Talk:Mitt Romney/Archive 14

Edit request on 20 May 2012 (w rgd to prep schooling chrono)
Your article states: "He attended public elementary schools[14] until the seventh grade, when he began commuting to Cranbrook School in Bloomfield Hills, a traditional private boys preparatory school where he was the lone Mormon and where many students came from backgrounds even more privileged then he.

Although there is a boys middle school, there is also a girl's middle school as well. The school is not a private boys preparatory school, it is overall a co-ed institution.

http://schools.cranbrook.edu/podium/default.aspx?t=107992

Mk12483 (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * what matters is how the school was in 1959-1965 not how it is now. 174.226.199.18 (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Not done. They're two different schools, and he attended the one for only boys.   Hot Stop   14:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * cmt - Prepsters Mitt Romney and Ann Davies (to-be Romney) were enrolled in Cranbrook schools Brookside lower school and its Kingswood lower school, repectively. The lower school is now co-educational. (The middle school didn't exist then; it eventually was split off and in the late eighties it was organized as a single school with separate boys-only and girls-only sections, called Cranbrook Kingswood Upper School.)--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Until some time in, I don't know, the late 1970s or early 1980s when they were merged and their schools realigned, Cranbrook School for Boys and Kingswood School Cranbrook were separate single-sex institutions, each grades 7-12, broken into a Lower School of grades 7 & 8, and an Upper School of grades 9-12. Brookside was the co-ed elementary school and I'm not sure how they described it.  It might've been as prosaic as the "elementary school".  JohnInDC (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The school sez:"Willard Mitt Romney entered Cranbrook in the fall of 1959 at age 12 (grade seven). There was no middle school at the time, and he attended Cranbrook School Brookside for grades seven and eight. He entered the upper school (Cranbrook School) in the fall of 1961, and graduated on June 12, 1965 at the age of 18. All of his siblings likewise attended and graduated from the school including Lynn Romney in 1953 (Kingswood), Jane Romney in 1956 (Kingswood), and Scott Romney in 1959 (Cranbrook). Romney met his future wife, Ann Davies, while he was a senior and she was a sophomore. Ann Davies graduated from Kingswood School Cranbrook in 1967. ...  Romney was apparently very active in campus life. According to his senior yearbook, his activities included: “Cross Country, hockey manager, Glee Club, Pre-Med Club, Church Cabinet, The Forum, Pep Club, Blue Key Club, American Field Service, World Affairs Seminar, Speculator’s Club, Homecoming Committee chair, assistant editor of the yearbook, ‘The Brook,’ and Inter-House Council Form 6 Representative from Stevens Hall.  ---LINK"--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh. The source - Cranbrook itself - certainly does say that but I am just as certain it's wrong.  I don't think Cranbrook had grades 7 & 8 when it was founded in 1927 but it added them soon after and they were always part of Cranbrook School, not Brookside.  For sure if the change had come just a few years before I arrived in the 1966-67 school year, I'd have known about it!  I suspect that someone in the public affairs office who came on board a bit more recently, and lacks first-hand experience with the original structure, wrote that text.  Not that it matters; a source is a source of course of course - but I couldn't let the error pass without comment!  JohnInDC (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I was wrong about one thing - grades 7, 8 & 9 were the original grades. Ten through twelve were added as the first boys got older.  Here's a brief history of the school - typewritten! - by one of the teachers there, Boyce Ricketts (whom I had for history BTW).  I am sure there would be quibbles about whether this is an RS or not, but Cranbrook thinks enough of it to host the PDF on its own web site.  http://schools.cranbrook.edu/ftpimages/209/misc/misc_21139.pdf .  I may place a call to the school and get them to tweak that text.  JohnInDC (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Kudos. Btw a self-published source is considered accurate about (um relatively) uncontroversial material about itself so the pdf hosted at Cranbrook Schools's website wd be fine. (In my personal opinion anyway!)--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Query - should asides about the general tenets of Mormonism be indirectly then attributed as beliefs of Romney even when not directly sourced to him?
Is proper in this BLP?

As I read it, it catenates claims in a manner which I think might well be untoward, and includes material and claims which more aptly belong in the articles on Mormonism than on the BLP here - that a person is a member of a religion does not automatically make claims about the religion proper in his BLP any more than, say, adding long claims about contraception as a Catholic teaching belong automatically in every Catholic politician's biography. Or adding long explanations about "jihad" to every Muslim politician's biography. We should stick strictly to what is directly atributable to the politician or other subject.
 * The edit summary given states:
 *  no it doesn't say that at all, it saves the two dovetail, and it's no synthesis, read the sources 

And I would further suggest the concept of giving claims with the intent of having them "dovetail" is precisely what Wikipedia deprecates in BLPs. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's take the first piece of the text. From this NYT story today:
 * "Or take Mr. Romney’s frequent tributes to American exceptionalism. “I refuse to believe that America is just another place on the map with a flag,” he said in announcing his bid for the presidency last June. Every presidential candidate highlights patriotism, but Mr. Romney’s is backed by the Mormon belief that the United States was chosen by God to play a special role in history, its Constitution divinely inspired.
 * “He is an unabashed, unapologetic believer that America is the Promised Land,” said Douglas D. Anderson, dean of the business school at Utah State University and a friend, and that leading it is “an obligation and responsibility to God.” "
 * That to me shows that Romney's belief in American exceptionalism consciously dovetails the Mormon belief in the same. That's what I'm trying to get across.  It does not mean that Salt Lake City will be controlling Washington or anything paranoid like that.   Wasted Time R (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That to me shows that Romney's belief in American exceptionalism consciously dovetails the Mormon belief in the same. That's what I'm trying to get across.  It does not mean that Salt Lake City will be controlling Washington or anything paranoid like that.   Wasted Time R (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Your post shows the problem precisely -- that is, an apparent attempt to link positions of Romney to Mormon theology - when he has not made that connection himself.  If Romeny made a specific claim in line with what "Mormon theology" is - but that is not the case at hand -- this is an attempt to link Mormon theology directly with Romney when the proper location for such stuff is the article on ... Mormon theology.   Would you place place the contraception discussion in every Catholic's biolgraphy? "Jihad" in every Muslim biography?   I would hope not - yet that is the precise analog of what is being done here.  Let's stick to what Romney says, and not simply link him to every contentious bit about the Mormon beliefs.  Collect (talk) 01:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * So we can't include anything in the article unless Romney says it himself? That would throw out 95 percent of what is here.  We are trying to show how Mormon tenets influence his political life, just like Bain teachings do, just like Napoleon Hill did, etc.  That they do, he said in his "Faith in America" speech: "And these convictions will indeed inform my presidency."  If reliable sources (including quotes from professors who are Romney friends) describe how some tenets inform his political beliefs, we can use that.  Plenty of political figures, despite nominally being of some religion, have little or no impact from that religion on their political belief systems.  With Romney, that's not the case.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Wasted's arguements here are much stronger IMO. We are attempting to integrate the most notable aspects of Romney, not just mundane facts about his past, but also what currently drives and motivates him. There is no question in my mind about sourcing when it comes to Wasted, if anything, they oversource. I have seen no evidence of significant synthesis in Wasted's editing here thus far, if anything, they tend to hold too close to the source, and overcite. — GabeMc (talk) 03:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You aver that a half century ago a minor incident "drives and motivates" Romney? Silly season is here for sure.
 * Childhood events are not really useful in looking at any candidate. Period.
 * Is my position clear on this? if John Gnarph stole a candy bar from a store when he was a teenager - that has zilch value in his BLP unless you are a Jean Valjean sort of person yourself.   I certainly am no Javert.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that childhood events are of limited utility in evaluating a candidate. But the purpose of this article is not to 'look at a candidate'.  The purpose of this article is not to inform readers about whom to vote for.  The purpose of this article is a biography of the subject.  It should consist of roughly the same kind of material that a real book biography contains, only compressed to 10,000 words instead of 300 pages.    Wasted Time R (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In related um "news" ("olds"?), the WaPo revealed yesterday that Romney's gr.-grandfather is buried in [Alma], Ark., whereas Obama's gr-gr-gr-gr-gr-gr.-grandpa is buried in [Dinsmore], Ark.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OMG - who the heck cares? Collect (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, apparently, the Wash. Post? --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Close paraphrase
Maybe its just me, but these seem too close, and verge on copyvio, per WP:PARAPHRASE, please correct me if I am wrong.


 * Article text: "Like most individual Mormon missionaries in France, Romney did not gain many converts"
 * Source text: "Like most missionaries, he did not win many converts."

Adding a few words ("individual Mormon", "in France"), and substituting "he" for "Romney", and "gain" for "win" without substantially altering the original sentence structure is not proper paraphrasing. — GabeMc (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with that.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really agree, but I've restructured the sentence anyway. I've also removed the "in France", which was a recent addition by another editor, and inserted an additional source to support that most individual missionaries anywhere do not gain many converts.  As the source says, the church succeeds in expansion-by-conversion by having huge numbers of missionaries out there, so that the small results of each pair really add up overall.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Avoiding use of 'Romney'
GabeMc, you've diminished the quality of parts of this article by your dozens of edits that seek to avoid "overuse of name" and that replace "Romney" with "he". Where do you get the idea that this is necessary? What MoS guideline is informing you on this? You're doing this to an extreme, such as having a whole section start off with nothing but "He"s and not having "Romney" appear until the second paragraph.

Most professional writing uses "Romney" all the time. Take a look at this WaPo story that is familiar to all of us. Take a look at this NYT story. Take a look at this New Yorker piece. Take a look at any page of the Kranish-Helman book. "Romney" is used frequently in all of these. So where are you coming from on this? Wasted Time R (talk) 10:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I'll be careful so as to not confues the reader, and I hear you on the first mention per section. Its a prose thing, Mark Arsten agreed, the usage should be adequeat, but minimized, as in there is no need to use his name every time he is mentioned, we all know who the article is about. — GabeMc (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is something I try to keep an eye on. Some (jumbled) thoughts on the issue: I generally try to avoid "Romney did this. A while later, Romney did that too." in favor of "Romney did this. A while later, he did that too." Of course, it's not a great idea to start several consecutive sentences with "He" though. If there could be confusion, clarity should triumphs over all. In "Romney battled McCain for their party's nomination. Four years later, he battled Santorum." I'd put "Romney battled McCain for their party's nomination. Four years later, Romney battled Santorum." just to avoid potential confusion about which of them battled Santorum. Also, I think it's generally advisable not to begin a paragraph with a pronoun in the first sentence. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Overuse of names and underuse of pronouns is a hallmark of bad writing. Good writing uses names to establish and disambiguate reference and pronouns when the reference is clear.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Case in point here: Romney, who was not at fault in the accident,[nb 6] became co-acting president of a mission demoralized and disorganized by the May civil disturbances and by the car accident.[35] Romney rallied and motivated the others and they met an ambitious goal of 200 baptisms for the year, the most for the mission in a decade.[35] By the end of his stint in December 1968, Romney was overseeing the work of 175 fellow members.[30][38] Romney developed a lifelong affection for France and its people, and speaks French.[40]

Do we really need to use "Romney", four times in four sentences? — GabeMc (talk) 22:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Another: The Romneys' first son, Taggart, was born in 1970[44] while the Romneys were undergraduates at Brigham Young[50] and living in a basement apartment.[30][41] Ann subsequently gave birth to Matt (1971), Josh (1975), Ben (1978), and Craig (1981).[44] Ann Romney's work as a homemaker would enable her husband to pursue his career.[51]

this should be:

The Romneys' first son, Taggart, was born in 1970[44] while the they were undergraduates at Brigham Young[50] and living in a basement apartment.[30][41] Ann subsequently gave birth to Matt (1971), Josh (1975), Ben (1978), and Craig (1981).[44] Her work as a homemaker would enable her husband to pursue his career.[51]

— GabeMc (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Another: Romney still wanted to pursue a business path, but his father, by now serving in President Richard Nixon's cabinet as U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, advised that a law degree would be valuable.[52][53] Thus Romney became one of only fifteen students to enroll at the recently created joint Juris Doctor/Master of Business Administration four-year program coordinated between Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School.[54] Fellow students considered Romney guilelessly optimistic, noting his solid work ethic and buttoned-down demeanor and appearance.[54][55] Three uses of "Romney" within three sentences is poor prose. — GabeMc (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Merging all U.S. states presidential primary and election articles
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI: Consensus seems to be to wait for any merging until after August and national convention in Tampa. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

H.S. circa 1960s

 * Cmt I happen to have Mark Oppenheimer (PhD, Yale)'s recent memoir that is greatly about Conn. prep school life on my bookshelf. Amazing, in the 1980s there was sexual-orientation-baiting in H.S., per Oppie's recollections. Plot element: Oppie gets thrown in the stream meandering through Loomis-Chaffee Acad. by a senior psuedonymously named Chas. Wainwright IV and Chas.'s henchmen. Oppie's dad, a lawyer, calls the dean and the dean declines to even suspend the seniors. Oppie has to talk his dad out of suing, eventually coming clean about Oppie's relentless campaign of sarcasm directed toward Charles in payback for his clever putdowns delivered at Oppie's expense a season earlier: both of which were tinged with--unbelievably!--sissy- and/or gay-baiting. Which isn't to say such behaviors should not be described, if they become of note. Just that, as historians, we do so in reference to the culture of the era (just as anthropoligists take into account a people's unspoken/formal ideas about what is appropriate). IAC here is--
 * -Iconic prog. pundit Michael Kinsley's (no fan of Mitt's) comments to a Slate reporter.
 * -Cranbrooker No. 2 @ RedBlack&Blue.com: "What happened in the dormitory tended to stay in the dormitory. Because of the potential for severe disciplinary action, people kept their mouths shut. ... In a dormitory full of teenage boys, that was the kind of setting where that sort of thing could happen from time to time. But if somebody asked me if I thought Mitt was a bully, the answer is a very definitive no. Mitt was not an intimidating person at all. He was skinny. He wasn't an athlete; he wasn't a leader of the class. At the time, he was not considered one of the top scholars at the school," [Sydney] Barthwell [Jr.] said, adding that he thinks the hair cutting incident is being blown out of proportion. "It was an unfortunate incident obviously, but I don't think that it would end up being as dastardly as it has been portrayed." LINK
 * -Cranbrooker No. 3: "Cranbrook in the ‘60s had a culture that probably would be considered “homophobic” today, but was the norm then. I don’t know anybody there who actually hated or wanted to hurt homosexuals, but you sure didn’t want to be called one. We were a bunch of adolescent boys with macho complexes, trying to live up to what we thought “real men” should be like. In the ‘60s, that meant being masculine and heterosexual." LINK
 * --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * -Cranbrooker No. 4 LINK--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Complicating the issue is that sociologists/those studying the psychology of adolescence indicate that there is some grey area w rgd to sexual orientations in puberty. (Heck buggery is very common in all male boarding schools on both sides of the Atlantic, with those participating historically not nec. self-identifying as "not straight." Here's a gay individual who attended Cranbrook in the 50s' recollections in The New Yorker.)--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

... his wealth has helped fund several of his political campaigns.
Which of his political campaigns has he not "helped fund"? — GabeMc (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In 1994 he funded $3 million of $7+ million. In 2002 he funded $6.3 million, don't have the total (should include it probably).  In 2007-2008 he funded $45 million of $110 million.  So far in 2011-2012 he has funded nothing of $98 million.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I sent you the link, he has indeed contributed to 2012, the relatively small amount does not mean he hasn't kicked in for 2012 yet. — GabeMc (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * $75K out of $98M is 0.08 percent. Compare that to the 40 percent or more that he funded the other campaigns. Nevertheless, if you want to equate them the lead, go ahead, I'm not going to battle on this one any more.   Wasted Time R (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, Wasted, you are missing the point here. If by "most of" you mean the majority of races run, then you are wrong, his wealth has helped fund EVERY race he has ever ran. If by "most of" you mean the majority of total funds spent by his campaign then you are still wrong, as his contibution of 40% is not "most of" the money spent on his campaigns, its not even half. Besides, don't you think he will eventually have kicked in millions before its over? — GabeMc (talk) 01:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's agree to disagree on this one and your wording will prevail. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment I think it's rather trivial information for his bio, when specific articles exist. - Xcal68 (talk) 11:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A matter of opinion, but to be clear, are you suggesting that Romney's bio should avoid the issue of his wealth, or the issue of the use of his wealth to fund some 40% of his campaign spending? — GabeMc (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The latter. - Xcal68 (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It's quite possible Romney would never have had a political career at all if he couldn't self-fund much of his 1994 and 2002 campaigns, and it's also possible he never would have run for president if he couldn't self-fund part of his 2007-2008 campaign.  Many of the news stories about those campaigns talked about him spending his own money, and so should we.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "It's quite possible Romney would never have had a political career at all if he couldn't self-fund. " This is consistent with what he said himself. He suggested "that those who need to win an elected office to pay their bills shouldn’t run" (WaPo).


 * He quoted his father saying "never get involved in politics if you have to win an election to pay the mortgage." He also said "I was happy that [Kennedy] had to take a mortgage out on his house to ultimately defeat me." Gingrich responded by saying this: "We want every day, normal people to be able to run for office, not just millionaires."


 * In 2007 ABC observed that "Forbes was the subject of quite a bit of scorn among GOP political circles for the multimillion-dollar loans he gave his quixotic campaigns for the presidency," and that "Romney Surpasses Steve Forbes' Self-Funding Pace," but that nevertheless Romney "has largely escaped such editorializing" (ABC). Jukeboxgrad (talk) 11:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * " It's quite possible Romney would never have had a political career at all if he couldn't self-fund much of his 1994 and 2002 campaigns, and it's also possible he never would have run for president if he couldn't self-fund part of his 2007-2008 campaign."


 * Do you actually have any evidence you're basing that on, or is it purely your own opinion? - Xcal68 (talk) 10:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked for sources on that, because the article doesn't get into that kind of speculation. Regarding the second part of what I said, see here for many 1994 news stories about him spending millions of his own money, see here for many 2002 news stories about him spending millions of his own money, see here for many 2007-2008 news stories about him spending millions of his own money.  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "I haven't looked for sources on that, because the article doesn't get into that kind of speculation."


 * The article doesn't, but you did speculate, which is why I asked. You made it part of your argument.  Whether he's funded campaigns or not isn't a point of contention.  I'm only suggesting there's a better article for the bulk of that content. - Xcal68 (talk) 11:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There's exactly one sentence on each of these: (1994) "Romney spent $3 million of his own money in the race and more than $7 million overall.[111][nb 10]" (2002) "During the election he contributed over $6 million – a state record at the time – to the nearly $10 million raised for his campaign overall.[138][139]"  (2008) "He spent $110 million during the campaign, including $45 million of his own money.[220]"  I don't think that's bulky or overweighted here in the main article.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * We disagree, but that's ok. We don't need a drawn out discussion about it.  I don't plan on making edits to it. - Xcal68 (talk) 12:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Prose issue
"He continued to work hard; having grown up in Michigan rather than the more insular Utah world, Romney was better able to interact with the French than other missionaries."[35][11]

1) Is this implying that people in Utah do not work as hard as people in Michigan? 2) What does growing up in Michigan have to do with interacting with the French? — GabeMc (talk) 00:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe #1 is unconnected with locality, just a segue, I believe the meaning of #2 is that due to demographics a Mormon growing up in Utah would likely spend their life primarily around other Mormons. A Mormon growing up in Michigan would have spent more time interacting with Non-Mormons.  So it's trying to say that due to his greater experience dealing with Non-Mormons, he was better able to interact with the Non-Mormon French people.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Cube lurker is correct on both counts. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Right on, I see it now, thanks. — GabeMc (talk) 00:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it a Mormon belive (re#2 "dealing with Non-Mormons") that a Mormon growing up around other Mormons would likely spend their life primarily around other Mormons ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a belief as in a rule. More a reality of the fact that per the Utah article 60% of the people who live there are Mormons, that's opposed to below 1% in Michigan.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Buds, eg White?

 * 1) Unflappable Bain exec nicknamed "the Quail." Perhaps link mention to Robert F. White somewhere?--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 2)  Ron Kaufman--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't list peoples friends in BLP's without a reason other than "hey, they know each other" or "wow, they worked together". If you think there's a noteworthy reason to include you should probably propose some sort of sentence that shows why this relationship is worthy of discussion in an encyclopedia article.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I like the way R refers to him.
 * -Turnaround, p381: 'wing man,' Bob White. He was there at the founding of Bain Capital, there during the last weeks of my run against Senator Kennedy, there at the beginnings of my Olympics job. Bob is true blue, through and through.
 * -No Apology p307: Bob White, my career-long wingman
 * Bill Clinton had a gabajillion (ersatz) friends (um incl. some lllayyydies) whereas Obama (and Romney) is more the family creature, relatively more solitaire in his social habits. Hence a characterization of White by Noam Scheiber (at TNR link) as Romney's "...longtime-pal-cum-alter-ego[... ...: his ]trusty wingman."
 * --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WSJ: Bob White -- Mr. Romney called him his "wingman" -- was a carryover from the candidate's days at Bain Capital. Mr. White, jovial and smart....link--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you put it in a sentance of what you're thinking for the article? I'm not seeing anything biography worthy there, but if you could frame it as you'd like to see it, maybe I'd see where you're coming from.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * An objective of the project is--accdg to my own understanding, anyway--to have every significantly related article wikilinked in a perfectly written article, to in an article in some fashion: even if, push come to shove, only in See-also. Since White, per Politico"has worked on every political race Romney's been involved in, including his unsuccessful Senate run against Ted Kennedy in 1994. White helped Romney turn around the Olympic Games in Salt Lake City and headed the transition team when Romney was elected governor in 2002. The 2008 cycle found White in the cockpit of Romney's first national effort, even if campaign manager Beth Myers was flying the plane. He will be a significant presence in any 2012 effort"--offa top o my head I tippetytap"...mister Bain asked R to helm the start-up, tapping so'n'so, so'n'no and so'n'so as major partners and as management team, mssrs. X, Y, Z, and Bob White: [Edited: also a minor partner, who was to become, long term, Romney's most trusted lieutenant/confidante and friend ]."--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Meh, seems superfluous to me. Not objectionable (except too much WP:PEACOCK in that last sentence), just unimportant unless there's more than what I'm seeing.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A'ight. As edited, then?--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see this either. The Bain Capital article is the place where the detailed history of all the people involved in the company belongs.  Also I think your linking model is off – you can have a hundred articles that link to A but the A article might only link to ten of those articles.   Wasted Time R (talk) 01:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Bottom line: per wp:N/wp:RS, notably rel. sources demonstrate a notable relationship's existence here. Hence a mention to fill that hole in the bio. Eg, you [Wasted Time R] wrote were the principal scribe of Geo. R's wikibio; Is Geo's friend and confidante Edwin Jones mentioned there? .....'sec'y of state' of any romney 'kitchen cabinet'?:"[...Former ]vice president[...]of Walden Media [,...Peter G. ]Flaherty[ II], former Boston Herald State House reporter Fehrnstrom, and Myers are now Romney’s closest longtime aides, along with Robert F. White. A volunteer, White is a friend of Romney’s[...]. ---Ronald Kessler, March 12, 2012 link""Myers['...]political consulting group —[...]with Flaherty and Eric 'Etch A Sketch' Fehrnstrom[ — ...]along with Romney's old buddy Bob White, compose what is widely considered to be Romney's closest circle of nonfamilial advisers. ---NYMag, May 9, 2012"--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:OVERCITE
"In July 1966, he left for a thirty-month stay in France as a Mormon missionary,[14][29][30]"
 * Is this really so contentious so as to require three citations? The code required for this is:




 * Whereas, we could cite this simple, uncontentious claim to Kranish & Helman, which would require:




 * IMO, this concept should be applied to the article in general, making it easier to verify, and easier to edit/improve. — GabeMc (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

When the Kranish-Helman book came out, I thought about changing as many article sources to it as I could. I eventually decided not to, because On the other hand, like you say, it would shorten the citing. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It would mean that the article's sourcing relied heavily upon one work (which in other articles has brought criticism from reviewers)
 * It would mean that the article's sourcing was unavailable to most readers
 * The book is frustratingly vague in some places, and lacks the precision of some of the currently-used news sources


 * Regarding the particular instance you point out, the first cite gives the 30-month figure and the second cite pins down the starting date (which the other cites didn't). The second one is actually a photo of his missionary training class, which is interesting for a reader to see, and is connected to a bunch of other good early photos.  So I kind of wanted to keep that cite in anyway.  The third cite doesn't add anything; that's either a mistake by me or the result of some sentence shuffling.  In any case, I've removed it.  Wasted Time R (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I hear you on leaning too "heavily upon one work", but when there is only one decent book about the subject, this should be less of an issue. Besides, all the cites to the Boston Globe series have a similar effect anyway.


 * As far as "the article's sourcing was unavailable to most readers". The book has been in print for over three months, so anyone who wants to get a copy could, and remember if verifiability relied overly on ease, then the Geo Romney book, or any out-of-print sources should be avoided as well, by that logic. Yeah, the book is vague, but it could still help to simplify the sourcing, which is currently somewhat messy and convoluted IMO.


 * Anyway, Kranish; Helman, The Real Romney, pp. 61–64., covers the 30-month figure, and while it may not "pin down" the exact starting date, it does say Mitt left for France less than two months after finishing his freshman year at Stanford, which indicates July, if vaguely. — GabeMc (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The BG series is at least spread out among more than just two writers. I agree that books are fine to use in general, but ... I thought Kranish-Helman would at least contain everything that the series does, but in fact I found several places where it doesn't.  It also doesn't clear up several of the more difficult areas that the article currently tries to understand, such as exact Olympics spending levels or exact Massachusetts surplus/deficit amounts.  I found the book kind of disappointing as a reference source as a result.  Anyway, I like the precision of that photo cite about when his mission started, so I'd argue to keep it in.  Wasted Time R (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I hear you on Kranish & Helman, but my concern with the BG series is access, as currently parts, 2,3, and 4 do not link to the actual article, leaving the text sourced to them virtually impossible to verify. I thought you had fixed this a week or so ago, so I'm not sure why its reverted back. — GabeMc (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't do anything on this a week ago, but I have now. The Boston Globe manages to not only change its articles back and forth between free and pay, but it also changes the urls themselves over time.  But I've gone through all seven parts, and right now five of them are free on boston.com.  So I've updated to those urls.  Two are paywalled (parts 3 and 6), but I found full versions at archive.org, so I've updated the cites to those.  For the other five, I found full versions at archive.org as well, and I've added those but commented them out.  If the boston.com version gets paywalled, we can activiate those archiveurls as needed (assuming they still work then, which is not a given either).  In addition, I've given HighBeam urls for all seven – a lot of WP editors now have HighBeam access and hopefully those urls don't change over time.  (I've left the Deseret News 'also published in' references in for now, but I'm tempted to take them out – I think I've seen cases where they edited the BG versions.)  Also remember that in terms of verification, even if all the free versions disappear, you can always buy the paywalled ones.  I've bought 'ten-packs' at BG and WaPo and other places over the years.  But for now, given that all seven parts are available, it might be a good idea to download them onto your hard drive, then you have easy access to them no matter what happens.  That's how I look back at them on an on-going basis.  As a final note, repeated access to these BG series parts (as in "44 ^abcdefghijklmn") is actually a more efficient use of footnotes than book references, where you might have 10 or 15 different footnotes for different page numbers or ranges.  So bottom line, I think we're better off keeping with the existing BG series cites rather than trying to replace them with Kranish-Helman book cites.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice work Wasted, thanks again for your efforts. Yes, I will get those articles downloaded to my hard drive for future reference. Per the Kranish and Helman book, and cites to it. I don't disagree in general, but I do think a few cites to the physical book would help balance out an "online source" heavy article. Also, while what you say is true about citing the BG series, and efficiency, I also think at times its nice to just get a page number versus having to search a several page document to verify a claim. Part 1 for example is ten pages, part 2 is nine. Also, these articles were in large part written over 5 years ago, so the Kranish and Helman book has been more recently edited/fact checked. So, I think we are both correct here, and I suggest an attempt to balance the cites a bit, so that some are sourced to the book, and some to the excerted articles, particularly where the two diverge. — GabeMc (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You can view them as a single page when you download them, so that you get one long document instead of the ten separate pages. Then the searching is much easier.  I don't know of any cases where the book corrects anything in the series, although I suppose it's possible.  And if there's really a need for a diversity of sources, replacing ten BG writers with two BG writers is unlikely to help.  But then, I don't think there's anything wrong with the sourcing in this article and I never have.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as claiming there is no room for improvement in the article's sourcing, how about this sentence: "Romney was born at Harper Hospital in Detroit, Michigan,[1] the youngest child of George W. Romney, a self-made man who by 1948 had become an automobile executive, and Lenore Romney (née LaFount), an aspiring actress turned homemaker.[2][3][4]"

[1] covers Mitt's birth hospital, [2] covers Lenore's acting, and [3] covers George Romney's career. Why is there a need for [4], which seems to do nothing but reinforce that Geo Romney was succsessful, but is that contentious so as to require two cites? Does [4] source info not already covered in [3]? — GabeMc (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh, it was you that just added [2], not me. The purpose of [4] was to give added evidence of the "self-made man" description that somebody challenged.  If you're comfortable with that not being needed, then both [2] and [4] can go away; [3] can cover everything, since the Mahoney pages I picked also cover Lenore's activities.  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * True, I added [2], and I asked for sourcing for "self-made man". If [3] covers George's career, then [4] isn't needed. Also, as far as [2], I think a 2012 bio on her son is a better source than an out-of-print 52 year-old bio on her husband, don't you? Also, "When he was five, the family moved from Detroit to the affluent suburb of Bloomfield Hills.[15]" 1) Kranish-Helman say Mitt was "about six" when they moved in 1953, and [15] does not specify his age, or the year they moved, unless I missed it. I'll change the cite to the Kranish-Helman book, feel free to revert if I have made an error in doing so. — GabeMc (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:SOURCEACCESS says that ease of access is not a factor in WP:V and WP:RS and I strongly believe that. But then, I'm old school; I like books that give names and places and dates and are as specific as possible.  Analysis and interpretation is fine too, but get the basics down first.  On that count, Mahoney is better than K-H, which can be frustratingly vague as a reference source.  Anyway, [4] is gone now (until I missed an edit conflict, I've had a bunch), and [2] is completely redundant given [3].  But if you're cool with keeping [2] in, then so am I.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me Wasted, nice work again. — GabeMc (talk) 04:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Anne Hutchinson
I think we should mention in the heritage section that Mitt is a decendant of Anne Hutchinson. Any objections? — GabeMc (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What source says that he is, and what source says that it's meaningful?  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Scott, 2012, p.4–5, its meaningful because Joseph Smith was also a decendant of Hutchinson, as are the Bush family (41&43), and several Du Ponts as well, according to Scott. She is as notable an ancestor as Pratt or Miles Romney, perhaps even more so, due to blood relation with the first Mormon prophet. — GabeMc (talk) 03:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope. Do you have any idea how many descendants she has?   Unless you can link her directly in some way to Romney this is "genealogical trivia" of no encyclopedic value. (possibly up to five million Americans I suspect - her first child was born in  1613 - 7 years before the Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth, and she had 15 children, not to mention her dozen siblings leading to uncountable cousins of her line).   From 1583 to now is 435 years -- say 18 generations, or at 4 children per generation after the first ... say up to 100 billion direct progeny were it not for intermarriage etc.  Collect (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Have to agree with Collect on this one. I've read a number of accounts of the Romney family heritage, and this is the first one to think a link with Anne Hutchinson is significant.  The purple prose that Scott uses – "Tamp a syrup tap into the Romney family tree and it will soon be oozing Yankee blue from veins that run all the way back to those storied Pilgrims who landed in Plymouth" – doesn't build confidence in this source either.  If you go far enough back, everybody's related to everybody.  For instance, I am distantly related to two American presidents, and I can assure you it means absolutely nothing!  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Obnly two? I used a (major online genealogy site) and traced back to Charlemagne, Muhammed, Julius Caesar, Minerva and Thor (also a dozen or so minor saints, a few miscellaneous kings and emperors, and at least one murderer).  I can assure you it does mean absolutely nothing at that point. Collect (talk) 12:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Some of the protestations of unencyclopedic and trivial about various sections of this article are highly selective, considering that the article already tells us that Romney was on the cross-country team, that he read automotive trade magazines as a boy, that he donated money earned from a book he authored to charity, that he was married at his home in Bloomfield Hills, and even the name of the hospital where he was born. GabeMc, it might be worth including mention of Anne Hutchinson in the Romney family article, where it will probably be less contested, assuming you have strong enough sources. Dezastru (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would have no objections to removing such trivia as to his marrying at home, and reading trade journals.  We conver his charitable donations, so removing the book royalty donation would possibly mislead readers at this point.   The hospital name is used in a lot of BLPs, so you would have to gain a fairly good consensus to remove that bit.   Anne Hutchinson is likly the ancestor of 10 million Americans as a minimum, and possibly as many as (say) 20 million or more (based on known stats for Mayflower descendants albeit she was not on that ship).  Collect (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Collect -- there are millions of descendants of most of the early settlers of New England. If Romney had talked about it, made it something relevant to his campaign, I'd say maybe, but as genealogical trivia, there's nothing noteworthy about it.  --Coemgenus (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Dezastru and Collect, the marriage text in the article currently reads, "The couple were married on March 21, 1969, in a civil ceremony at Ann's family's home in Bloomfield Hills that was presided over by a church elder.[45][46][47] The following day, the couple flew to Utah for a wedding ceremony at the Salt Lake Temple.[45][46]" This double ceremony is described in pretty much every source that covers their marriage.  So what is the proposed change?  Eliminate the civil marriage but still include the temple one?  Give the date of the civil one but not the location?  Give the two dates but no locations on either?  Wasted Time R (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Wasted, I am not one complaining of too much detail in the article. (But if I were, I would say, just use "The couple married in March 1969" and leave it at that. Readers who want more detail can visit [physically or virtually] their local public library or bookstore for one of the full-length biographies.) Dezastru (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You can say that about anything in the whole article, and you end up with the reductionist viewpoint that a WP article is just a link farm and bibliography. But I have removed the entire description of young Mitt being interested in the auto industry; in general in the article I've tried to focus on what Mitt became, not what he didn't become (so I left out the job offer he didn't take, and the political office he didn't run for), and this was sort of a violation of that.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Collect, FTR, only one of her progeny survived the 1643 massacre. — GabeMc (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And yet she still has millions of descendants - in case you missed that. Not to mention cousins by the carload.  BTW, read up -- the massacre included Anne and the five youngest children.  One of those present survived (Susannah).  Her other children were not at the massacre - which is where you went astray.  Edward, Richard, Samuel, Faith and Bridget were decidedly not killed, as they produced lots of children.  I trust this answers your misapprehension. Collect (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * True, my mistake, all but one of her household at the time died in the massacre, but several of her children were not present at the time. Thanks for clearing that up. But still, why is Pratt more notable? — GabeMc (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * First- I do not think Pratt is all that notable. Second, Anne is much further back in time - thus has a lot more descendants in the first place.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I've taken Pratt out. Can we forget about Hutchinson now?  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wasted, I don't think Pratt should be taken out, I think its quite notable that he, as an early church leader, is Romney's ancestor. Not sure why the Hutchinson inclusion would cause such discord though. — GabeMc (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Pratt "only" has on the order of ten thousand descendants. I guess we could list them all -- were it not for the fact that a far more limited set of descendents for British royalty was deleted by strong consensus.   Unless, or course, Pratt is more important than a King of England? Collect (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, I support having the Pratt and Miles material in – after all, I added it in the first place. But if it means that both it and Anne Hutchinson go in, I'd rather have both of them out.  Adding Hutchinson opens the door for the Huntsmans and every other crazy genaeological connection to be brought in.  GabeMc, look at the edit battle history on the Romney family article and you'll get a flavor of what you stepped into here.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I hear you Wasted, I also think that Pratt and Miles are far more notable, and appropriate for inclusion, all I was thinking was something like, "Romney is also a decendant of Anne Hutchinson, considered by some to be America's first feminist." Or something to that effect. It would help balance out the male-centric heritage section. I'm not married to it, nor do I feel that stongly about it. As Collect points out, she is much futher back in time, so his relation to her is pretty thin. As far as Scott as a source, just because you can find examples of flowery prose in the work does not make it an unreliable source. Many, if not most of the books I have used to cite articles (GA and FA class) contain an example or two of "purple prose" as well, which is perfectly fine (within reason) for a bio, just not for an encyclopedia. Also, while I wouldn't compare the Scott book to the Kranish-Helman work, IMO, Scott's prose is in general better than KH, which is quite vague and awkward in places. — GabeMc (talk) 23:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It's already in a related article: --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

2002 Winter Olympics Budget
Let's take another look at the 2002 Winter Olympics budget.

 from the Archives (Talk:Mitt Romney Archives 11) The material in this section is reproduced here for convenience. Please do not modify it.

Olympics spending

Here's what I think the Olympics spending numbers are:


 * Direct Games budget - $1.32 billion
 * Federal spending in support of this - $382 million


 * Federal spending for additional infrastructure that would have happened eventually anyway - $1.1 billion


 * Total federal outlays related to Olympics - $1.5 billion (pretty much equals $382M + $1.1B)

See changes to the article for sources.

I think this reconciles all the figures being used in the sources, except the $600 million number quoted from Romney in the first AP article added. I think that may represent the new monies that Romney got, both for direct aid and infrastructure, after he took over as SLOC head. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure you're right in the way you've added this up. You dismiss the $600 million figure, which comes from a reliable source, because you decide to assume that the AP reporter who evidently checked the records and interviewed some people about Olympics financing nevertheless made a $200 million error.  Beyond that, I'm absolutely sure that it's wrong for us to assert as a fact that the infrastructure spending would have occurred anyway, or even that the federal government thought it would.  Some of that infrastructure was arguably unnecessary except for the Olympics.  Furthermore, it's not irrelevant that even spending that would have been done anyway at some point was accelerated, thus displacing non-Olympics projects that otherwise would have had higher priority.  This is all part of the picture of federal support.  Finally, as to "earmark", I don't see why we would need contemporaneous sources.  At a minimum, we should note that the spending has been characterized as an earmark, but even that would be misleading if it falsely implies that there's a good-faith dispute as to the accurcy of that description.  Has Romney argued that it wasn't an earmark?  I thought his spokesperson's answer was to implicitly concede it was an earmark and to say that an earmark for Olympics security was more important than an earmark for the Pittsburgh zoo. JamesMLane t c 14:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is the government has paid for roads etc. in many other states - it is not up to Wikipedia to suggest that such was not the case for Utah as well. If it were one of only a few, then some implication of causality might be noted, but absent such, this insertion of road costs is improper entirely.   Do you have a source saying the road costs were all specific to the Olympics, and were unusual in scope for any place at all in, say, a ten-year period before and after the Utah games?  Hint:  look at the expenditure on the Boston Big Dig for relative amounts.   It came to over $20 billion.  Cheers. `Collect (talk)


 * Your wish is my command, Collect:
 * "According to the GAO, about $513 million of the above was provided or planned to be provided for projects or activities such as providing security or transporting spectators. That $513 million, says the GAO, would not have been spent had the Games not been held in the United States."
 * I don't understand your point about the Big Dig, which certainly was unusual. Do you have a source that contradicts the GAO and asserts that all these expenditures would have been made anyway in sparsely populated Utah? JamesMLane t c 14:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Which means that $513 million could be mentioned ... "the additional $1.1 billion" is thus not actually relevant. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * About.com? Is that considered a reliable source now?  --Coemgenus (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This was not an analysis by About.com. It was an About.com paraphrase of what the GAO concluded, and About.com hosted the actual GAO report here (as is expressly stated in the reference I cited), so you can review it yourself and decide if the paraphrase is accurate.  Or are we supposed to take seriously an insinuation that the document hosted by About.com was not the actual GAO report, but rather was fabricated by About.com?  If you suspect that, invest a little effort to see if you can find the GAO report elsewhere. JamesMLane t c 15:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It was a legitimate question. There's no need to suggest malign intent.  --Coemgenus (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to suggest malign intent, and if you drew that inference, I apologize. Frankly, however, I did mean to suggest a distinctly lesser offense -- carelessness.  It seemed to me that you had dismissed the citation based solely on its URL, without reading any further. JamesMLane t c 23:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Some responses to the above:
 * I'm not trying to find figures that are high or low, just that are internally consistent and don't involve the article being unsure about the numbers.
 * The GAO report is from 2000, I'd rather use sources that come after the games were over and use actual figures rather than estimates.
 * "Earmark" normally refers to obscure local projects, not nationally visible events that hundreds of millions of people watch. It also has a technical definition within Congress.  It's also become a loaded term, for no good reason (Congress is supposed to decide who what and where gets federal money, and the total amount of earmarks is trivial compared to defense and entitlements).  So I wouldn't use it unless it really fit.
 * We should be careful about projecting 2012 campaign 'argument of the day' weighting onto what happened 10 years earlier. As far as I can see, Romney did what every organizing committee head does, which is find all the revenues they can from every source they can (TV rights, other media rights, ticket sales, merchandising, federal funding, provincial funding, etc).  He'd be delinquent in his duties if he didn't.  Other than McCain, who was at the height of his contrarian maverick phase back then, I don't think Romney's get federal monies for the Olympics was controversial.  Just because Rick Santorum decided to make an issue of it recently doesn't mean we should.  And just because Romney may (possibly hypocritically) be attacking Santorum for his past spending habits, doesn't mean we should either.
 * Utah may be sparsely populated overall, but Salt Lake City and Utah Valley have been growing rapidly for decades. I-15 bears a lot of traffic and it would be no surprise it would get federal funding for improvements sooner or later.  And if you've ever been in one of the smog inversions there, you would think the Salt Lake City light rail system is a very necessary thing!
 * I'll work some more on trying to get the right numbers. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And yet, even though he's currently supporting Romney for the Republican nomination, McCain still refers to it as an "earmark"; he did an extremely cute tap dance on This Week yesterday, explaining that he fully supported saving the Olympics, but it was the process of using earmarks instead of direct appropriations to secure the funding that he opposed – and apparently still opposes. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Earmarks is one of those subjects where you can almost guarantee there will be more heat than light. Anyway, here's a Los Angeles Times story from 2008 which says the total non-infrastructure federal cost was "about $400 million" (up from a planned $342 million due to post-9/11 added security costs) according to "subsequent reports".  Still haven't found those subsequent reports themselves.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And one more point with respect to what JML said, about why I think the AP story's $600 million figure may be wrong, is that it didn't come from AP research or interviews, but rather says: "All told, according to Romney's account, the government spent about $600 million helping the Salt Lake Olympic Committee." So this appears to be second-hand from Turnaround, which I've tried avoiding using as a source for the usual reasons.  Wasted Time R (talk) 05:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Wasted, I agree with you that the fuss over earmarks is a lot of baloney. At the moment, however, the leading purveyor of this baloney on the national political scene is one Willard Mitt Romney.  I'm not saying that we should join in Santorum's attack, but we should present all the relevant facts so that readers can decide for themselves.  Regardless of how the spending was referred to by contemporaneous sources (about which I have no information), the fact is that it has now been characterized as an earmark (the definition of which doesn't depend on a project being local as opposed to nationally visible).  That  it was an earmark doesn't mean that the spending was wrong, but we should give the information.


 * As for the tie to the Olympics, your version flatly asserts that federal officials said the spending would have been done anyway. Certainly some of it would have, but the GAO said not all of it.  Yes, the GAO report was from 2000, but it's not plausible that the federal government reduced its Olympic-necessitated spending thereafter.  I find it much more plausible that somebody commented to an AP reporter that a lot of the spending would have occurred sooner or later anyway, and the reporter mentioned that in the story, in a throwaway line that you're trying to interpret as a thoroughly researched conclusion that every penny would have occurred anyway (and this contrary-to-common-sense assertion is taken as definitive even though it comes from the same agency that, according to you, made a $200 million mistake on the same subject).


 * Overall, the whole section suffers from Wikigeniusing -- the Wikipedia editors are looking over the evidence, deciding which view is correct, and stating that view as fact, while suppressing contrary viewpoints. Where there's a good-faith dispute, that's a violation of NPOV.  In light of the GAO report, there's some question in my mind as to whether the throwaway line in the AP story is enough to create a good-faith dispute the other way -- but at a minimum, the reader should be given the information we have, which is that the GAO projected more than $500 million in spending that wouldn't otherwise have occurred, that the expenditures are considered by some to be earmarks, and that the expenditures are considered by some to be a boondoggle. JamesMLane t c 20:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Addendum: Upon closer review, I see that the figure of more than $500 million was for all three of the Olympics covered by the GAO report. The projected amount for Salt Lake City was $254 million (see GAO report, p. 36).  The GAO doesn't state directly that the rest would have been spent anyway, but it refers obliquely to other projects as having received "priority" because of the Olympics (p. 40).  On page 8, however, the GAO cautions us against expecting precision in these figures:
 * "According to federal officials, the majority of the funds would have been provided to the host cities and states for infrastructure projects, such as highways and transit systems, regardless of the Olympic Games because many of the projects had been planned long before the cities were selected to host the Games. However, some federal officials were not always able to document which of the specific infrastructure projects would or would not have been funded if the Olympic Games were not held."
 * I agree that using the projection from 2000 isn't optimal, but it should be included unless and until we find more definitive post-Olympics numbers. JamesMLane t c 20:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the addendum, I think we now have reasonably consistent numbers. In 2000 the GAO says direct federal spending for the games will be $254M and the extra spending for highway and transit projects will be $1B.  Then costs go up some, the direct amount becomes $342M before 9/11 and $382 (aka 'about $400M') after 9/11 with added security costs.  Meanwhile the highway/transit number rises a bit to $1.1B.  So the 2000 GAO figures are consistent with the later post-Games numbers – just overtaken by events and rising costs as estimates usually are – and don't need to be in the article.  I looked through Turnaround at the library tonight, and he doesn't give a lot of numbers, but there's nothing in there that I could see to support the AP article's $600M direct cost "according to Romney's account".  He says the pre-Romney SLOC's initial request of $4B (!) from the feds ended up at $400M, the cost of the I-15 rebuild/expansion through the whole of the Wasatch Valley was $1B, and the SLC light rail (which he didn't think really necessary for the Games) was whittled down.  So these numbers are more or less consistent with the others.  As for how to describe the $1.1B, I've avoided my original "that the government considered would have eventually been spent anyway" language that you didn't like and replaced it with a simple "indirect support in the form of highway and transit projects".   Wasted Time R (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As for your other points ... It cannot be the litmus test for material inclusion and weighting to respond to the daily back-and-forth of American political debate. If it were, the Obama article would have top-level sections titled "Kenyan or not", "Muslim or not", "Socialist or not", "Jeremiah Wright disciple or not", "Bill Ayers cohort or not", "Does the Ghost of Saul Alinksy control him", etc.  The section on the Olympics should read as it would in 2006, before his first presidential campaign, or as it will in 2026, long after his political career is over.  Wikipedia is not a voter guide or a fact-checking service on campaign debates or commercials.  These articles are biographies and have to be judged as such.  Biographically, what's of note here is that Romney did a good job in getting federal monies for the Olympics, and to say how much and the two categories of what for.  That's all the weighting this deserves.  I've done Google News Archive searches for 1999-2002 under various search terms, and at most I can find one maybe two references to 'earmark' in this context (without getting through the paywalls can't be sure).  Compared to the total number of articles written on the 2002 Olympics finances, which is quite many, that's a very small number.  So 'earmark' does not belong in the description of what happened in 1999-2002.  If Santorum's attack on Romney for Olympic 'earmarks' turns out to be a critical breaking point in the primaries (which I highly doubt), we can include it in the 2012 campaign section.  And if you want to, you can include all of these daily attacks and counterattacks in the presidential campaign subarticles.  As for suppressing other viewpoints, what are those?  I'm not aware of any significant opinion that thinks that the I-15 rebuild/expansion was a waste or the SLC light rail.  The best treatment I've seen on the legacy of the Olympics is a recent multi-part NPR series, tied to the 10th anniversary, here is part 2 that covers the effects of the infrastructure improvements.


 * And finally, I'm looking forward to that WP:NOGENIUSING guideline! :-) Wasted Time R (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Had an e-mail exchange with the AP author and she pointed me to where she got the $600 million from: it is in Turnaround, page 47 of the paperback (you can see it on Amazon's 'Look Inside'): "So SLOC had three budgets: the official base budget of $1.5 billion, the matching budget of $0.2 billion, and the federal budget of $0.2 billion (the actual federal support we would need turned out to be much larger, closer to $0.6 billion)."  I missed it on my electronic search because I was searching for "600" not ".6" and I missed it in browsing the book because I was looking at the numbers on page 226 in the chapter on federal support, and this was somewhere else.  Still not sure why this number is so much larger than the others I've seen for total direct cost, will keep looking at this.  Wasted Time R (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

One issue is what was the cost to taxpayers of holding the Olympics - specifically, what was the amount of federal funding. Recent versions of the article stated that the federal government contributed $382 million for the Games, apart from another $1+ billion for indirect costs. The problem with that $382 million figure is that it is much lower than the approximately $600 million Romney himself states in his book on his experience organizing the Olympics, Turnaround, originally published in 2004. It is not clear in the reporting of the Boston Globe piece that quotes $382 million exactly where they got that figure from. Presumably, it comes from the Government Accountability Office report published in November 2001 (GAO-02-140), which put the federal direct expenditures at about $324 million (quoted in the LA Times article), not including additional funds required for security related to the the September 11 attacks. Adding in funds for September 11-related security presumably would bump the figure up to the vicinity of $382 million.

However, the November 2001 GAO report was based on figures generated prior to July 31, 2001. In other words, the $324 million base figure is based on estimates made 6 months before the Games were held. Projects of this magnitude, involving this amount of complexity, never run under budget, and almost never run on budget, so it takes a huge leap of faith to expect that the $324 million estimated in the summer of 2001 is what the final cost actually turned out to be. To my knowledge, no further federal audit was ever conducted (or at least none that was made available to the general public). The Salt Lake Organizing Committee did hold news conferences to announce a predicted surplus of $55 million in April 2002 and a revision of that to more than $100 million in a final report in September 2002; but the news reports from the press conferences made no mention of the final federal costs. (Does anyone have access to the published final report?) The $324 million base estimate also did not include personnel costs. So why should the GAO estimate made 6 months prior to the Games be given equal weight to what Romney, President and CEO, published more than a year after the Games were held in a book about his experience organizing the Games? If anyone knew what the federal costs were, it should have been Romney.

I also don't understand why Romney's book about organizing the Games cannot be taken as a reliable source on the narrow subject of what the federal contribution to the Games was. (After all, the GAO report itself is largely based on the claims of the SLOC, and Romney was chair of the SLOC during the period of interest.) Dezastru (talk) 08:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The Romney book is potentially suspect for obvious reasons. If he's bragging about what a great job he did in securing federal monies for the Olympics (remember, this is 2003-2004 that the book was written,  before Romney's ideology shift from moderate to conservative and before the Tea Party era, so getting federal money wasn't a potential badge of shame), he may have consciously or unconsciously exaggerated the amount that he got.  Or he (or his writing partner) may have just gotten the number wrong – the Olympics budget numbers are confusing enough.  But okay, we can leave it in for now.


 * As for what the amount really was, it's been very frustrating that we cannot pin it down, as the previous Talk page discussion indicates. I don't know where the 2007 BG $382 million figure comes from.  (I was hoping the Kranish-Helman book might straighten this out but it just repeats the 2007 article.)  Then there's the 2008 LAT $400 million figure, the cite for which you deleted without explanation but I'm restoring as part of this mix.  It's credited to unspecified "subsequent reports".  Note that both of these figures were published after Romney's book came out, so they certainly had access to the number Romney thought it was.  As I said in the prior discussion on this, I don't care whether the proper number turns out to be the low one or the high one – I don't see any badge of shame in getting federal monies either – I just want to get it right.  If you can find some final, official report and it contains $600 million as the number, I'll be happy to drop the other ones.  But until then, I think we have to present both ends of the range (and yes, it was my mistake after the last set of actions on this to leave only the low end in the article).


 * Finally, regarding this text – "He appealed to Utah's citizenry with a message of optimism that helped restore confidence in the effort.[118][124]" - it merits being in the article. You may call it "fluff" but restoring optimism and confidence is a critical part of any turnaround effort (see FDR 'the only thing we have to fear ...' for an example, albeit far more famous and important).  As for your edit summary comment "the articles also discuss criticism of his actions", yes they do, and we include those in this article, see the next paragraph here ("Romney was the public face ...").  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's fluff. I disagree that it is an important enough point to include. But it's a minor point of disagreement, so not going to squabble over it. Dezastru (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Going back to the federal spending, this new source that you added has Romney saying in October 2002 that "We actually received over $410 million from the federal government for the Olympic games." That's close to the $382 and $400 numbers from the BG and LAT sources.  It's unlikely there was an additional $200 million in federal spending that was suddenly discovered between then and the time he wrote the book.  More likely is that in the book, he included in the direct spending some item that is normally included in the $1.1 billion indirect spending bucket, such as the SLC light rail system or something like that.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Olympics criticism text
Collect has removed this text: "His omnipresence irked those who thought he was taking too much of the credit for the success, had exaggerated the state of initial distress, or was primarily looking to improve his own image.[115][120]" on the grounds rm claims not in any way in source - and claim sourced used for entirely unsupported claim not in source - WP:BLP and WP:V still apply)

On the contrary, these sources directly support this text. For example:

From fn 115 (NYT story):
 * "While even Mr. Romney’s critics concede that the Games — which had faced serious potential financial difficulties before his arrival — were a huge success, some say he made those early problems seem worse than they were to embellish his accomplishments. Others grouse about his showman’s instinct for the spotlight: the countless photo-ops, the television spots. Even the little Olympic pins sold to collectors carried his image, cloaked in the American flag. "
 * "It was clear then to many in Utah that Mr. Romney was probably aiming for bigger things. “It was obvious that he had an agenda larger than just the Olympics,” Mr. Garff said."
 * "He also quickly became the ever-present face of the Olympics"
 * "Whatever Mr. Romney did or did not do here, he was not alone in saving the Olympics, as his press materials on the campaign trail sometimes suggest. The International Olympic Committee had a stake in restoring its reputation after the scandals and made concessions in sharing revenue. Thousands of volunteers from Utah also played an important role."
 * " Kenneth Bullock, the former Salt Lake board member who is also the executive director of the Utah League of Cities and Towns. Mr. Bullock, who often clashed with Mr. Romney, said Mr. Romney deserves some of the credit, just not as much as he claims."

From fn 120 (BG story):
 * "But Romney's other agenda - buffing his own image for a political career - was never far from the surface, according to many former associates.The man who was famous at Bain Capital for letting others take the credit suddenly was giving his permission for a series of Olympics promotional buttons bearing his own likeness, accompanied by slogans like Hey, Mitt, we love you! and Are we there yet, Mitt? There was even a superhero pin depicting Romney draped in an American flag. "
 * "His determination to present himself as a white knight came at a cost: Some colleagues now say he magnified the extent of the Olympics committee's fiscal distress, risked some possible conflicts of interest among board members, and shunted aside other people whose work had been instrumental in promoting the Games."
 * "But he failed to convince even some key members of the organizing committee that the budget was in peril. 'Yes, we were out of balance, but we had [three] years to organize that,' said Garff, the chairman. 'In my mind, there was no sense of panic.'"
 * "'He tried very hard to build an image of himself as a savior, the great white hope,' Bullock said of Romney. 'He was very good at characterizing and castigating people and putting himself on a pedestal.'"

Each of the points of the text – omnipresence, exaggeration of problem, taking too much credit, working towards his image – is directly borne out in these clips from these stories. BLP does not mean we cannot describe negative views of a subject. The rest of this section is full of positive views of Romney's Olympics performance. There is nothing wrong with this text or its sourcing, and I have restored it. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Nope. You assert "omnipresence" which is not found in your sources.  And then use SYNTH to get to "irked" (nameless people).  The SYNTH, use of anonymous unnamed people being "irked" and the use of "omnipresence" which was not and is not supported by the source combines to make your revert incorrect.  Nor is "exaggerated the state of the initial distress" even supported by the precise wording of the sources you furnish.    What you could say is that specific named people asserted (give dates) that Romney was "buffing" an image for future political purposes in their opinion.  Assign the opinions  to the named people holding them.  As required by WP:BLP.  Cheers.  I trust you will do so asap. Collect (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "Omnipresence" is a succinct paraphrase of the source's "the ever-present face of the Olympics". We're allowed to choose different words, you know, although I even kept the same root in this case.  All I was doing is summarizing, not synthesizing, but now I've spelled it out.  And the original wording was already in terms of "... those who thought ...", which was clearly casting it as opinion.  Wasted Time R (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Too MUCH opinion. Stick to facts. And anyway, what's wrong and surprising about a guy who is now running for president appearing to have "an agenda larger than just the Olympics"? Trivial nonsense. HiLo48 (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The claim was made in a revert that there was consensus to include the "great white hope" trivia. Reading this section shows me that no such consensus was reached. Collect (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Collect, that quote was first added by you with this edit. And then I kept it and added some text around it with this edit.  That was the initial consensus behind it.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I support its inclusion. — GabeMc (talk) 01:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Age difference between Mitt and Ann
The article currently reads: "In March of his senior year, he began dating Ann Davies, two years his younger,"
 * However, Kranish and Helman claim Mitt was 18, and Ann 15 when they started dating in March 1965,(p.28) thus more than two years separate the two according to the source cited to. — GabeMc (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Mitt's birthday is March 12, 1947, while Ann's is April 16, 1949. Thus, for a while in late March/early April 1965, Romney was indeed just-turned-18 while she was still 15.  But for 11/12 of any year, they are two years apart.  Wasted Time R (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I see, I should have checked that, thanks Wasted, I agree, "two years his younger" is appropriate here. — GabeMc (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * An aside: Dear Wasted Time R, Do you prefer to be addressed by your full title, or 'Time' or 'R' or 'Wasted Time R Us' or '[other]'? Just asking, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Any of those is fine, along with "Waste of time", "Time waster", "Wasting our time", and other even less complimentary variations that have been invoked on my talk page :-) Wasted Time R (talk) 13:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 May 2012
Romney's mission in France, one that lasted more than 30 months, came during the Viet Nam War. In that Romney asked for and received numerous student deferments before leaving for France, he was able, as a result of the deferments and trip abroad, to evade the U.S. draft, hence he did not serve, as he did not join nor was he drafted. All four of Romney's brothers likewise evaded the draft and military service.

71.50.79.143 (talk) 05:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's already in the article. And this isn't an article about his brothers. - Xcal68 (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The article already says: "Regarding the military draft, Romney had initially received a student deferment, then, like most Mormon missionaries, a ministerial deferment while in France, and then a student deferment.[31][47] When those ran out, his high number in the December 1969 draft lottery (300) ensured he would not be selected.[31][47][48]" This was fully legal, and thus not draft evasion.  And Mitt Romney has only one brother, not four.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * (As the edit requester refers to Romney's deferments, I don't think the requester meant draft evasion in the strict legal sense. It seems that the requester meant it in the unpatriotic draft avoidance sense.) Dezastru (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the article should make some mention that Mormon deferments were controversial at the time (Kranish & Helman, 2012, pp=61–62). — GabeMc (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This would become a long digression for the article to get into. Everything about the war and the draft was controversial at the time – deferments of every kind, most of all student deferments; the racial and economic skew of who was serving; the morality of the war; whether it was more patriotic to go to Vietnam or to Canada or wherever; everything.  The bottom line is that among the kind of people who would end up later running for national office, almost no one wanted to go to Vietnam: Not Clinton not Bush not Biden not Cheney not Giuliani not most of them.  So Romney's story is common with what most people in his socio-economic class were doing, and I think it's better if this article just says what it says now and other articles can deal with the general behaviors and events of the time.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Good points all Wasted, I don't entirely disagree. However, we made room for: "In May 1966, he was part of a counter-protest against a group staging a sit-in in the university administration building in opposition to draft status tests."[14][27] So perhaps this is an WP:UNDUE issue, since his opposition to draft protests was deemed notable enough for inclusion, why not explain that his own missionary deferment was controversial?  — GabeMc (talk) 01:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm not sure "everything" about the draft was controversial, e.g. student deferments, such as Mitt enjoyed his freshman year at Stanford. My own father was deffered due to having three kids at home. — GabeMc (talk) 02:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Student deferments definitely became controversial. Why should upper middle class kids who typically go to college not have to serve the country equally with working class kids who take jobs in factories or small businesses right after high school?  Where's the fairness in that?  We include Romney's Stanford counter-demonstration because it's something he did, and that's what the article does, describe what he did.  So far as I know he was never personally involved in any debates or demonstrations about the missionary exemption.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * True. But Romney did in fact actively seek deferment, which he was granted, and which resulted in his moving to France for 2.5 years. So that is "something he did". Though I do hear you in principle. You see, to assume that every reader will know that Mormon missonary deferrments from service in Vietnam were controversial is a big leap. How would non-US citizens (besides VN war buffs) know that? The way the article reads now, it does not indicate any controversy in his avoidance of draft eligibility whatsoever, something Kranish-Helman thought was significant enough for inclusion in their bio. — GabeMc (talk) 03:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The ministerial draft exemption received some discussion at the time; here are 98 Google News Archives stories about it from 1960 to 1973. But of these, only 2 of them specifically mention Mormons.  Compare this to 853 stories about the student draft exemption from the same period.   If I search for 'deferment' rather than 'exemption', I get similar numbers:  46, 2, and 2,850.  So if the article is going to mention that any of Romney's exemptions were controversial at the time, it should be the student one.  But then again, how will the young reader, foreign or otherwise, know that everything about the Vietnam War was controversial, and future politicians like John McCain and John Kerry who served in the war were outnumbered by the future politicians who did not?   Wasted Time R (talk) 10:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Presumptive
Romney is no longer the presumptive nominee. He IS the nominee. CBS, the Huffington Post, and good old Fox are all reporting that he is now the nominee. Fox now says that he can "drop presumptive from his title." Is he the nominee or should presumptive stay? AndrewrpTally-ho! 03:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Technically he is the presumtive until he officially accepts the nom at the convention, regardless of what Fox and others report, that's how it works. They are jumping the gun here, and the reporting is not accurate to the process. Should a major scandal break in the next couple of weeks, this could in theory change. Also, the primaries and caucuses do not bind the delegates, much like the electoral college, they can nominate whoever they want regardless of the results. — GabeMc (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)The traditional definition of presumptive nominee is the one that was just reached tonight – gaining a majority of the delegates. Now it's true Romney got this title earlier, to some when Santorum dropped out and to more, when the RNC declared him the presumptive nominee after the April 24 primaries. But he does not actually become the nominee until the night of the convention when he's formally nominated on the floor and they do the roll call and he gets the majority of the delegates' actual votes. This Fox News story from tonight unfortunately says "Thanks to Texas, Mitt Romney can finally drop the word “presumptive” from his title", but that's inaccurate. I've looked at some other stories tonight, such as this AP one and this LAT one and this NPR one and they're more carefully written - they just say that he has clinched the nomination, they don't say anything about him now being the nominee or about 'presumptive' going away. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * cmt - Wasted Time R is eseentially right but I'd like to offer a clarification. Regardless of the status of the members on the RNC, "presumptive " is not any kind of official title at all; rather, it's a designation proffered by the media. (Hence, when the preponderance of the news media start using it is when it has become encyclopedically accurate, per WP's standard guidelines eg wp:RS, etc.)--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And to check Andrewrp's references, the CBS story just says he clinched the nomination, and the HuffPo story makes clear that "he will not be named the official party nominee until the Republican National Convention ". I think only Fox got this wrong.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

What State would he be representing as Presidential Candidate
What State would he be representing as Presidential Candidate.

The Constitution requires that President and Vice-President have to be from different states. So a would-be President has to identify his State.
 * Which constitution says that? Certainly not the U.S constitution. Tomsv 98 (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden alludes below, the Constitution prohibits Electoral College electors from casting votes for both president and vice president candidates if the candidates hail from the same state as the electors. So a party could put up a ticket with candidates for president and vice president who came from, say, Texas, but in so doing, the party would be throwing away half of the Electoral College votes from Texas. In a tightly-contested election, it would be an unwise strategy to choose both candidates from a single state, particularly if that particular state had a large population. (Choosing a ticket from two different states also helps spread the love around, since voters should tend to prefer to vote for a ticket that includes someone from their own state.) (Oh, and btw, the message at the top of the page says that this page is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.)  Dezastru (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

What is his state?68.48.204.94 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Snopes, both prez and veep can both hail from Mass. (where Romney is registered to vote--although born in Mich.(birth cert.)) or whetever state; it's only that (say) Mass. electoral college members would be Constitutionally barred from voting for both.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

What state would Mitt Romney run under? Look under his picture at Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012 for the answer you already know. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Main image
I think I know the answer to this question already, but I'll ask here to be sure. Can we Gimp/Photoshop out the white "fog" in the upper left and right corners of the pic, or is that frowned upon? — GabeMc (talk) 03:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You can do more than that, you can replace the entire background with a lighter color. See File:John McCain official portrait with alternative background.jpg, which was the top photo of the John McCain article throughout the 2008 election year (since replaced by a more recent official Senate photo).  Based upon Ferrylodge's request, it had its original black background replaced by a blue one.  I argued against this at the time, one the grounds that even if innocently intended it was a falsification of reality, but others seemed unconcerned and it never became an issue.  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The background has been bothering me too. It seems too dark. I would support such a minor adjustment. Dezastru (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * See MOS editing images. Since there's nothing relevant in the background (eg no mob with pitchforks) and assuming you would not be materially changing the appearance of Romney himself (making him bald or removing wrinkles), I don't think it should be a problem. Dezastru (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So I guess now the question would be, do we think this current image will last long enough to justify spending the time touching it up? — GabeMc (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Make an image enhancement request at WP:GRAPHLAB and they can tell you how much of an effort it would be. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I made a few basic enhancements using Gimp. It looks better now IMO. — GabeMc (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably not. No one seems to be able to agree with which one to use because they all have individual ideas as to what makes a good shot. I still like this one:

--Amadscientist (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A good shot, but I think we should avoid images that have Mitt facing away from the prose, just my opinion. — GabeMc (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * True. Which is why I didn't argue when it was removed. I don't know why it is so hard to find a decent image of this figure. It shouldn't be this difficult.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

2002 gubernatorial campaign
2002 gubernatorial campaign Main article: Massachusetts gubernatorial election, 2002 In 2002, Republican Acting Governor Jane Swift's administration was plagued by political missteps and personal scandals.[135] Many Republicans viewed her as a liability and considered her unable to win a general election.[139] Prominent party figures – as well as the White House – wanted Romney to run for governor,[137][140] and the opportunity appealed to him for its national visibility.[141] One poll taken at that time showed Republicans favoring Romney over Swift by more than 50 percentage points.[142] On March 19, 2002, Swift announced she would not seek her party's nomination, and hours later Romney declared his candidacy,[142] for which would face no opposition in the primary.[143]

The last sentence should say "for which he would face no opposition in the primary.[143] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.107.51 (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks for the spot.  Wasted Time R (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Mission in France
Some of the wording ought to be changed in the description of his Latter Day Saint mission in France. Rather than saying that he was "promoted" to be a zone leader, it should be "assigned." Life as a missionary isn't focused on moving up like so many other things. They serve in the position given for a short time. Also, rather than reading "Ward Bishop" It should read "Bishop of a ward." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.27.86.212 (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * While it sounds like you know what you are talking about, we need a little more than just your opinion to change the language in the article. Can you offer some support for your position, e.g. sources? — GabeMc (talk) 05:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * All three sources used for this text (NYT, BG, Telegraph) use the word 'promotion' or 'promoted'.   Presumably elders aren't assigned to zone leader or assistant to the mission president at random, but rather the most capable for those positions are chosen.  That's all that's meant here, not that he was in some rat race to the top of the heap.  Regarding the other one, Google Books had a lot more usages of "bishop of the ward at ..." than of "ward bishop for ...", so I changed that occurrence.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * AFAICT, "bishop" is a "term of office" (sources say about 5 years) title - thus it is a quite minor title, with limited authority, and over a limited number of people in a "ward".  I am unsure Wikipedia should stress the title as most people regard "bishop" as being a person with authority over a substantial number of parishes in a diocese (frequently well over 100), and serving for life.   Say, a couple of orders of magnitude more powerful than a Mormon "bishop."  Collect (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Titles are often like this - in some countries the president is the top guy, in other countries the president is a head of state but most of the power resides in the prime minister. A captain in the army is not the same thing as a captain in the navy.  And so forth.  There's a link to the Bishop (Latter Day Saints) article, I think that's about all we can do.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Several things to learn/know/remember: (1) Leadership in organized stakes (consisting of wards) is different than leadership in missions; (2) Mitt Romney (in the states) was both an LDS bishop of a ward and a stake president of Boston Stake; (2) In France, you have two areas of leadership, the stakes and (at his mission time) the French mission, in which an adult couple is called to serve as mission president and 'mission mom'; (3) It is true that the Mission President will (with prayer and personal inspiration) assign the young elders to various positions, always with a companion, such as assistants to the mission president, opening a new area, branch president or bishop of a ward (temporarily till a local brother is called). Yes, he will make assignments based on talent and performance. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

"Lay clergy" claim
AFAICT, Mormonism is unusual in that males over the age of 12 are pretty much all members of the "clergy" ("priesthood") Is there a reason why it is useful to state that Romney was a member of the "lay clergy" when that is essentially true of so many Mormons? Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This was intended to be a topic sentence for the whole section, meaning the assistant, ward bishop, and stake president positions. If you want to describe Mitt's entry into the priesthood after age 12, that should be done way back in the "Heritage and youth" section.  On the other hand, we could just get rid of this sentence as unnecessary.  Wasted Time R (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would simply state the actual significant parts - and lose the trivia. Too many BLPs have too much verbiage qua verbiage in them, and I think sticking to simple exposition of major facts makes sense. Collect (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've kept in your language but rephrased the topic sentence to make matters clearer. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, "As far as I can tell"; try to remember for next time!--- --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * cmt - I believe the house style guide--including the MOS:LDS pg--provides the key to this issue (as well as that discussed in the talkpage subsection immediately above, which I've taken the liberty of consolidating together with it). It advises that jargon (eg terms uniquely LDS) be avoided, if possible, or else be explained succinctly, after first use--which approach, I believe, would be more reader friendly than merely leaving a blue link to an article about the LDS subject referenced. As yet another example, the article currently says that Romney and Davies were married by a church elder. True, with sources that support the same, of course. But a general reader, perhaps having met Mormon missionaries before, might believe that a young man married the couple. It takes only a bit of finesse to more accurately imply, in a word or phrase, that in actual fact the officiating Elder was... "{Edwin Jones, a retired longtime family friend and apparently a mentor to young man Mitt &mdash;a la the more youthful Barack Obama's pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, who married the future President and First Lady...sorry: threadjack&mdash; who had come to be...}" a regional, (qausi&thinsp;-&thinsp;?) full-time LDS Church general authority."...'Elder' is not normally used as a personal title (e.g., Elder Evans, Elder Johnson), except by the Church's General Authorities, Area Seventies and full-time male missionaries.--- WIKIPEDIA""Editors should always avoid use of Mormon jargon, which includes any terms used by many adherents to the Latter Day Saint movement that the general public might not understand, might misinterpret, or might find offensive. For example: [...] -Do not capitalize priesthood offices (apostle, elder, bishop, high priest, seventy, etc.) or leadership positions in the church (general authority, mission president, regional representative, etc.), unless they are being used to specify a particular organizational group, such as the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles or the First Quorum of the Seventy, or in front of a person's name (but see next item). -Do not use ecclesiastical titles such as 'Elder', 'President', 'Brother' or 'Sister' when referring to leaders of a church, except in the lead section at first occurrence of the name. For example, write 'McConkie published a book entitled Mormon Doctrine ...' not 'Elder McConkie published a book entitled Mormon Doctrine ...' After first occurrence, the use of an article subject's surname is sufficient and conforms to general encyclopedic style. These recommendations apply mainly to article text. When these terms are used as part of quotations from church leaders or members and the context is clear, they should not be altered.--- WIKIPEDIA:MANUAL OF STYLE/LATTER DAY SAINTS"--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * More about Jones here: Talk:Ann_Romney.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There were earlier complaints that this article had too much wedding detail, so I think added Edwin Jones here is the wrong way to go. I think perhaps this article's sentence should just say "The couple were married on March 21, 1969, in a civil ceremony in Bloomfield Hills." Fuller detail, including Jones, can be given in the Ann Romney article.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. However, if (Ph.D. in econ.; self-made business tycoon) Jones ever is to be mentioned as Romney's mentor, this would be a more NPOV place to do so, than solely to merely refer to the h.s.-aged Mitt's decision grow out his butch haircut in imitation of Jones's precision-cut (ostensibly "movie star&thinsp;-&thinsp;meets&thinsp;-&thinsp;Wall Street"?) pompadour.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Move now done. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Campaigning on record of federal lobbying for the Olympics
(This continues a discussion started in the section on the 2002 Winter Olympics Budget)

Also, your change to the text "He would later brag that he had succeeded in obtaining record levels of funding from the federal government for the staging of a U.S. Olympics" was problematic on several counts. The record level of funding should be stated as a fact, not as something that Romney claims. 'Brag' is a loaded term. Moreover, it's safe to assume that all politicians boast about their accomplishments. If you're trying to implicitly demonstrate that Romney's 2012 position on earmarks is incompatible with his 2002 actions, that's something for the Political positions of Mitt Romney article to cover. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You're still giving undue weight to this. Yes, you found a story from the 2002 campaign that talked about this.  But the 2002 campaign would have been full of "fact[s] Romney would later cite during his campaign for the governorship of Massachusetts" as you put it.  The Olympic turnaround in general, the surplus it gained, the lack of security problems during the games, all these would have been given at least as much emphasis in his 2002 campaign as his capturing a lot of federal funding.  Also he was running on his record with Bain Capital, and he would have been stressing his successes with Staples, Sports Authority, etc.  Yet no where else in the article do we follow our descriptions of each of these things with "a fact Romney would later cite during his campaign for the governorship of Massachusetts".  That would be utterly impractical.  The article states in general that his 2002 campaign ran on his business record and his Olympics record, and that's all that needs to be said.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I still don't think obtaining federal funding was one of the most important themes of his 2002 campaign – it's not mentioned in most of the stories about the campaign, including ones that Dezastru has introduced – but if it does get mentioned, it should be in the 2002 campaign section, in the context of other major themes. So I've moved it there.  Wasted Time R (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * In the process, Wasted, you've now completely divorced from the article any mention of Romney’s having campaigned specifically on his record of having lobbied very effectively for federal funds for the Olympics. Whether the mention would be included in the Olympics section or in the 2002 campaign section isn't a huge deal, but it should be in the article somewhere, particularly since it was an issue not only during the 2002 campaign but now also in the 2012 campaign. Dezastru (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This is where weighting comes in. How many campaign speeches did he make in 2002 where getting lots of federal funding for the Olympics was a major theme?  Or was this a minor theme, or something just mentioned in passing a few times?  One of your 2002 sources talks about a "long-forgotten tape", for instance.  And the concern about weighting extends to your 2012 claim.  In fact, other than a brief flurry of attention when Santorum made some critical remarks before one of the primaries, the federal spending amount in the Olympics has not been an issue in the 2012 election.  Romney's Bain Capital record has been the subject of many, many more attacks, both by Republican rivals and by the Obama campaign.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I originally added this information in because as I was searching articles to try to find what the final budget numbers were for the Olympics, I came across several sources indicating that Romney had been very proud of his having been able to obtain a substantial level of funding for the Games from the federal government. In fact, during his campaign for the Massachusetts governorship in the weeks and months following the Games, he had even pointed to that experience as a reason to vote for him. It seemed an oversight that the WP article didn't mention this at all.

The passage originally stated (May 28), “The federal government provided $382 million of that budget, much of it because Romney lobbied Congress to provide money for security- and non-security-related items.”

I put into the 2002 Olympics section updated information about the funding level, took out the unhelpful bit about money for security and non-security-related items, and added, “He would later brag that he had succeeded in obtaining record levels of funding from the federal government for the staging of a U.S. Olympics.”

You objected to the use of "brag," saying that it was a loaded term, and I did not counter this as there are alternative ways to convey the same information, although many sources (WaPo, NYT, CBS, ABC, CNN, FactCheck) have used terms such as "brag," "boast," and "tout" in describing what had happened (most of the sources referring to that specific video that the media picked up on during the current presidential campaign).

After several revisions, I changed it to "It would prove to be a record level of federal funding for the staging of a U.S. Olympics, a fact Romney would cite as a selling point during his campaign for the Massachusetts governorship." You deleted the mention of the Olympics, left "It would prove to be a record level of federal funding for the staging of a U.S. Olympics" in the Olympics section, and added "He proposed to reorganize the state government while eliminating waste and mismanagement, and stressed his ability to obtain federal funds for the state" to the campaign section: He again ran as a political outsider, saying he was "not a partisan Republican" but rather a "moderate" with "progressive" views. Supporters of Romney hailed his business success, especially with the Olympics, as the record of someone who would be able to bring a new era of efficiency into Massachusetts politics. He proposed to reorganize the state government while eliminating waste and mismanagement, and stressed his ability to obtain federal funds for the state. The campaign was the first to use microtargeting techniques....

One might argue that this version does mention that his Olympics experience was used to solicit votes. But it doesn't say that Romney made that argument himself. It says his supporters made the argument; and while they no doubt did, the sources indicate Romney proudly made this point himself. This version of the text also doesn’t make an unambiguous connection between the Olympics and the lobbying for federal funds. While campaigning, Romney was very clear on the point that his success at lobbying for federal funds on behalf of the Olympics helped make him the most qualified candidate for the governorship and that the federal funds he would seek as governor would be necessary to help right Massachusetts’ financial woes. The reader could reasonably take “his business success, especially with the Olympics” in your version of the text to mean simply Romney’s cost-containment measures and, perhaps, lobbying for funds from private sources, not specifically lobbying for government funds — which was a main point that Romney was emphasizing. And, again, your version does not make any mention of how proud Romney was of the accomplishment. You insist that the fact that it was the highest funding level for an Olympics up to that time be stated as a fact, yet Romney himself proudly referred to the ‘record funds’ he had obtained from the government a number of times when talking about the importance of his Olympics experience. He even devoted a whole chapter ("Funds from the Feds") to federal lobbying in his book on the Olympics experience, Turnaround.

You mention Romney’s Staples and Sports Authority connections and speculate that Romney must have campaigned heavily on them. Well, in searching news articles (NewsBank database) from 2002 for “Romney” and “Sports Authority,” I come up with only 3 hits, all discussing a scandal-tainted former Staples CEO whom Romney helped get a job as the CEO of Sports Authority. Searching for “Romney” and “Staples” produces 57 hits. After excluding “staples,” as opposed to the company “Staples,” the vast majority of these articles discuss unrelated topics such as Romney saying he would resign from Staples’ board if elected or saying that he had attended a Staples board meeting. A few articles mention his involvement with Staples as part of background biographical information, which also includes information such as the number of children he has and where he earned his degrees. Only a handful specifically discuss him campaigning on having helped turn Staples’ finances around.

By contrast, sources show that Romney prioritized getting federal funds for the Olympics from the beginning of his involvement with the SLOC and that he was proud of this accomplishment and campaigned on it following the games:


 * Romney cites Olympics success, rivals are leery
 * Kasie Hunt, Associated Press, February 18, 2012
 * “Romney listed getting more federal dollars as one of the three priorities for his Olympic committee almost as soon as he took the reins in spring of 1999.”


 * Romney vows to balance budget without new tax
 * David R. Guarino, The Boston Herald, March 22, 2002
 * “Romney said the Olympic expenses covered by Washington prove he can operate in government. ‘It’s a great precedent to be able to raise money from the federal government,’ Romney said.”

Note the date there: March 22. He had officially been in the race for only a few days, yet he was already mentioning his Olympics experience raising federal money as a selling point — just 3 weeks after the conclusion of the Games.

He would still be making this point 7 months later, in October, mentioning it in a PowerPoint presentation on the campaign trail (the video that recently surfaced shows an example of that) and running at least one tv ad on it.


 * Romney poised for state spotlight
 * Dan Ring, Union-News (Springfield, MA), April 5, 2002
 * “He boasts that he erased a nearly $400 million deficit in the Salt Lake Winter Olympics, which was tarnished by scandal when he arrived in 1999 and ended up finishing with a profit, thanks partly to an infusion of $470 million in federal tax dollars for security and transportation.”


 * CAMPAIGN 2002: Romney lauds his security experience; Says work with Olympics makes him most qualified
 * Tom Benner, The Patriot Ledger (Quincy, MA), October 16, 2002
 * “Romney called the Salt Lake City Olympics ‘the most effective homeland security project in the nation.' He said he'd make the same effort to coordinate federal, state and local law enforcement agencies in Massachusetts....
 * Romney also touted his contacts with the Bush administration to secure federal funding for anti-terrorism training.”


 * Romney pushes job creation in Andover speech
 * Frank Tutalo, The Sun (Lowell, MA), October 18, 2002
 * "’I'm a big believer in the federal government, because they have money, and I want it,’ he said, to laughter and applause.”


 * The Utah factor - Mitt Romney wants Bay State voters to reward his Olympic success -- but does not want to be labeled a Utah-style Republican; Utah figures prominently in Massachusetts
 * Christopher Smith, Salt Lake Tribune, November 4, 2002
 * “Pledging to avoid tax hikes and minimize cuts, Romney has made Olympic-size federal subsidies a campaign-promise solution to balancing the state budget.
 * ‘We need to do a better job getting money from Washington,’ he tells voters in a televised speech. ‘I was successful in doing that in organizing the Olympics, got record funds from the federal government. I’ll do that here.’”


 * Slaloming through Olympics facts, FactCheck.org, February 22, 2012
 * “The GAO did not perform a post-Olympic analysis of the total cost to taxpayers, but Romney once put the sum at $400 million, and once boasted that he ‘got record funds from the federal government.’”


 * The FactCheck.org article includes a link to this television ad from WCVB-TV: — transcription:
 * Romney: “We need to do a better job getting money from Washington. And I’m going to go after the Transportation Department and get more money there if at all possible. I was successful in doing that at organizing the Olympics, got record  funds from the federal government. I’ll do that here. I’ll also go after our Health and Human Services budget out of Washington and try and get more pennies on the dollar from our Medicaid costs and see if we can’t generate additional funds there. I’m going to go for every possible source of funding from Washington, DC to get Massachusetts a more fair share.”


 * And here is a longer video showing Romney giving a PowerPoint presentation and touting his Olympics lobbying credentials (edited clips are linked to in some of the articles listed above) on the campaign trail.

You have argued, "And the concern about weighting extends to your 2012 claim. In fact, other than a brief flurry of attention when Santorum made some critical remarks before one of the primaries, the federal spending amount in the Olympics has not been an issue in the 2012 election."

Actually, that "brief flurry of attention" to which you refer involved scores of news reports and occurred over one of the most critical periods of the campaign, three weeks in February and early March leading up to SuperTuesday, a period when Santorum had won several primaries and the likelihood of Romney winning the nomination seemed to some in doubt. Romney sought to undercut Santorum's momentum by attacking him for having supported federal earmarks; Santorum fought back by bringing up the Olympics funding. Gingrich piled on, and Democratic strategists saw this as a potential weakness for Romney.

The current version of the article mentions none of this, saying only, "There were several caucuses and primaries during February, and Santorum won three in a single night early in the month, propelling him into the lead in national and some state polls and positioning him as Romney's main rival." Yet somehow the article manages to find room for all of this: In the run-up to the South Carolina Republican primary, Gingrich launched attack ads criticizing Romney for causing job losses while at Bain Capital, Perry referred to Romney's role there as "vulture capitalism", and Sarah Palin questioned whether Romney could prove his claim that 100,000 jobs were created during that time. Many conservatives rallied in defense of Romney, rejecting what they inferred as criticism of free-market capitalism. However, during two debates, Romney fumbled questions about releasing his income tax returns, while Gingrich gained support with audience-rousing attacks on the debate moderators. Romney's double-digit lead in state polls evaporated and he lost to Gingrich by 13 points in the January 21 primary. Combined with the delayed loss in Iowa, Romney's admitted bad week represented a lost chance to end the race early, and he decided to release his tax returns quickly. The race turned to the Florida Republican primary, where in debates, appearances, and advertisements, Romney unleashed a concerted, unrelenting attack on Gingrich's past record and associations and current electability. in describing events over a two-week period in January.

I am not trying to make a claim that Romney's statements about his federal lobbying for the Olympics are the single most important thing readers should know about Romney. I am saying that those statements were notable during his campaign for the governorship, that they have been a focus of contention during one of the most critical parts of the 2012 campaign, that they show what he felt was one of his most important accomplishments in organizing the Olympics, and that for these reasons they merit inclusion in this article. Dezastru (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, you've convinced me about 2002 themes, and I praise you for the news digging and analysis. I've revamped the paragraph in question to this:
 * "He again ran as a political outsider.[134] He played down his party affiliation,[137] saying he was "not a partisan Republican" but rather a "moderate" with "progressive" views.[145] He touted his private sector experience as qualifying him for addressing the state's fiscal problems[142] and stressed his ability to obtain federal funds for the state, giving his Olympics record as evidence.[128][130][146] He proposed to reorganize the state government while eliminating waste, fraud, and mismanagement.[147][137] The campaign was the first to use microtargeting techniques, in which fine-grained groups of voters were reached with narrowly tailored messaging.[148]"
 * Note that in addition to adding your desired phrase, I removed the "Supporters of ... bring a new era of efficiency into Massachusetts politics" text, which while having been in the article since at least 2006 was not supported by the cite given then or now.  In fact, the "new era" phrase seems to be from Romney's election night victory speech.  However, your language still belongs in the 2002 section.  Otherwise, we'd have to suffix a bunch of things from the Business, Olympics, and Governorship sections with what campaigns they were boasted about in.    Wasted Time R (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * As for 2012, the Olympics spending matter was confined to a narrow period when you consider the whole scope of the campaign, from mid-2011 to April 2012. Compare that to other anti-Romney themes which persisted throughout:  Romneycare is Obamacare, Massachusetts moderate, flip-flopper, insincere conservative, verbal gaffes about being rich, can't get past the 25 percent barrier.  I included the Bain Capital attacks, even though they didn't persist throughout, because they were so fundamental to the nature of capitalism and because job creation is clearly going to be the top issue of the whole campaign. The Olympics spending debate could of course be added to the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 article ... but in my opinion that article is almost completely worthless as it stands now.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

'Don't do chum, beach bum!'
While Mayor Mike was pondering how to counter childhood (or, otherwise) obesity; R's been spending evenings mulling how to get some beach combers passing by to stop smelling like burning (um, twined hemp-[?]) rope."A young man in town recalled that Mr. Romney confronted him as he smoked marijuana and drank on the beach last summer, demanding that he stop. The issue appears to be a recurring nuisance....---NYT" Plus, a panorama from Google Views Kidding aside - blp had identified the residence as being in San Diego; it's now updated to La Jolla. --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There has been an ongoing, slow-motion edit battle over whether to use La Jolla or San Diego. I continue to favor La Jolla, as it's more descriptive.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

street address
AFAICT, Wikipedia BLPs do not include the street address of the person. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree, that's a total no-no (unless the address is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue). Wasted Time R (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Time to resort to an early life subarticle yet?
- - --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In my view, only if he gets elected president. But I have briefly incorporated a couple of things from the CBS/RCP piece.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

"most Mormons" in Utah in mid-60s?
As the total number of Mormons in 1960 was over 2 million, and the total population of Utah was under 1 million, I took the liberty of disbelieving the inserted claim that most Mormons lived in Utah whan Romney went to France. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Governorship
"Mass. stalled antibullying guide under Romney: Objections to writing ‘transgender,’ ‘bisexual’"

I think this should be included in his governorship section. — GabeMc (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There's some of this topic already at Governorship of Mitt Romney; it should be expanded to add this new material there. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

"expatriate" in France?
Seems a very big stretch - else all Mormon missionaries identified in any article on WP should have such a category added -- usually the word is used for people indefinitely living outside the US for personal or business reasons. The mission was for a set limited period, and no one has alleged in any way that it was "indefinite" or for business purposes (where specific tax laws apply). Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * expatriate defines expatriate as "one who lives outside one’s own country" -- with no qualifier of duration. He wasn't a tourist, he had established residencies, and I think that would qualify him as an expat. —Eustress talk 14:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting claim - can you show an RS that he had one or more specific "established residences" in France? IIRC, Mormon missionaries do not maintain "established residences" on their own AFAICT - which would remove even that bit as a reason.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * He spent a short period of time in France as a missionary, this classification is not even close to the spirt of the definition of the word. Per the actual definition here Romney has never been and currently is not an expatriate.  Arzel (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Massive categorizing of just about every Mormon on Wikipedia - Brigham Young, Jr. was listed as an expat in 8 countries! Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The Merriam-Webster definition referenced earlier says, "to leave one's native country to live elsewhere" -- that's what Mormon missionaries do. Even the enwp article defines expat as "a person temporarily or permanently residing in a country and culture other than that of the person's upbringing". —Eustress talk 16:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Problem is that there already are "Category: Mormon missionaries in (Country)"s abounding - making that claim totally useless here. If a missionary is automatically an expat - then the second category has zero value at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm def a fan of avoiding redundancy in cats, so I think that's a good point. Ideally, however, the "missionary in country" cats would link up into an expat cat somewhere, which I don't believe they currently do. Either way, I still don't understand how a missionary would not be considered an expat... but your redundancy argument is paramount here in my opinion. Regards —Eustress talk 18:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would defer to the MW definition and not the cobbled definition of WP. Please explain to me where in the following two definition Romney would fall.  1: banish, exile   2: to withdraw (oneself) from residence in or allegiance to one's native country.  Prove either of these is true with some RS sources and you will have my support.  Without it, I suggest you simply drop this ridiculous assertation.  Arzel (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You're only looking at the def as a transitive verb, which is not the case here. Look at the def for intransitive verb. —Eustress talk 18:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you find any RS source saying Romney was an "expatriate" in France? Really?  Clue:  Not the New York Times. Ever.   Zero in Google News.  Zero in Google books. If a category is not supported by any reliable sources, it is not up to us to create the "fact" which ain't one.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I already agreed above that the term (and enwp category, for that matter) of missionary trumps that of expat, so I will side with the contingent to exclude the expat cat on this page. I still think missionaries are expats (see The Role of Expatriate Missionary Service in the 21st Century, Expats Forum, UK Telegraph) but won't elaborate more here per WP:NOTFORUM. Feel free to engage me offline if you wish to discuss further. —Eustress talk 20:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It will be nice when the silly season is over so the POV pushes can crawl back under their rocks. --Mollskman (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It'salso miles off from the common meaning of the term and thus misleading at best. North8000 (talk) 19:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Mormon Missionaries are not "expatriates" by any definition whatsoever. They voluntarily leave to wherever they are called by the Church organization.  They did not choose the destinations themselves which other American expatriates made that choice themselves.  Neither do ambassadors of the United States, neither do people who serve in the State Department who have to work abroad, neither do the men or women of the United States Military are expatriates.  The verb of expatriate says "Settle oneself abroad." which settle means "Make one's permanent home somewhere".  So Americans who are living abroad intentionally are expatriates since they have to make a living to do so which falls under United States tax codes unless they relinquish their citizenship.  Now back then and today, the parents of these missionaries did pay parts of their missions wherever they lived which in this case George Romney most likely paid for Mitt Romney's mission therefore the funding of his mission came from America, not abroad in France. ViriiK (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Can some admin repair the many hundreds of articles affected by the automated or semi-automated categorization? I fear the person who added them is quite unlikely to remove them all, and I do not use a bot of any sort. I think the consensus here is quite clear indeed. Collect (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Second opinion for Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012?
If it wouldn't be too much to ask, could I have a few second opinions on the media issues section of the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 article? Since this is the central Romney article I figured you would be a good group of editors to ask, as any changes on this smaller article may be made to this one. More or less, there is a debate as to whether or not the media issues section should stay and/or be seriously revised (I would encourage you to check the article's talk page). Personally, I think that most of the news here is non notable at best. A recent addition includes the subsection, Accusations of Lying--what politician doesn't? Today someone included some pro-Romney, though entirely non notable subsections--such as he rescued a family in 2003 and helped find a missing girl in 1996. To be clear, I am neither for or against Romney. Most of this section, however, just seems trivial. But perhaps that's what American elections are like now. Thanks. -- A former Wikipedian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.240.252.169 (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * How about the Cranbrook incidents? — GabeMc (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What about it? Other than the fact it isn't verified, it's disputed by the relatives of that person and the news report about it rely on a dead man's quote (goes against Confrontation clause) which is very unethical as well as making it impossible to verify if the incident had occurred.  Also in the original article, the two people questioned about the incident don't even know about the "incident" if it had happened until they were asked of it recently.  So it's inserting thoughts into their heads in hopes of verifying if it's true or not.  ViriiK (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Parker on Politics: Fort Myers attorney recalls high school classmate Mitt Romney" — GabeMc (talk) 02:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to understand where in that story showed him witness the incident in question especially against Lauber's own relative's dispute of the incident if it occurred? It's the same situation.  Especially this part here But I feel chagrined now that I did not do more at the time to try to stop it. but how could he if he never witnessed it?  We cannot verify the incident from Lauber himself because he is dead.  The original story that came out did not verify if it was true due to the fact it relied on a dead man's quote (Lauber) going against the Confrontation Clause.  What about the administrators that gave the assembly?  Why didn't the other people in the original story mention the assembly?  It's an extremely flimsy story and it may be that it's just pure fiction.  ViriiK (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ViriiK, you've at least twice now made the point that the victim's family disputed the incident, and you are using this point to try to cast doubt on whether the incident occurred, and to thereby exclude mention of the incident from the article. The family's comments have been discussed elsewhere in WP. What is your source for saying that the victim's family have denied that he was held down and had his hair cut off by Romney and other classmates? Were the boy's sisters or other family members with him at Cranbrook at the time the incident would have occurred? Do you honestly believe it likely that the teenager, who, incidentally, later came out as gay, would have told his sisters about being bullied? Dezastru (talk) 06:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There's so much wrong with Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 that it's hard to know where to start. There is virtually zero coverage of the events of 2007, such as the major figures who decided not to run and the lesser figures who did decide to run, or such as the threat posed by Rick Perry and how Romney responded to that, or of the debates that occurred during the year and how Romney did in them.   There's no mention of the reluctance of party officials and the electorate to rally around Romney and his resulting flat, historically low poll numbers.  There's no mention of the importance of the Michigan primary or even of who won it.  There's no mention of what happened after Super Tuesday or when Santorum dropped out.  The "Battleground states" section is disorganized and probably belongs in a different article.  The "Media issues" section is a dumping ground for edit battle bait, and even on that basis doesn't include many of Romney's well-known 'gaffes' such as the 10K bet, "I like to fire people", NASCAR owners, "couple of Cadillacs", "I'm also unemployed", and so on.  There is, however, an endless (200Kb worth) list of endorsements, dutifully maintained by several editors and ultimately meaningless and a likely violation of WP:NOTADIR.  There are a lot of models for what a good presidential campaign subarticle can look like, see Good_articles/Social_sciences_and_society for some that have reached GA status.  This one isn't close. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)