Talk:Mitt Romney/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Varmints

The article currently discusses whether Romney has hunted varmints or rodents (as opposed to deer and elephants, for example). I don't think this is relevant in a section on political positions. Here's what one strong supporter of the Second Amendment says:

"As a Second Amendment supporter, I don’t care about Romney’s hunting history. I’ve never hunted, nor has Don Kates, who is one of the most influential pro-Second Amendment scholars ever. I know plenty of outstanding pro-rights legislators and activists who have never hunted, or who haven’t been hunting for many years. When Second Amendment supporters vote, they know that they’re choosing a political official, not a game warden. If we voted based on hunting prowess, we would have voted for John Kerry, who — besides going on a some hunting publicity trips during the campaign — also went trap shooting in Wisconsin and proved that he is skilled with a shotgun. While Kerry claimed to be a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, his Senate record showed that he voted against gun-owner rights 95 percent of the time."

That's Dave Kopel writing in National Review on April 11, 2007. Additionally, Romney has not just hunted rodents and varmints. He has also hunted rabbit and quail, but that fact has been deleted from this article.[1] Likewise, his NRA rating ("B") has also been deleted from this article.[2] I fail to see why the rodent-hunting is more important than his NRA rating.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Duplicative material in this article about religion

Virtually everything in this article about Romney's religion is now repeated twice. FYI, I brought this matter to ANI today, at this link.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, then lets keep the section that was agreed to by a consensus of editors (seen in archive 3 and 4 and written by Ferrylodge himself) and remove all the scattered random bits. Problem solved. No duplicate material. Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Everything in the agreed-upon section remained in the article, except for one sentence about his wife's family. As I understand it, your main reason for wanting to keep all of the religious stuff in a single section is so that it will be easier for you to monitor. I don't think that's a good rationale for structuring the article. The desirability of integrating some of the religious material into other sections of the article was discussed at this talk page here. Your only contribution to that discussion was to accuse me of removing material from this article which I did not in fact remove.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It's the compromise version. It's there because ultra majority of editors agreed upon it. Everyone thought it would be a good idea for the material to have its own section. Why do you keep switching your arguments. Do you want me to removed the duplicate material? Would that make you happy? Or are you ashamed of his Mormon faith? Why do you want to hide his faith so very badly? Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am very tired of your relentless insults, Turtlescrubber. As you know very well, the very first section of this article (on his Early Life) contains the following: "Romney was raised as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), also known as Mormons. His great-great-grandfather, Parley P. Pratt, was among the first leaders of that religion. Plural marriage or polygamy was at one time practiced by the LDS Church, but the Church renounced the practice in 1890,[7] and Romney has too.[8] Romney's paternal great-grandparents fled to Mexico in 1884 in order to maintain plural marriages without fear of legal retaliation.[9] Mitt's father, George, was born in Mexico in 1907, and came to the United States in 1912 with Mitt's grandparents.[10] Mitt's maternal lineage, as well as all grandparents, were monogamous.[11][12]" Your accusation that I want to "hide his faith" is complete rubbish, and you know it.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I removed the duplicate material that you were so worked up about. Hope you are happy. I tried to run this solution by you three times on the ANI page, I even bolded it each time, hope thats okay. Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not okay. But since you own the article, who am I to quarrel? The article was fine before you started hurling false accusations and edit-warring.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought your main concern was that there was duplicative material? Thats what you named this section. Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That was my main concern. May I have others?Ferrylodge (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No, lol. But you could have asked me at anytime to remove the duplicate material. I offered on many occasions but you always ignored the offer. Really strange behavior on your part. Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Good night, Turtlescrubber.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hasta la proxima y tenga una buena noche. Turtlescrubber (talk) 06:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Lose Indent - The part about religion relating to his 2008 presidential run definately needs to be moved from the religion section to the 2008 president section. Arzel (talk) 12:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Arzel. Good luck engaging all of the relevant editors in a discussion about it.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, FYI, someone has suggested that there be a Request for Comments (RfC) related to this issue. See here. Perhaps that would be the best course for you.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Organization of religious material

There are currently three paragraphs in the section on "Religious background." I suggest that the first paragraph be moved to the section on "Early life and education", that the second paragraph be moved to the section on "Campaign for United States President, 2008", and that the third paragraph be moved to the section on "Personal life." None of the material would be removed, but it would be organized more in line with the articles about other candidates, and in a more logical manner.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the changes Ferrylodge made prior to adding the above comment because, quite frankly, it was horribly written. To see the version (including which paragraphs Ferrylodge would like moved) see [3]. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Bobblehead, the stuff you reverted has developed over weeks, and was removed wholesale yesterday.[4] All I did was restore it in the Religion section.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And yet, it was still horribly written. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are we going over this again? Ferrylodge, you agreed less than a month ago that a "Religious background" section should be added[5] and made dozens of edits to the proposed wording to get it in a form that you at least found acceptable (For most of these edits, see [6]). Heck, when I hadn't weighed in, you even asked me to add an agree.[7] Considering you were part of the consensus that agreed upon not only the addition of the section, but it's content as well, why do you want a reorganization of the article? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually placement of the aspect relating to his presidential run was discussed but no concensus was reached. Not that it should matter because it clearly belongs within the presidential section. Arzel (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Arzel. There was consensus to insert the material on religion, but not a consensus as to placement. I am more concerned about content than placement, but placement is still an important concern. Regarding content, I do not believe that the content should be permanently frozen, or that weeks of changes should suddenly be reverted.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There was a consensus on having a section on his Religious background a month ago, to which Ferrylodge agreed, and part of that consensus was some pretty severe wordsmithing on what should and should not be in that section. So claiming that it's placement did not have consensus is a bit revisionist. There was discussion to move the paragraph that mentions his campaign out of the religious background section and into the 2008 presidential section after the version agreed upon was implemented, but no consensus was reached to move, so lacking consensus it should remain in the religious background section until consensus for a move has been reached. As far as permanently frozen, there is no requirement for wording to be frozen once consensus has been reached, but edits to contentious sections (including their dismantling), should be discussed on the talk page prior to them being made, particularly if you are one of the people that agreed to the consensus version. As far as undoing weeks of work.. If the weeks of work introduced poor sentence structure, introduces bias, and is detrimental to the quality of the article, then it is perfectly acceptable to undo those edits.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge's claim isn't "revisionist" it's a lie. Turtlescrubber (talk) 02:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was Arzel's claim, and I was just agreeing with him. Feel free to provide diffs to prove us wrong.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

So you want me to show the diffs of every editor on the articles talk page agreeing? Even you relenting to the consensus that allowed the page to get unblocked? I am through wasting my life arguing with you and your obsessive compulsive addiction to wikipedia. You won't get your way in the end, you never do. You might even end up with another ban when you exhaust the patience of those new to your mental affliction. Turtlescrubber (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Turtlescrubber, please see WP:Civility. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I assume no good faith from you, just like all the other editors who are familiar with how you operate. Turtlescrubber (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] Oh, please. Bobblehead is correct. The reason the full protection was removed from this page after quite a while of having it locked was because the editors agreed to have a religious background section as the 2nd section, just after early life. No conclusion was reached about moving the 2nd paragraph to presidential campaign as far as I know. I've already written this here, as you know. Tvoz |talk 19:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

People can go see for themselves. The question was whether the new section would be added, not where it would be located.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Your diff went to the wrong discussion. I have pasted the archived text of the placement discussion below. Now stop obfuscating. Turtlescrubber (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Archived discussion on placement of section

As written of this version, I 100% support the proposed text. I'll watch the page and of course attempt to maintain it to thise standard of fairness and verfiability. Mbisanz (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I support inclusion of this in the article, in order to overcome the controversy that has caused the article to be protected. The other sections would then contain some redundant language which would need to be reconciled (e.g. regarding missionary work). Since this is not a standard section for presidential candidates, perhaps it would best be located after the section on political positions?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In other words, as far down as possible in the article, as the last section of text? Could we possibly make it less likely to be read? I'm still considering the text, but did want to question the placement. Tvoz |talk 04:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's discuss the section's placement too. That's what derailed the first attempt. Mbisanz proposed it to be like the Eisenhower article, which is one of the first sections, immediately following early life. I think it has more affinity to the campaign issues, so should belong there (which is admittedly lower in the article), but I'm not trying to bury it. If others support it, I would be willing to live with the Eisenhower placement as a practical consensus. Cool Hand Luke 05:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not tied to any particular place for placement. Ideally it would be in Early life (Not cause of Eisenhower, but cause its more about his life then anything else). As a second choice, I'd say "Political positions" as it gives a context to his stance (i.e. Mormons on a whole tend to be Republican conservatives). Mbisanz (talk) 05:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it is best placed in conjunction with "early life" - which is why there was a section "early life and family background". So if we go with this section, I'd say we could change "early life" to "early life and education", move that stuff up, and make the second section about his religion. But I haven't commented on the actual text of that section - just that if we go with a separate section it should be up after early life, not way down in the nether regions. (And Luke - I didn't think you were trying to bury it.) repl Tvoz |talk 05:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it should go before the campaign sections start, so yeah, near early life would be a good place. I also like Tvoz's suggestion. Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tvoz. I should also note that, chronologically, placing the new section next to early life and education would make the most sense. Qworty (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the good faith. I'll certainly support it after "early life" if that's what makes the article stable (and it looks like it will). I think unifying education with early life is actually an improvement over Eisenhower's structure. Cool Hand Luke 05:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Just so everyone can see. This discussion is what got the page unprotected. Turtlescrubber (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You omitted this.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because you linked to that above. But really, that is where you yourself agree to the placement of this section because it was all part of the consensus version that got this paged unblocked. The section I reproduced above is right above the formal agreement in your diff. Why are you posting that link? To show that you yourself were the first to agree to the placement? Turtlescrubber (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing "see also" link

I have removed the "see also" link to Romney's "Faith in America" speech, since that speech had nothing to do with the information in the Religious Background section of this article. There may be a better place for that link in this article, somewhere further down. But the fact is that the "Faith in America" speech did not get into any of the specifics of Mormon practice that constitute Romney's religious background. Thus the link is irrelevant to the Religious Background section. Qworty (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Qworty, this speech was given to calm fears about his Mormonism. Since we have a single section on religion, there's no way this isn't relevant. You know that, and commented on it over a month ago. Cool Hand Luke 01:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Did he use the word "Mormon" in the speech? How many times? Linking the Mormon section of this article to that speech makes about as much logical sense as linking this section to the article about pancakes. Qworty 01:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

For example: "There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs."Ferrylodge (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

What he lives by is his Mormon faith, huh? Clearly it's the most important thing in life to him. Good thing the article about him has a Religious Background section up top where it belongs. Qworty (talk) 03:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The comparison to pancakes insults the intelligence. It was a speech intended to calm fears about his religious background. It makes sense as a "see also" from a religion background section. It could be worked into the text, but it's clearly relevant in spite of your disappointment that he didn't weigh in on the all-important Mormon underwear issue. Cool Hand Luke 03:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It was a speech intended to defend his religious background by not getting into any of the specifics of his religious background. That was his strategy, and therefore the speech doesn't mention any of the major issues that are covered in the Religious Background section of this article. It's not appropriate to link a section to another article that has nothing to do with the specifics of that section. You could just as easily place a "see also" in that space to any number of articles about Mormonism. Why focus on the irrelevant "Faith in America" speech? The purpose of a Wikipedia article is not to link to distracting and self-serving material generated by failed political campaigns. Qworty (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I preferred Turtlescrubber. Where are you, Turtlescrubber?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he moved to Michigan. Latest poll there: McCain 27%, Romney 26%. [8] And McCain's rising in the national polls as well. However, I intend to stick around here even after Tuesday and to continue to help the rest of you arrange the Titanic deck chairs of this particular article. Just to make sure the article continues to hold to the historical record, you know. Qworty (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Qworty, your attitude here suggests that you not be allowed to edit pages relating to Romney in the future. You obviously have a specific agenda which involves the defeat of Romney. This kind of attitude jepordizes the neutrality of WP in general. Arzel (talk) 03:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, excuse me, but your argument is not with me, but with the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire. If you don't like what they've done to Romney or what they think of his religion, go start an argument with them. I would appreciate it if you stopped trying to make this personal. I am doing what any good Wikipedia editor must do--report the facts. And there are tons and tons of RS out there that show how Romney and his Mormonism are viewed by thousands of Republican voters. Heck, I'm not even a Republican, and I have absolutely nothing to do with how Romney is performing in the voting booths. Now, would you care to get back to the topic and off personalities? We're supposed to be objective here. Qworty (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have an argument with you. I'm not a Romney supporter, but it looks like you once again made a bad faith edit and an absurd argument (that Romney's speech is as off-topic as pancakes), just for the sake of proving a WP:POINT. It seems that you made this proposal so you could tell Ferrylodge "Clearly it's the most important thing in life to him. Good thing the article about him has a Religious Background section up top where it belongs." You repeatedly disrupt the article in this way. (on Mormon underwear idiocy, BLP violation, POV-pushing) You're utterly incapable of NPOV editing here, and I think you should edit elsewhere. Cool Hand Luke 05:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

My "see also" edit was made in good faith. The fact that Romney's speech was off-topic is supported by the many RS that have reported that view. That's not something I'm making up. You can't take a verifiable fact that exists independently out in the world and then blame it on me just because I am reporting it objectively here. Also, how was I to know Ferrylodge would quote that passage from the speech? What you're accusing me of would have required me to predict his future response, which is an illogical supposition. I didn't edit on this article or its talk page for three weeks and there were very ardent content disputes during that time by POV-pushing editors. Did you admonish the participants? (Perhaps you did.) As for editing elsewhere, I'm happy to do so, as opposed to others, who are practically SPAs in this particular little teacup. For that matter, if current trends continue, there won't be much more interest in this article after Tuesday, so things will undoubtedly cool off. Finally, I am not disrupting this article or the section under discussion, as I support the current version. Where do you stand on that issue? Should the Religious Background section be moved, broken-up, retained as is? Qworty (talk) 06:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You lately don't seem to be much better than an SPA yourself. There should be a religion section. I helped push for it, and I'm mostly pleased with how it turned out. I only quibble with the placement. That's not the topic of this heading though—You apparently do not support the current version. You claimed that link to the speech does not belong in the religious background section. That argument is absurd on its face. Cool Hand Luke 06:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The speech in question is not about Mormonism, but about a bunch of other stuff [9]. In the unlikely event that Romney ever gives a speech about his religious background, then it would make sense to link to it from the Religious Background section of this article. It is an inaccurate accusation to say that I am making all of this up. I don't write Romney's speeches. I don't move his jaws and make the words come out of his mouth. I don't write dozens of news articles that point out that the speech in question in fact has nothing to do with Mormonism. I'm merely objectively reporting these facts from RS. Really, I don't have all of this power over Romney or the media that you seem to think I have. Insofar as the speech in question addressed Mormonism (he mentioned Mormonism only once), it may as well have been about pancakes. If there is any intellectual "insult" regarding the notion of irrelevancy, it comes entirely from Romney's pretense that he ever gave a speech about Mormonism. He's never given such a speech and we shouldn't report that he has. Qworty (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Religious intolerance and the election results

I believe very strongly that our purpose here on Wikipedia is to objectively report what the verifiable and reliable sources require us to report. This is why I think the Religious Background section must remain where it is--not because of any personal beliefs of mine, but because Romney's Mormonism is a major factor both in his personal and political lives. I am not a Republican, and so I could never be a POV advocate for whatever strain of Republican intolerance may be at work in specific elections, whether it be intolerance of gays, Mexican immigrants, or Mormons. Objectively, however, I can observe (as can anyone else) that Romney's religion sank him with the religiously intolerant evangelicals in Iowa, and that this loss destroyed Romney's momentum, leading to his defeat in New Hampshire. These facts belong prominently in the article. Editors who have insisted that this is my personal POV are mistaken--these are merely the political facts as reported by RS. Given that these are the most notable facts at the moment (and yes, notability does rise and fall with the flux of real-world events over time), the article should reflect these facts. The Religious Background section is therefore properly placed, but we need something in the introduction to this article that indicates the highly notable facts that Romney has lost in Iowa and New Hampshire. These are not secrets, as the whole world knows them--and yet they are buried way, way deep in the article, down the same rhetorical black hole where a few other editors want to consign the religious issues. There appears to be a highly POV inclination here to bury or eliminate everything that would be even of minor embarrassment to Romney. The true POV-pushers are those who would edit the article in this non-neutral manner. Instead, the article should reflect real-world realities as verifiable through RS. Qworty (talk) 04:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The topic is Mitt Romney and not Mitt Romney's presidential run. The results in two states are not the most significant things in his life. Also, the intro summarizes the article itself, which it does. To put your proposed information in the intro seems out of balance and not in line with the topic at large. --Voire Dei (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No, for the biography of a somewhat notable person, the campaign results for individual state primaries are not so notable. This is an encyclopedia article WP:NOT#NEWS. We don't say that Clinton got third in Iowa behind even Edwards (although it was similarly surprising), nor do McCain or Huckabee announce their victories. We have a couple paragraphs to describe an entire lifetime. Individual state results don't make the cut. Cool Hand Luke 05:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, such structuring fails the standard of recentism. The subject of the article is the life of Romney, not his presidential campaign. To overbalance the article to reflect material about his presidential campaign, including the religious controversy, very likely fails the standard of WP:Undue weight, placing excessive emphasis on factors regarding a specific event. The fact that the subject also relates to an event which is still occurring, Romney's presidential campaign, also very seriously runs the risk of making comments about the outcome before the outcome is decided, failing the policy of WP:CRYSTALBALL. I have every reason to believe that these policies far outweigh the value of the material, particularly, as has been stated above, that the editor starting this thread has made several other at best unusual statements, including stating that the article should refer to Mormon underwear and attempt to name the planet that Mormon religion indicates the subject might rule in a future life. On the basis of that editor's own comments, I find that it might not be unreasonable to question that editor's judgement in these matters. John Carter (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, a short note on the negative press coverage of him in his presidential campaign related to his Mormon faith may be appropriate, if the coverage is as extensive as I, an overseas person who's been learning of the election mainly through incidental exposure, have gotten the impression. However, we should set this out neutrally, attribute the criticism (probably to "several commentators", followed by a ref providing the names and articles, because if it's not several commentators, we should leave it out.) However, while saying that his faith has been a political issue, and briefly mentioning some of the talking points may be appropriate, we must be careful that we report on others attacking him for aspects of his religious beliefs, not attack him ourselves. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

While I don't agree with you on the placement of the material, I do agree with you on your central point, which is that our job here is to present RS with the proper weight. I discuss all of these issues in greater depth here [10] Some editors are having trouble distinguishing the difference between the messenger and the message. I am not here to attack Romney; rather, like a good Wikipedia editor, I am merely reporting the criticism that is to be found in verifiable RS. I did not invent any of the issues that are troubling Romney's presidential bid. The argument is not against me or any of "my" views, but against media pundits and thousands of Republican voters. The article should not whitewash these facts. Here is just one example of the kind of source you are talking about [11], and anybody who doesn't like it can stop arguing with me and start arguing with Jacob Weisberg and tens of thousands of Iowas caucus goers. In short, we should report views from RS, summarize the criticisms and carefully cite the sources, and not confuse messages and messengers or make any of this personal. Qworty (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

What evidence do you have of the role Romney's religion played in the Iowa and N.H. results? Any exit polls or demographic analyses done after the two elections? I have more the impression that he's struggled due to likeability problems, being perceived as too negative in campaigning, being perceived as too insincere in his conversion to orthodox American conservative viewpoints, and due to being up against two candidates who happened to catch fire in states receptive to their mesages (Huckabee, McCain). Wasted Time R (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict response to Qworty) However, you seem to believe that the Iowa caucus results be given a degree of weight which most other editors disagree with. By your statements above, you seem to be implying that the article should be subjected to a major rewrite after each separate primary, which is both extremely unlikely and almost certain to ultimately give very undue weight to the election. I once again urge you to reread several of the pages for which you have already had links provided, particularly WP:Undue weight, regarding the material at hand. Also, most of this material probably belongs more appropriately on the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008, as it directly relates to that subject much more than Romney's biography per se. Also, I too would welcome the reliable sources which specifically indicate that Romney's religion clearly played a significant role, provided that such content be placed on the appropriate page, which I have every reason to believe is not this one. John Carter (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

To echo the previous sentiments, the Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain articles all have very little space devoted to the 2008 campaign, and very long presidential campaign articles. That way the main articles stay biographical and stable. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's unreasonable to mention in the intro that Romney has lost the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary. It's not undue weight to briefly indicate in the intro how Romney is doing, and doesn't require a "major rewrite after each separate primary." It's only one sentence, and indeed I put that sentence in there before Bobblehead took it out. I didn't edit war on it. It's being discussed here. The "recentism" charge makes no sense to me, since a lot of this stuff is recent. At such time as Romney is no longer a candidate, for example, that fact will be recent. Will that mean that certain editors will then wikilawyer the recentism policy to censor Romney's concession out of the article?! You can't just start wikilawyering all of these policies beyond the realm of common sense. There's a lot of info here for example which is in the present tense but which in the future--due to "recentism"--will have to be changed into the past tense. This would be a major grammatical job, requiring one of us to react to recent events and make the necessary changes. Qworty (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

We've struggled in the other candidates' main articles to figure out how to phrase primaries developments in the lead section, too. I would have no objection to briefly mentioning that he came in second in the important Iowa and N.H. events. The good news is in a few weeks these questions will resolve themselves. What is recentism is to put campaign-related material into the second section of the article, way out of chronlogical place. That presupposes that the article is about his presidential campaign, which it isn't. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Religious Background issues? This was debated at length last month and a consensus reached to unfreeze the article. One view is that Romney's religious background is relevant regardless of his status/success/failure as a presidential candidate, because he has run in other races and held other offices and his Mormonism was an issue at those times as well, and that therefore the information belongs where it is as important background, and also for general chronological reasons. Qworty (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I disagree on that, as my view in the RfC above indicates. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(ecx2)I'm not sure there is any value in including primary results in the lead section of candidate articles, especially this early in the game. In the general scheme of things these results are not important enough to be included in the lead, but they are definitely notable enough for a brief mention of them to be included in the campaign section of this article. The results of a single primary are not particularly notable unless they are the impetus for a more notable event. As an example, if Romney doesn't win Michigan and decides to drop out of the race, then his placement in the primaries could be included as an explanation for why he dropped out of the race. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not primary results should be mentioned in the lead of this article is kind of incidental to this discussion. The discussion here was about religious issues, and in particular the proper content and location of the various paragraphs in the "Religious background" section. I really don't care much one way or the other whether recent primary results are mentioned in the lead, though I tend to agree with Bobblehead about it.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it might be relevant to give a quick summary of recent results in the lead while the primaries are ongoing, but the essential point is whether the separate section should remain. Apparently, we are still being told that the prior consensus should be taken as authorititative, despite the fact that policy clearly states consensus can change. At this point, I think I have contacted every relevant group regarding this discussion, and I cannot help but think that it would be extremely premature for anyone to attempt to indicate that the previous consensus must be taken as written, particularly until such time as all the anticipated responses appear. John Carter (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if we were to interpret the previous consensus as holy writ (which of course we should not), the consensus was most clearly about whether to include a religion section as opposed to where that section ought to be located. If the present Religion Section belongs anywhere in the present article, it would be after the section on Romney's presidential campaign, for obvious chronological reasons.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The Obama, Hillary, and McCain main articles all have "Cultural and political image" sections near the end, which try to address, in at least somewhat scholarly terms, what it is about these figures that resonates (either positively or negatively) with the American cultural-political landscape. This might be a place where you could try to address the intersection of Romney's religion with American value systems and electoral realities ... if you can find some scholarly/serious sources to work from. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm planning to soon move the Religious Background section to a location immediately after the presidential campaign 2008 section. Not one word within the Religious Background section would be changed, and such changes would remain under consideration here at the talk page. As others have indicated above, we've got a serious WP:Undue weight problem with all of this stuff located at such a prominent position in the article. It's also incredibly bad writing to discuss the impact of religion on the campaign, before the campaign section.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I support the move. It can always be moved back, should that be the way consensus develops, but it is a good idea to see how the article flows in the alternative form as well before a final decision is reached. John Carter (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I oppose any such move without the input of the previously involved editors. Qworty (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I oppose any such move without a stronger consensus than last time. That's right, I want more than ten editors to agree to such a move. Or at least the same level of discussion.Ferrylodge, do not start another edit war! Turtlescrubber (talk) 02:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Seeing as the last discussion only gathered so many opinions because the page was locked for over ten days, I think you'll have to be satisfies with a normal practical consensus, because that ain't happening again for a while. Cool Hand Luke 03:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge

Stop reverting the page. A new consensus has not been established. You are being disruptive. Please stop. Turtlescrubber (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Turtlescrubber, as you know, the previous "consensus agreement" of a few weeks ago was most clearly about whether or not to include the Religious Background section, rather than where it should be located. During the past couple days, numerous editors have indicated quibbles here with its placement as the second section in the article: Cool Hand Luke, John Carter, me, Arzel, ThuranX, Wasted Time R, and Random Name. It is not for you to declare yourself a majority regardless of reality. And even if you were the majority, that does not entitle you to override clear Wikipedia policy about WP:Undue weight. So please relax, and let the discussion proceed without another revert war. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The extant consensus of at least six parties favors removal of the religion section, over three individuals who seem to demand its inclusion. John Carter (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You know very well that location was part of the agreement. I reprinted that on this page like 3 times. You are being disruptive and are now actively lying about the previous consensus agreement. You have not reached consensus and there are just as many people on this page who disagree. Please stop and try to reach a proper consensus instead of just edit warring. Turtlescrubber (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with John Carter. Additionally, Turtlescrubber, it is vandalism for you to revert edits that you're not even complaining about, for example in the "Personal life" section. Cut it out.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict response to Turtlescrubber) And that consensus seems to have been superceded. As you should know, consensus can change, and seems to have done so in this case. I suggested above that we all be able to see how the article would look with the content moved. Should consensus change again, the religion section can be restored. However, it would be interesting to see whether the prior concerns of content which seems to have perhaps violated wikipedia policy regarding undue weight hold true with the revised version as well. And, as stated, if consensus leans that way, it can be reverted. John Carter (talk) 02:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not see a consensus. I see a continuing pattern of intimidation. Please show me the consensus. Turtlescrubber (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Seven people have indicated that they believe the former article structure violated wikipedia policy of Undue weight. That is a very serious concern, and I personally believe it probably supercedes consensus policy per se. Taking into account that the previous consensus included people who have at least temporarily indicated that they believed such a violation may have taken place, I believe that there now is, at least potentially, a consensus to remove the section temporarily to remove those concerns. As indicated above, seven people have expressed serious reservations about that section being in accord with Undue weight policy. If concensus changes, however, it certainly can be restored. However, as indicated above, it seemed to me, at least temporarily, reasonable to see how the alternate version looked, so that all parties could compare and contrast the different versions to determine which is more acceptable. And, as indicated, if consensus of all the involved groups indicates that the previous version was preferred, it can be restored without difficulty. However, as it seems several parties who agreed to the previous consensus have changed their positions, it seems at least to me that the previous consensus no longer holds. John Carter (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No they have not. Show me 7 diffs for 7 people expressing the concern of undue weight. Cherry picking and intimidation is not how consensus is reached. There are at least 6 people on this page who disagree with your "consensus". Please act more impartially. Turtlescrubber (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have not acted directly at all, although you have, possibly violating guidelines in the process. Several policy concerns have been raised and not yet acknowledged. It is reasonable to have those concerns ameliorated until such time as a final decision is reached, particularly in BLP articles like this. John Carter (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you working on those 7 diffs? Turtlescrubber (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool Hand Luke, John Carter, Ferrylodge, Arzel, ThuranX, Wasted Time R, Random Name.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see your diffs too, Turtlescrubber, when you're through with your 3RR complaint against me.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Only 4 of your diffs are actually calling for the section to be moved further down (including yourself of course). Off the top of my head there is Tvoz, Bobblehead, Qworty and myself that disagree about moving the section down. Thats 4 to 4. That's some consensus you have there. Lol. Oh, there's wrad too. That makes it 5 against moving the section down. I can look for more? Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

How about if you identify which three diffs you find lacking? And I'd like to see the diffs from you and your colleagues, please.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

How about you read your diffs and see how many of them mention moving the section down in the article? Spoiler: 4. Anyway, please sift through your dozens upon dozens of comments that do nothing to further the conversation on this page. You will probably find more than 5. I really didn't even have to look. I am done arguing with you for tonight. :) Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you name which editors you think disagree? It seems that some don't mention the section's placement just because they think it shouldn't exist at all. I disagree with them, but I think they would also favor aligning it with Romney's politics. (Incidentally, you can add User:Storm Rider to that list, I believe.[12]) If I'm one of the supposed three, I'll say clearly that I have always been in favor of moving the section to be with his politics—the one area where his religion is extremely notable. I also have always favored moving presidential material to the 2008 campaign section. Cool Hand Luke 03:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I can provide more diffs of people who favored moving the material late last year. I only looked for diffs from people who voiced an opinion during the past few days.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Reversion to last stable version

The editor "Table Manners" has just reverted the article.[13] The edit summary says, "Reverting to last stable version pending discussions on talk page not using AWB." Actually, the so-called "stable version" is not stable at all. For example, it did not even exist as recently as January 11.[14]

In any event, is there some Wikipedia policy that favors reverting articles to "stable" versions, even if most involved editors oppose it?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember that content disputes are not vandalism, and that labeling them such will not keep you from being blocked under the 3RR, Ferrylodge.

That said, I don't see why that version is supposed to be stable. Cool Hand Luke 04:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I made the reversion to a stable version. If this is not allowed, please point me to the policy and I will revert myself. Also, if requested by both sides of the disputing parties, I can revert it. Also, anybody else is free to revert it so long as it doesn't put them over the 3RR limit. If I can be of further help in resolving the dispute, let me know. TableManners^C·U·T 04:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Luke, I have not said anything about Table Manners committing vandalism. What I said was that Turtlescrubber committed vandalism by messing with the "Personal life" section. There was no content dispute about the "Personal life" section, and yet Turtlescrubber repeatedly messed with it without explaining why, and without even disagreeing with anything in the "Personal life" section. Isn't that vandalism?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You could be right that it's lazy junk editing during a revert war, but there's no vandalism in that edit. Please see the narrow definition of WP:VANDALISM; vandalism must be intentional. I'm just cautioning you that the label "vandalism" won't keep you from a block. Be careful. Cool Hand Luke 04:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Luke, you can see from the edit history of the main article that, at 02:14 on 15 January 2008, I warned Turtlescrubber: "If you disagree with one thing, that's no reason to revert other things as well." Then he went ahead two more times to intentionally edit the "Personal life" section. There was no content dispute about that section, and he could have easily avoided editing it. If that's not intentional vandalism, then maybe I was mistaken. I thought it was.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Table Manners, both Luke and myself are questioning why you believe the version that you reverted to was "stable." Why do you think so? That version did not exist as recently as January 11.[15]Ferrylodge (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted to the version I identified before the recent content disputes. I may have identified the wrong stable version, though. TableManners^C·U·T 04:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you did identify the stable version. That was reached after weeks of discussion and has only been changed by one editor. You might as well just give up though and let Ferrylodge and his friend have their way. Turtlescrubber (talk) 04:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit dispute resolution

If you can describe what is the dispute is about in 100 words or less I can offer an opinion. Please let's all be WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA as well as WP:AGF. Please do not describe contributors but contributions. TableManners^C·U·T 04:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

My summary: It's argued that the religious background section is undue weight for the biography of a man primarily notable as a business leader, politician, and presidential candidate. It's supposed to be undue weight with its content (giving in-depth coverage about polygamist ancestors, in particular), and placement (as the second section). Others disagree because this is arguably the biggest issue for his presidential candidacy, and because Romney says religion is important to him. But compare the treatment of religion for Mike Huckabee—who was professional clergy, unlike Romney. Cool Hand Luke 04:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Another summary: Table Manners, I assume that by "the dispute" you mean the content dispute. This is an important distinction, because there are other aspects of the dispute as well (e.g. what is the last stable version, what is the current consensus, what does "vandalism" mean, et cetera). The content dispute is complicated too. But for present purposes, the immediate dispute is whether the section on "Religious Background" should be located before the section on the 2008 campaign. The reason why I and several other editors believe it should not be located before the 2008 campaign section is because doing so gives the Religious Background material WP:Undue weight. It also throws off the chronology of the article by having a discussion of religion in the campaign before the subject of the campaign is even introduced. The Religious Background section also contains material about polygamy of the subject's great-grandparents that is extremely tangential to the subject's own life, and therefore should not be given WP:Undue weight in the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. My initial opinion based on the above is that it would be WP:Undue weight to put the Religious Background before the 2008 campaign information. Less strongly, I also think it would likely be undue weight to give in-depth coverage of polygamist ancestors. TableManners^C·U·T 04:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I still think that it would be WP:Undue weight to put the Religious Background before the 2008 campaign information. I also think it is tabloidish to delve into Mitt Romney's polygamist ancestors. I have been boycotting news stories about the election so I could be wrong. In any event, I am glad to see that the article is still not locked. It sounds like this is a high stakes article. I do not wish to have my opinion counted toward or against consensus. TableManners^C·U·T 13:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

My Summary. Thank you, TableManners, for getting involved. The stable version was the one you've initially identified, the one with Religious Background in section #2. There are two basic disputes here--a content dispute and a procedural dispute. The content dispute is between those who believe that notability through RS shows that Romney's religion is a significant part of both his private and political biography, and that therefore it should be prominently featured in the article, particularly in view of the verified fact that his Mormonism has become the most notable thing about him as a public figure, leading to his defeat in Iowa, which caused him to lose his momentum and lose in New Hampshire--and those who don't agree with this placement of the religious information. One side argues that it is undue weight to diminish the importance of the religious issues by relagating them to section #7, and the other argues it's undue weight to keep it at #2.

The second--but equally contentious--dispute is procedural. Please see Tvoz's excellent summary below in order to get an understanding of how the original consensus was achieved. Nine editors agreed to the wording of the religious section and its placement. Nothing close to that level of agreement has been produced since, yet there have been many, many attempts to go beyond this consensus and move the material anyway. Each of these attempts has led to a full meltdown flame war, as we've seen tonight. Clearly, the fact that this issue remains so contentious is convincing evidence that no new consensus has arisen to replace the previous one.

Tvoz is also correct in how poisonous the atmosphere has become. This is the most contentious dispute I've ever seen on Wikipedia, which is really saying something. Routine edits and even talk-page comments too often lead to endless policy wikilawyering, edit stalking, references to previous disputes not regarding this article, etc. etc. It has become common for two editors to be calmly discussing the article on their own talk pages, only to be slammed within seconds by a third editor on another talk page. AN/Is, RfCs, and 3RR complaints are also routine.

However, because uninvolved parties can, at best, take only a cursory look at a dispute that is now Tolstoyan in scope, no relief has been found in any of the attempts to find outside help. The most that usually happens is that a busy admin tells the involved parties to stop fighting. Things get personal pretty fast around this issue, and it is not uncommon for arguing editors to shout the same policies at one another, interpreting them differently, which just goes to show how subjective policy can become during disputes of this nature.

Finally, I don't think it's a coincidence that this latest blow-up occurred on the eve of the all-important Michigan primary, which practically every RS political commentator is saying will seal Romney's fate one way or another. Probably this article will cool way down once Romney's fate is incontrovertible. But until then, I agree with Tvoz below that this article should be locked in the previous stable version. Historically, that is the only way we've been able to make any progress with the editing here. Lock the article, let's discuss how to proceed, and let's achieve true consensus without one party or another trying to force edits down the throats of other editors. Qworty (talk) 06:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Qworty, you make good points. It sounds like this is a high stakes article. I do not wish to have my opinion counted toward or against consensus. TableManners^C·U·T 13:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the primary concerns regarding others. I also urge Qworty in particular to assume good faith, and cease his/her regrettable tendency to seek to imply that others are motivated by improper opinions. There are currently several extant articles about the subject, including an article specifically about the 2008 presidential run. It is frankly inconceivable to me that the main article, which under these circumstances can be seen as having the function to present the biography of the subject as its primary focus, leaving the details of the race to that article, should have as its second section details about how his religious beliefs impact the 2008 election. However, that is the version being defended as being the consensus version. An editor who comes from a WikiProject dealing specifically with the 2008 elections has stated that he also sees the prominence of that section as violating undue weight, and indicated that no other candidate, including candidates who have already withdrawn from the race, has content relevant to the election given such prominent place. Other editors, myself included, seem to believe that, given as many articles as exist regarding the subject, there is no justifiable reason for such a section so early in an article about the subject's life. Inclusion of such content in the article on the election race is another matter, but this is not that article. Particular concerns can also be raised because certain editors defending the now apparently prior consensus have also displayed a regrettable lack of understanding of other policies. This specifically includes Qworty, who stated that the biography article should include content about what planet the subject will rule in a future life according to Mormon guidelines, on the basis that such is discussed in the media. I myself come from the Biography project, where it looks like I do most of the A-Class reviews, and I also find giving the religion section second location in a biography is unsupportable. Those concerns seem to have been ignored by those who favor the prior consensus, however. It does however seem to me, unfortunately, that I probably structured the RfA improperly. It should be structured in such a way that all individuals can indicate which option they prefer, making a count of opinions less ambiguous. On that basis, I am now going to restructure my own prior talk page edit above to make clarity easier. John Carter (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I've done heavy work on several of the presidential candidates' articles, and I've looked at all of them. I don't know how you got to this point, and it's obvious there's been a lot of contention. But from my perspective, the "Religious background" section sticks out like a sore thumb; there's no equivalent to it in any of the other candidates' articles. I continue to believe it should be broken up as I outlined above. As a purely factual matter, I also disagree with Qworty's claim that "the verified fact that his Mormonism has become the most notable thing about him as a public figure, leading to his defeat in Iowa, which caused him to lose his momentum and lose in New Hampshire". I haven't seen evidence that his Mormonism is responsible for the Iowa loss, and I highly doubt that it or the Iowa loss had anything to do with the N.H. loss. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Lock the page again

This page was full-protected for quite a while because of tendentious editing regarding the religion matter, and the only reason it was finally unlocked was because we reached a consensus on how to handle the religious background issue, which was to have it in its own section, right after Early life and to include pretty much the content that is there now (unless it has been changed again, which would not surprise me). Editors with different viewpoints came together and agreed on wording.. Some pledged to watch the page and make sure it remained stable. Almost immediately after the unlock, suggestions were made to change the nature of the agreement which were ultimately decided against, with the request that some stability be brought to this article before overhauling it again. This was just a few weeks ago. Nevertheless, massive changes were made to the article culminating in the attempt to completely dismantle the basis of the consensus so hard-won. The atmosphere is poisonous and the changes and comments about changes are so voluminous that no one can possibly follow them or absorb them all. I ask that the stable version be returned if it's not there now - that's the one with a religious background section after early life - diffs can be provided -- and then the page be locked again with hope that consensus can re-form, either in the same way or in a different way. Because consensus can change. But consensus is not majority or who is left standing after killing the other players with volume and relentless editing - it means compromise and persuasion to a different point of view. That concept is not in evidence with the latest round of changes. People need time to consider, and the constant battering with replies and comments and changes is far in excess of normal discourse even on Wikipedia and not conducive to real consensus building. We need editors to be willing to wait and discuss and convince or be convinced, and who understand what consensus means. Tvoz |talk 05:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I cannot speak for others, but when I joined the agreement I thought I was only agreeing to include the religion section in the article. I did not think I was agreeing to place that section as the second section in the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Pages are not protected to a supposed stable version. They are always protected to the wrong version. At any rate, protecting the page now, would be a big mistake, in my opinion. Frankly, it should not have been protected so long in December.

Besides, we made an compromise to get the page unlocked. Using that agreement as a blood pact to re-protect the page seems unjust. Consensus can change. Cool Hand Luke 05:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not think the page should be protected just yet. Instead, I think that other methods be tried, such as discussion and consensus. TableManners^C·U·T 06:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[ec]Yes, of course, as I said, Luke, consensus can change. But that means waiting for it - consensus means agreement, not majority. Moving the section today before more people were in agreement was not consensus. I don't want to see the page protected either - I never did. But we have editors here who seem incapable of leaving it alone and talking about it - if they get someone to agree with them they act as though they have consensus. But, again, that is not what consensus is. Persuade me, don't gang up on me. I think you, Luke, understand that - which is why you were willing to compromise in December. You may not have agreed with the edit but you withdrew your disagreement and agreed to the compromise solution, in the interests of having an editable page. I might very well be convinced to change my position on some of this - I have indicated that before. But I expect the courtesy of not ramming changes through as if there is some kind of emergency. Several editors from a few weeks ago who had opinions about this haven't weighed in yet- why is one faction so hell-bent on doing this that - as I have mentioned already in the last day - one can't post a comment here without having an edit conflict? And it's not because of huge numbers of people commenting. Hence my comment above about locking it down. It's the very nature of consensus that is being trampled here. And I understand the "wrong version" problem quite well - it happens when people push their changes into an article while discussion is underway. And Luke - did you think the consensus we reached in December was only to allow a religion section, not its placement? Is that what these and other comments of December 12 in Archive 3 meant? Tvoz |talk 06:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz, your link shows that you agreed with Turtlescrubber and Qworty about placement of the section. That should bind us now?Ferrylodge (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand this question. My link shows that Turtlescrubber and Qworty, and Cool Hand Luke, agreed with my reply to Mbisanz who originally stated it might work as a part of Early Life - my suggestion was to combine Early life and education and place religous background as the next section after that new combined section. Noleander and Ferrylodge and Qworty again said "agreed" to adding a section - they said this immediately under the material in my link, posted after the material in my link so it is reasonable to assume that they saw what was immediately above it. I didn't use the word "bind" anywhere - I think we should have left the section alone and discussed how to improve the article, including discussing whether to move it or not, until this new consensus was reached. Tvoz |talk 07:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said in my post, the section's location was a certainly a compromise to yield a stable article. It was one of the conditions for unprotecting the article. I thought the greatest harm was in the edit warring and protection, so this compromise was sensible to me. Since then, the page has been about as stable as such a high-profile page can be, so I think it's time to re-examine the WEIGHT issue. I won't war on the placement (and I urge those—especially those on "my side"—not to war on it), but I think the article makes more logical and weight sense with the section placed as in that edit. Religion is very important to Romney as a campaign issue, but if he had remained a businessman, it would be a non sequitur. As an issue for his campaign, it's most sensible (and contextualized for WEIGHT) with those sections. Cool Hand Luke 06:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is right - I believed both at the time and now that you agreed to a change you didn't love, because you wanted us to move on. You compromised to form a consensus. I have no problem at all with your raising it or joining with others to discuss changing the agreement we had - that's a far cry from going in and making the changes. But I'd have to disagree about the article's stability - take a look at the number of edits on Dec 25 and 26 (I think it was those dates - or thereabouts) - seems like a lot of changes to me. Tvoz |talk 07:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"I have no problem at all with your raising it or joining with others to discuss changing the agreement we had - that's a far cry from going in and making the changes." Except that Luke has gone ahead and made the change [16]. I don't know whether you were aware of this when you made your comment, or if it makes a difference to you now. So Ferrylodge has succeeded in getting his version in place, regardless of the fact that he's been blocked for 72 hours [17]. (And yet he's still posting--is he trying to get around the block?) Qworty (talk) 07:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I warned him. "Vandalism" is never a valid defense for edit wars. Anyhow, you can undo the edit, but this is where I think the section belongs. I'm going to hold myself to a strict 1RR; like I said, I'm not going to edit war about it. The last thing I want is the article protected again. Cool Hand Luke 07:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I sure as heck am not going to stick my hand into the plutonium by reverting your edit. However, if Tvoz wants to revert it, I will support her in it, given her comments above. Beyond that, I ain't doin nothin--this dispute is deadly. Don't you think we need a full discussion, bringing everybody in, in order to resolve it? Or do you think we should wait for the results of the Michigan primary before taking action? Things might cool off naturally after that. Qworty (talk) 07:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

They might indeed cool off—or they could intensify. I think a lot of people have been brought it, including a lot of new people (who are greatly appreciated), but you're right that we might benefit from a more formal discussion. Cool Hand Luke 07:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It's the middle of the night and I couldn't sleep, I wander into the room with the computer and ... jeez, you guys are all still at it. Ugh. The good news, however, is that nothing here makes any difference; I've read a jillion articles and theories and pundits on causes of the results so far in both parties, and not once has the state of any candidates' Wikipedia article been mentioned. Wasted Time R (talk) 07:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• I hesitate to enter this "fray", as it does seem a bit toxic right now, but here's my $0.02. It seems incredibly obvious to me that having the religion section before the 2008 campaign section is giving it undue weight. The reason he is a noteable person is because of his political career, not because he is Mormon. His religion becomes fair game because of his politics, not vice-versa, leading me to the opinion that it makes little sense for his article to discuss his religion before it discusses his campaign. This seems obvious on its face. -- Bellwether ^B_C 20:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Relevance

Aside from the fact that the article reads like a hagiography, I'm trying to discern the releevance of "Mitt Romney is a jogger, and likes Roy Orbison’s music. As for his dislikes, they include “eggplant, in any shape or form.”" I recall see junk like this purred by Playboy centerfolds. •Jim62sch• 20:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Jim I just deleted/reverted a request of a reference you placed. Though you noted it was already referenced you wanted more. Your point was that the reference was wrong. That is your opinion; your disagreement is with the position taken by whoever was referenced. To ask for more references that say the same thing would not produce a different position, but just more of the same. I think what you want is to produce a counter to the position be supported by the reference. Does this make sense to you? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Jim is correct - the cited reference says "Yet Mr. Romney's showing remains the best of any challenger Mr. Kennedy has faced". In Kennedy's 1962 election (when he was initially elected), he was the challenger - in his subsequent elections, he was an incumbent facing a challenger. So Romney was the closest challenger, but not the closest overall opponent. --B (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Budget surplus

I have a question about this line in "Governor of Massachusetts, 2003–2007": "Through a combination of spending cuts, lower state taxes, increased fees, and removal of corporate tax loopholes, the State had a $700 million surplus by 2006."

This implies that the "lower state taxes" contributed to the budget surplus, which is a bit counterintuitive. Has this already been discussed? I suggest it be reworded to say something like this: "Through a combination of spending cuts, increased fees, and removal of corporate tax loopholes, by 2006 the state had a $700 million surplus and was able to cut taxes."

Csrwizard (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The daughter article Governorship of Mitt Romney#Fiscal policy has a longer take on this. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

From an ecnomic standpiont is can certainly support one of the steps that may help to produce a budget surplus. The concept is that lower taxes lead to more consumer/business activity, which in turn produces more tax revenue. The increase in revenues being the result of more activity. Does this make sense? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That may be the case, but I don't see anything in the cited sources or the article Wasted Time R linked to that supports that interpretation. It can be fairly circular logic (did the tax cuts stimulate economic growth, or did the growing economy make lower tax rates possible?), and the linked article actually starts on the other side of that particular circle. Csrwizard (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it can be fairly circular argumentation, but it is the basis of Supply-side economics, which is the Republican version of raising government revenue in the United States. In a perfect economic environment, the theory makes sense. Whether that perfect environment ever exists, and whether it works predictably in the real world, are other matters entirely. John Carter (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

So with that said, I think we definitely need to source this assertion or change it to a more "generally acceptable" statement of the facts. Csrwizard (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

My guess, and it is a guess, is that while Romney was governor he ensured that the economic reports the state issued said something to indicate that the amount of state revenue coming in increased because of the tax cuts and, possibly, new business maybe also coming into the state as a result. I forgot that part earlier. If a source indicating that the tax-cut was credited for helping increase revenue can be found, and again I don't know, then we would probably have a theoretically reliable source for the inclusion of the tax cut part. It might not be objectionable to add disagreeing interpretations if they can be found, but I tend to think that the state governmental offices have to be counted as reliable or at least includable if they made such a statement. John Carter (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I think we need to take care to use independent sources. Romney's political advisors are obviously not NPOV, but the Massachusetts Treasury or a peer-reviewed economics study would be good sources. Also, unless there is evidence of a broad consensus, both sides of the argument should be presented. Csrwizard (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the statement can be defended as is by viewing it as, "Romney did these N things that have an effect on fiscal status" (these might be things that tend to increase or decrease a deficit) "and the net result was X". Wasted Time R (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be rewritten if that is the intent. I definitely see an implication here that the tax cuts led to the surplus. Csrwizard (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Get His Name Right?

Mitt is a *nickname*. The article should start off giving his name as Willard Milton Romney, rather than Willard Mitt Romney. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.142.254 (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to back this up? TableManners^C·U·T 05:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This article appears to confirm it in the fifth paragraph: http://www.mittromney.com/News/In-The-News/Romney_Campaigns_Midland Random name (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I think his name is not Milton. He was named after a Milton, but his name is Mitt. I think it's feedback from Wikipedia itself. The article used to say Milton for a time. Talk:Mitt Romney/Archive 1#Milton vs. Mitt. Searching lexisnexis shows that no source called him Milton before July 2007, and there are only three sources that do, including this Wonkette post: "His first name is Willard?! He and Bush were in the same Harvard Business School class! He's just definitely not like Bush, though. Ha ha we just checked Wikipedia, his name is "Willard Milton Romney." And he thinks he will be President!"[18] Cool Hand Luke 10:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

See also this edit summary. Here is the edit that changed it to Milton in the first place—no summary. [19] Cool Hand Luke 10:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

And again it happened two days in August.[20][21] No explanation. The one removing it apparently dropped that talk page note though. Cool Hand Luke 11:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Religious affiliation section

Has anyone read this section? I wonder how many times it can come back to polygamy or be any more redundant. I think it best that it be cleaned up by some of the more active editors to this article; if I were to start I would delete all the redundant information. I think stating that his ancestors were polygamists once is sufficient. Can someone explain why a conversation about the US Supreme Court decisions is included in the section? What is the topic and what agenda is being pandered to? This strikes me a very odd for the topic of the article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 10:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It was like the old lady who swallowed the fly. One editor thought it was important to mention that his father was born in Mexico. Then another editor thought it was important to explain why his father's ancestors moved to Mexico in the first place, et cetera et cetera. I still think it's important to mention that the LDS renounced polygamy in 1890, in this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

As for placement of this section, I agree that it's undue weight to make it the second section in the article, for reasons including those you described. While there was a clear poll as to whether this section should be included in the article (I agreed it should), there was not such a clear consensus about where it should be placed.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there was a very clear consensus with you being the only one against it. The agreement on the placement was what allowed the article to become unprotected. Turtlescrubber (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Turtlescrubber, you are correct that I was against it. Things became quite heated and accusatory when I objected to such a prominent placement.[22] But do you really think Luke advocated the present placement? How about Daniel and Flingford? I don't think they endorsed the prominent placement, did they?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No, things become "heated and accusatory" when you tried to bury the section at the bottom of the article. And yes, they agreed to the placement by apparently allowing the consensus to happen and never once raising and objection. Not only that, the consensus was reached with something like 7 to 1. Then you tried to go against consensus about 48 hours later and had your hat handed to you. Consensus was reached by the editors of this page. Oh, and without even looking back I can tell you that Luke did agree to the placement. I really don't think you understand the concept of consensus. Turtlescrubber (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, buddy. See WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Did I move the section or merely suggest moving it? And do you consider the "Political Positions" section to now be "buried"?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No, but I consider the reference section to be buried. I think we should move it up. Turtlescrubber (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

All I said was, "Since this is not a standard section for presidential candidates, perhaps it would best be located after the section on political positions?" That was not a burial attempt. It was an attempt to avoid an undue weight problem. I was surprised at the response.[23]Ferrylodge (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I am shocked that you were surprised. But then you started it again right after the page became unprotected. AGF? Turtlescrubber (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was best to take one thing at a time. Get a religion section included, get the article unfrozen, and worry about placement later. 100% GF. Anyway, when further editors show up, there's nothing wrong with reconsidering matters that you or I may have thought were resolved.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(new indent) I am having trouble finding the consensus agreement that approved the religion section to go at the very beginning of the article. Would someone point this out. Is there really someone that thinks his personal religion is the most important thing in his man's life, superior to his political or business career? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope someone will answer your questions, Storm Rider. I can't answer them. The structure of this article is peculiar. For example, in the Early Life section, we have details about his grandchildren. That is nuts. What we need is a section on his "Personal life" as exists for other candidates like Barack Obama and Fred Thompson. That is also where religion stuff belongs too, as for Obama and Thompson, except that the role of religion in Romney's campaign should go into the section about his campaign.

I know that there were good faith efforts to model the Romney Religion section after a similar section for Dwight Eisenhower. That might be okay if Romney were a dead President, but he's not, and so his bio ought to be treated like that of Obama and Thompson. After this election, the second paragraph of the Religion section won't really be very relevant anymore, no matter who wins, so this situation is not comparable to the Eisenhower situation. Additionally, this Romney situation isn't like that of Mike Huckabee who actually had a religious career, whereas Romney has not.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Not the same as Huckabee, I agree, but this recent article certainly describes more than just a person who attends church like Obama and sometimes Thompson - I don't know that I'd call it a "religious career" either, but it seems to be more than just personal faith, and therefore relevant to his bio (even outside of the presidential campaign) and of interest to readers. Tvoz |talk 06:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent)That's an interesting article, Tvoz. Clearly religion is a big part of Romney's personal life, and he makes many charitable and community contributions through his church. But I would still like to see the Religion section blended into a section on his personal life. Some additional material for a section on his personal life could include stuff like the following (in addition to info about number of grandchildren that is currently misplaced in the Early Life section):

"Mitt and Ann Romney have two homes, one in suburban Boston and the other by a New Hampshire lake. Ann was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998, which he calls the worst day in his life, but she is in remission and is active in his presidential campaign. Mitt Romney has a quick temper, especially when things do not go as planned.[1] He is a jogger, and likes Roy Orbison’s music. As for his dislikes, they include 'eggplant, in any shape or form.'[2]"

[1]Faye Fiore, "Does perfection have its price for Romney?” Los Angeles Times (2007-11-24).

[2]Ann Sanner and Calvin Woodward, “Candidates Get Personal”, Associated Press (2007-12-20).

Ferrylodge (talk) 06:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and created a "Personal life" section. As mentioned, I believe that a subsection should be created for Religion. Then the first and last paragraphs of the Religion section should be moved into that subsection, and the middle paragraph in the Religion section should be moved into the section on his 2008 campaign. The majority of the "Personal Life" section would thus be occupied by stuff about religion, which accurately reflects the large role of religion in his personal life.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz, you said several days ago that you would think about whether it would be okay to move the middle paragraph of the Religion section to the section on his 2008 campaign. Have you decided about that?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC) I'm going to "be bold" and move that paragraph without changing it at all, for reasons already described: primarily, it's very strange to talk about the role of religion in his presidential campaign long before discussing any other aspect of his presidential campaign. Also, polls and comments of GOP voters are not part of Romney's "background."Ferrylodge (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's a sneaky way to vandalize the page. I restored the full section and will not let your pov and conflict of interest remove all references to religion from Mitt Romneys page. We had a compromise and once again you are the only one who needs to own this page. Maybe I shouldn't have stuck up for you when others wanted to ban you. I assume no good faith. Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned above on 30 December, I moved the middle paragraph of the "Religion" section to the section on his presidential campaign. Likewise, I moved the material about his grandparents and religious upbringing to the section on his "Early Life". And, I moved the material about his adult religious activities to the section on his "Personal Life." This puts the article more in line with the formats of other candidates, and none of the religious material has been deleted.

Anyway, I notice that Turtlescrubber now calls this "vandalism", accuses me of removing "all references to religion from Mitt Romney's page", and has reinserted the entire Religion section. Now everything in the Religion section is repeated twice in the article, which seems kind of redundant.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Correction: I did move the sentence about Ann Romney's family to the article about Ann Romney, but everything else from the agreed-upon religion section remains in the present article on Mitt Romney.[24]Ferrylodge (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This topic needs addressing, but I would have suggested that a small mention in the "Personal Life" section as well as an entry in his Campaign section would be most appropriate. Having a large section on his religion at the beginning is clumsy, and besides, that section appears to repeat various facts which readers can (and should) get from articles on mormonism, except for areas having a direct bearing on the campaign or his personal life. Those could be split up appropriately.

I suggest this all only because it seems to best match what is being done for other candidates. I know that mormonism raises eyebrows, and religion is a touchy topic at the best of times, but singling out one candidate like this seems innappropriate. Just my two cents. Random name (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a policy on using 'Mormon' vs The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on Wikipedia? The discussion on Harry Reid , states that the term 'Mormon' should be avoided, because 'Mormon' is a nickname. Is this policy enforced only for Democrats, or for Republicans as well? USPolitician (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no policy regarding Mormon vs LDS, it's up to the editors of the article to use the common name for the religion or the official name. As far as the rest of your comment, please re-read the section you are using for evidence of bias. No where does the response to the initial question say that the use of Mormon should be avoided. The editors of Harry Reid's article just decided to use the official name instead of the common name and they maintained consistency by using the term throughout the article instead of switching back and forth. If you want to propose that this article be consistent with its use of Mormon or LDS, you're more than welcome to start a discussion about which should be used. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Latter-day Saint or LDS are the preferred terms when speaking about a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There is no "policy", but the term Mormon is acceptable, but not preferred. It has been a nickname for long time, but really should not be the first choice in terms. Good catch; it should be corrected in the article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) and the LDS Church style guide are also good sources on preferred usage. Alanraywiki (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

spellcheck

In 'Political Positions' second paragraph : "Romney was filmed partisipating in..."

should read '...participating...' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.110.245.150 (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I fixed it. — Val42 (talk) 05:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Does Mitt Romney believe the prophecies of Joseph Smith as a Christian Believes the prophecies of Jesus Christ?

Men on the Moon! If Mitt believes these things, how would he impact NASA or other government organizations? Mormon Prophets claim the moon is inhabited

As incredible as it may seem, LDS publications bear testimony that Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon Church, and Brigham Young, second Prophet of the Church, taught the moon was inhabited. In an 1892 LDS publication under the heading "THE INHABITANTS OF THE MOON," this interesting information is given by Oliver B. Huntington:

"Nearly all the great discoveries of men in the last half century have, in one way or another, either directly or indirectly, contributed to prove Joseph Smith to be a Prophet.

"As far back as 1837, I know that he said the moon was inhabited by men and women the same as this earth, and that they lived to a greater age than we do -- that they live generally to near the age of 1000 years.

"He described the men as averaging near six feet in height, and dressing quite uniformly in something near the Quaker style.

"In my Patriarchal blessing, given by the father of Joseph the Prophet, in Kirtland, 1837, I was told that I should preach the gospel before I was 21 years of age; that I should preach the gospel to the inhabitants upon the islands of the sea, and to the inhabitants of the moon, even the planet you can now behold with your eyes." (The Young Woman's Journal, published by the Young Ladies' Mutual Improvement Associations of Zion, 1892, vol. 3, pp. 263-64

President Brigham Young not only taught the moon was inhabited, but the SUN as well". In a sermon delivered in the Tabernacle in Salt Lake City, President Young made these unbelievable statements:

"Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon?...when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the ignorant of their fellows. So it is in regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 271) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiboleth (talk • contribs) 01:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a biography of Mitt Romney -- not the place to discuss the LDS church and its bizarre teachings. I'm sure if you delved in to the religion of any public figure, you would find some doctrines that are ridiculous and not actively believed by anyone who actually thinks about them. Paisan30 (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

What a worthy entry! Shiboleth. I reformatted your redundant edit by deleting the repetition (gotta to be careful with those artful cut and pastes). I have not checked your edit for actual correctness or context of the comments from past leaders, but just a knee jerk reaction it is a wonderful bit of Evangelical anti-Mormon fluff piece. I would look more into polygamy though; it is even more sensationalistic. I have also heard that Mormons have horns and grow forked tails. I would get a few pictures of those and include them. Contact the National Enquirer; I am sure they have at least a few of those pictures. Gosh, I am glad we have such great editors like you around to demonstrate the true strength of Wikipedia to the world. Three cheers to you. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I admit this is a cut and paste. But, I also will confess that I have studied historical Mormonism for many years. I have read the main books. I taught a thirteen week course on the subject at a campus meeting at NorthEast Missouri State University, now Trumann University in 1987. This post is not a criticism of Mormonism. It is an honest question. I have not attacked a religion. But, religious beliefs do impact the direction of leadership. As a citizen, I would like to know how this could impact the presidential directives of NASA. Kennedy vowed to put a man on the moon with no thought of finding life there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiboleth (talk • contribs) 01:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources which pose these questions regarding Romney, please do so. You cannot just ask them yourself in the article. Paisan30 (talk) 02:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Somebody explain to me ...

These two edits:

1. (cur) (last) 01:24, 19 January 2008 Bobblehead (Talk | contribs) (62,288 bytes) (Undid revision 185320389 by Coralin (talk) Despite what LDS claims now, it was in response to persecution by the feds.) (undo)
2. (cur) (last) 00:19, 19 January 2008 Coralin (Talk | contribs) (61,759 bytes) (→Religious background - Previous statement on LDS church renouncing polygamy was somewhat misleading; the LDS church holds that it was renounced for religious, and not political or legal, reasons.) (undo)

So why is this article on Mitt Romney, man of the 1980s through 2000s, trying to explain the history of LDS in the 1890s? Isn't that, like, the job of the LDS history articles? Does the Barack Obama article try to explain the history of racism or biracial children in the 1890s? Does the Hillary Clinton article try to explain the history of feminism in the 1890s? Trying to give century-old LDS history here is a bad idea. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Damn good question, why are we trying to explain the 1890 Manifesto in this article... Heck, not even sure why the heck Romney's ancestor's polygamy is on this article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ditto.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Also agree. The Romney Campaign article should not contain a discussion of all things controversial about Mormonism. DavidBailey (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

First sentence

Shouldn't it say an American businessman and politician from the state of Massachusetts with strong connections to Michigan, instead of "an American businessman and politician from the state of Michigan and with strong connections to Massachusetts," seeing as he was Governor of Massachusetts and was never much in Michigan seeing as he left after graduating from high school? -Ethan c.00 (talk) 06:43, 18 January 2008 (PST)

Yes, the first sentence is awkward, and probably wrong. "Willard Mitt Romney (born March 12, 1947) is an American businessman and politician from the state of Michigan and with strong connections to Massachusetts." How about we change it to "Willard Mitt Romney (born March 12, 1947) is an American businessman and politician from Massachusetts, with strong connections to his native state of Michigan"?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

What about if we break it up into two sentences: "Willard Mitt Romney (born March 12, 1947) is an American businessman and politician. He was born in Michigan, but moved to Massachusetts after high school and has lived most of his life there since." Or, something like, "Willard Mitt Romney (born March 12, 1947) is an American businessman and politician has resided in Massachusetts for the past XX years but was born in Michigan." — Val42 (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Seems like Tvoz fixed the problem, at 14:56 on 19 January. See here. The first sentence looks okay to me, now.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoops - sorry - didn't see this was being discussed when I made that edit. Tvoz |talk 05:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Mitt Romney want's to know

I was wondering if we should mention the video of Mitt Romney showing a group of black children how cool he is:

"Wouldth though divulge to mineself whom hast released hounds upon us? Whom? Whom? Whom?. Furthermore, thou dost wear shiny baubles upon thine gullet." Mitt Romney 2008 - Transcript courtesy of CNN. 64.230.85.80 (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Moved from Religious background

The following items have been moved from the article due to relevance and NPOV. Please discuss them here before moving them back into the article. My question is, why are these items relevant to his religious background? These items seem more appropriate to be discussed in the LDS page. The first statement about Ann's family attending the temple ceremony seems irrelevant and anti-NPOV to include it. The second item is making an unsupported assertion about the reason for the change in policy/doctrine. The LDS church states " In obedience to direction from God, Latter-day Saints followed this practice for about 50 years during the 1800s but officially ceased the practice of such marriages after the Manifesto was issued by President Woodruff in 1890."[25]

Ann's family could not attend their wedding ceremony that was held at a temple, due to a rule preventing non-members from entering LDS temples, but they attended another ceremony held for non-Mormons.

Due to legal pressure by the U.S. federal government, the LDS church renounced polygamy in 1890.

Thanks. DavidBailey (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I just went ahead and removed the sentences of LDS stopping the practice of plural marriage. As mentioned several previously by Wasted Time R, it isn't really up to the Mitt Romney article to discuss why LDS stopped the practice. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Religion in his father's campaign

The article now says: "When his father ran for president in 1968 his religion was not a factor. This shift is often attributed to the rise of the Christian movement in politics within the last twenty years." No references are provided. Either we should be accurate and well-sourced, or the role of religion in his father's run in 1968 should not be described in this article. This article used to have an accurate and well-sourced statement on this subject:

"Mormonism was not an issue in his father's presidential campaign in 1968, for several possible reasons: he dropped out before it could become one, the candidacy of John F. Kennedy (a Catholic) had neutralized the religion issue, religion generally was not a major stump issue, and the LDS Church was much smaller then.[1][2]"

[1] Linda Feldmann, "Romney moves to allay Mormon concerns directly", Christian Science Monitor, December 11, 2007.

[2] "Romney's 'symphony' should also embrace freedom from religion", Seattle Times (2007-12-12).

Seems to me the current statement in the article is simplistic. We should either replace it with the correct info that the article used to contain, or just delete the whole discussion of religion in his father's campaign. The previous consensus was to do the latter, and I support that.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

George Romney’s membership in the Mormon church was a factor in his presidential campaign, with attention focusing on his church’s policy at the time of not allowing blacks to participate fully.[26] Qworty (talk) 05:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Richard Nixon was a Quaker, which demonstrated to everyone in the 1960s that a political figure's religion might tell you nothing at all about the politician. Somehow this truth has been lost along the way. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That is a tersary reference at best. I would rather see something from the time, rather than a one sentence specualation. I have read several articles that said Mormonism was not a factor. In fact, I read one that said the black issue wasn't even brought up. Does anyone remember this and other articles? Actually I think it was Mormon America by the Ostlings. I will see if I can find it. Bytebear (talk) 05:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Bytebear, why bother? Do you really think this article should explore how religion may or may not have affected his father's campaign forty years ago? That stuff ought to go in the article about his father.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about it, and I do think it has a place somewhere in Wikipedia, but probably not in this article. Is there an article that would be more appropriate? Bytebear (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe a more appropriate spot would be in the George W. Romney article.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the George Romney article would not be good, because we are basically contrasting the two campaigns. Maybe a more generic article like US Politics and Religion or something like that. 68.4.232.4 (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, if you're aiming to compare and contrast the role of religion in the campaigns of father and son, then I agree the main George Romney article would not be good. There are a lot of alternatives, but maybe the best would be Mitt Romney's "Faith in America" speech. That article can compare the speech to JFK's similar speech, and to the absence of such a speech by George Romney. Other articles (where a comparison of the role of religion in the campaigns of father and son might be appropriate) are Latter Day Saint political history, Pratt–Romney family, Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008, History of the Latter Day Saint movement, and George Romney presidential campaign, 1968. All of those article would be more appropriate for such a discussion than this article, IMHO.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Wasted Time R, not only was Nixon a Quaker, but Eisenhower was a Jehovah's Witness. I think what's really happening in this campaign is as follows. Romney's religion is being raised as an issue not by people who actually think it matters, but rather by people who want it to matter, and who have a caricatured view of the GOP conservative electorate that makes them think it can be made to matter. In any event, what happened or didn't happen in his father's campaign is best left to a Wikipedia article about his father. That was the consensus that we previously agreed upon, and I suggest we do so again.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Fluent in French

Please put somewhere in this article that he is Fluent in French. I think that is an important attribute about anybody, and should be known.

Source: YouTube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyP2M0DTch8 Article: http://www.early-advantage.com/Articles/bilingualcelebs.aspx

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.70.46 (talk) 14:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Former "to-do" list items

These items were on the to-do list. Removed from there, since they are not suggested actions. If anyone wishes to incorporate this information, in cited form to appropriate reliable sources, subject to the usual criticism of importance on this biography, it's up to you.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Mitt Romney`s kinsman was a portrait painter George Romney ( 1743-1802), British art's forgotten genius , one of the leading artists in Britain during the last quarter of the 18th century.
2. Mitt Romney was fed his position on Social Security during the MSNBC debate. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMtXBJWm3CA
3. Mitt`s first cousin once removed Marion George Romney, was an Apostle of LDS Church. Mitt Romney's father, George W. Romney, was a patriarch of LDS Church.

Material regarding subject's religious affiliation

The questions which seem to remain unresolved are: (1) how much weight the matter of Romney's Mormonism should receive in the article, (2) whether that content should have it's own section or (3) be separated out into a different article, and (4) where in the article the content or section should be placed. John Carter (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Opinions

Please indicate your support of given positions below, adding additional sections as appropriate. Note also I have added some names to sections which they had earlier seemed to support. Those names have a ? attached to them. Those opinions should not be considered binding, and any editors who return to the discussion are more than encouraged to replace or remove them at will. However, given how I had poorly structured the RfC initially without this section, it seemed the only way to place their expressed opinions in this section.

• (1) the content should be contained in a separate section of this article.

1. ? User:Tvoz indicated support of this position earlier in this discussion.
2. ? User:Wrad indicated support of this position earlier in this discussion.
3. ? User:Cool Hand Luke indicated support of this position earlier in the discussion.

• (2) the content should be spread throughout the article, as appropriate

1. John Carter (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC) First choice, although this does not rule out a religion subsection within the political career section
2. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Except that most of third paragraph (polygamy) belongs in the articles of Romney's ancestors, not here; and if here, as a footnote, not main text.
3. ? User:ThuranX indicated support of this position earlier in this discussion.
4. Random name (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC) I supported this earlier and I still think it is the most consistent solution (in the context of the various candidate pages).
5. Roninbk Emphasis on the words as appropriate, —Preceding comment was added at 22:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Ferrylodge (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC) Devil is in details. The only parts of the article where it should probably be spread are the 2008 election section, and the personal life section.
7. Lazulilasher (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Ideally Romney's religion would be spread throughout the article, similar to John F. Kennedy, which I believe is a similar situation.

• (3) the content should be removed to a separate article.

1. John Carter (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Second choice. A summary section of that article should remain in this article however.
2. Ferrylodge (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)At least some of the content should be removed, e.g. putting stuff about polygamy and ancestors in "Faith in America" article should be more than sufficient.

• (4) the religion section should come immediately after the early life section, as per prior consensus
• (5) the religion section should come within the political section, as most of the content seems relevant to that section

1. John Carter (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
2. ? User:Arzel indicated support of this position earlier in this discussion.
3. ? User:Cool Hand Luke indicated support of this position earlier in this discussion.

Discussion

Easily deserves it's own section, just be sure to include both sides: some think it's relevant to the campaign and some are annoyed at how much his faith has taken center stage. Wrad (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on that. But if you could indicate how much and where that content should be, speficially in this article or another, I think that would be quite welcome. Personally, I think, given the existence of as much material as there is, maybe separating out an entire article might be the way to go here. John Carter (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, if a separate article is created, there is additional material that could be included beyond what's now in the present article. See here. I'm not supporting or opposing a separate article at this point, until more people have expressed their thoughts on the matter.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, if a separate artice is created, that new article could perhaps be merged with the already-existing article about his speech on the subject.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have just expanded the scope of the already-existing article about his "Faith in America" speech, and renamed that article "Religion in the life and background of Mitt Romney."Ferrylodge (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I came here from the AN/I thread. I actually prefer the version with distributed information. I've found repeatedly that attempts to play gotcha on Romney with his ancestors' behaviors amounts to little more than a smear against his religion. Lumping all the Mormon stuff into one section frames that gotcha attitude with a neon headline. It is lousy writing, and putting the relevant Mormon incidents, be they his family, wife's conversion, or the disputes about how he reconciles his faith and his political behavior are all more relevant in their own sections than as a lump of 'he's one of THOSE wierdo' sections. Doing it all in the name of 'it's easier to monitor changes' is absurdist. Good writing is more important than catering to lazier editors, and it's better writing to keep things in relevant sections rather than pull out, nad force readers to jump around to make sense of it all. Why put stuff about presidential run criticisms four sections above his presidential run when it can be IN the section? no reason at all. ThuranX (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree 100%. However, since there is now a separate article about Religion in the life and background of Mitt Romney, perhaps we don't need either a long religion section in the present article, or a distribution of religion stuff throughout the present article.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Anything to shuffle it off the article. That has been Ferrylodge's goal from the beginning. Turtlescrubber (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that is the goal of ThuranX and John Carter as well? Seems to me that the most material about religion that has ever been removed from this article was removed yesterday.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You wanted that removed and I obliged. Can't you ever make a straight argument? You are going to waste hours and hours of what could be productive time like you always do. Are you going to fill another 2 archives with your bad faith argumentation? Turtlescrubber (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Starting yesterday, there has been a separate article about Religion in the life and background of Mitt Romney. Is there any reason why we should not adhere to Wikipedia Summary Style guidelines, and accordingly modify the religion section of the present article?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Those are the edits you just made to go against the compromise version and your agreement two days ago. So no. We will not be dismantling this section. If need be we can always undo your changes to the other article. Why won't you just leave well enough alone. You wrote this section and you agreed to its placement and that is what got the article unlocked. Why do you always edit in such bad faith? Turtlescrubber (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem solved. Please don't make drastic changes to supporting article when an RFC is underway. Especially when those changes are made solely to advance your own agenda. Turtlescrubber (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

By all means, don't be polite to me, don't assume good faith, revert my edits to other articles without a word of talk page discussion, insult me at other users' talk pages, edit war, continue to get this article frozen, insert massively duplicative material into this article. It says much more about you than it does about me.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, I have never been blocked and have never had a Community Ban. Do you know how hard it is to achieve a community ban? You have had both. "It says much more about you than it does about me", that I am so fed up with having to deal with you that I forget myself. I don't assume good faith anymore for a reason. Turtlescrubber (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The Community Ban had nothing whatsoever to do with the present article, and that ban was unanimously overturned by ArbCom. Please stop trying to club me to death with it. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Diffs? Turtlescrubber (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[27]Ferrylodge (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent>FL, are you not on probation for bad behavior? Why do we not pursue you more aggressively for wider range of bad behaviors on a wider range of articles? Sounds good to me. How about to you?--Filll (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Fill, are you going to follow me to every article I edit, regardless of whether you have any idea about what is happening?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I have been called by others a conservative, and even a Republican. I'm not sure I agree with those assessments, but think the information might be useful to determine if I might have a conflict here. I also self-identify as a Roman Catholic.

Maybe I'm wrong here, and if I am let me know. But I'm not particularly comfortable in separating out the subject's entire religious life into a separate section, although I wouldn't object to an explicit mention in the lead, which his Mormonism currently doesn't have. If nothing else, it damages the chronological flow, which I tend to think biographies should have. I wouldn't mind seeing the information on his activities as a Mormon included in chronological order in the Early life and business career sections, and would actually support it. That might allow for a separate section, possibly around the political career area, for religious activities as an adult, which I can more reasonably see being separated out, particularly as they impact his political career. My reasons for raising these questions are somewhat based on WP:Undue weight. I'm not entirely sure that the subject himself might not agree that the current structure of the article might not place undue importance on his status as a Mormon. Just one opinion, anyway, and possibly influenced by my own existing prejudices, but I wonder what the rest of you think of it, particularly as most of that section seems to relate to his career as a politican. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

CommentIt doesn't look good when Ferrylodge supports your request for adminship yesterday, the day you start editing this article. I am not saying that you are posting for that reason or implying any malfeasance on your part, but that strikes me as unfortunate.

Support - getting rid of the term "warlord" in user name is a good portent.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Turtlescrubber (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. My vote didn't make the slightest bit of difference, given that he already had over a hundred supporters and no opposers. And even if it did make difference, can we please, please start assuming good faith? Regarding John Carter's comment, I think he's correct on the merits, and in fact I have already supported distributing the material (that distribution is shown being removed here). Alternatively, I support converting the section on his religion into a summary form, since the material is also in the separate article referenced at the beginning of that religion section.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You wanted that material removed! What is going on with you? The article you speak of is the on you "created" yesterday and then added all that material to. I assume good faith from John Cater and it is obvious to even the most casual observer why I can no longer assume anything but deception from you. [28]

Turtlescrubber (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Possibly true. However, reviewing the extant article, there seem to be exactly two matters which directly relate to his pre-political life, his descent from Parley Pratt and his marriage to Ann. I think the reference to abstaining from alcohol and smoking could be included. As stated on the WP:Undue weight page, "undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quanitity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements". Placing this section in second page certainly gives it a more prominent place than the rest, and it really doesn't matter what we in our own opinions think people want to read first, as seems to have been one of the bases for the current placement, as that probably has problems with WP:OR, but reporting the material as fairly, accurately, and NPOVly as possible. However, it does make sense to that the part on his political life would have a subsection on his religious behavior and opinions, as it is more clearly relevant and has significantly more to discuss in that section. John Carter (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

As you know very well, Turtlescrubber, I wanted the material to be distributed, instead of having a consolidated religion section. However, having only the consolidated religion section is preferable to having both. I again urge you to see WP:Civility. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You said the duplicate material was your main issue and all others were "tangential"! Please start telling the truth. Turtlescrubber (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You are quoting me out of context.[29] Please stop.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That is completely in context and near verbatim. Why can't you stop making shit up?

Here is some text from this very talk page

Well, I removed the duplicate material that you were so worked up about. Hope you are happy. I tried to run this solution by you three times on the ANI page, I even bolded it each time, hope thats okay. Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not okay. But since you own the article, who am I to quarrel? The article was fine before you started hurling false accusations and edit-warring.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought your main concern was that there was duplicative material? Thats what you named this section. Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That was my main concern. May I have others?Ferrylodge (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No, lol. But you could have asked me at anytime to remove the duplicate material. I offered on many occasions but you always ignored the offer. Really strange behavior on your part. Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Turtlescrubber, may I please kindly ask you to try not to copy and paste so much material into this RfC? It is not directly pertinent, and it is undoubtedly making it difficult for newcomers to follow the RfC. Perhaps you could instead use brief quotations with diffs? Or start a new section? Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If you would only stop telling fibs and start speaking honestly than I wouldn't have to cut and paste anything. Turtlescrubber (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

But don't just take my word for it,

"I see that Ferrylodge has focused primarily on maligning me, which is at first glance completely irrelevant to whether his ban is appropriate. My character has nothing to do with this. However, it highlights the issues. This is typical Ferrylodge. Rather than address the issue at hand, he engages in character assassination of the person or person he perceives as his enemy, or opposition, by misrepresenting others. He does not attempt to work towards consensus with others, but rather works to attack and undermine those with whom he disagrees - and I have evidence that this is deliberate and malicious. He edit wars across multiple articles, using this technique to castigate or drive away those who disagree, This has been effective. One editor left the project altogether rather than deal with the type of venomous allegations which are Ferrylodge's preferred method of interaction, and others have been driven away from "his" articles. He wages POV wars designed to wear down opposition, even where he is in a minority of one, by sheer unreasonable persistence in the face of consensus, and he maligns those opposing him to make it appear that it is a personal matter on their part, rather than a policy matter on his." Statement by Killer Chihuahua concerning Ferrylodge's behavior. Turtlescrubber (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Turtlescrubber, the statement you just quoted mentions nothing about Mitt Romney, or about his religion. Please stop sidetracking this RFC. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

People should know what you are doing here. Stop sidetracking this entire article, as you have been doing for months. Turtlescrubber (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Since this is an RfC, and since I have intimate knowledge of this article and its editing history, I'll comment. Turtlescrubber is absolutely correct in everything he says. Ferrylodge is showing real ownership issues here, and really needs to step away at this point before the entire discussion dissolves into his personal history and personal issues and more personal attacks and accusations back and forth. Please be aware, everyone, that the religious section now being discussed was Ferrylodge's idea to begin with, and that its wording and placement received enormous consensus from nine different editors, including Ferrylodge himself. Ever since that time, which was last year, Ferrylodge has been trying to censor the Mormon stuff in this article. It doesn't really matter what his motives are; his edits speak for themselves. Mind you, Mormonism is the most important fact about Romney, both as a person and as a politician. As a politician, he's found that his Mormonism has destroyed his campaign and political career, which is why he's no longer a serious contender, due to the intolerance of Republican "Christian" evangelicals. As a man, Romney has stated that his "faith" is the most important thing in his life. For these two reasons, the religion section belongs exactly where it is and should not be broken up. And for all of these reasons, going back to last year, Ferrylodge's editing here can only be described as the utmost in bad faith. At this point, he is way past the horizon of constructive editing or trying to build any kind of consensus. All he wants to do is vandalize the religion section he himself wrote and shove his edits down everybody's throats and fight about every tiny nuance of it endlessly. The article of a presidential candidate--even a defeated one like Romney--deserves better than this. Qworty (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Qworty, you have always made it clear that your POV is "Mormonism is the most important fact about Romney." But this article should not endorse your POV, just as it should not endorse mine.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again. It's not my point of view. It's only the point of view of Iowa caucus goers, the national and international press, and Romney himself. I'm merely reporting those views, which is what a good editor is supposed to do. But really Ferrylodge, your posting about this POV "issue" is just further evidence of what you're doing here--wasting time by hurling false accusations and trying to draw people into your personal Mitt Romney flame war. You pick, pick, pick, pick, pick endlessly on tiny issues where often enough you don't even have the facts straight and the next thing we know, the article and the discussion page are melting down. This really has to stop. I suggest you take a well-deserved vacation from this article. Qworty (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please focus on the subject of the RfC: (1) how much weight the matter of Romney's Mormonism should receive in the article, (2) whether that content should have it's own section or (3) be separated out into a different article, and (4) where in the article the content or section should be placed.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Ferrylodge's community ban was not overturned on the merits of his editing style, and anyone reading it can see that - Arbcom did not deny or endorse his behavior: he got lucky and they gave him another chance for reasons that had nothing to do with his behavior, and he's proceeding in that same style as if he had been vindicated. Time will tell.
2. Ferrylodge's idea that he write a separate article, make it say what he wants, then modify the "summary" section here accordingly to remove material that editors felt was necessary in this article is falling to a new all-time low in creative manipulation of policy.
3. This article was locked until we reached a consensus agreement - and that included editors like Cool Hand Luke who was not initially in favor of the end conclusion but compromised and agreed to the placement and the setup of a religious background section.
4. ThuranX, I don't question that you came here because you saw the AN/I thread, but I recall you participating in this issue before - was it the earlier RfC here in December? This is not at all to say you shouldn't weigh in again - your point of view on this is welcome - but just to be clear that you aren't a totally uninvolved editor which it could have sounded like.
5. I remain in favor of the separate religious background section where we had placed it, and as numerous editors from different points of view agreed to, which agreement unlocked a page that had to be locked because of this very issue. And agree completely with Qworty's summary and analyses above. Tvoz |talk 20:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The "consensus agreement" is here. People can judge for themselves what it says and does not say. Tvoz accuses me of "falling to a new all-time low in creative manipulation of policy." John Carter suggested in his first post in this section that it might be wise for the Religion material to "be separated out into a different article." I then pointed out that there is already a separate article about his religion speech, and editors at the discussion page for that article were objecting that the scope of that article was too narrow. It therefore makes perfect sense to broaden the scope of that article about his religion speech. You may disagree (for reasons I do not comprehend), but please stop with the hyperbole about "falling to a new all-time low in creative manipulation of policy." Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy to explain - one time. Setting up another article that goes into much greater depth probing Romney's religious background may or may not be a good idea. I'm not commenting on that right now - it would depend on how much more material is available to put there that would be inappropriate here. That's not the "new low". What I am commenting on is the tactic of setting up such an article by taking material from this one, and then coming back here and disingenuously - I know you don't like that word applied to you, but it's how it looks to me - saying that oh, policy says this should just be a summary so we can remove all of this stuff from here. Which would end up with what it appeared all along that you wanted, and that is very little mention of Romney's religious background here. To me that tactic is "falling to a new all-time low in creative manipulation of policy". The policy being the one that calls for just a summary here. But you shouldn't be so incensed - I gave you credit for being creative. I am going to try to stick to my resolve of not going another ten rounds with you, and it would be so refreshing if you would stop. I wait with bated breath. Tvoz |talk 21:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have never said one word describing what a summary of Romney's religious background would look like. You are free to "stop" arguing this point at any time, Tvoz.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I must be misreading this, then: Agree 100%. However, since there is now a separate article about Religion in the life and background of Mitt Romney, perhaps we don't need either a long religion section in the present article, or a distribution of religion stuff throughout the present article.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC) (emphasis added). You have been crystal clear - "100%" clear - all along that you want to downplay the religion here in this article. As for stopping arguing the point - if you ever conceded a point maybe others wouldn't have to point out where your replies are not correct. I wonder if I'll be able to post this without an edit conflict from yet another comment by you. Tvoz |talk 22:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You paraphrased me this way, above: "oh, policy says this should just be a summary so we can remove all of this stuff from here." That is incorrect. I never said one word about what stuff can be removed. And you have been 100% clear all along that you want every last possible syllable about Mitt Romney's religious background to be near the beginning of this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The Consensus Agreement included this discussion:

As written of this version, I 100% support the proposed text. I'll watch the page and of course attempt to maintain it to thise standard of fairness and verfiability. Mbisanz (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I support inclusion of this in the article, in order to overcome the controversy that has caused the article to be protected. The other sections would then contain some redundant language which would need to be reconciled (e.g. regarding missionary work). Since this is not a standard section for presidential candidates, perhaps it would best be located after the section on political positions?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In other words, as far down as possible in the article, as the last section of text? Could we possibly make it less likely to be read? I'm still considering the text, but did want to question the placement. Tvoz |talk 04:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's discuss the section's placement too. That's what derailed the first attempt. Mbisanz proposed it to be like the Eisenhower article, which is one of the first sections, immediately following early life. I think it has more affinity to the campaign issues, so should belong there (which is admittedly lower in the article), but I'm not trying to bury it. If others support it, I would be willing to live with the Eisenhower placement as a practical consensus. Cool Hand Luke 05:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not tied to any particular place for placement. Ideally it would be in Early life (Not cause of Eisenhower, but cause its more about his life then anything else). As a second choice, I'd say "Political positions" as it gives a context to his stance (i.e. Mormons on a whole tend to be Republican conservatives). Mbisanz (talk) 05:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it is best placed in conjunction with "early life" - which is why there was a section "early life and family background". So if we go with this section, I'd say we could change "early life" to "early life and education", move that stuff up, and make the second section about his religion. But I haven't commented on the actual text of that section - just that if we go with a separate section it should be up after early life, not way down in the nether regions. (And Luke - I didn't think you were trying to bury it.) repl Tvoz |talk 05:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it should go before the campaign sections start, so yeah, near early life would be a good place. I also like Tvoz's suggestion. Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tvoz. I should also note that, chronologically, placing the new section next to early life and education would make the most sense. Qworty (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the good faith. I'll certainly support it after "early life" if that's what makes the article stable (and it looks like it will). I think unifying education with early life is actually an improvement over Eisenhower's structure. Cool Hand Luke 05:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to correct Ferrylodge's half-truth about what the consensus was all about. Turtlescrubber (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The so-called "consensus agreement" regarding the Religion section can be seen here in the history of this talk page. It's also at the very end of Archive 3, here. People can read it for themselves.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the above, I would still like to raise what I think are serious questions regarding the inclusion of a separate "religion" section. Granted the subject has said his religion is the "most important thing in his life". As a bit of a religious observant myself, I can say that it is somewhat a rational conclusion for one who honestly believes in an afterlife to make such a statment. To paraphrase Ed Wood, the afterlife is where we will spend the rest of eternity, and, according to most religions, one's final destination is irrevocable. So, if you ask the average observant religious person whether, for instance, the winner of the Chargers-Colts game is more or less important to them than than spending the rest of eternity in a pleasant or less than pleasant location, there's rationally not much of a choice there. It could be argued that, on that basis, a separate religion section could be required of every biography article of an individual before in the Western World from the Christianization of Rome to the Reformation. However, as someone somewhat actively involved in the Saints Project, I can say from firsthand knowledge that there are articles about several prominent saints of various Christian churches which do not have separate religion sections, or even much religious content. On that basis, I can and do think that, comparatively, creating a section for this subject's religion, separate from the surrounding material, might well constitute WP:Undue weight. I grant that a good deal of this material is relevant to his political career, and certainly can see a separate subsection of that section devoted to the religious controversy. However, I honestly cannot see how this figure deserves a separate, early, religious section when FAs on such "saints" as the Lutheran saint Leonhard Euler lack them. John Carter (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Such a large section, located so near the beginning of the article, is WP:Undue weight. Note that the material is also covered in the "seealso" article linked at the top of the religion section, so I would support changing "seealso" to "main". Comparison to biographies of saints is interesting. Also pertinent is comparison to other presidential candidates. Religion of Fred Thompson and Barack Obama is covered in the "Personal life" section near the end of their articles. Mike Huckabee has a brief section, near the beginning of his article, on his pastoral career. I don't see that there's much about religion in the articles on John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, et cetera. I could probably dig up quotes from all those candidates about how much their religion means to them.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

"Obama says faith ‘plays every role’ in his life: Dem presidential candidate asks worshippers to pray for him and his family" from NBC News.

"Can She Reach Religious Voters?" from the Washington Post (her biographer calls Hillary Clinton "the most religious Democrat since Jimmy Carter").

Ferrylodge (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I disagree with all of that. The religious section should not be broken-up or moved, and there is no consensus to do so. Ferrylodge is personally obsessed with trying to destroy that section of the article and is showing ownership issues that should diqualify him from editing there. Furthermore, comparing Romney to a "saint" is a false analogy. Romney is not a "saint," even though Mormons call themselves "saints," and it is not the job of Wikipedia to say that Romney is a "saint" or compare him to "saints," Roman Catholic or otherwise. The reason there isn't a special religion section in articles about "saints" is because religion is a usual feature of being a saint, not a notable one. The opposite is true of Romney. He was the first major practicing Mormon candidate for president (his father's bid was quite short, while Mo Udall stopped being a Mormon because of the church's racism); also, very notably, Romney's Mormonism is the reason Christian evangelicals voted against him in Iowa, thus ending his presidential aspirations. All of this is highly notable, and therefore the religious section should remain intact and as high up in the article as possible. A better analogy for this article would be Chang and Eng Bunker. What Ferrylodge is proposing would be analogous to taking the most notable feature about Chang and Eng--the fact that they were conjoined twins--and burying that fact way down at the bottom of the article, then setting up a separate article for the fact that they were conjoined twins, and then using that as an excuse for completely removing from the original article the most notable fact about them--that they were conjoined twins! The fact is that the most notable thing about Romney is that he was a high-profile Mormon who ran for president but he was stopped in the Iowa caucuses because he was a Mormon. None of this is my personal POV; it is what has been reported in the national media ad nauseum with plenty of RS. If anything, the religious section should contain more Mormon facts--the Mormon underwear, Kolob, Baptism of the Dead, and whatever planet Romney would rule once he was done being president--so that the reader will have a fuller grasp of why those intolerant Christian evangelical bigots denied Romney his win in Iowa and destroyed his political career. Qworty (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you review some of the articles on saints such as David I of Scotland, Charlemagne, and others then. Also, there is a question, particularly regarding such things as the Mormon underwear, which in many cases would rather clearly very likely fall under the scope of WP:Undue weight. We don't for instance note the baptism date of most Christians, for example. Also, much of what you're saying bears the unfortunate taint of recentism, particularly the comment about "being stopped at the Iowa caucuses" and it having "destroyed his political career". That statement also seems to be predicting the future, which probably clearly violates relevant wikipedia policy. Overloading the page with content specifically important perhaps only for a short period is extremely questionable. Also, it should be noted that a request has been made for further comment. I agree there is no consensus yet, however, few if any outside comments have come in it. Those comments will help determine what the consensus will be. I very much suggest that we wait until those comments arrive. John Carter (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As much as FL might be trying to limit religion in this article, several others are hell-bent on making sure that everyone knows their own bias against Mormons. There clearly needs to be a move to a more neutral presentation of the material. Specifically, subject matter relating to his presidential run should be within the section relation to his presidential run. Arzel (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the material in the Religion Section on his presidential run would be much more appropriate in the section on his presidential run. Regarding whether "others are hell-bent on making sure that everyone knows their own bias against Mormons", I would speculate that the bigger motive is instead to emphasize the subject's Mormonism so that some Christian evangelicals will vote against him, thus ending his presidential aspirations which may be a result desired for any number of reasons other than the subject's Mormonism.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Our only purpose here is to report the sourced, notable facts. The guy was a leading candidate for the nomination until he was stopped in Iowa and New Hampshire. He was stopped because Christian evangelicals don't like his Mormonism. Those are the notable, verifiable facts. A few editors here are going against a large consensus--which has already been established--in order to push their personal POVs that the "embarrassing" facts of Romney's Mormonism--even though they are highly notable and reliably sourced--should be buried in the article, scattered, ultimately removed. That is bad faith editing, as other editors have already pointed out here. So give it up guys. It will never work. All you have to do is try again to be bold, move the material, and see what happens. The consensus that has already been established will immediately move the material back into place, and you guys will be exposed yet again as edit warriors. Qworty (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, if facts are notable due to his presidential run, then they belong in the section on his presidential run.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Qworty, you seem to be strongly pushing your own POV. I realize you dislike Mormons, you have made that abundantly clear. However, this is not the place to present your personal bias against the Mormom religion. Arzel (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Your argument is not against me or other editors, but against the thousands of evangelical Iowa caucus goers who handed Romney his defeat due to his Mormonism. Perhaps you should go argue with them. Their antipathy to Mormonism is a well-sourced fact. You are the one pushing POV by trying to whitewash this fact. Editors really should keep their personal opinions out of this, especially when they contradict reality. Qworty (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I very much suggest Qworty familiarize him/herself with several other policies, WP:Undue weight among them. Also, as per policy, consensus can and sometimes should change, as the number of editors involved increases and more opinions regarding matters of policy and guidelines, not simply personal opinions, are added. And I note once again that Qworty seems to be taking as a given the candidate's loss. That is an explicit violation of the policy I linked to above. I would like to once again state that the matter of exactly how to proceed is still being discussed, and several groups which have been contacted have yet to respond. I very strongly urge that editor, and any others, to refrain from seeking to impose a consensus of a few as an absolute rule for the future, and perhaps better familiarize him/herself with all the provisions of WP:CONSENSUS, particularly WP:CONSENSUS#Consensus can change, and wait for the further comments to arrive before attempting to prejudice the discussion. John Carter (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a "consensus of the few," but the consensus of nine different editors. Again, if you want to be bold and challenge that consensus, go right ahead and make the edits to the article and see for yourself what happens. This RfC is already quite extensive and the only thing it's accomplished is the introduction of the absurd notion that Romney's life story is somehow comparable to that of a "saint"! Nothing I have stated here is my personal opinion--RS are abundant that support the fact that Romney has lost the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary. Perhaps you should go out and buy a newspaper. The reason he lost in Iowa was because he's a Mormon. Republican "Christian" evangelicals don't want a Mormon candidate. The attempts to blame me or other editors for this well-sourced fact are comical. The notability of Romney's Mormonism is quite well established and there is no way you can whitewash it out of this article. Qworty (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been following this article much and I certainly haven't been following this whole dispute. But I have worked heavily in other 2008 presidential candidate articles, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, John McCain, Mike Gravel, and Rudy Giuliani, so I've got a pretty good sense for how these kinds of articles should be structured. Here's my take on the "Religious background" section: It shouldn't be here. The first paragraph in it, which seems like legitimate biographical material, should be blended into the early life and personal life sections. The second paragraph in it, which seems like legitimate campaign material, should be moved into the presidential campaign section; it jumps the chronology horribly to have it where it is now. The third paragraph in it deals with the history of polygamy and the Romney family tree; none of it seems to have anything to do with Mitt, and belongs in articles for past generations of the Category:Pratt-Romney family. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for answering this RfC. At the least, several commentators said around December 20 that the second paragraph was campaign-related and should be moved to that section. I think we can safely act on this now; the sections have been stable. Cool Hand Luke 18:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Religion and POV

In discussion above, an editor wrote "Mormonism is the most important fact about Romney, both as a person and as a politician. As a politician, he's found that his Mormonism has destroyed his campaign and political career, which is why he's no longer a serious contender, due to the intolerance of Republican "Christian" evangelicals."

This statement is very POV and is factually incorrect. The results in Michigan's primary clearly show that Mormonism did NOT destroy his campaign and political career. He is still a serious contender - arguably one of the leaders. Furthermore, political analysts report that evangelicals voted more for Romney than for Huckabee - evangelicals are NOT intolerant of Romney's Mormonism. The editor's opinion is based more on a stereotype of Republicans than on any facts.

POV on a Talk page is not a problem but is a problem if it affects the article itself. From the extensive discussion above it appears that POV may be causing undue emphasis on Romney's religion. For myself, I neither support nor oppose Romney. I have read a LOT of blogs and comment boards talking about all of the candidates. From what I have read, the opposition to Romney is based on his positions and records; his Mormonism is barely mentioned. In fact, the discussion about all of the candidates is mostly about positions, records, philosophy, and character - NOT about religion for any of the candidates.

The voters, talking informally on web pages or when casting real votes, indicate that Romney's religion is a minor factor. The Wikipedia article should similarly make religion a relatively minor part. Sbowers3 (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to raise last night's exit polls showing Romney winning the evangelical vote as well. It clearly gives evidence against Qworty's assertion that Romney's religion is such a gating factor on his political career that it requires a separate section on 'Religious background' that no other presidential candidates' article has. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Having not--to my knowledge--edited this article, I completely concur. The religion section needs pared down, and moved back in the article. I posted my reasoning on this issue just above this thread. -- Bellwether ^B_C 19:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it does show why we have policies like WP:CRYSTAL—we shouldn't make editorial choices based on our own gut feelings. I think you're wrong in part though: a religion section is appropriate. Religion has been a major concern for this candidate, and many articles in reputable and reliable sources ponder whether the nation would elect a Mormon? It's not much different from Obama's racial identity in this regard. That's why a section with the candidacy heading makes sense, much as it does for Obama.

That said, I think Bellwether and others are right that the section should also be pared back. Cool Hand Luke 20:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I think placing an entirely separate section is probably overdoing it, but religion has been a very significant factor in his political life, and on that basis it makes sense to include information regarding it. But it probably makes most sense as subsections of the relevant periods, rather than as an entirely separate section. John Carter (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The Barack Obama article comparison is a good one, because it does not have a "Racial background" section. The Hillary article does not have a "Gender background" section. Nor should this article have a "Religious background" section. His religion is a relevant topic, but it should be integrated into the other sections of the article, just as Obama's race and Hillary's gender are. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do we care who his great grandfather was, or that his wife's parents couldn't make it to the wedding. Sure it's true that Mormons don't drink coffee, but is that relevant information for the Mitt Romney page? Good Mormons go to church every Sunday, but that's not mentioned. Why is it relevant? User:199.46.245.232

No, but Obama's "Cultural and political image" section is largely about his race. I originally proposed this section be called "Religion and political image." I have no problem with changing the name in the section and broadening its scope. My point is only that the religious stuff (not his ancient genealogy, but the polling data, for example) is relevant to his candidacy and is more useful in one place. I wouldn't object to renaming the religious section. Cool Hand Luke 19:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said somewhere above, I'm ok with a "Cultural and political image" section for Romney. But it should be called that, not "Religion and political image". It should discuss all the things that mark the intersection of Romney with the American political-cultural scene ... his religion is certainly part of that, but so also is his technocrat/manager image, his 'manufactured convictions' image, his perfect hair, his perfect family ... in a way all of these are related, even the religion. That should be the theme of that section, just like Obama, Hillary, and McCain's similarly named sections all have their themes too. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me, as long as controversial details of his religion don't start spilling into other sections as they once did. Cool Hand Luke 05:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Romney's Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley died, and Romney now has a new Prophet, Thomas S. Monson. This would seem to be a major event in his religious life. Does it warrant inclusion? Шизомби (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Only if you modify the articles about every Catholic political figure active in 2005 to say that Pope John Paul II died. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea.... but seriously, it might be appropriate in the cases of world leaders or aspiring world leaders who are Catholic, not pobucker city councilmen. 72.226.64.201 (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No it is not relivant. It may be relivant to the Hinkley page to (eventually) say that Romney attended the funeral, but otherwise, it has no basis on this article. Bytebear (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Wasted Time R's Catholic analogy is apt. Bytebear is also right on the money. Cool Hand Luke 23:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Lies

Maybe someone needs to include a comment on his long history of blatantly lying as evidenced by this most recent encounter with journalists here. 134.174.1.18 (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

About the lobbyists? I am sort of surprised not to see that included, as well as his others like the flap about his quote about marching with MLK and so on. They might not be overt lies, they could also be Bush-style extreme carelessness with language, or Clinton-style legalistic defining. Шизомби (talk) 13:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Details about his presidential campaign go in the presidential campaign article, if at all. Additionally, some sources argue that he was not lying about the lobbyists. He said there is a difference between lobbyists running his campaign (which he denied) versus lobbyists advising his campaign (which he acknowledged). Thus, to say that he was lying may itself be a lie. Anyway, this is not the proper article for such discussion.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, well the question of whether he's a liar isn't restricted to his campaign, but I suppose if the other candidates have the question of their veracity raised in their own article, then I guess it doesn't belong here either. However, Romney did not merely say lobbyists aren't running his campaign. He said "I don't have lobbyists that are tied [to my campaign]" (the AP reporter interrupted him at the point, and he also said "I don't have lobbyists at my elbows." Anyway, fair enough. 22:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.64.201 (talk)

a couple points. First, it could be argued, that since he is not taking any special interest money, they are not "tied to his campaign", second, this is not the proper article. Third, Wikipdeians do not have opinions. We deal in facts and the opinions of others. In other words, get some reliable sources, balance them out by finding all pertinent views on the subject, and then add them to the approprate article. Bytebear (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Quick Stake President Note

I just put in a few words adding a bit more import to his having been a Stake President. In the LDS church, a Stake President is the leader over a group of congregations (maybe the equivalent of a Bishop or Cardinal in other churches). Romney was therefore the overt clergical leader for close to 5,000 Mormons, surely volunteering 40+ hours a week on top of his corporate life to counseling individuals. Anyway, maybe I'm just a values voter, but it seems to me that this kind of stuff is a crucial lens to the understanding of even the basics of who Romney is... --Mrcolj (talk) 06:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Where did you get that 5000 figure? I think the true average in the US is closer to 2500. I think we should just link to Stake (Latter Day Saints), which lays this all out; the "Bishop" metaphor is more misleading than enlightening. Cool Hand Luke 06:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The position of Stake President is temporary, part time, lay, unpaid position. Very different than a Cardinal, or even a minister. Bytebear (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wording

I recommend changing "which makes him a Mormon" to "whose members are commonly referred to as Mormons." The phrase "makes him a Mormon" is rather meaningless and sounds awkward. I don't think that there are any particular political or religious ramifications to clearing the matter; just grammatical and stylistic concerns. Each is NPOV and neither is loaded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolewhite (talk • contribs) 18:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Animal cruelty?

I checked the talk archives and was only able to find it discussed once before, but the discussion never went anywhere. Did Mitt Romney put his pet dog in a carrier and fasten it to the top of a car for a twelve hour ride back in 1983? If so is it notable enough to mention in this article?

A few sources I found:

• http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1638065,00.html
• http://www.pr-usa.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=61056&Itemid=9
• http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/01/0113young_edit.html
• http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119949556092669169.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
• http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/13620311.html

I won't jump in and make any article changes yet, please let me know what you think. Gh5046 (talk) 11:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't notable. Bytebear (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain why? Gh5046 (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Just pasting a whole lot of links does not render something notable. You ought to pick out one of the links that you think is most relevant, and then quote from it. For example, your quote from the WSJ says almost nothing about the incident: "Talk about a family vacation caused an outcry when it revealed that Mr. Romney put the dog in its carrier on top of the car on a long trip." The WSJ thus devoted a grand total of one sentence to this matter, and the sentence does not even indicate that Romney did anything wrong. After all, dogs are put in carriers on airplanes all the time.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not "just pasting a whole lot of links" to make it notable, I provided the links to help with the discussion, so people could see what I do. I'm not trying to create sensationalism about the issue, I'm trying to find out if there was any. (just as a side note, there is a huge difference between locking up an animal in an enclosed and evironmentally controlled space than strapping it to the roof of a car.) Gh5046 (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

While bizarre, the story doesn't seem to rise to the level of notability here (and the bar is being set ever higher as the campaigns heat up and these articles get bloated). The key question is not what anybody thinks of the story but how it has actually affected Mitt Romney or his campaign (not really at all, in this case).--Loonymonkey (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that pretty much answers my questions. I wasn't able to find any big press on it, but I felt it was important enough to check here first before passing the matter by. Gh5046 (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Gh5046, sorry if I came off as impolite. It's just that there are a lot of people who would like to include as much dirt as possible about Romney in this article, whereas the article is supposed to have an NPOV. So maybe I was overly defensive. Anyway, if a carrier is nice and roomy, and it's a nice sunny seventy-degree day, and the opening of the carrier is facing away from the wind, it doesn't seem like a big deal.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That story is completely bizzare. This is what the Wall Street Journal reported:

Indeed, the few times he's gone "off-plan" in his remarks, he's gotten into trouble. For example, when he told an audience in December he "saw" his father walk with Martin Luther King Jr., Mr. Romney later had to concede he was speaking "figuratively." Talk about a family vacation caused an outcry when it revealed that Mr. Romney put the dog in its carrier on top of the car on a long trip. Mr. Romney says he doesn't lose sleep over such "goofs." He quotes Popeye: "I am what I am and that's all that I am."

But it seems as though he regrets what he did... if this is going to be mentioned, the paragraph should include his regret. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 08:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you followed me here IAA? As you can see from the discussion above, there is no consensus for including that material. However, if you would like to make an argument for including that material, then please go ahead and explain why you think it should be included. And why quote stuff about Martin Luther King when the subject here is animal cruelty?Ferrylodge (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Martin Luther King, Jr. was mentioned in the same paragraph as the dog incident. I simply copied and pasted what was in the article. There was no ulterior motive on my part, and no reason to be paranoid. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

IAA, I was arguably being paranoid about you following me, not about MLK.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Animal Cruelty

Massachusetts's animal cruelty laws specifically prohibit anyone from carrying an animal "in or upon a vehicle, or otherwise, in an unnecessarily cruel or inhuman manner or in a way and manner which might endanger the animal carried thereon." An officer for the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals responded to a description of the situation saying "it's definitely something I'd want to check out." The officer, Nadia Branca, declined to give a definitive opinion on whether Romney broke the law but did note that it's against state law to have a dog in an open bed of a pick-up truck, and "if the dog was being carried in a way that endangers it, that would be illegal." And while it appears that the statute of limitations has probably passed, Stacey Wolf, attorney and legislative director for the ASPCA, said "even if it turns out to not be against the law at the time, in the district, we'd hope that people would use common sense...Any manner of transporting a dog that places the animal in serious danger is something that we'd think is inappropriate...I can't speak to the accuracy of the case, but it raises concerns about the judgment used in this particular situation." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.231.110.50 (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Information about draf deferrment

I did not add the information, but just in case someone wants to discuss the recent edit in which someone adding information about the draft, there is an archived discussion on the matter, but it wasn't fully discussed. Gh5046 (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

vandalism of link on page

the link for Mormon at the end of the first paragraph in the early life and education section has been vandalised to point to an external website promoting his presidency nomination campaign - someone please fix. Masterplan79th - 18:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is fixed now. If not, please list the citation number and I'll get it. --BizMgr (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Article Focus

I know it has been the (passionate) contention, as evidenced above, that the Mormon issue must be a dominant theme in the article. I believe just the opposite. I think if you look at the Harry Reid article as a guide, this shows how a well-written political figure (who is Mormon) article can be done. Touch on religion, as with all other political articles, and then move on to the pertinent biographicals: the events that define him.

I certainly understand that people will disagree with me. They will claim the Mormon issue has everything to do with Romney. I don't. It takes little effort to find solid articles on public Mormon figures that do not fixate on their Mormonism, even when Mormonism has been a media firestorm before (such as with Sen Reid) and I believe this article should follow suit. Just make the article about Romney.

There is a long and strong tradition of this touch-and-go on the Mormon subject in a political bio. Examples of other articles which follow this format are: UT Sen Orrin Hatch, NV Sen Harry Reid, OR Sen Gordon Smith, UT Gov Jon Huntsman, Jr., ID Sen Mike Crapo, UT Sen Robert Foster Bennett, UT Rep Chris Cannon, UT Rep Rob Bishop, UT Rep Jim Matheson, AZ Rep Jeff Flake, CA Rep Wally Herger, CA Rep Howard McKeon, ID Rep Mike Simpson, NM Rep Tom Udall, former-OK Rep Ernest Istook, and AS Rep Eni Fa'aua'a Hunkin Faleomavaega, Jr.. That's my 2¢, anyway. --BizMgr (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Romney did surprisingly well by garnering a significant minority of the Evangelical vote; few thought Evangelicals would do anything but vote for a Mormon. Evangelicals have gratefully proven the pundits wrong; they are not a group of mindless automatons expressing only group think dispensed by their ministers that are terrified of those terrible Mormons. Regardless, Huckabee's strength in the south does confirm that a Mormon will always have problems with the core of the Republican party. However, that says more about Evangelicals than it does about Mormons.

This issue cannot be ignored in topics that address national elections, but in articles that are limited to the individual it is seldom the main quality to highlight. Keep the issue more quiet here, but in the presidential campaign article it should play a greater roll. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place for original research or analysis. We have to base articles here on the available resources. What is in this article largely reflects what has been written about him in the media, on all sides of the political spectrum. Notmyrealname (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Campaign "Suspended"?

See Talk:Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008#Campaign Suspended. Mike R (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

<Removed message board-style commentary, per this portion of the talkpage guidelines.

• This is not a Romney message board, guys. Bellwether ^B_C 20:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it has been confirmed that his highly expensive campaign (to a large part funded by himself) has ended.[30] One down one left (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hatnote improperly capitalized

The word "campaign" in the hatnote should not be capitalized. Someone please fix that, thanks. Stupid capitalization (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Expenses

Would his campaign go down in American history or even world history as the most expensive failure? Approximately $40 million of his own funds. I'll try to find sources on this. One down one left (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

In terms of most money spent per delegate won, I'm sure he's not close ... John Connally 1980 and Phil Gramm 1996 are the gold standards for futility in this area. In terms of own money spent, check out Steve Forbes 1996 and 2000. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

How much did Steve Forbes spend of his own money? One down one left (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ross Perot's gotta have taken the cake (bought the cake?). His Wikipedia article says he spent over $65 million in 1992 (so you'd have to adjust for inflation to compare to today). Notmyrealname (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

LDS renouncing plural marriage, Who cares?

Why is it important to mention that LDS has renounced plural marriage or not? As has been mentioned several times before, this article is about Mitt Romney, not LDS and whether or not LDS has renounced the practice is immaterial to Mitt Romney. All that matters is that Romney has renounced the practice. If someone wants to find out if LDS has renounced the practice, they can go to the LDS article (which conveniently enough is linked several times in the article). --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to say that polygamy has been part of the Romney family religion, but you don't want to mention that polygamy's no longer part of the family religion,[31] then that's misleading. We've already been over this ground many times. I don't think the polygamy of great-grandparents should even be in this article, but if it remains here then we can spend a couple extra words mentioning that it's no longer part of Romney's church.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think the whole subject should be removed. After all, it isn't mentioned in the Steve Young (American football) article, and he is a direct descendant of Brigham Young. Bytebear (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been rather consistent in saying that the polygamy of Romney's ancestors is not worthy of main article coverage and my first comment on this talk page shows that.[32] It's really only applicable to his presidential campaign and the article on his family tree and really has no place in his "religious beliefs" section. The fact that he renounces plural marriage doesn't even belong in the religious belief section, if anything it's a political position and belongs in that section, or on the political positions article.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you want to get rid of the polygamy paragraph, go for it. I'm not in the mood to be brave and daring right now.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The removal of the polygamy paragraph is contentious and requires more discussion than what has so far taken place. If discussion on whether or not the paragraph should be removed leads to a consensus on its removal, then I'd be more than glad to do so, but so far we have just three editors in favor of its removal. That's hardly consensus. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Then I hope we can still devote a few words to saying that Romney's church has repudiated polygamy, as in the consensus agreement of last month.[33]Ferrylodge (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it sounds like we are a concensus of 3. If we don't hear a compelling argument for the inclusion within a few days, I saw we remove it. Regardless, the church denouncement must be present if polygamny is mentoned. It's all or nothing. Bytebear (talk) 06:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor of removing polygamy altogether. It went bye-bye for mainstream Mormons in the 19th century; this is the 21st century. It should be sufficient to state that Romney is a mainstream Mormon (whatever the best wlink is for that); once you know he isn't a Mormon fundamentalist, you know there's a bunch of stuff he doesn't believe in, including polygamy. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wasted Time R (WTR), as already mentioned. However, I'd also like to head off any future effort to use the term "Mormon fundamentalist" in this article. Romney is not a lot of things, but that doesn't mean we should mention those things (e.g. wife-beater, tax cheat, space cadet, et cetera). According to the LDS Church, the word "Mormon" applies only to church members, and so there is no such thing as a "Mormon fundamentalist".Ferrylodge (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with removal of the section. It isn't relevant, and it isn't notable. Even his opponents say it isn't. DavidBailey (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, since no one has complained since the removal was brought up, I've gone ahead and removed the paragraph on the polygamy of his ancestors[34] and moved the one sentence directly applicable to Romney the Political positions section.[35] Let's see how long that lasts. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, no. I just reinserted it. This has been extensively discussed, was the subject of at least one rfc, and was the cause of the page getting frozen for several days. After all of this, a couple of people wondering if it is relevant shouldn't be sufficient cause to just delete the entire consensus paragraph.Notmyrealname (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that Romney is no longer a high profile public figure, are the religious background and political view sections even still necessary, or at the very least can they be reduced? Alanraywiki (talk) 05:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Romney is still a major political figure, so I think the political views section ought to remain for now, as it is (incidentally, he's also a leading contender for the vice-presidential slot on the GOP ticket). Regarding the religious background section, I support at least removing the stuff about ancestors' polygamy, as I have always said.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on both points. The VP race is still wide open, and he is as good a candidate as any. Also, I cannot see how it is relevant to say that a member of a religious body which has itself renounced plural marriage has to have specifically indicated on his page that he has done so as well. If he were a member of a body which still accepted plural marriage, that might be the man biting the dog and notable on the basis of being unusual, but there's no reason to say that a member of a given religious group has individually done what the group itself has done. John Carter (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding polygamy of ancestors, I agree that it should not be in the main Mitt Romney article. However, if it is included here in the religion section of the main Mitt Romney article, then the implication is that his church condones polygamy, in which case it should be briefly clarified (as the article now does) that his church rejected polygamy long ago, IMHO.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) For those of you new to this page, this has been discussed ad nauseum for well over a year. Do we really have to go through this every month? Most everything that could be said about it can be found in any of the archives of this page. As I noted two months ago: These undisputed facts have been deemed relevant by virtually every major news organization in the United States Slate, Boston Phoenix, ABC News, Boston Globe, Reuters, Boston Herald, The National Review, Christian Century, Boston Globe, Archived version of Salt Lake Tribune article, 60 Minutes interview, Fox News, Washington Monthly, The Guardian (UK), CBS News. I have never seen a controversy over inclusion of an undisputed true fact with this much mainstream news coverage. Notmyrealname (talk) 08:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, I don't think the LDS's position on polygamy is very relevant to this article. The whole paragraph is questionable, but especially that part. Enigmaman (talk) 08:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a WP:V problem. Plenty of reliable sources also cover the history of American Motor, but it's just not relevant to an encyclopedia biography about Mitt Romney—especially not when users can click a link to learn more. That said, there should be a short note somewhere about this (perhaps in the footnotes), and it should probably link to something like 1890 Manifesto. Cool Hand Luke 08:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The current religion section is trash, but any changes keep getting reverted. I don't think anyone agrees with the status quo, so why keep it? Enigma (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

CHL-You are correct, this is not a WP:V problem. The point of this abbreviated list of recent media reports is to show that media outlets, across the political spectrum, have decided that this is a relevant and interesting piece of biographical information regarding Mitt Romney. The list includes interviews with the man himself regarding this, as well as a several part series looking at the extended Romney family that resulted from his family's polygamy. Enigmaman asks a reasonable question. As I noted, the current version is a compromise that apparently pleases no one. My personal inclination is that we should stick to the relevant bit that directly relates to Romney and his family and drop the rest, or at worst, stick it in a footnote. Given the acrimonious nature of this relatively minor point on this page, I would recommend that we try to work out a better version that everyone can live with on the talk page here rather than getting the page frozen again amidst a series of revert wars. Notmyrealname (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand why anything about polygamy needs to be included. It's not newsworthy that he's against polygamy. No politician would ever admit to being in support of polygamy, even if he were. Let's reach a consensus so we can have an article that at least a large percentage of editors support, if not all. Enigma (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I generally agree with Enigmaman. An extraordinarily large amount of info about Romney has been published repeatedly in many reliable sources, so we have to do some picking and choosing.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The sources cited above (and there are more if you look) show that this facet of his personal background is noteworthy. Also, it's been discussed by Romney himself. I agree that we could drop the long background about the Church's history with polygamy. 155.212.229.115 (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll say it again. That version is NOT the consensus version. No one has posted here that they agree with it as currently constituted. Enigma (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. I'd prefer this be submitted to mediation. The recent consensus has been against that paragraph, or at least portions of it. Repeatedly putting a controversial paragraph back onto the page is wrong. Enigma (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've generally found mediation not to be very useful for resolving content disputes. I put forth a proposal below. Hopefully with Romney out of the Presidential race, the conversation can be a little calmer.Notmyrealname (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Family Background section

Okay, let's try to work through this again. News organizations across the political spectrum have found Romney's family history of polygamy relevant to his biography. The facts are not in dispute, and he discussed it during an interview on 60 Minutes. Although it does not merit a huge part of this page, it's certainly within the parameters of wikipedia. It's necessary to understand why his father was born in Mexico, and why he has a very large family (discussed in the Boston Globe article. The main relevant sources are here: Slate, Boston Phoenix, ABC News, Boston Globe, Reuters, Boston Herald, The National Review, Christian Century, Boston Globe, Archived version of Salt Lake Tribune article, 60 Minutes interview, Fox News, Washington Monthly, The Guardian (UK), CBS News.

I propose that we include the following section under the heading "Family Background":

Romney's paternal great-grandparents practiced plural marriage, and went to Mexico in 1884 after an 1878 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld laws banning polygamy. The LDS church renounced polygamy in its 1890 Manifesto. Subsequent generations of Romney's paternal lineage have been monogamous, and none of his mother's ancestors appear to have been polygamists. Mitt's father, George, was born in Mexico in 1907, and was brought to the United States in 1912 by Mitt's grandparents.

Comments? Thoughts?Notmyrealname (talk) 04:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No one said the facts are in dispute. That's not the issue. Enigma (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

My comment is that the polygamy of Romney's paternal great-grandparents is given sufficient Wikipedia coverage at The issue of Mitt Romney's Mormonism during the 2008 U.S. presidential primaries. The religion-related material in the present article is also sufficient. We cannot include everything in the main Mitt Romney article that numerous reliable sources have reported; that would make this article much too long.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ferrylodge on this matter. Enigma (talk) 04:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a campaign issue. This is information about his family, including his father. Wikipedia is not paper, and biographies of major political figures are often quite long. This is a small entry in any case. I don't know of any other facts like this about Romney's background that were as widely covered as this that are not included here. When Fox News and the Boston Globe agree on something, that's usually a good sign that it should be included in Wikipedia. The page you cite is not linked in any way to this page in any case.Notmyrealname (talk) 04:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find that the news articles about polygamy in Mitt Romney's family will taper off considerably now that he's suspended his presidential campaign. Also, neither his father nor grandfathers practiced polygamy. If one of Mitt Romney's children goes into politics, and some media outlets bring up the polygamy thing again, I don't think that Wikipedia articles should necessarily include polygamy in their articles, especially if there's lots of other well-sourced material that Wikipedia could mention instead.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. This article isn't about what's currently in the news (there are hardly any media mentions about the information in the current "personal life" section for instance). When he was the focus of great media attention, this was a part of his biography that editors at all the major media outlets felt was relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notmyrealname (talk • contribs) 04:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I agree that there will be fewer articles about Romney's polygamous relatives in the press. However, Wikipedia articles are not based on the news cycle. If there's an interesting aspect of his family background that the media has overwhelming agreed is noteworthy at some point, then it should be included here. I also think that it is silly to say this is a campaign issue and could be adequately covered in a campaign-related article without being mentioned, albeit briefly, here.Notmyrealname (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

{out] I've not commented here in a while, but I'd have to agree with Notmyrealname here - some people were always seeing this as relevant only because of the presidential campaign, but others have argued all along that the interest in the subject is separate from the campaign, and just because he's no longer in it doesn't mean we should stay away from it. As I've said many times - this is supposed to be a biography of an individual, not a biography of a presidential candidate. There's a difference. Tvoz |talk 19:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the initial comment in this section, I don't think adding a new section header for "family background" would be advisable. If polygamy is to be included in this article (and many people have said it should not be included, so that should end the matter), then it ought to go into the section on Religious Background as agreed months ago. There is an immense amount of material that was published in numerous reliable sources during his campaign, but not all of it belongs here in this article, and several people have indicated that polygamy of great-grandparents is not one of those things that belongs in this article. Those urging its inclusion have not explained why polygamy of great-grandparents is one of those things, and if so why it should not be in the religious background section as previously agreed. I believe that it is not one of those things, for the same reason that other Wikipedia articles are not commandeered to air details about the subject's ancestors: it's not fair to the subject. I see no end to inclusion of polygamy info in articles about Romney's children or grandchildren if they become notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article (you may call this a "red herring" but I call it practicality and fairness).Ferrylodge (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Seldom are the actions of one's grandparents of value to the story of an individual; much less the action's of one's great-grandparents. What makes this of value to this article? If this is of value, should we also identify in all biography articles the parents, grandparents, and great grandparents who were divorced or were the product of illegitimate birth? How about if an individual has a murderer, rapist, child molester, or other degenerate in their family tree; should they also be mentioned? Better yet, should we identify all people who come from mixed racial parents:? I am sure there are some white supremacists out there that would be interested. What is the standard; that it is talked about in newspapers, that there is an "interested" group, or just the reality of the actions of one's forebears? How big does the interested group have to be before we identify, not the character traits of the individual, but those of his/her ancestors? This is an interesting discussion; I don't have any answers and I sure cannot tell why some things make it in the news and others don't. I suspect the mere fact that Romney is Mormon is what makes this interesting to some newspaper editors, which in turn appeals to some wikipedia editors and readers. I also suspect that they are no better than a white supremacist that would be interested in who is a true, blue white man and who is not. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "appealing" to editors, at least not this one - it's a matter of notability, and the press coverage that this has received is indicative that it is considered newsworthy and notable by our standards. Why do some Wikipedia editors insist on hiding something that is accurate and has been so extensively reported on? Tvoz |talk 08:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz, why do you again return to this refrain that people are trying to "hide" material? You previously accused people of trying to "bury" this same material merely by moving to a different location in this article. It would probably be more productive if you would assume good faith. I don't know how Bobblehead and Wasted Time R and John Carter and others feel about being accused like this, but I don't like it.

The material in question is now in The issue of Mitt Romney's Mormonism during the 2008 U.S. presidential primaries. There are many facts about Romney that will get you more Google News hits than the polygamy of his great-grandparents, so why do you think those facts should not go in this main article whereas the polygamy of great-grandparents shoud go in? This is an article about Mitt Romney, not about the breeding habits of several ancestors who he never met.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's all agree that this is neither about burying information nor about promoting bigotry or anything analogous to White Supremacy. Let's also agree that the fact that some editors have objected to the material is not sufficient to keep it out (that's not how Wikipedia works). Mainstream media coverage is one measure that is broadly used to decide whether to include something on Wikipedia. I don't know of similar facts so widely reported about other candidates that are excluded in their bios. Romney comes from a very prominent line of important figures in the LDS Church. This is notable. His father was born in Mexico. This is out of the ordinary and merits note here as well as explanation. He has a very large extended family as a direct result of his ancestors' plural marriage (as reported on in the Boston Globe features). This is clearly a matter related to his family, not his religious beliefs. If there are other notable and widely reported items related to his biography that are not included in this article than they should be added. Notmyrealname (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe the whole section about Romney's ancestors is not really that relevant, but my strongest objection was to the parts saying Romney is against polygamy (a presidential candidate isn't publicly for polygamy? Color me shocked) and the LDS's stance on it. If anyone actually cares about the LDS's stance about anything, they can go to the LDS article that is linked from this one. This article was also the first time I ever heard anything about Romney and polygamy. All I knew was that Romney was Mormon. Otherwise, I focused on his politics. Enigma (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) It might be a good idea to recall what WP:BLP says: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is 'do no harm'. This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." (emphasis added)Ferrylodge (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's not start with the wikilawyering or selective quoting of policy. WP:BLP also states that "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." I have plainly made a case that meets wikipedia standards here. Another editor removed what had been a consensus version, albeit one that made no one happy. Let's open up an RFC rather than just talk amongst ourselves.Notmyrealname (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

There are many other Wikipedia guidelines that we could both quote. Summary style articles are supposed to summarize what's in the main articles, not repeat everything. Undue weight can occur by selection of facts and omission of others. Et cetera, et cetera. I'm no more guilty of "wikilawyering" here than you are.

I think an RfC would be premature at this point, because the matter is still unclear. Would you use the RfC to put the polygamy stuff back into the Religious Background section per the consensus of months ago, or would you use the RfC to try to have a new section titled "Family Background" as you mentioned above (which was removed prior to creation of the Religious Background" section)? RfCs tend to be confusing when there's more than two alternatives under consideration. Also, please note that there have already been RfCs on this issue.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not an issue of a "positive" or "negative" fact in family history. To me it is simply irrelevant and it does not matter who has reported on it. How many of you know the descendants of your great grandparents outside of your immediate families? I suspect very, very few. My 2nd great grandmother, a staunch Southern Baptist, was the mistress of man all her life. The "other" family knew about and it was just accepted. What in the heck does that have to do with me? This was more common than many known in the south; however, because they did not marry the other woman or women nothing was done about; no army was sent out to straighten those Baptists out for their philandering ways.

I suspect that some think it is negative information and that is why they fight over it; desperate to keep this tidbit of family lore in the fore front. Truth be told, many of the residents of Utah are the descendants of polygamist ancestors. This is a yawner and irrelevant to boot. Maybe Romney and his children find it interesting only because it is their family history, but that is about all. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith about the motivations of other editors. This is indeed a minor item, and deserves only a small mention in this article. Unlike the distant relatives of wikipedia editors (or the subjects of most other biographical pages), these facts have received wide media attention, including comments in the media by Romney himself.Notmyrealname (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't myself think that it deserves more than a passing mention, if that, in this article. Yes, it has been a major subject of discussion of late, but that was in relation to his presidential campaign, and such content certainly belongs in the page relating to that. This page however is more biographical in nature than about the details of the campaign, and the matter of his ancestry is not a particularly important factor, given the numerous other activities the subject has engaged in. The article is not as long as it could be, but it is also true that WP:Undue weight should be considered, and just because the article could be longer doesn't mean that we should pay more attention to the minutiae of the subject's life, which this basically is, over expanding the sections regarding the subject's more notable activities, many of which could be substantially improved upon. John Carter (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I have a source for Mitt's middle name, i.e. "Mitt" but not the skill to add it to his page. In fact, this is the first I have tried to add any thing to Wikipedia. Here is the source: Harris, T.G. (1967). Romney's way: A man and an idea. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. It's on page 189. Here is the sentence. "They named the child Mitt, after the Romney first cousin who had mad All-American at the University of Chicago and pro for the Chicago Bears." There is more informaton on Cousin Mitt on page 59, "First Cousin Mit Romney had made all American on an Amos Alonzo Stagg team at the University of Chicago." Some where in the book it also mentions that his father, George, had about 237 first cousins. I don't believe this violates any copyright laws. I also noticed in the October 8, 2007 edition of Newsweek that it mentioned that Mitt was a descentant of Rebecca Nurse who was Salem Witch Trial victim. That might be interesting, too. Althought it is further back in the family tree because Rebecca was hung in July 1692. I have tried to figure out how he is related to her because I am, too. But I have had little luck so far.User:Poorlittlerobin (Poorlittlerobin) 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Featured Picture Candidate

File:Mitt Romney.jpg is a featured picture candidate. A featured picture should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet several criteria. Please feel free to leave comments on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mitt Romney. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)