Skip to main content

Think Wikipedia is strong left?  Think again.
May 12, 2012

This past week's story of Romney's high school days and the bullying of a younger classmate hit the presses like wildfire.  The article published by the Washington Post was obvious based upon careful research and was well vetted. Therefore, there was little doubt it was true.  Romney's selective amnesia was questionable since all others recalled it vididly.

By the time I read of the story the Internet was already awash in claims, and counterclaims.  I turned to Wikipedia to see if someone had already pieced together what was going on so I could get a quick overview.

I absolutely love Wikipedia.  It allows stories to be developed by multiple parties, and to have other pages vetted and updated as a community.  

But Wikipedia let me down
When I searched Wikipedia pages about Mitt Romney or the Mitt Romney campaign there wasn't a single word published on the pages about articles hitting the presses worldwide.  I only found a timid conversations on the talk pages associated with the articles.  These are pages linked to the main pages were people can talk about changes they want to have made.  They are rarely read by the general public.

A few editors made suggested modest additions to the main pages for Mitt Romney.  However, no additions had been made, and some editors clearly wanted no mention.

I saw this type of story as being something larger than a tiny footnote on a big page.  It was my feeling it deserved its own separate page.  Just one page that could display the information to readers, list the references, and allow for cross comments.

So last night I published a page on Wikipedia
I did the research. I found the original Washington Post article. I extracted the main content.  I made the correct references.  I even toned the article down since I knew some would jump on the Washington Post and call it biased.  I removed words like gay, assault, and steered clear of temptations to add my own bias.  I made the correct links to other articles.  

I titled the page:

"Mitt Romney Cranbrook incident"

In short I was biasing the article to the Right to make sure it would be acceptable. While doing the final edits I could see other editors were already helping on the page to do crosschecks and add material.  It was on line!  Like I said Wikipedia is fantastic.

But then...a few hours later it was gone from the public eye.
Stamped above the page was this statement:

This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's  deletion policy. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the Guide to deletion.
All links to the article were gone.  Someone obviously didn't want the public to read the article.

Here are what other Wiki editors wrote:

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

A brief mention on the Romney page, only to mention that it came up. Not debunked, just not that interesting.

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.

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.

etc etc.

Yes there were a few supporters like:

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.

So now you as a Wikipedia editor find yourself defending your article.

I wrote in reply:

   Strong Keep. ::Strong Keep ... There is absolutely no doubt that the Washington Post is the primary source of the data...However they were the primary source of the Watergate story too. It appears the article is strongly vetted by the Post's editors and before the investigative journalist could run the story he was required to search for as many witnesses as possible and to contact family members.

    This incident will likely lead to gay members of the community to begin carrying signs that read something to the effect Cranbrook Incident. There may be chants of Cranbrook Cranbrook everywhere he goes from now on. It also may very well be Romney's Chappaquiddick incident that ultimately makes him unelectable.

    The gay bashing of Romney has been documented in the press...including his open support and pledge to the National Organization for Marriage. This required him to vow to work for a national ban on same-sex marriages and same-sex adoptions. Gays are a minority of the population and there is a strong vocal group against anything to do with gay rights. Just as blacks were discriminated against in the past it should be expected to see on this page MANY delete requests. No press wanted to publish objections by blacks that were attacked by mobs. There are very few Rosa Parks in this world who are willing to stand up to bullies. YES I will admit I am a gay man and I have been bullied myself. This morning I logged into Wiki to see about adding to the story based upon fall out of the incident. There are articles now that read: "Mitt Romney a bully? Commentators debate Cranbrook incident, candidate's apology" http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/...

    What Romney clearly did is exactly what leads to suicide in teenagers and encourages those that attacked Matthew Shepard. Having a president in office that endorses, and spends his own money covertly to attack the gay community by his donations to special interests groups that attack a minority community is certainly something I have a right to be concerned about. Many of you know who I am.

    P.S. I do not wish to claim I am anything along the lines of someone as victimized as Sheppard or has the courage of Parks. The best I can say is I'm one person that repeats the truth and uses Wikipedia for what it was intended for.

    To collect and organize data that accurately reports the world. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.

    Notice all the comments on this page in such a short time. Thousands perhaps tens of thousands of people turned to Wikipedia to check to see if there was any truth to the articles they read in their local press. It took me quite a while to locate the original source of the story since by the time it reached my desk hundreds of articles were already on the web. By creating the page as I did, with the goals of Wikipedia in mind, I focused on the original article and gave that source right up front. Further, I toned the article down knowing full well there would be a huge vocal group that says the Washington Post is biased. Others have already jumped on the article and posted counter points..Which is GREAT. That is exactly why Wikipedia works and works well. Now readers can quickly get a balanced view with links back to track to source.

    A counter view is not a reason for deletion. The one and only person that the Washington Post quotes that has a counter view was not present at the incident. I can speak first hand that direct family members of mine have no idea what many gay people go through in school. When we go home to a homophobic home, as I did, why would we ever mention an incident. It only gives fuel to family members that consider being gay wrong.

    Being recent news and a current event is not a reason for deletion. Wikipedia is finding itself as the leading source of reliable and vetted information...which means it is a news source too. People logged into wikipedia looking for what it says on the Romney pages about the incident. When I did exactly the samething I knew to take the next step to see if there was any discussion on the topic on the talk pages. Yes, there was plenty talk going on..however. as of yet no information was being posted to the public. At 10 a.m. my time I will get a chance to see how many page views the limited page drew for the limited time the page was posted and linked. Wiki editors were quick to delete the cross links I placed on pages as expected so the article wasn't online very long. As for hiding the story...come on guys it is all over the world. We owe it to the public to do our duty as editors.

    The post printed a subsequent editors note that led to a lot of the press "discounting" this story. This led the following day to the Post to defend the article and publish more details on how they vetted the article with a editor. I included that in the article..which means when people here claim story is not vetted or discounted they are not correct.

Most respectfully,

    Philip B. Maise

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.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here is the full wikipedia discussion on the article. As of this copy and paste.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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)
    Strong Keep. ::Strong Keep ... There is absolutely no doubt that the Washington Post is the primary source of the data...However they were the primary source of the Watergate story too. It appears the article is strongly vetted by the Post's editors and before the investigative journalist could run the story he was required to search for as many witnesses as possible and to contact family members.

    This incident will likely lead to gay members of the community to begin carrying signs that read something to the effect Cranbrook Incident. There may be chants of Cranbrook Cranbrook everywhere he goes from now on. It also may very well be Romney's Chappaquiddick incident that ultimately makes him unelectable.

    The gay bashing of Romney has been documented in the press...including his open support and pledge to the National Organization for Marriage. This required him to vow to work for a national ban on same-sex marriages and same-sex adoptions. Gays are a minority of the population and there is a strong vocal group against anything to do with gay rights. Just as blacks were discriminated against in the past it should be expected to see on this page MANY delete requests. No press wanted to publish objections by blacks that were attacked by mobs. There are very few Rosa Parks in this world who are willing to stand up to bullies. YES I will admit I am a gay man and I have been bullied myself. This morning I logged into Wiki to see about adding to the story based upon fall out of the incident. There are articles now that read: "Mitt Romney a bully? Commentators debate Cranbrook incident, candidate's apology" http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/...

    What Romney clearly did is exactly what leads to suicide in teenagers and encourages those that attacked Matthew Shepard. Having a president in office that endorses, and spends his own money covertly to attack the gay community by his donations to special interests groups that attack a minority community is certainly something I have a right to be concerned about. Many of you know who I am.

    I do not wish to claim I am anything along the lines of someone as victimized as Sheppard or has the courage of Parks. The best I can say is I'm one person that repeats the truth and uses Wikipedia for what it was intended for.

    To collect and organize data that accurately reports the world. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.

    Notice all the comments on this page in such a short time. Thousands perhaps tens of thousands of people turned to Wikipedia to check to see if there was any truth to the articles they read in their local press. It took me quite a while to locate the original source of the story since by the time it reached my desk hundreds of articles were already on the web. By creating the page as I did, with the goals of Wikipedia in mind, I focused on the original article and gave that source right up front. Further, I toned the article down knowing full well there would be a huge vocal group that says the Washington Post is biased. Others have already jumped on the article and posted counter points..Which is GREAT. That is exactly why Wikipedia works and works well. Now readers can quickly get a balanced view with links back to track to source.

    A counter view is not a reason for deletion. The one and only person that the Washington Post quotes that has a counter view was not present at the incident. I can speak first hand that direct family members of mine have no idea what many gay people go through in school. When we go home to a homophobic home, as I did, why would we ever mention an incident. It only gives fuel to family members that consider being gay wrong.

    Being recent news and a current event is not a reason for deletion. Wikipedia is finding itself as the leading source of reliable and vetted information...which means it is a news source too. People logged into wikipedia looking for what it says on the Romney pages about the incident. When I did exactly the samething I knew to take the next step to see if there was any discussion on the topic on the talk pages. Yes, there was plenty talk going on..however. as of yet no information was being posted to the public. At 10 a.m. my time I will get a chance to see how many page views the limited page drew for the limited time the page was posted and linked. Wiki editors were quick to delete the cross links I placed on pages as expected so the article wasn't online very long. As for hiding the story...come on guys it is all over the world. We owe it to the public to do our duty as editors.

    The post printed a subsequent editors note that led to a lot of the press "discounting" this story. This led the following day to the Post to defend the article and publish more details on how they vetted the article with a editor. I included that in the article..which means when people here claim story is not vetted or discounted they are not correct.

Most respectfully,

    I frequently ask myself to consider someone doing a book report or research paper 10 years down the line. In victory or defeat this story will continue to be associated with Romney. He will overcome the issue and voters will see past it, or it will dog him. This story will be cited in papers in school again and again. We are not talking about John Doe down the street who is a nobody. We are talking about the potential future leader of the United States. We are also not talking some minor incident. I for one will make sure this incident is known far and wide forever no matter what Wikipedia does. What you are doing by deleting the page from Wikipedia is harming the future students and historians who need accurate and dependable information.

    "Consensus" On this page will be to delete. Those editors that found out about this page most likely did so because they are Romney supporters. So naturally not many of them will support it. Now I see this as a real problem. Firstly you can have a majority that shouts down the truth..or doesn't even allow a counter view to appear. Pretend for a second Wikipedia existed just a few hundred years ago when nearly everyone said the world is flat. Would Wikipedia allow an article the earth was round if the great majority of people said remove the page? We are talking fact as substantiated as if it was prosecuted in Court with names and witnesses willing to speak against one of the most powerful men in the world. Now that takes some guts and these people allowing their names to be published knew they would potentially get bombarded by press or even lawsuits. Yet they still spoke out and all spoke with one voice with the exception of the person who WASN'T there.

    Yes I have an agenda. I have a cause. I will freely admit to mine. PLU wish to stop gay bullying and get politics out of our bedrooms. I even own a business that caters to those that take something called a vow of marriage. Bullies against gay people get my attention. Bullies that hurt me, and my business personally get my attention. You may find this odd...however...I freely admit I vote Republican. I voted for a Republican President and a Republican governor. However, these people I voted for were not using the gay issue as a tool to hurt me. They also did not have last names that started with B, they started with L and R.

    Thank you to the editor that pointed out that there is a page called Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Notice a line in that article that reads:

"Because a significant portion of Republican voters and/or their Tea Party supporters believe Obama is not eligible to hold public office (see Opinion surveys section), Republicans sometimes found themselves caught in a dilemma between losing support or damaging their credibility." Now this business about the birth certificate is absolute rubbish...yet it is on Wikipedia because???????

    If you turn to Google and key word Obama "Birth Certificate" there are 19,400,000 matches. Sure seems there is a strong incentive by a group to keep that garbage going. However, I agree with a position that since there are 19,400,000 matches there is good cause to have a well vetted rebuttal of the issue on Wikipedia.

    The story of the birth certificate has floated around 3.5 years. In just a few days on the internet the Cranbrook story has grown. Lets look at it. I start each test with background noise tests. Both Romney and Maise are fairly uncommon names and both names Romney and Maise will appear with Cranbrook (nephews attended recent, I attended ASL). There are two common variations to Maise that Google delivers that must be subtracted for better baseline test.

    maise cranbrook -maize -maisie.......40,300 matches
    Romney cranbrook -maize -maisie......10,500,000 matches

    maise gay bully -maize -maisie.......19,000 matches
    Romney gay bully -maize -maisie......190,000,000 matches

Both background tests are on the high side of a true test since there have been Maise members attending Cranbrook and I'm an open gay man. Therefore, for many years pages have been able to build in number using those tests. With 190,000,000 matches and pages on the Internet that connect the name Romney and gay bully in some manner won't many future scholars stumble upon the millions of pages and wonder if Romney was really a bully? They will want to know where was the evidence? What was the rebuttal?

    I noticed someone below mentions the hair cutting incident doesn't appear in the article. Obviously, another editor removed that. Also there is comments about why a new article in the Washington Post is not incorporated. The reason is the article is currently DEAD. As long as the article is off-line people are free to change it anyway they like and no editors are motivated to update an article that is off-line. Wikipedia isn't the only place I communicate to others and many have asked me why I didn't include something about a blind teacher running into a door intentionally not held open.

    There is another comment below that reads: "Sure, in 1965 it was fair game to give gay people free unwanted haircuts." So what am I to make of that? Sure it was fair game to send gays off to the gas chamber in Germany and they can still be hanged in ...... or stoned to death in ....

    I endorse the suggestion to have a name change to Cranbrook incident. However, I am getting heat as I stated about not including in the story the Washington Posts other reports. Therefore, it might be better "Cranbrook incidents".

    I apologize about being so determined in my defense of this issue. I greatly respect wikipedia and its editors and do not mean to offend anyone.

    Philip B. Maise Pbmaise (talk) 23:55, 12 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)

    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)

        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). SÆdontalk 00:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

    Delete Per crystal and news. I doubt this will achieve lasting coverage. Revisit in a year or two. SÆdontalk 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. SÆdontalk 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)

    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 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)

            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)

        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)

    Consider this: you keep article about Romnay's dog mistreatment (see: Seamus incident) and you want to delete article about vicious assault and battery[1], 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)

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  This is why I don't use Wikipedia (7+ / 0-)

    for anything beside discography stuff.  Early in the process (1997 or so) I was editing the entry on the history of Los Angeles when it occurred to me that I was going to publish stuff from my own research that I might have wanted to use later, so I stopped.

    And, btw, just searched for "Mitt Romney Cranbrook Incident and I got this:

    The page "Mitt Romney Cranbrook Incident" does not exist. You can ask for it to be created, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered.
    For search help, please visit Help:Searching.

        List of Cranbrook Kingswood School alumni
        The following is a list of notable alumni of Cranbrook Kingswood School and its ... Ann Romney (1968), wife of Mitt Romney (1965) ...
        6 KB (772 words) - 02:58, 11 May 2012
        Mitt Romney
        Willard Mitt Romney (born March 12, 1947) is an American businessman and ... article documenting an incident at Cranbrook where Romney attacked ...
        191 KB (25,506 words) - 00:30, 11 May 2012

    -7.75, -8.10; All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

    by Dave in Northridge on Fri May 11, 2012 at 09:50:38 PM PDT

    •  Understanding Wikipedia (0+ / 0-)

      If you want to get important information into Wikipedia, you need to understand how its various processes work.

      The first policy you need to be aware of is "BLP" - the policy on biographical articles about living people. If you have anything negative to add about a living person, make sure you source it thoroughly, and make sure you aren't saying anything the source doesn't say. Ideally, you need a secondary source that attests to the importance of the issue.

      In this case, as several people mentioned in the deletion discussion, it's too early to know what the actual significance of this will be.

      The second point is that the best way to do something like this is to try to work it into the main Mitt Romney article, rather than creating an entire article about the "Mitt Romney Cranbrook incident". The correct way to do this is to spin something like this out of the main Mittens article. The "wrong" way is to create the daughter article first, and hope people will link to it from the main article. Now, granted, the way Wikipedia works it's often easier to do things the wrong way, but that kind of things won't work for a presidential candidate six months before the election.

      Now getting mention added to the main article is hard work. You need to build consensus for your addition, supply the references, and hash things out. The good thing is that your position is likely to grow stronger over time, and people aren't forced to take a position from the start. Granted, the usual rightwingers will take an intransigent position, but on an article's talk page, that sort of intransigence tends to hurt. In a deletion discussion, on the other hand, people vote and leave, and positions become hardened.

      It takes a lot more work to get something like this added to the MR article, but the odds of it sticking are far greater.

  •  How does this happen? (5+ / 0-)

    Does a right winger run Wikipedia, or is this just a case of random right wingers deleting any mention of this incident?

    "Load up on guns, bring your friends. It's fun to lose and to pretend" - Kurt Cobain

    by Jeff Y on Fri May 11, 2012 at 09:54:13 PM PDT

    •  Wiki is a group effort (8+ / 0-)

      There are both right and left wingers in any big group and Wikipedia is a constant compromise between the two. Which is fine.  However, one thing very true is that a big group will jump in and claim things are not true...and push Wikipedia in one way despite the evidence.  

      As you read I myself was slanting my article to the right knowing this fight occurs.

      Exactly  who makes the final edit word...I'm not sure.  However, if it is based upon numbers..having readers of kos provide their two cents on the page requesting the article to be deleted is cool.

      Philip B. Maise Plaintiff in federal suit Maise v. Political Action Committees et. al.

      by pbmaise on Fri May 11, 2012 at 10:02:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I bet I know what the "evidence" is (7+ / 0-)
        Also, new evidence seems to suggest incident has been overblown.
        Likely his old friend, who was not present at the hair cutting incident, playing it down some
        and the family of the guy whose hair was cut. In article they say he hadn't told them about it but later heard media reports saying it was overblown and being politicized or whatever. I'm not sure that sisters who didn't know about it or cronies who were not present are better witnesses to the event or the trauma involved.
        ex-classmates were being pestered to speak out on what a good chap he was so we will likely get more "evidence"
    •  The less controversial... the more accurate? (5+ / 0-)

      or at least there will be less chance of people with axes to grind or spin to spin in either direction on an issue, event or person. I have had some experience with WP... mostly from the sidelines.

      It has the strength of a "Delphic" process in that many people can strengthen an overall set of information... make it more accurate, better written etc.

      They have very strict rules to govern how editors work and interact, plus guidelines on how to write an encyclopedia article. There is a complete set of jargon and abbreviations for all the different aspects of an article and what problems there are with it... what grounds to challenge details or even an entire article. And those who know the rules can twist the entire process to suit themselves.

      It is illegal to form a topic cabal that interacts offline from Wikipedia. But groups of higher ranking editors can effectively take over an article and keep it the way they want it too and do it totally within the rules... at least up to a point... they will eventually have to stretch things to ridiculous extremes and get outed as manipulators but that process can take months and even longer.

      But in general the process  can work very well but the rules on primary and secondary sources etc. but... quite often an expert on a subject who has written books etc on a subject and in fact may be the primary world expert on it in some cases... find that does not give them all that much authority. They have to function by the same limitations and rules as Joe from nowhere who decides they want to edit an article.

      Sometimes there is the ridiculous situation of a person who has first hand knowledge of a situation... (maybe a bio on themselves...) unable to correct or add to something since they themselves are the source. The rules demand published sources and in this day and age a tabloid article can often seem to carry as much weight as college professor or other authority when it comes to a Wikipedia article... and they do have to navigate legal complications on the more fraught and recent topics.

      Pogo & Murphy's Law, every time. Also "Trust but verify" - St. Ronnie (hah...)

      by IreGyre on Sat May 12, 2012 at 02:42:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  a right winger runs wikipedia (0+ / 0-)

      omg

      you vote?

  •  It's true (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior

    By omitting reference to this documented incident, ROMNEY article in Wikipedia contributes to unfairly innocuous view of subject. Any reference was still missing as of a few minutes ago.

    Much jolly discussion of pranks and youthful indiscretions - that lil' republican scamp! (/snark)

  •  While I am not aware of anyone (6+ / 0-)

    on the left making blatantly partisan edits to wiki pages, we all know about the right doing just that.  Just take a look at the Wikipedia page for Paul Revere.  See that padlock in the upper right corner?  Sarah Palin defenders caused that.

    I very much take much of the information on Wiki with a grain of salt, especially when politics and religion are involved.

    Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense. Carl Sagan

    by sjburnman on Fri May 11, 2012 at 10:06:18 PM PDT

    •  it's always the republicans that act like (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior, prfb, Matt Z

      drunken frat boys or prep school punks with their low down conniving cheating defrauding antisocial ways.

      or as they are sometimes referred to, 'hijinks'!

      Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, first make sure that you are not, in fact, just surrounding yourself with a-holes - William Gibson.

      by doesnotworkorplaywellwithothers on Fri May 11, 2012 at 11:08:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hijinks essentially means lively or carefree (0+ / 0-)

        enjoyment.
            How is this sort of abusive behavior enjoyable to anyone who isn't sadistic or disturbed in some way?

        "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

        by elwior on Sat May 12, 2012 at 02:42:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  This is disturbing on many levels... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, Matt Z, a2nite, Hannibal
    In short I was biasing the article to the Right to make sure it would be acceptable.
    How did reality become controversial at a time in our history where reality is absolutely essential to a sustainable future for the human race?

    Thanks for the diary and the link.

    I'm going there now.

    "That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history." ~ Aldous Huxley

    by markthshark on Fri May 11, 2012 at 10:35:59 PM PDT

    •  You learned the Obama lesson as well (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite

      The author went out of his way to seem reasonable and the conservatives still shat all over his effort to reach out to them.compromise requires give and take. The Borg, er Republicans, take from people and give it to the one percent they don't compromise.

  •  I think your article should be (9+ / 0-)

    included in the general article on Romney, but highlighted with its own title ... I don't know how to indicate that on the voting page

    Why isn't the incident with the blind teacher getting any press?  That is also horrible ...

    Give your heart a real workout! Love your enemies!

    by moonbatlulu on Fri May 11, 2012 at 10:37:20 PM PDT

    •  agreed, the visually impaired or blind teacher (5+ / 0-)

      How f'd up is it to bully or trip or impede a person with a visual impairment or any disabled person for that matter? People with disabilities or physical challenges get so little advocacy and I believe this incident was worse than the ornery McCain shoving that woman in the wheelchair. How f'ing low can they go? This should definitely be included in the entry. I don't have a clue how to do anything on Wikipedia or I'd try to help out. I did look at the page if page hits help.

    •  The blind teacher incident (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior, Matt Z

      The glaring incident is obviously that of the haircut which potentially could have caused a teenager to commit suicide.  The teacher knew of mean people and just had someone playing a crude joke on them.  Further is was part of my down playing the article to ensure it was published on Wikipedia. If a section is added to the article by other editors I think that would be fine.  

      By all means you can become a wiki editor yourself and add the paragraph to the article.

      Philip B. Maise Plaintiff in federal suit Maise v. Political Action Committees et. al.

      by pbmaise on Fri May 11, 2012 at 11:24:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I didn't mean to criticize your article ... (0+ / 0-)

        I was lamenting the press and commentators not discussing the blind teacher incident ...
        I hear a lot of guys (and some women also) saying the haircut was boys being boys ...I don't agree.. but many see it that way.   However, cruelty to a disabled person .. that is totally indefensible .. there is no wiggle room in that discussion.  Playing cruel tricks on the disabled is downright mean and subhuman ....

        so I wish the press would ask romney about that also

        Give your heart a real workout! Love your enemies!

        by moonbatlulu on Sat May 12, 2012 at 09:36:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Stunted Empathy... in a petty sort of way... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wendy Slammo, peptabysmal

      but in a position of power it is amplified and can cause havoc out of view of the individual who signs the paper or sets the tone for a group or a nation.

      And that is a serious on-going reality in large corporations, think tanks and other places with power and influence who are de-coupled from the results and the effects of their decisions... And they work to further insulate themselves form the wider ripples of their acts... smothering the voices of those they harm via many different direct and indirect co-enabling acts, influence and decisions.

      And for Mitt in particular... Dogs on the roof, pinned students on the floor given chop job haircuts are a bit more immediate... how much more indifferent is a person like that to the wider plight of those whose lives he has maimed from a distance and never met and never will?

      and japes at the expense of visually impaired older people? nice...

      Pogo & Murphy's Law, every time. Also "Trust but verify" - St. Ronnie (hah...)

      by IreGyre on Sat May 12, 2012 at 04:22:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  just for the record and in case no one else (9+ / 0-)

    saw it, the washington post article was not only on the front page, it was above the fold, and when you followed the continuation of the article it took up two full pages on the inside of the first section.  two full pages.  

    wapo said it's the biggest article they have ever done on a presidential candidate.  further, there were 5 indpendent sources for the story they ran.

    and about the timing of the article.  they were ready to run it on wednesday, but when obama made his statement, they postponed it for the following day.  

    so there was really nothing more than divine serendipity as far as the two event occurring so closed together.

    which makes it official:

    god is a democrat.

    Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, first make sure that you are not, in fact, just surrounding yourself with a-holes - William Gibson.

    by doesnotworkorplaywellwithothers on Fri May 11, 2012 at 11:05:20 PM PDT

  •  Keep fighting the good fight (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, BachFan

    This story will be published on Wikipedia eventually.

  •  WP has strong constraints on bios of live ppl (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, BachFan, Catte Nappe

    Wikipedia has strong restrictions on what can be written about living people, and also about current events, and especially against current events about living people. It also has lots of other guidelines ("no original research," "reliable sources," 3Rs, etc.). It has a libertarian bias, not left (nor right). I generally advise not using it for political purposes -- it will only prove frustrating and backfire, and may not be a good use of time.

    •  Agreed (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior, Sharon Wraight

      it was frustration with Wikipedia that finally led me to join this site.

      I have a lot to post that is quite political and indeed based partly on primary research.  

      It really bugged me I could not quote the law verbatim even with reference.  For example on the anti same-sex vote in North Carolina I tried to quote North Carolina election regulations.  Can't do it on Wikipedia.

      Philip B. Maise

      Philip B. Maise Plaintiff in federal suit Maise v. Political Action Committees et. al.

      by pbmaise on Sat May 12, 2012 at 02:39:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  RW thinktanks have hired 'PR' firms to scrub Wiki (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, prfb, banjolele, IreGyre, a2nite

    Read that on a reputable source early last year, didn't save it.

    It goes on all of the time, along w/fake reviews on Amazon for legitimate climate science researchers, Netflix  etc..

    They utilize anything they can publicly access propagandize spread their bullshit and lies to shape public opinion.

    Ingsoc

  •  I'm going to disagree with you (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, BachFan, Catte Nappe

    Wikipedia isn't and shouldn't be a "strong left" organ.  I agree with those who say the subject should be reduced and folded into another article about Romney or the campaign.  I would have preferred adding information about it to a pre-existing article such as this one and letting people add to it until there was a debate about whether or not to spin it off into a separate article.

  •  Other examples of bias in Wikipedia articles (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FishOutofWater, peptabysmal

    1. the articles on Hiroshima and Nagasaki downplays the number of people killed and genetically injured by the nukes dropped on them and pushes the idea that the US was saving hundreds of thousands of western lives by nuking Japan. Twice.

    2. main and secondary articles on Reconstruction in the United States have many racist aspects that have been thoroughly denounced by historians and yet Wikipedia keeps that racism alive.

    3. the article about the 1953 coup in Iran spins the coup by downplaying the US and British role in smothering the first democratically elected government in the Middle East.

    There are other Wikipedia articles where the right controls the propaganda.

  •  people like you (0+ / 0-)

    are what's wrong with wikipedia

    you want to build your own aggregate of current scandalous political campaign shit-slinging, you go ahead.

  •  I edited over at AOL and Yahoo. I checked (0+ / 0-)

    Wikipedia and looked for other political scandals: Chappaquiddick, the Donna Rice affair, Joe Scarborough's dead aide (the name escapes me) and John Edwards.  The other political scandals are noted of the politician's page with the exception of Chappaquiddick which was a murder investigation and notable murder investigations tend to get their own page.  So that's not unusual.

    I agree with one of the other Wikipedia editors in that the Cranbrook Incident belongs on the Mitt Romney page with a source link to the Washington Post article.  

    Scanning through the talk it looks like someone compared Cranbrook to President Obama eating dog and the Forward slogan being a socialist movement.  The latter has no place on the Obama page (it's a partisan smear based on opinions) but linking to the book and citing the page where Obama mentioned eating dog is fair.

    I guess politics makes things messier.  You are absolutely correct.  The Washington Post article is important and should be included as a source ...on the Mitt Romney page.

    Just do what you're doing: keep a level head about it and hopefully the editor community at Wikipedia will see this information worthy for inclusion.  I don't envy the guys/gals having to monitor those pages.  It's hard work!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site