Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GabeMc (talk | contribs) at 06:57, 4 July 2012 (→Inclusion of Cranbrook incident: ridiculous). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

	Mitt Romney has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 29, 2006 WikiProject peer review Reviewed December 30, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed March 15, 2011 Good article nominee Listed May 12, 2012 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article has had a peer review which is now archived. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Latter Day Saint movement Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Brigham Young University Mid‑importance Mitt Romney is part of WikiProject Brigham Young University, an attempt to write quality articles about Brigham Young University. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Brigham Young UniversityWikipedia:WikiProject Brigham Young UniversityTemplate:WikiProject Brigham Young UniversityBrigham Young University Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Massachusetts / Presidential elections / Governors High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. governors (assessed as Low-importance). This article has been selected for use on the Massachusetts portal.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Alex Fitzpatrick (April 20, 2012). "Is The Race For the White House Being Fought on Misplaced Pages?". Mashable. Juli Weiner (April 2, 2012). "Mad Men's Henry Francis Calls George Romney a Clown!". Vanity Fair.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mitt Romney article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25Auto-archiving period: 20 days

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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

Straw poll

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

During his time at Cranbrook he developed a reputation for practical jokes, including: sliding down golf courses on blocks of ice, impersonating a police officer to pull over frightened friends, and staging an elaborate dinner on the median of a busy street. In 2012, five former classmates described a 1965 episode wherein Romney, then a senior, took the lead in holding down a younger student while cutting his long, bleached-blond hair with scissors. Romney said that he does not recall the incident, though he acknowledged that he may have participated in some high school "hijinks and pranks" that went too far, and he apologized for any harm that resulted from them.

References

1. ^ Horowitz, Jason (2012-05-11). "Mitt Romney's Prep School Classmates Recall Pranks, but also Troubling Incidents". Washington Post. Retrieved 2012-05-19.
2. ^ Rucker, Philip (2012-05-10). "Mitt Romney Apologizes for High School Pranks that 'Might Have Gone Too Far"". Washington Post. Retrieved 2012-05-19.
3. Greenberger, Scott S. (June 12, 2005). "From prankster to politician, Romney deemed a class act". The Boston Globe.
4. Kranish; Helman, The Real Romney, pp. 20–21.
5. Horowitz, Jason (May 10, 2012). "Mitt Romney's prep school classmates recall pranks, but also troubling incidents". The Washington Post.
6. Parker, Ashley; Kantor, Jodi (May 10, 2012). "Bullying Story Spurs Apology From Romney". The New York Times.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arb break

Arb break

Break for subsequent commentary

Cranbrook Incident, new source/details

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prankster image

Mitt Romney’s prankster ways continued in college

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

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

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

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

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

Second opinion for Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012?

If it wouldn't be too much to ask, could I have a few second opinions on the media issues section of the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 article? Since this is the central Romney article I figured you would be a good group of editors to ask, as any changes on this smaller article may be made to this one. More or less, there is a debate as to whether or not the media issues section should stay and/or be seriously revised (I would encourage you to check the article's talk page). Personally, I think that most of the news here is non notable at best. A recent addition includes the subsection, Accusations of Lying--what politician doesn't? Today someone included some pro-Romney, though entirely non notable subsections--such as he rescued a family in 2003 and helped find a missing girl in 1996. To be clear, I am neither for or against Romney. Most of this section, however, just seems trivial. But perhaps that's what American elections are like now. Thanks. -- A former Wikipedian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.240.252.169 (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

How about the Cranbrook incidents? — GabeMc (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

What about it? Other than the fact it isn't verified, it's disputed by the relatives of that person and the news report about it rely on a dead man's quote (goes against Confrontation clause) which is very unethical as well as making it impossible to verify if the incident had occurred. Also in the original article, the two people questioned about the incident don't even know about the "incident" if it had happened until they were asked of it recently. So it's inserting thoughts into their heads in hopes of verifying if it's true or not. ViriiK (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

"Parker on Politics: Fort Myers attorney recalls high school classmate Mitt Romney" — GabeMc (talk) 02:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand where in that story showed him witness the incident in question especially against Lauber's own relative's dispute of the incident if it occurred? It's the same situation. Especially this part here But I feel chagrined now that I did not do more at the time to try to stop it. but how could he if he never witnessed it? We cannot verify the incident from Lauber himself because he is dead. The original story that came out did not verify if it was true due to the fact it relied on a dead man's quote (Lauber) going against the Confrontation Clause. What about the administrators that gave the assembly? Why didn't the other people in the original story mention the assembly? It's an extremely flimsy story and it may be that it's just pure fiction. ViriiK (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

ViriiK, you've at least twice now made the point that the victim's family disputed the incident, and you are using this point to try to cast doubt on whether the incident occurred, and to thereby exclude mention of the incident from the article. The family's comments have been discussed elsewhere in WP. What is your source for saying that the victim's family have denied that he was held down and had his hair cut off by Romney and other classmates? Were the boy's sisters or other family members with him at Cranbrook at the time the incident would have occurred? Do you honestly believe it likely that the teenager, who, incidentally, later came out as gay, would have told his sisters about being bullied? Dezastru (talk) 06:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

There's so much wrong with Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 that it's hard to know where to start. There is virtually zero coverage of the events of 2007, such as the major figures who decided not to run and the lesser figures who did decide to run, or such as the threat posed by Rick Perry and how Romney responded to that, or of the debates that occurred during the year and how Romney did in them. There's no mention of the reluctance of party officials and the electorate to rally around Romney and his resulting flat, historically low poll numbers. There's no mention of the importance of the Michigan primary or even of who won it. There's no mention of what happened after Super Tuesday or when Santorum dropped out. The "Battleground states" section is disorganized and probably belongs in a different article. The "Media issues" section is a dumping ground for edit battle bait, and even on that basis doesn't include many of Romney's well-known 'gaffes' such as the 10K bet, "I like to fire people", NASCAR owners, "couple of Cadillacs", "I'm also unemployed", and so on. There is, however, an endless (200Kb worth) list of endorsements, dutifully maintained by several editors and ultimately meaningless and a likely violation of WP:NOTADIR. There are a lot of models for what a good presidential campaign subarticle can look like, see Misplaced Pages:Good_articles/Social_sciences_and_society#Events_and_elections for some that have reached GA status. This one isn't close. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Name = Willard Milton ("Mitt") Romney

Shouldn't his name be correctly written as Willard Milton ("Mitt") Romney? After all, "Mitt" is just his self-chosen nickname. Perhaps with an image of his birth certificate, or link to a birth record database? Just because he thinks "Mitt" sounds nicer, or more electable, or whatever, doesn't make it so. Heck, the article should be titled "Willard Milton Romney" with "Mitt Romney" redirecting to Willard Milton Romney. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.128.11.246 (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:COMMONNAME and look through the archives of this talk page. The name has been discussed before and the consensus is to keep it as is. 72Dino (talk) 03:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure about the first part but the article should not be at Willard Milton Romney per the reason mentioned above. For example, Bill Clinton is not at William Jefferson Clinton or, Jimmy Carter is not at James Earl Carl Jr. etc. A request to move the article will almost certainly be strongly rejected.--174.93.167.177 (talk) 03:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Also Rick Perry is not at James Richard Perry, Woodrow Wilson is not at Thomas Woodrow Wilson, Jerry Brown is not at Edmund Gerald Brown, Jr., and Bobby Jindal who is not at Piyush Jindal. This means that this articles follows standard practice and should not be moved.--174.93.167.177 (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hehe, no. If you want to impose that standard on Mitt Romney. Then Barack Obama should be renamed Barack Hussein Obama II, Joe Biden Joseph Robinette "Joe" Biden, Jr., Nancy Pelosi Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi, Newt Gingrich Newton Leroy McPherson, etc. You see the problem here yet? No one refers to those people by their birth name in politics. ViriiK (talk) 07:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

In addition to what the others said, "Mitt" is his actual middle name, not "Milton". See his birth certificate image here. Which is also part of footnote 1 in the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes it is as fun reading the TALK as it is the Article—I'm sure WP readers come here also. Tnks, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Romney's time as governor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

year 2003 general fund $19,412

year 2007 general fund $27,586

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

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

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

"impersonation of an officer"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At culturally conservative BYU...

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

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

In case Romney is elected President...

I thought of a design like this:

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

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

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

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

Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico

Therefore Mitt Romney is of Mexican descent. Add "American people of Mexican descent" to the bottom of his article. 09:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC) 71.212.234.183 (talk) 09:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Mitt's grandparents were American born, American citizens living in Mexico when Mitt's father was born, so Willard is not really of Mexican descent in the technical sense. ~ GabeMc (talk) 09:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

@71.212.234.183 Actually, technically not true. His father was from an American family, the Romney family, that was asked to go to the Mormon colony in Mexico, Mormon colonies in Mexico. If he was of Mexican descent, it would have included some history of Mexican ancestors in his heritage. Now descendants of the Romney family that still resides in Mexico is another story since I would assume some of them have married some Mexican locals. ViriiK (talk) 09:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing "racial" about being a citizen of Mexico. Anybody can be a citizen of Mexico. Mitt Romney is the son of a person who had Mexican citizenship. 76.120.17.197 (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Do me a favor and find one source which labels Mitt as having Mexican descent. Hot Stop 16:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

@71.212.234.183Actually there is in this case. George Romney had two American parents, (Gaskell Romney & Anna Pratt born in the United States). They chose American citizenship for their children over Mexican citizenship so in a sense they were illegals in Mexico. However George Romney was born before the 1917 Constitution that defined citizenship which had just as strict requirements similar to that of the United States. If I see the category that goes up on this, I'll remove it. I don't know why you care so much about this. Maybe we should create a new category that labels all Utah residents "American people of Honeybee (Deseret) descent"? Another thing to note is that George Romney only lived in the Mormon colonies for 5 years of his life before the 1910 Revolution forced them out. Last of all, you're missing in your entire argument is that the category isn't noted on George Romney's biography page. Also I agree with Hot Stop, find an ancestor to have Mexican descent. On the wiki page for Mexican, it clearly says "Mexican people, ethnic people inhabiting Mexico". There's something to note, there were 5 categories conducted back in the 1921 Census (Which George Romney had left the country way before then) which asked if people A) "Indígena pura" B) "Indígena mezclada con blanca" C) "Blanca" D) "Extranjeros sin distinción de razas" E) "Cualquiera otra o que se ignora la raza" which translate to A) pure indigenous heritage B) mixed indigenous and white heritage C) White or Spanish heritage D) Foreigners without racial distinction E) Other or won't say. George Romney would easily fail A, B but somewhat pass C although he did not have a heritage in Mexico. ViriiK (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• cmt Fwiw, although Mitt's grandparent (singular, male) apparently was never a Mexican citizen, it's at least possible that his grandmother was.... (Anna Pratt Romney's father, Helaman Pratt's, naturalization papers can be found here.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Wife is two years younger

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template organization discussion

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

sealed records of a charge dismissed by a judge

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

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

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

This arrest has been reported in ->

• The Boston Globe
• The Deseret News
• Fox News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inclusion of Cranbrook incident

There should be an inclusion of the Cranbrook incident in the article. Romney forcefully shaved a student's head because he perceived the student as strange because of his hair, and Romney perceived him as homosexual. Gay rights is an major issue in the United States and the Cranbrook episode may be an reflection of Romney's old or current stance with respect to the LGBT community. This incident is notable and germane to Romney's character at the time. Nevertheless, the facts of the what happen should be told and should not be precluded from inclusion in the article. It should be assimilated into the article. Let us reach consensus so we may include it. Ziggypowe (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

See many prior discussions. What was true then remains true - the clear consensus is that the material does not belong in the BLP per WP:BLP concerns. And Misplaced Pages articles are not campaign pamphlets. Collect (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

As stated, the facts should be told - not the implications of his stances on gays. Also, I can find no clear consensus that it should not be added. Moreover, it should still be added and we should reach an updated consensus to add it. Ziggypowe (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Why should we reach an updated consensus to add it? Maybe we should reach an updated consensus not to add it. From what I can tell that makes about as much sense. Viewmont Viking (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I see no sound argument not to add it. If the content is well sourced, objective, and factually correct it should added as it is an notable event in Romney's early life. The suggested paragraph given in the straw poll was good. Some form of that should be added. Ziggypowe (talk) 21:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree Ziggypowe, and for the record Collect, the consensus was ambiguous at best, see the straw poll above, still taking place. ~ GabeMc (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like another wp:undue for the top level Romney article. North8000 (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"Ambiguous at best"??? Really???? I sugegst anyone reading the discussions will not have that particular opinion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, actually, the !votes currently stand at 17–11 in favor of inclusion, which is over 60 percent. That kind of !supermajority would be enough to break a filibuster in the U.S. Senate, for example. If this were an AfD, it would probably be decided upon strength of argument. Maybe it's time for some admins to take a look at this. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

As I count 17 clear opposes, I fear the math is wrong. Including supports from SPAs. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, not that I'm counting, but I think there are about 16 clear supports as well, and 50/50 is not a clear consensus either way. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Well this is another case where wp:notvote is a good idea. That would be mostly a measure of how many re-elect Obama folks are working the article. Including selected trivia like this in the top level Romney article is certainly wp:undue. PS I just put my comment in, never did before) North8000 (talk) 23:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we don't count votes here. Quality of argument is FAR more important. For example, any post that says "it's well sourced, objective, and factually correct, so we should include it" should be ignored. All sorts of meaningless trivia can be "well sourced, objective, and factually correct". If we included it all we'd have the first megabyte article. HiLo48 (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Some people assert this event as trivia. Please tell how it is trivia. Please elaborate on how forcefully shaving the head of a student because he is perceived as different because of his hair and homosexual is trivia. The fact is it is not trivia, as it is not inconsequential. HiLo48, we are speaking on a singular notable event, not about adding a myriad of trivia. A user stated something to the effect of: If Romney wore purple underwear would you add it? This was a poor attempt to equate things that are patently different. The purple underwear is trivia because it is unimportant, but the forced shaving is not tivia or unimportant because it is morally reprehensible and notable due partly to the distress it may have caused the aggrieved party. Moreover, in 2012, Romney apologized for his actions at Cranbrook. His actions were notable and significant enough to warrant an apology many years later. This is ,again, a notable event in Romney's early life and warrants inclusion in the article. We do not espouse the addition of this to debase the character of Romney. It is to provide a comprehensive, sound, objective, and factually correct account of the life of Romney whether it reflects positively or negatively on the subject. It is erroneous to preclude the inclusion of this in the article. The paragraph offered in the straw poll is sound. Some form of it should be assimilated into the article. Ziggypowe (talk) 01:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

DO read what I wrote more carefully please. I didn't say it was trivia. I was condemning vote counting, and arguments saying we should include it because "it's well sourced, objective, and factually correct". My view on the head shaving is that was ages ago, and therefore irrelevant. I am around Romney's age, and I'm definitely not the same person I was as a teenager. Those supporting inclusion are doing it for political reasons. That's the worst reason to be editing here. HiLo48 (]) 05:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe the strength of argument is the other way from what HiLo48 says. And that's because WP:BLP gives more latitude to articles like this than Collect and some of the others here seem to think. See for instance the part labeled as WP:WELLKNOWN: "Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources." Now here we have a major, very well-known politician in Romney, who hasn't even denied the Cranbrook incident. The account of the incident was published by one major newspaper, The Washington Post with four on-the-record witnesses; at least one of the witnesses confirmed his account in The New York Times; and there's further corroboration in a Florida newspaper that GabeMc mentioned in an earlier section. The BLP guidelines do not forbid inclusion of this material. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

And there's more bullshit saying that becasue it's well sourced we should include it. WRONG! HiLo48 (talk) 05:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48 mentioned: "All sorts of meaningless trivia can be "well sourced, objective, and factually correct". If we included it all we'd have the first megabyte article." That is what I was speaking on in one sentence. Moving along, per WP:WELLKNOWN, the Cranbrook episode is legitimate content. This content meets the criteria for this policy and is thus apt for inclusion. "I am around Romney's age, and I'm definitely not the same person I was as a teenager" stated HiLo48. You are misapprehending the intention of users who wish to include this account. The goal is to state the facts of what happened and that is it - like it is done in the suggested paragraph of the straw poll. We will not add to the article any implications that what he did is indicative of Romney's current (or former) character. There will be no claims of Romney's character. We will only report the facts. It is apt for inclusion.

I simply do not believe that there is no political intent in dredging up ancient past "misdeeds" during the Presidential election campaign. And you still clearly haven't understood my earlier point about trivia. HiLo48 (talk) 06:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48, IMO, you are missing the point completely, that it does not really matter, at all, what the purpose of the WaPo story was, that's a WP:CRYSTALBALL, and that sort of reasoning does not belong here. What would you have advocated for during Watergate? Had wikipedia existed, should they have included the Watergate info as it was coming out, or should they have waited to see if it had any lasting impact? I guess a couple of years or so. By your logic, if a true event were uncovered for political reasons, then wikipedia should not cover it out of principle. That's not neutral. Let the reader decide, they are not as stupid as you seem to think they are, and they do not need you to protect them. ~ GabeMc (talk) 06:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

See WP:DEADLINE. BTW, "pinging" other editors to get them to a page is considered "WP:CANVASS". Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

GabeMc - What's a WaPo? And I'm not interested in hypotheticals. They usually only arise as displacement responses to successful debating points. HiLo48 (talk) 06:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) , WaPo is a shorthand for The Washington Post, the newspaper who ran the story. At any rate, my point still stands, the purpose of the story is not relevant to its inclusion. Collect, right you are, file an ANI report, and since I find you to be the most hostile, difficult, and uncivil editor I have ever encountered in 2.5 years on wikipedia, your opinion means absolutely nothing to me whatsoever. ~ GabeMc (talk) 06:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Then reread WP:AGF and WP:NPA. I now have a full three decades online and your "persobal opinion" is of no value to this page whatever. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48, although malicious intent is not ideal, the political intent is irrelevant. Stating Romney is a homophobic, bigoted, greedy bastard for what he did is a political attack. That is a claim. That is not what we wish to do. Stating the facts of what happen is not a political attack - whether it reflects negatively or positively on Romney. In the Barack Obama FA article is included a section mentioning Obama's former drug use. This is not a political attack on Obama. Stating Obama is a crackhead would be an attack, as it is a claim, rather than stating the facts of his drug use. The Cranbrook content is in conformity with Misplaced Pages's policies, per WP:WELLKNOWN (PLEASE READ IT), and is sound, unprejudiced, and factually correct. You stated "I didn't say it was trivia." What argument is left to oppose inclusion?--Ziggypowe (talk) 06:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Ziggypowe, Obama's article not only mentioned his cocaine, marijuana, and under-age drinking, it did so in the third paragraph of the article body. On election day. And the article was FA status! Collect, I don't care how long you've been online, as far as I can tell half your edits are dedicated to bothering other people, and not helpful at all. ~ GabeMc (talk) 06:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Social sciences and society good articles
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class biography articles
• GA-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Mid-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• Old requests for Biography peer review
• WikiProject Biography articles
• GA-Class Conservatism articles
• High-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• GA-Class Latter Day Saint movement articles
• Mid-importance Latter Day Saint movement articles
• WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement articles
• GA-Class Brigham Young University articles
• Mid-importance Brigham Young University articles
• WikiProject Brigham Young University articles
• GA-Class United States articles
• High-importance United States articles
• GA-Class United States articles of High-importance
• GA-Class Massachusetts articles
• High-importance Massachusetts articles
• WikiProject Massachusetts articles
• Massachusetts articles with to-do lists
• GA-Class United States presidential elections articles
• High-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• United States presidential elections articles with to-do lists
• GA-Class United States governors articles
• Low-importance United States governors articles
• WikiProject United States governors articles
• United States governors articles with to-do lists
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press