Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitt Romney Cranbrook incident

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

To begin with, deletion discussions are not votes, but are decided by consensus based on the strength of the arguments as measured by their basis in established Wikipedia policies, guidelines and practices. For this reason, I am discounting from consideration 7 delete or merge opinions and 9 keep opinions because these opinions make no argument or very weak arguments, e.g. because they only consist of "it's [not] notable", and/or only express approval or disapproval of the article (e.g., "Purely a political attack page"), or appear to make no sense at all. I also skipped the huge walls of text written by a very few editors; conciseness is a virtue in discussions such as these.

The remaining opinions can be numerically broken down as follows:

• delete 39
• (selectively) merge 7
• keep 12

This amounts to a numerical consensus for deletion. The "merge" minority mostly qualifies that any merger should occur very selectively, so their opinion is not altogether incompatible with a deletion, as it should not be very difficult to re-write a paragraph or two about the incident from scratch (should editorial consensus develop for that).

But I still need to take the strength of argument into account. The "delete" opinions mostly refer to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE, which appear to me to be valid policy-based arguments for deletion in this context. The "keep" opinions counter by pointing to the great amount of coverage the incident has received in U.S. media, which in the light of WP:GNG is also a valid argument for retention. Because both sides make arguments that are at least broadly defensible on the basis of our rules and practices, and because the application of these particular rules and practices is dependent on editorial judgment (which means that I may not determine by "supervote" that one argument is clearly stronger than the other, as e.g. in the case of copyright violations) I must defer to the numerical (super)majority and find that there is consensus to delete this article.

This discussion does not arrive at a clear consensus about what (if any) mention should be made of this incident in any other related article, so that remains a matter to be discussed, if necessary, on the respective article talk pages.  Sandstein  08:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney Cranbrook incident

Mitt Romney Cranbrook incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

Another scandal-mongering political hit piece, in the same vein as articles on Sandra Fluke, Obama Ate A Dog and connecting Obama's 2012 campaign slogan "Forward" to socialist movements that have used that name in the past for their publications. Also, new evidence seems to suggest incident has been overblown. If anything, mention of this belongs in Romney's own article and nowhere else. Wikipedia must not be used as a political tool by ANY side in ANY election. By the by, start keeping an eye out for an "Obama pushed a girl" meme that will probably start in response to this. McDoobAU93 15:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect merge to Mitt Romney As nominator. --McDoobAU93 15:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delete without redirect per nominator and WP:NOTNEWS Hot Stop 15:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The page has some copyvio issues too. Parts of the lead are taken straight from the WaPo article, without any attribution. Hot Stop 15:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete without redirect. One line A brief mention on the Romney page, only to mention that it came up. Not debunked, just not that interesting. a13ean (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Ample coverage of this. There was too much information to fit in the main article, so someone created this valid content fork. Dream Focus 15:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 15:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete sans redirect/ add salt to taste This is, at the very best, silly season innuendo, which was even denied by one of those who WaPo "quoted." It ill-serves Wikipedia, is not encyclopedic, is not "strongly sourced", and has other sources partially or fully debunking it. It is not notable, per se. It is an allegation of criminal act per WaPo, and thus falls under WP:BLP rules thereon. And the ARS is a wondrous side-issue to boot. Collect (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

  I don't see any reliable sources debunking it, just correcting one minor error in the original, that doesn't change things. Dream Focus 15:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Probably haven't seen this article yet, then. It interviews some of the same people as The Washington Post did, but provides additional information on some of the witnesses that WaPo neglected to mention, along with contradicting information in the WaPo article. --McDoobAU93 15:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see where in that article it mentions the haircutting incident at all. What exactly does it say that contradicts information in the Washington Post article? Dream Focus 15:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

WaPo calls the one guy an "independent" whereas the automobilemag.com source quotes him "I am a Democrat". Read them both and you can see the WaPo selective parsing his statements to make him appear to be a neutral source. Given that the WaPo has already made one clearly false statement (which they corrected but neglected to note) puts the entire WaPo story into question. Arzel (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The article you cite from an automobile magazine certainly does not "debunk" the forcible haircutting of the gay boy, or the saying "Atta girl" when a boy suspected of being gay spoke in class. Edison (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Merge a summarized version to one of the existing articles. This event probably doesn't merit its own article, at least not at this stage (unless there are further developments, which seem unlikely), but it's important enough (based on press coverage) to mention in one of the articles on the presidential election campaign (as with other controversies like Romney's dog). --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delete with no preference as to redirect. More political silly season garbage. JNN. Hipocrite (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• 'Comment: This is going to be an editorial decision of whether this "controversial" event merits a separate article, not an issue of whether the subject is going to be covered on wikipedia. It certainly will be. Some precedents to consider would be John McCain lobbyist controversy (kept in two 2008 AfDs), Bill Ayers presidential election controversy (kept after one no consensus AfD in 2008), George W. Bush military service controversy (no AfDs). My impression is this may fall below that rough standard, depending how the press coverage goes.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - Partisan attack article - other rubbish exists, yes. Youreallycan 15:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Add no more than a line or two to the Romney article. I would compare this to Obama's admissions about high school drug use and treat it accordigly - in other words, add a line in the early years section noting that Romney admnitted to having done some bad things in high school and that he apologized for them. Silly season, indeed! bd2412 T 15:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Keep and speedy close. This has plainly become a significant enough campaign event to merit coverage of some sort -- front page story in national media, extensive coverage in TV/broadcast news, etc. It's not penguin-bites-Newt-Gingrich stuff. The issue is whether it should have an independent article or be folded into bio- and campaign-related pages. First of all, that's a routine editing decision, not an AFD issue; second, given the way news coverage goes, most of the !votes and comments here are likely to be obsolete by the point that it's time to close the AFD. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • No amount of news coverage is going to change the events that happened in the past. All of this amounts to a single incident in high school, which therefore merits nothing more than mention in that section of this subject's biography. bd2412 T 16:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"All of this amounts to a single incident in high school"? What if that incident was killing someone? Sure, in 1965 it was fair game to give gay people free unwanted haircuts. But Hullaballoo has a fair point.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Undue weight given to a political criticism, there is nothing more to see or say about typical silly season stuff. Honestly, if shit like this keeps getting created, I will personally dig Grundle's Barack Obama fly swatting incident article out of the grave and work it up to FA status out of sheer spite. Tarc (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

wow. That was an Article?!?!?! I suppose it needs to be resurrected in a combined article on Presidential Candidates, since Animal memes are all the rage. Is it Category:Animal Cruelty, or was it eaten as well?--209.6.69.227 (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Undue weight You would have to admit that, given that the article was JUST published, all arguments of WP:NOTABILITY are crystal balling. At best, a WP Article is premature. Also have to question if the people interviewed or the kid whose hair was cut regarded this as significant at the time, or if the leading questions led to the answers given. Several now cited as witnesses have previously remarked on what a straight arrow Romney was, never going over the line, and the alleged victim never mentioned the whole thing, seemingly contrasting with this article. Come back in a week or two. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - A piece of news that has no lasting notability, that only came up due to the current political season. Perhaps some info could be merged into an already existing article, though I personally can honestly not see why anyone would think this is important enough to remain in any form. Rorshacma (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - Purely a political attack page. Why do editors continue to use WP to promote political attacks? Arzel (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delete and I see no reason for a redirect. It's the political silly season and we don't have articles on every hit piece someone creates. --B (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delete without redirect as a textbook example of WP:NOTNEWS. Story can't be verified beyond the "he-said-she-said" and Romney won't actually face any legal charges or anything from this. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Aside from previous reasons and mentioned policy, this is obviously just an agenda driven story. It hardly deserves 2 sentences in Romney's main article. - Xcal68 (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Maybe it would take 3 or 4 sentences to make it an intelligible account. Edison (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Not news & other assorted reasons already mentioned.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Maybe the title "Cranbrook incident" is not the best choice of wording, "Prep school hazing incident" might be better. Still this topic clearly meets notability guidelines, meriting some high profile coverage in WP:RS publications, The New Yorker[1], the Washington Post[2], MSNBC[3], the Christian Science Monitor[4] and hundreds more[5]! Clearly a notable topic.SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

A bunch of sources repeating the political hit job does not make the hit job more notable, especially when most of your sources are decidely liberal. Arzel (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Selectively mergeA brief summary of this incident should go in bio article for Romney and perhaps in the article on his 2012 presidential campaign, if it becomes an issue which is discussed in the context of the campaign by various sources. It is a reliably sourced incident in the public figure's early life, confirmed by several classmates, so I see no reason to censor it, but not everything in a public figure's life should have its own article. Other US politicians have incidents from their high school and college years in their bio articles: Eisenhower broke his leg playing football at West Point. Kennedy blew up a toilet with a firecracker while in high school. Jimmy Carter played baseball in high school and liked to read. Nixon was lost an election for high school class president. Obama used alcohol, marijuana and cocaine in high school. Why should incidents such as the forcible cutting of the hair of a boy who was gay, or yelling "Atta girl" when a suspected gay boy spoke up in class, or misdirecting a visually impaired professor be kept out? Mitt Romney already includes present footnote 3, which includes a long listing of his pranks. such as impersonating a police officer, and "pranks" which got him arrested, as well a a fatal car accident while he was driving in 1968. George W. Bush's articles similarly describe some incidents he would likely rather forget. Edison (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - For the time being but if, after a reasonable wait, such as perhaps a month, the controversy's impact ends up being ephemeral, merge relevant parts to an appropriate Mitt Romney series article.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. We shouldn't make an independent article for every scandal or pseudo-scandal that pops up in an election year. If it has lasting impact after the campaign is over, maybe we should reconsider, but not now. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment there has to be a better policy on incidents like this. Some of them don't deserve to be covered at all. And giving some of them their own article? That's a clear violation of WP:UNDUE weight. Not always. But just because there are enough sources that talk about some random political "scandal" to support a separate article, it doesn't mean there should always be a separate article. Such scandals need to require a certain threshold to be covered at all, let alone in a separate article. I might lean towards deleting or merging. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

• Strong Keep. ::Strong Keep ... I was asked to condense this...so here goes.

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Like Romney I'm from Michigan and the son of an auto exec. My prep school was in England not Cranbrook but yes I've been to Cranbrook. I even knew Romney's former girlfriend Mary Fisher. Mary's father was an inspiration to me and I have the his degree and for a while was in the same business when I worked for UOP. That is about where similarities stop, Unlike Romney I was that kid in 7th grade who at age 11 was still the smallest boy in the class. A kid sat behind me in one class. For whatever reason he deemed it fun to randomly smack me on the back of the head really hard. I never knew it was coming and I couldn't change seats and sat all day waiting for the next time. Don't ask me how, I don't know why, my classmates figured out I was gay. They informed me matter fact like. I sat there with a blank look on my face. I had no idea what the word meant. I waited to get home. Three dictionaries at home were of absolutely no use. . Two days later a big 9th grader decided this little prepubescent boy who didn't even know what the word meant was a fun target. I decided to standup to him and challenged him to a fight after school. He bashed my face in despite the fact everyone in school knew I made the challenge. It was just a bloody nose and black eye. Everyone knew. I never once told my parents or siblings this story. They too would say they never heard the story and wouldn't recall I somehow got a black eye "falling off my bike". Given my age, that kid was at max 13 or 14. A strange thing occurred after that after-school fight. He never bothered me again. I think I was the first kid to stand up to him and he was ashamed to beat up a little 7th grader. Later, At a big business dinner in Provo Utah with executives of a large firm I was working with I sat mortified after these grown men figured that the waiter was gay. That sat and openly told the most vile gay jokes I have ever heard as if it was a contest to out compete each other. These were men that employed me. Later, we went on a company ski trip to Park City Utah and for some reason the people behind me decided the employee helping skiers into the chair lift was gay. Again similar jokes but intentionally loud for all in line to hear. Later still, I read understand and am horrified by every queer bashing story. That could have been me. I eventually became an openly gay man and same-sex marriages became a big issue to me. My partner and I never married, and never could marry. However, the politics of same-sex marriages around the world became of big interest to me. The homophobic church I went to was called the Catholic church and both my and Romney's church are major bullies. Speaking out and stopping bullies is what I will do with the top of my lungs. Bringing them to the light of day is what stops their behavior in the future. It teaches kids it is wrong. So yes...confronted with a stream of DELETES on this page I indeed realized one thing. I'm still being bullied today. I am being bullied on this website. Despite trying to bow down my head and produce this page MINUS a mention the student may have been gay MINUS a mention some considered this an "assault". MINUS any mention on the main pages and just a "See also" MINUS any mention of any other incidents and one blind teacher The string of DELETEs continues. So go ahead. Do as the PR agents want. It may be for the best. When fewer readers stumble on pages saying Romney was a _____ there will be no story here that contains claims it isn't true. Or, and I just realized this, when they see the movie Cranbrook they will not have any chance to see which parts were based upon eye witness accounts and which were made up by Hollywood. Here are search results on google: "Mitt romney" gay bullying hair = 1,490,000 matches 2-days ago, 1,830,000 today "Mitt romney" gay bullying hair cranbrook = 355,000 then, and 389,000 today Within just 2 days there are now 340,000 more pages that match this man's name exactly along with the words gay, bullying, and hair. If you want to run around and delete all I have created here, I will make it easy for you. I have been speaking out very vocally about bullies in politics that use their money to strike against others: dark money, money loop political action committee Independent expenditure Interest advocacy 527 Organization Eight Magic Words l'homme_moyen_sensuel 16 Yes by god I will post this page everywhere and anywhere. This page is public is it not? Please post to my talk page where Wikipedia policy says this page cannot be viewed by the public. Put it on my talk page. There is a link to this page on the article. I think it is important that future editors gird their loins before coming here. Editors will always have disagreements and some can seem like down right bullies. Thank you to the person that pointed out that a complete fabrication about Obama and his birth certificate commands a page. Philip B. Maise p.s. Regarding the other kid that hit me randomly, that beating stopped too. So did his heart. He dropped dead in gym class from a rare heart condition. I must admit I didn't cry. I already had.

Pbmaise (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

There's an awful lot of "might" and "could" in that statement, and none of it is a valid reason to keep. Hot Stop 21:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Can we collapse that ridiculously long reply? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• CommentThese reported incidents and their implication that he was a high school bully or at least intolerant of gays, and his "I don't remember it" defense have been covered at length by sources other than the Washington Post, as noted above by PBmaise: Time magazine, which calls the WaPo article "a first rate piece of reportage," New York magazine, another New York magazine article, Lansing State Journal, Slate, Forbes. Edison (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Besides the nominator's very valid assessment of the article, this is at variance with our WP:NOTNEWS policy — Wikipedia is not meant to document the latest news stories. Nyttend (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Coverage by mainstream news media continues, with coverage in the New York Times and Christian Science Monitor. ABC news says the bullying story has sidetracked Romney's campaign, a consequence which makes it more significant than it might otherwise be, and says the story has "gained traction and credibility." It's significance goes far beyond a simple news account of something that happened long ago when it has an effect on the present campaign. Political bios are full of things that were reported in "news stories" which became prominent issues in campaigns. At this point, I still advocate merger in his bio article and in the article on his 2012 campaign. Edison (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

A minor incident in a politician's youth is unworthy of an article unless it receives sustained coverage. This may turn out to be his Chappaquiddick, but we don't know that right now; feel free to come back and recreate it if coverage persists years from now, once the media have stopped digging for dirt. Nyttend (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I think discussion of the incident in Romney's own article is appropriate, as is Obama's admitted cocaine use and sampling of dog meat, Clinton's admitted marijuana use and other presidential pre-presidential peccadilloes. --McDoobAU93 21:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - I haven't seen a convincing reason stated here why this fits in with WP:Deletion Policy. By my reading it does pass WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. BLP is not a consideration here, it is a very widely published and now widely investigated story about a Presidential candidate (public figure). Given that this discussion lasts the usual 7 days, we will know for sure whether it has continuing news coverage. It has had expanding news coverage so far. Romney has made a statement on it, a non-denial denial. We may or may not wish that stories like this are covered and have an effect on the electorate, but it is not us who make that decision - it is the media such as the Washington Post, New York Times, ABC, and even Fox - as well as the electorate itself. If it gets an international news coverage, it looks like a slam-dunk keep. Smallbones (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll just note that there has been international coverage, as well as continuing coverage - the last I've seen is May 17 Smallbones (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you're saying that you're voting keep even though we won't know for sure if it's notable until later in the AFD. I don't think 7 days of coverage is enough to determine lasting notability. The Seamus incident, for instance, had three years of coverage and still people expressed concern that it wasn't notable (granted many of these objections were made by people incredibly biased towards conservatism but many were also neutral editors). SÆdon^talk 00:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Per crystal and news. I doubt this will achieve lasting coverage. Revisit in a year or two. SÆdon^talk 21:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Keep ~ Its notable, and verifiable. — GabeMc (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Would consider a merge if reliable sources had commented on the facts reported in the Washington Post article, but that doesn't seem to be the case. The reliable sources are commenting on the absurdity of the Washington Post article. Perhaps it could be reworked into an article about the Washington Post article, rather than about the (alleged) event. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your assertion that the reliable sources are commenting on the absudity of the WashPo article. The ABC headline is: "Former Romney Classmate Describes ‘Bullying Supreme’ – A ‘Pack of Dogs’ Who Targeted ‘Different’ Boy", The New Yorker: "Mitt Romney, Bully", which goes on to say "Does he count this as a high jink or a prank? It was neither; it is hard to imagine that hurt, rather than being the byproduct, was anything other than the point of the attack on Lauber. In terms of what a gay teen-ager might encounter, and what other boys might go along with at a school like Cranbrook, 1965 was different; but memory and empathy are not qualities that have only been invented since then." Forbes: "Why Romney's Teenage Bullying Actually Matters" Also this is quite relevant, since his own campaign has propagated this "prankster" image, its now now a notable part of his election strategy to this point. ABC News, The New Yorker, and Forbes? — GabeMc (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

That's something to consider. Perhaps just a mention on the waspost article about the response to this story. SÆdon^talk 01:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. This is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and we don't need a separate article about everything that may have occured in his life. If we really have to, redirect it to the main bio. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Which of the 4 parts of NOTNEWSPAPER does this violate? Smallbones (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Part 2. Any other obvious things you need pointed out? Your attempts to twist the policy won't work on me, so save your time. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

2. News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information.

Really, Part 2 - this doesn't at all look like routine news. The guy's a presidential candidate - the story will endure. Smallbones (talk) 23:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a completely needless quote of the section. Since I named it, I obviously read it. Now you may disagree, but cutting and pasting it is just gratuitous space wasting. We diagree and no matter how many times you repeat the policy, I won't change my mind on it. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per Arthur Rubin and Niteshft36. aprock (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delete We're not the news, and don't need to report campaign scandals as they come up. Let's see how much this is covered down the line before we jump on any topic and make an article of it.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Not to compare apples to oranges but, this article, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories is 3.5 years old, and was started before Obama took office. Nobody deleted it because it might not prove notable enough. For all we know more and more may come out on this incident, perhaps even others like it if history is any indication. — GabeMc (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • But the "for all we know" part of your statement is the issue. WP:CRYSTAL.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOTNEWS etc. No prejudice towards restoring if Cranbrook Veterans for Truth becomes a theme in this campaign. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Thread winner. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Don't be swiftboating this important article, Mark Arsten. Censorship! I'm going to go ahead and create Cranbrook Veterans for Truth on Twitter, after my nap. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Take a look at the top left of every page here, it says "Encyclopaedia" this is not an Encyclopaedic topic, it is a one or two day news cycle story about a person who is running for office, WP:NOT affirms that this is not a newspaper and this article should be deleted as failing that policy. Mtking ^(edits) 02:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

• Delete I am piling on in anticipation that many more silly NOTNEWS and COATRACK violations will occur in the coming months. Wikipedia is not the right place to right wrongs and explain how a politician might have done something dubious. The correct procedure is to wait three months and then see what secondary sources have expressed a view regarding long term significance of the event, and then decide whether notability is satisfied. Johnuniq (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Please point out the guideline which calls for waiting three months before creating articles about incidents getting worldwide news coverage which are about notable persons. This is absolutely contrary to what actually happens in Wikipedia, although it is an interesting idea. There are already a great many secondary sources, as identified above, which have significant coverage of the Post story, of Romney's response to it, and of its unfortunate effects on his campaign. Edison (talk) 03:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delete I find it hard to believe an incident from nearly 50 years ago that is claimed in news sources and an article is created that day for an accusation not yet actually confirmed and the accuracy of informtion is questioned by the original source changing their story somewhat.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment On the one side, in favor of deletion is the fact that it's an old prep school prank that happened a while ago. On the other side, since politics is essentially bullying and trolling anyway, this event might blow up more. The three-month rule is too long, however: a better timeframe would be perhaps a month. My guess is that this might go over like Bush's drunken driving violations and Clinton's marijuana rumors did. Then again, people still dog Obama about his birth certificate. — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 05:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

  There is no such thing as a three month rule, nor ever has been, nor will be. Many of those in favor of deletion seem to be fans of this guy. People come to Wikipedia for information about things they see in the news. There is no reason to make them wait months before seeing it. Dream Focus 05:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. We're not a newspaper. We don't list everything exhaustively. This is of no encyclopedic importance, even if it is important in the 24/7 news cycle. Whatever's here can be covered in the article for his campaign. Delete it, along with Seamus on Twitter. Drmies (talk) 05:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This incident is very notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.159.21 (talk) 05:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC) — 74.215.159.21 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• What you apparently fail to understand is that just because something is notable doesn't mean it needs an article of its own. Often it only merits a brief mention in the bio. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. This is an ongoing story capturing significant public interest. Eventually it may make sense to fold it into the main Romney page but at this time while its ultimate importance is not yet certain I believe it to be in the interest of all to keep it independent and easily accesible. In no way to I consider deletion to be appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notthemayor (talk • contribs) 06:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • That sounds nice and like the kind of thing one would expect in an encyclopedic project. Are you sure you're the same person who wrote this? Drmies (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• • What is wrong with you? Do you have your agenda tattooed on your forehead, mirrored, so you are reminded every time you brush your teeth? And no, this will not be cited "in papers in school again and again"--saying stuff like that indicates a complete lack of historical awareness. I bet you don't know who Jennifer Flowers is, or John Profumo. Wikipedia is not the place for your activism: "I for one will make sure this incident is known far and wide forever". Good luck; may your Facebook site have many likes. Drmies (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
    • ALREADY VOTED Pbmaise, you do not get to vote multiple times, please remove your second strong keep. Arzel (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Templated and stricken. Tarc (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect for now to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#Media issues. This is clearly playing out as a media issue in Romney's presidential campaign, and it would be quite curious if the information was censored from Wikipedia. In time we'll see if this has an importance lasting beyond its role in the present campaign and warranting a separate article.  --Lambiam 08:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

*Delete without prejudice - it's a little too early to understand the significance (or lack thereof) of this incident. I strongly suspect it will turn out to be generally notable, however in this instance I think there was a rush to premature presentation. No opposition to later re-creation once the facts/sources are generally established. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC) Updated below

Note: It is not recommended that this information be merged and redirected to the Mitt romney article at this time. Current consensus there appears to be against inclusion.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Your claim that consensus supports total censorship of any mention of the bullying incidents is unfounded and troublesome. I and many other editors, who do not see the need for a stand-alone article, call for the incident to be included in brief mention in Romney's bio article and in the article about his 2012 presidential campaign, justified by continuing significant coverage in mainstream newsmedia worldwide, that the reports of the bullying have derailed for the present his campaign, as he puts out semi-apologies and claims not to remember, and labels it as "pranks." Edison (talk) 03:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge to a sentence in Mitt Romney. Do you all have any idea how pathetic this looks? Tigerboy1966  11:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
• Consider this: you keep article about Romnay's dog mistreatment (see: Seamus incident) and you want to delete article about vicious assault and battery, act what, according to today laws classified as hate crime. What is agency to vote to suppress well witnessed fact? Let go bully or Keep 99.90.197.87 (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, many of us who want this article deleted also think it's a travesty that that one somehow survived AFD. But just because we kept that article on a dumb political story doesn't mean we should keep this one as well. Robofish (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Keep but give the article lots of TLC to ensure it remains within the bounds of policy. Some of the delete comments above come across as knee-jerk reactions: that a topic is also a recent news story is a necessary condition for meeting WP:NOTNEWSPAPER but not a sufficient one. The same can be said about objections based on the idea that this is an attack page: it doesn't read that way to me, just an attempt to document a potentially inclusion-worthy topic. If this story completely goes away within a week, month or whatever, there's nothing to stop it being AfD'd again, but for now, the amount of coverage its getting suggests that that stands a good chance of not happening, so let's hold on and see how things develop. I think a rename would be a good idea: I'd like to offer up "alleged bullying of John Lauber" as something that might be more neutral? If this is deleted, then second preference would be for this content to be WP:PRESERVEd but condensed into a section of that name in the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 article. SP-KP (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - Undue weight and too soon. Let's give this story time to grow and see if it becomes anything important. SMP0328. (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: This overblown and biased-media-driven "May surprise" does not warrant its own Wikipedia article. Not every "incident" in a politician's life is a Watergate or a Lewinsky scandal. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Oh hey, what a surprise: it's another article on a trivial political 'controversy' tied up with the 2012 election. We get a new one every week or so. Much like Obama eats dogs, this one has yet to demonstrate any kind of lasting notability. Delete it and only recreate it if people are still talking about it in a month's time, otherwise it's just one more piece of passing political spin. Robofish (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• Keep: Per Hullaballoo, at present this should be mentioned in the main article and expanded upon in this daughter article, as is commonly done. Incident is notable and widely and prominently covered, but the main article can't support more than a mention. I'd like to see it renamed, however - "Cranbrook incident" is not likely to be searched on. Tvoz/talk 21:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. —Eustress ^talk 23:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• Selectively merge a brief summary in Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#Media issues. Does not appear notable enough for a standalone article. Cavarrone (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, if this article is to be deleted, then first the info should be merged in the article mentioned above. But to clarify, why is an accusation of a hate-crime not notable? — GabeMc (talk) 01:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps in part because his supporters want it to just go away. Edison (talk) 04:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe some editors are sick and tired of people using WP for political purposes. Arzel (talk) 04:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The "blind teacher prank", and hate-crime allegation coupled with this: Romney Campaign Helped Cultivate Candidate’s Prankster Image make this an issue that needs to be covered somewhere in wikipedia. — GabeMc (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Along the lines of "Romney Campaign Helped Cultivate Candidate’s Prankster Image," here's a similar article: CS Monitor, "Why does Ann Romney keep calling Mitt a 'wild and crazy' guy?".

That question was asked before the Lauber story came out, and that story might be the answer to the question. The campaign may have been "calling Mitt a 'wild and crazy' guy" specifically because it expected the stories about Lauber et al to come out. In any case, these stories are relevant to his campaign because he has gone out of his way to present himself as a "prankster." Jukeboxgrad (talk) 13:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't you wonder why a teacher as supposedly blind as that was driving a car? If that teacher was unable to avoid a cabinet, just imagine what his driving was like! Guessing that story was embelished....just a little bit. Arzel (talk) 04:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete and merge (selectively) with Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
• Keep or Selectively merge References exist in the British Press supporting the incident. Romney sorry for cutting the hair of 'gay' classmate Frean, Alexandra. The Times 12 May 2012 ; Romney was bully who cut off a gay pupil's fringe, say ex-school friends Foster, Peter; Sanchez, Raf. The Daily Telegraph 11 May 2012; International: Gay rights: Romney bullied classmate who was victim of taunting over sexuality: Republican says incident was a schoolboy "prank", MacAskill, Ewen. The Guardian 11 May 2012; Romney says sorry for school "bullying" The Sun 11 May 2012; Romney faces accounts of homophobia and bullying, Marlowe, Lara. Irish Times 12 May 2012; Romney battles gay bully claims: Fighting talk The Daily Telegraph 12 May 2012; Gay rights sharpen the presidential divide Cornwell, Rupert. The Independent on Sunday 13 May 2012. This is not something "heard through the grapevine" or gossip as suggested by the nominator. Tom Pippens (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I have no opinion on the article itself, but I am concerned this article continues to be inserted while it remains a candidate for deletion. It shouldn't be linked in Mitt Romney until a final decision is made, right? Wikifan^{Be nice} 11:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - we are not a rolling news website and until this incident is shown to have a lasting impact it remains merely another political flashpoint that will require huge amounts of maintenance with reference to WP:BLP etc. Plenty of stuff is reported in numerous quality newspapers but still doesn't make it on to Wikipedia, and I see nothing exceptional about this one. We could easily be swamped by articles containing allegations such as this, and the benefit is minimal. You want to know about it, then GSearch for the news sources rather than look in an encyclopedia. - Sitush (talk) 11:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
• Keep & expand & explain why the primary Willard page lists « American people of Canadian descent (−) (±) ». Tell us John Lauber's birthyear. Add more about Pierce Getsinger, Gary Hummel, Matthew Friedemann or Matthew Friedman, David Seed, Thomas Buford, Phillip Maxwell. ~ ~ As well as Eric_Fehrnstrom, Bryan_Fischer, Brian_Fisher, Dick Grenell, Rachel_Anne_Maddow, necklace. ~ ~ & I had to go through useless nonsense effort to locate this article, only to learn that you want to delete. hopiakuta Please do sign your communiqué .~~Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina. 17:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC) Your comments are self contradictory gibberish, as well as spelling. hopiakuta Please do sign your communiqué .~~Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina. 18:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

This is incoherent and could be ignored by the closing admin. You may wish to rewrite it in a meaningful manner. Additionally, please fix your signature. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

You should see their user and talk page. Drmies (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Strong delete - This is yet another political hatchet job, such as the one linking Obama's Forward movement to socialism, the "Seamus incident", the "Obama eats dogs incident", the "Sarah Palin weed incident", the "Obama crack incident", and the "Barry Sotoro" nonsense. It isn't notable just because a bunch of news companies flooded the airwaves with nonsense about Romney being a bully; it will be over in two weeks once the political scaremongering finds someone else to target. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Normally, the incidents in a politician's biography do not justify separate articles. the main exceptions to this are really major events in the life of someone who has held such a major office as President, or where the incident itself is as notable or more notable than the person, or is in some sense the defining one for his career, for example Chappaquiddick incident is both the 2nd and 3rd. Continuing to use Ted Kennedy as the example, his cheating on an examination in college does not warrant an article: it did not end his career--it would not by itself have kept him from ever becoming President; Chappaquiddick did. I consider this comparable to the college cheating. We do not normally hold things in their adolescence against a person as seriously as their misdeeds as an adult. Conceivably this may cause him to drop out of the race, and then perhaps there might be an article--nobody can predict this, nor is there any reason to assume it. Conceivably this may become the banner incident about student bullying, and then perhaps there might be an article--nobody can predict this, nor is there any reason to assume it. I'm going to give my politics here: I totally distrust this person, & would not vote for him even were he at the moment on what I consider the correct side of every issue. And having been bullied as a child to a relatively minor extent but enough that I would never forget it--like I suspect a great many of us here--I have an immediate strong negative reaction to the way he behaved as a schoolboy. But that doesn't define him. His adult career is what defines him. A separate article on this is undue emphasis at this point. DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

DGG, thats a fair point, but the sources are saying this topic is an important indicator of the sort of adult Romney has become, on account of how he's reacted to the story over the past week. See for example Forbes and ABC, talking about the callous way Romney made light of the issue, and the implausibility of his claim not to remember it.FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

There are so many incorrect statements on this page, it's hard to know where to start. Please forgive me for not bothering to mention who said what.

WaPo calls the one guy an "independent" whereas the automobilemag.com source quotes him "I am a Democrat".

This claim is utterly false. WaPo describes one person as an "independent:" David Seed. The automobilemag article does not reference Seed at all. The person quoted saying "I'm a Democrat" (in the automobilemag article) is Phillip Maxwell. WaPo never said otherwise, and never called him an "independent."

Read them both and you can see the WaPo selective parsing his statements to make him appear to be a neutral source.

There is no such "selective parsing." WaPo said "they mostly lean Democratic" (regarding the five witnesses, including Maxwell).

Story can't be verified beyond the "he-said-she-said"

This implies that someone has disputed the account. No, no one has disputed the account (of the attack on Lauber). The family has not, and Romney has not. On the contrary. In a statement that is largely overlooked, Romney has essentially confessed. See here:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/family-of-alleged-romney-bullying-victim-denies-knowledge-of-incident/#comment-1525256

Yes, a sister has said "the portrayal of John is factually incorrect," but they have not disputed the account of the attack on Lauber, and they have pointedly refrained from saying exactly what's incorrect: "She did not say specifically how the Washington Post story was incorrect."

Given that the WaPo has already made one clearly false statement

You're talking about the Stu White situation. No, that is not a "clearly false statement." See here:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/family-of-alleged-romney-bullying-victim-denies-knowledge-of-incident/#comment-1525383

(which they corrected but neglected to note) puts the entire WaPo story into question.

Yes, WaPo made a change to the text, and there was a period of time where it made that change and "neglected to note" it. That problem was finally addressed. As of now, the article does indeed "note" the change.

This is, at the very best, silly season innuendo, which was even denied by one of those who WaPo "quoted."

You are probably talking about Stu White, and what you have said is a grievous distortion of what actually happened regarding White. See my linked comment, above.

has other sources partially or fully debunking it.

This claim is false. This is probably another reference to the Stu White situation. Or possibly to the family, which has done no "debunking" whatsoever.

new evidence seems to suggest incident has been overblown

No, there is no such "new evidence." If you have any, present it.

an accusation not yet actually confirmed and the accuracy of informtion is questioned by the original source changing their story somewhat

By "the original source," you mean White. Trouble is, White was not presented as a source (that is, a witness).

This is a nice example of what I described in my linked comment. You are one of the many people who are claiming White was presented as a witness, even though he wasn't. You are also implying he was the sole source ("the"), and this is an even worse distortion.

It ill-serves Wikipedia, is not encyclopedic, is not "strongly sourced"

Five witnesses are referenced, and four of them are named. If that's not "strongly sourced," then the term has no meaning. Especially since Romney himself has essentially confessed.

All of this amounts to a single incident in high school

The WaPo article cites more than one incident.

it's an old prep school prank

Phillip Maxwell is an attorney. He was there, and he described the act as "assault and battery." That's not a "prank." Many people, including Romney himself, are attempting to dismiss the assault as a "prank." This is a problem, and it's one of the main reasons the story is not going away: because it's about Romney now, and not just about Romney at 18. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - on BLP grounds. Let me explain: Romney, by running for POTUS, has set himself up for public scrutiny. However, the (deceased) victim and his (living) family have not. It appears that the victim's family don't think he'd want this attention, nor does it appear they want it themselves. They are non-public people, and we should honor their wishes in this regard, even if the rest of the media does not. LadyofShalott 01:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

While I'm with ya on the recommended outcome, I'm not buying that argument at all. Public figures should not be controlling the content of WP, less still the families of public figures. I am for an independent and truly uncensored Wikipedia (and not in a "more dix pix, bro!" sense — I mean in the sense of broad freedom of content. Following this path isn't just a potential slippery slope, its straight off the precipice into a world of prior restraint censorship. Carrite (talk) 04:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Please reread my comment. I am NOT talking about the family of a public person. I'm talking of the family of a dead person who is in the news for something that happened 50+ years ago when he was in high school. As far as I know, neither he nor his family are public people. LadyofShalott 18:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

No, what I say here is pretty much what I mean — the family of a dead person should not have any expectation of control over content of description of a historic event, and we should not pander to that on the grounds of "privacy." I speak of this as a general principle. I do not believe this incident rises to the level of encyclopedia-worthiness at this point, but I really do want to voice disagreement with the rationale you present to achieve this same result. This is a case of NOTNEWS rather than BLP-related privacy. Carrite (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that if an episode or event is sufficiently notable to warrant separate inclusion in Wikipedia, then the feelings of survivors of one of the central persons in that episode are rather beside the point. But I think those feelings are a good thing to bear in mind in a case where notability of the event is not clear. A few editors here have suggested that the article stand until it becomes clear that the event is not separately notable. I think that the foregoing is a good reason to delete or merge the article until it is established that the event is notable. (Not to mention that allowing an article to stand until its subject is deemed not notable seems, to me, to describe the process exactly backwards.) JohnInDC (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Carrite, well then I think your use of "public person" was incorrect - it was that usage which led me to think you'd misread my comment. In no real sense is the victim of this incident a public person. I also think that that JohnInDC nails it on the head. LadyofShalott 22:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete, with the possibility of reintroducing it if broad reliable reporting of the episode continues or expands. (In that regard, it's unclear how likely it is that anything more is going to come of this, given that every living person with first hand knowledge of the matter appears to have been interviewed, the victim's family seems to have no appetite for continuing the discussion, and the candidate has addressed the matter (however unsatisfactory one may deem the response)). It's a tempest, sure, but at the moment it hasn't spilled out of the teapot. It's too soon for a full-blown separate article. JohnInDC (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - on the basis that Wikipedia is Not The News. If this maintains traction over time, a few lines in the biography or main piece on the campaign will be merited. As a stand-alone article when this is still flowing through the 24 hour news cycle, this topic clearly is a manifestation of POV-driven election year fooliganism. Carrite (talk) 04:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Keep; the article is topical- retaining it will provide a valuable reference for gauging the current climate for future researchers. It's not a mater of content worth- only of whether it should be spun off from another article due to weight. If the content would be trimmed and be less than comprehensive due to weight in a separate article, it should remain free-standing. Mavigogun (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Between now and November we are going to see numerous articles of this sort trying to capitalize on Wikipedia's high Google rankings in order to promote campaign talking points. In a few months this news story will be largely forgotten. – Lionel ^(talk) 08:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• delete WP:NOTNEWS. Canvassing here weakens the case for keep. LibStar (talk) 10:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

How would that weaken the case for keep? People would say keep or delete as they normally would, regardless of that. Many keeps arrived before the off-site canvassing or found their way here by other means, and additional keep voting people showed up after that link on an external site was deleted. Dream Focus 10:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete/Merge/Redirect - NOTNEWS/UNDUE. It certainly seems verifiable, but I think it should be a verifiable sentence or two in a Mitt Romney article, not a whole article of it's own. Sergecross73 msg me 12:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Keep A highly notable and significant topic, which doesnt fall under NOTNEWS. In addition to the excellent sources provided by GabeMc and Tom Pippens, there was a front page article in the Financial Times this morning, putting the event in context of the US cultural wars, noting "Romney had led a gang at boarding school that held down and sheared off the hair of an effeminate classmate." If anyone is still finding it hard to see why leadership of a gang of bullies as they callously disfigure a vulnerable individual is notable in relationship to a leading candidate for the most powerful office on earth, then GabeMc's Forbes. source is especially good at showing why this matters. Im normally rather deletionist when it comes to negative information on living persons, but any chivalry towards a former job destroying corporate raider who in his own words "is not concerned about the very poor" seems misplaced. This topic is not all comparable with hatchet jobs about trivial youthful indiscretions like experimentation with drugs - thats why serious sources like Financial Times and Forbes are giving it due attention. Seeing editors who normally have good judgement claim otherwise was unexpected. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Check Google, or more particularly Google Books for "Romneycare"--the hits just keep on coming, yet a separate article is not warranted. The program is covered in Massachusetts health care reform, and the "controversy" is mentioned in the Romney article. The crux of the point is that not every news- or printworthy topic deserves its own article. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Massachusetts health care reform seems to be just a more encyclopaedic term for Romneycare. Folks arent trying to rename this article but to delete it. There's a great deal to say on this specific topic, and if we tried to treat all the key aspects of it in the main campaign or BLP article, then that genuinely would be undue weight. If we delete this topic against policy we run the risk of external sources saying that we're allowing Republican activists and Rommney fanboys to overide our academic neutrality for their political purposes. Lets not allow our inclusion policies to be subverted. Its embarrassing! FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Please spare us the hyperbole. Arzel (talk) 12:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no hypbole here pumpkin. When delete voters continue making claims that are obviously contrary to the available reliable sources, it can be necessary to make one's point more forcefully than one might in a quality discussion. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Arzel, FeydHuxtable has made this important observation: "delete voters continue making claims that are obviously contrary to the available reliable sources." You have made false claims on this page, and you have refused to take responsibility for those claims even though this has been pointed out to you. This tends to create the impression that you are not arguing in good faith.

It's ironic to notice that you said this: "given that the WaPo has already made one clearly false statement (which they corrected but neglected to note) puts the entire WaPo story into question." You have made multiple statements that are "clearly false," and, unlike WaPo, you have issued no correction whatsoever. By your own standards, this behavior on your part "puts [all your statements] into question." Jukeboxgrad (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to article on Romney campaign. The future may show this topic to have an impact of enough significance and duration to warrant an article (as has happened with Seamus incident), but right now that threshold hasn't been reached. Which is why it's silly to create articles about stuff like this the second they happen. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - per NOTNEWS. If this content should be covered anywhere (I'm worried about UNDUE), it should be within the Mitt Romney BLP. Jogurney (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Off Site Canvassing

The original creator of the article is canvasing from his DK page. The use of WP for political activism should be stopped, and user:Pbmaise should be warned for this type of behavior. From the webpage.

If you wish to add your own voice as to whether this subject deserves a page on Wikipedia

Then follow the link to: http://en.wikipedia.org/... and provide your voice.

For now..Wikipedia's mouth is tight lipped on the subject 1/2 the world knows about.

Philip B. Maise

p.s. Note hopefully by the time you read this the story is back on-line.

Note: The only reason I saw this was because of his long rant above stating if you googled him you might come up with a connection to Romney. Arzel (talk) 04:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• The canvasing warrants punitive action.

• I would readily support going beyond a warning. It was blatant off-stie canvassing. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Off-site canvassing should be discouraged, but this fact shouldn't have any effect on this discussion. Someone please summarize the concrete arguments of both sides and politely ask new comers to stop voting or restate any existing arguments because AfD is not a strawpoll. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• How many people actually would've found that website, and how long was his rant up there, and was it done deliberately for canvasing purposes? I found my way here from the Google news article about the case, leading me to the main article, and from there on that talk page someone created this page, those participating in the debate there all coming over here to participate in the AFD. Enough people siding both ways from that attention alone to establish there is no consensus one way or the other to delete this article. Dream Focus 15:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia discourages the concept; it does not set a minimum eyeball threshold for the site, to my knowledge. We don't know how many people would have seen this blog post (or any other for any point of view), which is why Wikipedia basically says "don't do it." To that end, I added the standard {{not a ballot}} template, without referencing any particular posting. --McDoobAU93 15:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Does it matter how many people would find it? At least 30+ people commented before I noticed it, so I would guess a number of people did see it. And yes it was deliberately done, did you not read what he posted? I put it right there for everyone to see. Arzel (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion resumed here

• Delete NOTNEWS plus WP:UNDUE - might warrant a mention in relevant election article but nowhere else. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment a number of editors are quoting WP:UNDUE in support of deletion. There doesn't actually appear to be anything in WP:UNDUE which relates to whether a standalone article should or shouldn't exist. This aspect of policy is actually about ensuring that articles don't give undue prominence to a tangential aspect of a subject or minority view in comparison to the prominence given to the main aspects / the majority views. Whether a subject is worthy of a whole article is the realm of the WP:GNG, not WP:UNDUE. This is something for the closing admin to bear in mind. SP-KP (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect: to another Mitt Romney or Romney '12-related article. The prep school anti-gay incident was one of the 5-10 biggest news stories of the week of May 7-11, but we're not news, so it should be consolidated into a paragraph or a Lv. 4 heading and merged to another article pbp 18:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment What happens if the consensus here is to merge to the Mitt Romney article, but the editors who participate in the talk page of that article vote to censor out any mention of it in the article? Edison (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Wiki-bureaucracy, I'm afraid. You'd probably have to start a long-winded RFC about it pbp 19:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, no one should !vote "merge" here with any expectation that it will be mentioned at all in the Mitt Romney article when the dust settles there. That article tends to be a carefully polished campaign puff piece. Edison (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is a carefully polished campaign puff piece. Someone reading that article will learn that at Cranbrook "he belonged to eleven school organizations and school clubs, including founding the Blue Key Club boosters group," but they will not learn about his assault on Lauber (unless they follow the link for "Mitt Romney Cranbrook incident").

And the source for that statement regarding his "school organizations and school clubs?" The WP article we're discussing. So the editors of that page have decided that it's material to mention that Horowitz reported that "he belonged to eleven school organizations and school clubs, including founding the Blue Key Club boosters group," but not material to mention that Horowitz reported that five classmates witnessed Romney committing an assault. This is "editing from a neutral point of view?" Hilarious. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 14:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I've now added that cite. I'm in a bind in the main article. When opinion is split evenly about adding material to an existing article, it comes down to 'no consensus' to include the material and it stays out. When opinion is split evenly about deleting a new article, it comes down to 'no consensus' to delete it and the article lives on. I really want to include the Lauber incident directly in the main article, but without numbers there's not much I can do. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been following Talk:Mitt_Romney too closely, but now I notice the proposal you made (15:23, 13 May), and I just want to mention that I think it's quite good. I think you showed that "the essence of this story can be captured in two or three sentences" (as JohnInDC said on this page). Jukeboxgrad (talk) 05:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This story has the potential to become more important than the Seamus incident which merits a Wikipedia article. In my opinion it’s more likely than not that the story will have lasting impact.

1. Partly this story is likely to stay and grow because people generally feel bullying a vulnerable human being during his formative years matters even more than mistreating a dog.
2. Partly this is likely to stay and grow because the Gay rights lobby is strong, vocal and internationally organised. Gay rights is stronger than PETA.

If we delete this then users who worked on the article will be discouraged from editing Wikipedia. If we delete this and ask users to redo the article later, users will be frustrated about having to redo their hard work and this will also discourage editing. We should keep this at least a month, in the very unlikely event that the story doesn’t have staying power we can delete later. Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Detleing any article has the potential to frustrate and disappoint the editors who worked on it; yet we do it every day. If we decide to delete the article, then later it appears to have become notable, we could always undelete and go from there. Deleted does not mean unrecoverable. LadyofShalott 23:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - Too soon to be able to determine whether this event will have lasting notability. Recommend we take this back to AfD in a month or two. With the off-site canvassing that took place, coming to a clear consensus here will be all but impossible. -Scottywong| gossip _ 19:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that's really true. The canvassing seems to be encouraging !votes to keep this as a separate article, but the discussion is still tilted overwhelmingly towards delete or merge and redirect.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Dont forget closing admins evaluate consensus based on the strength of policy based arguments, not a headcount. Most of the delete arguments seem to be either blatantly factually incorrect or to misrepresent policy. Examples of the factually incorrect arguments are those claiming reliable sources are commenting on the "absurdity" of the WaPo article instead of commenting on the topic - a quick review of the many reliable sources shows this is plain wrong. An example of misrepresenting policy is linking to WP:UNDUE as a reason to delete - undue is about avoiding unwarranted emphasis on minority POVs within an article, it doesnt apply at article level. The substantive balance of this discussion seems to call for a keep decision, or at the very worst no consensus. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Umm, ok, but that still isn't a reason why canvassing should be a reason to close this without a real decision if the canvassing hasn't had its desired effect.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect to Mitt Romney or Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. Whether this incident deserves (very brief) mention in Romney's biography or the campaign article is a matter for the discretion of editors there. However, it is clearly inappropriate and undue weight to have a stand-alone article dedicated to this incident. MastCell ^Talk 19:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't see the advantage of a redirect. If it is to aid searching, Mitt Romney is already showing up on the first page of g-hits for "Mitt Romney Cranbrook incident" or "Mitt Romney Cranbrook". If it is to prevent recreation, salting accomplishes that. There is, on and off, already mention of this incident in the article and if it needs only a sentence, there isn't really anything to merge. If there were an article analogous to Early life and career of Barack Obama, I could see redirecting this title to it, but redirecting it to the primary Mitt Romney article doesn't really seem to do anything ... it's almost like a forced compromise between deletion and keeping. --B (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
    • You're right. I would be equally comfortable with just plain delete here. MastCell ^Talk 23:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: I hate to say this, but all policy says this should be deleted and making an exception because we guess it will be of lasting importance violates WP:BALL. Right now, the incident should only get a brief mention in the Romney article. If people are still talking about this a few months after the election (something which is quite likely, but which we can't as yet prove), we can make a separate article for it then. Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Strong keep This incident meets general notability guidelines on all counts. Anti-gay bullying is a notable subject in itself, espcially today with all the online videos of gay suicides. The fact this incident came to light on the same day as Obama announcing his support for gay rights makes it all the more interesting, especially considering one of the big talking points. This incident comes 2 weeks after Romney dropped a campaign spokesman (Grenell) because he was gay. Considering gay rights is probably the biggest civil rights campaign of today this issue is obviously notable. Pass a Method talk 16:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, very interesting that the WaPo would publish this wery weak attempt to label Romney an anti-gay bully just when Obama was announcing his support for gay rights. Why must we use WP to promote political attacks when there is no evidence that Romney knew this guy was gay at the time? Arzel (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing surprising about a newspaper timing a story so as to attract the most attention. And they said so:

"Do I think The Post took advantage of the timing? Yes. Vice President Biden had telegraphed the president’s position on gay marriage just days earlier. This story on Romney was in preparation for three weeks. It is part of a series of biographical stories on Romney being written by Horowitz and others and edited by The Post’s Pulitzer Prize-winning writer and associate editor, David Maraniss, who is known for his best- selling biographies of major U.S. political figures. If I were an editor I might have sped it up a little, too, to take advantage of the national discussion on gay marriage." WP Ombudsman Jukeboxgrad (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

And regarding whether or not "Romney knew this guy was gay at the time:" according to Horowitz, Lauber "was perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality." And according to a named witness, Romney noticed Lauber's "bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye" and said "He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!"

That had nothing to do with Lauber's "presumed homosexuality?" I doubt it. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

You should have seen my hair when I was growing up! I was definately not a conformist. Did you happen to see how pretty much every single "Hair Band" had their hair during the 70's and 80's? Point is, just because today that is viewed a certain way does not mean it was in the 60's. Look I realize that the left wants to make this into a Romney hates/hated gays, but the there if no evidence of that, if there were then there would certainly be more than this one hyped up incident that was apparently not that big of a deal at the time it happened. But go ahead and presume the worst if you must. Arzel (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

That's fascinating about your hair! Do you have any photos? I would love to see them!

But what's infinitely more relevant to this discussion are the various false claims you have made that you are refusing to retract, even though they have been pointed out. For example, you said this:

WaPo calls the one guy an "independent" whereas the automobilemag.com source quotes him "I am a Democrat".

That claim is false. When are you going to retract it? And do you need help finding the other examples? Jukeboxgrad (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to keep an open mind about the inferences to be drawn from this episode. I attended Cranbrook, arriving for the 7th grade only 15 months after Mitt Romney left campus, and can report that during my early years there (it changed considerably later on), hazing, harassment and other forms of physical intimidation and abuse were pretty routine stuff. You were a likely victim if you were

• short
• fat
• effeminate
• physically uncoordinated
• unattractive in some uncommon fashion, e.g., a skin condition
• given to solitary or generally non-social pursuits (e.g. drawing, reading) or
• otherwise manifestly non-conforming in school that valued conformity.

Kids who exhibited these characteristics might be stuffed into lockers, have their jock straps pulled up over their heads, get pushed face first down hills into snow or mud, have their briefcases stolen and hidden away for a week, their textbooks destroyed; or just be pummeled until the perpetrators lost interest. These could be daily occurrences. You didn't have to be gay to be a victim; you just had to be vulnerable and lacking any obvious extrinsic protection (like participation in sports, high academic standing, a larger, stronger best friend). Of course I can't speak for what was in Romney's head in 1965, but from what I know about boy's school culture then prevailing, a victimizer didn't have to be homophobic in the least in order to inflict suffering on another student. Homosexual, heterosexual, pre-sexual - it didn't matter! The Romney incident, as reported, was more extreme than anything I was aware of during my time there, but I was a day boy and always presumed that life in the dorms was rawer. Still it was pretty nasty stuff and he should be ashamed (pity that he doesn't recall it). So for whatever enlightenment it may provide, from where I stand: 1) the worst facet of his role was that he appeared to have been the instigator; 2) the incident doesn't give a clue about Romney's feelings toward gays, then or now; 3) he might easily have outgrown whatever general bullying tendencies the episode betrays; and 4) his failure to apologize for it, for real, reveals much more, far more clearly, than anything we might surmise from the incident itself. JohnInDC (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

"[H]is failure to apologize for it, for real, reveals much more, far more clearly, than anything we might surmise from the incident itself." This is the key point: that even now he doesn't realize that laughing about it (which is what he did) is precisely the wrong thing to do. This is what makes the story about Romney now, and not just about Romney at 18. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

What that tells me (and I think we disagree on this, forgive me for not searching further up the page to be sure) is that the essence of this story can be captured in two or three sentences, within the Mitt Romney article, without all the extraneous clutter in a separate of "presumed" gayness, who said what about the episode, what the victim's family feels about it - that's all just distration. Uh, IMHO of course. JohnInDC (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

"[T]he essence of this story can be captured in two or three sentences, within the Mitt Romney article."

I haven't expressed a position on keep vs merge, but I agree strongly with Edison that the main Romney article is "a carefully polished campaign puff piece." The editors of that page have already decided to cite Horowitz regarding Romney "founding the Blue Key Club boosters group," but to not explicitly cite Horowitz regarding the Lauber assault. Instead they say this: "Romney was involved in many pranks,[nb 3] and also in the Mitt Romney Cranbrook incident." Which implies that the Lauber assault was merely a "prank" or an "incident" similar to a "prank."

You might be right that "the essence of this story can be captured in two or three sentences," but the editors of that page can't be trusted to provide or allow those sentences. Which means that 'merge' is kind of a joke, or a fantasy. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hm. Having spent a day or two trying unsuccessfully to work in a neutral couple of sentences in the main Mitt Romney article, I am beginning to see what you mean. The end result may be a permanent, lengthier and more POV-prone separate article on the issue, which personally I still don't think is warranted. JohnInDC (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort there, and I'm sorry it hasn't been successful. As I said above, I think the text you proposed is good. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. And clean it up more. There are numerous mainstream sources and this misguidedly labelled "incident" is quite significant given the perpetrator is vying for the most powerful office in the world coupled with how bullying against gay kids has gained enormous mainstream attention including from the very White House that Romney would want to live in. When an incident is covered by worldwide media it's fair to assume it's past the tipping point of being notable. Bullying drives people to despair and suicide, this is an example of how pervasive the problem is, that someone wanting to be US president is oblivious how violent and dangerous their (alleged?) homophobic actions are. At the very least "bullying" should be in the title of the article.Insomesia (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment "Prankster" is certainly part of his public image, from the Detroit News: "The Detroit News Michigan's native son Long before Mitt Romney became a candidate for president of the United States, he was a lanky teenager in Bloomfield Hills with a penchant for practical jokes rather than for politics. During one such elaborate prank, Romney dressed in a uniform, put a flashing light atop a borrowed car and impersonating a police officer pulled up behind a car with two of his friends and their dates." And you know, impersonating a police officer is a crime, as would the "hair-cut/hate-crime/assault and battery" incident if it did indeed occur. One could possibly argue that making an elderly person bump into a door is a type of 5th degree assault, and the "atta-girl" comments, if they occurred as often as alledged, and for the purpose of taunting gay students, might constitute harrassment and hate-crime charges. So really, we have allegations of potentially four or five crimes involved with his pranks. Pretty notable I would say. — GabeMc (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Notable in the sense of imposing modern standards on behavior fifty years ago, which is something we need to avoid in consideration of this AfD. Sure, one of the alleged witnesses claims he'd call it assault and battery today ... key word is today. If it was so bad, why didn't he report it then? Why didn't the alleged victim report it? His family has stated they believed he probably wouldn't have if the incident had occurred ... since the alleged victim wouldn't have considered himself to be a victim, there wouldn't have been a crime. (While we're on the subject, why didn't any of the alleged witnesses bring this forward when Romney pursued other high-profile positions, such as running the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics or the governorship of Massachusetts?) Any attempt at assigning criminal intent on a 1965 incident based on 2012 standards would be original thought on our parts (on the part of Wikipedia editors, I mean). Here's what we have to ask ourselves ... in the context of the era in which the event occurred, is the incident truly notable? While today we may assign buzzword terms like "hate crime", back then it'd be "boys will be boys". --McDoobAU93 05:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

"Modern Standards"?, that you cannot cut the hair off a person with a weapon because you don't like it? It was a crime, even then, why wasn't it reported? Many rapes go unreported as well, means very little about whether an actual crime was committed. This statement is utterly ridiculous, "since the alleged victim wouldn't have considered himself to be a victim, there wouldn't have been a crime." 1) How do you know Lauber didn't "consider himself a victim", 2) Why would it matter? State and local authorities can press charges even when the victim does not want to. 3) Whether or not you consider yourself a victim does not determine whether or not a crime occured, its completely irrelevant if the authorities feel a crime occurred. "boys will be boys"? What a load! The "n-word" was much more acceptable in 1965 (for whites to use) also, but if a story surfaced that Romney referred to blacks as such, in public, it would most certainly be notable today. "A call to police would probably also be in order because it would be considered an assault, said Alan Goodwin, principal of Walt Whitman High School in Bethesda. “It would be taken very seriously,” Goodwin said. “Even using the scissors would be considered using a weapon. It would not be an acceptable prank.”" — GabeMc (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we're hearing a lot of false claims and ridiculous arguments, like "why wasn't it reported?" This is a nice example of making an unwarranted assumption without even realizing you're making an assumption.

As Gabe pointed out, all sorts of attacks and crimes go unreported, for all sorts of reasons. But the broader point is that we don't even know that this crime was unreported. As someone famous once said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We don't have evidence of a report, but that doesn't mean much. Especially because the school records are sealed, the victim is dead, and the adults who worked there at the time aren't there anymore. And we obviously shouldn't expect to get a complete and honest picture from Romney.

Imagine the following highly plausible scenario: Lauber reported the attack to school authorities, and they decided to brush him off, because Mitt's daddy was much more powerful than Lauber's daddy. And then they found an excuse to expel him. Or this scenario: Lauber reported the attack to school authorities, and they were greatly concerned, and they gave Mitt a stern private lecture, slapping him on the wrist and confiscating his scissors. And there are many other possible scenarios. Maybe they called old man George and he begged them to let his boy have one more chance. Et cetera. Is there any reason to assume these things couldn't happen? No, there isn't.

This is a terrific example of how people are inclined to jump to all sorts of firm conclusions that aren't grounded in the actual evidence that's actually available. Here's what that amounts to: speculating while pretending that you're not speculating. Or, in less genteel terms: making shit up. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Pot, please meet Mr. Kettle. Your scenarios are simply swelling with wealth and power envy, which require a large number of assumptions and reveal your own biases. Since neither of us is going to convince the other, there's no sense in wasting further bandwidth on a story that's rapidly leaving the news cycle for more important matters, such as whether or not Jennifer Lopez will be back on American Idol next season. --McDoobAU93 00:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

"Mr. Pot, please meet Mr. Kettle."

That's a claim that I'm like you. It would be an appropriate accusation if I have made false claims, since that's what you've done. Trouble is, you've demonstrated this many false claims on my part: zero.

"Your scenarios are simply swelling with wealth and power envy"

Yet another instance of you relying on your imagination rather than evidence. And what a surprise that after I caught you making multiple false claims you resort to offensive and irrelevant speculation about my motives ("power envy") instead of retracting your multiple false claims.

When are you going to tell us why you said Maxwell said "today" even though he didn't say that?

"which require a large number of assumptions"

You've demonstrated this many unwarranted assumptions on my part: zero.

"there's no sense in wasting further bandwidth"

English translation: 'I can't defend the various false claims I've made, so now I'm going to run and hide.' Jukeboxgrad (talk) 00:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Whatever cranks your tractor, my friend. --McDoobAU93 03:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

What happened to "no sense in wasting further bandwidth," which you labeled as "final response?" Promises, promises. Like so many other things you say, I had a feeling those words shouldn't be taken seriously.

Also, I'm no "friend" of anyone who refuses to take responsibility for what they say, so you should find something else to call me. But I do appreciate all your efforts here. The inadvertent public service is considerable. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

And I had a feeling you'd try and get the last word ... I'll let ya have it. Maybe ;) --McDoobAU93 04:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

McDoob, you should substantiate your earlier bogus claims before you make a bunch of new ones. Earlier you said this:

"new evidence seems to suggest incident has been overblown"

I asked you to show us that "new evidence." Where is it? You also said this (regarding the article in automobilemag):

"along with contradicting information in the WaPo article"

What "contradicting information?" I already asked you these questions. When you refuse to substantiate your claims, this tends to create the impression that you are not arguing in good faith.

"one of the alleged witnesses claims he'd call it assault and battery today"

No, that's not what Maxwell said. He said this: "I'm a lawyer. I know what an assault is. This kid was scared. He was terrified. That's an assault." (CNN) That's not "he'd call it assault and battery today."

And the facts as reported by all five witnesses are self-evidently assault, under the laws of Michigan of 1965, not just the current laws of Michigan. The laws of assault have not changed much since 1965.

"key word is today"

That would be a "key" word if he had actually used it. But he didn't. That word came from you, not him. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 06:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

"Any attempt at assigning criminal intent on a 1965 incident based on 2012 standards"

The attack as described by five witnesses meets the 1965 definition of assault. And it's important to notice that Romney has essentially confessed ("I’ve seen the reports, and not going to argue with that").

"If it was so bad, why didn't he report it 'then'?"

It would be good if you didn't imply that there's only one witness. A lot of people are doing that, for some strange reason. (Edit: Oops, my mistake. In context I see you weren't doing that. Sorry about that.)

The five witnesses didn't report it then because they were dumb kids who had done a very serious and bad thing. They were also probably afraid of getting the Governor's son into trouble (aside from getting themselves into trouble). But eventually they grew up and realized they had done a very serious and bad thing. In this regard the five witnesses are different from Romney. He hasn't reached that point yet. That's why he laughed about it instead of treating it seriously.

"Why didn't the alleged victim report it?"

How do you know he didn't? The school has said that their records are sealed.

"since the alleged victim wouldn't have considered himself to be a victim"

He was screaming and crying. That's a pretty solid indication that he "considered himself to be a victim."

"why didn't any of the alleged witnesses bring this forward when Romney pursued other high-profile positions"

The witnesses did not bring this forward spontaneously. Horowitz had to dig the story out of them. The story came out now because the witnesses were called by an intrepid reporter who put a lot of energy into asking a lot of people a lot of questions.

In the past, Romney has never pursued a position as "high-profile" as the position he's pursuing now. The number of reporters currently investigating him is commensurate with the importance of the job he's currently trying to get (and he's been trying to get it for a long time, but lately he's come much closer to getting it than he ever has before). Things are going to come out that never came out before. This pattern is not unusual. GWB managed to hide his 1976 DUI until 2000.

"in the context of the era in which the event occurred, is the incident truly notable?"

Assault has been a crime for a very long time. Assault became a crime long before 1965. Look up the legal definition and that might help you understand that this assault was a crime "in the context of the era in which the event occurred."

And aside from that, one of the many things you're ignoring, even though it's been explained over and over again, is that the problem is not just what Romney did when he was 18. The problem is how he's handling the matter now. The latter is arguably a bigger problem than the former.

Five witnesses have said they saw a presidential candidate commit a violent crime. And he hasn't denied it. Instead, he said "not going to argue with that." Such a thing could be considered not notable only by someone whose point of view is quite far from neutral. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 06:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

"While today we may assign buzzword terms like 'hate crime', back then it'd be 'boys will be boys'."

A term that applies to the act in both 1965 and 2012 is this: assault. And what is probably true in both 1965 and 2012 is that assault by the Governor's son might get translated into this: 'boys will be boys.' Jukeboxgrad (talk) 07:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "witnesses" who have not been placed under oath or subjected to any cross-examination by any form of "defense" ... even the present-day lawyer would concede that. If we were to proceed down your path, then we must at the same time conclude that Barack Obama is a drug addict. He has not denied his drug usage (he has even laughed about it, suggesting he doesn't take it seriously), and to my knowledge he has not stated that he has attended rehab or sought out any other form of treatment. Even if he had (and kudos for sure if he has), he would be and will always be a recovering addict, and that's not exactly a prime character trait for the person with the nuclear suitcase, who could be one bad day away from falling off the wagon. Neither man will ever be prosecuted for these "crimes", nor should they be, so there's no sense in calling them "crimes". And before you ascribe points of view, please be sure to note that I have !voted to delete similar political hit pieces directed at Obama (notably #ObamaAteADog and "Forward!" as a socialist rallying cry/2012 political campaign slogan) and for precisely the same reasons as this one, as well as noting the point-of-view of this article's original author, who has chosen to wear his bias proudly (thus suggesting the article's creation violates WP:COATRACK). Also please note that I have proposed that this incident be included in Romney's own article, not completely expunged from Wikipedia. --McDoobAU93 07:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

" 'witnesses' who have not been placed under oath or subjected to any cross-examination by any form of 'defense' "

Romney said "not going to argue with that." If he's not going to question what they said, why should anyone else?

Contrary to the many false claims on this page and elsewhere, no one has demonstrated a single error or contradiction with regard to what's been said by these five witnesses.

You're also applying the wrong standard. Wikipedia is not a courtroom. We accept that things are probably true and worth mentioning if they are reported by multiple credible sources, even if they "have not been placed under oath or subjected to any cross-examination." If Wikipedia decided to forbid all material that had not survived the process of being "placed under oath or subjected to any cross-examination" then it would have to shrink radically.

"then we must at the same time conclude that Barack Obama is a drug addict"

Which five credible witnesses have stated that Obama is currently a drug addict? That's quite a scoop, so you shouldn't keep it under your hat.

And if five such witnesses were to appear, and he said "not going to argue with that," would you claim that this is not notable?

"He has not denied his drug usage"

He has acknowledged "his drug usage" in the past. How does that justify your use of the present tense ("Obama is a drug addict")?

"he has even laughed about it, suggesting he doesn't take it seriously"

Long ago casual use of recreational drugs is indeed something that can be laughed about. Leading a violent assault? Uh, no.

"to my knowledge he has not stated that he has attended rehab or sought out any other form of treatment"

Do you understand that usage of recreational drugs does not automatically make you a drug addict? Do you understand that there is no evidence that Obama was ever a drug addict?

"that's not exactly a prime character trait for the person with the nuclear suitcase"

Everything that we currently know about Obama and drugs was known to voters in 2008, and 69 million of them apparently disagreed with you. So unless you have new information, it's time for you to get over it.

"who could be one bad day away from falling off the wagon"

GWB has a quite impressive record as an alcoholic, much more impressive than any substance-abuse history regarding Obama, so I think this warning of yours is a bit late.

"Neither man will ever be prosecuted for these 'crimes', nor should they be, so there's no sense in calling them 'crimes'."

That's nonsense. Things should be called by their proper name. If I commit a crime, the fact that I am not prosecuted does not make the thing I did something other than a crime. It's simply an unprosecuted crime.

"I have !voted to delete similar political hit pieces directed at Obama"

I don't care. That's no excuse for the multiple false claims you have made on this page. And it's exceptionally lame that you are trying to change the subject instead of dealing with those false claims.

"and for precisely the same reasons as this one"

Naturally. Because a 6-year old being fed dog meat is exactly like an 18-year old leading a violent assault.

"I have proposed that this incident be included in Romney's own article"

That's good, but it's also no excuse for the various false claims you've made, and you still need to either retract or substantiate those claims. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 08:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:COATRACK, WP:BLP, and WP:UNDUE. This article also contributes to systemic bias by contributing to the trend in which incidents relating to contemporary individual American politicians receive coverage as extensive or more extensive than the entire lives of politicians in other countries. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Keep = clearly passes the WP:GNG and is more than your average political mini-scandal; I live outside of the US and it's been attracting coverage here too. SplashScreen (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - Struck my earlier delete vote; significance has been clearly demonstrated. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delete All of these types of back and forth attacks and dirt-digging should be included in either Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 or Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012, because those are the only articles in which this type of information has the context to make sense. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

What he did at Cranbrook is not part of his campaign, and it's not part of Obama's campaign. It's part of his biography. His biography currently says that at Cranbrook, "he belonged to eleven school organizations and school clubs, including founding the Blue Key Club boosters group." If those facts are material enough to mention, how does it make sense to not mention that five witnesses say they saw him commit an assault? Including the former and excluding the latter seems to be a brazen example of expressing a point of view that is quite far from neutral. And to present the assault as some kind of partisan campaign issue (and that would be the effect of putting it on a campaign page), rather than as an important and well-established biographical fact, is itself an expression of a non-neutral point of view.

"those are the only articles in which this type of information has the context to make sense"

The context of the assault was not the presidential campaign of 2012. The context of the assault was his life at Cranbrook in 1965. Facts about his life at Cranbrook are currently in his biography, which is exactly where they should be. The problem is that the editors of that page are not neutral, and that's reflected by the fact that they have included trivial information ("founding the Blue Key Club boosters group") because it's positive while excluding serious information because it's negative. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The exact same thing happens at Barack Obama, with caretakers preventing the addition of negative information. This article's subject has only recently come up because of the presidential campaign. If not for that, it wouldn't be in the news. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 21:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

"The exact same thing happens at Barack Obama, with caretakers preventing the addition of negative information."

I have no idea what's going on over there, and I'm not responsible for what's going on over there, and two wrongs don't make a right.

Also, in the absence of a specific example, I have no reason to assume the existence of an "exact" equivalent. It would be helpful if you could show proof regarding what you consider to be "the exact same thing." Are there "caretakers preventing the addition of negative information" in an instance where five witnesses say they saw Obama committing a crime?

"This article's subject has only recently come up because of the presidential campaign."

This applies to a great deal of the content in Romney's biography. Why do we know he founded "the Blue Key Club boosters group?" This is something that has "only recently come up because of the presidential campaign." (It's something we know only because Horowitz reported it, in the same article where Horowitz reported the assault.) So why is it in his biography, if that's the relevant standard? Are we supposed to exclude information that "has only recently come up because of the presidential campaign?" Or only when the information is negative? Jukeboxgrad (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not concerned with any of that, and I doubt I would be able to make much impact on the subject in either his campaign article or his biographical article. All I'm suggesting is that this incident is not worthy of its own article. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Keeping in mind my earlier delete vote that I recently changed to keep, I feel obligated to point out to Jukeboxgrad that the significance of this incident is directly due to the presidential campaign -- were it not for Romney's run, it would not in-and-of-itself be notable -- and so we can't treat the issue in a silo, ignoring why it's significant. That said, the question is "is this so significant writ large that it should be in a separate article". I think yes, but I just wanted to be fair to the points Torchiest is raising above. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Torchiest: "All I'm suggesting is that this incident is not worthy of its own article." But that isn't all that you said. You said this material "should be included in either Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 or Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012," and not included in wiki/Mitt_Romney. That's what I was questioning.

Blaxthos: "were it not for Romney's run, it would not in-and-of-itself be notable." I agree. But this applies to many other things in his biography, so I don't understand what you're getting at.

FWIW, I think a separate article is warranted, but I also think a few sentences in the main article could suffice, at least for now. What makes the situation complicated is that the editors of the main article are allowing essentially no mention at all. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I assume the "other things" you're referring to in his biography don't have standalone articles. To be quite clear (this is important): the event that occurred in the 1960's is not notable, however this article is (or should be) about the incident as it relates to the impact of the incident on Romney's presidential campaign (which appears to be notable). Not intending to shout, just to emphasize. Thanks! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

"I assume the 'other things' you're referring to in his biography don't have standalone articles." Correct, but I don't see how this matters, because I haven't taken the position that the Lauber assault must have a standalone article. (I think a standalone article is warranted, but I don't think it's essential, at least not yet.)

"[T]he event that occurred in the 1960's is not notable." Maybe this is the key point where I would respectfully disagree. If someone is notable enough to have a WP bio, and also notable enough to have a WP bio that includes fairly detailed information about their experiences in high school, and is also known to have led a violent group assault in high school, then I can't imagine why their bio would exclude this information. It is inherently a material thing to know about a person (assuming that they are notable enough to have a WP bio that goes to the trouble of describing their early life, including their experiences in high school). It's a material part of their story, whether or not it is having an effect on a presidential campaign.

Maybe the issue has to do with how the incident is defined. I hear a lot of people saying what amounts to this: 'it's not material to mention because it's a trivial, harmless prank.' Trouble is, that's not a neutral description of the event. It was a violent assault that is properly described as a crime, according to the laws of 1965. If your history is that you committed a crime, that should be in your bio, whether or not you happen to be running for president. (I could see an exception if you are only slightly notable, and therefore you have a quite short, simplified bio that says nothing at all about your early life.)

"{H]owever this article is (or should be) about the incident as it relates to the impact of the incident on Romney's presidential campaign (which appears to be notable)." I see two separate things. First we have a simple biographical fact: he led a violent assault. This should be stated in his bio, in a simple, dry manner. Second, we have the public reaction to this, and the potential impact on the race. There is potentially a lot to say about that, so that's where I see a role for a separate article. But the attack itself is a material biographical fact that needs to be part of his bio. Unless one views it as a trivial, harmless prank that can be easily dismissed with a chuckle and a vague non-apology, which of course is the strategy that Romney and his group are pursuing. Trouble is, the simple facts of the incident are incongruent with the concept of 'trivial, harmless prank.' They are congruent with the concept of criminal assault. If you strip away the identity of the person who did it, and also the drama of the current campaign, and just examine the bare facts of the incident, that's the proper way to describe it.

And just to be clear, I'm not saying we should use the word "crime" (unless someone else does). I'm saying we should treat it as seriously as we would treat a violent crime, because that's what it is. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 03:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Something else I want to say with regard to the question of whether or not this incident should be considered notable.

Try this thought experiment. Forget about Romney. Forget about Cranbrook. Imagine an inner-city high school. Imagine that several 18-year old black males tackle a white classmate and pin him to the ground. While he screams and cries, they use a scissors to cut his hair. Would an objective, neutral observer describe this incident as a violent, criminal assault? Of course they would. And of course Romney and his defenders here and elsewhere would do the same.

And this is true if the incident happened in 1965, and it's also true if the observer was observing it in 1965. The concepts of hate crime or bullying might be somewhat new, but the concept of violent, criminal assault is not new at all.

To deny this is to deny the plain meaning of the words "violent," "criminal," and "assault." As those words were defined in 1965, and not just as those words are defined today. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that assessment of the act but am not sure what to make of it. I admit to struggling with it a bit. It was violent, an assault, and probably criminal (even if no one was realistically ever going to prosecute what would likely seem just a dustup among Cranbrook boys); but still. This is not unforgivable. While "oh, everyone does dumb things in high school" is glib and not a serious response to the story, what Romney did is forgivable. Not trivial, not insignificant, but forgivable. Kids in high school are uncertain, hormonal, anxious - subject to a score of different forces that impair judgment and increase impulsiveness; and Cranbrook in the mid-1960s was still a pretty conservative, tradition-bound place where non-conformity was still risky business (hell, setting aside the whole "presumed homosexual" thing). It would not take much to view this episode as the unfortunate result of just the wrong mix of all those things, something that Romney may (emphasis "may") have quickly regretted and felt bad about for years. Now, this is all charitable speculation on my part, but it's not outlandish. Here's a column I ran across a few days ago that suggested how, rather than hiding behind a sketchy memory and a generic apology, Romney could have seized the moment and shown some real grace: http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/05/what_romney_should_have_said_i.html (I'm reading too much of this stuff, sheesh). I can see why he might not want to go that route - admitting something makes it permanent whereas not remembering may allow it to go away - but I think most of the debate would have dried up by now if he'd owned up to it, explained why it was aberrational, and sincerely sought forgiveness. JohnInDC (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

"what Romney did is forgivable … I think most of the debate would have dried up by now if he'd owned up to it, explained why it was aberrational, and sincerely sought forgiveness." I agree 100%. His behavior now is arguably more problematic and revealing than his behavior in 1965. (BTW John, thanks for adding those colons for me; I wasn't sure if they should be there, but I guess they should.) Jukeboxgrad (talk) 20:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

WP is not a forum. Please try not to engage in hypotheticals in order to bolster your consistant smearing of a living person. This story has already died save for a few that really dislike Romney for what he allegedly did when he was 17 or 18. Arzel (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You have failed to show that anything I have said is properly described as "smearing." As usual, you are making a bogus claim that you are going to refuse to substantiate. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Merge into Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. Wikipedia's policy for notability of events says that an notable event will have a lasting effect: Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation. For example, the murder of Adam Walsh ultimately led to the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, among other notable subjects. This event has yet to have a lasting effect, and WP:CRYSTALBALL prohibits us from speculating about the future notability of a topic. The Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 article already has discussions about the Etch-a-Sketch incident and other issues that effect this year's presidential campaign, but aren't really notable on their own. I see nothing wrong with merging this article into the Romney campaign article. NJ Wine (talk) 00:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. There are hundreds of news sources and many are digging up original reporting and building these incidents into an election issue, tying the accounts into Romney's character, how his campaign is thwarting reporters, gay marriage and bullying. There are reliable news agencies from around the world reporting on this and a dedicated group of editors lock-horned from ever seeing this story get to the light of day. It simply has been whitewashed off every article but this one. And even well-sourced content is being kept from reported here. If it's kept I hope more seasoned writers will be inspired to vet every statement and watch over the disruptions of topics on the talk page.(talk) 21:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Insomesia, In order for an event to be notable, there are 5 criteria to look at: (a) lasting effect; (b) geographic scope; (c) depth of coverage; (d) duration of coverage; (e) diversity of sources. Whether or not an event has had a lasting effect is this most important of the five factors. I voted for merge because I think Wikipedia should cover this story as part of Mitt Romney's campaign, but I don't think criteria A or D were met. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a newspaper or magazine. Many minor political scandals do not get Wikipedia articles, and this has nothing to do with a pro-Romney bias or whitewashing. If this controversy continues to grow, and there are collateral effects (e.g., a major Republican refuses to endorse Romney, a movie is made about this story), then I think the article's notability can be reconsidered. NJ Wine (talk) 00:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I hear you and appreciate the response. Just today Gary Trudeau announced his comic strip Doonesbury will devote the upcoming week to satirize "Romney’s current recollections of his teen years — specifically his part in pinning down a schoolmate and cutting the boy’s hair," as he did not think "news outlets spent enough time covering Mitt Romney’s prep-school past." To me, coupled with the preponderance of news outlets that have covered the 1) original story and the 2) wave of non-apologies, I see something that is past the tipping point of national/international consciousness. If he weren't running for the most powerful office in the world I'm not sure who would care, but he is. If he had owned up to the lapses in good behavior I'm not sure if anyone would care, but he hasn't. If the public had a wealth of character informaton about the candidate to compare they may feel different, but they don't. So we have an open-ended incident that feels like it will become a small series of pranks, the cutting hair of the gay kid, the repeatedly calling a gay guy "atta girl", the leading of a visually blind teacher into closed doors and closets, etc. The white-washing is already going on and I have no confidence this material will see into any article but this one, hopefully other articles will be balanced but that's not been my experience as yet. I think we've passed a threshold already and now we have to see who spins what in which way. Given that the news has not stopped reporting on this and it has only been two weeks or so in process it shows little signs of abating. Worse comes to worse a sourced statement that it had no effect could cap it off. We really haven't yet allowed any time to see what the lasting and collateral effects exist so I think the kill button can be pressed later on once a more balanced picture is revealed.Insomesia (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

NJ Wine, in the fourth graph of the article body of Barack Obama comes, "Obama has also written and talked about using alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine during his teenage years to "push questions of who I was out of my mind."[23] At the 2008 Civil Forum on the Presidency, Obama described his high-school drug use as a great moral failure.[24]" So how then, does Obama's drug use in high-school stand-up to the same scrutiny? (a) lasting effect; (b) geographic scope; (c) depth of coverage; (d) duration of coverage; (e) diversity of sources. As far as I can tell, maybe (c) and (e). — GabeMc (talk) 01:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Gabe, Notability must be met for a topic to have its own article. There is no article in Wikipedia titled "Barack Obama's drug use", and I can guarantee you that such an article would be deleted if someone tried to created it. There are many, many items that are not notable on their own but can be part of a notable article as long as they are verified. Wikipedia does not generally have articles on political controversies unless they have had a substantial impact (e.g., Lewinsky scandal), or have been in the news for a long time (e.g., Seamus incident).

In terms of the Cranbrook incident, I think a few paragraphs inside the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 article is appropriate at the current time. WP:DUST states the following: Many current events receive a large amount of media coverage while they are occurring. However, not all topics so covered are historically significant, and may simply disappear from the news after a while. Other topics are historically significant, but details may change rapidly as they unfold. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so articles should not be created for subjects that may be significant until time has shown that they are, and adding details which will soon be outdated/corrected should be avoided if possible. NJ Wine (talk) 03:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

NJ Wine, I think we agree in principle, but you have to realize that the editors at Mitt Romney are not currently allowing any coverage of this issue in the article whatsoever, so why would it be any different at Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012? Also, this pertains to Romney's biography, and is a notable part of his HS years and his known pranksterism which has been used by his own campaign to bolster his image, thereby increasing notability. The alledged events took place during his HS years, they should be covered in context of that, not out-of-context in an article few people will even read. — GabeMc (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

"not currently allowing any coverage of this issue" They are in no position to allow or disallow. That's not how it works.  Tigerboy1966  08:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.