Talk:Mitt Romney 2012 presidential campaign/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

bullying controversy

Is it too soon to include the accusations of bullying a (possibly) gay student and Romney's response in the Media Issues section? On the one hand, it's not appropraite to report on things as they happen because notability requires long term coverage, but on the other hand I don't think that this is just going to blow over, what with gay rights becoming such a major part of the election.Euchrid (talk) 01:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

This isn't something Romney did during the campaign, so if it goes anywhere, ought it not to be part of his own page? And why can't we just accept him at his word that he's losing his memory and laugh with him as he makes jokes about his own memory loss? Hcobb (talk) 03:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'm thinking that it goes here as the discussion surrounding it will likely play a role in the campaign, though you could be right. Worth seeing how it plays out before making a decision, though. Euchrid (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I have created a separate page since this issue stands on its own. The incident was well researched by the Washington Post and Romney has replied to it. There is just one line on the article that refers to the incident and that is as generic as possible. It is in section See also. It simple reads. Mitt Romney Cranbrook incident Unless there is fallout that hurts his campaign owing to the Cranbrook incident I agree that no further mention is needed.Pbmaise (talk) 12:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The WaPo article is being contridicted by other sources and they have made corrections to their own story because they cannot seem to get their facts straight. It is premature to start adding political hit jobs to the Romney articles, especially on the day the story breaks. Arzel (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I just commented the Cranbrook section out. Aside from the poor writing, which violates WP:NPOV, I believe it's WP:UNDUE, as there's no suggestion that this has any impact on the campaign whatsoever. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

You may have read . . . The family of the now deceased student says that media accounts are not accurate and decry the politicization. For legal reasons, Wikipedia should stay away from this incident. I searched and do not see it currently in the article. FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI, from UK Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9260731/US-election-Mitt-Romney-scrambles-to-find-school-friends-who-say-he-was-not-a-bully.html (Interesting reading), UK Telegraph noting what some of our US news sources don't; . . . FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Endorsements section needs citations

There are still quite a few entries in the endorsements section that are unsourced, so I am not sure why the citations needed banner was removed. I placed the banner to remind* editors that unsourced entries are subject to removal. (I know it's a huge pain in the rear to spend a lot of time typing in info only to have it washed away without being given a chance to correct the problems first.)

(*) there is also a hidden note that only appears when editing the page which states, "adding endorsers without a citation (preferably footnoted) to a reliable published source subjects the addition to removal"; but it's possible that some editors may not see that note or may have forgotten it is there Dezastru (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I restored the banner. Writegeist (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Move all endorsements to the new List of Mitt Romney presidential campaign endorsements, 2012 page

A separate page for List of Mitt Romney presidential campaign endorsements, 2012 now exists. Maintaining just a single page of endorsements would reduce the work for editors and make it easier to maintain a nearly comprehensive list (as opposed to some endorsements ending up being listed on one page but not on the other).

If there is no objection, all of the current endorsements listed on Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 should be moved to the new separate page. Dezastru (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

That would a sensible move, and consistent with Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012#Endorsements.--JayJasper (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Media Issues

This whole section ought to be removed or balanced with some positive coverage of the candidate. If you look at the Barack Obama presidential campaign 2008 page or 2012 page, there is no such section. Are Seamus the dog, a 50-year old haircut, an advisor's comment about an Etch-a-Sketch and a misspelling really the only issues of relevance in this campaign, because other than the basic information of the campaign (formation of exploratory committee, primary results, endorsements, etc.) that is all that this article offers. Note that with 43 ratings so far, objectivity of this article is at 1.0, so I am not the only one that has noticed this. Can anyone defend this section? Pres10mb (talk) 07:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC) — Pres10mb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Actually, that's not exactly correct; the Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008 does contain all those controversies under the section "Controversies, allegations, and rumors during the primary campaign", which includes the birther stuff, the Jeremiah Wright issue, and various other items. Perhaps the appropriate course is to add a "Controveries" section to the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 page, or even spin off a separate "Mitt Romney presidential primary campaign, 2012" page, since Romney is clearly going to be the nominee? Dougom (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, the ratings I'm seeing are actually: Trustworthy=5 (45 ratings); Objective=5 (46 ratings); Complete=4 (47 ratings); Well-written=4 (44 ratings). I'm not sure where the above poster got his numbers from, but given these numbers, I would say his or her conclusions are not necessarily accurate.Dougom (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

With the history of the negative ratings of the objectivity of this article a

N-POV Should be added to the Media issues section if not the entire article.

--Viewmont Viking (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC) — Viewmont Viking (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Honestly not sure why the NPOV dispute was taken off. Adding a story to media issues does not make it a NPOV. This article out of 45 people responding has 1 star average for objectivity. 2 paragraphs on the dog issue, 3 paragraphs on the etch e sketch comment. A comment about how Mitt is struggling with gaining donors from back in March when last month (May) he outraised his opponent. Wasted Time R, who has over 60,000 edits, mentions in the Mitt Romney article " The Olympics spending debate could of course be added to the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 article ... but in my opinion that article is almost completely worthless as it stands now. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)" Even he believes this current article as it stands is pretty much a joke. I believe and would vote to add back on the NPOV Dispute tag and probably delete the entire Media Issues section, unless it starts talking about the campaign and not these trivial gotchas. Viewmont Viking (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC) — Viewmont Viking (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I agree with 74.98.14.97 that the Rescue Story's in the Media section are non notable. I also believe that most of the information in the Media section is not notable. With the possible exception of the Mitt Romney Dog Incident as it has already been determined it is notable and has its own page. Let us work together to clean up this whole article. Viewmont Viking (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC) — Viewmont Viking (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I agree that these Media issues are not notable. As Pres10mb pointed out, the Obama campaign article does not bother to include such trivial news items. After all, they could easily include some of the "birther" arguments. If the Etch-A-Sketch issue kept recurring throughout the campaign, it might be worth including, but that doesn't seem likely. I motion to delete the Media Issues section and include the Seamus article under "See Also." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.14.79 (talk) 05:27, 13 June 2012‎ (UTC)

There is absolutely no consensus to remove all of this information. It's not trivia, it's the campaign. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. Most politicians and major public figures have "Controversy" sections in their bios. I can see maybe modifying it or moving it (see my post above), but it doesn't seem untoward to me.Dougom (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not against modifying it, but that would need discussion on the "how". I am against this single-purpose account blanking material repeatedly. As for "Etch-A-Sketch", the conservative Weekly Standard just had it on their cover two weeks ago.[1] Seamus has come up as a campaign issue already as well. Birtherism can be included in the Obama article, as it portends to the campaign (if it does). – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, the various Obama "controversies" are already covered in the the Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008 page. Rather than a rehash, I would suggest just linking to that page from the 2012 page, if people feel that any mention is necessary at all.Dougom (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Accusations of (politician) lying though? Really? I just find this whole section laughable and am completely dumbstruck by this sections focus on non notable, trivial issues produced by the 24 hour news cycle. If anything, it seems like this article should describe how Romney is portrayed as out of touch, and too rich to understand the American people. Take this video for instance. By the way, I do think that the Seamus story is important--but that's a own separate article now. Also, thanks for pointing out the Weekly Standard cover. Perhaps the etch-a-sketch has legs, though we'll have to see. --A former Wikipedian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.14.79 (talk) 23:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

A controversy section would be a good idea instead of Media Issues. Also there must be something wrong with the tracker because as of 7:09 PM Eastern/NY Time the ratings were as follows.

Trustworthy 2.3 46 ratings; Objective 2.3 47 ratings; Complete 2.0 48 ratings; Well-written 2.3 45 ratings If it swung so much from just a couple of hours ago with just one additional person ranking it cannot be accurate. As for Accusations of Lying I would not necessarily consider Rachel Maddow as an unbiased source. No one would allow Rush Limbaugh's or Glen Beck's opinion on an article about Barack Obama. In addition I believe a lot of updating needs to be added to this article before it can be considered well written and Complete. Viewmont Viking (talk) 23:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I am well aware that Ms. Maddow is not unbiased; that's why I included no fewer than 4 other citations, including ones from the Washington Post, Time Magazine, and the New York times, in order to demonstrate that the story has "legs". Maddow was just the first to make a big deal out of it. A few seconds spent searching via google will demonstrate that there's literally hundreds of stories out there on the same topic. I'm sorry unsigned up above finds it "laughable", but the stories are out there, and being written and talked about by more than just the Maddow show. As Muboshgu points out, "it's the campaign." The Obama stuff is all documented under the Obama 2008 Primary Campaign page; why not this stuff?Dougom (talk) 00:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I am seeing the same trustworthy and objectivity ratings as Viewmont Viking. Maybe pres10mb was not using the correct procedure for reading the ratings? Regardless, as far as I am aware, it is not possible for raters to attach to their ratings explicit statements of why they feel an article is trustworthy or untrustworthy, so there's no way to know that the Media Issues section is the problem. It's perfectly valid for a user to say here on the Talk page that he or she feels the Media Issues section is not objective. But it is a huge stretch to then point to the trustworthiness and objectivity ratings as evidence that the Media Issues section is the weak link and must be removed. Dezastru (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Dezastru that the ratings system cannot be used to determine whether the media issues is poorly written and conceived. That being said, I think its worth pursuing the statistics behind the Romney lying section. If one looks on the PolitiFact website, Obama has told 53% half true statements (compared to Romney's 69%). Neither are terribly great--about what I would expect from a politician. While Romney is clearly shown by Politifact to be less honest than Obama, I think these statistics are slightly misleading in light of their sample size. Whereas both Obama's campaign and presidency is being scrutinized, only Romney's campaign is under scrutiny. The larger sample size helps Obama. For instance, Politifact notes (link):

"For the Obameter, for example, we decided to include anything that fit our definition, regardless of how easily Obama could keep the promise. (We felt we couldn't discard a promise simply because it was an easy one to achieve.) So you'll find a fair number that are the presidential equivalent of easy lay-ups, promises that Obama is virtually certain to keep. They include some very general ones such as 'Pursue a wildfire management plan' and his plan for 'additional personnel, infrastructure and technology' along the U.S. border."

As for Dougom's citations, Daily Kos is clearly a biased source, the Time's citation is an editorial (which the Time notes, "The views expressed are solely [the editorialist's] own"), and the Huffingpost is, well, the Huffington Post. I find no problem with the Washington Post. Your New York Times citation, however, is missing. Again, I just don't find a section on a politician lying particularly significant. Even Donald Trump, who has a 90% lying rating according to PolitiFact isn't described as a liar on his page--though I don't need PolitiFact to tell me that! Please don't take my commentary as political punditry in favor of Romney. As I have said before and will say again, there are plenty of notable negative issues on this campaign (money, relatability, and so on). While we may disagree on what goes into this section, I do want to note my appreciation of everyone's efforts. I think this page has become better in the last week. --A former Wikipedian

The point is not that Romney lies; the point is that it has become a story in the campaign, similar to the various other fakey "controversies" that came up during the 2008 campaign and are covered under a "Controversies" section in the "Obama 2008 Primary Campaign" page. Some more articles: New York magazine: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/06/romney-just-making-stuff-up-now.html; US News and World Report: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/01/12/mitt-romneys-lies; New York magazine (again): http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/03/mitt-romney-lies-a-lot-but-hes-not-a-liar.html; The Drudge Report (certainly not a liberal bastion): http://www.drudge.com/news/156578/romney-lies-auto-bailout; The American Prospect: http://prospect.org/article/more-mitt-romneys-lies; Patriot Newswire: http://patriot-newswire.com/2012/01/two-huge-romney-lies-at-cnn-debate-debunked-by-gregg-jackson/; etc. And of course sites like Crooks and Liars and ThinkProgress have multiple stories on it. It's a campaign story. If "Obama Lies" becomes a similar story, then by all means put in a section on it. Dougom (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

"If 'Obama Lies' becomes a similar story, then by all means put in a section on it." Dougom, you mistake my intentions. Even if this happened, why would I include such a section on the Obama page? Like I've said many times, this is not a partisan issue for me. This is a matter of notability. If it isn't notable for Mitt, why would it be notable for Obama? Cheers. -- A former Wikipedian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.240.252.169 (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I honestly think you missed my point. If it does become an ongoing issue with the Obama campaign, hey, put it in there somewhere. It is an ongoing issue for Romney, so it seems to me it is worth putting in here. Heck, there was just a New York Times editorial on the topic today, for Heaven's sake: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/15/opinion/the-political-contrast.html?_r=1&hp To me, that clearly means an ongoing issue. And I know this is going to sound snarky, but I assure you it's not: You sign yourself "A Former Wikipedian", but since you are posting anonymously, I think that detracts from your argument. Heck, the Dan Quayle "potato/potatoe" incident is prominently featured on his page. I say again: this seems right in the same range as that, or talking about Obama's birth certificate or his alleged refusal to say the Pledge of Allegiance. I honestly don't see how this is any different. Dougom (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily say you're being snarky, just engaging in a red herring. But just to let you know I write in good faith, here's an explanation to your accusation. I started signing myself "A former Wikipedian" after one of my comments was accidentally attributed to you during Muboshgu's 17:21 14 June edit. It seems peculiar to me that I should be accused of acting anonymously on Wikipedi--an encyclopedia that anyone can edit--especially since I have done no harm to the article. If I were a Romney troll I suppose I could see the value in such a snarky comment, though as it should be abundantly clear to anyone who has followed my edits over the last week, I do not support Romney. Quite frankly I think there should be more in this article about his wealth, perceived lack of sympathy, and inability to identify with the common american. Would it make you feel better if I signed up for another account? (I lost the password to my previous one after going on a Wikibreak) --A former Wikipedian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.240.252.169 (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think you were a troll; I was just saying that I give more credence to the opinions of people who aren't anonymous. I take you at your word, however.Dougom (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and done some re-organizing, re-titling, and tweaking based on folks' comments here. Perhaps that will help.Dougom (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

RM's Opion on Romney is not notable. She is a highly biased source with a small viewership. Many of these so called issues were brought up during the presidential primary, but have had almost no mention now that the election is underway. Let us please not use WP as a political mouthpiece to promote or denegrate a candidate. Arzel (talk) 23:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The viewership for Maddow's show, so far as I've been able to find, seems to vary between 1 and 1.2 million viewers per night. For comparison, Jim Lehrer's "The Newshour" gets around 2.7 million/broadcast; Fox Report (the Fox News news program hosted by Shep Smith) gets around 1.5 million/broadcast; The New York Times has a circulation of about 1.6 million/day; The Washington Post has a circulation of about 500,000/day; The Wall St. Journal has a circulation of about 2.1 million/day; Newsweek->1.5 million/week; Time->3.3 million/week. Network news broadcasts are 5.2 million/night (CBS), 6.7 million/night (ABC), and 7.5 million/night (NBC). FWIW. Dougom (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed the entire section on lying because it is based of a scenario using WP:OR You cannot count up the PF responses in that way to imply that more than half of his statements are lies. After going to Politifact it is clear that is excaly what was done. If editors cannot include information in a neutral tone without the use of original research then please do not add it to WP. I also would like to remind people about the use of Blogs as sources. A blog from a high school student on Huffington Post is simply not a reliable source for anything. Arzel (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

My point is, and remains, that since exactly these same kinds of issues appear under the Obama 2008 Primary page, why not here? I did my level best to use a neutral tone, and my statement about the results on the Politifact page were accurate (i.e., "69% of them being rated as "half true" or worse"--I did not say "more than half of his statements are lies". I was very careful in how I worded the statement.). Indeed, I made sure to include the politifact rating scheme so that such a misinterpretation wouldn't be possible. Given this, I don't understand how it constitutes original research; I was merely trying to relay the information contained on the Politifact site. The alternative would be to post the entire politifact chart, which seemed like overkill to me, but I can do it if such is your preference. With regard to using Maddow as a source, I was unaware of a WikiPedia guideline on the size of viewership; is there such a guideline, and I just missed it? Further, unless there are any factual errors in Ms. Maddows statements, that puts them in the realm of fact rather than opinion, no matter what her bias. However, I am not in any way endeavoring to put forth a political agenda; I am merely trying to provide balance with the level of scrutiny being accorded Obama (as previously cited). Finally, I am perfectly willing to provide additional sources; I have quoted multiple sources from places such as New Yorker, the Washington Post, and the New York Times. If you take exception to one, I don't mind tossing it and finding another or, if such can't be found, deleting the section. However, I found no shortage of such articles, which is why I felt it was pertinent. As I stated above, one is from yesterday's New York Times. Of course it is your prerogative to edit as you wish; I disagree with your reasoning, however. (Frankly, I'm not surprised at your assertion that it is "hugely inappropriate"; I am well aware the the word "lie" in politics is a hot button; I felt it was appropriate, however, since that was the word the various sources were using. Or to put it another way, I was not relaying my opinion; I was trying to accurately relay that of the sources.)Dougom (talk) 04:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

While I understand--if disagree--with your reasoning for deleting the "lying" section, I'm confused as to why you eliminated the other editorial changes. I did some additional cleaning, as well re-titling the section (other folks disliked the section title), adding some additional references in the "advertising" section so that it was more clear that it pertained to the current and not just the primary campaign, and so on. May I ask why those changes were eliminated as well?Dougom (talk) 04:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The Barack Obama 2012 election capaign does not have a controversy (Media Issues) section. It does not appear as it is going to get one either as is seems their POV is "Controversy sections attract controversy, which obvious creates a non-neutral POV. We shouldn't do it for any article. HiLo48 (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)" Why not follow the same standards across to avoid Wikipedia as being viewed as biased and having a non-neutral POV? 192.195.66.3 (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

As I've noted several times, the Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008 does a section called "Controversies, allegations, and rumors during the primary campaign". Many other political figures have similar sections. I'm fine with moving it to the "Primary Campaign" page, if folks think that's a more appropriate place.Dougom (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

These are completely different animals. The BO controversy section is in place to beat back rumors or supposed lies and or inconsistancy in the BO's policy positions or statements. The goal here seams to be to push forward rumors and or supposed lies regarding Romney. The BO controversy section is actually a positive spin on Obama. If you want to do the same here, go right ahead. Arzel (talk) 02:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Then work on improving the Barack Obama Presidential Primary Campaign 2008 article and let's leave this years election as Politically neutral as possible. Viewmont Viking (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Many other major political and public figures have "Controversy" or similar sections--Dan Quayle has a mention of the "potatoe" incident, for example. It seems to be fairly common (and uncontroversial) across wikipedia. I must admit that I am fairly baffled as to why there is so much objection to having something similar here.Dougom (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree that gaffes such as the potato incident belong in these articles. Whether a politician lying belongs just seems redundant and out of place. We wouldn't include a section on the Obama page noting how honest he has been compared to Mitt, would we? I hesitate to fault your NYTimes piece, since I suppose one could endlessly search for new ones, but I do want to note how buried the accusations of lying are in that piece. They only appear in its penultimate paragraph. If the NYT was making hay out of Mitt's lying, I would suspect it to be the thesis statement in their article. --A former Wikipedian 67.240.252.169 (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Btw, It might be useful to check out Wasted Time R's comment on the Mitt Romney talk page. Not only does he provide a helpful analysis of this campaign page overall, he provides several Romney gaffes. I think these gaffes are closer in line with the Quayle example. --A former Wikipedian 67.240.252.169 (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I personally don't think they're "gaffes" so much as out-and-out lies, but I'm not going to argue semantics; it's clear there's not a consensus. I do wish the bullying thing didn't get eliminated; that does seem very much in line with the Obama Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers stuff. But I'm not going to squawk too much about it.Dougom (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

What's with the "Battleground states" section?

What does this section have to do with being specific to the Romney campaign? It should be in the "United States presidential election, 2012" article, if anywhere.

And why does it only list polls that are favorable to Romney? Or is that a stupid question? :-)

My opinion: delete that section, it's too partisan and doesn't belong in this article. RenniePet (talk) 13:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there's no corresponding section in the "Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012" article.

Maybe I should add a "Battleground states" section to that article, listing only polls favorable to Obama, and citing this article as precedent? :-) RenniePet (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

No response, so I'll delete that section. It is not providing factual information; it is a mixture of wishful thinking (if you're a Republican) and Republican talking points and cherry-picking of polls that are favorable to Romney.

Some examples, using Nate Silver (who is so much smarter than me that I humbly stand in awe when I gaze on his web site) as a source of unbiased data:

Ohio: Here it says "A May 2012 Rasmussen poll showed Romney tied or slightly ahead of Obama in Ohio." Nate Silver says Obama has a 65% chance of winning Ohio.

Pennsylvania: Here it says "Romney has polled ahead or tied Obama in Pennsylvania 6 of 24 polls reported from 1/11 to 4/12." Nate silver says Obama has an 81% chance of winning Pennsylvania.

Colorado: Here it says "A June 2012 Rasmussen poll showed Romney tied with Obama in Colorado." Nate Silver says Obama has a 69% chance of winning Colorado.

Michigan: Here it says "Four of five tracking polls taken in June 2012 showed Romney in a virtual tie with Obama in Michigan." Nate Silver says Obama has an 81% chance of winning Michigan.

RenniePet (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed it should be removed not for reson stated however. Polls change on a daily basis so trying to keep up with them during the middle of a capaign is almost impossible.Viewmont Viking (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Battleground states section is legitimate information in a presidential campaign, so it stays.Thanks.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Maine Controversy and Allegations of Voter Fraud

I am trying to add some perspective to this article by discussing the controversial Maine Caucus and the allegations of voter fraud against the campaign. In this state Romney was declared the winner intially, however there were heavy allegations of voter fraud on the part of the state GOP (misreporting results, canceling voting, etc.) and ultimatly Ron Paul ended up winning the pluarality of delegates. There have been other documented cases of fraud and heavy handed tactics used by Romney supporters in Arizona, Oklahoma, Lousinana, and Missouri to ensure their canidate got the nomination but none of that is covered here, even though I have cited my sources, all my edits get deleted. Please respect the facts and do not delete edits that are cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbowen81 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Pbowen, thanks for participating! However, there are a few problems with the edits you have suggested. The edit you suggested for the Maine vote needs a stronger source. The source you selected appears to be an opinion-based blog ("politics, opinion, humor"), which is the kind of source, for this type of content, that is usually not the best for stating the facts of news events in the Wikipedia narrative voice. Your source also doesn't use the term "fraud" or seem to directly imply fraud, yet the sentence you proposed states in the Wikipedia narrative voice that there were "documented cases of voter fraud by the Maine GOP." If you think the article should state that there was voter fraud, you need a reliable source that backs up that assertion. You may find it helpful to review Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources (WP:RS). Dezastru (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Couple problems with that. This is the Mitt Romney Presidential campaign page which is specifically for that purpose. Now Mitt Romney is the presumptive nominee so it's irrelevant in my opinion to argue about states that won't change the results of Mitt Romney's presumptive nomineeship (1,489 soft - 1,369 hard). At the Republican Convention which is later this summer, we don't know how each delegates will vote so that's where the results will matter. Ron Paul fans have been trying to interject Rule 38 in this article although it has no relevancy to the article nor will it matter. The delegates that won their spots are the same number as Romney's hard numbers since he hand-picked those delegates himself who are hardcore Romney supporters. The soft number on the other hand which there are 120 delegates that are up in the air and they may vote however they want. Second, the article that Dezastru pointed out does not claim fraud especially in an opinion piece where the editor is free to suggest it. Yes, there were problems but still irrelevant to this article. Since you want to claim voter fraud, you have to keep a NPOV which is not happening in this case. Now this is discussed in great details on this page Maine Republican caucuses, 2012 so I'm not seeing why it should be added here too. ViriiK (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Physics jokes

The section I made summarized here:

From March to July the media satirized Romney through various physics jokes. These include Josh Marshall's Schrödinger's Romney,[41] The New York Times's Quantum Theory of Mitt Romney,[42] and Daily Kos's Mitt's Boson,[43] (each lampooning Schrödinger's cat, the uncertainty principle, and Higgs boson respectively). The jokes are satirically used as physics explanations for Romney's perceived flip-flopping or lying on numerous issues.[43][42]

CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, why exactly do you want to attack a living person here on WP? Arzel (talk) 02:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Why are you assuming jokes/attack? Other see this as the efforts to understand the reality on the ground of more robust quantum predicate where superposition is allowed. The right question (to reject/validate quantum hipothessis) will be if, or what, statistic loop by flops. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

How are the jokes an attack on a living person? They are a clear media issue just like the Etch-A-Sketch comments which I don't see as attacks either. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

How are these jokes really relavent to anything. The Media sections seems to be open season on Romney during this election time. Viewmont Viking (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2012#Bain_Capital

Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2012#Bain_Capital is treated as a media issue, not with respect to the pros or cons of Romney's involvement there. It is a subsection under Media issues. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Removed section on Bain Capital SEC filings etc. Yes there are a lot of "reliable" sources, yet we do not know were this is going, let us wait. Also there is talk about removing the Media section as is seems to be code for attack Romney. Viewmont Viking (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but removal of significant information requires a reason. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree and I mentioned a reason, we do not know how this will play out yet. We do not have a Due Date. In addition the quote by the Obama advisor that has been mentioned would go better on President Barack Obama's 2012 Campaign page. In addition NPOV issues can be mentioned. I am fine with what Wasted Time mentioned in Romney's main page..."his seperation from Bain was complete in 2002" Since that is all we really know right now. In addition the media section seems to be an attack Romney section. Should be removed entirely. I will not revert your change again, however I strongly disagree with the inclusion and the specific wording. Viewmont Viking (talk) 00:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Please read it more carefully; it is much more balanced than you appear to think it is. It is definitely not an attack on Romney. As to "Since that is all we really know right now." the fact checker at The Washington Post has looked into it; his conclusions are in the section. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I read it carefully, and it was quite negative. There is no need to include the Obama attack on Romney, and it was worded in such a way that is seems like Romney is guilty of something until the very end. Arzel (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2012#Campaign_issues

I have started Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2012#Campaign_issues which is the place for information about emerging issues in the campaign with Obama. Some of the subsections in the Media issues section might be moved to Campaign issues, but not matters that were ginned up by the media such as the SEC reports. I realize the distinction I'm trying to make may not stick as these matters are ambiguous; a media matter is, or may become, a campaign issue. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Smells a bit ORish. Isn't the entire campaign about issues? Hcobb (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

If it was, I suppose a few could be included in the article without dispute. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional issues

From listening to C-Span and other TV other issues seem to be repealing Obamacare, the stagnant economy caused by Obama's failure, "job creators" faced with uncertainty, excessive regulation, and too high taxes. What are Romney's issues or issues which impact Romney's campaign which might be included in this article as major campaign issues? I would exclude ephemeral issues such as singing or dressage, although we might collect those in a section. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Good start. Cwobeel (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Saying Romney has refused to release tax returns is not POV

Several editors have been objecting to the use of the term refuse in describing Romney's resistance — in the face of numerous appeals from across the political spectrum — to release more than two years of tax returns. One editor feels that "refuse" needed to be "softened" a bit. Why not let the text of the article reflect what most sources are saying?

“As Democrats ramp up attacks on presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney for his overseas financial investments and refusal to release more of his tax returns, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, Utah Republican and a surrogate for Mr. Romney, defended the former Massachusetts governor Tuesday and said he's done everything in compliance with the law."
Washington Times July 10, 2012
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/jul/10/utahs-rep-chaffetz-romneys-been-very-successful-ge/

“Romney is drawing a line in the sand and refusing calls to reveal more of his tax records. He's dead set against releasing more than two years worth of returns, insisting today he won't give Democrats more material to -- quote -- "make a mountain out of and distort."”
Wolf Blitzer, CNN July 16, 2012
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1207/16/sitroom.01.html

“Mitt Romney Refuses to Release 2009 Tax Returns”
Bloomberg TV “Lunch Money” July 19. 2012
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/mitt-romney-refuses-to-release-tax-returns-XOaM3GKlRgqwwAV1uNOsEw.html

“He has refused to release multiple years of returns, as has been the habit of presidential nominees for decades.”
Dallas Morning News July 18, 2012

“Romney Digs in, Refuses to Release More Tax Returns”
National Journal July 12, 2012
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/romney-digs-in-refuses-to-release-more-tax-returns-20120717

“Romney said he would not give in to mounting attacks over his refusal to release his tax returns prior to 2010, including calls from some Republican allies to disclose the records and end the controversy.”
Reuters July 18, 2012
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/07/17/us-usa-campaign-idINBRE86G10D20120717

“And Romney's refusal to allow the world to deeply peer into his personal finances is also not a new development.”
CBS News July 16, 2012
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57473424/outrage-over-tax-returns-a-replay-of-past-campaigns/

“Mitt Romney's wife is reinforcing her husband's refusal to make public more of his of tax returns, saying "we've given all you people need to know" about the family's finances.”
Associated Press July 19, 2012
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/19/romney-wife-says-voters-will-fire-coach/

“Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty is defending Mitt Romney's refusal to release more of his income tax returns, arguing ‘there is no claim or no credible indication’ he's done anything wrong.”
Associated Press July 18, 2012
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/18/pawlenty-mitt-romney-has-paid-lot-taxes/

“Tax is an awkward issue for Romney, who is on the defensive over his refusal to release his tax records.”
The Guardian July 9, 2012
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/09/obama-romney-middle-class-tax-cuts

“Conservative commentators said Mr Romney refusal to release more than two years of tax returns — 2010 and 2011 — was poisoning the campaign.”
The Telegraph July 15, 2012
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/mitt-romney/9401718/US-election-2012-Mitt-Romney-under-mounting-pressure-to-release-tax-returns.html

“Romney has refused to release pre-2010 tax returns.”
AFP July 3, 2012
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jsfJotkl7FlX9bD6R4GfIj6rT5bQ?docId=CNG.b427100ac45d92b76358ffa0029eb52a.841

“Running mates are typically named shortly before the party nominating convention, but some believe Romney is likely to name his sooner, perhaps even as early as this week, to deflect attention from ongoing Democratic attacks over his tenure as chief of Bain Capital, a private equity firm, or his refusal to release more than two years of tax returns.”
Chicago Tribune July 17, 2012
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-la-pn-romney-names-vice-presidential-aides-amid-running-mate-speculation-20120717,0,4293429.story

“But that answer has not satisfied a growing number of Republicans who have said Mr. Romney’s refusal threatens to do him lasting political damage as he nears the final stage of the presidential campaign.”
New York Times July 18, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/19/us/politics/romney-steadfast-against-release-of-more-tax-returns.html

“Romney has released his 2010 return and 2011 estimate, but has thus far refused to release earlier years.”
USA Today July 17, 2012 http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/07/new-ads-allege-romney-is-hiding-something-in-tax-returns/1

"Democrats have accused the GOP candidate of trying to distract from other controversies -- namely his refusal to release more than two years' worth of tax returns, and questions about when he left private equity firm Bain Capital."
Fox News July 19, 2012
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/19/romney-hammers-didnt-build-that-in-new-web-ad/

"Romney Refuses to Release More Tax Returns"
"WASHINGTON . Mitt Romney remained defiant Tuesday in the face of relentless pressure to release more of his tax returns as his campaign dropped further hints he'd soon be unveiling the long-awaited identity of his running mate."
Financial Post July 18, 2012
http://www.financialpost.com/todays-paper/Romney+refuses+release+more+returns/6949885/story.html Dezastru (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Journalists write things in ways that do not necessarily reflect ordinary use of language, and the public is trained to translate according to context. For instance, who says "slayed" or "slain"? Nobody, but journalists use those words incessantly. "Declined" is every bit as accurate as "refused", empirically, and it fits the situation better for the reasons given in some of the recent edit summaries. So what's wrong with "declined"? Belchfire (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Romney is not required to release any personal information whatever other than proving he is a citizen of a certain age, and alive. Decline is much better. If release was required refuse might be appropriate. Any American who follows politics probably has strong opinions about Romney and his opponent, but we should avoid expressing them in this context. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Better yet, don't even add the adverb. Simply state that he has not released any additional tax returns. It removes all of the POV pushing and is completely factual. Now if Romney says "I refuse to...." then that is a different story and we can simply quote him on it, but we should not allow reporters to put words into his mouth, or WP editors to do so either. Arzel (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

"'Declined' is every bit as accurate as 'refused', empirically" — if that is so, then Arzel won't have any problem with us using the term refuse. Right? Dezastru (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The neutral way to present this is that Romney released two years of returns, and that he refused calls to release additional years from member of both parties. Cwobeel (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The neutral way to present is that Romney released two years of returns, and when called to release additional years stated that he has released all the financial information that is required. All of this "refused" business is nothing more than a cannard to imply that he is not abiding by some rule. Arzel (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Arzel that "refused" probably isn't the best choice of words here and that the issue should be written about as neutrally as possible. We don't have mentions of Barack Obama "refusing" to release his college transcripts, do we? While perhaps desirable, there's no requirement that such documents be released. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

"The neutral way to present this is that Romney released two years of returns, and that he refused calls to release additional years from member of both parties." This is a reasonable compromise that remains faithful to most of the sources. Dezastru (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

There is still not a consensus for this wording. 72Dino (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

"Refused" is partisan language. Headlines of newspapers and other reliable sources are designed to attract attention and readership, an encyclopedia does not cite a headline as a reason to include or exclude specific text; we as editors determine that as guided by WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Tarc (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

"Refused" is no longer there. Cwobeel (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I am aware of that. I am arguing against re-inclusion of the term, as proposed by Dezastru above. Tarc (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

"'Refused' is partisan language. Headlines of newspapers and other reliable sources are designed to attract attention and readership, an encyclopedia does not cite a headline as a reason to include or exclude specific text" — Only a handful of the sources cited above are from headlines. Many print (and web) sources have used the term refuse in the body of the text of the articles, so the argument that refuse is only being used in sources in order to draw attention to articles and, as a result, it is journalistic jargon that is needlessly partisan is unsupported. Dezastru (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Ann Romney also refuses and says to an anchor, "You have all you need about our lifestyle and taxes." It is a non-issue. Rush Limbaugh and others do not want them to cave, and if they do, it will in no-way end the ankle-biting. Ann Romney is half of the equation. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Being the 'darling' of distractors and the other side is one way McCain lost for Republicans. It is a non-issue. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Source used

The WaPo article used as a source does not say anything about "Romney did leave Bain in 1999". read the article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/mitt-romney-and-his-departure-from-bain/2012/07/12/gJQAASzUfW_blog.html It says: "If Romney left Bain in February 1999, when he departed to run the Olympics, then a number of business deals that went sour (such as KB Toys) can’t be counted as part of Romney’s tenure. If he actually left in 2002, as the Obama campaign alleges, then those deals are fair game." which is very different. This is a blogger writing speculatively, not making an assertion of fact. Cwobeel (talk) 04:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This is also from the source. "And after reviewing evidence cited by the Obama campaign, we reaffirm our conclusion that Romney left the helm of Bain Capital when he took a leave of absence in 1999 to run the Salt Lake City Organizing Committee for the 2002 Winter Olympics – as he has said repeatedly — and never returned to active management." It could probably be sourced directly to FactChecker.org, but to say it was not said is not true. Arzel (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

read again. That quote is not from the WaPo article, but rather, the opinion of FactCheck.org. Cwobeel (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

If you want to use FactCheck as a source, you can do so, but also add other sources that challenge that statement from other sources for balance. Cwobeel (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Also review this article from Fortune (magazine) which was referred to in the WaPo article. 72Dino (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The two newest reviews of the situation make it clear that he left in 1999 and the WaPo fact checker does not dispute that. That is all that is needed Arzel (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not clear at all. As Cwobeel explained, we would need to balance such a claim against the alternatives. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no. I've seen no credible evidence that contradicts Factcheck's take on the situation. Indeed, everything I've seen to the contrary is pretty obviously specious and politically motivated, and there is no need for imaginary "balance" merely to appease the political comfort level of certain editors. I endorse the edit made in this diff. Belchfire (talk) 04:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

FactCheck.org has reviewed it twice, both times making the same conclusion. They are a reliable source. The WaPo fact checker is already being used for a seperate statement. We don't need to present other sources that are trying to claim Romney is a liar when such a preponderance of sources clearly state that Romney had nothing to do with Bain after 1999. I know you don't like it, but that is not a valid reason. Arzel (talk) 04:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore this is already a response to balance out the false claim by the Obama campaign and others. Arzel (talk) 04:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Add?

• Romney’s Palin Problem: Where’s Her Convention Invite? "Mitt still hasn’t invited Sarah to the GOP’s nomination assembly in Tampa, and the Tea Party is livid. Peter J. Boyer on how the snub could sabotage Romney’s tenuous ties to the grassroots—and why Palin is keeping the week open, just in case." Jul 16, 2012 NewsWeek (pages 36 to 38 in-print). 108.195.138.171 (talk) 05:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Why would this belong in his campaign page? This would be better put if it was in the 2012 Republican National Convention page. ViriiK (talk) 05:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

A new one on me. Let's see if it becomes a campaign issue. No reasonable person can accurately predict. Who would have thought a leave of absence was? User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

This clearly a WP:NOT#NEWS issue, not to mention a ton of speculation and WP:CRYSTAL. Arzel (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I've seen also that George W. Bush will not be speaking at convention. Saw it on The Blaze. I consider it not important, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Was/is W invited? 99.181.143.157 (talk) 07:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

I think this article has greatly minimized the criticisms of Romney that are central to the campaign. Nowhere in the article is it mentioned that the controversy surrounding Bain is that Bain has profited heavily from offshoring US jobs.

• http://www.salon.com/2012/07/17/bain_off_shoring_victims_ask_romney_for_help/

There is just a passing mention of his refusal to release tax returns and keeping of offshore investments and bank accounts. These should be expanded with more details. We should cover both the positives and the negatives for each candidate. Jehochman ^Talk 14:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I see a section called "Campaign issues", which gives simple factual statements regarding what some consider to be...wait for it...campaign issues. We're not here to be a platform for an expansive view on the anti-Romney rhetoric out there. There is much potential hay to make regarding Barack Obama's political positions this fall as well, but I don't even see a similar "Campaign issues" section at Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. Why is that? Tarc (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I just started one while you were typing your comment. Both sections need to be expanded. Romney's section is slanted too "pro". Obama's section is completely absent. Both need work. We need to provide a good level of detail about the issues being addressed by both campaigns. What is the campaign saying, and what are the campaigns opponents saying? The reader cannot understand the campaign without that information. Jehochman ^Talk 14:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You can discuss that issue on that the talk of Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. I am not interested in Obama, I am interested in this article Cwobeel (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I would not consider Salon.com a neutral site by their own admission. I agree this article needs a lot of work. I love how you added the NPOV Dispute Tag to to both Mitt Romney's Bio and this article. however you are saying that Barack Obama presidential campaign should also have pros and cons and it needs work, but you didn't at a NPOV Dispute to Barack Obama Presidential campaing, 2012? Viewmont Viking (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This article is all favorable coverage. The Obama article is just completely missing any coverage of the issues. This one is slanted. That one is totally incomplete. I tagged it as needing expansion. You'd do well to focus on the article instead of me. Jehochman ^Talk 16:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll find Obama supporters think the article is too favorable and that Romney supporters think is too unfavorable. So it's probably about where it should be. 72Dino (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I have worked with others to make changes in this article that I feel have made it better. The lede section is a good example. I do not see how you are saying that the article is all favorable coverage. This article does cover a lot of whay you are saying is not covered, the Etch a Sketch comment which I feel is Not notable is included, Romney's time at bain and the dispute about when he left is covered, Romney declining to release his taxes is covered. Again I think this article still needs a lot of work. I don't se it as completely "pro" Romney however. Viewmont Viking (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

What's not mentioned in the Bain controversy is that Romney was certified as an officer in SEC filings, but now claims that he wasn't. During this time Bain was active in outsourcing US jobs to other countries. This is a central issue which is used against his candidacy and should be explained.

Also not mentioned anywhere is that Romney have faced repeated criticism for maintaining his money in offshore tax havens. He has had difficulty explaining why he did that, which has become an issue that is subject to heavy negative campaigning. It is not possible for a reader to understand the campaign unless both positive and negative campaign issues are included in the article. This should be done for both candidates. Say how the candidate has positioned themselves ("low taxes", "free enterprise") and how they are being labelled by the opposition ("tax dodger", "job outsourcer"). Jehochman ^Talk 19:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It's probably not mentioned because editors here - as a group - don't see it as worth mentioning. Belchfire (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Jehochman makes a valid arguement, wikipedia has policy against labeling WP:Label So let's follow that policy Algonquin7 (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It's been 4 days and no one's discussed any particular bias still in the article. I propose the tag be removed. If there's a lack of information on a subject, that isn't a bias but perhaps could justify a needs expansion label. Given the highly politicized nature of the article, there will always be conflicts, but if their isn't a blatant bias that can be pointed out the tag needs removed or replaced.Naapple (talk) 08:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess editors have been distracted by other matters. Rather than focus on the tags, I'd like to return our attention to the actual issue. Jehochman brought up some good points, but we never moved forward into action. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The tags are meant to be temporary. If it's no longer a current issue, then it should be removed. Indeed let's work on the article. Naapple (talk) 08:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me. What would you like to do first? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

As suggested here, the Bain Capital section needs expansion. While it seems to be pretty well balanced and thoroughly referenced, it hardly does the topic justice given both it's predominance in the media, and referenced as both a pro or con by both campaigns . Naapple (talk) 09:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Would you like to suggest specific material (or just add it to the article)? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Merging Republican Party vice presidential candidates, 2012 into this article

Republican Party vice presidential candidates, 2012 is a bunch of speculation with little encyclopedic value, any thoughts regarding severely reducing it and merging it into a small section here? --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 16:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the other article should just be dumped. In the end, it will all be reduced to one sentence anyway. -- Avanu (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I in partial agreement with Avanu. Without even looking at the article, I'd bet $20 it's blatant WP:NOT#NEWS material, and loaded with WP:CRYSTAL. But I'm not sure that it should be totally dumped. There is some idiosyncratic niche historical value in keeping a record of who was in the running. That's not to say that anybody will be interesting in creating a good article on the subject, however, once the conventions are behind us. Belchfire-TALK 07:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I've had this on my watch list and honestly I don't think it should be bothered with anymore as a separate page so I'm for dumping it. "Ohh a new person has appeared and his/her name is so-so. Is this person being groomed to be (Presumptive Nominee)'s Vice President?" Was there a similar page back for the 2008 Democratic and Republican Vice Presidential candidates? So I think it's too big of a burden to keep catching up on who is a potential candidate. ViriiK (talk) 07:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. The sheer volume of speculation seems likely to be staggering for an editor to sort through, and there is great difficulty separating credible suggestions from wild-ass guesses. OK, I'm convinced that the article has little value (again, without looking at it). Perhaps there could be a section concerning the front-runners in the article for whoever turns out to be the candidate, or maybe in the article for the convention. Belchfire-TALK 08:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts are that this article should have a small section for it once the VP is announced. Then we can add the names of some of the other possibilities. Maybe the other article should be turned into a list, but I agree that it is simply just too big for anyone to bother doing anything to/with it. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 15:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

No merging. Since there is a series of articles from other years on the Vice Presidential choices it should not be merged. Also, this article is already long enough and likely to get even longer for the general election. Thus, there is no need to merge.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Given that any day now the VP could be announced, it seems like a lot of trouble for nothing. I feel like it would be easier just to let it be for now than trying to merge it. It's just gonna get archived anyway. If someone wants to make the effort of merging it, though, I won't complain. Naapple (talk) 09:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The merge tag should be removed, its already been discussed. The article was created to be part of a series and it was suggested here and discussed here.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Paine, independent editor

Thomas, you do not have any sort of consensus for these changes. To be blunt, there is a strong consensus against them, and this consensus is rooted in WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. I could revert you right now, but I'd prefer to avoid even the appearance of edit-warring. Instead, I'm asking you to revert your own changes and accept consensus. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is not a majority at Wikipedia. And you have not established a case to remove the sourced content under wikipedia guidelines. BLP is supposed to be for items that are untrue or libelous and none of the cited content you are complaining about falls into that category. Citing Bill Clinton's praise of Romney's business credentials is highly notable in a campaign article WP:Notability. If a British newpaper can be quoted, so should CNN be able to be cited to counter it otherwise only policy makers should be cited. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 21:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Libelous? You need to go and get a cup of tea. This article reports on a political campaign, and we report what the sources say in proportion. I have no issue in reporting that a British anchor on CNNN said, though. Cwobeel (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Bill Clinton's remark

Bill Clinton's remark praising Romney's sterling business career is a significant fact of the campaign and should be included:

Former President Bill Clinton praised Romney's qualifications for President as having a "sterling business career" and a career as governor and criticized the Obama campaign's attacks on Romney's record.[2] [3] Someone removed it, it should be included.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

yes, it can be re-added, if we include additional material from the same time period for balance. Cwobeel (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I support re-adding and the balance is fine without additional material. – Lionel ^(talk) 06:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking at that, it was during a pretty notable event (Obama's Bain Capital campaign strategy against Romney) which that I did recall Bill Clinton giving his opinion defending Romney and it's also notable coming from the former President of the United States. Unless I'm missing something that warrants keeping it omitted from the page? ViriiK (talk) 06:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't an attack by Clinton on Romney just removed for reasons of undue weight? Now we're keeping praise? I don't see how this matters. Obama's Bain attacks have continued unabated by Clinton's remark. Polling shows it seems to be working. What's the lasting significance of Clinton's comment? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Read the paragraph. The entire paragraph is WP:UNDUE which the Bill Clinton commentary who is most definitely a notable person does balance out the entire thing. Without, it's just an attack paragraph with no balance to it. In this case, it is giving it equal validity. ViriiK (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Who says we need a point-counterpoint for it to be balanced? It just needs to be factual and presented in a NPOV way, which I believe it is (I've already read the paragraph). Clinton is a notable individual on his own but not that relevant here. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Bain Caplital

Thomas, you replaced this:

"Romney's record at Bain Capital and the nature of Bain's investments are a prominent issue, with Romney claiming his tenure at Bain demonstrated management and leadership skills. Political opponents claim that under Romney, Bain increased investor profits at the expense of middle-class workers. [90]"

with this:

"Romney's record at Bain Capital and Bain's investments are a prominent issue, with Romney claiming his tenure at Bain demonstrated management and leadership skills creating thousands of jobs. Political opponents claim that under Romney, Bain increased investor profits accompanied by the layoff of some workers.[90]"

... saying that "how do you know they were middle class workers? Original research, nature of investments, again original reseach, what nature?".

But what we are reporting is what political opponents said. And they use "middle-class workers: and never referred to " layoff of some workers". Get it? Cwobeel (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Cwobeel, why keep negative spinning the Bain section. Even Bill Clinton disagreed with that approach. There is no 'nature of investments' in the source. There is no mention of what class the workers were in the source is there? Employees is a more factual term. All we know from the facts is that a number of employees received layoffs in struggling companies, while other Bain investments generated much more in the way of successful companies and generated thousands of jobs. We also know from the sources that Romney didn't make the layoff decisions in question since he was on a leave of absense. Bain's investments created thousands of jobs, that's the facts, much more than any layoffs. So why not include that Bain investments generated thousands of jobs. An Obama campaign staffer made assertions, those are the facts, leaving out that a campaign staffer made the assertions creates a misperception. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

How about this to include your point: Political opponents claimed that under Romney, some investments at Bain increased investor profits accompanied by employee layoffs they described as middle-class workers.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I think what we have now there is quite neutral already. Cwobeel (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Your latest edit seems more neutral.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Campaign co-chairs and notable operatives

This page lacks information and data about Romney's campaign team. See for example how this is treated at Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign,_2012. Cwobeel (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The key people listed in the main table is a good place to start. Naapple (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Romney's trip

Romney's remarks in Israel about the Palestinians are notable, although they are currently removed. Let's wait and see if he makes headlines in Poland and then sum up his trip. I understand from the polls that his adoption of right-wing Israeli views is helping his poll numbers with American Jews; he's moved into over 30% support. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

"Romney Trip Raises Sparks at a 2nd Stop" User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd call that a reliable source. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Reliable source? The NYTimes can be counted on for (1) something happened; and (2) 'in the tank' for Liberal/Democrats. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

POV

In a rather extreme form of POV-pushing, the article claims that "Romney was both praised and criticized by media" for his comments in London. While I am sure both praise and criticism can be found if searching the media worldwide, the fact of the matter is the comments were almost universally criticized and seen as quite a major gaffe. By trying to paint the picture of equal praise and criticism and gloss over the issue, the article pushes a strong POV that is disconnected from the actual facts.Jeppiz (talk) 08:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I must agree. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It should probably be reworded. I think editors are holding off until the trip is complete. Naapple (talk) 09:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I took a stab at it now, just cutting off the fringe elements. When the whole world is criticizing you and one contrary voice defends you, the latter should not be put on equal terms, according to WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. But I'm totally fine with revisiting the issue after this is over and we have more perspective. Who knows, maybe he'll remove his foot from his mouth and put a good spin on this. Whatever happens, we should report it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't include the praised by the media. I agree that is fringe. However we should still include the fact that Romney was not the first nor the last to mention Distressing issues with Security. (And it is not just Fringe).

http://espn.go.com/olympics/summer/2012/story/_/id/8180706/uk-knew-olympic-security-problems-june-puts-1200-troops-standby

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303933704577532544284328650.html

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-07-15/world/world_europe_uk-olympics-security_1_g4s-nick-buckles-security-contractor

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2180527/Olympic-Security-2012-India-demands-Games-security-probe-imposter-joins-team-Opening-Ceremony.html?ITO=1490

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/july-dec12/olympics2_07-18.html

Really just Fringe mentioning it? Viewmont Viking (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the citations. They clearly show that others have expressed their own concerns. Did any of these sources explicitly equate Romney's concerns with the others? I'm trying very hard to avoid original synthesis by letting someone notable and reliable point out this similarity. If we can find a suitable source, I will fully back you in reinserting this mention. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The facts are that Romney was praised and criticized by the media which also defended Romney as being right.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Please look at WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. The lone contrarian should not be given equal weight. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I blew coffee out through my nose on this one. Thanks for the laugh! Belchfire-TALK 20:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Whenever you say something, I try really hard to interpret it in a way that isn't insulting and is somehow productive. It's called the principle of charity, and it's pretty important in philosophy, which is what I'd really rather be editing right now.

I could not find an interpretation that was, even charitably, of any positive net value. Even your implicit argument is a simple fallacy that confuses fringe sources with lone editors. Also, you violated policy by adding bolding to my comment.

In short, you were uncivil and counterproductive, again. Frankly, I'm disappointed with you. For just a little bit after your attempts to get me blocked failed, you showed a willingness to work with me. Why throw this out the window? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thomas, not only did you fail to respond to my objections, you went ahead and reverted. Your behavior is unconstructive and verges on edit-warring. Worse, you added new material that violates BLP. I am going to revert your work and I'm going to invoke the rule about reverting BLP violations not counting against 3RR. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be a content dispute. Labeling it as vandalism in your edit summary or a BLP violation, which of course it isn't, is not helpfull and could lead you to being blocked, just a heads up. --Mollskman (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I see that Thomas Paine1776 also reverted as vandalism, so the same goes to him as well, 3rr applies regardless if you think its vandalism. --Mollskman (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

-- Mollskman is correct. This is a content dispute: not vandalism, not a BLP vio. 3RR is in full effect. Take care Thomas lest you also get blocked. --

If you read WP:3RR, you'll find it lists the following exception: "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Other news commentators also defended Romney's comments in London. Bill Clinton praised Romney's credentials for President, that's a fact too. This an article about the Romney campaign, its not an article to post blow by blow criticism of Romney to amuse Obama supporters. The article be enyclopedic and neutral.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Paine1776, your editing is point of view. You spin things crudely. We will have a neutral article; we will not trash Romney, but hagiography is inappropriate. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The source says that Bill Clinton "praised" Romney's credentials for President, it should be included to put the Bain section in context and provide a neutral point of view. If its ok to say criticism, its ok to say praise. That's hardly a hagiography. This an article about Romney's campaign, not a forum to post negative spin to amuse Obama supporters.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Romney was defended by CNN anchors including Piers Morgan who said that "Everything Romney said was true.Piers Defends: 'Everything Mitt Romney Said Was True'Piers Morgan defends Romney over London comment Its significant that CNN defended Romney's comments in response to British media about the London Olympics and it should be included. If British Newspapers can be quoted, so should CNN be able to be quoted in response. That's what happened. Another option would be to only include the comments by the British Prime Minister and not include media comments. Media comments should be balanced.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

There was no balance in the sources. An overwhelming number of sources all over Europe, Australia and Asia reported on the blunders, and a few voices such as Pier Morgan did not necessarily defend the blunder, he just stated what is known: many Londoners thought in the same manner. But the issue here is not the truism of Romney's comment, but the lack of statesmanship to criticize a place in which you are a guest. Cwobeel (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Well opinions of the sources or the number of sources is not notable, what is notable is that CNN countered the British press and openly stated Romney was right. Fox did as well. Other media sources have also questioned the critics in the British media. There is also the matter of the large number of empty seats at the London Olympics futher underscoring their lack of preparation. Romney didn't invent the concerns, the concerns over the Olympics were already established by the British media itself. Commentators on Fox have noted the criticism was overblown and have defended Romney. Overall, the Romney trip has been viewed as positive. Would suggest to remove the British Newspaper quotes, since if that is included then the counterpoint from CNN should also be included. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Your the first person I've read on the internet to say the trip has been viewed as positive, that alone is astounding.Nasir cast (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It was a total blunder, by all measures. But we just need to report facts here, so this discussion is of no consequence. Cwobeel (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Fully agreed. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You are correct that the media hasn't been gushing over Romney like they did Obama, but that is hardly suprising. Arzel (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Romney's advocates a No Apology diplomacy in contast what is described as Obama's 'apology tours'. News commentators have noted the high number of empty seats at the London Olympics showed there was a readiness issue; British troops had to be used to guard the Olympics, that doesn't sound like they were ready either. CNN Piers Morgan defended Romney as being right. Romney is obviously effective. Great statesman may cause tumult, that is what can make them effective. Reagan also caused tumult on occasion.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 00:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE does not prohibit minority views, such as that of Piers. I think a mention of Piers remarks is well within UNDUE and additionally adds balance. I'd like to see a brief neutral formulation of Piers' remarks added to the article. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The POV pushing in this section is quite extremem. It is severely undue weight to add in all of the criticism of the olympics, especially the personal attacks comparing it to Sarah Palin. It seems editors here are less interested in discussing the trip, rather simply want to include all of the criticism Romney reiceved from liberal estabilishments. Arzel (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

We report the Point of View of reputable sources. or are you saying that all major British newspapers are not reputable? Cwobeel (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Arzel, quoting name calling by newspapers is inappropriate. Its enough to simply refer to British newspapers. The British Prime Minister is certainly not a good conservative with issues of his own such as a weak economy, PM Cameron's British defense cuts which have hurt international security and the British economy,[4] etc., besides PM Cameron's lack of attention to problems surrounding the London Olympics such as the empty seats and British troops having to act as security. Romney's No Apology diplomacy appears to be highly effective. Romney is against defense cuts in the U.S. Romney was right to express Olympic concerns as CNN's Piers Morgan noted.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to point out that of the British newspapers, both The Times and The Sun are far from "liberal establishments" but are politically right-wing. Alfietucker (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It merely illustrates how far off track the British Prime Minister and British media are due partly to Obama's lack of policy and a British lack of policy. President Romney would have persuaded the British not to cut defense and to have a stronger economic policy. Romney's leadership is even taking the American media by surprise as they've forgotten what it means to have an American President actually speak strongly on the world stage for a change.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thomas: May I ask again to avoid transforming this Talk page into a discussion forum? Nobody give a hoot about your political opinions (or mine). I just want to discuss here how to make this article informative. Cwobeel (talk)

How is repeating insults against Romney informative? State the basic facts of why Romney went with a summarization of his talking points, and a counter-response of those talking points. The responses which you seem to want to include are juvinile rebuttals in the form of; Romney - "My position is..." Response - "Romney is a Twit". Please explain how that is informative. I suppose though, if you do not have a valid response it is simply easier to insult the person. Arzel (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It is informative, as it is an indication of how Romney is perceived by the British press. You may consider it an insult, but we are just reporting on that perception. Cwobeel (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Arzel, quoting name calling by British newspapers is not encyclopedic content and the article should not include such name calling. The British have their own problems as noted.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The issue is though that there is hardly any info on what he actually said, his response to the criticism, and the rest of his foreign policy trip. Instaed, it just focuses on gaffes. --Activism1234 18:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Well I guess there's nothing stopping any of us (apart from "real life" commitments away from editing Wiki) hunting for published reports of "what he actually said". But it's already quite clear that he made a couple of embarrassing diplomatic gaffes which even the British right-wing press couldn't forgive: I understand trimming down some of the resulting mockery, but it was not all gratuitous and therefore has a place in this article. Plus I believe that Romney has responded to this negative press - I'm happy to have a look and try to put some of it in. Alfietucker (talk) 18:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before in another section I would've put in the info already, but I'm busy right now. If you'd give me a few hours I could get to it without a doubt. --Activism1234 18:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

"Foreign policy trip"? Says who? That was not a foreign policy trip as Romney plays no role whatsoever in setting foreign policy. That was a trip abroad as presumptive nominee, as many other have done before him. Cwobeel (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and the trip was designed largely to discuss his foreign policy views... There's a difference between setting foreign policy and being a candidate with foreign policy views. The title "Foreign policy international trip" makes no implication whatsoever he sets foreign policy, which is pretty obvious for any reader since he's not the president anyway... It was one of the few times the discussion shifted from domestic issues to foreign policy. This is his policy in regards to foreign affairs... Foreign policy. --Activism1234 22:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Nah... We can't editorialize. We can only state the facts, and what you are advocating for is to change the nature of his trip. Cwobeel (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

??? That WAS the nature of the trip!! --Activism1234 22:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

No, that was what the Romney campaign wanted to achieve, but it is not an "international foreign policy trip". Now, if you can find a number of sources that describes this trip as being such, by all means. Cwobeel (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Romney went to London (nothing there related to foreign policy), then did a fundraising event in Israel, and met Valessa. That is not an International foreign policy trip, rather, it was a campaign strategy (as all previous nominees have done) to get some chops on foreign policy, in particular if they are lacking any experience, such is the case with Romney. Cwobeel (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, yes it was, as that is what he did. Hmm... Here, here, here, here, etc refer to it as a foreign policy trip or mention his foreign policy points he made or refer to it as a trip to brush up on foreign policy. This would be a lot easier if you would also say what you think it should be called instead... I don't have any harsh objections against "Foreign tour" but doesn't seem as descriptive. But wait... Did you just say what I think you did? Nothing related to foreign policy in London?? The event in Israel was just a fundraiser where he didn't outline any foreign policy either?? And in Poland, all he did was meet the former leader and human rights activist??? Wow... Please brush up on the topic you're discussing, otherwise it just can't be taken seriously... --Activism1234 23:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I have reduced that section as it was becoming an editorial rather than an account of facts. Let's keep it simple, sweet and short. Cwobeel (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Israel

We need to add the Israeli visit, with a short statement about the blunder on the Palestinians and culture there and other stuff such as http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2012/08/01/xinhua-takes-on-romney-over-israel-remarks/ Cwobeel (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Romney's remarks were effective though and appear to have acheived the desired result. That would be good statesmanship.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It was a blunder of a massive magnitude. He was not speaking to a US audience, he was in Israel. Cwobeel (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments of great statesman may cause tumult abroad, and that can be what makes them effective statesman. Romney is obviously effective. Its a contrast to what has been described as his opponents overseas 'apology tours'.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 23:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Look, Thomas. Let's leave these arguments to the pundits. Now, can you add some stuff about the blunder/statemanship on the Israeli visit? That would be a better use of our time. Cwobeel (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

China's state media agency Xinhua has releaed an editorial with regards to Mitt's comments regarding Palestinians culture in Israel.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/79207.html Nasir cast (talk) 23:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

China? And China and Russia have done what exactly to help peace in the Middle-East? Once again it looks like Romney has it right. Great Statesman may cause tumult abroad, and that can be what makes them effective statesman. Reagan also caused tumult on occasion and he's charactized as highly effective. Its a contrast to opponents who have gone on what are called 'apology tours'. The Atlantic noted Romney's No Apology diplomacy in contrast to that of Obama. [5]. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The Israel trip culture comments wasn't a blunder. I don't think it's any secret that Romney supports Israel over the Palestinians. His statements were calculated and deliberate. I don't think the state run media of Communist China's opinion lends any weight whatsoever that his trip was a blunder.

If you don't like his foreign policy, then you can certainly vote against him, but his comments were inline with general GOP stances. Naapple (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing "blunderous" about his comments. You can only consider them a "blunder" if you're trying to push a POV against him. He gave a foreign policy speech, a lot of it which was known before. Statements such as those about recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel are not a "blunder," he meant exactly what he said, and to call these statements a "blunder" would be to criticize the U.S. Congress of passing such a "blunder" in the form of a bill," or also Obama since he said in 2008 the same thing. Not meeting with the Palestinian president, instead going to the moderate prime minister, wasn't a "blunder" either - it's intentional, and while some Palestinians may be upset, that doesn't make it a "blunder." An editorial in a Chinese media outlet doesn't make something a "blunder." You can say that the White House said his statements were wrong (which anyone would expect, they're rival candidates...), and criticized him, but to repeat that it's a "blunder" is ridiculous. His statements in London were a gaffe, since you don't criticize the city's years long preparation for the Olympics in front of that country's prime milnister and city's mayor. But here, there's nothing about it that's a "blunder," and no widespread controversy about it either.

In short, I agree with Naapple and Thomas Paine. --Activism1234 01:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

May I remind people that this is not a political forum for discussing our personal views? What we need is to report the facts and have a short line on the blunder/statemantship (take your pick) on his comments about the Palestinians and Israelis and how hie believes that the culture of Israel is superior in his views. Cwobeel (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

By all means, include a factual description of the events in Israel. Citing a Chinese gov't run media article, however, isn't appropriate. Naapple (talk) 02:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

While we can certainly include that, and I'm more than happy to type up such a passage, I don't feel it'd belong in "media issues." I think it belongs a different section. In fact, the part about Poland doesn't belong in "Media issues" either - it's not an issue at all that the former leader of Poland endorsed Romney...

Firstly, his rival's aides are backing off from the criticism. Secondly, he never says anywhere that one culture is "superior," and claiming such is a serious BLP violation which I can not possibly bring myself to write. He said "“As I come here and I look out over this [Israeli] city and consider the accomplishments of the people of this nation, I recognize the power of at least culture and a few other things." In regards to comparing the GDP of Israel and Palestinian territories, "The Romney campaign said the candidate’s remarks were “grossly mischaracterized,” pointing to previous statements by the presumptive nominee in which he has discussed nearby nations with vastly different economies. The campaign also circulated a transcript of Romney’s remarks at the private fundraiser, a move they usually reserve for public events only." And yes, they were mischaracterized - he never said anywhere that one culture is "superior." As I said before, that'd be a serious BLP violation. His comments have provoked criticism from Palestinians, who aren't fond of Republicans in general, and since he began they haven't liked him either. But unlike gaffes in England which made international rounds and criticism, from ordinary people to officials to media outlets, this isn't a "blunder," and again, a serious BLP violation. --Activism1234 03:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's just summarize what he said, based on the available sources, as well as any notable criticism from Palestinians and others, and avoid editorializing or apologizing for Romney or his opponents. Facts, and notable opinions only, please. Cwobeel (talk) 03:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

This could be useful, as it is from the BBC and by nature quite neutral in its reporting. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19049229 Cwobeel (talk) 03:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I'm willing to do everything you just described. Give me, I dunno, 10 minutes. But I want to emphasize that this, and the Polish part, does not belong in "Media Issues." I'm more than happy to move this to a new section or subsection if you'd like as well. --Activism1234 03:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, what you provided in the BBC is fascinating, but I don't think it's that important to mention what each newspaper or official thought about the visit. As you said, briefly state the Palestinians' concerns with it, but I don't think the other stuff will be needed. We just want the facts on his visit, not what various media outlets think (just so much important info on this article, we don't need to fill it out and WP:UNDUE and outweigh other sections). --Activism1234 03:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

We want the facts on his visit, AND what various media outlets report. That is what we do here, we report on what reliable sources (and that includes the press) say about the visit. Cwobeel (talk) 04:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You're correct, and I've done my best - and I think it's a fair job - in the passage I made about his trip. Any concerns you have about it can be voiced here, I'm happy to discuss and cooperate :) (although it may take me a few hours, depending on when you get this, if I'm sleeping). --Activism1234 05:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Activism is right. While a lot of what is said here needs to be in the article, "media issues" is the wrong category. I think the London thing is the only bit that belongs in there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naapple (talk • contribs) 04:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I created a new section called "foreign policy international trip" under "general election campaign." I also added info on his trip to Poland, as appropriate in this section. I'd add info on his trip to England other than the media gaffes, but its so late here and I need to get some sleep. If someone doesn't do it by tomorrow (say 16 hours?) I'll give it a shot. I hope it's better. --Activism1234 05:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I re-added the London leg that you deleted. Also, you missed on the reporting about the unfortunate comment he made about the Palestinians. Please add, or I can do that myself later on. Cwobeel (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall deleting anything about London. Please provide a diff to your claim. I didn't add the comment since it's tough to do so without a serious BLP violation, as the actual quote doesn't suggest anything about superiority, and he has denied that, but I tweaked your wording a bit to make it better (for example, "perceived" or "he has denied..."). Not going to delete it now that it's there. --Activism1234 16:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The section "Remarks in England" says nearly the exact same thing as his remarks under "foreign policy international trip." It's appropriate under "media issues," but for this foreign policy section that should be brief, and his main foreign policy issues he spoke about during the visit should be actually mentioned. --Activism1234 16:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I think that not enough weight is given to the U.S. reactions to Romney's (and Netanyahu's) remarks in and about Israel, as they are obviously meant for potential Jewish American supporters such as Sheldon Adelson and American voters, not for the Israeli public, which knows that what an American presidential candidate promises and what an American president does are two different things and cannot vote for any of the candidates anyway. So I'm going to add this, if I can find RS. I also recommend the article in the Guardian titled “Ten reasons Mitt Romney's Israel visit is in bad taste”. Ajnem (talk) 10:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Lack of interviews and access to press

We ought to include something about the lack of access to the press and the very little exposure to questions from the press during Romney's campain. Cwobeel (talk) 02:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I know what you're getting at, Wikipedia isn't news. Romney takes 3 questions from reporters in Warsaw and and now you want to write about it. Naapple (talk) 02:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not referring to his trip. I am referring to his availability to the press in general. Cwobeel (talk) 03:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't in Warsaw but in London, Downing Street, but you are right that it was 3 questions he took during the entire trip, giving his spoksperson the possibility to take center stage, particularly in Warsaw [6]. The question of Romney's "availability to the press" imo should be mentioned, possibly in a new section. Ajnem (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Cwobeel source distortion - fundraiser vs speech

Cwobeel is doing serious source distortion.

For example, see this diff. One editor wrote it was a fundraiser, and another included a citation tag, while another removed it with a ref, and another reverted since the ref didn't support the sentence. And now here, Cwobeel includes two refs that apparently say his comments were at a fundraiser. Yet if you try searching for the word "solemn" in either of the sources, you won't find anything. This is major source distortion, aside from the fact half the paragraph has been used as WP:POINT and WP:UNDUE. --Activism1234 21:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Not only that, but his original edit about a fundraiser completely contradicts this source at the end of the sentence!

Addressing Iran, Romney said that the US has a "solemn duty"... Before taking off, he is scheduled to host a fund-raiser at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on Monday morning.

Source distortion two times. --Activism1234 21:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds to me like there's been a bit of confusion here. While you slap Cwobeel with a wet trout or whatever is Wiki policy for such carelessness, I'll have a look at sorting out the chronological mess. :-) Alfietucker (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Romney arrived in Israel on Saturday night. On Sunday he met with political leaders, visited the Wailing Wall, and gave a foreign-policy address to about 150 carefully-selected attendees in which he discussed options for dealing with the Iranian nuclear program and said that he was deeply moved to be in Jerusalem "the capital of Israel." He had originally planned to hold a fundraiser Sunday night, but it was a holy day of fasting (Tisha B’Av) — from Saturday night to Sunday night — so the fundraiser was moved to a breakfast on Monday. On Monday morning, at the King David Hotel, he addressed donors (I think about 300 attendees, if memory serves) at a fundraiser. In that speech he made the remarks about cultural differences. Dezastru (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The fundraiser breakfast was attended by 40 donors according to the Telegraph source. But we can look for another source to corroborate. Cwobeel (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

If I messed up the chronology or the location, mea culpa. Help me correct it. Cwobeel (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I am reading that he made a speech at the Jerusalem Foundation on Sunday were he mentioned the bit about Jerusalem as capital. "Mr. Romney, though, received a warm welcome from the crowd gathered to hear him speak at the Jerusalem Foundation on Sunday, including many big campaign donors who flew in from the United States for the speech." [7] Cwobeel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Cwobeel - I've no doubt you confused the fundraiser breakfast and the foreign policy address in error and not on purpose (particularly given Romney's changed schedule). But can we all, please, be very careful to read and respect edit summaries in future, and only disregard them if you are absolutely sure they are erroneous. A bit more mutual respect all round and "giving the benefit of the doubt" will make the editing process much more tolerable and productive.

I've now done my best to sort out the mess in the Israel paragraph, but it could do with another check through. It's late here in the UK and I'm quite tired, so I can't promise to have done an immaculate job. Alfietucker (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Good advice and good work. Thank you for both. Cwobeel (talk) 22:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Culture makes all the difference

The section discussing the response to Romney's remarks about cultural differences affecting the welfare of societies in the current version of the article is not written very well.

Some Palestinian leaders were also offended by comments Romney made during a fundraiser breakfast event at the King David Hotel, notably “culture makes all the difference” which they perceived as Romney suggesting that cultural differences explain why Israelis are more economically successful than Palestinians: Romney had cited Israel's higher GDP per capita as compared to the Palestinians', as well as drawing comparisons between other countries (such as Chile and Ecuador, or Mexico and USA).[109][110] Romney later denied that his comments had been directed against "Palestinian culture or the decisions made in their economy." [111][109][112] The Embassy of Mexico in the United States rejected Romney's comments, saying that Mexico "has one of the most dynamic economies in the world," with a 3.5% projected growth for 2012.[113] The embassy said that Mexico has a low inflation rate, an unemployment rate of 4.9%, a growing middle class, and the second-largest exporter to the United States.[113]

There was a complaint about a BLP violation in an earlier, clearer version. What BLP violation was that exactly? Dezastru (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

An unsourced accusation of racism, if I have located the right edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2012&diff=505635161&oldid=505634656

"Some Palestinian leaders were also outraged by what they perceived as "racist" remarks Romney made during a fundraiser, when he suggested<ref name=culturematters>{{cite news|last=Romney|first=Mitt|title=Culture does matter|url=http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/312830/culture-does-matter-mitt-romney|newspaper=National Review Online|date=July 31, 2012}}</ref> that cultural differences help explain why Israelis are more economically successful than Palestinians.<ref>"

Just an accusation, in my opinion, not a BLP violation. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Just a typical replacement of accurate, but colorful language, with denatured Wikipedia Brand™ slop. Par for the course. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The BLP violation was including how Palestinian leaders viewed it as the way to descibe his comments, rather than an actual quote about what he said followed with Palestinian leaders' rejection (Palestinian leaders aren't fond of Romney to begin with). --Activism1234 02:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The "Hand of Providence" refers to God's choice of a land where the Hebrews would have to have faith, Canaan:

"One, I recognize the hand of providence in selecting this place. I'm told in a Sunday school class I attended — my son Tagg was teaching the class. He's not here. I look around to see. Of course he's not here. He was in London. He taught a class in which he was describing the concern on the part of some of the Jews that left Egypt to come to the promised land, that in the promised land was down the River Nile, which would provide the essential water they had enjoyed in Egypt. They came here recognizing they must be relied upon, themselves and the arm of God to provide rain from the sky. And this therefore represented a sign of faith and a show of faith to come here. That this is a people that has long recognized the purpose in this place and in their lives that is greater than themselves and their own particular interests, but a purpose of accomplishing and caring and building and serving."

It does not address the success or lack of it of Palestinians. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Only if you do not consider Romney's usage of "the hand of providence" in terms of the full context of his extended remarks leading up to the quote above:

I was thinking this morning, as I prepared to come into this room, of a discussion I had across the country in the United States about my perceptions about the differences between countries.

And as you come here and you see the GDP per capita, for instance, in Israel, which is about $21,000, and you compare that with the GDP per capita just across the areas managed by the Palestinian Authority, which is more like $10,000 per capita, you notice a dramatic, stark difference in economic vitality. And that is also between other countries that are near or next to each other. Chile and Ecuador, Mexico and the United States.

I noted that part of my interest when I used to be in the world of business is I would travel to different countries — was to understand why there were such enormous disparities in the economic success of various countries. I read a number of books on the topic....

But then there was a book written by a former Harvard professor.... He says this, he says, if you could learn anything from the economic history of the world it's this: culture makes all the difference. Culture makes all the difference.

And as I come here and I look out over this city and consider the accomplishments of the people of this nation, I recognize the power of at least culture and a few other things.

One, I recognize the hand of providence in selecting this place...

He is listing what he believes to be the most important factors that contribute to economic disparities, notably to the disparity between the Israelis and the Palestinians. He rejects the argument proposed in Guns, Germs, and Steel that geographic factors (the physical characteristics of the land) explain the differences. He says cultural differences are what matter, along with "a few other things." One of which is "the hand of providence." Dezastru (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It is a strech to say that "the hand of providence" is in reference to the differences between Palestinians and Israelies. He is obviously trying to make some deeper religious notion by taking the possesive wording in his selection of a visit to Israel, but he is not even refering to the cultural differences with regards to the economies in that paragraph. Furthermore it doesn't even make sense when you consider the context of his comparison countries. If you take the "the hand of providence" as part of the culture differences, you are in effect saying that Romney believes that God chose the Israelies to be culturally superior to the Palestinians presumably because of their religous beliefs. When you consider the US and Mexico, it is a comparison that falls flat on its face. Regardless if you accept that there is the larger problem of a partial quote. We must be very careful in attributing quotes from living people. Arzel (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Our role here is not to editorialize and connect dots. We should only and simply report what secondary sources say, and not rely on primary sources as the transcript of the speech to try and make sense of what he meant or did not meant. Cwobeel (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

What I mean is: avoid quoting verbatim from primary sources. Cwobeel (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Obvious misinterpretation of something belongs in an article about the misinterpreter, if it is notable. Here, the Palestinians and, indeed, all Arabs, are well advised to pray for rain just as Israelis. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I get your point; makes sense. Cwobeel (talk) 00:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:QUOTE becuase you are actively promoting the exact opposite. Arzel (talk) 01:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Some people who agreed with his comments said that culture refers to corruption, distortion of markets, and preferring suicide bombers as leaders over peacemakers, and a culture of violence/death.

On another note, here's what Charles Krauthammer had to say.

What about the alleged gaffe that dominated reporting from Israel? Romney averred that Israeli and Palestinian economic development might be related to culture. A Palestinian Authority spokesman obligingly jumped forth to accuse Romney of racism, among other thought crimes.

The American media bought it whole, despite the fact that Romney's assertion was a direct echo of the U.N. Arab Human Development Report. It unambiguously asserted that "culture and values are the soul of development." And went on to report how existing cultural norms -- "including traditional Arab culture and values" -- are among the major impediments to Arab economic progress.

The report deplores the rampant corruption, repressive governance and lack of women's (and human) rights as major contributors to backwardness in the Arab world.

Is there any question about Romney's assertion? PLO/PA corruption is a legend. Palestinians are repelled by it. Why do you think the PA lost the 2006 (and last) free election?

Romney's point about "culture" was to highlight the improbable emergence of Israel from resourceless semidesert to First World "startup nation."

I think that some of this should be included, certainly Krauthammer as he's a prominent pundit. --Activism1234 02:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Krauthammer is certainly a prominent pundit, it should be possible to add his opinion as well. It is quite interesting to see Romney be criticized for repeating the comments of others, which at the time were not controversial. Arzel (talk) 05:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah Noah Pollak noted that Obama said similar, if not worse, remarks in front of Arab audiences. --Activism1234 05:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I would say that those comments are worse. I also don't know how anyone could call Romeny's statement racist. Israelies and Palestinians are both Caucasian. I suppose they meant religious bigotry because they are of (generally) different religions, even though I think that there are Israelies that are Christian, Jewish, and Muslim. Arzel (talk) 06:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I've included Fareed Zakaria, who pointed out that Israel's economy improved not when they changed their culture, but instead when they adopted Romney-style economic policies. As Romney himself disastrously failed to make the case for his own policies, this may fall into the too fringe category to list here. Hcobb (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is needed. It is one of many commentators, so why Fareed and no others? Cwobeel (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Cwobeel. Dan Senor and Saul Singer are arguably much more knowledgable on the topic, but there's no reason to include their book "Israel: The Start-up Nation" as reasons for Israel's economic success. --Activism1234 16:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that this is very interesting, and may be article-worthy, as this is written by the son of Dr. Landes, the professor whom Romney based his statements off of. I'm italizing the parts in his op-ed, they may or may not be my views, that are most important if it's going in the aritlce (obviously not all of it would be mentioned...)

In making his brief case, Mr. Romney cited two books: "Guns, Germs and Steel," by geographer Jared Diamond, and "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations," by economist David Landes (my father). As in other fields of social "science," economists argue about whether development derives from cultural advantages or from natural ones such as resistance to disease and access to primary resources. Prof. Diamond, whose book focuses on societies' natural advantages, last week wrote an op-ed in the New York Times emphasizing both culture and nature and trying to draw Prof. Landes in with him.

But Israel (which neither book examined) and the Arab world (which only the Landes book examined) illustrate the primacy of culture as both necessary and sufficient for economic development. Israel, a country with no natural resources, an economic backwater even in the Ottoman Empire, rose to the top of the developed world in a century on culture alone. The Arab nations, on the other hand, illustrate the necessity of a certain kind of culture: Even those with vast petrodollars still have among the least productive economies in the world.

Americans tend to assume that everyone shares their cultural attitudes—that everyone strives to get to "yes," to positive-sum, win-win, voluntary relations; that everyone holds productive work in high respect and prizes the principles of fairness embodied in the meritocratic principle of "equality before the law"; that everyone encourages criticism, treasures intellectual capital, promotes risk-taking, prizes transparency and fosters innovation. With institutions built on such values—with a culture dedicated to making, not taking, money—a society can make use of whatever primary products a land offers.

But there are cultures whose favored mode is not voluntary but coerced and zero-sum relations, where the principle of "rule or be ruled" dominates political and economic life. The elites in such cultures hold hard work in contempt, and they distrust intellectual openness and uncontrolled innovation as subversive. They emphasize rote learning and unquestioning respect for those in authority. Protection rackets rather than law enforcement assure the public order and bleed the economy. Public criticism brings sharp retaliation. Powerful actors acquire wealth by taking, rather than making.

Few cultures on the planet better illustrate the latter traits than the Arab world, a fact outlined in painful detail by a 2002 United Nations report written by Arab intellectuals. As "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations" points out, Arab culture intensifies these problems with its attitude of hyper-jealousy and misogyny toward women, which turns out entitled sons and cloistered daughters.

Even the huge influx of petrodollars did not change the basic contours of Arab economies: Rather than fueling economic development that benefited all, it bloated corrupt and opaque elites. Oil-rich countries like Libya and Iraq have social structures akin to those of oil-bereft Egypt and Syria. Change may occur, but it is hindered by an authoritarian culture that fears it. Such societies impoverish the masses, while elites thrive on their debasement.

Strikingly, Palestinian culture compares favorably with that of other Arabs. Palestinians have higher education, a strong work ethic and successful entrepreneurs. Much of that comes from their close association with the Zionists, who (unlike Western imperialists) settled the land without conquest, by dint of making everyone more prosperous.

From the late 19th century, Arab populations grew and prospered where Jews settled (Tel Aviv, Hebron, Jerusalem) and remained stagnant and poor where they didn't (Gaza, Nablus, Nazareth). Many Arabs found the presence of Jews a great advantage. Thus the Palestinian diaspora is among the best-educated and most competent in the Arab world—and under Israeli rule (the notorious "occupation") the West Bank was one of the 10 fastest-growing economies in the world in the 1980s.

Other Palestinians, however, found Jewish economic leadership an unbearable blow to their pride. Said one to the British Peel Commission in 1936: "You say we are better off: you say my house has been enriched by the strangers who have entered it. But it is my house, and I did not invite the strangers in, or ask them to enrich it, and I do not care how poor it is if I am only master of it."

Sooner rule in hell than share in heaven. These actors have dominated Palestinian political culture, and terrorized Israeli and Palestinian alike, for generations.

In calling Mr. Romney's remarks "racist" and blaming Palestinian economic difficulties on Israel's "occupation," Mr. Erekat illustrated one of David Landes's major points: Blaming others for one's own failures prolongs failure. Even though his own government daily chooses a culture of death, not life, Mr. Erekat wants to blame Israel for Palestine's woes; no admission here that he and his colleagues might have some role in the suffering of their own people.

So when Westerners denounce Mr. Romney for his "gaffe," they actually do a great disservice to the Palestinians. Palestinian entrepreneurs and administrators—the ones who wept when Yasser Arafat rejected Israel's peace offer at Camp David in 2000—know well the costs to their people's well-being engendered by their political leaders.

Had Western observers criticized Mr. Erekat for his silly and dishonest response, they might have strengthened those Palestinians who could lead their people to the promised land of independence and prosperity. Instead, they threw the real progressives, the ones who could put an end to the occupation by good faith negotiations, under the bus.

Just some food for thought which could possibly be incorporated... --Activism1234 21:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Olympic comments

Romney's comments regarding the olympics should be added to the campaign issues section, it's notable enough that David Cameron and London Mayor Boris Johnson have weighed in on the issue.

http://www.politico.com/arena/ http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/07/boris-johnson-whacks-romney-130225.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Americium-con (talk • contribs) 20:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Wp is not a newspaper. Arzel (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not much of a source or a very notable issue related to the Romney campaign just Romney himself Algonquin7 (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

There are other sources, such as the Wall Street Journal, reporting on this as well: http://stream.wsj.com/story/campaign-2012-continuous-coverage/SS-2-9156/ Cwobeel (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

"By 5 p.m. ET, the British press was having a field day. The center-left newspaper the Guardian led their website with the headline, "Mitt Romney's Olympics blunder stuns No 10 and hands gift to Obama." Referring to Romney's "disconcerting" comment, the Guardian quoted a senior Whitehall source, who said, "What a total shocker. We are speechless." The Guardian also ran a sidebar entitled, "Oh, Mitt: those Romney gaffes in full." The article dissected Romney's gaffes and rated them all on a scale of one to 10. The "disconcerting" comment received a rating of eight on the gaffe scale. "Take that, Romney! Now get that horse out of my sight," the Guardian wrote in the blog post, in reference to Ann Romney's horse, Rafalca, which will compete in the Olympics. The Telegraph, a traditionalist, center-right paper, ran commentary from foreign correspondent Alex Spillius under the headline "Romney doesn't like us? We shouldn't care." The subheadline of Spillius' story read, "Mitt Romney is perhaps the only politician who could start a trip that was supposed to be a charm offensive by being utterly devoid of charm and mildly offensive." http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57481007-503544/brit-papers-blast-mitt-romney/ This is indeed notable enough to add. Cwobeel (talk) 22:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

How about his advisors "Anglo-Saxon" comments? The Romney campaign so far has not asked for the comments to be retracted?Americium-con (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that his diplomatic faux pas belong in the article, just so long as we don't give them too much space just because they're recent. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

WP is not a newspaper, and nor should it try to be. If it is a major issue it will be a week from now. I suggest that editors familiarlize themselves with WP:RECENT and WP:NOT#NEWS Arzel (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

International trips of presidential candidates are important for the campaign. The fact that Romney is getting rebuked by British political leaders is clearly significant. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Possibly so, but there is no deadline and we have Wikinews for current events. This kind of crap always results in pointless edit wars as the story develops, what the hell is the point in trying to jam it all into the main article until some historical context is developed? It is quite interesting though. Romney simply repeats what has been in the London press regarding problems with the olympics for the past few weeks and suddenly it is a diplomatic gaffe? It is like an insane person running around saying "I am insane! I am insane!" and then asking them, "Are you insane?" and then having them get pissed off at you for not only stating the obvious, but repeating their own comments. Arzel (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The 2012 campaign is happening right now, so it's not a historical event, except in the sense that history is being made even as we speak. If we were writing about something a decade ago, we could tell whether it withstood the test of time. For events which are current, this is meaningless. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't even make sense. You completely validate my argument of recenticsm and WP not being a newspaper and then try to use those policies as a reason why it should be included as it is happening? Arzel (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

@Arzel. You need to drop that line of reasoning. This is about Romney's perception on the world stage, and highly significant. Cwobeel (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

What part of WP is not a newspaper do you two not understand? Arzel (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that we do understand: we simply don't agree. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Well it is nice to know that you simply don't agree with WP policies. Arzel (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You're mistaken about WP policies in the first place. In any case, the policies exist only in terms of our consensus interpretation, and the consensus on Mitt Romney is that the material on the Olympics at least belongs in this article, so I'm putting it back. Feel free to violate WP policies by edit-warring, ok? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. BLP policies, for example, cannot be trumped by concensus. Arzel (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Arzel, your point has been made. No need for repetition. Can we agree that Romney's Olympic gaffe is significant enough for this campaign page (as opposed to his bio page) given: 1.)the extensive news coverage, 2.)the fact that both the UK Prime Minister and the Mayor of London's responded and, 3.)the fact that the trip itself had been framed by the Romney campaign as significant (citation needed, of course)? Perhaps the topic title can be renamed to "2012 Europe trip" in the future. I'm sure there will be some "newspaper" worthy coverage of Romney's next stop in Israel. CrabCrawling (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER. Why is that so hard to understand? Wikinews is for current events. It has been less than two days for this issue. Arzel (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

That I'd agree with. It seems to me there is consensus that this belongs now (no need to "wait a week" to reassess). Historical context isn't needed, just a simple statement of what happened with minimal detail and no editorializing. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Romney's comments should not be characterized as a gaffe, Piers Morgan defended Romney's comments as speaking the "truth," [8][9].Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Piers Morgan doesn't trump everybody else. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Romney was referring to British criticism of their own Olympic plans, so Piers Morgan's defense the Romney was speaking the truth is relevant. Romney didn't invent the criticism, it already existed. The comments should not be characterized as original to Romney. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed they shouldn't, and I don't think anyone is saying Romney is the first to do so. That doesn't diminish the fact that a U.S. presidential candidate insulting (or saying something that is being perceived as insulting) the British is noteworthy. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This item sticks out like a sore thumb and it looks like a lemonade stand in the middle of a Safeway parking lot. It needs to come out because WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:RECENT, and WP:WEIGHT, and the claim that there is a consensus is phony, at best. Trying to claim consensus when there is an even split is WP:TENDENTOUS, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:DISRUPTIVE. Belchfire 16:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Overall, the London Olympic tour is helping Romney, the comments may have been coordinated with the Prime Minister to increase attention on Romney's visit, allow for some news coverage, it allowed Romney to upstage Obama from getting attention on security issues since there was increased concerns over Olympic security leading up to Romney's visit with Obama officials attempting to claim some credit [10]. So it was really a brilliant maneuver by Romney. The CNN Piers Morgan London interview with Romney is very strong and its getting lots of attention too, its very Presidential, and among the best interviews Piers Morgan has ever done. The positives of Romney's London Olympic visit are highly relevant and should be given weight.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus does not require unanimity, and throwing in a bunch of random policies without stating why they're applicable doesn't help. Romney is taking heat for his comments, in spite of any legitimate security concerns. As Chris Wallace said this morning, "If you ask me if that suit makes you look fat, I'm not going to tell that it does, even if it does." I don't quite see how you're trying to spin this as "really a brilliant maneuver by Romney". Saying "the comments may have been coordinated with the Prime Minister to increase attention on Romney's visit" is simply silly; in addition to having no proof for your suggestion, Romney's trip was getting a lot of press before he opened his mouth about the Olympics. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, you seem to not understand WP:NOT#NEWS. Wikinews is for current events. WP is not for current events, if it were there would be no need for Wikinews. Why is this such a difficult concept for so many to understand? If this is notable it will stand the test of time, it is currently just a news blip. Anyone, please explain why this event trumps WP:NOT#NEWS. Arzel (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Media spin is not encyclopedic. Taking heat from media is opinion and irrelevant. Of course, we don't need unanimity to remove the comments regarding the silly Etch-a-sketch or dog incident spin, or the Olympic spin inserted into the article either. We may as well remove all the media spin comments for the Etch a sketch, the dog incident, and the Olympic comments. Arzel's point is well taken. The consensus appears to be for removal comments altogther. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

If a matter receives substantial coverage in the media it is notable and belongs in the article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily, media coverage in this regard appears to be giving WP:Undue weight to the opponents in political campaign and violate neutrality WP:NPOV. Also, Wikipedia is not a newpaper. So the consenus for removal is sound. Arzel or another editor is within rights to remove the whole section regarding the dog, the etch-a-sketch, and the Olympic comments. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Look, we can't keep trying to sweep clean all possible criticism. Wikipedia is expected to be neutral. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWSPAPER in effect here. Too soon for this addition. And I don't see how this tidbit is of lasting historical significance in any event. In 3 months will anyone really care? No. Let's exclude.– Lionel ^(talk) 06:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Please tell me what APPL stock will be trading at in 3 months, since you claim to have a crystal ball. When your prediction is accurate to the penny, I'll believe your claim and let you remove everything about the Olympics. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you realize that your argument is the logic used to keep recent events out of articles? WP articles are built by summarizing events which have historical weight, it is not to put every piece of crap in the news into the article and then come back 3 months later to see if it is still notable at that time. Your argument is the exact reason why this does not belong. Arzel (talk) 07:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Except that it doesn't work that way. If something seems important, we include it. If we find out later that it turned out not to be important, we can always remove it. Now, if we went in the opposite direction, then "Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012" would be empty until at least 2013. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

That is not how WP works. I am not sure where you are getting your information. Arzel (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think he cares about that. ViriiK (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you should be commenting about other editors, especially negatively, when our job is to talk about the articles. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You don't think which proves my point so but right now I agree with the other editors that this is WP:NOTNEWS. You're still insisting on including this. ViriiK (talk) 07:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

See, saying I don't think is simply a personal attack, and that invalidates the notion that you're trying to work constructively with me to improve this article. I suppose you should retract and apologize. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

No. ViriiK (talk) 07:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I said you should retract and apologize. Based on prior behavior, I don't expect you to. That would be too productive. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack, huh? Now that's irony. What would I have to apologize for? I'm not going to apologize to a disruptive editor. End of discussion. Now do you have something to contribute as to why a WP:NOTNEWS piece should be included into this article? ViriiK (talk) 07:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing is as disruptive editing does. I've explained why this policy does not support your attempt to exclude this topic, but you seem unresponsive. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess we're done with this topic. It seems to me that the consensus is that this won't be included? I'm all-ears. ViriiK (talk) 08:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how consensus works. It's not a vote and it can never override hard and fast rules such as WP:NPOV or WP:RS. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You just stated above; "You're mistaken about WP policies in the first place. In any case, the policies exist only in terms of our consensus interpretation, and the consensus on Mitt Romney is that the material on the Olympics at least belongs in this article, so I'm putting it back. Feel free to violate WP policies by edit-warring, ok? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)" Are you actually the same person, or do you simply change your views to fit your current line of argument? I don't think you understand any WP policies, but then you are a relatively new user and may not have had the chance to read them all. Arzel (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Where's the vote? I simply said no as well as plenty of other users. The impression is that there is no consensus to include but rather a consensus to omit. And what does WP:NPOV or WP:RS have to do with this? This is simply a WP:NOTNEWS issue and whether this does not violate that policy to include this. ViriiK (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

We disagree. Fortunately, your agreement is not required. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately for me, it doesn't work that way. It's a nice thought. Anyways there is a clear consensus by myself and 3 other editors not to include under the rules of WP:NOTNEWS. ViriiK (talk) 08:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

For the reasons I've already explained, you're mistaken. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Which is what? Cite exactly what you're talking about that we will be including this WP:NOTNEWS into the article and why. ViriiK (talk) 08:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

This is beyond news. In fact these are old news already. But the fact remains that the Prime Minister of the UK, and the Major of London reacted negatively to Romney's first visit to the UK as presumptive nominee is worthy of inclusion. Cwobeel (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is arrived at by balancing of rational views. Repeating WP:NOTNEWS endlessly is not a valid argument in light of our well-known practice of regularly using information from daily newspapers in our articles, and as in the instance of 2012 Aurora shooting creating articles about major news items. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Some aspect of Wikipedia:NOTNEWSPAPER#NEWSPAPER which is being violated needs to be cited before the slogan WP:NOTNEWS applies. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Fred, thanks for more clearly saying what I was trying to. It's not clear how WP:NOTNEWS applies except as a vague slogan. Like you, I'd very much like to see what specific parts would be violated. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

It is unbelievable what is happening here. There are an overwhelming number of sources that describe the massive gaffe Romney made, and the text reads as if this was a balanced view in which he was also praised? Gimme a break. Cwobeel (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

What you're saying seems consistent with what I've been reading about sources. Turns out we don't need to report on fringe sources, and we only need to give minor sources a minor place. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It certainly has gotten ugly here. Here's my two cents, and then some: Romney's trip abroad was done as part of his 2012 Presidential campaign strategy, which is continuing at this very moment. It was his 'trip abroad' tour. It wasn't a weekend getaway. He had Europe outraged over his comments and behavior. He was rebuked by the Prime Minister and the mayor of London. A quick note: both Cameron and Boris Johnson are in political alignment with Romney. Romney's remarks made international headlines. It is majorly significant, since it effects his Presidential campaign. The headlines are brutal, and they're questioning, among other things, how this man could ever be President of the United States. These comments preceded the 2012 London Olympics, the largest international event in existence. Every country represented learned of his remarks. Said remarks extended to the players' countries as well. Romney's touted his time in office overseeing the Salt Lake City Olympic games. The Prime Minister responded that it was easy to oversee the Olympics in a place that was in the 'middle of nowhere.' Anyone who can't see this as an international scandal, is, I'm sorry, willfully ignorant. His comments were reiterated by public officials to the Olympic crowd. Don't forget the controversy surrounding comments regarding MI6. This was in every major news publication. His foreign tour has been an international disaster. This was all in an effort to boost his foreign relations image. Barack Obama made the same trip abroad as part of his campaign tour back in 2008. Romney is bringing his own camera crew and the press to cover his trip. This IS for his Presidential campaign. Partyclams (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's important, so we can't just ignore it or relegate it to some side article. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to observe that the London visit appears twice now in the article. I guess that would be ok except it's almost word for word the same in both sections. Either reword one of these (perhaps in the media section), or we should consider dropping one of them. Alfietucker (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

To review, Romney was asked by an anchor for his assessment of London 2012 preparations and start (based on his success in Utah, winter olympics), and he gave his honest assessment. It now is seen to be more accurate than a gaffe. Any mention in this WP article needs to point this out! Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

"Is seen" by whom? Alfietucker (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Harry Reid

Allegations by Harry Reid based on nothing are notable. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

However, "Harry Reid: Bain Investor Told Me That Mitt Romney 'Didn't Pay Any Taxes For 10 Years'" User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

So what are you getting at? Yes, it's notable enough for the newsmedia to report. Anything the majority leader says is. That's not necessarily enough to warrant a line or paragraph in WP. At this point the most you might do would be to append the link as a citation for the "calls from Democrats and some Republicans" line. I don't think inclusion of this information now would enhance the article. Dezastru (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Are we talking about including the possibly false accusation, the lack of evidence, or the fuss about it? What is the event and its significance? User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, you're the one who started the topic! haha -- When I wrote that I do not think inclusion of this information would enhance the article, I was referring to all of the above, including the possibly false (possibly true) allegation from an undisclosed source. Dezastru (talk) 03:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Also notable (or not) is the unexpected result of 'backlash' reaction, including calls for looking into who revealed the tax info of a citizen — that would be a felony (not of Reid, but of his source.) Will Harry Reid reveal his source(s)? Is the Whitehouse or IRS involved? It probably doesn't rise to the level of WP importance unless legality issues become prominent. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's just observe. That is all I was suggesting. User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Suspicion is growing that Reid simply made this tip up, see "Republicans Step Up Attacks Against Reid". Democrats seem happy to exploit the allegation, unfounded or not. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this issue will go away, so we just wait and see how it plays out. Cwobeel (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The thing about Reid's accusations that to me make this worthy of inclusion is how much airtime the Romney campaign and its surrogates are giving to the push back. They could've tried to ignore it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It is getting nastier and nastier, now Reince Preibus, the Republican chairman is calling Harry Reid 'a dirty liar'. Oh my. [11] Cwobeel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. It's not common for politicians to outwardly use the "L" word. They typically hedge with words like "misleading". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I recall someone shooting "You lie!" to a sitting president in a state of the union address, so maybe politicians have lost some previously accepted norms. Cwobeel (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

On a side note, you may be interested in this video and this video regarding violent attacks by politicians. --Activism1234 19:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The accusation and the lack of a real response is obviously now notable for the campaign article. We should note, as have multiple reliable sources, that the accusation is not based on any documents and that Reid might possibly just be making this up. We should also note, as have many reliable sources, that Romney could entirely get rid of the controversy by releasing a couple more years of tax returns.

Somehow this reminds me of the birther "controversy" - I'm not entirely sure, but did we ignore that simply because it was entirely fabricated by the President's political enemies? Smallbones (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Just checked, our article on the birther controversy goes back to 9 December 2008‎. Reid's accusations have a lot more behind them than that birther conspiricy theory. Smallbones (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Given that it's been rated "pants on fire" [[12]]and the obama campaing is backing off [[13]], I don't think it's pertinent. Naapple (Talk) 04:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree, and the people commenting on HuffPo are pissed! at Politifact. Arzel (talk) 04:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

See Mitt_Romney's_tax_returns#Allegations_by_Harry_Reid User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

There are some interesting aspects, and both sides need be presented; but not here and not now. The 'Media Bias' article might be better placement, later. In this instance, even Left-leaning media ended up on the side of Mitt Romney. In this case, it is better to write history rather than speculation. The Romney Camp is not going to cave; and the Reid Camp is not going to have any reliable and legal sourcing. It is said that the IRS pays people to track you down and how likely is it that taxes went unpaid? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Are the following notes from readers at TheBlaze.com true? [14] "The money going to offshore accounts has already been taxed and what's more, listed on the correct IRS forms. Kind of destroys your petty theory now doesn't it." And "Romney is not releasing anything before 2010 because HE DIDN'T MAKE ANY MONEY IN '08 AND '09. Most of his income is Capital Gains. There were NO GAINS in those two years. People would see that he didn't pay anything and they are too stupid [uninformed] to know why." FYI, sounds true to me, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Tax returns section

Could user Thomaspaine please stop trying to remove this section without discussing it? Within the same edit of olympic comments the entire section disapeared under the cover of it. Nasir cast (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The taxes are already in the background section and they are not a campaign strategy anyway so they don't belong in the general campaign section.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

If it is a media issue, all the better. We report what the media say. Cwobeel (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This issue seems not to go away. read http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/31/reid-suggests-romney-not-releasing-tax-returns-would-have-embarrassed-late/ and http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/romney-campaign-mum-on-previous-tax-rates-audit/ Cwobeel (talk) 02:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

We should at least report ABC question "Have you ever paid less than 13.9% in taxes" and Romney;s response "I would look into it" followed by a response from his campaign spokesperson: “Mitt Romney has paid his taxes in full compliance with U.S. law, and he has paid 100 percent of what he has owed” based on these sources Cwobeel (talk) 03:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Why remove material fromone of the very few interviews Romney has given? I have restored Muir's interview question and answer by Romney. Cwobeel (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a whole article on his Tax returns, and that quote is hardly the most important aspect of the sub. Please just follow WP:SUMMARY. Arzel (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I just found out about that new "article", which is a WP:POVFORK and a lame attempt to farm out important stuff to a separate article. I have requested a merge back to here. Cwobeel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the request to merge. But until that article develops, we can't really summarize it, so what is in this article now should remain unchanged. Cwobeel (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That is a faulty argument. I agree that it is a POV Fork, I labeled it as such, however that does not give you that authority to simply ignore it. Arzel (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It also appears you are only interested in keeping the one charged question and response and not Reid's blatent lie. Arzel (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome to add the blatent (sic) lies from Reid if you want. But until that POV FORK dispute is resolved, we should avoid deleting content that is very pertinent. After all, we are quoting Romney on one of the very few interviews he has given to the press. Cwobeel (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

What part of Undue weight do you fail to grasp? You and your POV pushing is really getting quite annoying. Arzel (talk) 18:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The section on taxes should be about how the question is, or is not, a notable part of the campaign. In the election season we won't have to wait long for long, detail, authoritative analyses by prominent political pundits, and extensive news coverage. The spinoff is about whatever details come to light about Romney's taxes, degree of disclosure and details disclosed and implications knowledgeable people draw from them. And blow by blow nonsense... User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Libelous charges and Biographies of living persons policy

The Romney campaign, and presumably the Obama campaign, are sometimes subject to media attacks which are well below our policy Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, see Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2012#Attempt_to_associate_Bain_Capital_investors_with_Salvadorian_death_squads. I think we can include reports of the attacks without violating the policy. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

As to whether this particular incident is notable or relevant enough, I can't say I have thought it through completely; much depends on follow up coverage in the mainstream media or use by the Obama campaign. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Son of BOSS

The Son of BOSS scandal isn't currently mentioned in this article, though it's starting to get some press in regards to Romney's candidacy.[15] Does this merit inclusion? If not, what would put it past that threshold? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope. It's just garbage from Obama's campaign add. If Romney was complicit, he would've been charged in the scandal. That dude runs on everything but his record.... Naapple (Talk) 22:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

"If Romney was complicit, he would've been charged..." Let's not assume that everything wrong or immoral is indictable. Certainly our coverage is not dictated by that rule of thumb. Smallbones (talk) 23:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Yea, well given that the only person who's making something out of this is Barack Hussein Obama, fighting for reelection, I don't think it amounts to anything. I'm pretty sure political campaign TV ads aren't a legit source. But hey, don't take my word for it: http://factcheck.org/2012/08/obamas-boss-baloney/ Naapple (Talk) 00:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I finally saw the ad for the first time tonight, Colorado. Let's wait and see what happens. Some of these are only spaghetti thrown on the wall. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Paul Ryan, VP?

Cwobeel, as far as I can tell, it's not quite official yet. Give it a day. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds right; 9am Friday announcement; US economy emphasis takes center stage in the general election race against Obama-Biden. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Editors, particularly the edit-warring Mr GageSkidmore, need to drop the WP:RECENTISM stick and wait for someething more than "unnamed sources say" and rumor. Tarc (talk) 11:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Priorities USA ad

There is some coverage of the Priorities USA ad "Campaign Steps Up Its Attacks on Negative Ads by a Pro-Obama ‘Super PAC’" implying Romney was indifferent to a woman dying of cancer. No factual connection. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Use of Wikipedia to predict VP choice

That it has been suggested that Wikipedia editing patterns might be useful in predicting the selection of the vice president candidate is extremely interesting and worthy of mention somewhere in Wikipedia, perhaps even with a page dedicated to the topic. But I don't see how it is appropriate for inclusion in this article. And it certainly does not deserve a separate section within the article. Rather than being included in this article, the topic is better suited for inclusion in one of the more general articles discusssing US presidential elections. A mention of Paul Ryan's case, linking back to this article, might be included as part of that discussion. Dezastru (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on whether this belongs in the article, but something else concerns me. If an increase in editing is a sign that someone has been selected for VP, that means that the additional editing could only be from insiders who know of his selection in advance. These insiders necessarily have a huge conflict of interest. In short, this means that we have paid political operatives corrupting Wikipedia. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That was just for fun; when it quits being fun you know what to do. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

You raise an interesting concern, Still-24-45-42-125. However, I don't think that having insiders editing articles is —of itself— a problem. The problem arises when insiders (or opponents, for that matter) make POV edits. So long as the edits made are NPOV in terms of the article as a whole, aren't they technically fair game? (Yeah, I know it's a pipe dream to think that interested parties will make unbiased edits, excepting the rare saint — but one can still be hopeful, can't one?) Dezastru (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

According to WP:COI, such editors are encouraged (but, sadly, not required) to publicly disclose that they have a conflict of interest. Has anyone made such a disclosure with regard to Ryan? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It would seem reasonable to at least check the Wikipedia article of your vice-presidential candidate. We should look at the editing history of Paul Ryan. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Or not. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The CIA, under order from a shadow gov't of right-wing corporatists, assassinated JFK so they could escalate the war in Vietnam to the benefit of the military-industrial complex. What? We are spouting off unfounded conspiracy theories in this thread, right? Naapple (Talk) 00:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Check out US Congressional staff edits to Wikipedia. --Activism1234 01:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI, that was because the edits were coming from IP addresses allocated to the Federal government more specifically the House & Senate. I have a conflict of interest because I live halfway across the country from Paul Ryan. I will now recuse myself! All kidding aside, COI should be ignored until it is demonstratively obvious that there is a conflict of interest. However that's unlikely if they become disruptive in putting edits that are favorable to a certain person against consensus which can lead to a TB. ViriiK (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

All I could find was ordinary editing, but lots of it. If political operatives are editing the edits are lost in the hundreds of edits made today. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Or made before the world at large knew what was to be. -- Avanu (talk) 02:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Edits made in the past 24 hours would not be specific enough. It looks like the real uptick in edits on that page began around August 3. So if I were concerned about looking for insiders, I would focus on checking around Aug 3, Aug 4 through Aug 9, Aug 10, then comparing those edits to all prior edits. Dezastru (talk) 02:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing here, unless someone can find evidence of removal of damning, and well-sourced, information or serious image burnishing. Section on divination is gone now. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Vice President

We need coverage on Democratic reaction to choice of Ryan, "right wing ideologue", etc., but also on increased attendance at rallies and increased donations. Perhaps something about the Battleship Wisconsin, or not. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. Crowds over 10,000 are showing up for the bus tour to Wisconsin, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida; and Paul Ryan will go alone to Iowa after Obama tours there. Pictures are showing up on Drudge Report, FoxNews, and maybe even the 'liberal' sources I do not read. ;-) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

"Crowds over 10,000" needs a superlative source if you're going to include that anywhere. It doesn't sound legit, especially given the past history of Romney's campaign. -- Avanu (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's wait and see if it continues. The Washington Examiner says Romney attracted 15,000 over the weekend[16], but other sources do not. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Kiss my Ass triva

Please explain to me why this triva is important for Romney? He did not make the statement and had nothing to do with the statement. Arzel (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. I did not put the comment in and if you search for the 'kiss' you will not find it here in TALK nor in the Article. Two things I would observe: (1) Conservatives (the sleeping giant in America) want Romney to be more combative to the other side, not just accepting of Liberal-Democrat premise (or being like McCain and not criticizing, even when justified). However, (2) it does not raise to the level of importance for the article. That media spent 85% of their articles talking about Romney 'gaffes' of which there were none (and not covering what was important), goes without saying. [17] So there you have your answer: (1) Yes, important; (2) not to be included. — PS: This is not to say Romney was not thinking the same thing, (without the swear words). Conservative president Reagan would go speak directly to the people for this same reason. Hope This Helps, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not an article about Romney, but rather, an article about the Presidential campaign. And we report here what reputable sources say about the campaign, and the "kiss my ass" and "shove it" were widely reported by the International press, and has a bearing on the campaign as the comment was made by Rick Gorka, Romney's traveling press spokesman, and part of his campaign staff. That is why. Cwobeel (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, Ye are what ye run with, or so they say. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

So everything they say is worth including? Or just the stuff that people think makes Romney look bad? It seems to be the latter. As Charles noted, 85% of the covereage of Romney was negative...this article is quickly becoming nothing more than a list of negative coverage. I am tagging it. Arzel (talk) 01:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is a nice little example of the hypocrisy regarding the media on these issues. The only difference is that Obama didn't swear...and well it was Obama. Pretty interesting though. Reporters are rude to Romney and Romney gets criticized. Neil Munro is rude to Obama and Munro gets criticized.... Arzel (talk) 01:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

if 85% of the coverage was negative, we then report exactly that. That is exactly what NPOV means: "NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Cwobeel (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the article is becoming just a place to pile criticism for WP:POINT, under the guise of "reputable sources said it." And if reputable sources said they saw me walking my dog, I don't see a reason for it to go on Wikipedia. --Activism1234 02:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

If Romney had said it, there would be a pretty solid case for inclusion. Since it was just an aide, and since it was said to a reporter and not to anybody of importance, the case for inclusion is shaky, at best. This seems to me like just more cruft. Belchfire-TALK 06:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This is an article about the campaign, so we report what reputable sources say and that includes what this campaign sokesperson said. Cwobeel (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, it is not that notable unless repeated, and repeated, and repeated. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The coverage it's received makes it notable. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so this recieved a couple of day blip and then was gone. It is not something Romney said and has no long lasting impact regarding the campaign. It is time to remove this minor trivia. Arzel (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I concur. It has proven to be non-notable for precisely the reasons stated above. Belchfire-TALK 16:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, this is not an article on Romney. This is an article on his campaign, and a key campaign operative made these unfortunate comments, which were reported widely in the US and the international press. Cwobeel (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

And there's more on the London visit - when Cameron said it would be easier to arrange the Olympics "in the middle of nowhere", that was seen as a barbed comment on Romney's role in arranging the 2002 Winter Olympics near Salt Lake City, see this. Ouch,Red Hurley (talk) 09:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, this is a gaffe that will not die. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Campaing platform?

Why don't we have here a section on his platform? Cwobeel (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

That would be good (condensed version) and the article of Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney is way too detailed and long. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of 2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

On a related note, there's some attempt to remove a Romney-centered description of the aftermath of this event. I'm wondering if someone could explain the reasoning. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Discussion on this page: Articles for Deletion: Mitt Romney's Tax Returns

I propose that Mitt Romney's tax returns be merged into Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. I think that the content in the tax return article can easily be explained in the context of this article, and this article is of a reasonable size such that the merging of the tax return article will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. 108.18.174.123 (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - as nominator.108.18.174.123 (talk) 03:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - This is just a POV fork for burial purposes. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Edited Out - I actually have been back and forth on this. I could really go either way. The actual nomination is here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mitt_Romney's_tax_returns Naapple (Talk) 09:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose We need to made a decent detailed article about his taxes. Such an article does not belong here as it would be too detailed and much of it would not relate to the current election. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

So long as he doesn't show his taxes, it's going to be a skinny POV fork. Anyhow, please vote at the AFD. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Not enough notability to support a stand-alone article. Merge content into parent article, delete/re-direct/whatever the present article-link. Re: Fred's remark above, the only reason anyone is interested in this subject is because Romney is running for the US Presidency, so in my opinion this article should be subsumed into Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. Shearonink (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Who cares? Are you talking about a what people say about the tax-flap, or the actual pages of the tax return? How many pages would that be? Is this done for others, like JFK? Just asking, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support This is clearly a POV article, and in the end this will probably turn out to be a minor blip in the election. I think he should release his returns, but this page shouldn't show up on the Google News front page section about that. UltraNurd (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• No one cares! To answer my own question, the article [18] proposed for deletion (or not) is talking about the Obama/Reid tax-flap, not the actual tax returns. I'll say more later, maybe. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Add Sheldon Adelson fundraising

• http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/us/politics/paul-ryan-meets-sheldon-adelson-in-las-vegas.html Paul Ryan Meets Casino Mogul and Major G.O.P. Donor August 14, 2012 New York Times

This is potentially related from his article; Scrutiny for Casino Mogul’s Frontman in China August 13, 2012 108.73.115.62 (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I cannot see anything in the August 13 article that mentions Romney.108.18.174.123 (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

@108.73, Sheldon was speaking of contributing to SuperPAC's as he cannot contribute directly to Romney's campaign without getting afoul of campaign finance laws. It's no different than Bill Maher giving his million to a SuperPAC that's supportive of Obama. ViriiK (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Eric Edelman

I understand that Edelman is one og the key advisers on foreign policy, but I can't find any material that describes his position in the campaign. Any ideas? Cwobeel (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe find something that is really notable and add it if consensus is for inclusion. Where did you learn about this? --Mollskman (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

here: http://www.mittromney.com/news/press/2012/07/amb-eric-edelman-governor-romney-set-out-vision-determination-and-clarity-purpose and http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/04/27/romneys-foreign-policy-players-draw-from-elder-bushs-bench - See also Eric Edelman (" He is also an advisor for the 2012 Mitt Romney presidential campaign.[2]" Cwobeel (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Mass deletions

I just reverted this mass deletion. There had been another one shortly before. What's going on here? StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

In a fairly bizarre turn of events, Naaple edit-warred to remove as much material as possible.[19] StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Any explanations why the deletions? I would like to know the reasons. Cwobeel (talk) 02:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

As would I. I noticed the deletion and restored with "Reverted unexplained removal". The unhelpful behavior by Naapple was to revert me with "Undid revision 508054667 by StillStanding-247 (talk) Reverted unexplained reversal". This is not even a plausible reason. And, to be frank, since this is a WP:BLP and I've only reverted once, I would be more than justified to revert again. Instead, I'm giving Naapple and Thomas Paine1776 some opportunity to explain themselves. Keep in mind that failing to explain such large changes is, in itself, reason enough for us to reject them. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

A sub-article was created for the topic. It is giving undue weight to petty issues. Consider contributing to the sub article and the discussion there.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The sub-article looks like it's going to be deleted, and the stub that you created here is both too small and not neutral. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed the you didn't build that material. Was the sub article about that deleted or kept? --Mollskman (talk) 23:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The existence of a sub-article is not an excuse to remove all mention of a topic. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Who said it was?--Mollskman (talk) 00:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a stated reason for removing this section? StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

If you don't offer an actual reason, then your removal of material is little different than vandalism. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me motivate you another way: If you won't explain why you did it, it's going to get reverted. Perhaps I'll do it, perhaps someone else will, but unexplained changes don't survive. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations, StillStanding. You've started an edit war with your inability to compromise, and your constant attacks on the person than the content. Naapple (Talk) 07:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

What content? Mollskman has so far resisted all attempts to get some explanation out of him for why he deleted an entire section. If anyone is edit-warring, it's him, as he violated BRD. In short, your comment is false and uncivil. You might want to study up on the relevant policies before you inadvertently say more false things. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe I included my explaination in the edit summary the first time this material was removed. Not sure how notable this material is and suggested it might, big might, be more appropriate for the Obama election article, but even that I am not sure of. --Mollskman (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Removing an entire section with a comment on the edit summary, is not the way to go about it. This section reflects key developments during this campaign and ought to be described here in some detail. Cwobeel (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Really? Key development? Again, maybe add to the Obama article, but that would be up to editors discretion there, and how notable this material really is. --Mollskman (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Cwobeel is correct. This isn't about Obama. In fact, it's specifically not about Obama. This is about the Romney campaign taking something Obama said entirely out of context in a misleading way and running with that. This part of the story is about Romney. Whatever part of it that's about Obama can go in Obama's article.

Mollskman, I don't see anything in your explanation that justifies deleting the entire section. Even if you thought there was too much -- which is a reach -- that would only justify shrinking the section but leaving a link to the article that covers it in depth. But that article is on the chopping block, so that's one more reason shrinking doesn't make sense, and deleting makes even less. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Someone restored it, someone else deleted it. I added it back. Let's stop this already. As far as I can tell, this section is entirely in compliance with Wikipedia policy and is relevant to this article. If you disagree, perhaps you should contact WP:BLPN or some other forum. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The material is clearly being contested. The section should remain in it's original state until we've found a compromise. Naapple (Talk) 06:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Which original state? StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The state before the contentious material was added, obviously. Naapple (Talk) 07:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no contentious material here. Rather, there are a couple of people edit-warring to keep the material out despite the fact that it's required by Wikipedia policy. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You've just demonstrated the concept of an opinion. The material is being contested, whether or not you believe it should be included. This is nothing new. There's probably 10 billion debates of a similar nature here on wikipedia. Naapple (Talk) 07:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Imagine we had an RfC and an admin [[WP:CLOSE]d it. Would they keep any of your votes? StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

StillStanding-247, you continue to edit war. You have already been rightfully blocked for this behavior and yet you still continue to edit war. Let consensus form here and then follow the outcome like everybody else. --Mollskman (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

So it looks like we have You didn't build that left as a sub article?--Mollskman (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delete. I didn't notice till you mentioned it, I think it got lost in the edit conflict. Naapple (Talk) 18:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem. --Mollskman (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Tax returns

Plotting Adjusted Gross Income vs. Effective Tax Rate for released tax returns from all U.S. Presidents since Ronald Reagan plus Mitt Romney. Romney's returns are at the far upper left hand corner

Now that the sub article has been deleted, all of the previous information has been moved here creating a substantial section that is clearly undue weight. The issue now is about 1/4 of the entire article, most of which is complaining about Romney not doing something he has no legal obligation to do and which is little more than a continued political attack from the DNC and Obama. We should discuss how much to keep and how much should be dumped. Arzel (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Certainly no subsections are needed. Material that is already elsewhere at Wikipedis does not be repeated here, as long as we summarize briefly and wikilink.69.174.113.12 (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Somebody keeps deleting this graph, claiming it is WP:Undue. WP:Undue is about presenting both (or multiple) sides of an issue. This graph presents straight facts in a neutral way. POV, and thus Undue, don't seem to have any relevance at all here. Nevertheless, if you think that there is another POV to present regarding the facts portrayed in the graph - please present those (with a reliable source of course). You can't get to a neutral presentation of both sides by deleting something and leaving nothing and then saying - "equal presentation for both sides". That approach is nonsense of course. Smallbones (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

That is a POV pushing graph design purely to present Romney as a rich person manipulating the tax system. The author of the graph even states that it is not really fair to compare Romney (who is not president) to other presidents for these purposes. Not to mention that this section in general is vastly over-represented. Arzel (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The graph IS undue and it needs to go. It adds nothing of value to the article and it comes from a partisan source. Belchfire-TALK 05:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE Isn't about balancing POV, it's about how relevant the topic is to the entire page, irregardless of whether it's "good" or "bad". Thus, the tax section needs shrunk. Naapple (Talk) 07:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not what it's about at all. It's about prominence of viewpoints, ensuring that we do not give equal weight to unequally prominent views. So, for example, we don't give geocentrism anywhere near as much weight as heliocentrism. Please review the policy to refresh your memory. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and NPOV, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Refreshed? Fat&Happy (talk) 07:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

StillStanding, you continue to attack the individual in your replies rather than make your point using wikipedia guidelines. If you have some fact from WP:UNDUE, then quote it, like this one:

WP:UNDUE: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and NPOV, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."

The tax return section is way out of proportion in relation to the main article as a whole. It needs a haircut. Naapple (Talk) 07:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Sheesh, Fat&Happy, you beat me to it, lol. Naapple (Talk) 07:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, comment did not in any way attack an individual. I have no idea why you would claim that, and I'm mildly offended.

In any case, "weight appropriate to its significance to the subject" is precisely what supports the current size of the tax return section. This is a big deal, as shown by the emphasis placed upon it by our secondary sources.

There's a historical issue, as well. If you suggest it's too much detail for this article, you're really suggesting that we fork it out and keep a summary. If I remember correctly, such a fork existed and was killed, which is what led to this influx of detail. How do you propose avoiding a repetition of history? StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments like "Please review the policy to refresh your memory" don't offer any substance to your argument and only incite discord, particularly when you're wrong on a pretty major policy point now made by 2 editors, . As for avoiding a repetition of history: WP:EVERYTHING comes to mind. The subject wasn't important enough to warrant its own page (an opinion that you shared), and it's too long to go here, so quite simply a lot of information needs to be removed. As now pointed out twice, just because "a subject may be verifiable and NPOV" doesn't warrant it's inclusion. There's a lot of fluff and over-explanation on this topic as to the article as a whole. Naapple (Talk) 08:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree; it was a civil remark, and excellent advice. People all too refer to a page as shorthand without considering whether it really supports their claims.

Case in point, WP:EVERYTHING is not only an essay as opposed to a policy, but it doesn't apply because the tax return material isn't merely true, it's important. That's what our secondary sources say, and that's what we must accept.

The fork was deleted because of concerns about being a POV fork, not due to importance, as you suggest. In fact, that's specifically why I supported its deletion; I believe the material has a place here, and that the fork was just an excuse to hide most of it away. I expected and wanted the current state of the article.

Now that it's here, the reaction is to try to delete most of it, which supports my concern about efforts to downplay the significance of this topic. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It is important. It's just not 1/4 the entire page important. It wasn't important enough for its own article, so why would it be in its exact same form here? The result of that debate was delete, not merge. This section should be restored to its original form and material added on, not copied over and material removed. Naapple (Talk) 10:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to correct you again, but let me remind you that the reason it's not a separate article is due to concerns about POV forking, not a lack of importance. If you want to argue that it's unimportant, you'll need some basis for doing so. Good luck with that. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Very good point. We can work from the original starting point and add additional information in based on importance. Arzel (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

We did that, which is how we got the current size. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

People have worked hard to find, document and source the material there. All of which is notable, relevant and useful. rather that delete and then add, we ought to decide what to delete if any. Cwobeel (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I strongly agree that the deletion was harmful and unjustified. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

See WP:PRESERVE Cwobeel (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleted article

The page was deleted, not merged. In the interest of WP:PRESERVE here's the original, have at it:

Preserved source

See also: Release of tax returns by presidential candidates Plotting Adjusted Gross Income vs. Effective Tax Rate for released tax returns from all U.S. Presidents since Ronald Reagan plus Mitt Romney. Romney's returns are at the far upper left hand corner Due to pressure from political rivals during the Republican primary campaign, Romney released most of his 2010 tax return in early January 2012, along with a partial 2011 return which he promised to release in its entirety when completed. During the presidential campaign, he declined to disclose additional returns citing the matter as a distraction from more important issues, despite calls to do so by Democrats and several notable Republicans. Republicans who have urged Romney to release his tax returns include former Mississippi governor Haley Barbour, Michael Steele, and Bill Kristol. George Will said "The cost of not releasing the returns are clear. Therefore, he must have calculated that there are higher costs in releasing them." Republican strategist Matthew Dowd said, "There's obviously something there, because if there was nothing there, he would say, ‘Have at it.' So there's obviously something there that compromises what he said in the past about something." Though nothing can be known for sure without the release of the tax returns, several large news organizations have speculated on the reason for Romney's reluctance to release the returns. Business Week focused on the possibility that Romney paid no income taxes in 2009. Tax lawyers Edward D. Kleinbard and Peter C. Canellos, commenting on CNN, focused on Romney's Swiss bank account, his $100 million IRA, which could have been funded by a maximum of $30,000 annually, and what they consider to be an unjustified tax-loophole for hedge fund managers. The New Yorker listed four possibilities: 1. Extremely high levels of income; 2. More offshore accounts; 3. Politically explosive investments; and 4. A very, very low tax rate. The Romney campaign has stated that Democrats will keep on asking for more of Romney's returns no matter how many he releases. When Jim Messina, Obama campaign manager stated that they would only seek five years returns, Romney rejected the offer. In an TV interview, Romney told ABC's David Muir that he didn't know offhand if he'd ever paid a rate lower than the 13.9% he paid in 2010, suggested that he would look into it, and reiterated that he paid all the taxes required by law. The Obama campaign has suggested that in some years Romney may not have paid any taxes, but on August 16, 2012 Romney said that he has paid at least 13 percent annually on his federal income tax returns for the last ten years. The average American family with income between $50,000 and $75,000 a year pays 12.8 percent annually. Romney's income was about $21 million in 2010. In 1982 Romney invested in a tax shelter called the Gem Plan, which involved purchasing 5 new homes in Houston suburbs. The housing market, however, soon collapsed and it proved difficult to sell the houses. In 2010 Romney continued to receive interest income from a mortgage he offered to the residents of one of the houses who was unable to quality for a loan. In an interview in the Huffington Post, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat, Nevada, said that he had received information from an unidentified investor in Bain Capital that Romney didn't pay any taxes for 10 years. The accusation was repeated on the Senate floor by Reid on August 2, 2012. On the following Sunday's political morning talk shows, the allegation was characterized by Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican, South Carolina, as unfounded and made up. Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee characterized Reid as a "dirty liar." According to CBS News, Romney stated, "Let me also say, categorically, I have paid taxes every year -- and a lot of taxes. So Harry is simply wrong." PolitiFact.com's Truth-O-Meter rated the accusation as "Pants on Fire!" CBS also reported that Romney had submitted 23 years of tax returns to the John McCain campaign in 2008, when he was being vetted for the vice presidential nomination. Although McCain did not review all the tax returns himself, he stated "Nothing in these tax returns showed that he did not pay taxes." Paul Ryan, Romney's presumptive vice presidential running mate, released two years of tax returns, after having several years examined by the Romney campaign. He paid 15.9% of his income in federal taxes in 2010 and 20% in 2011, more than Romney. Romney's fortune Romney's fortune is in a blind trust, run by his long-time personal and business lawyer R. Bradford Malt, and has included investments which do not match his political philosophy. Romney has previously stated that blind trusts are "an old ruse." Democratic Governor Martin O'Malley of Maryland accuses Romney of tax avoidance, as distinguished from illegal tax evasion. Background In 1968, Mitt's father George W. Romney, set a precedent for presidential candidates to release their income tax returns. George Romney released 12 years of his returns, most other presidential candidates have release slightly fewer years. These releases are not required by law. Statements made by some Democrats that “(Mitt) Romney is the first major party candidate for president of the United States in modern times not to release at least 12 years of tax returns,” have been rated false by Politifact. The claim that a precedent exists to release at least 12 years of returns is also at odds with an analysis by FactCheck.org. PolitiFact states that several major presidential candidates have released fewer than 12 tax returns: In 2008, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton released seven, and John McCain released only two. In 2000, George W. Bush released nine and Al Gore released eight. In 1988, Michael Dukakis released six. In 1980, Ronald Reagan released only one. Starting in 1977, all sitting presidents and vice-presidents have released their current tax returns, and challengers to incumbents have generally matched the incumbent in the number of returns publicly released. During Mitt Romney's previous campaigns for public office, an unsuccessful bid to become a senator from Massachusetts, a successful run for the governorship in 2002, and a presidential campaign in 2008, he has released required financial disclosures about his assets, but not income tax returns. At the beginning of his 2012 presidential campaign Romney stated, “I don’t intend to release the tax returns. I don’t.” But he released his 2010 return and 2011 estimated return on January 24, 2012 following challenges by Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry. During the Republican primary debate in South Carolina Newt Gingrich stated, prior to Romney's release of any tax returns at all: “Look, he’s got to decide and the people of South Carolina have to decide. But if there’s anything in there that is going to help us lose the election, we should know it before the nomination. And if there’s nothing in there — if there’s nothing in there, why not release it?” During the same debate Romney pledged "I'll release multiple years. I don't know how many years. And -- but I'll be happy to do that." Gingrich believes that 2 years of tax returns are enough. The earliest return that Gingrich himself released was his 2010 return. During the presidential campaign, Romney declined to disclose additional returns citing the matter as a distraction from more important issues, despite calls to do so by Democrats and several notable Republicans. He states “I’m simply not enthusiastic about giving them hundreds or thousands of more pages to pick through, distort and lie about.” Romney stated on ABC television that he has been audited by the IRS, though he did not specify when the audit took place. His campaign did specify that "the audit did not result in a fine or penalty. Mitt Romney has fully complied with U.S. law and he has paid 100 percent of what he has owed," and that the audit did not take place in the last ten years. Media speculation Though nothing can be known for sure without the release of Romney's tax returns, several large news organizations have speculated on the reasons for Romney's reluctance to release them. Business Week speculated on the possibility that Romney paid no income taxes in 2009. Tax lawyers Edward D. Kleinbard and Peter C. Canellos, commenting on CNN, focused on Romney's Swiss bank account, his $100 million IRA, which could have been funded by a maximum of $30,000 annually, and what they consider to be an unjustified tax-loophole for hedge fund managers. Tax law professor Michael Graetz commenting in the New York Times concentrated on the IRA, gift taxes to family trusts, and the use of tax havens such as the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. The New Yorker listed four possibilities: 1. Extremely high levels of income; 2. More offshore accounts; 3. Politically explosive investments; and 4. A very, very low tax rate. The Obama campaign has suggested that in some years Romney may not have paid any taxes, but on August 16, 2012 Romney said that he has paid at least 13 percent annually on his federal income tax returns for the last ten years. The average American family with income between $50,000 and $75,000 a year pays 12.8 percent annually. Romney's income was about $21 million in 2010. In 1982 Romney invested in a tax shelter called the Gem Plan, which involved purchasing 5 new homes in Houston suburbs. The housing market, however, soon collapsed and it proved difficult to sell the houses. In 2010 Romney continued to receive interest income from a mortgage he offered to the residents of one of the houses who was unable to quality for a loan. Reactions Republicans who have urged Romney to release his tax returns include former Mississippi governor Haley Barbour, Michael Steele, and Bill Kristol. George Will said "The cost of not releasing the returns are clear. Therefore, he must have calculated that there are higher costs in releasing them." Republican strategist Matthew Dowd said, "There's obviously something there, because if there was nothing there, he would say, ‘Have at it.' So there's obviously something there that compromises what he said in the past about something." Donald Trump suggested that Romney release additional returns after Obama releases his college transcripts. The Romney campaign has stated that Democrats will keep on asking for more of Romney's returns no matter how many he releases. When Jim Messina, Obama campaign manager stated that they would only seek five years returns, Romney rejected the offer. In an TV interview, Romney told ABC's David Muir that he didn't know offhand if he'd ever paid a rate lower than the 13.9% he paid in 2010, suggested that he would look into it, and reiterated that he paid all the taxes required by law. In an interview in the Huffington Post, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat, Nevada, said that he had received information from an unidentified investor in Bain Capital that Romney didn't pay any taxes for 10 years. The accusation was repeated on the Senate floor by Reid on August 2, 2012. On the following Sunday's political morning talk shows, the allegation was characterized by Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican, South Carolina, as unfounded and made up. Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee characterized Reid as a "dirty liar." According to CBS News, Romney stated, "Let me also say, categorically, I have paid taxes every year -- and a lot of taxes. So Harry is simply wrong." PolitiFact.com's Truth-O-Meter rated the accusation as "Pants on Fire!" CBS also reported that Romney had submitted 23 years of tax returns to the John McCain campaign in 2008, when he was being vetted for the vice presidential nomination. Although McCain did not review all the tax returns himself, he stated "Nothing in these tax returns showed that he did not pay taxes." Paul Ryan, Romney's presumptive vice presidential running mate, released two years of tax returns, after having several years examined by the Romney campaign. He paid 15.9% of his income in federal taxes in 2010 and 20% in 2011, more than Romney. Public opinion Polls have shown most Americans favor Mitt Romney releasing his tax returns. According to a USA Today/Gallup poll, 54 percent of Americans favored Romney releasing more than two years of tax returns. In the same poll 47 percent of Americans said that what might be in the returns was "largely irrelevant to voters." In a Public Policy Polling poll, it was found that 61 percent of Americans said Romney should release more returns. As well, 56 percent of voters wanted Romney to release information regarding bank accounts in Switzerland and Bermuda.

Naapple (Talk) 16:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Tax Returns (continued)

Ok, but how does that justify deleting so much cited, relevant material from the article? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Naapple, Cwobeel you are both edit warring; you aren't entitled to edit war even if you think you are right. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't delete anything. The article was deleted by an administrator, not merged. It's included here so that pieces of it can be added back in accordance with WP:UNDUE Naapple (Talk) 16:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

You are edit warring as seen by your continual reverts here: [20]. Whether you are right or not is besides the point; it doesn't mean you can edit war. You are one revert away from 3RR. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right, this is an edit war. I'm stepping out for a bit. Naapple (Talk) 16:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, WP:3RR doesn't apply to reverting WP:vandalism, such as deleting massive amounts of information from the Wikipedia. See WP:Preserve. I originally tried to prevent WP:UNDUE issues here by WP:Cforking this section to a new article, but that solution was rejected by the community. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

If an editor believes that the article is improved by the removal of information, then the edit cannot in good faith be classified as vandalism. You've been around the wiki-block long enough to know better than to throw around the V-word carelessly. So, knock it off. Tarc (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Is that a joke? -- Kendrick7^talk 02:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The joke is that both political sides think they are playing the other side; so what should we do? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

What we do is move on. This isn't the place to contest the article that was deleted (not merged) by an administrator. If you have a problem with that action, contest it in the appropriate place. As for what to do here: In less than 3 days the page becomes unlocked. I suggest putting together the material here in talk that needs to be included. No one is trying to keep the 2 small paragraphs that are there now as the only information on the topic, and the original article is preserved here. By all means, start yanking sentences and proposing a draft that can be added. Naapple (Talk) 06:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Concerns with the tax graph

I'm assuming the data in the graph is accurate; however there is a major problem with the graph itself. The graph is using a interval scale for visual presentation. This is a common smoke and mirrors technique designed to influence the viewer to believe objects are larger (or smaller) than they appear. In the graph on this talk page, you will notice that the Y scale goes from 0-25% X axis scale goes from 10%-45%. The data point differences between Romney and Obama are approximately 20%, but the visual impression from the scale indicates the difference are about 400%. This sort of chicanery is not what Wikipedia is about.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the Y axis goes from about (-3 million to 25 million), but a bigger problem is and the X axis goes from (10% to 45%) which is really a misleading presentation, but common when you really want to have a biased presentation. Arzel (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, the major scale is 10 on the X and 5 on the Y further biasing the presentation. Arzel (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The X and Y are in different units, so they don't necessarily need to be on the same scale. As I understand it, your complaint is that the graph only shows the portion with data: none of the points are less than 10%, so that would be wasted space.

On the whole, your objections appear to be original research and not of particularly high quality. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

When you get some of your stuff published in academic journals you can judge my background of presenting numerical data. As it is you don't know what you are talking about and this is probably why you don't understand why it is a problem. Arzel (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

What if I told you I had three PhD's in Graphology? Would you believe me? Would you be the least bit impressed? I think not. Now apply it to your own claim of expertise and you'll see why I'm likewise unimpressed. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Read up on this Still PhD, I think you may have missed a few classes. Arzel (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

That graph is POV generated. Nothing in economics reads that clear. I don't think it can be fixed, even if scales are corrected, because I am sure it hides more biases in other places as well. To belong in Wikipedia this graph will have to be the subject of further media discussion that allows us to put it in critical context. →Yaniv256 ^wind _roads 16:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The axes choices are not really a major issue in this particular case, as Romney is almost off the chart any way you slice it (and if they the axes choices are a major issue, an axis break symbol could be introduced to indicate that the full axis is not displayed). The more relevant challenge is that there is no context for the graph in the accompanying text. What is the point that the contributor intends to make? Further, if the intent is to show that Romney had by far the greatest income yet paid the lowest tax rate, it is probably worth considering, to be fair, a mention of how tax laws changed over the time period being displayed. In other words, compare apples to apples: If Romney had had the same inflation-adjusted income during Reagan's term as Romney had in 2010, what would his effective tax rate have been under the tax laws in place at that time; or, put another way, if Reagan had had the same inflation-adjusted income in 2010 as he had during his term in office, what would his tax rate have been under the tax laws that were operating in 2010? I haven't looked closely at the source, but I assume that the graph doesn't show that information. If the data are not displayed with that kind of adjustment, there should at least be a mention of that issue in the accompanying text or in a note for the graph. Dezastru (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment I wrote an essay describing this problem in a less polemic subject. WP:TOSCALE  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The folks who don't like the graph are really missing the boat with their criticism. The x and y scales have different scales? Different units of course have to have different scales. Comparing 10% and $10 makes no sense at all. The origin is not included in the graph? I think you'll find that about 80% of graphs in social science journals do not include the origin (except for those where the data is normalized and thus forced to have a mean of 0). Including 0 on an axis rarely makes sense if 0 is not in the usual range of the variable; e.g. plotting height vs weight on a scatterplot. If you do that for elephants you simply won't be able to see anything about the elephant's weight.

The data ere plotted by a PhD from UC-Berkeley who specializes in politics and finances, so putting your POV in front of his expertise is just OR. In any case, try plotting the data yourself - it's at https://data.sunlightlabs.com/dataset/Tax-Returns/drvd-9teu and I'm sure you'll see that any reasonable graphing of the data looks about the same. If not, please show us what your graph looks like. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Just goes to show you that having a PhD does not limit your ability to be extrememly biased in the presentation of your work. Since "0" is in the normal range of percentage of Taxes paid it certainly makes sense to have the origin in this case. It is quite clear that the intention of this graph was to present the information in the most extreme way possible, thus in violation of NPOV. Arzel (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

""0" is in the normal range of percentage of Taxes paid" - you must live in a different neighborhood than I do! You are just trying to impose your own biases here, rather than going with the reliable source. But let me issue a straightforward request. Will you graph the data in a way that you think properly represents the data? data Otherwise, I think it will be clear that you just don't like the data. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

~50% of the US population pay <0% in federal taxes. Arzel (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I happen to know a bit about the visual display of quantitative data, and there's nothing wrong with the graph. I'd make some minor design choices differently but that's just quibbling. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You don't appear to know much at all about the visual display of quantitative data. I have already linked above the MOS guidelines for graphical data. Arzel (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Data mining

There is an interesting article from AP: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jWB34vK51YnQhuI_AO0AyVeS-ZPw?docId=4a60c0d7700d4c95a2ea22568a731007 Cwobeel (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Well I guess we know what the Democratic Talking point is going to be this weekend, anything to shift the discussion away from the economy. Arzel (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you cut these type of comments? How that is helpful? if you want to engage in campaigning, go and volunteer somewhere and allow others to build an encyclopedia. Cwobeel (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Another question: Do you believe that the Associated Press is associated with the Democratic party? Cwobeel (talk) 23:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Dunno about AP, but Jack Gillum is. 2 questions: would this single citation be used to expand this page as a newspaper?, and second: what does this have to do with the economy? Naapple (Talk) 10:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this article isn't entitled "Mitt and the economy", so your question doesn't really apply. What Cwobeel found does seem relevant to Mitt's campaign, though, as it's specifically about the methods he uses to identify potential contributors. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 11:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

That was fascinating reading Cwobeel, thank you. Unfortunately for a topic which has such an enormous amount of coverage the bar for WP:UNDUE is extremely high. And this item does not meet that standard.– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 05:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Why the urge to push the "secret data mining" angle, Cwobeel? Why not go with a different story written by the very same D-tribe operative? [21] "Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who is out-fundraising President Barack Obama by impressive margins, is attracting thousands of donors this summer from traditionally Democratic areas of the United States... " Or is that one just not as interesting for some reason? Belchfire-TALK 05:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That is interesting too, and I will not object for adding a sentence about the fundraising prowess as well. I am stil;l not buying the undue weight argument. Either is relevant to a campaign, or it's not. Cwobeel (talk) 09:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If the argument against inclusion is that it hasn't been picked up by enough news outlets, well the Washington Post, The Boston Herald and a bunch of others have covered this. Look on the google.Jasonnewyork (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You didn't build that

Stop deleting that section!! It's summary style like Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign,_2012#.22You_didn.27t_build_that.22. CallawayRox (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The case has been made. The "You didn't build it" attack was a core component of Romney's campaign. Thus, it belongs in this article. I'd suggest an administrator look at the history and provide some guidance on this. It seems patently straight forward, and no logic has been provided as to why Napple continues to delete it.Jasonnewyork (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, it appears that someone downgraded my access. Suddenly, I'm unable to edit any semi-protected pages. Really? Is this some sort o retribution or is it a mistake?Jasonnewyork (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I see I can still edit semi-protected pages. Sorry.Jasonnewyork (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Between the talk page and the edit history, a neutral admin should be able to see a strong consensus for keeping this section. Given that the subject has an article of its own, it's inexplicable for us not to at least link to and summarize it, as we did before the edit war. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is several editors have reverted the obvious POV article and asked to discuss it in talk if you want to keep it. Where is the discussion? Even now you're only arguing that it stop being removed, not its relevancy or subject matter. Naapple (Talk) 06:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

What "obvious POV article" are you talking about? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Look at the title of this section. Naapple (Talk) 06:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I did, and that's why your comment made no sense to me. The "You didn't build that" thing is a huge part of Romney's campaign. Any attempt to remove it (perhaps because it's clearly based on a lie) is an NPOV violation. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is the substance of the material. You clearly are thinking in only one direction on this with comments like "perhaps because it's clearly based on a lie". That skewed article was deleted because of the POV you show. No one wants to sort through crap. It needs consensus on its inclusion, something you still aren't doing. At least attempt to be NPOV so that it can go through the normal editing process.

The very fact you're trying to shove it under "media issues" is exactly the problem. It is certainly a part of his campaign. They're selling T-shirts with it, and you're trying to sell it as a gaff. Incredibly shameful attempt at a POV spin. Naapple (Talk) 06:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

And nowhere in this can I find a credible argument for removing the section. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

And that's why it continues to be deleted, rather than a compromise found. Your all or nothing approach is getting nothing accomplished. I just named several fixable issues that could warrant the topic's inclusion, but you've completely disregarded them. Don' expect anything to change. Naapple (Talk) 07:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Since you can't or won't explain yourself, your preference cannot be taken into account. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding your rationale for removal as well, Napple. Is it the heading that concerns you? If the section header "Media Issues" sounds biased to you, perhaps you could suggest an alternative. How about "Campaign Media Strategy"? If it is the content itself, you're going to have to suggest an alternative or point to specific passages that concern you. Simply saying "the article is skewed" doesn't move the conversation forward.Jasonnewyork (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I think "Campaign Strategy" sounds like a good section to add under "General Election Campaign". Since we can't edit the page for another 2 days, why not copy a draft here so when time's up we can include something that already has a consensus? Naapple (Talk) 17:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, we've already provided a provisional draft (the one you keep deleting). I think the responsibility of providing an alternative draft lies with you.Jasonnewyork (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The "draft" was an overly slanted opinion piece that was meant to be put under media issues as a Romney campaign gaff rather than a legitimate campaign element. That's why it was continually deleted by several editors. I'm not trying to add it, you are. If you wanna include something about this topic, then show us. As a starting point, why not grab the version from Obama's page, specifically the Romney campaign's reply part and we can go from there. It's already had its trial through fire.

Instead of whining and moaning about how things are unfair, include a draft so that we start the editing process. No one is trying to prevent a reasonable inclusion of the material.

Oh, and in case I haven't said it already, include a draft. I'm no longer humoring this he/she-did-this/that conversation, I want to get something done. My next reply will be on the content of the material to be included or nothing at all.

Did I mention to include a draft? Naapple (Talk) 19:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Where do you think it came from? [22] The Obama editors were at least willing to discuss things. This is transparent POV whitewashing and WP:OWN. CallawayRox (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

First off, I didn't revert that and I really don't appreciate the false accusations or being the poster child for the lib editors' rage against the conservatives because I'm active here in talk. It looks like a carbon copy of the piece from the Obama page. It's not the skewed crap [[23]] that Still's been putting up in the 5 days since then. Second, It was in the wrong place and probably should've been moved. 3rd, it's very much tailored to the Obama page, as it should having come from there. It needs tailored specifically with the Romney campaign response. Now it probably should've just been moved and edited as it's a good starting point (which is why I included it below), and not deleted, but we're past that now. In any case, it should've been brought to the talk page 5 days ago instead of the ongoing edit war (not pointing fingers at either side on that). Again, we're past that now and it's being discussed, is it kewl if we move on? Naapple (Talk) 20:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I put forth a suggested draft. It's really very similar to what appears on Obama's page. Please make edits in this talk page so that we can address your concerns. Thanks.Jasonnewyork (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the formatting that's going on with this page right now, but if there's a problem editing the paragraph I put in here, please let me know. I can see it out of the editing page but not in the editing page.Jasonnewyork (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, the title had a double == like all the topics here Naapple (Talk) 14:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's a starting point for inclusion of this topic. I suggest it be placed under a subtitle of "General Election Campaign" Naapple (Talk) 19:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You didn't build that (copy from Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign,_2012#.22You_didn.27t_build_that.22)

"You didn't build that" Main article: You didn't build that On July 13, 2012 Obama gave a speech in Roanoke, Virginia that contained the phrase "you didn't build that." Republicans claimed that the statement was indicative of Obama's support for big government. Presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney focused on the remark in a new attack ad. The Obama campaign called the attack ads "out-of-context" and "flat out wrong". The statement from which the phrase originated was: If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. Independent fact-checkers have been critical of Republicans and the Romney campaign for misrepresenting the quote. FactCheck.org wrote that Republicans had taken the phrase "you didn't build that" out of context, ignoring Obama's emphasis on individual initiative as well as publicly funded infrastructure in building a successful business. Politifact was harsher, saying that "the Romney campaign has repeatedly distorted Obama's words... Romney twists the president's remarks and ignores their real meaning." Politifact rated the Republican attacks false, writing that by quoting Obama out of context, "Romney and his supporters have misled viewers and given a false impression."

Here's a starting point. Please make changes to this version so we can see what elements are troubling to you:

On July 13, 2012 Obama gave a speech in Roanoke, Virginia that contained the phrase "you didn't build that." The sentence immediately preceding the "you didn't build it" line referred to roads and bridges and the speech concluded with Obama applauding the hard work of individuals in the creation of their own businesses, but Romney and fellow Republicans claimed that the statement was indicative of Obama's support for big government. The Romney campaign focused on the remark in an attack ad. The Obama campaign called the attack ads "out-of-context" and "flat out wrong". Independent fact-checkers have been critical of Republicans and the Romney campaign for misrepresenting the quote. Jasonnewyork (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to sign that.Jasonnewyork (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's a crude draft, cut and pasted together from the main article.

Main article: You didn't build that On July 13, 2012 Obama gave a speech in Roanoke, Virginia that contained the phrase "you didn't build that." Republicans claimed that the statement was indicative of Obama's support for big government, while the Obama campaign said that the phrase referred to government infrastructure such as roads, bridges and community collaboration, pointing to the way the speech was concluded: "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together." The following Monday, the 16th of July, Mitt Romney spoke about the "you didn't build that" statement in a campaign stump speech in Pennsylvania, saying: To say that Steve Jobs didn’t build Apple, that Henry Ford didn’t build Ford Motors, that Papa John didn’t build Papa John Pizza ... To say something like that, it’s not just foolishness. It’s insulting to every entrepreneur, every innovator in America. The Obama campaign, independent fact checkers; Factcheck.org and Politifact disagreed with that characterization noting that the sentence immediately preceding the "you didn't build it" line referred to roads and bridges and the speech concluded with Obama applauding the hard work of individuals in the creation of their own businesses. Politifact rated Romney's attack as false. In its analysis, Factcheck.org said: "There’s no question Obama inartfully phrased those two sentences, but it’s clear from the context what the president was talking about. He spoke of government — including government-funded education, infrastructure and research — assisting businesses to make what he called “this unbelievable American system that we have.” In summary, he said: “The point is … that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.” Factcheck.org concluded their analysis by stating "This is not to say that Republicans are always distorting the president’s words," and included a speech Romney made where he elaborated on his point that Obama was referring to big government. You really couldn’t have a business if you didn’t have those things. But, you know, we pay for those things. Alright? The taxpayers pay for government. It’s not like government just provides those to all of us and we say, “Oh, thank you government for doing those things.” No, in fact, we pay for them and we benefit from them and we appreciate the work that they do and the sacrifices that are done by people who work in government. But they did not build this business. The Romney campaign followed with events with small business owners in multiple states (Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Virginia, Ohio, Iowa, Missouri, North Carolina, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Nevada), along with an attack ad. A new part of the Romney campaign website was created and merchandise related to the statement was produced.

Naapple (Talk) 15:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I added in one line that provides the Obama campaign perspective and the comments from factcheck.org, which provide thoughtful and well-rounded analysis of the comment, and I'll need to add more references, but I think this direction is fine, as long as it doesn't become a space for Romney's talking points without the other side of the debate. Does anyone else have anything to add or other comments?Jasonnewyork (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I added a tad more. I was gonna include a couple commentator's opinions, but I'm trying to keep it to the Romney campaign's reaction, and less about the "you didn't build that" topic. Naapple (Talk) 20:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I chucked in it. There seems to be some level of cooperation now, and I'm confident future edits can be done tactfully in the article. Naapple (Talk) 20:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

You're starting to veer into POV pushing here, especially with the line "Factcheck concluded by applauding Romney..." That's not what they're saying. They say, "that's not to say that Republicans don't ALWAYS take it completely out of context." - that's very different from applauding him. I'd be OK putting in their quote "This is not to say that Republicans are always distorting the president’s words." But to lift it the way you're doing is kinda what you were accusing everyone else of doing.Jasonnewyork (talk) 04:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I made some tweaks. See how that strikes you. I wish someone else would chime in.Jasonnewyork (talk) 05:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to keep the article to Romney's response and less about the "you didn't build that" comment. There's tons of commentary for and against (like in the main page), but it isn't relevant here. There's a tad on Obama's response and the 2 fact check sites anyway, but the factcheck.org article did conclude that Romney himself was taking a correct-ish approach to the issue in his speech. Since you bothered to grab a quote from it, it seemed appropriate to also grab one that specifically mentions Romney's response.

It's important we differentiate between generic Republican responses (super PACs, etc), and the official Mitt Romney campaign. Really, so far as who was "right" or "wrong" isn't as important as his response, given that this section is devoted entirely to his campaign and not the speech itself. Naapple (Talk) 11:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The article should really be "here's what was said," "here's the democratic interpretation" and "here's the republican interpretation." That's it. I think it's heading in the right direction.Jasonnewyork (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the recent edits: The opening paragraph is a balanced 2 part statement: "the republicans said, obama said". It is equal length:

Republicans claimed that the statement was indicative of Obama's support for big government, while the Obama campaign says the statement was taken out of context.

Not to mention that with your edit, that sentence is basically repeated 3 times throughout the article:

[Obama] said that the phrase referred to government infrastructure such as roads, bridges and community collaboration, pointing to the way the speech was concluded: "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.

The Obama campaign, independent fact checkers; Factcheck.org and Politifact disagreed with that characterization, noting that the sentence immediately preceding the "you didn't build it" line referred to roads and bridges and the speech concluded with Obama applauding the hard work of individuals in the creation of their own businesses

it’s clear from the context what the president was talking about. He spoke of government — including government-funded education, infrastructure and research .... that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.

Sorry, but the opposition point has been made abundantly clear. This article is supposed to be the Romney campaign's response to the whole ordeal; not to balance who's right and wrong, or who said what, or to balance Republican responses with Democrats. It is too slanted towards this way already. You should consider taking these edits to the main you didn't build that article; as this is only about the Romney campaign's regards to it. Naapple (Talk) 16:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I give up. You're clearly a political operative or someone who is pushing a strong POV. I'm not making any more edits. Go ahead and change it to celebrate the greatness that is Mitt Romney. Add back in your claims that factcheck applauded and commended Romney. Take out the Obama POV to make it seem like Obama is against small businesses. Go all out, dude.Jasonnewyork (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Was there some specific point you're refuting in my post above? Naapple (Talk) 21:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

What is your justification for using a {{see also}} instead of a {{main}}?[24] Are you trying to make the main article look like a WP:POVFORK? CallawayRox (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I've no idea how you're connecting those dots. Given that this section isn't a sub section of the main "you didn't build that" article, "see also" seemed more appropriate. Obama made the statement and so on his page, a "main" tag is more appropriate. However, I'm not attached to it, if it really bothers you then I won't fight it. Seems kinda semantical anyway. Naapple (Talk) 21:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I've made concessions and compromises over and over to see you take advantage of those compromises at every turn. You talk civilly and calmly in talk and on your edit explanations but then you revert or change almost every single edit I make. You're pretty active on this page, spending a great deal of time pushing your POV from various angles and various arguments, while presenting superficially reasonable arguments that on a one-off basis can sound like something I would concede, but ultimately you're seeking to present a one sided version of events. It's exhausting, which I guess is why you're doing it. So, if no one else stands in your way, POV it up, dude. I've stated my arguments in talk and on my edits. Do what you like.Jasonnewyork (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

There are a couple of important things here. First Napple writes "This article is supposed to be the Romney campaign's response to the whole ordeal; not to balance who's right and wrong, or who said what, or to balance Republican responses with Democrats." He's clearly saying that this article is supposed to have a republican POV. That is clearly against Wikipedia's core policy of WP:NPOV. Time for Napple to do some apologizing.

Next: Jasonnewyork writes "You're clearly a political operative or ..." Perhaps the or... is important, but if you phrase it that way, somebody's likely to accuse you of a personal attack, sooner or later. Nevertheless, if you think that somebody has a conflict of interest, there is no rule against a simple direct question, e.g. "Do you have a conflict of interest?" Perhaps Jasonetc is too shy to ask, so I will: "Napple, do you have a conflict of interest?" Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I really want to step quietly out of this debate, but just so it's succinct and in one place, I'll just reiterate my argument for posterity. 1. The "you didn't build that" meme is THE central component of Romney's campaign. It's the central message. Banners were draped across an aircraft carrier when Ryan announced as the VP pick that said "We built it." The most prominent signage at the republican convention were "We did build it." This should be the lead section in the article, yet not only did I have to fight to keep it in, Napple moved it to the very bottom of the page. Furthermore, even though it's a simple phrase, the context is complicated and so the section warrants room to give both sides equal space for contextualization. But Napple has restructured it, again and again, to gloss over the independent/dem POV, shoving those points further and further down in the section, even inserting a quote by Romney invoking the name of Steve Jobs to add merit to the "you didn't build it" meme. It's just become exhausting, and I'm sorry to be huffy, but I'm just not going to be the one to carry on this fight (for my own sanity). Cheers and sorry for a snippy tone.Jasonnewyork (talk) 04:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If there's some point either of you are refuting in my reasoning for various changes, then make it. Otherwise I'm ignoring the rest of this crap. And Smallbones, I've never seen such a blatant, real-world example of a deductive fallacy. Thanks for that. Naapple (Talk) 19:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The point is that you seem to be intentionally throwing WP:NPOV out the window. Please read WP:COI and let us know if you have a conflict of interest. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The great thing about the lack of bureaucracy of wikipedia and the fact that you're just an editor like me is that I don't have to do jack shit you say, lol. Read COI yourself before I start quoting your recent edits. Naapple (Talk) 00:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that was completely uncivil and most likely a personal attack. I'd like you to redact what you just said. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The great thing about what you said? You have no authority to make him do what you want. ViriiK (talk) 03:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I have Wikipedia policy on my side, so I could report him on WPA or ANI. Instead, I'm keeping the diff (with a note about his refusal to redact) as more evidence of bad faith by WikiProject Conservatism and its associates. Thanks, though, for providing me with an example of a project member directly rejecting policy! Every bit helps. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing's stopping you. Go do it already. ViriiK (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Convention bounce

I think we should remove the piece about the convention bounce. The cited Reuters piece is not entirely accurate: instead, data so far has been mixed, as Nate Silver points out. Traditionally, reporters can be either good or bad with numbers, but in this case, the reporter is showing less clue about the statistics than Silver is. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

And the Silver piece says: "This could change as we get more data, but for the time being it looks like Mr. Romney’s bounce will be a bit shy of that 4-point threshold." Which is by any measure a modest post-conv bounce. Likability was a well noted issue even before the convention. Hcobb (talk) 05:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I snipped off the "short lasting" bit as it has been less than a week. Hcobb (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Opinion and fact.

The edit comment for this claimed that it was an opinion. Actually, even if it is just an opinion, that's not a reason to exclude it. In reality, it's both a fact -- he didn't mention the military, others did -- and an opinion as to why that fact is true. All we need to do is attribute the opinion portion. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It's two opinions and one de minimis fact. It's an opinion that Obama successfully handled two wars. It's a further opinion – worthy of Miss Cleo's 1-900 line – that this purported successful handling is the reason Romney didn't mention the military in his acceptance speech. The only fact is that the military was among the probably 2,000,000 other subjects not mentioned in the speech. And even if the opinions were accurate, the opined cause has absolutely nothing to do with Romney himself, his actions, his capabilities, or his campaign positions; the rest of the article is devoted to slamming Bush. It's totally irrelevant to this article. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Right, the part about Obama's successful military record being the reason is the opinion. The rest is fact. As such, the issue here is how to phrase it for proper attribution. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Being an opinion is absolutely a reason to exclude it *IF* it is being stated in Wikipedia's voice. As you can see on your Talk page, I suggested it be rephrased to show that Loren Thompson of Forbes was the one making these sorts of opinions. But even he doesn't give the exact opinion that you did. Stick close to the sources. And just because someone reverts you, it doesn't mean they disagree with the veracity of the material, it may simply mean it is written in a way that doesn't quite fit within Wikipedia. Also, you should try to avoid declaring anything a "FACT". Most facts are not facts. How do you really know Mitt Romney didn't mention the military? When I look at the transcript from NPR (link), I see two quotes that seem to argue with your "fact".

"I will begin my presidency with a jobs tour. President Obama began with an apology tour. America, he said, had dictated to other nations. No Mr. President, America has freed other nations from dictators.

Every American was relieved the day President Obama gave the order, and Seal Team Six took out Osama bin Laden. But on another front, every American is less secure today because he has failed to slow Iran's nuclear threat.

In his first TV interview as president, he said we should talk to Iran. We're still talking, and Iran's centrifuges are still spinning."

"That America, that united America, will preserve a military that is so strong, no nation would ever dare to test it."

Weird... two mentions of the military in a speech where he supposedly never mentioned them.... odd how facts are often not so factual, huh? -- Avanu (talk) 06:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Not weird. Our reliable source turned out not to be very reliable. I concede. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the Forbes guy may be telling the truth (from his perspective). Note exactly what Loren Thompson said: "Last week, Mitt Romney became the first Republican presidential nominee since 1952 to leave America’s warfighters out of his acceptance speech." It is a word that implies military, and you took that as what he meant. But it was a subtle difference. And then when a secondary source quotes *another* secondary source, or misquotes a primary source, it just gets that much more complicated. So, facts are often not really facts at all. -- Avanu (talk) 06:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Even if what he said is -- just barely -- literally true, it's not of much use here. Forget about it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments on Libya attacks

Mitt has been criticized by the WSJ and other notable political figures for his comments on Obama's choice of words regarding the attacks on the Embassies.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81103_Page2.html#comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Americium-con (talk • contribs) 21:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

And.....what are you saying? It is best not to get into developing news events within WP articles. Arzel (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Came here to say this. Romney's statements are very notable and a huge subject of interest. WP's lack of coverage reflects poorly on us. --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

It is also best not to get into developing news events within political campaigns. The fact that the article does not mention the enormous and contnuing furor over Romney's comments reflects poorly on WP. This is the campaign article. It should be mentioned here. I'm sure it will be soon. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but every time we report on the response to his statements, it launches an edit war. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps these events should be documented at some other article that attracts less heated edit warring than a main campaign page? 09:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

No, this is the right article. It's just a war zone. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 10:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

From a news story..... "Some Republicans with experience in national security matters questioned the GOP candidate's handling of the events and top Republican leaders in Congress did not echo Romney's remarks. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said Obama "correctly tightened the security overseas." Asked about Romney's remarks, he declined to answer and walked toward his office in the Capitol." I guess, for now, we are also turning our backs to the story. It is also interesting that Romney's own Press release page makes no mention of the candidates response that raised the firestorm. According to the press release page [25] and our pertinent Wikipedia articles, Romneys response never happened. ```Buster Seven Talk 11:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a current event, can you not wait until the event unfolds? Go add to Obama's article that he doesn't think that Egypt is our ally. Arzel (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Arzel, we report the death of people as soon as it's verified. There's no excuse to wait and wait and wait. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

When someone dies they don't general return back to the living. Even then we don't include their death onto their page until it is absolutely known for certain that they have died. Point being, this incident is not included at all on the Obama presidential election page. If you really care about NPOV like you claim that you do, then you would be all over that page as well. This is a developing news event, and after events today there will probably be a change in the perception. Arzel (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

So you expect the events in the middle east to unhappen? As for the Obama article, feel free to add this new information; I'm not stopping you. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a current event, why would I do something stupid like ad it to the Obama article? Arzel (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure I don't need to repeat myself. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec):@Arzel. Please Note: I AM waiting. I have yet to edit this article. WE are all waiting...there is no mention in the article. And so... the reader that comes here looking for impartial information is also waiting. He hears and sees about Romney's exuberant response all over the media but comes to his favorite internet source and .....zippo! The current event (Romney's response) happened yesterday. If it unfolds any more, the sail won't hold any wind. And. please, a little respect. Don't tell me where to go. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Note: if I were to edit President Obama's article I would include the full quote..."but we don't consider them an enemy." You seem to have left that out.```Buster Seven Talk 20:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I notice that you added in a Daily Kos source. Really, the Daily Kos? You could not find a more partisan source than that? Arzel (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I lifted it from another Wikipedia article and didn't notice the refs were crap.. Changes have been made within moments of the discovery. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, the section has been added per opinions here. I'd suggest all parties work together to construct a high quality section rather than edit-war over the existence of the section. As an aside, WP:RECENT is often misinterpreted. It's an essay (not a rule), and it only reminds us to be cautious when documenting recent events. Sometimes I see people arguing that Wikipedia should never cover anything "recent"-- which is absurd." --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Absurd, indeed.

I don't get why this should be included in the article at all. Will anyone be talking about this when the debates kick off, either Obama or Romney? I think not. Politicians say something about every news event during the silly season. Where's Obama and Romney's comments on Holmes, the Colorado theatre shooter? Or the September jobs report? Naapple (Talk) 21:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Romney spoke at a late night Republican Campaign initiated press briefing (unusual) about on on-going event (an unusual attack) and focused on the political parameters rather than the diplomatic (unusual for a presidential candidate, to a fault). What makes the story even more interesting (and demands inclusion) for a campaign article are the comments by members of the Republican elite about the comment. I would bet an Ohio Buckeye that the issue (a foreign policy faux pas) will definitely come up in the debates. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I found another source that contridicts the timeline of the so called "Factcheck" timeline. I suggest that we not try to include a fuzzy timeline of events to try and score political points. I included a new version just to show how different sources can result in very different presentations.....which is why we DO NOT use WP for developing events Arzel (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Please assume good faith regarding your fellow collaborators. There was no attempt to gain political points and your claim of such is out of line. Your timeline does not change the fact that Romney spoke too soon. And...about scoring political points. A ref from Salt Lake City. Really? ```Buster Seven Talk 00:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Because, ya know, anybody actually interested in scoring political points would have just followed the link in the Deseret News story through the Tweet they quoted to the main State Dept Twitter page, where it's clear the quoted tweet is in the middle of a series, between two other tweets that condemn the attacks and they were all obviously snippets from the official statement also linked in the Deseret News article. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the thread we are discussing has, overnight, become murky and misses the point of the situation. Romney spoke too soon. He should have waited for the dust to settle. I recommend reverting back to User:Moffet's last entry.

```Buster Seven Talk 12:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

How do you know he spoke too soon? By your logic he should still not be saying anything. You do realize that Obama in 2008 was doing the same thing regarding the war in Iraq and Kerry did the same thing to Bush in 2004. Why is it fine for the left to make these kinds of comments but not fine for the right? Regardless, I would say that editors here edited too soon since this whole situation is still developing. Arzel (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Cairo and Benghazi section

A couple of editors seem to want to gut the section called "Cairo and Benghazi". The edits I'm seeing take all relevant references to Mitt Romney out of that section, essentially making it into a very bare description of events that leaves the section very one-sided. Our sources tell us that Mitt Romney later backed off of the initially strident remark, because it was made in haste. To leave the section without context is not in line with WP:DUE or with WP:NPOV. -- Avanu (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I've temporarily protected it for 24 hours so that some consensus can be reached here on the proper NPOV content. I'm certain that I've protected the wrong version; it comes with the job. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd say both versions are the "wrong" version. But thanks for stepping in, Mike. -- Avanu (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The most recent change that is being contested is from this:

On September 11, 2012, U.S. diplomatic missions in Egypt and Libya were attacked by local mobs. After a tweet from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that deplored the denigration of the religious beliefs of others and contained a link to the State Department's initial press release condemning the attacks,(1) Romney said, "It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."(2) In the initial press statement released by the Obama Administration an hour before Romney's statement,(3) Secretary Clinton stated "I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today."(4)

(1) http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765603612/Rough-timeline-shows-sequence-of-events-in-Egypt-and-Libya-on-Sept-11-12-2012.html

(2) http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/romney-calls-obama-reaction-embassy-attacks-disgracefu/story?id=17219337

(3) http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765603612/Rough-timeline-shows-sequence-of-events-in-Egypt-and-Libya-on-Sept-11-12-2012.html

(4) http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2012/09/197628.htm

to this:

On September 11, 2012, the U.S. embassy in Cairo, anticipating possible unrest over an anti-Muslim film that had allegedly been produced in the United States, released statements denouncing "the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims" and calling respect for religious beliefs of others "a cornerstone of American democracy."(174) Hours later, U.S. diplomatic missions in Egypt and Libya were attacked. In the initial press statement released by the Obama Administration, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated, "I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today."(175)(176) Romney, apparently unaware of the chronology of the events that had unfolded, released a statement saying, "It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."(177)(178) The following day, in a televised press conference and an interview, Romney again asserted that the administration had been wrong to, in his view, sympathize with the attackers and apologize for American values rather than to condemn the attackers' actions.(179)(180) Romney's remarks were widely criticized by media fact checkers for mistating the course of events and political commentators for leaving Romney open to the appearance of seeking to gain personal political advantage from a national tragedy.(180)(179)(177)(181)

(174) Vasilogambros, Matt (September 12, 2012). "Timeline on Egypt and Libya undercuts Romney attack on Obama". National Journal.

(175) Deseret News.

(176) U.S. State Dept.

(177) Jackson, Brooks; Farley, Robert; Kiely, Eugene (September 12, 2012). "Romney gets it backward". FactCheck.org

(178) Chowdhry, Affan (September 12, 2012). "Politicizing the U.S. embassy attack: Missteps, criticism abound". The Globe and Mail.

(179) "Romney insists he WAS right to criticise Obama over embassy statement 'sympathising' with protesters". The Daily Mail. September 14, 2012.

(180) Baker, Peter; Parker, Ashley (September 12, 2012). "A challenger's criticism is furiously returned". The New York Times.

(181) Kessler, Glenn (September 13, 2012). "The Romney campaign's repeated errors on the Cairo embassy statement". The Washington Post.

This change was contested with the following comment comment:

Hugely POV edits. You cannot go back in time and say that it was clear when it happened. It is still not clear who knew what when. It is hugely POV to imply that Romney was confused when the WH apparently had no idea what they were saying either.

The statement that Arzel appears to be contesting ("Romney, apparently unaware of the chronology of the events that had unfolded") comes from the following:

The intent of the embassy statement was to calm the situation ahead of expected protests on Tuesday. The Romney campaign was unaware of the timing of the embassy statement and interpreted it as sympathizing with the protesters behind the attacks and apologizing for American values of free speech.

^The Globe and Mail

Mitt Romney claims the Obama administration issued an “apology for American values” after U.S. embassies were attacked. Not true. Romney refers to a statement issued before mobs attacked either in Egypt or Libya, and faults U.S. diplomats for failing to condemn actions that hadn’t yet happened.... This time Romney has gone beyond putting his own unwarranted spin on the president’s statements. He has just gotten his basic facts in the wrong order.

^FactCheck.org

A statement he (Romney) personally approved characterized an appeal for religious tolerance issued by the American Embassy in Cairo as sympathy for the attackers even though the violence did not occur until hours after the embassy statement.

^The New York Times Dezastru (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Based on the evidence, I believe we should include the whole thing. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The fact that the situation is damaging to the Romney campaign is not a Liberal plot. It's just the way it is. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I suppose as long as the media is more interested in Romney's remarks than the disaster in the mideast you would be correct? Arzel (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

We could ask whether they are motivated by a desire to see if Romney is capable of exercising reasonable judgement in foreign policy by sometimes not putting his foot in his mouth or speaking before knowing the facts?? -- Avanu (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Middle East

Clearly, I could not provide the full part of the speech about the Middle East, as it's just too much (Wikipedia:MOSQUOTE#Quotations allows removing extraneous text for this reason). He said (and I quoted) "I'm torn by two perspectives in this regard." Rather than provide one out-of-context sentence without ellipses, I tried to provide both of the perspectives he gave.

I'm open to a better selection of quotes if you think I left important context out. Alternatively we could use a secondary source like [26], but this has received significant secondary coverage so it needs to be included. Superm401 - Talk 15:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, we can deffinatly NOT use what you think are most important, that would be WP:OR. Nothing "needs" to be covered anywhere, but I will agree that his comments have recieved coverage. However, given that the tapes have been selectivelyedited it is questionable whether any specific transcripts from them can be used at all. Arzel (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Almost the entire video has been released now, at [27] ([http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/full-transcript-mitt-romney-secret-video transcript). There is one continuous segment of one or two minutes total missing, where the recorder claimed the camera got turned off. I've not heard any claim by Romney's campaign that these minutes have key context regarding the controversial quotes.

I'll go ahead and use the CBS article and won't put any quotes for now (though they use some). Superm401 - Talk 16:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't "hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it" entirely cover his leadership on the issue? Hcobb (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

"Media issues"

I'm having trouble understanding the heading "Media issues", and the distinction between those topics and some of the ones located elsewhere -- for example, why is the 47% thing discussed under "General campaign" and not "Media issues"? If anything, it appears that "Media issues" is basically stuff that happened during the primary campaign. If that's the distinction, "Primary campaign issues" would obviously be a better heading than "Media issues." Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Replace "Media Issues" with "Controversies" and the reasoning is clear. Arzel (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The 47% video is a media issue and should be located under media issues. Media issues have amounted mainly to 'distractions' from the core policy of the campaign. Media issues and hype attempting to aid the opposing campaign is not necessarily a controversy.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

New format removes the "Primary Campaign"/"General Election Campaign" division and incorporates all of these topics in a new "Media Issues" section, arranged largely chronologically. The rest of the primary campaign issues are included in the section on primary and caucus votes. Problem solved. Dezastru (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

More whitewashing.

These changes were harmful to the article. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

How is anyone of that Harmful to the article? Some of it makes perfect sense. We don't usually WP:LABEL people unless the goal is to push a POV, especially when you only WP:LABEL one side. The addition of "Independent" to factfinders is redundant unless you are trying to make a point, because the factfinders are assumed to be independent. Arzel (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Cairo and Benghazi attacks

There seems to be an attempt to cover-up for Obama regarding the Benghazi attacks and slant the article. The Obama administration claimed the attack was spontaneous, while McCain and others claimed it was a terrorist attack. Leading Republicans supported Romney. The media were caught on tape conspiring to undermine the Romney statement which is highly notable if the media are going to be mentioned as criticizing Romney.[28] [29]. There is also a habit in the article by some of claiming criticisms by the media but not including a balance of support from the media. There seems to be a habit of spinning sections against Romney in the article without providing a balance or neutrality and giving undue weight to media criticism.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

First, this is not the appropriate forum for debating these issues. There is a separate article specifically devoted to the diplomatic missions attacks, which would be the place to discuss whether the attacks were spontaneous or were planned terrorist attacks. None of the initial statements of any of the parties involved (US diplomatic missions, State Department, President, Romney himself) made any direct mention of preplanned terrorist attacks. The criticism directed toward Romney that was described in this article before the edits made in the past few hours focused on Romney's having misunderstood or mischaracterized the timing of the course of events in the Administration's response to the attacks. That is the topic that the majority of reliable sources discuss. Second, what are the reliable sources that state that the media conspired against Romney? Westernjournalism.com is hardly a reliable source. Dezastru (talk) 02:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Let me second that last point: this talk page is a place to discuss specific changes to the article text, backed by specific reliable sources. It's not a venue for general complaints about the U.S. media. MastCell <sup>Talk</sup> 18:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

What Kendrick7 said.

This editor was wrong to edit-war in an attempt to keep the text they added, and now they're gone.[30] But how about what they said? Can it be salvaged and find a place in the article? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Part of it, perhaps. But as I said multiple times, it needs major trimming to avoid unbalancing the article. Romney's campaign was more than just tax returns. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, what would it look like if it were trimmed down to size? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• That's something I can't say. You could work on a draft in userspace. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

BRD on "synthesis"

TParis has previously suggested that reverting an article under community probation requires a comment on the talk page, not just an edit comment, so I created this section as a place to discuss this. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

What part of this do you not understand?

I don't pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don't think I'd be qualified to become president.

Just let me know and I'll try to clarify it for you. Hcobb (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I think people have raised the question of original synthesis because the sources you cite don't directly connect Romney's statement about paying the minimum required tax with his subsequent statement that he'd paid more than the minimum required. That connection needs to be made by independent, reliable sources, not by an editor juxtaposing two contradictory statements by Romney. Of course, independent, reliable sources have made this connection (e.g. ABC News, Reuters, Associated Press, etc.); they should be cited to resolve the question of original synthesis. I'm still a little skeptical that this rather minor "gotcha" moment warrants inclusion. It's not exactly news that Romney occasionally contradicts himself, after all. :P MastCell <sup>Talk</sup> 21:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

These kind of "gotcha" edits really have no place here. Romney pays more than he has to because he doesn't take the full deduction required in order to uphold a campaign pledge and he is criticized for it? Really is this the road people want to travel down? Arzel (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, first he made a campaign pledge that he didn't pay a penny more than the absolute minimum tax required by law. Then he made a campaign pledge that he'd paid at least ~14%. Then he needed to tweak his filing in order to uphold the second pledge, thus violating the first. But whatever - in terms of actual campaign issues relevant to an encyclopedia, it seems relatively minor. MastCell <sup>Talk</sup> 21:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Does everybody agree that these are both aspects of the "Tax Returns" issue and both worthy of inclusion, if not perhaps right next to each other? His first response to the question was to state that he had exactly followed the law and later his surrogate fudged the numbers to keep his tax rate in the quoted range. Hcobb (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

"Fudged the numbers" suggests something unethical, which isn't the case. Romney is free to take all, some, or none of the deductions to which he's entitled. MastCell <sup>Talk</sup> 21:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

It's legal, but odd enough to be notable. For example, I don't take all the deductions I can, but the amount I lose is minimal; not really worth the extra effort of itemization. Romney intentionally overpaid by millions, apparently so that his tax rate wouldn't be even more embarassingly low. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Embarassingly low? He paid more in taxes than 97% of all Americans and about average if you include payroll taxes (which you end up getting back as SS). But I do love the continued attempts to demonize Romney. Arzel (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

He's been paying something like 15% of his income. Real people pay twice that percentage. But you know this already, right? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have a severe misunderstanding about taxes, but I suppose if you only listen to the propaganda you can be forgiven. Arzel (talk) 03:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not going to correct you further. I've made my point. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should take you economic skills to factcheck.org as well because your claim that "real people pay twice that" is simply not true....or they don't know what they are talking about. Arzel (talk) 04:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Uhm, it's not synthesis: Jon Stewart connected the dots. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The intersection of Mitt Romney and Taxes is a major aspect of the campaign. It came up in the primary, it's getting hammered by the Dems-- it's part of the campaign. Cover it, just cover it from a NPOV. --HectorMoffet (talk) 02:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Well said. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Hair Force One

Looks like the campaign's plane has a name and some notability. Perhaps it is worth mentioning it in this article? Here and here are some sources. Cheers! --Wingtipvorte<sup>X</sup> PTT ∅ 20:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

First Debate

What is the context of this edit? Why is this particular quote selected? Who determines why this particular quote should be used? The edit looks like WP deciding what is most important by pulling from a transcript. Arzel (talk) 03:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and I removed it. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, looking for third party sources and reducing to a note that the debate occurred. Hcobb (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I just looked at the 2008 campaign articles. Obama's simply lists the debates and their formats while McCain's gives a small amount of overall detail. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

But the proper level would be the "meta narrative" of the lamestream press and/or polling that congeals like blood on the floor after a few days? Hcobb (talk) 03:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The polls are in and the winner is... http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/polls-show-a-strong-debate-for-romney/ (So can we add that?) Hcobb (talk) 12:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

NO. PLEASE do not say that X or Y won the debate. To win something, you must first define some goal or outcome or yardstick. Such measures are never specified before political debates, yet after they're over, commentators are happy to spout meaningless crap like "so and so won", but they never say what they mean by "won". These debates are helpful to ventilate issues that are important to voters, and that's it; they're not about winning or losing. That distinction is reserved for the first Tuesday in November. If they truly were about winning and losing, that would mean everybody would vote for whoever is perceived to have won the debate. Clearly, that is not the case. Individuals may have a private view about who won and lost, according to their own private criteria; they're entitled to have such opinions. So are journalists in their private capacity. But these private criteria would all be different, and therefore incommensurate. These private opinions are irrelevant to sensible political discourse. And even if 50 million people agreed that Romney won or Obama won this debate, or even all three, that changes nothing about how the American people en masse will ultimately vote on election day. We can say they had a debate; we can say that one appeared to be more in control or articulate or responsive than the other, or whatever. But PLEASE do not say that either of them "won" the debate. Please. -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 12:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

If there's widespread consensus among RSs (I'm not saying there is), why shouldn't we include it? Hot Stop (Edits) 12:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that Wikistan pick a winner. Simply that we report what the instant polls said. Hcobb (talk) 13:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

When Simon and Garfunkel got up on a stage and sang some songs, which one of them won? Meaningless? Sure. Well, it has the same degree of meaninglessness as talking about who "won" a political debate, unless they defined, prior to the debate, what would constitute a "win". Nobody ever does this, so how come they're experts after the fact? They never define it even then. Ask 100 people what they understand by "Romney won the debate", and you'll get 100 different answers. And that's just the ones who happen to agree that Romney "won". The job of journalists is to focus on the subject matter of what the two debaters talked about. Reducing it down to an incredibly simplistic "Obama won" or "Romney won" is meaningless gibberish and is best left alone by a respected encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. Without anything to define the expression "win the debate", it is merely the opinion of the journalist; if a journo said "I think everyone should vote for Romney/Obama", does that mean that we should say everyone should vote for Romney/Obama? Hardly. We're an encyclopedia, not a news outlet or a fan site or a blog. We're in the business of defining our terms. If we absolutely must say that Romney or whoever won, we absolutely must explain what that means. And that's a tough not to crack when nobody in the world has ever sat down and said what it means, and half the voting public would disagree even if they did. -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 22:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Gotta agree. Who "won" or "lost" a debate violates WP:NOTNEWS, especially since what they're trying to "win" won't be determined until November 6. Perhaps some narrative about what happened could be useful, but saying Romney "won" is just repeating the subjective analysis of others. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of the concensus here, the concensus in the real world is that Romney won this debate and there is not even any debate about it. I have yet to hear a single person proclaim Obama won the debate. Arzel (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed the "even though" portion of the general debate section. Was the thinking that Romney should have a bigger lead in the polls than what was reported? Maybe rewrite this without the "even though" disclaimer. --68.9.119.69 (talk) 20:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Rewrote to more subtly indicate the unanticipated advantage. Hcobb (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. --68.9.119.69 (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Fact Checking?

Fact checking has become a fairly large topic with regard to this campaign; I'm wondering if we shouldn't include a section on that. Dougom (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe? How would you propose writing it? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a good question, because the amount of stuff found by fact-checkers is disproportionately slanted towards the Romney/Ryan ticket, so I'm reasonably sure that it would be tricky to write in such a way that doesn't start an editorial flame war. However, it has been a big story this year, so it seems worthy of inclusion. I'm open to suggestions.Dougom (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

When factcheckers stick to facts they are fine, but when they factcheck opinions or they factcheck a statement by one based on the opinion of another you start to have to wonder. It is really quite sad how partisan the factcheckers have become for this election. Arzel (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

But that's not the issue from a Wikipedia standpoint. The issue is, fact checking is quite important to this campaign. A discussion of perceptions of partisanship might be relevant to that topic, but the truth is this election has seen a lot of focus on the entire idea of fact checking, and that seems to me relevant for inclusion.Dougom (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Fact-checkers do stick to facts, of course, but they sometimes need to make subjective judgements about whether facts are presented with sufficient context or in a misleadingly incomplete manner. I don't think we can dismiss fact-checking as a left-wing partisan pursuit based solely on the preferences of a handful of opinionated Wikipedians. There are reputable fact-checking organizations out there, and their conclusions should be judiciously incorporated into the campaign articles. Their views can be attributed (e.g. "The fact-checking website Politifact described the claim as..."), which allows those readers who view fact-checkers as socialist stooges to dismiss their input while simultaneously allowing others the benefit of relevant, well-sourced information. MastCell <sup>Talk</sup> 19:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I just don't see how facts are relevant to the Romney campaign. And after all Wikistan is about verifiability, not truth. Perhaps we can just tag the article with "In universe style" and leave it at that? Hcobb (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The results of Politfact.com and Factcheck.org are suitable for this article. For instance, there is the new piece titled "Romney’s Clean Energy Whoppers" about Romney's televised debate points. For the other article, there is "Obama’s Deficit Dodge". These are valid points to make in this and related articles. Binksternet (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

More RS before include voting fraud concern?

• Amid concerns of voting fraud, U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney's campaign is linked to a firm providing the voting machines to be used to tally the ballots in the crucial state of Ohio. (The Belfast Telegraph)

The referenced Salon.com article is http://www.salon.com/2012/10/23/romney_linked_voting_machine_company_to_count_votes_in_ohio/ by Craig Unger referring to Hart InterCivic 209.26.202.234 (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Salon article's title is Romney-linked voting machine company to count votes in Ohio. The company counting critical votes in Ohio and Colorado has extensive connections to the Romney camp. 64.109.54.142 (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Apropos nothing

The Mormons regard Brigham Young as the successor of Joe Smith, and Joe Smith as the vicegerent of heaven. It would be an interesting question to propound to a rapping spirit, whether Mormonism will, or not, ever become a great ecclesiastical organisation, and, if it does, whether the United States will not one of these days have to conclude a Concordat with Utah? -- Punch Magazine, 15 May 1857. Moriori (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Specialist Chris Horton

Where, if anywhere does content regarding Specialist Horton belong on Wikipedia? On this article? His own article? No where?

Here are two articles about the individual:

• Hugo Gye (10 October 2012). "'I need a new President': The last thing sniper lauded by Romney in speech said to his wife before he was killed in Afghanistan". Daily Mail. Retrieved 6 November 2012.
• April Hill (22 October 2012). "Look for Oklahoma fallen soldier bracelet on Romney tonight". KRMG. Retrieved 6 November 2012.
• Emily Friedman (10 October 2012). "The Grieving Widow Behind Romney's Speech". ABC News. Retrieved 6 November 2012.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Failed junior varsity operation

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/09/mitt-romney-campaign-cancels-credit-cards-staffers-aids-election-night_n_2099916.html

Notable enough? Hcobb (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)