Talk:Mitt Romney/Archive 19

Keep in mind, please...
Talk pages are not forums for editors to air their views about the subject, and this talk page is not a forum for editors to air their views, either pro or con, about Mr. Romney. This talk page exists as a place to discuss how to improve the article and that is the only reason for its existence. The relevant guidelines for talk page behavior can be found at: How to use article talk pages and good talk page practices. Thanks to all, Shearonink (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Separation from Bain Capital
The part of the article dealing with Romney's leave of absence and departure from Bain has been tweaked.

Does everyone accept the current version?

 from the Archives (Talk:Mitt_Romney/Archive_17) The material in this section is reproduced here for convenience. Please do not modify it.

Separation from Bain Capital

Our article currently states that Romney left Bain Capital in 1999. The Boston Globe reported today that federal filings suggest that Romney remained "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president" of Bain Capital through at least 2002. I'm not going to rush this into the article, per WP:NOT, but would be interest in some thoughts about how to handle this. I think at the very least we should acknowledge the conflicting reports about when Romney actually left Bain, but it's possible that additional sources will come to light over the next few days/weeks which will clarify the issue. Thoughts? MastCell Talk 17:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the wisest course of action might be to wait say a week or so and see what comes of it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that, although I do wonder if we should at least allude to the lack of clarity for now. MastCell Talk 19:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that defeats the purpose of WP:NOT. Arzel (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * He was still CEO/Chairman/President until 2002 but Romney and Bain say he left active management of the firm during that time. Same way Steve Jobs was still CEO of Apple even if he wasn't active CEO during some of his cancer treatment.Froo (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was quite the same as that. Arzel (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was wondering why this was a topic at all since I found an article discussing the issue. Apparently it is campaign material being distributed by Obama's presidential campaign claiming that he was still at the head of the company and trying to allege a felony here.  Then I saw an article by the WaPo discussing this [].  I understand it's a blog but there's also a statement from Bain Capital [] and from what I understand, Bain was required by the SEC to report who owned the company because otherwise it would have been illegal to omit this fact.  I'd say it's a non-issue.  ViriiK (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This already was raised above in the section, but yes it keep percolating.  Our article currently states "Romney took a leave of absence from Bain Capital in February 1999 to serve as the President and CEO of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games Organizing Committee.[52][79] ... In August 2001, Romney announced that he would not return to Bain Capital.[79] He transferred his ownership to other partners and negotiated an agreement that allowed him to receive a passive profit share as a retired partner in some Bain Capital entities, including buyout and investment funds.[71][80]"  I think this is consistent with the facts, although we could certainly add per this Boston Globe story that his separation from the firm was made final in 2002 (haven't seen precisely what month).  Someone on a leave of absence will often still be on the books and the person of record for official filings and things like that, even if they aren't really involved.  So the question becomes, did he actively participate in Bain Capital affairs after Feb 1999?  This Mother Jones piece says yes, while this FactCheck.org piece says no.  Given the split, at this point I think it's best to pass and for further developments.  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Per what I said, I've added "His separation from the firm was finalized in 2002;[80]" to the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Was reading this thread. Thought I'd add this link to the pot:
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/12/mitt-romney-bain-capital-live
 * According to the guardian, the boston globe is standing by the accuracy of their report and refusing the retraction that was requested by the romney campaign. They say they have official SEC filings that list Romney as "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president" of Bain until 2002. " And that they have state level financial disclosure forms which indicate that Romney was paid by Bain as an executive in 2001 and 2002.  Guardian also claims that AP is picking up the story with another set of newly described documents.  I don't think either the Mother Jones article or the Fact Check article are really relevant as they predate this new information.  But clearly things are changing so quickly that nothing should go into the WP article until the facts get sorted out. 75.84.186.29 (talk) 02:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that the BG apparently also looked at one of the Bain investment funds ("VBain Capital VI") which is not the same as "Bain Capital" as a corporation. Collect (talk) 11:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Under no circumstances should we "he said she said" between the Boston Globe and the Mercatus Center. One is a relatively unbiased fair source. The other is a "think tank affiliated with the Koch family." Hipocrite (talk) 11:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * And, as an additional note, reviewing the document, shockingly enough, the Mercatus Center failed to review the entire document (IE, wrong). The 13-d in question is . Search it for "Bain Investors VI." Oh, obviously they are right! He was only the CEO of one fund. Unless you go down one paragraph - "Mr. W. Mitt Romney is the sole shareholder, sole director, Chief Executive Officer and President of Bain Capital and thus is the controlling person of Bain Capital." Hipocrite (talk) 11:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Who cares about the whole "Koch" source. The Koch's has been attacked constantly and have been accused of being masterminds behind just about everything when that wasn't the case.  It is true that Romney was the sole shareholder as he left Bain Capital rather suddenly to go manage the Olympics.  When they interviewed him the job, he left the firm 9 days later   Unfornately Mother Jones accused Romney of managing the Stericycle deal although the only people listed for managing the investment were Thomas R. Reusche and John P. Connaughton.  In the same document, Mark C. Miller is listed as "President, Chief Executive Officer and Director"  and this is a 1999 document which is the same one that Mother Jones has been using to bolster their argument.  Another article by CNN  comes up with more reasoning to support Romney's argument and Bain's statement regarding Romney's role in the company.  Right now, people are arguing over schematics and trying to navigate the mess of SEC filings just to try and find one gotcha line.  ViriiK (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The BG is a contested source and in no way should be used as a final factual say in the matter. Furthermore, as Collect stated, the BG is clueless about the difference between Bain Capital and Cain Capital IV.  Arzel (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone has proposed using the Globe as the "final factual say" in the matter. It is a reliable source, so it's not really OK to just excise an uncontroversial fact (that Romney's separation was finalized in 2002) with the edit summary "contested source". If other reliable sources reach different conclusions, we can summarize them as well. In the end, it's hard to disentangle the facts from the dueling campaign narratives, so I think the right course of action is a simple factual annotation (Wasted Time R's edit works for me) and further attention once the news cycle has moved on and the situation is clearer. MastCell Talk 16:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A source which implies that he is lying is not a valid source when factchecking of those statements shows the BG to be wrong. Arzel (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that fact checking the fact checker shows the fact checker was wrong, and all. Hipocrite (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * BS. http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/07/factcheckorg-little-new-in-globe-story-128751.html Arzel (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I see you've shifted arguments away from the failed "Bain Investors VI." Your new argument is that the "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president," is not the same as "actually managing." Hey, that's fine - the article dosen't go into the quibbles about how he left and what was involved with leaving. What is, apparently, at this point, undisputed is that he was "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president," until 2002, correct? Hipocrite (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I stand by the fact that while officially he was a sole stockholder of the management company during the transition, he was not actively managing any part of Bain Capital at the time. We have factchecker verifing this, and you are wrong about them being wrong.  I realize the left is trying to mislead on this given it is the political season, but that is no reason for editors here to push that POV crap as well.  Arzel (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No POV is being pushed by linking to reliable sources and stating "His separation from the firm was finalized in 2002." Perhaps you should seek consensus on this talk page before reverting yet again? Hipocrite (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I do agree with Arzel. Right now it's coming out that the entire thing is in its entirety is false and it just comes across as politics as usual trying to get something to stick.  1.  2.  3.  - 3 Democratic members of Bain Capital says that Romney did not have any role after his 1999 departure.  I would take a breather, Hipocrate.  ViriiK (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see any POV problem with what Hipocrite is trying to keep in. Nowhere in that text does it say Romney actively ran Bain into 2002. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, but all of those sources are saying that, sutble POV pushing to be sure, but still POV pushing. Arzel (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/12/mitt-romney-bain-departure_n_1669006.html Romney's sworn testimony was given as part of a hearing to determine whether he had sufficient residency status in Massachusetts to run for governor.


 * So Romney either lied about his qualifications to run for governor or is lying now. Hcobb (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Or neither and you're the one making that judgment. ViriiK (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Writing article and 'making judgment' what to write is indispensable. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Welcome back 99., he defined the goal posts here and he has to maintain a NPOV per the rules of Wikipedia. Something you should read up on, WP:NPOV.  Also it's 'making that judgment' just so you know how to quote people correctly, you can't shorten people's statements.  ViriiK (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We should not be using the Huffington Post as a source for this kind of stuff. If this is a real issue, it will get picked up by more reliable sources. There's no deadline, and no reason to rush poorly sourced material into the article. MastCell Talk 17:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * All this goes to show just how absolutely clueless the left is on how business' are run. This is not like working for a company and quitting your job, when you are a primary stockholder in a company you can't just divest yourself overnight.  Arzel (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not helpful. Do you have any new information to add to the discussion? 128.97.68.15 (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What is not helpful is the number of editors using WP for political purposes. Here is a better more current source backing up the claim, it also mentions the stericycle controversy that a few editors tried to insert recently.....it is all making sense now!  http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/12/politics/john-king-bain/index.html?hpt=hp_t1  Arzel (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether the edits are politically motivated or not is somewhat irrelevant as long as they're factual, notable, and written with NPOV. Which is a good thing for you.  If that was not the case, your blanket statements insulting the left(and revealing your political motivations) would disqualify you from wikipedia.
 * One clarification on "Bain Capital VI". The VI is meant as roman numeral 6.  Fund 6 was created as a limited partnership in 1998, but private equity funds are actively managed for many years after their formation.(Until they can close out the investments).  The "smoking gun" documents that are being reported by the Boston Globe and Huffington post show Romney listed as chief executive for fund 6 while the statements that Fortune claims contradict the Globe story indicate that Romney was not the CEO for fund 7.(fund 7 was formed in 2000)  The relevant political question(with respect to Romney's responsibility for failures and outsourcing), probably hinge on whether the failed investments were in fund 7 or later(when romney was not listed as CEO in 1999-2002) or in fund 6 or earlier(when Romney was listed as CEO in 1999-2002).128.97.68.15 (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's yet more sourcing on this, in an article with links to the confirmation all over the place. http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/07/bain-hes-drowning-not-waving-ctd.html Hcobb (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Sullivan piece isn't worth the electrons its written on. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. IMO at this point none of the coverage is reliable. At the present time the only way to handle this would be to construct something along the lines of "The BG reported... while the WaPo contradicted... which was substantiated by ... yet contradicted by ..." This is not the way to write an encyclopedia. – Lionel (talk) 01:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sullivan is a pure advocacy writer, and skilled at that, but worthless as a source. There aren't really any contradictions between the good sources - it's clear that Romney was listed on paper as still having his titles (which is consistent with taking a leave of absence), but so far there is no direct evidence of him being active in any business decisions of the firm after February 1999.  Until there is, this article should stand pat.  As MastCell said, WP:TIND.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That isn't entirely accurate. Romney and his Lawyer stated that he was still involved in Bain during the committee hearing determining whether he should be considered a Massachusetts state residence for the purpose of running for governor in 2002.  That sounds like direct evidence to me.  Agree that Sullivan is not an RS, but he may be a source of links to RS.
 * http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/romney-testified-in-2002-that-he-sat-on-boards-of-bain-investments-20120713
 * http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/07/13/516951/romney-interview-directly-contradicts-his-previous-statements-about-bain-tenure/
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/12/mitt-romney-bain-departure_n_1669006.html
 * 75.84.186.29 (talk) 02:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, he continued to sit on the boards of other companies - in this case, Staples Corporation, Marriott International, and the LifeLike Corporation. Indeed, our article already states that he was on the Staples board for a long time and on the Marriott board through 2002.  But most directors do such stints with little effort or influence, and there's no evidence yet that he attended board meetings or any other meetings at Bain Capital itself.  That's the question of interest here.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Lifelike was owned by Bain until 2001. How can being on the board of Lifelike while Bain owned Lifelike not constitute evidence that Romney was involved with Bain after Feb 1999?  You think that Bain invested all this money in Lifelike and put Romney on the board, but that was that?  That is not how private equity works. The skepticism expressed in the linked articles is well placed.75.84.186.29 (talk) 02:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Bain Capital guys calling the shots at LifeLike would have been the managers they put into place, not the board members. Traditionally in American corporate life, at least in the pre-Enron/pre-WorldCom days, being a board member was a cushy job requiring little attention.  See this piece and this piece and this piece for example.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Read Board of directors. Cwobeel (talk) 03:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why don't you get the minutes then of these meetings? Only you are pushing this angle claiming this without any sources.  You are aware that board members can delegate their seat to other people which in this case can be the CEO of Bain Capital at the time which was Mark C. Miller.  I would encourage you to go find the SEC filings to back up your arguments.  What about this article?  “I wasn’t with him every day, but from every indication he was working 12-14-16 hour days on the Olympics,” said Jim Jardine, an outside counsel for the Salt Lake City Olympic Organizing Committee ViriiK (talk) 04:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ViriiK is correct. If and when people come forward and say that after February 1999, Romney was in Bain Capital meetings and pushed for certain deals to take place and argued against other deals and proposed using new financial instruments and recommended personal changes in companies and so forth, then yes, we can say that Romney was still active in Bain Capital during 1999-2002.  Given how much attention this has gotten, I think that if this did in fact happen, news stories will soon come out saying so.  But if they don't come out, then we're just left with a guy who wasn't actively involved but still held his titles, which after all is the whole point of taking a leave of absence in the first place.  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So I went directly to the sources which I'm noticing all over the SEC forms that says "Attorney-in-Fact". So I was wondering what does an Attorney-in-Fact do and I found a website that gives me the run-down  which it says Regardless of the estate planning method used, I always recommend that my clients also have a Healthcare Directive and a Power of Attorney in place.  A Healthcare Directive allows a client to decide what they would like their doctors to do if they are ever in a “permanently vegetative state”.  This document can help relieve the client’s family of the difficult decisions that can arise in this very specific situation.  The Power of Attorney document allows the appointed “Attorney-in-Fact” (e.g. the client’s spouse) to make financial and healthcare decisions on behalf of the client if the client is ever incapacitated (whether temporarily or permanently) or otherwise unable to act.  The Power of Attorney document can either be currently effective or it can “spring” into place if the client is ever diagnosed (by his or her doctors) as incapacitated.  In either case, the client must be very careful not to name someone as Attorney-in-Fact that might abuse their power.  For real estate investors, it is particularly important that bills are paid and properties are managed appropriately, regardless of the mental state of the property’s owner.  So the "signed" may have been just a simple stamp that was held by his Attorney-in-Fact.  An example is here  where it says By:  Bain Capital, Inc., its Attorney-in-Fact  So those SEC filings that the Boston Globe has been using?  Almost every document I've found has Mitt Romney using an Attorney-in-Fact in his place.  ViriiK (talk) 04:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Found a better source.  A person who is authorized to perform business-related transactions on behalf of someone else (the principal). In order to become someone's attorney in fact, a person must have the principal sign a power of attorney document. This document designates the person as an agent, allowing him or her to perform actions on the principal's behalf.  ViriiK (talk) 04:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cwobeel. It is nonsense to suggest that the board of director membership in general, constitutes non-involvement in a company, but it is particularly nonsensical in the case of private equity firms which operate by (1) buying publicly traded companies, (2) using their shares to vote their people onto the board of directors. (3) using the board of directors to appoint management.
 * But stepping back from this particular issue, what we think doesn't really matter. You can't just insist this out of the Romney article by continually raising the bar.(For example, by asserting that the Boston Globe is not an RS, or that SEC filings are insufficient because we need first person testimony from people that were present in private meetings.)  At this point, this story has been re-ported by plenty of reliable sources. If there are no retractions, I don't see any reason why what is currently in print would not be sufficient to allow presentation of both sides of the story.  I'm comfortable waiting a little while longer to see if there are any further developments, but there is no sense insisting that there is nothing here. 75.84.186.29 (talk) 05:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe there is anything new that isn't covered in the article. It is well known that Romney was the sole stock older and what not. I own stock in companies and I am not involved in running them. The SEC has many statutory requirements and would require disclosure listing Romney and probably anyone that owned more than 5% stake regardless in their involvement. It appears Romney has explained this many times int the past and his role with BC also brought many times in the past. Virtually all the SEC disclosures being pointed at are signed by someone other than Romney and only attest that Romney, by virtue of his stockholder position, owned the company. He has never stated otherwise. The article states accurately when it says he took a leave of absence from management in 1999 and subsequently divested himself in 2002. As owner he would be required to attend, pro forma, certain board meetings and file certain documents. There is simply nothing new here that the article doesn't already cover from a NPOV voice. All companies have leave policies due to FMLA. None require selling stock, giving up your titles or make it so the SEC is unaware of your stock holdings. Virtually all corporations say that you cannot work during a leave even if you have a title that implies responsibilty. Managers don't manage while they are on leave though they still have their title. There is simply nothing to add here that wouldn't violate either NPOV or BLP --DHeyward (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Re the above comments on boards of directors, the membership in total is obviously important, but assuming the board is stuffed with management loyalists (or in this case, Bain Capital loyalists), the involvement of any one particular board member is often minimal. There's a reason why "board of directors" "rubber stamp" has over 100,000 search hits.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If the only new information was SEC documents that listed Romney as owner of Bain Capital, I would agree. But new documents list him as CEO until 2002.  Membership on the board of directors of Bain companies also directly contradicts previous Romney statements that he was completely uninvolved with Bain.  I would recommend adding some thing like "Romney took a leave of absence from Bain Capital in February 1999 to serve as the President and CEO of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games Organizing Committee, but some Bain filings to the SEC list Romney as CEO until 2002.  He also served on the Board of Directors for some companies owned by Bain until 2002" Phrasing may not be perfect, but that is the gist.75.84.186.29 (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this is an accurate statement of facts. I would edit it slightly to include the fact that he continued to receive a salary (six figures) .  The implication in the article right now is that he left Bain with a suggestion that the separation was clean.  Clearly it took a bit to disentangle everything, and I think drawing a salary from a company is a pretty strong indication that the company expects you to be somehow providing a service to that company.  The argument I see above that he simply owned stock is weak in this light - what responsibilities did he perform to merit a 6 figure salary?Joelmiller (talk) 03:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent points about the salary. Agree completely. Dezastru (talk) 04:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't like the proposed change, because the "but" is a WP:WTA in that it implies something is wrong or unusual in keeping your title during a leave of absence. If I had a complete list of all the companies Romney served on the boards of I could include LifeLike in a Note, but I've never seen such as list and I'm reluctant to include it otherwise.  Regarding using Gail Collins as a source for anything about Romney, that's obviously a no go.  As for the $100K salary he got from Bain during the Olympics years, to be real that was chump change compared to what he was making off his Bain investments.  The most important thing about his separation from Bain is what has been in this article all along: "he transferred his ownership to other partners and negotiated an agreement that allowed him to receive a passive profit share as a retired partner in some Bain Capital entities, including buyout and investment funds.[71][82] Because the private equity business continued to thrive, this deal brought him millions of dollars in annual income.[71]"  But again, there's no rush; we can wait to see what further comes of this whole story.  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently the BG reporters that wrote the book The Real Romney wrote of how Romney's sudden departure from Bain caused turmoil. Doesn't sound like he was still running Bain in any capacity by the investigative reporters that wrote that book.  Arzel (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

hey, Wasted Time: Removing these facts four times in one day, does not make them less factual. And we are not rushing here, the press has covered these facts extensively. Cwobeel (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I haven't removed the additional text four times - I removed it twice, since you gave a different edit summary the second time from the first, and then DHeyward and Arzel have removed it once each. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

In thinking this over, my take is that attempting to summarize this controversy in one short line isn't going to work given the abundance of sources. I suggest a new article gets created in which all sources can be described, as well as the positions expressed by sources about this issue, very much along the lines of what has been captured at John_Kerry_military_service_controversy and Jeremiah_Wright_controversy and thus create a neutral article about this subject. Cwobeel (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What additional aspect do you think needs to be added? Here are the facts.  Romney left Bain in 1999 to run the Olympics,  His sudden departure cause some turmoil at Bain capital and resulted in some restructuring of the companies management organization.  Romney played no part in Bain after 1999, this is verfied by several Bain employees, some of whom are Democrats.  This is also backed up by several fact checks and the book The Real Romney which was written by Boston Globe investigative reporters.  Untill 2002 Romney remained on several documents in order to satisfy SEC legal requirements, several sources and fact checkers have verified that Romney was required by law to remain on these documents even though he had not been an active part of Bain for several years.  Why should we use WP to promote the political talking points that would say otherwise? Arzel (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Really? This is an encyclopedia that supposed to present facts and opinions as reported by sources deemed reliable. And there is plenty to report. Just Google Romney Bain. Cwobeel (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What I mean, is that there are the facts, some of which you have described, and there is the controversy. Both are worth reporting. I am speaking about the latter. Cwobeel (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That exact quote you're using is the one that's being pushed from a certain point of view (not neutral) to attack Romney on issues. Do you have a more neutral tone?  Also, as Azral noted above, right now it's coming apart and a lot of news organizations are easily debunking this "controversy".  You're heavily invested in inserting this quote though.  ViriiK (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please provide proof from credible entities to substantiate your assertion of "a lot of news organizations are easily debunking this "controversy".[sic]"--Ziggypowe (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't evidence of disagreement between reliable sources constitute addition evidence of controversy. As for $100k being chump change to Romney, I would agree, but that doesn't mean it isn't meaningful.  Small sallaries for CEOs are often used to legally validate a contract.  Many CEOs who are compensated mostly in equity are paid salaries of $1. No one is arguing the Meg Whitman isn't CEO of HP because she got paid $1 or that Vikram Pandit isn't CEO of Citigroup, or Larry Page for Google, or Mark Zuckerberg for Facebook. http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/03/06/the-1-dozen-these-ceos-practically-work-for-free/
 * Since Romney also owned Bain, he would qualify as heavily equity compensated. (Also,since income is taxed at a higher rate than Capital, it makes sense to receive a smaller proportion of total compensation as salary.) By receiving the salary, it makes Romney legally responsible for responsibilities of a CEO, and would preserve his position; preventing anyone from trying to take his place while he was out of state.75.84.186.29 (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. See http://www.dypadvisors.com/2011/09/06/fiduciary-duties-of-officers-of-corporation/ - If Bain had been sued in 2001, Romney would be liable. As a CEO, and sole owner, reported in SEC filings, he can't claim no responsibility even if he did not attend a single meeting or made any decision. And that is at the core of this controversy. Cwobeel (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no doubt that this is is a controversy; saying that it is not is a disregard of the facts. I am not advocating for this or that position or who is right, just that the controversy needs to be described. Cwobeel (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

@Collect. You say "we would not wish to mislead Wikipedia readers as to the actual meaning of such filings". But the sentence you removed does not make any claims about the meaning of SEC fillings, it just states a fact which is not disputed. Cwobeel (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur. The dispute is whether Romney actually left Bain. It is not disputed that Romney remained "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president" is stated in the SEC fillings.--Ziggypowe (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Cwobeel is correct, and per WP:BALANCE the controversy should be described regardless if some reliable sources contradict each other. This is why we describe the controversy from a "disinterested viewpoint" by giving the commentary of the repugnant entities and present the facts in a objective manner and let the reader decide.--Ziggypowe (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Why not just report the facts of what his involvement was when instead of trying to interpret/spin them into a controversy? Of course, political opponent operatives will say everything Romney-related is a "controversy" so they have no credibility as sources. North8000 (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I stated: "This is why we describe the controversy from a "disinterested viewpoint" by giving the commentary of the repugnant entities and present the facts in a objective manner and let the reader decide." We will report the facts and only the facts as you stated and that is what we have been championing and saying the entire time. No one here is spinning this episode into a controversy--Ziggypowe (talk) 23:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And it's already covered so until it actually becomes something different than what has already been said, WP shouldn't be reporting the "spin" (and the spin is that this is a controversy). He took leave of Bain capital.  He didn't divest himself of ownership or give up titles.  That's what a "leave of absence" is.  Pointing out that he still had titles and still had stock while he was on leave is like saying the sky is blue.  Spinning "leave" into "divestiture" and then finding a document that says he wasn't divested doesn't rise to anything beyond spin.  --DHeyward (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your argument notwithstanding, it does not refute the inclusion of the totality of this sentence: "Romney took a leave of absence from Bain Capital in February 1999 to serve as the President and CEO of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games Organizing Committee, and according to SEC fillings, remained "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president" of Bain Capital through at least 2002." DHeyward, what you stated may very well be true, but your statement is not inconsistent or antithetical to the aforesaid sentence. The totality of this sentence is apt for inclusion. --Ziggypowe (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd urge everyone to stop edit warring over this statement. It doesn't matter if it's in now or not in now, just stop. It's not that important either way. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that is silly to keep deleting and adding that sentence, and best would be to come to an agreement on how to present these facts. But disagree that is not important; it is crucial to this article. Cwobeel (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How is something as routine as retaining a title yet ceding management of an organization during a leave of absence crucial? 72Dino (talk) 00:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, why is it crucial? Arzel (talk) 00:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is crucial, if you understand anything about fiduciary responsibility of owners, CEOs and officers. Some people her are accusing others of spin, but wear their shoes for a minute. Cwobeel (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "ceding management of an organization during a leave of absence" - You can't cede management unless you have a legal contract in place. Retroactively is not a legal term (but is a fun one, just check Twitter for #retroactive) . Cwobeel (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody has seriously accused Romney of shirking any fiduciary responsibility. The original and ultimate point of this whole controversy is political: whether people who don't like what private equity firms do can slag Romney for what Bain Capital did in 1999-2002, or whether they can only slag him for what Bain Capital did up until 1999. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If that is your position, I welcome you adding something about this issue in the article. He is a politician, after all. Cwobeel (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If it turns out to be one of the major issues of the whole general election campaign, yes I will add it in the "2012 presidential campaign" section. But we don't know that yet. We have no obligation to try to keep up with the controversy-of-the-week pace of the campaign, and indeed WP:NOTNEWSPAPER encourages us not to. Even during the primary campaign, where there were sometimes important developments at a rapid rate (unexpected primary victories and challengers rising, falling, dropping out), I tried to lag the updating here by a week or two. The general election is still four months away. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, in reading some of the news about this, the issue of why this may be politically relevant is related Brookside Capital Partners Fund (BCP) acquisition of Stericycle stock in November 1999 (Stericycle, is a medical waste disposal company that among other things disposed of aborted fetuses, which will not be well received by Romney's political base, to say the least). In the SEC filing of Nov 22, 1999, Mitt Romney is listed as "the sole shareholder, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of BCI, BCP VI Inc., Brookside Inc. and Sankaty Ltd" - Signed: Date: November 19, 1999 s W. Mitt Romney. Cwobeel (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Already discussed in the section above this one and a strong consensus to ignore it. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don;t see any such strong consensus there, but in any case this issue is far from over. Having attracted the attention of the public, I would expect a massive crowdsourcing effort to find more information about Bain and Romney. All will come out in the wash, and I predict that we shall have a full article on the Romney Bain Controversy before this election cycle is over. Cwobeel (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

@ Wasted Time: You referred above to "people who don't like what private equity firms do". The problem is: there are private equity firms and there are private equity firms. Private equity firms provide capital for companies to operate and grow, and that is absolutely fine and part of our system of capitalism. The problem with Romney's Bain is that he used excessive debt leverage (when debt was cheap and readily available) creating enormous returns to their partners while not always having the best interest for the companies or their workers. So, this is not about people that don't like VCs or private equity firms, it is rather about how useful is that experience in the context of the current political discourse about economic recovery. Cwobeel (talk) 02:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * All private equity firms have the same top three priorities:
 * Make money for the partners
 * Make money for the investors
 * Repeat #1 and #2
 * If companies grow in the process, great. If companies get broken and busted in the process, that's great too.  Capitalism is red in tooth and claw, and Bain Capital was no better or worse than any of the other private equity or leverage buyout firms.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I fully concur. That is what VCs and private equity firms do (although Bain used leverage more than many others, and was quite successful at that for its partners and investors, not so much for some companies and their workers). Now, I think that the current controversy is how that applies to making claims about how that experience applies (or not) to fixing the economy of a country. After all, it was the Romney campaign that promoted the view that it indeed applies, that prompted the current scrutinity on his record at Bain, and that is not a surprise. Cwobeel (talk) 04:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I vote that the statement indicating that he was listed as CEO until 2002 stay in. What I saw in the article earlier today was phrased neutrally and was about the bare minimum that could be said about the issue.   Considering that one half of the political spectrum that thinks this is an enormously huge issue, what was present in the article was about as cursory an acknowledgement of the issue as could be.(for example, the removed sentence ignored the fact that he was paid as CEO, which I would expect would not happen if he wasn't doing *something* for Bain.)   The reason it is important is because "leave of absence" is ambiguous.   If we include the previous statement we can let readers decide if they want to trust Romney's statements that he was uninvolved or SEC filings that suggest that he is not.75.84.186.29 (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Signed in now. I also don't think that the statements about the SEC will "mislead readers" as we're not citing the SEC statements themselves, but reliable news sources which were happy to interpret them for us.Pcruce (talk) 03:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The SEC component statement is apt and vote for its inclusion: "Romney took a leave of absence from Bain Capital in February 1999 to serve as the President and CEO of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games Organizing Committee, and according to SEC fillings, remained "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president" of Bain Capital through at least 2002." The SEC component statement is factual, and the validity of such statement is not in dispute, as it is not stating whether or not Romney actually left Bain, but it delineates what the SEC filings state.--Ziggypowe (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Another link on the topic: http://www.forbes.com/sites/tjwalker/2012/07/14/35-questions-mitt-romney-must-answer-about-bain-capital-before-the-issue-can-go-away/
 * It sums up numerous different sources. Also, this is Forbes; hardly biased against Republicans.128.97.68.15 (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to raise a point I raised earlier that got a little response, but seems to have dropped from discussion by the time the current version went up. Romney continued to receive a salary from Bain during the time he was on leave.  It's certainly true that this is small in comparison to what he earned from his investments (presumably), but it's relevant to the question of whether he was involved with Bain - not only was he legally the owner etc, but he was also effectively an employee.  There is no question about that fact: the edit I would propose is "During his leave of absence, Romney continued to be listed in filings to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission as 'sole shareholder, sole director, Chief Executive Officer and President' and continued to receive an annual salary of at least $100,000"  I haven't found the original financial disclosures showing this, but the source would be the Boston Globe article: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2012/07/12/government_documents_indicate_mitt_romney_continued_at_bain_after_date_when_he_says_he_left/  Joelmiller (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I find this section an interesting read, but also one with a lot of blind alleys and tangential walks. If we wanted the low hanging fruit, we'd look for the public documents that show Mitt Romney received income at Bain Capital in 2001 and 2002. That is as low hanging as it gets. Also, the sources for that, i.e. Bain tax returns and the such, would be as reliable as it gets. Instead, we dissect a thousand articles. Isn't there FOIA coverage for these tax returns? Or perhaps they're already online somewhere. If the tax returns show that the subject was paid by Bain Capital in 2001 and 2002, then it would be reasonable to call this case settled. Otherwise, the search would provide little insight into the subject's involvement with Bain was and we could go for the higher hanging fruits, i.e. the thousand articles, upon finding that. Viridium (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is the present text: Romney took a paid leave of absence from Bain Capital in February 1999 to serve as the President and CEO of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games Organizing Committee.[88][89] Billed in some public statements as keeping a part-time role,[90][88] Romney remained the firm's CEO and sole shareholder, signing corporate and legal documents, attending to his interests within the firm, and conducting prolonged negotiations for the terms of his departure.[91][88] He was not involved in day-to-day operations or in investment decisions for Bain Capital's next private equity fund.[88][91]

By 1999, Bain Capital was on its way to being one of the top private equity firms in the nation,[74] having increased its number of partners from 5 to 18, with 115 employees overall, and $4 billion under its management.[65][75] Bain Capital's approach of applying consulting expertise to the companies it invested in became widely copied within the private equity industry.[25][75] Economist Steven Kaplan would later say, "[Romney] came up with a model that was very successful and very innovative and that now everybody uses."[76]

In August 2001, Romney announced that he would not return to Bain Capital.[92] His separation from the firm was finalized in early 2002;[88] he transferred his ownership to other partners and negotiated an agreement that allowed him to receive a passive profit share as a retired partner in some Bain Capital entities, including buyout and investment funds.[80][93] Because the private equity business continued to thrive, this deal brings him millions of dollars in annual income.[80] My concerns are that, first, the paragraph that begins "By 1999, Bain Capital was on its way to being" should be moved to the position before "Romney took a paid leave of absence." Second, the new version has reduced the description of his role from sole shareholder, sole director, chief executive officer, and president to just "CEO and sole shareholder" and has left out mention of a dollar amount for the non-investment compensation he received as a Bain executive in 2001 and 2002. Third, the text should not gloss over the discussion there has been about the Romney campaign's characterization of Romney's role during the leave of absence. Fourth, the sentence which reads "he was not involved in the day-to-day operations or in investment decisions for Bain Capital's next private equity fund" would be more informative as "he was not involved in the day-to-day operations or in investment decisions for Bain Capital's next private equity fund, which was launched in 2000." Dezastru (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes, the second paragraph should be first, so that it's chronological.
 * 2) There's room for the full description, so we should use it.
 * 3) There is genuine controversy, so we should report on it.
 * 4) Mentioning the year is helpful.
 * I agree with all of your suggestions. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

On 1, I've swapped the order, that was an oversight on my part, it's much better this way. On 2, the previous text said "Romney continued to be listed in filings to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission as "sole shareholder, sole director, Chief Executive Officer and President." That makes it sound like some kind of the paper-only technicality.  The newer, more comprehensive sources that I based the revision on (AP story, BG story) offer a stronger statement - he was still the CEO and sole shareholder, in deed as well as on paper.  As for two positions rather than four, if you are CEO then the president title is redundant and if you are sole shareholder then the director title is redundant.  Note the BG story says near the top, "... but would retain his title as chief executive officer and sole shareholder."  Those are the important ones.  I've left out the dollar amount of non-investment compensation - the previous text was "At that time, he was receiving $100,000 from Bain, apart from investment earnings." - because that was a number devoid of contextual meaning. Was it salary or something else? Was he also receiving non-investment compensation before 1999? If so, was this amount during the leave the same, a lot less, less, more, a lot more? We have no idea. The new text says this was a paid leave of absence, that is the important point and all that need be said. On 3, I've now added a sentence to the 2012 campaign section, "A related issue has been whether Romney was responsible for actions at Bain Capital after taking the Olympics post.[89][91]" It belongs there rather than here so that the biographical narrative doesn't get cluttered with "and this later became controversial in the such-and-such election" asides. On 4, I agree and have added the year. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "The newer, more comprehensive sources that I based the revision on (AP story, BG story) offer a stronger statement - he was still the CEO and sole shareholder, in deed as well as on paper. As for two positions rather than four, if you are CEO then the president title is redundant" — Whether it is redundant in an individual editor's eyes or not, Romney's having held both positions has been reported in a number of RS, including in the Braun AP article you chose (quoting a law professor/private equity expert), and Romney himself registered both of those roles in his SEC filings.
 * "and if you are sole shareholder then the director title is redundant" — assuming there are no outside directors, something most readers would have no way of knowing, especially since Romney had announced a leave of absence.
 * (Btw, the AP article link may be dead.) Dezastru (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the AP cite by using the same thing as in a newspaper. Meant to do this early but didn't get around to it.  Thanks for letting me know.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you find any sources describing Romney's fully active, pre-1999 years at Bain Capital, or that were written before this whole separation issue came up, that stress his role as "president" or as "director"? That's a good indicator as to whether these roles were of any tangible importance, or just pieces of minor evidence reporters found when they began deconstructing the leave period and wrote up whatever they found.  If you can't find such sources, then these roles are of no significance in the Olympics leave period either and don't need to be mentioned in the article.  If you can find them, they we will modify the infobox at the top and the positions box at the bottom to include them, because clearly by only listing him as founder and CEO we are not giving him his just due.   Wasted Time R (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "That's a good indicator as to whether these roles were of any tangible importance, or just pieces of minor evidence reporters found when they began deconstructing the leave period and wrote up whatever they found. If you can't find such sources, then these roles are of no significance in the Olympics leave period" — Nice straw man, but how the media described Romney's positions at Bain Capital prior to the 2012 presidential campaign are, presumably, a reflection of how he portrayed himself publicly in the past. For the purposes of marketing the company and of campaigning for public office, it would have been sufficient for him to describe himself solely as "founder and CEO." The purpose of the particular section of his bio that we are considering, however, is broader. It discusses the discrepant characterizations of his roles at Bain during the 1999—2002 period, including his legal responsibilities for actions of the company; and several RS have presented his other roles at Bain, apart from his having been founder and CEO, as being of relevance to that discussion.
 * Regardless, the current text of that part of the section on Private Equity looks good enough now, so if you are not objecting to it, I have no complaint. And my previous criticism was only for the body of the article, not for info in the infobox, which should be very brief. Dezastru (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm still objecting to it. It's bad writing, since it introduces two positions out of the blue at the end of the section for no apparent reason.  If these roles are really important, we have to describe them at the beginning of the Bain Capital section and stress what it is that they entailed that wasn't covered by his other roles.  So tell me, other than the titles on the SEC report - and we are stipulating that he was still the guy who signed off on all the corporate and legal documents, that's not in dispute - what RS says that his specific activities as "president" or as "director" were significant, that were above and beyond what he was already doing as CEO or sole shareholder?  Wasted Time R (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "we have to describe them at the beginning of the Bain Capital section and stress what it is that they entailed that wasn't covered by his other roles" — the way we explained how being president was distinct and different from and went above and beyond his being CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee? Right? Dezastru (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Have been going back through old news articles. It turns out that Romney's most commonly given title during the early years at Bain Capital was ... none of the above.  It was "managing general partner" (or sometimes just "managing partner"), which makes sense for a small firm like this.  Also saw "president" used once, didn't see CEO appear until later.  Am starting to flesh this out in the article, and I also added that Romney remained managing general partner of Bain Capital during the time when he went back to Bain & Co.  Will keep looking at this.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Saw in total five different titles for Romney at Bain Capital: president, managing general partner, managing partner, managing director, CEO.  Article now mentions all five near the start of the section, as well as being sole shareholder.  So at least there's a referent when the section later describes him still holding some of these positions during the 1999-2002 period. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Why Romney Picked Paul Ryan
At some point, Romney and Ryan met and got to know each other. When and why? I started thinking about this in view of the hidden Mormon connection between Romney and Marco Rubio. From the below, it appears that Romney and Ryan got to know each other when they both were speakers at the 2004 Republican National Convention. At the convention, they both were tasked to speak out against John Kerry and say things like "God bless you's" and "God bless America" where as other speakers at the convention used theological language in the context of reminiscences of Ronald Reagan. They both were speakers at the Jan. 26 - 28 2007 Conservative Summit. In June 2007, GOP candidate Romney personally wooed U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan for Ryan's vote. So, Romney and Ryan knew each other well at least by 2004. The date in which they got to know each other could have been earlier in 2002 (when the both won their respective political contest) or in the late 1990s when Romney was president of the Salt Lake Olympics and may have needed Ryan's Wisconsin political connection (I didn't really find anything on this other than Speed Skating moving it's Headquarters from Wisconsin (where it had been since 1900) to Utah). With the above, I then did a search to see whether any reporters figured out the 2004 connection between Romney and Ryan. The only thing I found was an August 12, 2012 New York Times article having the photo caption: "YOUNG VOICE: At the Republican National Convention in 2004.". So, the connections assertions above are OR for now. However, the article can include info from some the following news articles mentioning intersections between the two: Source information: There's a December 1, 2002 article that list both of them as winning their separate political contest, but there doesn't appear to be any intersection between the two. On August 12, 2004, it was announcement that Governor Mitt Romney and Rep. Paul Ryan would be speakers at the 2004 Republican National Convention. There was an August 28, 2004 list for the 2004 Republican National Convention, that had the following arrangement""These people also are scheduled to speak, but just when has not been determined: * Michael Reagan, oldest son of former President Ronald Reagan * Mitt Romney, Massachusetts governor * Paul Ryan, U.S. representative from Wisconsin"Speakers: Center stage" Their last names both begin with "R", so would see their names next to each other on such a list. (Yea, I know names on a list by itself is a weak connection. It's interesting how their names fell next to each other and then next to "Reagans" name.) There was a September 1, 2004 Washington Post news article "Republicans heard the harshest ... " that noted:"Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney blasted Kerry over what he described as vacillating positions on the war in Iraq. "He's campaigned against the war all year, but says he'd vote yes today," Romney said. "I don't want presidential leadership that comes in 57 varieties. I want a strong president who stands his ground. I want George W. Bush." Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin said, "During his 20 years in Washington, John Kerry never met a tax increase he didn't like. . . . John Kerry believes that government can spend our money better than we can. But most Americans don't share this view. That's why John Kerry has to preach the politics of division, of envy and resentment. That's why they talk so much about two Americas. But class warfare is not an economic policy. And the politics of division will not make America stronger, and it will not lead to prosperity. I say to them: Anger is not a governing philosophy."" A Boston Globe September 2, 1994 news article noted regarding the 2004 convention: "Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and Gov. Mitt Romney focused on Mr. Kerry's Senate voting record." In, The Language Of Faith And The 2004 Democratic And Republican National Conventions, Encounter Vol.66, No.2 Spring 2005 p16 W Bailey 2300, it notes: "On the third night of the Republican National Convention, except for a couple of "God bless you's" and "God bless America" (Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney), theological language emerged in the context of reminiscences of Ronald Reagan." At the Jan. 26 - 28 2007 Conservative Summit hosted by The National Review Institute, there was a "7 a.m. Dinner address by Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. 8 a.m. Breakfast address by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. 9 a.m. Panel Session, "Is "Small Government" a Big Joke?." with Pat Toomey, Marvin Olasky, Paul Ryan, and Ed Feulner." AP Alert January 26, 2007 Daybook Sat General June 24, 2007: "says U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Janesville, who has been personally wooed by several GOP candidates, from former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney to the Kansas senator Ryan once worked for, Sam Brownback. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "However, the article can include info from some the following news articles mentioning intersections between the two" — no it should not, because it is of insufficient importance. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Simplified, I think Romney selected Ryan to fold the Tea Partiers into the fold and more importantly, because he is somebody he can silence. Examine the 60 minutes interview, the portion cut, and you will detect the first glimpses of disdain Mitt has for Paul.  So much, that interrupting Paul and commandeering the answer.  It was a natural for Mitt and Paul will yield, obediently. Wikipietime (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've seen at least a half dozen explanations for why Romney picked Ryan (thinks he's going to lose and needs a game changer; thinks he's going to win and wants someone who'll be an effective veep in office; thinks exciting the base is more important than capturing swing voters; wants the election to be 'about something'; was bullied into it by conservative elites; Ryan's the kind of guy he used to hire at Bain Capital). Until some more definitive accounts come out after the election, it's best the article not try to advance a reason right now.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Confusing sentence
This article says: "He was not involved in day-to-day operations or in investment decisions for Bain Capital's next private equity fund, which was launched in 2000." Why is this one particular equity fund singled out? What is so important about it, that it should be emphasized above and beyond all the other funds supervised by Bain Capital? And does the reference to "day-to-day operations" refer to that particular fund, or to the whole company?108.18.174.123 (talk) 04:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is true. There are many variations of Bain Capital from Bain Capital Fund I up to VIII I think.  Bain Capital Fund VII, L.P. was formed after Romney had left the organization which they started procedures to remove Romney from all capacities.  You can go read it at Bain Capital.  ViriiK (talk) 05:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Does the reference to "day-to-day operations" refer to that particular fund, or to the whole company? After 1999, didn't Bain make investment decisions for old equity funds as well as new ones?  Was Romney involved in investment decisions other than investment decisions for the next private equity fund? This sentence of the article is extremely unclear and confusing.  Was Romney involved in investment decisions for the subsequent fund after the next private equity fund?  If not, it makes no sense for us to focus exclusively on that one particular fund.  The following is much more clear, assuming that it is correct: "He was not involved in day-to-day operations of Bain Capital, nor in investment decisions for Bain Capital's private equity funds, after February 1999."  Does anyone object to this revised sentence?  If not then I'll make an edit request.108.18.174.123 (talk) 05:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I object. There is still too much uncertainty concerning the full nature of his involvement in investment decisions at Bain in 1999—2002 to make such a categorical statement in the Wikipedia narrative voice. Why not choose a phrasing that avoids the issue that is likely to provoke controversy? I think everyone, both within and outside of Wikipedia, accepts the accuracy of this: "Romney and several of his Bain associates have said that he was not actively involved in the day-to-day operations of Bain Capital after 1999." Dezastru (talk) 06:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Obvious question: are there any non-fringe sources that dispute this claim? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Try the AP etc. Romney was on a leave of absence, and that specifically means he was not involved in "day to day" operations. Not just the word of "several of his Bain associates" which is not borne out by the people who saw him daily in Utah working on the Olympics, etc.   The Boston Globe specifically says: There is no serious debate about whether Romney took a leave of absence to run the Olympics. He did. And there is no serious debate about whether Romney continued to run the day-to-day affairs of Bain Capital. He did not.  In short, per the BG, Romeny did not have day-to-day involvement with Bain.  Their cavil was only that he signed documents as the sole stockholder and therefore sole person in ultimate charge per Massachusetts laws etc.  Cheers - the original wording was correct per the BG. Collect (talk) 08:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

(Undent)The version I suggested is supported by the sources. I'm not aware of any non-fringe sources that dispute it.

The Boston Globe wrote: "He was not a partner in the new private equity funds launched in 2000 and 2001, meaning he had no role in assessing new investments, his partners said — a departure from his having previously had the final say on every deal." See Healy, Beth; Kranish, Michael (July 20, 2012). "Romney kept reins, bargained hard on severance". The Boston Globe.

FactCheck.org wrote: "As we have written repeatedly in the past, Romney left day-to-day operations at Bain Capital in early 1999 to head up the Salt Lake City Organizing Committee...." See Is Romney to Blame for Cancer Death?, FactCheck.org (August 8, 2012).

All I'm proposing to do is to take a confusing sentence and remove its confusing aspects that do not properly track the cited sources. The FactCheck.org statement is unequivocal, and does not merely says "Romney claims...." And then there's this from the New York Times: "Indeed, no evidence has yet emerged that Romney exercised his powers at Bain after February 1999 or directed the funds' investments after he left...." See Confessore, Nicholas and Shear, Michael. “In Tracing Romney's Role at Bain, a Convoluted Timeline”, New York Times (July 15, 2012). 108.18.174.123 (talk) 08:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And the Boston Globe says specifically: There is no serious debate about whether Romney took a leave of absence to run the Olympics. He did. And there is no serious debate about whether Romney continued to run the day-to-day affairs of Bain Capital. He did not.   Seems quite clear. Collect (talk) 08:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, that Globe piece is by Callum Borchers, “Mitt Romney and backers use ‘day-to-day’ to reshape questions about Bain”, Boston Globe (July 16, 2012).108.18.174.123 (talk) 09:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the wording to be "He was not involved in day-to-day operations of the firm, nor was he involved in investment decisions for Bain Capital's next private equity fund, which was launched in 2000." This should make clear that the first clause covers day-to-day operations concerning anything, and the second clause refers to finding new investments. The latter is still important to include because it's the most definitive, specific statement of non-involvement from the sources given - since Romney had been heavily involved in improving investments and finding investors up through Bain Capital Fund VI, people were worried that with his non-involvement in Bain Capital Fund VII, it might not be successful. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're still saying he was not involved in investment decision for only one particular fund, whereas the NYT says there is no evidence he was involved in any investment decisions for any fund whatsoever after February 1999. Right?  Who cares whether he was involved in investment decisions for one particular fund?  A company like Bain makes investment decisions for lots of old funds and lots of new funds, all the time.  You are giving undue weight to one particular fund, and giving the implication that he was involved in making investments for funds other than that one particular fund.  His partners said he had no investment role after 1999, and the NYT confirms that there is zero evidence to the contrary.  Even your cited article by Beth Healy refers to "new private equity funds" (plural).108.18.174.123 (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "He was not involved in day-to-day operations of the firm, nor was he involved in investment decisions for Bain Capital's next private equity fund, which was launched in 2000." That is fair and clear. I support it. Dezastru (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Dezastru, do you believe the following is a correct statement or not? "There is no evidence that he had a role at Bain after February 1999 directing the company’s investment funds, and his former partners have said that Romney had no role in assessing new investments after February 1999."  If it is true, then why should this article only say it is true for one single investment fund among many?  It is misleading to do so.108.18.174.123 (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed to basing a categorical Wikipedia statement on a controversial matter on argumentum ad ignorantiam.
 * "Romney left day-to-day operations at Bain Capital" =/=  "He was not involved in any investment decisions for Bain Capital's private equity funds after February 1999"
 * "He was not a partner in the new private equity funds launched in 2000 and 2001, meaning he had no role in assessing new investments" =/=  "He was not involved in any investment decisions for Bain Capital's private equity funds after February 1999"


 * "'A clear accounting of Romney’s contacts with Bain has been hampered by his presidential campaign’s reluctance to discuss the period in detail and complicated by conflicting accounts in some of Romney’s comments and financial reports. Both the Romney campaign and Bain have declined to provide documentary materials that could shed light on Romney’s role after 1999.'"


 * "'corporate documents obtained by the AP show Romney’s personal signature at least 10 times on large stock transactions or ownership statements tied to Bain investment deals at the time. Those documents include Romney’s signature on federal stock forms approving the sales of large stakes in circuit board manufacturer DDi Corp. The company went into bankruptcy in 2003.'"


 * "'Cox said, Romney’s statement that he had no involvement with 'any Bain Capital entity' appears 'inconsistent' with his actions.'"


 * "''It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to say he was technically in charge on paper but he had nothing to do with Bain’s operations,' Karmel continued. 'Was he getting paid? He’s the sole stockholder. Are you telling me he owned the company but had no say in its investments?'”" Dezastru (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Dezastru, are you saying that you do not believe the following is a correct and fully sourced statement? "There is no evidence that he had a role at Bain after February 1999 directing the company’s investment funds, and his former partners have said that Romney had no role in assessing new investments after February 1999." I wrote that sentence for the sub-article, and included two footnotes for it.  Did I make a mistake?108.18.174.123 (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Language like "There is no evidence that he had a role at Bain after February 1999 directing the company’s investment funds" is not desirable, because it reads like it's written in response to an accusation, but no such accusation has been made in the text. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting that that particular sentence be put into this article, just like Dezastru wasn't suggesting putting a bunch of blockquotes in. I was just trying to reach some common ground about what the facts are.  The problem is that this article only addresses Romney's investment role (after 1999) with respect to one particular fund among many, which is undue weight, weird, and confusing (though perhaps understandable given the touchy nature of the issue).  There are at least two ways to solve the problem.  The first is to write something like "He was not involved in day-to-day operations of Bain Capital, nor in investment decisions for Bain Capital's private equity funds, after February 1999."  The other way would be to phrase it in terms of accusation and response (or skepticism and response).  Maybe like this: "He was not involved with day-to-day operations of Bain Capital after February 1999, and skeptics have not found evidence that he was involved with investment decisions for Bain Capital's private equity funds after that time."  Ms. Karmel seems more like a skeptic than an accuser, at least on this point.108.18.174.123 (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The "skeptics" approach is a non-starter. But I did overlook Bain Capital Venture Fund, started in 2001.  So I've changed it to "He was not involved in day-to-day operations of the firm, nor was he involved in investment decisions for Bain Capital's new private equity funds.[99][102]"  The "after February 1999" that you proposed is already implicit, since that's what this whole paragraph is talking about.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Christopher Hitchens 2007: "Why Romney needs to talk about his faith "
"It ought to be borne in mind that Romney is not a mere rank-and-file Mormon. His family is, and has been for generations, part of the dynastic leadership of the mad cult invented by the convicted fraud Joseph Smith. It is not just legitimate that he be asked about the beliefs that he has not just held, but has caused to be spread and caused to be inculcated into children. It is essential. Here is the most salient reason: Until 1978, the so-called Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was an officially racist organization. Mitt Romney was an adult in 1978. We need to know how he justified this to himself, and we need to hear his self-criticism, if he should chance to have one."


 * Mitt the Mormon - Why Romney needs to talk about his faith.. Nemissimo (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hitchens wrote that in November 2007. Romney obliged in December 2007.108.18.174.123 (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really - "Faith in America" didn't say much of anything about Mormonism - but neither Mitt nor this article has any obligation to respond to peoples' opinions about the religion. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. However, as a newer participant of wikipedia; It seems highly unlikely that facts of this nature will ever make it beyond the talk pages. There seems to be a consortium of editors who have a bias unfavorable to those who would speak ill of such topics. Wikipietime (talk) 23:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. Not only are you correct, but you're expected not to mention this ugly fact because it's not "collegial" for us to notice it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

2008 presidential campaign section revision
I've done a bit of a rewrite of this section, partly to make it shorter (after all, the campaign didn't get past early February), partly to avoid a blow-by-blow of the primaries (there are several other articles that do this, and there's no need to mention states like Wyoming and Nevada, especially since the 2012 campaign section doesn't go into that level of detail either), and partly to recover a little bit of the old "Political positions" section that described the reaction to Romney's ideological shift before and into the campaign. I haven't added anything that wasn't already in the article before or in the past, and I haven't removed anything that wasn't written by me in the first place. The section has gone from 1,140 words to 935, which is something of a savings. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Saving the Olympics
Its very surprising how much you've changed the summary of Mitt's page here. Over the past year, you've added the duration of his Mormon (that's not the legal term of the church) missionary work in France along with his leadership roles in the church (failing to list other community roles he's served on - point of lights foundation). Now you've completely gutted the sentence in the summery "Romney organized and steered the 2002 Winter Olympics as President and CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee, and helped turn the troubled Games into a financial success." that was part of his Wikipedia page for years. He is most well known for his turn around skills, especially for saving the 2002 Salt Lake Games. Just because people are raising doubts about it doesn't mean you not include documented facts. Even the NBC commendatory during the London 2012 opening games stated "no matter what your political beliefs no one can deny what he did to the save the 2002 games". People are raising more doubts about the legitimacy of Obama's origin of birth, but I don't see it mentioned in his summary page. Please fix this back to what it was before. Thanks!

Reference from liberal NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/us/politics/19romney.html?pagewanted=all

99.7.171.138 (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC) JS


 * I think mentioning the length of his mission is appropriate, because it's a long time and a very significant time for him, although I could live with it back the old way. As for terminology, the article uses both "Mormon" and "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"/"LDS Church" in accordance with the house style guide - see MOS:MORMON - and in fact the full term appears later in the same paragraph.  As for his church leadership positions, they were important and definitely warrant mentioning.   As for his other community roles, what are they?  Points of Light Foundation gets mentioned in the article body, but I've never read anything that says Mitt had much of an impact there.  (In contrast, volunteerism was a lifelong passion of his father, and that article has a whole section on it.)  If you have any sources about Mitt's other community roles, please bring them forward.  As for the Olympics, yes, it's on my list of things to do to get some more descriptive text there.  But at this point in the game, lead wording gets very hard to do without someone or other thinking it's too positive/too negative ... Thanks for your comments.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Getting back to this, I have added to the lead: "The once fiscally troubled games completed with a $100 million surplus." It's factual, without getting into the mire of how much Romney deserves the credit and how exactly it was done.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this addition, in particular as it is not sourced in the body of the article and it is inconsequential for the lead. Cwobeel (talk) 13:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I see it is sourced, but nevertheless, there is also other information about the rescue that is not reflected in the lead. Let's keep it out and allow the reader to explore the article for full context. Cwobeel (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with WTR (and the IP 99.7.171.138) about this. All the lead says about the Olympics is: "In 1999, he was hired as President and CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the 2002 Winter Olympics and Paralympics."  And all WTR added was "The once fiscally troubled games completed with a $100 million surplus."  There is always going to be other information about stuff in the lead that is not reflected in the lead.  Did you have some particular thing in mind Cwobeel?  If you say what that particular thing is, then we can check the sources to see how it stacks up to the sentence WTR inserted, in terms of notability.108.18.174.123 (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't like the idea of saying nothing at all, because the lead says something about his time at Bain Capital, as Governor, and his 2008 presidential race. So I've tried a different sentence: "The visibility he gained from this stint gave him the opportunity to relaunch his political career."  Clearly true, stated and sourced in the body.  Implied but not stated is that his stint was a success (otherwise it wouldn't have been a springboard) and that burnishing his image during it was a factor (something touched on in the body section).   Wasted Time R (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The role that his Mormon family members played in the olympics has not been fully vetted. The olympics is considered by some to be the greatest multilevel marketing scheme ever conceived. (sources tba). The state of Utah and the epicenter of Mormon connections needs much more investigating in order to fully plot Romney's flightpath to success. Wikipietime (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Would it be worth mentioning that Romney registered as a lobbyist in or near the sentence about lobbying the government? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/26/mitt-romney-olympics_n_1704261.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.229.174.138 (talk) 08:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

So
 * The federal government provided between approximately $400 million[139][140][141] and $600 million[142][143] of that budget, much of it a result of Romney's having aggressively lobbied Congress and federal agencies.[143][144]

could be
 * The federal government provided between approximately $400 million[139][140][141] and $600 million[142][143] of that budget, much of it a result of Romney's having aggressively lobbied Congress and federal agencies as a registered lobbyist.[143][144][145]   [ 08:09, August 8, 2012‎ Jensiverson ]


 * This January 2002 Salt Lake Tribune story is what the HuffPo piece is referring to. But the story talks about Romney and the other SLOC officials holding "state lobbyist licenses".  The text you want to change concerns federal lobbying, not state.     I agree that it's tempting to point out that he was a registered lobbyist during this time, but since our article doesn't talk about efforts to get state funding for the games, saying he was a lobbyist to the state wouldn't seem to fit in.  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Pats on the back
I've just spent a good bit of time reading this article from top to bottom, following a few links and references and comparing it with similar articles I am more familiar with. It's a fascinating read, with high-quality writing, excellent sourcing and a nice balance of important information with interesting tidbits about the subject. I've learned much about Romney that I didn't know and I really can't find anything significant to criticize about the article. I think the regular editors here deserve pats on the back for their achievement. This is great work that deserves to be a featured article. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yikes – real praise! Rare in this business :-)  Thanks very much.  I put it up for peer review this morning, then plan to go to FAC after that.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Olympics section not neutral
Here is one example: Romney was widely praised for his efforts with the 2002 Winter Olympics[145] including by President George W. Bush,[25] and it solidified his reputation as a turnaround artist.[149]

Reference 149 is this: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/06/28/in_games_a_showcase_for_future_races/ that entire article is represented here by stating "and it solidified his reputation as a turnaround artist.". But (a) the source uses scare quotes around "turnaround artist") and that source also includes these points:


 * "Romney knew his political future hung on the fate of the Games".
 * "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."

This needs to be fixed. Until then, I am adding a POV tag to that section.

Cwobeel (talk) 04:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Reference 149 says: "Thus began an experience that cemented Romney's reputation as a 'turnaround artist' - a manager so competent that he could turn deficits into surpluses, and who might one day be able to guide the nation." I don't think those are scare quotes, but I have no objection if "turnaround artist" is replaced with "competent manager".


 * Cwobeel seems to overlook that Reference 149 is used eight separate times in this article, not just once. In particular, Reference 149 is used to support the following: "Romney wanted to use the Olympics to propel himself into the national spotlight and a political career.[149]....Bullock said: 'He tried very hard to build an image of himself as a savior, the great white hope. He was very good at characterizing and castigating people and putting himself on a pedestal.'[149]"


 * This amply covers the material that Cwobeel asserts is missing. So, I disagree with the POV tag on that basis.  I think the box-quote is relatively obscure compared to other notable Romney quotes about the Olympics.  And we should point out that the feds provided 50 percent for the 1980 Winter Olympics in Lake Placid compared to only 18 percent for Salt Lake City.108.18.174.123 (talk) 07:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * There are many sources that refer to Romney gaining a reputation as a turnaround artist, see this Google News archive search for some. I've added two more to the article as cites, including one that uses it in a headline.  Some sources put the term in quotes, some don't, but I have changed the article to put it in quotes.


 * But as for the POV tag, Cwobeel, I think you didn't read the whole section. Each of your four points is covered by text that is already there:
 * "The role gave Romney experience in dealing with federal, state, and local entities, a public persona he had previously lacked, and the chance to re-launch his political aspirations.[144]"
 * "Robert H. Garff, the chair of the organizing committee, later said that "It was obvious that he had an agenda larger than just the Olympics,"[144] and that Romney wanted to use the Olympics to propel himself into the national spotlight and a political career.[149][157]"
 * "Romney emerged as the public face of the Olympic effort, appearing in photographs, news stories and on Olympics pins.[144]"
 * "Garff believed the initial budget shortfall was not as bad as Romney portrayed, given there were still three years to reorganize.[149] Utah Senator Bob Bennett said that much of the needed federal money was already in place and an analysis by The Boston Globe stated that the committee already had nearly $1 billion in committed revenues.[149] Olympics critic Steve Pace, who led Utahns for Responsible Public Spending, thought Romney exaggerated the initial fiscal state in order to lay the groundwork for a well-publicized rescue.[157] Kenneth Bullock, another board member of the organizing committee and also head of the Utah League of Cities and Towns, often clashed with Romney at the time, and later said that Romney deserved some credit for the turnaround but not as much as he claimed:[144] Bullock said: "He tried very hard to build an image of himself as a savior, the great white hope. He was very good at characterizing and castigating people and putting himself on a pedestal."[149]"
 * If you think the existing text on these points needs to be slightly altered for one reason or another, fine, bring it up here and we'll discuss. But slapping a POV tag on the article is a draconian measure that was not warranted here, and I am removing it.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I have added a few more pieces there, but I still have concerns. For example, the section ascribes Romeny's decision to take on the Winter Olympics to "Ann Romney was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998", which is anecdotal at best. We should look for sources that better describe the reasons for Romney's interest, or move some of the reasons presented later in the section to the beginning. I will not add the POV tag, as I can see that it upsets you, but please help fix this section. Cwobeel (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, please check "Romney was widely praised for his efforts with the 2002 Winter Olympics" sourced to this http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/12/sports/olympics-the-man-in-charge-romney-s-future-after-salt-lake-a-guessing-game.html. Either remove that sentence, or find a better source. Cwobeel (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with removing that sentence. I'm fine with adding the pin and button descriptions.  But I took out the addition of "Some of his colleagues said that he magnified the extent of fiscal distress, and did not give credit to other people who were involved in promoting the Games."  Based upon the prior discussion in Talk:Mitt Romney/Archive 14, we are only including criticism that is attributed in text to named people, and not to vague "some of his colleagues said".  And in this case, the statements by Pace and Bullock follow in the same paragraph, so your addition is redundant as well as not in conformance with that discussion.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As for Romney's motivations in taking the post, all reasons are "anecdotal" in the sense that we can't retroactively read his mind. Ann's symptoms had gotten better when she'd spent time in Utah, so that legitimately was a reason.  And clearly he gave up a lot of money by leaving Bain Capital – he could be worth $500M or $1B or who knows by now if he'd stayed – so the waning interest in getting even richer has some credence.  But I've also now added that it gave him another chance to prove himself in public life, which is I think what you were getting at.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Finally, as to getting upset by putting a POV tag on, yeah. When you do that, even on a section, you're telling readers that the whole article is junk.  Based on the current readership stats, this article gets about 25,000 views a day, or roughly 1,000 views every hour.  The tag was on for six hours, meaning 6,000 people thought the article was junk.  That was unnecessary, given that your objections have come down to 'turnaround artist' not being in quotes, a lack of description of the pins and buttons, and the 'wide praise' sentence.  All three of these could have been addressed just as easily without the tag as with it.  You and every other editor here has been treated with respect and civility and a willingness to make changes in the article.  You can return the respect by not slapping on tags.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it worked, no? Now it is fine. I will try not to add tags in the future, unless there is no willingness to speedily correct what is wrong. Cwobeel (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Where'd this go?
The following disappeared from the article:
 * Some of his colleagues said that he magnified the extent of fiscal distress, and did not give credit to other people who were involved in promoting the Games.

Why? StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * See what I just posted just above. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that explains it. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead
Let's discuss this: / I think it is relevant, very relevant to the lead, as a summary of what this person is. Not trivia, at all. Cwobeel (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Where it says:
 * Romney would rank among the four richest presidents in American history if elected.
 * This doesn't look like trivia to me. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems kind of like trivia to me. We could also say in the lead that he would be one of N presidents whose fathers ran for president, or N presidents who went to graduate school at Harvard, or N presidents who took office after the age of 65, et cetera.108.18.174.123 (talk) 04:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason it's not trivial is that reliable sources have characterized him as being out of touch with the common folk. The standard Romneyism is to say, "Oh, you like those? One of my good friends owns the conglomerate that owns the company that imports those from China." :-) StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for acknowledging your political motivation, but that's not the reason this verbiage isn't going to be added to the lead. It's trivia, and it's cherry-picking.    Belch fire - TALK  04:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, wanting the article to reflect reliable sources is most definitely a political motivation. Thank you for assuming good faith.
 * If we pick it, it's cherry-picking. If we report it, it's not. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Instead of using his wealth to make a point in the lead, why not come right out and suggest we say in the lead that he's accused of being out of touch? Good luck with that.  The bit about him potentially being one of the four wealthiest presidents is already mentioned in the body of the article.  Not as wealthy as Thomas Jefferson, by the way.  Was Jefferson out of touch with the people and values of his time?108.18.174.123 (talk) 04:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wealth was different in the day of plantations, but regardless, the fact that it's in the article is the justification for why it can be in the lead. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you sure it really has to be in the article? I mean, if you're going to invent policy as you go, why not think big?   Belch fire - TALK  04:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Every president for the past 50 years has had a level of wealth that would have put them out of touch with the common folk, if that's what having lots of money does. (I wouldn't know.) Not notable. HiLo48 (talk) 04:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that's your personal opinion, and you're entitled to it. You're not entitled to basing Wikipedia articles on it, though. Our policies say that we go by reliable sources, not original research. But thank you for sharing. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My point was not about whether the fact about his wealth is sourced. It obviously is. My question is, so what? HiLo48 (talk) 05:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So reliable sources see this as significant, and so do I. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the sources tell us it's true. They don't and cannot tell us whether it's notable enough to be here. That is always a judgement call. Lots of stuff gets reported, even by reliable sources, that we would never include here. HiLo48 (talk) 05:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources can be used to confirm notability, not just truth. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @HiLo48, being a fan of history, being wealthy back in the early periods of America meant you owned land, had no debt, and were white. If you didn't meet all of the criterias, you were pretty much a second-class citizen as they couldn't vote.  So Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the bunch were part of an upper class of elites so to speak.  Were they out of touch with America?  Perhaps so but that was the standard of the days.  Meanwhile I can draw the same comparsion from John F. Kerry, George W. Bush, the Kennedy's (all of them), etc.  They're all extremely wealthy but out of touch?  Doubtful.  The same conclusions can be said for Romney.  ViriiK (talk) 11:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Being out of touch is a matter of media/popular perception based on a few incidents or characteristics. Bush 41 was out of touch because he didn't recognize a bar code scanner, but Bush 43 was in touch because he liked clearing brush at his ranch more than being in the White House.  Kerry was out of touch because he liked windsurfing, while JFK is viewed as in touch because he 'knew' a lot of secretaries.  And so forth.  Does not belong in the lead, however derived or presented.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't forget Jimmy Carter's killer rabbit! ViriiK (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe this belongs in the lead (or article, for that matter) per WP:CBALL, "Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate." —Eustress talk 06:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That policy does not say what you think it says. Asserting that he will or won't become President is WP:CBALL. Stating that he'd be #4 in wealth if he did is a simple fact that requires no prediction of the future. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * They're both conditional statements, not historical facts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. —Eustress talk 06:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There's an obvious distinction between predictions ("He will win!") and conditional statements ("Given Y, were he to win, he would be X"). The former are covered by WP:CBALL. The latter are not and should not be, as no prediction is involved. Again, I suggest that you re-read the policy, because it is not saying what you seem to think it is. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Eustress but for a different reason. Saying such-and-such would be true if Romney were elected is unnecessarily inflammatory and opens the door to perceptions of bias. There is the implication (true or not) that the article is trying to make an argument. It would be more appropriate to say that Romney is richer than all but 3 past presidents, or that Romney ranks among the richest presidential candidates in history. --Nstrauss (talk) 07:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What wording does Forbes use? We should use that. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The lead already states that Romney is worth $190-250 million. That's sufficient.  "Being out of touch with the common folk" is a state of mind, not wealth, and doesn't belong in the lead whether stated directly or indirectly.  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait, are you saying Forbes -- our source on this -- was making such a statement? StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The Forbes article says if Romney wins the election he would be among the richest presidents. But I don't think we should follow Forbes' lead. A magazine like Forbes has license to make arguments and provocative statements; we don't. --Nstrauss (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

USA Today and #4 wealth
Belchfire recently removed the part about how Romney "would rank among the four richest in American history if elected". The stated reason is that USA Today was iffy. Now, that's actually not a good enough reason to remove anything, but even if we grant it for the sake of argument, it turns out that there are better sources. Forbes puts Romney at #3. 

I'm going to suggest reverting but adding this citation. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You are misrepresenting what Forbes says (what a shock). It's meaningless fluff, imprecise, and non-encyclopedic. The statement isn't accurate, can't be proven, and provides no value to the reader.  I won't be reverting anything.   Belch fire - TALK  05:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to point out what's misrepresented, otherwise your incivility becomes a personal attack. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * StillStanding, I believe you have a conflict of interest. With statements like:


 * "The reason it's not trivial is that reliable sources have characterized him as being out of touch with the common folk. The standard Romneyism is to say, "Oh, you like those? One of my good friends owns the conglomerate that owns the company that imports those from China." :-)"


 * You clearly show a bias that I don't think you can overcome to be constructive on this particular subject. Your general tone is confrontational and non-conducive to the editing environment here.  It's no secret that several editors here have an opinion that sways them one way or the other, but for the most part (with some occasional exceptions), we are able to remain civil and reach a consensus on most topics.  There's give and take.


 * You haven't displayed good faith on topics by willing to seek a compromise. You should seriously reconsider your motives for being here or move on to somewhere you can be more productive. Naapple (Talk) 08:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree across the board. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the "if elected" bit is a deal-breaker for inclusion. We have to use sources very carefully, especially so when we're talking about BLP's.  Predicting what he might or might not be if elected is somewhat of a WP:FUTURE extrapolation and is generally discouraged.  Pick and choose your battles.  This isn't one of them. Viriditas (talk) 10:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You might want to search for "CBALL" on this page. You'll find that I explained why what you said isn't correct. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 10:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's definitely a low-level CBALL and I would agree with Nstrauss that this an attempt to poison the well. Fighting tooth and nail for unimportant stuff like this is going to get you into trouble.  Save your strength for the stuff that matters. Viriditas (talk) 10:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

This isn't exactly tooth and nail. In any case, CBALL doesn't apply in the least, and if we're worried about the phrasing, we could instead make the equivalent statement in the past tense: Romney is richer than all but three previous Presidents. It logically follows that he would be the fourth richest if elected, but it doesn't particularly matter whether we phrase it that way.

As for whether this is poisoning the well, that depends entirely on what you think his wealth tells us about him. One view is that it shows how good he is at economics. Regardless, it's not our job to protect Mitt from his own wealth. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Red flags abound. We generally avoid statements that 1) CBALL 2) poison the well, and 3) extrapolate.  Just one of those are a problem, but all three? Please don't waste our time. Viriditas (talk) 10:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It does none of these, so I'm not sure what your concern is. I already explained that no prediction is involved, nobody's shown how it poisons anything, and it's not our job to extrapolate but Forbes did it so we can report it. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

His wealth is notable enough to be mentioned in the lead, one way or another. Omitting it is not an option. Cwobeel (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Cwobeel. It is a defining characteristic. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * His wealth is mentioned in the lead. Arzel (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

It was buried in the middle of a sentence, I have moved it at the end and added an additional fact. Cwobeel (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if Wikipedia rules are fine with edit-warring material into the lead without consensus, then you've done a great job at it Cwobeel.108.18.174.123 (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * read WP:BRD and learn the ropes. Cwobeel (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The "D" was going on for quite a while before your "R". But as I said, perhaps Wikipedia rules are fine with that (in practice anyway).  Another interesting essay is WP:BRRR.
 * I agree with the other editors who have explained why inserting "he is one of the most wealthy presidential candidates in the history of the USA" is not okay for the lead, and it's enough to say in the lead that "His net worth is estimated at $190–250 million." (For example, WTR said, "The lead already states that Romney is worth $190-250 million. That's sufficient.") There have been lots of rich presidential candidates, even recently (e.g. John Kerry, Steve Forbes, Ross Perot).  And while some sources say that he would be among the wealthiest presidents, I don't see where they talk about whether he's among the richest candidates.  The body of this Wikipedia article doesn't talk about that either.
 * Do you think it's fine to put stuff in the lead that is not supported by sources, not supported by the body of the article, opposed at the article talk page, and clearly a POV push? There is certainly ample precedent for that at Wikipedia, but it's all bad precedent.  It might be somewhat understandable if that kind of crud were succeeding at the Barack Obama article, but it's not AFAIK.108.18.174.123 (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Cwobeel's "fix" is obviously OR and it's been removed. People should know better.  Belch fire - TALK 18:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Precedent - By including that Romney would be the one of the wealthiest presidents if elected or his specific net worth, we are not following any type of precedent.

George Washington's page mentions "his wealthy planter family." Estimated net worth in today's dollars 500+ Million.

Thomas Jefferson's lede mentions his mansion Monticello and his hundreds of slaves. This is the closest one I could find to including actual amounts of wealth in the lead. Estimated worth estimated in today's dollars 200+ million. On par with Romney.

Theodore Roosevelt's lede mentions "Born into a wealthy family in New York City." Estimated worth estimated in today's dollars ~125 million.

John F. Kennedy's lede mentions nothing of his or his family's wealth. Estimated worth estimated in today's dollars unknown...family's wealth estimated at just under a billion dollars. All net worth estimates from the Atlantic.

Is the reason some editors are trying to include this is to push a POV. Or do they feel this is important information to include in the lede of all presidents. Just something to think about. Viewmont Viking (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We're not the ones who came up with this. Rather, Forbes noted his extreme wealth and found that he's richer than all but three presidents. Forbes mentions a few presidents and estimates their wealth, so that could easily fit into the bio's for those presidents. For example, it says that JFK wasn't that rich because he died before his parents and therefore didn't inherit that family wealth. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Everything mentioned in the news does not need to be included in articles. Yes news articles can make the reporting of an event reliable, does that make it noteworthy to include in WP? That is up to the community to decide.  Also going back to precedent there is no precedent of this in the lede .  The example you sited was not in lede of JFK.  Viewmont Viking (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not an argument against mentioning it. In fact, you haven't offered one, if we politely ignore the part where you don't assume good faith. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

"And while some sources say that he would be among the wealthiest presidents, I don't see where they talk about whether he's among the richest candidates."


 * Matt Viser Boston Globe August 17, 2012


 * "The releases of tax returns have played an outsized role during the 2012 presidential race, in large part driven by interest in the returns of Romney, one of the wealthiest candidates to ever run for president."


 * Kevin Liptak CNN PoliticalTicker blog August 17, 2012


 * "Romney's financial disclosures suggest his net worth is as high as $264 million, making him one of the wealthiest candidates in history to seek the U.S. presidency."


 * Patrick O'Connor and Sara Murray WSJ February 23, 2012


 * "One of the wealthiest candidates ever to run for president, Mr. Romney has emphasized how his policies would help middle-income Americans."


 * Sam Youngman and Steve Holland Reuters January 22, 2012


 * "Romney is one of the wealthiest candidates ever to run for president and his campaign is well financed."  Dezastru (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good info, thanks. Do those sources get into details?  I'm looking around for info about who the wealthiest candidates were in the latter part of the nineteenth century, but haven't found a good source.  Perhaps someone would like to put List of richest American politicians into the see also section?108.18.174.123 (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Another thing. What about John Kerry of the Heinz Empire?  He is by far the wealthiest presidential candidate topping Romney or McCain.  McCain however is supposedly richer than Romney because his wife has investment somewhere of a billion dollars too since the theory is that they undercounted their value  (I'm not advocating for this link to be used as a source, it's just an analysis of one individual).  Anyways the point I'm making is that all of the Presidents save for Harry Truman, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama came from wealthy families.  I also looked at John Kerry's article the day prior to the election and his wealth information was buried in the family section as it should be here too or similar.  ViriiK (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * For obvious reasons, journalists seem to care more about people who actually won the election. Mitt is still in the running. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is off-topic? So thank you for your opinion?  ViriiK (talk) 23:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is why we have the Forbes article comparing Mitt to Presidents, not to other wannabe's. Now you know. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The source I added speaks about Romney being the one of the richest candidates for the presidency. There are many other sources that say the same thing. This is notable, significant, and reported in a number of reliable sources and should stay. Cwobeel (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As mentioned by Viriik, John Kerry was far wealthier than Romney and before the election, this information was not prominent in the lead. Now I realize that this is a democratic talking point going into the election, but WP is not a place to promote a political point of view.  Arzel (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * John Kerry was rich because he married a very wealthy heiress. Romney made his money as a private equity guy. Cwobeel (talk) 01:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? What political point of of view I am promoting? Are you afraid to say that Romney is rich? Is he not rich? He is not one of the richest man ever to be nominated for the presidency of the USA? That is a fact, my friend, and a very notable one. Let's leave it to the readers to make anything they want to make about Romney being rich. 01:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwobeel (talk • contribs)


 * "But it's the WP:TRUTH!" Romney's wealth is mentioned in the lead, but only you and a few others want to make a point of it.  Did I remove his wealth?  No.  Quit pushing the Democratic talking points.  Arzel (talk) 01:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you know anything about context? What does it means "net worth is $X"? Nothing. We need context to understand what that means, as readers of this article may not know what that means unless you give context. The fact is that Romney is one of the richest candidates ever, and that needs to be said. BTW, some people think that it is a good thing that he is rich as it is a proof of its success as a businessman. So, I don't understand your point. Cwobeel (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Cwobeel, you seem to think that since you have sources, that should guarantee your content a place in the lead. No, it doesn't work like that, and you should know better.  See my first post in this section for further explanation: It's meaningless fluff, imprecise, and non-encyclopedic. The statement isn't accurate, can't be proven, and provides no value to the reader.  Newspapers and magazines can print fluff, but this is an encyclopedia.  We've mentioned this "fact" in the body section about Romney's personal wealth, and that's already more space than it deserves.   Belch fire - TALK  01:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Cwobeel, you seem to think that since you have sources, that should guarantee your content a place in the lead. No, it doesn't work like that, and you should know better.  See my first post in this section for further explanation: It's meaningless fluff, imprecise, and non-encyclopedic. The statement isn't accurate, can't be proven, and provides no value to the reader.  Newspapers and magazines can print fluff, but this is an encyclopedia.  We've mentioned this "fact" in the body section about Romney's personal wealth, and that's already more space than it deserves.   Belch fire - TALK  01:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Fluff? Are you kidding me? Fact: Romney is a very wealthy man. Fact: Romney made the fact that he was a successful businessman central to his life and his political career. Fact: He is one of the richest candidates ever. Fact: all these facts have been widely reported in reliable sources. Now, tell me why this should not be in the lead? Puzzled. Cwobeel (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

This is what I added. Tell me how that is fluff and encyclopedic (or negative. For some that is a positive thing and I don't blame them for thinking so). Cwobeel (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've noticed a few objections being voiced to this material's prominence, but I'm at a loss as to how to translate these stated preferences to supporting Wikipedia policies. Our secondary sources consider this information important, so we have an obligation to do the same. Personal preference has no role in this. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Bullshit. The media describes all sorts of irrelevant nonsense about Presidential candidates on a daily basis. This is a serious encyclopaedia. We must and do filter out the nonsense. We do it via consensus. HiLo48 (talk) 06:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for proving my point. "Bullshit" is an expression of preference, not any sort of argument. Therefore, there's nothing to be done with your comment other than recognizing that it has no impact upon our decisions. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * So what's stopping you from reinserting the content???  Belch fire - TALK 06:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing, except my own good sense. It's better to hash things out on the talk page than turn the article into a battlefield. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 12:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

New York Times as source for campaign spending
To keep this simple, here is what the NYT recorded. Romney spent $52 million of his own money on his Senate and 2008 Presidential runs. He spent $44.3 million on the presidential run. He and Ann each spent $75,000 on this Presidential run (donations to the Romney Victory Fund). I don't know where yet but expect to add these sources to the lead. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm against putting all those numbers into the lead. The lead isn't supposed to look like a detailed budget.  And if he has spent $75,000 on this presdential run, that seems pretty tiny and insignificant in perspective.108.18.174.123 (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur, bad idea. Putting nuts-and-bolts details like that into a lead goes directly against WP:Summary style and WP:MOSINTRO.  It might be appropriate in the body, but no case can be made for putting that stuff in the lead.   Belch fire </tt>- TALK  22:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. This looks like body material for the Romney 2008 and 2012 Campaign, not the lead of his main article.  Naapple (Talk) 00:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Not many politicians can pay their way via campaigns contributions with their own money. Maybe one or two previous presidential candidates did that in the past, such as Ross Perot. That information is relevant in a summary; we don't have to specify amounts, but we can mention it. Cwobeel (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Self-funding was in the lead, Cwobeel, until you removed it. I support restoring what you removed.108.18.174.123 (talk) 01:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * We can have the best of both worlds. Let's restore the mention of self-financing and also keep the part about being one of the richest candidates. It all fits together; how else could he self-finance if not for being rich? StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Go for it and let's see if it sticks. Cwobeel (talk) 02:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Something such as: "His net worth is estimated at $190–250 million, making him one of the richest presidential candidates in the history of the USA, and his wealth has helped fund his previous political campaigns". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwobeel (talk • contribs) 02:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with inserting "making him one of the richest presidential candidates in the history of the USA" in the lead. It's overkill.  People can figure it out from the numbers.  I'm not the only one who has disagreed about this.  Not that we need to follow any other articles, but John Kerry and Ted Kennedy were also two of the richest people ever to seek the presidency, and I wouldn't favor spelling that out in those leads either.108.18.174.123 (talk) 02:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Uhm, how? Given a single dollar amount, how can they know whether it's more or less than unspecified amounts? StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I hear you. But Ted Kennedy was not a presidential nominee, and Kerry's fortune was from his wife. If you want to see how a rich nominee is presented, check Ross_Perot Cwobeel (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ross Perot is genuinely a multi-billionaire. At a quarter bil tops, Mitt is chickenfeed to that crowd.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A good page to compare is Meg Whitman. Similar figures.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that the Whitman article's lead does not mention whether she's one of the richest candidates who ever ran for Governor of California.108.18.174.123 (talk) 03:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I've restored it to the way it was. Having a separate stand-alone paragraph after the whole lead is a violation of several MoS guidelines, including the four paragraph limit for leads and the recommendation against one-sentence paragraphs. The assertion it was 'buried' is silly, the lead is the most read part of the whole article. Saying that his wealth has funded most of his campaigns is biographically critical - without that, he wouldn't have gotten the GOP Senate nomination or gubernatorial election or gotten very far in the 2008 presidential race. But saying that he would be one of the wealthiest presidents is not essential, because in the current campaign he is not self-funding and because he positions on taxation, income inequality, etc are identical to those of Ryan and every other Republican, wealthy or not. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "His net worth is estimated at $190–250 million, wealth that has helped fund his previous political campaigns." Previous? What previous? if you read the lead, it does not make sense chronologically to be placed there. It should go at the end or after the 2012 campaign mention. Cwobeel (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's fine there. The first paragraph of the lead says, "who is the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party for President of the United States in the 2012 election."108.18.174.123 (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)The first paragraph of the lead talks about the 2012 election, so that's the 'current' one. The 'previous' ones are relative to that. I'm willing to change it to "... political campaigns before 2012", however, if that's clearer. It belongs where it is in the lead because his business career begat his political career, and the wealth is the begating catalyst. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have moved it to the end were it belongs in the chronology. Otherwise it is confusing (I was, if you recall I asked you a while ago) Cwobeel (talk) 03:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why, exactly why does that have to be at the end to be in chronological order for the statement to mention previous? He ran for Governor and President before this election.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)(ec) Your change was an MoS violation. I put it back where it belongs and changed the wording to avoid 'previous'. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But he paid of his own money in all previous elections, no? That is what you told me. In any case, it seems that it is your way or the highway. What about a compromise? Cwobeel (talk) 03:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is in the correct chronological order as you wanted. I believe that is a good compromise.  There is nothing to indicate that Romney is funding his campaign with his wealth now making it not out of order.  Also I'm afraid I have to warn you that you are now at 3RR.  ViriiK (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not revert 3 times the same edit. In any case, we have found a compromise now, at least it seems so. Cwobeel (talk) 03:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There's normally a four-paragraph limit on leads. This one is now six.  We'll see if it bothers anyone.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, gentlemen. The wording looks okay for now. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Six paragraphs bothers me. I like the version that complies with the MoS guideline, with only four paragraphs.  Also, I'm not too keen on this phrasing: "His net worth is estimated at $190–250 million, wealth that has helped fund his political campaigns up until 2012."  That could be read to include the 2012 one.  Please clarify (e.g. "His net worth is estimated at $190–250 million, wealth that has helped fund his political campaigns prior to 2012").  While Romney did chip in $75k in 2012, that's chicken feed and does not count as self-funding.108.18.174.123 (talk) 03:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Change it to "prior". If 6 paras are too much, see if you can break it better and not have a massive paragraph in the middle Cwobeel (talk) 03:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Change to "prior" is done. The WP:LEAD wording on the paragraph limit is less absolutist than it used to be, so maybe this could fly.  The breaks that Cwobeel put in actually make sense, even if they do also accomplish Cwobeel's goal of putting the net worth sentence next to whitespace.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Cwobeel, that is not true. You need to read up the policies regarding 3RR.  ANY reverts over ANY material.   1st Revert:  2nd Revert:  3rd Revert:  ViriiK (talk) 03:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I did not know that. Cwobeel (talk) 03:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

MoS (emphasis added): "The lead should establish significance, include mention of notable criticism or controversies, and be written in a way that makes readers want to know more. The appropriate length of the lead depends on that of the article, but should normally be no more than four paragraphs." Here's how I'd shorten it:

Willard Mitt Romney (born March 12, 1947) is an American businessman and politician who is the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party for President of the United States in the 2012 election. He was the 70th Governor of Massachusetts (2003–07).

The son of Lenore and George W. Romney (Governor of Michigan, 1963–69), he was raised in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. Beginning in 1966, he spent thirty months in France as a Mormon missionary. In 1969, he married Ann Davies, and the couple have five children together. In 1971, he earned a Bachelor of Arts from Brigham Young University and, in 1975, a joint Juris Doctor and Master of Business Administration from Harvard University. Romney entered the management consulting industry, which led in 1977 to a position at Bain & Company. Later serving as chief executive officer, he helped bring the company out of financial crisis. In 1984, he co-founded and led the spin-off Bain Capital, a private equity investment firm that became highly profitable and one of the largest such firms in the nation. His net worth is estimated at $190–250 million, wealth that has helped fund his political campaigns prior to 2012. Active in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he served as bishop of his ward and later stake president in his home area near Boston.

He ran as the Republican candidate in the 1994 U.S. Senate election in Massachusetts, losing to long-time incumbent Ted Kennedy. In 1999, he was hired as President and CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the 2002 Winter Olympics. The visibility he gained from this stint gave him the opportunity to re-launch his political aspirations. Romney was elected Governor of Massachusetts in 2002 but did not seek re-election in 2006. During his term he presided over the elimination of a projected $3 billion deficit by reducing state funding for higher education, cutting state aid to cities and towns, raising various fees, removing corporate tax loopholes, and by benefiting from unanticipated federal grants and unexpected revenue from a previously enacted capital gains tax increase. He signed into law the Massachusetts health care reform legislation ("Romneycare"), the first of its kind in the nation, which provided near-universal health insurance access via state-level subsidies and individual mandates to purchase insurance.

Romney ran for the Republican nomination in the 2008 U.S. presidential election, winning several primaries and caucuses but losing the nomination to John McCain. In June 2011, he announced that he would seek the 2012 Republican presidential nomination; as of May 2012, he won enough caucuses and primaries to become the party's presumptive nominee.108.18.174.123 (talk) 03:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Why does the lead need to be shorter in terms of actual content? We've just been talking about paragraphing, not content. A good portion of readers stop after the lead, why shortchange them?  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I just like shorter paragraphs and shorter leads. But I'll stop complaining about that if we could go ahead and swap out the Olympics quote for this: "The Olympics needs to be about the athletes, not the old fogies running them."  The existing quote is kind of a gotcha quote suggesting that the whole thing was about money for him.  Plus get rid of the dog note, which is unnecessary in view of Mitt Romney dog incident.  Then I'll be quiet about the length of the lead (but peer reviewers and FAC reviewers may not like it). Cheers. :)108.18.174.123 (talk) 04:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

There is consideration to the fact that it slips out of criteria for GA if it goes over MOS. Any editor may de-list the article if they feel it has fallen out of GA. It may need a general review for that.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

"prior to 2012"
Currently, the sentence in the lead reads:
 * His net worth is estimated at $190–250 million, wealth that has helped fund his political campaigns prior to 2012.

If you drop "prior to 2012", it's still true. In fact, it's more accurate, since he's also contributing towards the funding of his current campaign. Yes, the earlier ones were more self-funded while his current contribution is "only" $75,000, but both fit just fine as "helped fund". If you wanted to say "wealth used to largely self-fund his pre-Presidential campaigns", we could, but I'm not sure we want to.

By the way, if $75,000 doesn't count, could you please mail me a check in that amount. I'll be glad to provide a PO BOX; make it out to "Cash". Ok? StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't count in the sense that lots and lots and lots of candidates contribute that kind of amount, without anyone calling it self-funding, and without their Wikipedia leads (or anything else in their Wikipedia articles) mentioning it. I won't say $75k is trivial, because I don't want to send you a check, but it is definitely not lead material.108.18.174.123 (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * $75K will get you a salad and a bowl of chili at an Obama fundraiser. Yes, it's trivial.  No, I'm not cutting any checks.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  04:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That is just innacurate as I state above, Meg Whitman's lede mentions the self funding.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Mad Scientist, no one is suggesting that the lead should not mention self-funding. Everyone wants it to.  The only issue is whether it includes 2012 or not.108.18.174.123 (talk) 04:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sigh ... I went through this on a previous Talk archive, but I'll do it again. In 1994 he self-funded $3 million of $7+ million, or about 40 percent. In 2002 he self-funded $6.3 million of a little less than $10 million, or about 64 percent. In 2007-2008 he self-funded $45 million of $110 million, or about 41 percent. So far in 2011-2012 he has self-funded $75,000 of $154 million, or about 0.04 percent (not 4 percent, 0.04 percent). Do I really need to explain to you, Still Standing, which one of these is insignificant and not worth mentioning? Wasted Time R (talk) 04:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, then what's written is misleading. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And you have a solution? Please do tell.  ViriiK (talk) 04:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Add it with a reference and put it in the body of the article, if it is accurate of course.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course I have a solution. I'm full of solutions. Just drop the "prior to 2012" and be done with it. Even if the five of you kick in $75k each to prove that this "tiny" amount doesn't count, it's still entirely true that his wealth has helped fund his campaigns. For the current one, instead of using his wealth directly, he used what it bought him. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * He's not significantly self-funding in 2012, and we shouldn't imply the contrary. Incidentally, is Open Secrets a reliable source for what he's given?  Apparently he gave a couple thou to Jeff Flake?  Do we have to put that in the lead too?108.18.174.123 (talk) 04:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Obama donated to his own campaign, as well. Just sayin'.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  04:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)It's an important distinction. He decided his 2008 campaign had been bloated and overstaffed and he deliberately designed one this time around that would be less expensive and not require self-funding. And this time around he had enough popular support to get the nomination without self-funding, something he never could in any of his previous elections. To get hung up on the $75K is silly. Consider that every other percentage in this article is rounded to two digits; that percentage gets rounded to zero. Or consider that scientific theories have been considered experimentally verified with fewer significant digits than this tiny fraction. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So, you want to put in OR. Unless you have a reference signifying how much that $75,000 helped him out?  ViriiK (talk) 04:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 108, it's a good source, but not complete. It seems to be covering direct donations, not SuperPAC's. What I find fascinating is the top 5 list of companies whose employees donated to Romney; all Wall Street. Wow. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wasted, I'll believe it's silly right after your check clears. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No kidding it's all direct donations since SuperPACs cannot donate directly toward Romney nor can they work with him. I don't see how it's relevant to talk about SuperPACs now.  ViriiK (talk) 04:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I promise to donate 0.04% of each $75,000 check to Romney. Send now. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on that, I'm guessing the discussion is closed. ViriiK (talk) 05:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you can still mail me that check! StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 13:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)