriving for the 7th grade only 15 months after Mitt Romney left campus, and can report that during my early years there (it changed considerably later on), hazing, harassment and other forms of physical intimidation and abuse were pretty routine stuff.  You were a likely victim if you were
 * short
 * fat
 * effeminate
 * physically uncoordinated
 * unattractive in some uncommon fashion, e.g., a skin condition
 * given to solitary or generally non-social pursuits (e.g. drawing, reading) or
 * otherwise manifestly non-conforming in school that valued conformity.
 * Kids who exhibited these characteristics might be stuffed into lockers, have their jock straps pulled up over their heads, get pushed face first down hills into snow or mud, have their briefcases stolen and hidden away for a week, their textbooks destroyed; or just be pummeled until the perpetrators lost interest. These could be daily occurrences.  You didn't have to be gay to be a victim; you just had to be vulnerable and lacking any obvious extrinsic protection (like participation in sports, high academic standing, a larger, stronger best friend).  Of course I can't speak for what was in Romney's head in 1965, but from what I know about boy's school culture then prevailing, a victimizer didn't have to be homophobic in the least in order to inflict suffering on another student.  Homosexual, heterosexual, pre-sexual - it didn't matter!  The Romney incident, as reported, was more extreme than anything I was aware of during my time there, but I was a day boy and always presumed that life in the dorms was rawer.  Still it was pretty nasty stuff and he should be ashamed (pity that he doesn't recall it).  So for whatever enlightenment it may provide, from where I stand: 1) the worst facet of his role was that he appeared to have been the instigator; 2) the incident doesn't give a clue about Romney's feelings toward gays, then or now; 3) he might easily have outgrown whatever general bullying tendencies the episode betrays; and 4) his failure to apologize for it, for real, reveals much more, far more clearly, than anything we might surmise from the incident itself.  JohnInDC (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That being said I absolutely agree that Romney's state of mind can't be reported except as perceived by others. I think that, other than the unnecessary and vaguely exculpatory phrase "decades later", your reformulation is fine.  JohnInDC (talk) 11:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm not crazy about that formulation, but they say a compromise is something no one totally likes, so I've put it in the article. (I adjusted the wording in a couple of places around 'high school'.)  At the same time I pulled the description of the three most famous pranks into the main text, because without that, the reader has no sense of what the context of Romney's apology is.  I also linked part of the text to the Mitt Romney Cranbrook incident article (of course, if it ends up failing AfD that link will go away.)  Hopefully this will break the logjam on this discussion.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but this content is POV, undue nonsense. I reverted the addition. This is politically motivated nonsense that would never appear in the article of someone who wasn't a Presidential candidate at this moment in time. HiLo48 (talk) 11:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see the POV. The incident is well-sourced, undisputed (!), and the phrasing here is neutral and tracks the sources closely.  (If you disagree, why not try your hand at improving it?)  And, while it may be true that this sort of information wouldn't appear in the article of someone who wasn't running for President, the same can be said for a lot of other material in the article just about high school alone.  Founded the Blue Key Club; did a little better academically during his senior year, was involved in many pranks.  That information has nothing to do with his notability today and if it is here at all, is to give a sense of what this very famous, and possibly very important, person was like growing up.  And if that sort of trivia is fair to include then so is a sentence or two about this episode.  (And better here I might add than in a lengthy separate article.)  JohnInDC (talk) 12:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree on all points, but let me put it new discussion, just below. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a clarification that I was disagreeing with HiLo48. I think JohnInDC's extended comments above about Cranbrook are quite perceptive.  I went to a public high school in a different part of the country in roughly the same era, and alas the 'target list' was pretty much the same.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Romney's firing of openly gay spokesperson Richard Grenell
"Two weeks ago, Fischer was leading the charge against Romney's newly-appointed spokesman Richard Grenell, claiming that hiring Grenell amounted to a "slap in the face" of all pro-family Americans. He also said that if Romney wanted to win the presidency in November, he'd "better start pandering in a big, fat hurry" to the the gay-hating Republican "base," and that he should begin by firing Richard Grenell." — GabeMc (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with Romney. The Wall Street Journal reported that "Mr. Grenell said Mr. Romney had given "a clear message to me that being openly gay was a nonissue for him and his team." The Romney campaign said it tried to persuade Mr. Grenell to stay on." .  Maybe the GOP article, but not this biography. 72Dino (talk) 22:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Or maybe Bryan Fischer article. - Xcal68 (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Belongs in the Richard Grenell article, where it is, or maybe the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, where it isn't, but not here. Campaigns (and administrations, if the candidate wins) are full of personnel drama, as rival factions battle each other and interest groups put pressure on appointments and some people rise up and some people get kicked to the side.  The BLP for the candidate/officeholder can't hope to track all this.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not here. Per policy.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Correct, not an issue for this article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. not an issue for this article.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. — GabeMc (talk) 01:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yea or nay on this formulation for the incident
See the above discussion that led to this version of the article with the Cranbrook incident included (since reverted). The text is:
 * Romney was involved in many pranks, including sliding down golf courses on large ice cubes, dressing as a police officer and tapping on the car windows of teenage friends who were making out, and staging an elaborate formal dinner on the median of a busy street.[15][21][nb 3] During the 2012 presidential election, four former Cranbrook classmates stated that as a senior in 1965, Romney was offended by the sight of a quiet, non-conformist boy who had dyed his hair blond. They stated that he led them in pinning the crying boy, one year younger than Romney, down while Romney forcibly cut the boy's hair off with scissors.[22] When reports of this came to light decades later, Romney said that he did not remember the incident, but acknowledged that he may have taken some high school pranks too far and apologized for any harm that may have resulted from them.[25]

This is a compromise version that everyone won't like something about, but my question is, can you live with it? Wasted Time R (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yea. It's better than not including any description at all, which is the current state. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. That's a fair wording.  I'd take out the clause "one year younger than Romney" because it interrupts the flow without adding much, but that's a critique of style only, not substance. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. It is short, sourced, leaves any inferences to the reader.  It is also on a par informationally with many other biographical facts in the article.  JohnInDC (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No Without impugning the goals of any individuals posting here, this is precisely the sort of content that Romney's political opponents would want added to the article. It's trivial. It adds nothing serious to this biography. We shouldn't even look like like we are playing political games. HiLo48 (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "This is precisely the sort of content that Romney's political opponents would want added to the article." And exactly the reverse is equally true: "this is precisely the sort of content that Romney's political [supporters] would want [excluded from] the article." So what? How is that material? It's not. Both those things are true, and both those things are irrelevant.


 * According to five witnesses, Romney committed a violent assault. That is a crime, both in 2012 and in 1965. How does it make sense to describe that as "nothing serious?" As various people have pointed out, the article currently includes many statements and claims that are infinitely less "serious" than violent assault (and also less carefully documented; that is, not supported by statements from five witnesses). How can the exclusion of this information be viewed as anything other than "playing political games?"


 * By the way, no one on this page has mentioned that Romney has essentially confessed: "I’ve seen the reports, and not going to argue with that". Most news articles have neglected to mention that statement. That darn liberal media. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Why is it a problem? Because adding stuff that people on one side of politics want is obviously creating a non-neutral POV. We don't do that here. It's completely relevant, and very important. HiLo48 (talk) 00:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * HiLo48, we add things that are biographically significant and that are well-sourced and that we present in a fair way. Once that barrier is met, we cannot worry about whether people on 'one side of politics' want those things written or not.  For example, this article describes how Romney played a big role in turning around the 2002 Olympics.  Anti-Romney people may not want to read that, but that doesn't mean we remove it from the article.  Same with dozens of other things in the article.  As long as they are significant, well-sourced, and fair, they can go in, and we let the chips fall where they may regarding whether they 'help' or 'hurt' Romney or Romney opponents.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you've introduced the term "biographically significant". Let's talk about this seriously. I will argue very strongly that dumb things a 64 year old did in his school days 50 years ago are of far lower biographical significance than managing major aspects of the Olympic Games as an adult 10 years ago. That would be true whether or not he had done the latter successfully. If he had completely screwed up the Olympic thing, that would be valid content. Schoolday pranks are not. (BTW, I turn 64 in two months time. I can't recall all the dumb things I did at school. I'm sure there were plenty. Does anyone here want to claim otherwise about themselves?) HiLo48 (talk) 03:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * HiLo48, "dumb things" and "assault and battery with a dangerous weapon", a potential "hate-crime", are two very different things. While many of us did "dumb" things when we were young, I for one, never attacked anyone with a dangerous weapon with four accomplices to hold my victim down. Not sure what you did for hijinks, but mine never abused anyone, but if they did, I would apologize properly, as Romney could/should have done. Yeah, he's 65 years old, but he laughed about it just last week when the "hair-cut" incident was described to him (1:14-1:20). And he minimizes the allegations over and over, versus outright condemnation of the desrcribed behaviors. Romney's "apology" says as much about the "adult" Mitt Romney, as the "Cranbrook incidents" say about the "young" Mitt, and its most certainly "biographically significant". Character is an issue for an American presidential hopeful. — GabeMc (talk) 03:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * HiLo48, agreed, managing the Olympics is a lot more important than this thing he did at Cranbrook. That's why the article gives about 30 sentences to the Olympics and why I am proposing only 3 sentences to this.  But this is not insignificant, in the view of myself and the other editors who are saying 'Yes' here.  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * HiLo48, I am happy to talk about it seriously. Pranks - although amply described in the footnotes of this autobiographical article - are arguably trivial and of little biographical significance.  I suppose a biographer by including such things might trying to convey the kind of person the subject is by offering up things he did at a time when he was not in the public eye, and did not have to be quite so self-conscious, so self-aware of how he was being perceived - or maybe not.  Maybe it's just amusing stuff to make for a better read.  I'll stipulate that they're insignificant because they are meaningless, inconsequential, and reveal nothing.  (Even when they seem a bit cruel, like causing a teacher to walk into a closed door.  As you say - and I do not mean this facetiously - we all did dumb things when we were kids.)  But then.  Ambushing a student with four accomplices, pinning him to the ground and forcibly and manifestly against his will cutting off clumps of his hair because - well, for whatever reason; I can't understand that as a "prank" in any sense of the word I know.  It doesn't take authority down a notch, it's not mirthful or funny even in the sort of raw way that some pranks can be.  Rather, it's cruel and it's cowardly, and even by the more flexible interpersonal behavioral standards of a 1960s boys' school, something that probably would have warranted serious punishment if it had become known.  I agree that pranks don't amount to much, but I can't stretch my definition of "prank" to include this.  Words like "attack" or "assault" come much more quickly and naturally to mind (words which BTW I've avoided using in any article space because I know how loaded they are).  Forget about gay-bashing, hate crimes, "bullying" or any of the early-21st century terms we might want to apply to this 50 year old event.  Old words and concepts, in common use even in 1965, fit fine.  Calling this a "prank" puts me in the mind of nothing so much as some college athlete, suspended from the program for - I dunno, hitting his girlfriend - asking forgiveness for his "mistake".  Hitting your girlfriend is not a "mistake"; ganging up on a kid, holding him down and cutting off his hair while he screams and cries is not a "prank".


 * Now - all that said, and lest you think I am being too sanctimonious about all this - I personally don't think it reveals much, at least not necessarily. I can, personally, easily construct a story in which even a pretty serious episode like this really can be left in the past as part of the growing pains of the son of a famous and highly regarded man.  Did you see the link I posted elsewhere to the note by Edmund White?  Search the page and you'll find it.  I think he is very close to the truth.  But my own conclusion that it doesn't amount to much doesn't mean that, in fact, it doesn't amount to much.  This was not a prank but rather a fairly serious incident that quite plausibly does reflect, still, on Romney's character today.  It just doesn't make sense to dismiss its significance out of hand because, "well, who among us didn't gang up on and assault other students who offended our sensibilities?"  I don't remember a lot of dumb things I did at Cranbrook but I'm quite confident it never included that.  So in sum -  I think the event warrants mention; I think we need to be vigilant to ensure that unwarranted inferences do not creep into the discussion; and otherwise we can let responsible readers draw their own conclusions.  How's that - serious enough?  JohnInDC (talk) 04:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "This was not a prank but rather a fairly serious incident that quite plausibly does reflect, still, on Romney's character today." Especially because "Romney's character today" is being revealed by the way he's reacting to this: with laughter. His reaction is to trivialize something that is not trivial, so it's no surprise that his supporters are making the same move.


 * This story is not just about Romney at 18. It's about Romney now. This has been said many times but it needs to be said again. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 04:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If that's a suggestion that I am a Romney supporter, you have no idea. (Feel free to check out my posting history.) I still think it's irrelevant. It simply does not tell us anything about Romney now. To suggest otherwise is pure speculation. HiLo48 (talk) 07:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "If that's a suggestion that I am a Romney supporter." No, it's not "a suggestion that [you're] a Romney supporter." It's a suggestion that you're not being objective. I can imagine many reasons why you might fail to be objective in this instance without assuming that you're a Romney supporter.


 * "It simply does not tell us anything about Romney now." His reaction is taking place "now," and tells us that he thinks a violent assault is a laughing matter. You should explain how it's possible that his behavior now "does not tell us anything about Romney now." One of the best ways for us to learn "about Romney now" is to observe his behavior now.


 * "To suggest otherwise is pure speculation." The concept of speculation has nothing to do with pointing out to you that no one with a neutral POV could possibly describe this violent assault as merely a 'schoolday prank.' And "trivial." Jukeboxgrad (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with JohnInDC, and with Jukeboxgrad (although I think calling this incident a crime is a mistake, regardless of whether it might technically fit a statutory definition of a crime). The obligation of WP is to present the information in a fair way and let the reader draw her own conclusions, not to censor the information. Dezastru (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "I think calling this incident a crime is a mistake." Just to be clear, I'm not saying we should use the word "crime" in any article (unless someone else does). I'm saying we should treat it as seriously as we would treat a violent crime, because that's what it is.


 * I said this on the AfD page, and I probably should have also said it here.


 * So "I think calling this incident a crime [in an article] is a mistake" (unless a good source does that). On the other hand, I think calling it a crime on a talk page is quite appropriate. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP applies to talk pages, too. Unsourced accusations of a crime because of one's personal opinion would seem to violate that. 72Dino (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "Unsourced accusations of a crime because of one's personal opinion would seem to violate that." Correct, but what I'm saying is not "unsourced," and not based on "personal opinion." There are five credible witnesses who saw what Romney did. Calling what he did a crime is a not a matter of "personal opinion." It's a matter of how the word crime is defined in the dictionary.


 * I can see how calling it a crime can be considered OR, because it's a kind of synthesis. But the rule is not that no WP page can contain original research. The rule is that Wikipedia articles must not contain original research.


 * Here's an example of "unsourced accusations of a crime because of one's personal opinion:" let's say my personal opinion is that people who wear red ties are usually pedophiles, so I come on this page to accuse Romney of pedophilia. Yes, something like that belongs nowhere on WP (not even on a talk page), because it is indeed "unsourced accusations of a crime because of one's personal opinion." But that's not what's going on here. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No not yet. When we can look back and assess whether this was relevant or had any implications for the further course of his career then we can think about it. Now its just following election year news. We don't need to do that.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No. No, still not yet.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. I think this is a fair way of handling this material, and a good compromise.  Significantly better than just a link. Tvoz / talk 19:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with calling a deceased person who cannot defend themselves a "crying boy" or "quiet, non-conformist boy " and seem insensitive to other figures in this story slanting it in favor of Romney as a mere prank when he, in reality and accuracy if true, assaulted a fellow student. I think ANY mention of this incident is best referred to in this manner.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The WaPo source never uses the word "assault", so I don't think we should introduce it. It's up to the reader to decide, based on the description of the incident, whether Romney was right to implicitly characterize it as a prank.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. I think in fact it does qualify as an assault, but that's a legal conclusion, it's not in the article, and we're not here to fill in gaps that the Post (perhaps quite deliberately) left.  JohnInDC (talk) 02:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, the word "assault" does not appear in the WaPo article. However, Maxwell (one of the five witnesses) has used that word in his communication elsewhere. He said this: "I'm a lawyer. I know what an assault is. This kid was scared. He was terrified. That's an assault." (CNN) FWIW. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 04:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Maxwell also used the word "assault" in this statement he gave NYT: "It started out as ribbing, sort of a pointed ribbing about his hair, but it very quickly became an assault, and he was taken down to the ground, pinned … It all happened very quickly — it was like a pack of dogs." (NYT) Jukeboxgrad (talk) 04:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the Seattle Times, Lauber was later "thrown out (of Cranbrook) for smoking a cigarette." — GabeMc (talk) 04:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. It is definitely a compromise, and I don't think the actions of Romney (pranks) and Obama (drugs) in their immature youth reflects the adults they are today. However, I think the proposed wording probably will work out best on Wikipedia and is sourced.  Oh, and I also agree the "one year younger" phrase is unnecessary. 72Dino (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yea - With perhaps a few tweeks. Its a good compromise, except the impersonating a police officer gag as reported by the Detroit News involved a flashing light, pulling people over, and searching trunks, which is much more than tapping on windows. Also, what about the "atta-girl" comments, to which Romney admits some knowledge, and the "blind-teacher" being made to walk into a door prank? — GabeMc (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No UNDUE and other BLP issues abound here. Collect (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I disagree with, but at least I understand, the UNDUE concern; BLP mystifies me however - the episode (as set forth above) is well sourced and indeed is undisputed. The victim is not named and he's deceased anyhow.  I don't see one BLP issue, let alone an abundance of them.  JohnInDC (talk) 12:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The "subject" is Mitt Romney, and the claims are anecdotal, and represent a claim of (according to some) criminal activity. Note WP:CRIMINAL:
 * Note: A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured. 
 * Which applies here. No charges, and only way-after-the-fact accusations, including some by people who would likely not remember what they had for dinner a week ago, much less details from a half century ago.  Frinstance - can you name your classmates from the third grade? (assuming you are under 50 per Wikipedia editor averages) Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * By its own terms that doesn't apply. "Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured."  The article is already here.  The question is whether a well-sourced, undisputed episode, not described as a crime and on which the statute of limitations will have run anyhow, may be noted in a couple of sentences in this biographical article.  To read WP:CRIME as you have done would forbid any description of any activity at any time by any Wikipedia subject that could have been described as, or prosecuted as, a crime.  There are a lot of articles that would have to be rewritten to accommodate that interpretation!  And then too - the claims are not "anecdotal".  They are first-hand accounts by eyewitnesses to the event.  You can argue about the passage of time, and the frailty of memories, but lots and lots of convictions are obtained on no more than that.  There are no BLP issues here.  JohnInDC (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "No charges, and only way-after-the-fact accusations." No, we don't "only" have the statements from five credible witnesses. We also have the fact that Romney himself has essentially confessed: "I’ve seen the reports, and not going to argue with that". Therefore there is no reason to doubt what has been described by the witnesses: a violent assault. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 14:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Saying "I'm not going to argue with that" is not equivalent to a confession. It can mean "I acknowledge the validity of the allegations" but it can also mean "I do not wish to respond in detail to the allegations," and the latter is a legitimate response of the innocent as well as the guilty.  I don't know whether the allegations are true or not, but it is wrong to conclude that they are admitted to be true based on this statement of Romney's.  alanyst 16:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "[I]t can also mean 'I do not wish to respond in detail to the allegations,' and the latter is a legitimate response of the innocent." If what he meant was "I do not wish to respond in detail to the allegations," this would have been a good way to say that: "I do not wish to respond in detail to the allegations."


 * Also, I can't imagine why an innocent person, upon being accusing of leading a violent, criminal assault, would say "I do not wish to respond in detail to the allegations." No, that's not "a legitimate response of the innocent." Why would an innocent person say that? They wouldn't. Here's something else they wouldn't say: "not going to argue with that." They would say this: "I didn't do it."


 * Aside from "not going to argue with that," the 'do not remember' part is also a problem. Consider these three possibilities:


 * A) He did it, and he remembers he did it, and he's lying when he says he can't remember.


 * B) He did it, but he forgot that he did it, so he's telling the truth when he says he can't remember.


 * C) He didn't do it, but he can't remember that he didn't do it.


 * Notice that there are essentially no other possibilities. Notice also that all these possibilities are bad.


 * If B is true, then he is essentially saying this about himself: 'I'm the kind of person who could do such a thing and then completely forget about it.' That would be a sign of a chronic bully: someone who does this sort of thing all the time, so he can't remember each instance. Notice that we've heard from other attackers who remember it quite clearly.


 * C isn't too plausible, because there are 5 credible witnesses. But forget those witnesses for a moment, and imagine that C is true. It's important to notice that even C is a problem. If C is true, then Romney is telling us this about himself: "in high school, I was the kind of person who might have done such a thing; that's why I can't flatly say I never would have done such a thing." Notice that even a person with a poor memory should be able to make a statement like this: 'I can't remember for sure that it didn't happen, but I can tell you that I was never the kind of person who would have done something like that.'


 * So given all the context, I can't imagine how "not going to argue with that" can be interpreted as anything other than a confession. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "I'm not going to argue with that" could very well reflect a tactical decision not to engage the issue further in his campaign. It's a standard political strategy to ignore or downplay negative allegations (whether well-founded or not) during a campaign lest the public start to believe the allegations have merit: "methinks the gentleman doth protest too much."  It's also common for someone who feels that they are being smeared to refuse to dignify their accusers with engagement; see the blockquote in  for an example of this.  That's not to say that Romney is an innocent being smeared; only that your assertion that an innocent person would necessarily be willing to give a detailed defense to any such allegation is unfounded. alanyst 20:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "[Y]our assertion that an innocent person would necessarily be willing to give a detailed defense." That's not what I said. I said an innocent person would be expected to say something like this: 'I didn't do it.' That's nothing at all like "a detailed defense." It's simply a clear, unambiguous denial. Something that Romney pointedly failed to provide.


 * "It's also common for someone who feels that they are being smeared to refuse to dignify their accusers with engagement." Yes, exactly, so another appropriate response by an innocent person would be this: 'I didn't do it, and since I am being smeared I don't want to dignify my accusers with engagement, so I have nothing further to say.' By the way, notice the absence of an apology in that statement. We don't expect an innocent person to offer an apology (or a non-apology, which is what we got from Romney). So the idea that he was refusing "engagement" is inconsistent with making a bunch of statements about how he used to be wild and crazy and he's sorry if anyone is such a wimp that they would be offended by his innocent pranks.


 * "It's a standard political strategy to ignore or downplay negative allegations." If the negative allegation is serious (as this one is), and you're innocent, the "standard political strategy" is to issue a clear, emphatic denial, with no apology, and then refuse further comment. This is quite different from what he did. If you're innocent, you definitely don't say "not going to argue with that." You say 'that accusation is false. Next subject.' Jukeboxgrad (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The most plausible answer is that something did happen, exactly what and how it transpired is unclear. There is no point in arguing the detail because the basic situation does not change.  Kids tease each other in school all the time, it is a fact of life.  This particular incident resulted in the clipping of a kids hair, how much is irrelevant, the only reason the WaPo made a big deal about it was because the kid ended up coming out as gay years later.  There is no good response that Romney can give.  Even if it didn't happen at all you have 5 people (well 4 cause we don't count annonymous accusors) saying that this happened, and without anything to prove that it didn't happen Romney is guilty by default (at least to people like Jukeboxgrad and Insomina).  I am curious about a couple of aspects however.  Why didn't the WaPo try to contact Romney before dropping this hit piece on him for his comments.  The WaPo obviously contacted a lot of his former classmates in order to find this story, why were there not more that had anything to say.  Insomnia and Jukeboxgrad seem to think Romney was a serial criminal, you would think there would be more if this were the case.  Arzel (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "Kids tease each other in school all the time, it is a fact of life." Romney led a violent assault. They tackled Lauber and pinned him on the floor and cut his hair while he was screaming and crying. That goes way beyond "tease." You need to be reminded of your own advice (that you issued on another page): "Seriously, please go somewhere else for you political pov pushing. WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a place for pushing political points of view."


 * "the only reason the WaPo made a big deal about it was because the kid ended up coming out as gay years later." The fact that Lauber is gay makes it worse, but it still would have been a violent assault even if Lauber was not gay. And people who are not Romney partisans realize that a violent assault by a candidate for POTUS is something worth reporting.


 * "There is no good response that Romney can give." Wrong. The proper response is a sincere apology. There is nothing preventing him from doing that, except his own personal limitations.


 * "well 4 cause we don't count annonymous accusors." The fifth witness is not anonymous. He is unnamed in the article, but Horowitz knows who he is.


 * "without anything to prove that it didn't happen." No one is expecting Romney "to prove that it didn't happen." We are expecting him to issue a denial, if he's innocent, or a sincere apology, if he's not. He has done neither of those things. This tells us a lot about who Romney is, right now. Not just who he was in 1965.


 * "Why didn't the WaPo try to contact Romney." They did. It's in the article. Here's a better question: why didn't you read the article?


 * "why were there not more that had anything to say." Why would you expect more? Five is plenty. That might be 100% of the living witnesses (aside from Romney himself). Exceeding 100% of the witnesses would be difficult.


 * "Insomnia and Jukeboxgrad seem to think Romney was a serial criminal." It would be good if you tried to respond to what I've actually said, rather than to what your imagination is telling you I "seem to think." Jukeboxgrad (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Romney eliminated a program designed to help implement bullying prevention programs
"Perhaps this explains why Governor Romney eliminated a program designed to help implement bullying prevention programs in Massachusetts schools. His attitude on the matter is becoming notable in and of its self. — GabeMc (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That "source" says no such thing. Can we at least pretend to care about BLP policy and reliable sourcing.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah h there it is, a throw away line at the bottom of a non rs article. Still a blp violation--Cube lurker (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "Mitt Romney clashed with a state commission tasked with helping LGBT youth at risk for bullying and suicide throughout his term as Massachusetts governor over funding and its participation in a pride parade. He eventually abolished the group altogether." — GabeMc (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That same article states: "Romney’s office reiterated at the time that the governor’s initial objection was over funding levels, and not the group’s goal of helping gay youth, which he supported." It wasn't the principles of the program, it was funding and the approach of the group. 72Dino (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it means little that Romney's official reason was funding restraints, the point here is that he eliminated the program, political excuses are largely irrelevant, though sure, that should be included if the info makes it into the article. — GabeMc (talk) 00:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So...it is more important that we make it look like he eliminated the program for ideological reasons in order to make it appear he is anti-gay? The fact that it was the funding it not relevant because it doesn't fit your narrative?  Does the left really think that this political line of attack is going to make people forget about how crappy the economy is come election time?  As the first something or other president said in 1992 "It is the economy."  Arzel (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * A candidate for the Governorship of Mitt Romney article, not here. That article could also include per this NYT story that his 2002 campaign director was gay as well as his Secretary of Transportation.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but as you point out, nobody reads the sub-articles, and currently the sub-section "Tenure, 2003–2007", states: "The cuts in state spending put added pressure on localities to reduce services or raise property taxes, and the share of town and city revenues coming from property taxes rose from 49 to 53 percent.[125][138]" So if the sub-section is already engaged in informing the reader about his spending cuts, why not include some specifics? — GabeMc (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Wasted Time R, would you oppose inclusion (at Mitt Romney: Tenure, 2003–2007) of a succinct and well-sourced mention of this policy choice? — GabeMc (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

2002 gubernatorial campaign
1) Can we get a better source for the first clause, which is currently sourced to Desert News, which is likely not the most neutral source for praising a Mormon, 2) the second clause uses "he", "him", and "his" within the same seven word text string, surely there is a more fluid prose that would convey the same sentiment.
 * "Prominent party figures campaigned to persuade Romney to run for governor,[124] and he saw it as giving him his most visible platform.[127]"


 * I reworded the second clause. But Deseret News is used as a source several times in the article, and in other Romney articles, and I see no reason to disqualify it.  It's a long-established, mainstream newspaper, and one of the two major newspapers in Utah.  If you think it should be disallowed as a source, bring it up at WP:RSN.  If you think that prominent Massachusetts Republicans didn't want Romney to run for governor, and that he barged in against their wishes, then find some sources for that and we can discuss.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The WP:RSN discussion suggests that Deseret News can be used without concern for non-controversial factual information, but should be buttressed for anything possibly contentious. So I've added a Chicago Tribune story that also says the powers that be wanted Romney to run.  And I've got a Boston Globe story in reserve in case you think that still isn't enough.   Wasted Time R (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well done Wasted Time R, I think we should avoid any possible pitfalls now, before you re-nom, so this is a step in that direction. I think one RS is plenty. Thanks for all your efforts to improve this important article. — GabeMc (talk) 23:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

1) This two-sentence graph could easily be edited into one sentence, and combined with the preceding graph of the article, which is also informing the reader about the run-up to his 2002 race. — GabeMc (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Massachusetts Democratic Party officials contested Romney's eligibility to run for governor, citing residency issues involving Romney's time in Utah for the Olympics. In June 2002, the Massachusetts State Ballot Law Commission unanimously ruled that Romney was eligible to run.[130]"

Lead photo
To me this photo is clearly inferior to the previous one. Why the change? —Designate (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:MUG the last one portrayed him in a negative because of the harsh shadows around his eyes.  Hot Stop   01:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's pretty subjective. He has the sweaty, uncomfortable Nixon-1960 look in this picture. I don't see this as a positive photo. —Designate (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why the change? The latest one shows him caught off guard with a shiny face? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.218.198 (talk) 11:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Aren't potential presidents allowed to sweat? Surely Americans just want the best person for the job, not the guy with the least shiny face. HiLo48 (talk) 11:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If it matters, I like this photo here myself. I believe it shows Romney positively. The only negative thing about the photo is that it is from 2006 instead of something more recent. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 06:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If we're going with an older one, I think File:Mitt Romney.jpg is the one to use (from 2007-2008). Wasted Time R (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I prefer that one too, but I went with the "least awkward" new one instead. He really hasn't aged much since '08 though.   Hot Stop   13:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I definately !vote File:Mitt Romney.jpg. Rationale: It's a good pic and the fact that it isn't current isn't a deal breaker for me.: technically he may now have a few more creases/silver hairs; so what? (..I/e IMO--FWeverTHAT'sW--politicos that are prettyboys--NOT such an unusual occurrence: see Palin, Sarah; Obama, Barack; Perry, Rick; Edwards, John; Gore, Al; Hart, Gary; heck: Clinton, Bill; um, Cristie, Chris--present a challenge because candids or portraits that might be apropos their portfolios' headshots would raise a specter of being subtly promotional; which means that the remaining less-then-complimentary shots must be sorted through in search of the sweetspot of neither romance paperback romance jacket ahhs-inducing nor simply less-than-ideal compositions/captures-of-"personality"-or-whatever as pix....) --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The current one is pretty good, and I have no objections to it. Designate (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The previous photo was better. The composition was much better, it included the American flag badge on his label, and he looks determined, whereas in the other one he's making a surprised face, and composition is not good enough for the lead.Avaya1 (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Even better, he had no eyes.  Hot Stop   20:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I have added a new flipped version of an already existing picture. This picture faces the page and does not portray Romney in any negative light. Harpsichord246 (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not believe using a flipped image is appropriate. It's not him, for example the part in his hair is on the wrong side.  See WP:IMAGE for why it's not a good idea to do this.  A high-profile BLP like this already has enough issues to deal with without falsifying the subject's image.  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Definitely don't use a flipped photo. Faces aren't entirely symmetrical. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 11:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The (non-flipped) version of File:Mitt Romney.jpg has a pretty strong consensus here. Don't change it until you can develop a consensus for any other image. Avaya1 (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That is definitely fair and I apologize for any unworthy changes. However, It would be better to have Romney facing the article. So when a better picture with that perspective is found, it should be used. Harpsichord246 (talk) 02:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

What happened to File:Mitt Romney.jpg? Why do editors keep choosing pictures that show him with black slits for eyes? These are unflattering photos. In the current choice, File:Mitt Romney.png, he not only has no eyes but also looks like a robot or animatron. A picture that may work when it is blown up to full size, doesn't necessarily work in the preview size displayed on the main page. Get a picture with enough light directed upward toward his face (rather than just harsh lights directed from above his face), that will soften the shadow of his pronounced brow. I would think that at this point in the campaign cycle, and with the many thousands of photos that have been taken of him over the years, someone could come up with such a photo. Dezastru (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It was deleted on commons unfortunately. I changed it back to File:Mitt Romney 2012 CPAC.jpg.  If anyone wants to they can look on Flikr for more pics (that's what I did) as long as you make sure there good to use here.  Hot Stop   21:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I wanted to find out when and where the photo was taken, so I asked the Commons admin to look into the OTRS history, and when they did they found the OTRS approval had not been genuine. I wasn't that surprised; it was too high quality an image to be on WP ;-/  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The "Mitt Romney 2012 CPAC.jpg" image is too off center and looks like Romney is sticking his arm into something. It does not deserve to be used. Harpsichord246 (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Harpsichord246. Has anyone tried to contact Romney's campaign to ask if they would donate a good image for the article? — GabeMc (talk) 02:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The eyes are the window to the soul. Dezastru (talk) 01:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is this picture up again? Don't we agree that it is not acceptable due to Romney's "eyeless" appearance. Harpsichord246 (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC) We should use this picture---> Harpsichord246, the problem with the one on the left is that his eyes are in the shadow, of course. But the one on the right makes him look 20 years older than he is, plus with his collar like that he doesn't exactly look very presidential. I've looked at a bunch of photos of him on Flickr. I realize that the major issue is that for WP we would need the owner to pretty much allow unrestricted use, so I suggest the following for the sake of discussion. These are some of the kinds of photos that would be preferable to just about anything else that has been proposed recently. This (or something very similar) is the photo I was asking about the other day when I asked what had happened to it. It's probably the best photo, and is what we should be aiming for. As an alternative, since Gage Skidmore is a WP contributor, perhaps Skidmore would allow this photo to be used, as it is preferable in my view to the two being compared in the 23:35, 19 May 2012 post. Dezastru (talk) 00:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your point about Romney looking older in the second picture. However, you did say yourself that "The eyes are the window to the soul". If this is truly so, the second picture is definitively better than the first, despite its downfalls. As for the alternative you offered, it looks pretty good except that it looks like he is rolling his eyes. Perhaps someone could contact the author so he/she may allow us to use this photo. Harpsichord246 (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, that person on Flickr is not the creator of that photo. They got it from Wikipedia when it was still available. Gage (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just so you know (and don't have to look over like I just did) the current picture is neither of these two shown here, and shows the windows to the soul better. Tnks, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems that this issue has been resolved. Harpsichord246 (talk) 05:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)