Talk:Mitt Romney: Difference between revisions

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

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

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

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

Biography: Politics and Government B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group. This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Interesting this article puts up high that Mitt is Mormon, yet the article on Harry Reid doesn't mention at all that Reid is Mormon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidshare (talk • contribs) 00:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it was altered at the time you accessed it, but it is in the opening paragraph to Reid's article. WTStoffs 04:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MITT ROMNEY IS A MORMON?!?! OH MY GOD WHY DIDN'T SOMEBODY SAY SOMETHING!?!? --79.184.148.107 (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It mentions this twice... It already mentions it in the intro...

Template:RFCbioFerrylodge 04:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Statements made by editors currently involved in the dispute may be made in this section.

• This should go into a section on Romney's religion as it pertains to his presidential bid. Everyone seemed to agree to this solution except for one editor. Cool Hand Luke 04:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that we had a reasonable compromise solution until it was reverted here. That solution put the info in the section on his 2008 campaign. Were it not for the 2008 campaign, the info would not be in the bio. Putting this info in the section on "Early Life" is unlike what's done for any other candidates, giving it undue prominence. It's also phrased provocatively.Ferrylodge 04:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A compromise decided in one day while the disagreeing party was away. That is a bullshit compromise so stop calling it that. This is his family's history and it should be in a family background, political perception or religion section. This should not be shunted away on the current campaign article as Mitt has run many campaigns. Phrasing is not a big deal as it can be changed.This isn't just about the polygamy but the obfuscation of any information that some editors feel is negative or damaging to their candidate. This page is as carefully orchestrated as any political campaign and it should be held to the same standards as other articles here. Just look at the Obama article. His family history and religious background are discussed in depth. This is written more as a campaign article than a true biography. Turtlescrubber 04:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Turtlescrubber keeps repeating his conclusion that it needs to be included over and over but he refuses to participate in discusions of WHY it should be included... he just keeps repeating over and over that it is family background, and refuses to discuss the fact that other candidates don't have their family background (Barak Obama's DAD's Muslim poligamy) discussed in their first paragraph.... That family history is not the most important thing in any 2008 presidential candidate, that even though there have been some mentions of Romney's poligamy, all articles that mention in (from respectable news sourses) mention how much Romney has disavowed it..., and that although it has been brought up a few times, it is far from the issue that is brought up the most about Romney, and so should not be featured prominatly in the article, and frankley, I'm tired of this... this is rediculous... I know poligamy is the first thing that is brought up when ever anyone finds out I went to BYU, and it gets freaking old, and Turtlescrubber has not responded to any of questions as to weather poligamy should be brought up in every Mormon's wikipedia article, or just those running for office... No he doesn't engage in discusions, he just keeps changing it back to the way he likes it and saying it is "bullshit" (see his elogent argument above) for anyone to disagree with him. THAT is why I say we need arbitration... I would like to appeal to higher ups at wikipedia... we have been going around in circles for a couple of weeks now, and this is pathetic... WE NEED ARBITRATION, because the other side refuses to engague in debate myclob (talk) 03:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I feel it should not be included at all, however if it is to be included I agree with Cool Hand Luke. Arzel (talk) 05:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Editors that are uninvolved in the dispute at hand may place their comments in this section

• This information is not significant enough to justify inclusion in the main article, especially not in the "Early life and family background" section. This is a campaign issue and a minor one at that. The fact that some are dragging it up during his campaign belongs in Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008#Religious beliefs, where it is already covered in a neutral manner. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• While a section on Romney's religious beliefs may be a good idea, it should focus on Mitt Romney and his immediate family's (wife and kids) religious beliefs, not those of his ancestors. It is clear that Romney's religious beliefs are an issue for his candidacy and that should be included in both the article on his campaign and in the summary of that article in this article. However, the polygamy practiced by his ancestor(s) are a minor aspect of this issue and should really only be included in the campaign article and not here. By far the biggest issue with Romney's religion is the simple fact that he is <start scary tone of voice> Mormon <end scary tone of voice> and that the evangelical base of the Republican party view this sect of Christianity as a heretical cult.[2][3] All in all, include a summary of Romney's beliefs being an issue in this article, but focus only on the major issues (heretical cult, misconception about Mormon beliefs by evangelicals, etc, etc), of which his ancestor's polygamy is not a major issue. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I just sorta bounced here on an off-wiki fact check, but I'll give some thoughts. I can see no valid reasons for this information, other than its historical trivia value. At the time, the Mormon church permitted polygamy. The gov't didn't. That Romney's ancestors followed the church not gov't has no particular bearing on his candidacy or, as far as I can see based on what's been discussed, his life in general. He's clearly a member of the LDS, the main Mormon church, which does not advocate or permit polygamy, and has not for over 100 years. Including this seems to primarily be an attempt to smear the guy with the brush of other people's ancient history, a sort of guilt-by-association attack posited on the cult and polygamy memes about the Mormon church. I have yet to see any material as to the direct relevancy on Mitt. I believe that in George Romney's article, there's a place for it, explaining WHY he was born in Mexico and how that may have affected his run for office, but in Mitt's article, I see nothing relevant beyond attempts to make him look bad. If you want to make him look bad, there are better sources, like the multiple Boston Globe reports on his lawn care service, anthe illegal immigrants it employs. There's his political views, which have changed over the years. There's lots of stuff that our readers could be shown to show that Romney's not so great, but I think that this particular item would really be a cheap shot character assassination bit, thoroughly below the standards Wikieditors should aspire to. ThuranX (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So I was about to comment on an edit request below and realized this section might be more applicable. For me it would be notable that Romney is the son of an immigrant. Without including somewhere in the article the full context of why his father is an immigrant would leave a slanted view to the reader (first generation v. simply returning). FOr that I need the context that his father wasn't in this country at his own birth, because of his parents' religious beliefs conflicting with a court case. Since its in a section titled "Early life and family background", its no implicitly limited to immediate family (though we shouldn't go reaching into random cousins). I might suggest including a clause that polygamy was banned on xx date by LDS. A different question might be whether or not his grandparents ever gave up polygamy and when they did so? That could be covered in greater detail in the father's articl though. Mbisanz (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Discussion of comments made by editors (involved or otherwise) can be made here

Comment Since the point of an RFC is to bring in outside comment, involved parties in a dispute should really avoid making comments in an RFC section. Granted, more than welcome to discuss things in a discussion section. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I was just responding. Turtlescrubber 04:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See here for an example of an RfC.Ferrylodge 04:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turtlescrubber, in brief reply to your "bullshit" comment, you know as well as I do that this isn't just about family history. If it were, then you would be clamoring for Rebecca Nurse and Anne_Hutchinson to be featured prominently in this article, given that they are both ancestors of Romney. You would also be clamoring to include info about Mayflower ancestors in Wikipedia articles about U.S. presidents. This also isn't about explaining why Romney's father was born in Mexico, given that we could provide just as interesting a history of why his mother was born in Utah. What this is about is advertising as prominently as possible that Mitt Romney is from a family of polygamous Mormons. If it were four of his great-great-great-grandparents who were polygamous, instead of four of his great-grandparents, there would be no more and no less need to put this in the section on Romney's early life. Incidentally, the closest that the Obama article gets to talking about a great-grandfather is the extremely brief mention of a grandfather, in the section on "Keynote address at 2004 Democratic National Convention". Ferrylodge 05:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Herrings and Straw Men. I am sick and tired of your insistence on bringing up these silly and tired arguments. I am only against you censoring the page for your personal or political reasons. Why don't we discuss a compromise instead of wasting time with these dumb straw men arguments. How about that Obama like political and religious image section we were discussing. I think it belongs on the main page just as it is on the Obama article. The section itself would be about Mitt Romney and not primarily about his political campaigns. What do you think? Turtlescrubber 05:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not how you engage in argument... You don't just state your conclusion that our arguments are "Red Herrings" and "Straw Men" you have to make an actual arguments saying why our arguments are "dumb", "staw-men" or "Red Herrings"... The only way we can move forward is appealing to reason... Ferrylodge makes comparisons of ROmney's page to Barak's page... What is "dumb" about that? Should we not compair Romney's page to Barak's? IF you really just wanted to educate people about Romney's ancestors, why not include information about his ancestors that faught in the revolutionary war? I mean you have no agenda right? You just want the truth? You're not trying to drag Romney through the mud? If you are willing to talk about Romney's poligimast ancestors, you would shurley want to talk about his ancestors that were not involved in controvery in order to give a accurate Romney background wouldn't you? These are not "staw-men" these are logical arguments, and they sure beat the hell out of calling names..., cussing, and acting like a 2-year old. myclob (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're valid arguments that you seem unwilling or unable to address. If it were up to me, his great-grandparents wouldn't be in this article at all. The compromise is to put them in the section on his 2008 campaign. All of the cited references deal with the 2008 campaign. Show me where Obama's great-grandparents are mentioned in his article.Ferrylodge 05:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're being too literal, Ferrylodge, I don't think Turtlescrubber is talking specifically about the religious practices of Obama's great-grandparents being included in his article, but rather the "controversial" part about his religious beliefs, which is the impact of his biological father's and step-father's upbringing as Muslims and whether or not their upbringing influenced Obama's upbringing. Both the issues of Obama's fathers' religious upbringing and the polygamy practiced by Romney's great-grandfather are similar in that they feed upon misperceptions of their respective religions and are used as justifications as to why they are "bad people". --Bobblehead ^(rants) 06:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big difference: Romney was not raised by his four polygamous great-grandparents. He probably never even met them.Ferrylodge 06:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Obama wasn't raised by his Muslim grandparents (that raised his fathers) and may have never met them. When you're talking about misperceptions/prejudices about a religion a difference of a single generation is not that big. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 06:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bobblehead, as far as I can tell, our Obama article says not a single word about his paternal great-grandparents OR about his paternal grandparents. There's no valid comparison between how Obama is treated, and how Turtlescrubber wants to treat Romney.Ferrylodge 07:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so far, every uninvolved editor (counting Jossi as well) at minimum agrees that this does not belong in the early life section. Several editors in favor of including the information said that a religious issues/political heading would be fine. Can you at least abide by this, Turtlescrubber? See WP:PRACTICAL. Cool Hand Luke 06:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC is only a couple hours old. I'd let it germinate for at least five days before any conclusions are drawn from the comments of uninvolved editors. Of course, that doesn't preclude a resolution from being reached prior to then, but at this early stage conclusions should be avoided.;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 06:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I would just like the page unlocked; it's a timely topic. I just want to know whether our dissenter would be willing to abide with the proposal everyone else has assented to. I understand that Ferrylodge didn't implement it precisely as discussed, but I think reverting was very counter-productive. Cool Hand Luke 06:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How so? A religious/political heading on the Mitt Romney page would go a long way in assuaging my concerns. I already replied to your comment suggesting this. You never replied back. Turtlescrubber (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, in your haste to change one aspect of the article to your liking, you reverted a bunch of other edits that weren't in the least bit controversial. Additionally, we had been discussing putting this polygamy info in the campaign section since 5:19 on 2 December. Your edit was more than 45 hours later, during which you could have objected at the talk page (but did not). Instead, you edited without any discussion on this point, and you caused the article to get locked up again.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

68.219.135.236 (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)One reason that the ancestry of Romney matters more than it does for other candidates is the centrality of ancestral respect in mormon theology. I will not go so far as to call it Ancestor Worship, but if one examines ANY (literally ANY) talk given by Gordon B. Hinkley for the duration of his presidency, one notes the prominence of LDS Pioneers and the need to honor them. Romney comes from a dynastic aristocratic theologically prominent family in the LDS faith.[reply]

Mormons KNOW Romney's family roots. It MATTERS to them that his family has LDS ties that go back several generations, so mentioning the ancestry of a member of the LDS faith is FAR more relevant than someone who does not engage in Ancestor enhancement.

The preceding comment was double-posted. Responses to it can be found below.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should include Romney's great-grandpa's poligamy in the First article section (after the intro) on the front page of Romney's wikipedia article.

Reasons to agree

1. Mitt Romney's candidacy is historic; only two other Mormons have run for the Presidency, the first was Governor Romney's own father, George, and the second was Senator Orrin Hatch, of Utah. It also bears to note how come Mitt's father was born in Mexico, since he was an American, and one eligible to run for the Presidency (he did so in 1968). Apartcents (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. One reason that the ancestry of Romney matters more than it does for other candidates is the centrality of ancestral respect in mormon theology. I will not go so far as to call it Ancestor Worship, but if one examines ANY (literally ANY) talk given by Gordon B. Hinkley for the duration of his presidency, one notes the prominence of LDS Pioneers and the need to honor them. Romney comes from a dynastic aristocratic theologically prominent family in the LDS faith. Mormons KNOW Romney's family roots. It MATTERS to them that his family has LDS ties that go back several generations, so mentioning the ancestry of a member of the LDS faith is FAR more relevant than someone who does not engage in Ancestor enhancement. 68.219.135.236 (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   We are not in a position to speculate what Mormons may or may not think; we have to use reliable sources. Mormons clearly like him due to his religion, but no sources I've seen suggest that they like him more because his ancestors were polygamists in a Mexican colony. What you've suggested is original research, and for what it's worth, I think your OR flatly wrong. Mormons highly value converts; it's a central part of their culture. I highly doubt that there are Mormons out there who would dismiss, say, Harry Reid just because he isn't a pioneer blue blood like say, Orrin Hatch. I've spent a bit of time in and out of the LDS Church, both in Utah and elsewhere, and have never seen or heard a Mormon praise another for his or her pioneer roots, and I've never seen one denigrated for being a convert. Cool Hand Luke 22:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   You want sources? I'll find sources. And there is a difference between valueing converts and paying great esteem to one's ancestors. As for Harry Reid, I don't know about you, but I've seen many many mormons that send those little poisonous emails to their fellow ward members with all kinds of rumors about Harry Reid, including that he sat on 'the north side of the congregation.' (where the Bishop sits). And since you used anecdotal evidence, I'll counter by saying that until April 26, 2007 I was a member of the LDS church as well, and I heard PLENTY of people differentiate social status in a ward because of one's ancestry. Original research only applies if I'm MAKING IT UP. I'll find you sources that clearly indicate Mormon culture values those of pioneer ancestry very highly. Finally, let's even assume you're right and I'm wrong on that issue (a point I do not concede.) Regardless of the value the saints place on the ancestry of the individual, as a culture, they still place TREMENDOUS value on the nature, character and thoughts of one's ancestors (ergo Hinkley's incessant repetition of talks about Pioneers) and how it might affect one's life. The reason LDS members value their ancestors is because they believe that they NEED their help to get into heaven (I can provide sources on that too if you want) and that they will be answerable to them in the final judgment. Since the approval of one's ancestors is a central tenet of LDS theology, then it is extremely relevant to include Mitt Romney's ancestral background, PARTICULARLY if they are mormon. It isn't such a big deal for Harry Reid because if he is a convert, the question of whether or not his ancestors will 'stand in judgement over him' is a large unknown. 68.219.135.236 (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Original research always applies; whether you're making it up or not. This is not a forum for original research. Period. If you have original insights into the importance of Mitt Romney's pioneer heritage, you might want to publish it in a forum for such research. If you want to work on wikipedia, please find sources in relation to Mitt Romney. Anything else is synthesis. Cool Hand Luke 23:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I have seen the "Original Research" line used as a defense before for inconvenient facts. At what point does "Self Evident" become "Original"? If I can cite reams of sources that indicate that Ancestry is important to the LDS, and other sources that indicate Romney is a faithful saint, then it is not 'original research' to point out that such ancestry is therefore of tremendous importance to Mitt Romney. In fact, at that point, the burden of proof becomes proving OTHERWISE, because if MOST LDS believe that Ancestors are important and Mitt Romney has similar beliefs to most LDS members, then unless Mitt Romney says specifically to the contrary, it is totally reasonable to make the correlation that he believes something. That isn't "original research" that is evident fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.219.135.236 (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   It's synthesis, see below. Cool Hand Luke 00:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I'd like to also point out that the burden of proof for inclusion in the article is not the same as making the argument of its relevance. That is to say, just because you need a specific source that says a specific thing about a specific subject, doesn't mean it has meaning in relation to the subject at hand. The question here is "Is it noteworthy to Mitt Romney's character that his ancestor's were LDS?" I'm citing sources that point to the fact that he is. I am NOT saying or advocating in the article that we say, "Mitt Romney thinks his ancestors are important" conversely I am saying, "It is important to talk about Mitt Romney's ancestors in the article because there is all reasonable and rational probability that it is relevant." At which point, as far as I am concerned, a different standard applies. Furthermore, the synthesis argument implies a leap of logic between two unrelated subjects, whereas pointing out a particular tenet of an organization which ROMNEY HIMSELF says he is a member IS directly relevant to the question at hand.68.219.135.236 (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm sorry, you seem to radically misunderstand our policies. In the biographies of living people, the burden is always on those who would insert the details. Synthesis applies when you take known facts and apply them to novel conclusions, even if there isn't a radical leap. Please see WP:SYN where you'll notice the example conclusion is manifestly obvious (given the propositions). The example is also less of a logical leap than yours: (1) pioneers are important to Mormons, (2) Mitt Romney is descended from pioneers, (3) the fact that Romney is descended from polygamists in a Mexican colony decades after the pioneer era is relevant to his biography. If you'd look at my other comments, I'm not trying to bury "inconvenient facts." I think this should be covered in the article. It's a campaign issue. No reliable sources show that Mormons are even more impressed by Mexican ancestors, but plenty of sources show that his ancestry is problematic to the evangelical demographic. Cool Hand Luke 00:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Do I misunderstand the policies of wikipedia? I make the argument that I do not. The gentleman below kindly cited numerous other reliable sources that DO mention Mitt Romney's ancestry. THEY consider it important, and therefore it is not unreasonable for Wikipedia to consider it important. Why do THEY consider it important? Because anyone who understands the Mormon church understands that ancestry is important to them. Mitt Romney was a bishop; which means it is almost a given that he has done genealogy. It is not original research to understand relevant and realistic facts pursuant to a persons culture. Ancestors are a major factor of Mitt Romney's culture. They are important to him and they should be included in the article. It is NOT original research to say that Ancestry is a big deal to the LDS church; and it IS relevant to the article because everyone else is talking about it.Manticore55 (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Nonsense. The sources below show very clearly that the issue is only important in relation to his presidential bid. That's where coverage in this article should belong. Many Mormons of Utah ancestry have some polygamist ancestors. Their polygamist ancestors are rarely covered by reliable sources unless they're running for president or are prosecuting modern-day polygamists (for example, coverage on Mike Leavitt and Mark Shurtleff, Utah politicians). We must follow these reliable sources, and not your notion of what's important to Latter-day Saint culture. Cool Hand Luke 03:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. 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) 17:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Romney's father (a former governor and presidential contender), was born in Mexico. The average reader would be interested in knowing why?Notmyrealname (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Romney's ancestors are major figures in the LDS church. It is reasonable to mention them here, especially as they have been mentioned repeatedly in the press.Notmyrealname (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Notmyrealname, my understanding is that myclob was willing to live with the compromise solution that was reverted here. You have not rejected that solution either.

   I have not rejected it, but I think a brief mention (which is all this item merits, in my view) properly belongs in the earlier part of the article. It makes more sense to me that it should be part of the family history section than the political one.Notmyrealname (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   As for Romney's father, there are many facts about him that readers might like to learn about, and fortunately Wikipedia has an article about him that explains why he lost the presidential race in 1968.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't think he was talking about why he lost the '68 presidential bid - he was talking about why he was born in Mexico. Tvoz |talk 20:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   No one has explained why it is important for this article to say why his father was born in Mexico, but not important for this article to say why his mother was born in Utah. There is tons of info about his parents that is factually accurate but that nevertheless does not belong in the section on Romney's early life (much of that info is in the separate articles on his parents). For example, details about why his father lost his bid for the presidency does not belong in this article. I agree that info about the great-grandparents' polygamy can go here in this article, but not because it explains his father's birthplace, but rather because several newspapers have mentioned the effect of his great-grandparents upon Romney's current campaign (personally I don't think this is a good enough reason for inclusion in this article but I'm willing to live with it).Ferrylodge (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Additionally, the articles cited by Notmyrealname are not investigative journalism about why the father was born in Mexico; they are discussions of how the polygamy of some of Romney's ancestors may affect perceptions of his presidential campaign. Notmyrealname has already acknowledged that.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm afraid that Ferrylodge is misreading my comments and has not carefully examined the sources I have cited. Certainly these stories (Boston Globe and Archived version of Salt Lake Tribune article) include much more than research or speculation about how Romney's family history might affect the presidential race. I appreciate that you're trying to draw this conversation to a close, but I would prefer if you let me speak for myself. Notmyrealname (talk) 01:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Notmyrealname, I am honestly trying to understand why you think that polygamy of four great-grandparents, who died before Mitt Romney was born, is important enough to warrant inclusion in a leading section of this Wikipedia article. Such information would be fine in an article about the Romney family, or in articles about his ancestors. But it is tangential to the present article, except perhaps in connection with his presidential bid. It is standard for Wikipedia biographies of this sort to have a section on early life and education, but it is not standard to have a section on "family background" describing ancestors who the subject of the article never met. If you look at the biography of Maria Shriver, for example, you will not find her grandfather Joe Kennedy described, much less described as a philandering bootlegger who was also a Nazi sympathizer. Joe Kennedy was all of those things, and many books and articles discuss those aspects of Joe Kennedy, but that info would be extremely tangential to a Wikipedia biography about Maria Shriver. You may say, well, Maria Shriver isn't running for President, and that is precisely my point. All this stuff about polygamous great-grandparents is coming out now precisely because Mitt Romney is running for President, and thus belongs (if at all) in the section of this article on his presidential campaign.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I haven't edited the other articles you mention, although I have been editing this article since before Romney threw his hat in the presidential ring. I'm sure these issues will get taken up there eventually. The issue here is that there is extensive major mainstream media interest in this, on all sides of the political spectrum, and both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. When the subject of an article discusses it on 60 Minutes, I take that as a sign that this is of relatively high importance in terms of general interest. Mitt's ancestors were major figures in the early days of the LDS church. The fact that his father was born in Mexico is notable (and has been the subject of many media reports). His mother's place of birth is not notable. If there were multiple media reports making a case about this, I'm sure it would be included. I'm sorry if you're having a hard time seeing where I'm coming from. Fortunately, wikipedia is a group effort involving a lot of back and forth. Notmyrealname (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Notmyrealname, given that there seems to be a sort of consensus to live with the situation before it was reverted, I'm not sure how useful it is for the people who are part of that consensus to argue among ourselves.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   We've reopened this discussion because other editors did not feel that the previous consensus version was the proper one. Looking at the facts again, it strikes me as very odd not to include this information in the family section. Notmyrealname (talk) 01:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. I agree with Notmyrealname in this, as expressed here and here a few hours ago: to include these undisputed, sourced facts as part of the family history section. Tvoz |talk 20:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Tvoz, I am glad that you agree not to reject the compromise solution that was reverted immediately before this article was frozen.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Please don't put words in my mouth, Ferrylodge, or lawyer me. I included the diffs because so many things have been said here that I want to be precise about which ones I was agreeing with, and I specified the points after the colon in my sentence, which is what a colon normally indicates: to include these undisputed, sourced facts as part of the family history section. But apparently that wasn't precise enough. I will look at the compromise wording and make a determination as to whether I support it or not. And then I'll respond to that. I was not addressing it. I hope that is clear. Tvoz |talk 23:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   That's fine, Tvoz. I hope you will agree with what Notmyrealname said in the diffs you cited.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons to disagree

1. Romney's great-grandparent's poligamy is not one one of the top 4 or 5 subjects that are brought up about him in the media. myclob (talk) 04:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   The article can cover more than four sections, you're thinking about the lead block, where it clearly does not belong. Cool Hand Luke 18:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. No other presidential candidate's great-granparents are brought up. myclob (talk) 04:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. It is sloppy to talk about Mitt Romney's great-grandparents, who he never met, as something in an Article about Mitt Romney. Romney's great-great-greant grandpa
4. Romney has never done anything to encourage, support, or condone poligamy. In fact he has done just the opposite. Romney's great-great-greant grandpa
5. If you are going to bring up poligamy in Romney's article, you are going to have to bring it up in every article about any Mormon on wikipedia, because Romney has done nothing to warent poligamy as an issue that has anything to do with him, except to be a Mormon running for office. myclob (talk) 04:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. If Fred Thompson having a kid before he got married only gets mentioned in the footnotes for his wikipedi article, why should Mitt Romney's great-gandparent's sex life be mentioned in the first paragraph of Romney's article? Fred Thompson actually had a kid before he was married. Romney never practiced poligamy. Romney's dad never practiced poligamy. But yet, for some reason, we put something that Fred Thompson did in his footnotes, and something that Mitt Romney's Great-parents did, in the first paragraph of his wikipedi article... how is this fair? myclob (talk) 04:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Are you arguing against mentioning it altogether, or just in the first section? Cool Hand Luke 18:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   He was arguing the latter. Myclob indicated approval of the compromise solution that was subsequently reverted.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7. Most of the editors in this discussion have said that they would not reject a compromise solution that was reverted just before this article was frozen. That would put this polygamy info in the section on his presidential campaign. Ferrylodge (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. The media has reported about the great-grandparent polygamy not in order to explain why his father was born in Mexico, but rather in order to explain how the polygamy may be perceived by voters in the presidential election. Explaining why his father was born in Mexico is no more important to this article than explaining why his mother was born in Utah.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Not really. See especially the Salt Lake Tribune and Boston Globe articles cited earlier.Notmyrealname (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

9. If ancient family history were really important here, then we would want Rebecca Nurse and Anne_Hutchinson to be featured prominently in this article, given that they are both ancestors of Romney. We would also want to include info about Mayflower ancestors in Wikipedia articles about U.S. presidents. However, no one is urging inclusion of any of that type of information.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   They have not been widely mentioned in media reports nor discussed by Mitt Romney himself.Notmyrealname (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10. No one has explained why polygamy of four of his great-great-great-grandparents would be any less relevant here than polygamy of his great-grandparents.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    They have not been widely mentioned in media reports nor discussed by Mitt Romney himself.Notmyrealname (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

11. The Barack Obama article does not discuss his paternal great-grandparents at all, nor does it discuss his paternal grandparents at all. The Obama article does talk about a maternal grandfather, in the section on "Keynote address at 2004 Democratic National Convention". So, elaborating about Romney's four polygamous great-grandparents in the section about his early life would be unlike any other Wikiepdia article about a presidential candidate.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That's an irrelevant argument. Obama's great-grandparents were not polygamists, and so they lack that level of notability. A candidate's forbears are relevant--in articles about the Bush family, the fact that they are direct descendants of the alcoholic Franklin Pierce is relevant and included. It is an unusual and notable fact that Romney's recent ancestors practiced polygamy. In fact, his complicated family tree already exists on Wikipedia, so his family is already an open secret. Qworty (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No, it's not irrelevant. Obama's mother "divorced her husband after she discovered his bigamous double life."[4] There is equally titillating info about Obama's grandparents, but none of it is (or needs to be) in his Wikipedia article. For example, Obama's paternal grandfather was a racist (according to Obama's mother, "Barack's father -- your grandfather Hussein -- wrote Gramps this long, nasty letter saying that he didn't approve of the marriage. He didn't want the Obama blood sullied by a white woman, he said.") There seems to be a duoble-standard here for Mitt Romney. And Qworty, the article on George W. Bush doesn't mention any alcholism of Franklin Pierce. And no one is trying to hide anything; info about Romney's great-grandparents' bigamy is already described in the article about his 2008 campaign, and I can live with it being described also in the campaign section of the main article.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC) And let's not forget that John McCain's great-grandfather owned slaves.[5] Included in his Wikipedia article? Of course it isn't, because it has virtually nothing to do with John McCain.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Bigamy is not a historical feature of being African-American, so its possible inclusion in the Obama article would be a matter of trivia. However, polygamy is very much a historical feature of Mormonism, and thus it is more relevant to Mitt Romney than bigamy is to Barack Obama. Obama's ancestor (note the singular) practiced bigamy for incidental reasons; Romney's ancestors (note the plural) practiced polygamy for institutional religious reasons--because they were Mormons. There is a tremendous distinction between the two cases. Qworty (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC) And the reason that John McCain's great-grandfather isn't mentioned is that he didn't belong to a slave-owning religion to which John McCain continues to belong. See the difference? Qworty (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no difference. Just as the United States banned slavery, so too Romney's church banned polygamy. By the way, Obama's white ancestors also owned slaves.[6]Ferrylodge (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a tremendous difference. The fact that McCain's or Obama's ancestors owned slaves has no genetic implication whatsoever. However, the fact that Romney is the product of inbred polygamous cross-lineage genetics constitutes an important component of who and what he is as a person. You cannot eliminate this information anymore than you can eliminate disability information from the Stephen Hawking article. If you still don't think Romney's inbred polygamous past is an issue, you should consider that people who are inbred tend to have a very hard time thinking straight and sticking to decisions. Do I hear flip-flop? It might be POV to include that particular statement in the article (especially if it isn't balanced with an opposing POV), but it isn't POV to include the basic facts of Romney's background in the article, so that readers can interpret the basic information for themselves. It is our obligation. Of course, any Romney operatives here will disagree. Qworty (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The idea that "Romney is the product of inbred polygamous cross-lineage genetics" is complete nonsense. He has 8 distinct great-grandparents, 16 distinct great-great-grandparents and 28 distinct great-great-great-grandparents (4 are unknown): there's no inbreeding in those generations whatsoever. (And if there were, it would be as unremarkable as it is in most genealogies; everyone is inbred if you go back far enough). - Nunh-huh 05:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Genealogists routinely make the mistake of assuming that the father-of-record is necessarily the biological father. However, this is not always the case in polygamous Mormon culture, as wives are officially and unofficially shifted from man to man. Even sisters have been traded. We will never really know the full extent of what went on in the Mexican Mormon colony the Romneys sprang from--of course, that was precisely why the left the United States to begin with. It makes sense, of course, that Romney and his political operatives would want to keep these issues from the American people. Qworty (talk) 05:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    And political flacks often make the mistake of flinging dirt without a scintilla of actual evidence to back them up. There is absolutely no factual basis on which to predicate a belief that there is any inbreeding in Mitt Romney's pedigree that was a result of polygamy. - Nunh-huh 06:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you're thinking of the FLDS church, which Romney is not a part of. Anyway, of course we can discuss the issue, but we need to tell the reader the whole story. We especially should say what Romney actually thinks about polygamy, because that is much more relevant than what his great-grandparents thought of it. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Isn't failure to include events that are widely discussed in the media a violation of NPV? The argument that "other candidates do not have comparisons made to their family" is a bias. If numerous cited neutral sources are mentioning his family ties, then it is not the place of Wikipedia to enact 'social justice' by failure to include these facts. Should the elements of Hillary Clinton's experience as a first lady be removed because none of the OTHER candidates were first ladies? Should Barrack Obama's address to the Democratic National Convention be removed because none of the other candidate's articles mention it? This line of arguments will cause Wikipedia to devolve into nothing but a series of baseball cards with meaningless statistics without context or nuance. And in anticipation of the argument that these facts might be construed as negative; I cite that this also a violation of NPV. Do you think Mitt Romney considers the fact that his ancestors to be from Polygamist roots to be a bad thing? Has he mentioned that he is ashamed of his ancestors? Thus, how can the inclusion of these facts be construed as negative? The argument must be restricted to whether or not they are RELEVANT, and the very fact that it is mentioned so often automatically MAKES it relevant. Any statement to the contrary is simply an attempt to push inconvenient facts out of the public view. People are talking about Mitt's ancestry. That is a fact.Manticore55 (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Furthermore, this is not supposed to be an article about a presidential candidate, it is a biography of a notable individual - his entire life and career - who happens to be a presidential candidate right now. There is no requirement that all biographies follow some kind of template, or that some topic cannot be covered in one if it's not covered in others, whether or not they are running for President. I made this point way up above regarding Obama's acknowledgment of teenaged drug use. That is considered notable about him, and is correctly included in his article. There is no requirement or expectation that we include anything similar in biographies of other people who are running for the presidency right now, unless it is something that is deemed notable by its being referenced in reliable sources. It's fine to look at other articles for suggestions on how to handle a particular piece of data, but it's not required to follow them, as each article has unique circumstances to deal with. Tvoz |talk 05:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The main issue here is where to include information in the article, and not whether to include it in the first place (though some of us would prefer it not be included). The main dispute now is whether to include it in the campaign section, or in the "early life..." section. It was included in the campaign section, but then it was moved back to the "early life..." section. I believe it needs to go in the campaign section and not the "early life..." section, in order to get this issue resolved.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's spell it out please: what you have as an ellipsis is the relevant part of the section name: I had changed an earlier version that had a section which was called "Biography" to a section called "Early life and family background" (emphasis added) where this material was placed. Surely this is "family background", and it still seems to me the most logical place for it. Tvoz |talk 05:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wherever we choose to put it needs to include a discussion about why people are making it an issue, and also Romney's views and statements on polygamy. Otherwise, we are not telling the whole story and the article becomes biased. Just saying "Romney's great-grandparents were polygamists" in the article Mitt Romney implies that Mitt Romney thinks it's all right to be a polygamist. A more thorough discussion is needed so that the reader gets the whole story.

    The necessary discussion of the issue is going to take 2 or 3 paragraphs, and will not comfortably fit in the "Early life and family background" section. It's also too minor of an issue to go in Mitt Romney#Campaign for United States President, 2008 election. The best place for it is Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008#Religious beliefs, which already covers the issue in detail. So, there's no good place and no real need to throw this issue into the main Mitt Romney article.

    —Remember the dot ^(talk) 20:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    People are not "making it" an issue; it's been an issue since the 1840s. Yes, Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008#Religious beliefs covers the issue in detail, but it manages to do so without requiring the "2 or 3 paragraphs" you assert would be necessary here. We don't need an extensive discussion of Romney's views on polygamy, as apparently they are his only major views that have remained consistent. Qworty (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mitt Romney has not been around since the 1840s. Neither his views on polygamy nor how his ancestors' views might influence his campaign could possibly have been an issue at that time. But in any case, Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008#Religious beliefs covers the issue in 2 paragraphs, and both of those paragraphs are necessary to give the reader the whole story. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The Mormon polygamy controversy--along with many other Mormon controversies--have been around since the 1840s. Mitt Romney is finding out that he is going to have to answer for them, and that's why polygamy (and other issues) belong in this article. Two to three paragraphs of his circumlocutions are not necessary--It is enough to state that he presently disavows polygamy (despite the fact that he wouldn't be on this planet without it). Unfortunately for him, other bizarre practices that are still part of mainline Mormonism are going to be a lot harder for him to explain away, but these attempts as well will belong in the article. Qworty (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That is nonsense. This is not a Mormon controversy article. Just because he is a well-known Mormon does not neccesitate that all controvery regarding his religion be listed in his biography. If they are campaign issues, then they perhaps belong there, but not here. Arzel (talk) 04:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is very much a Mormon controversy article. It is a matter of great political/religious controversy, at this moment in time, that a person with Mormon beliefs wants to be president of the entire country. His beliefs are a campaign issue, and this article does indeed have a campaign section. Should Romney suddenly claim, for example, that he is hearing the same voices other Mormons have heard (or new voices inside his head), that will be a Romney/Mormon/Controversy issue, and it will belong in the article. If Romney starts talking about his magical Mormon underwear and how it will influence his decisions as president, then that controversy will belong in this article. If he is asked about baptism of the dead, or what planet he is going to rule after death, then those controversies will belong here. As it stands, the fact that Romney is the inbred genetic product of polygamous cross-lineage is an essential part of who he is, quite literally, whether the issue is controversial or not. As it happens, of course, the issue is quite controversial and therefore relevant. Just read the comments on this talk page if you don't think it's an issue! Qworty (talk) 04:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You just hit it on the head. "His beliefs are a campaign issue". We can only talk about so much of his campaign in this article due to WP:SIZE constraints (the article is already about 20 KB above the ideal length). We have more space to discuss the issue at Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008#Religious beliefs, and it is more appropriate there anyway. (Even so, some of the less significant details in Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008 ought to be moved into yet another subarticle to keep the article size manageable, but his religious beliefs for better or for worse are definitely significant.) —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know how you separate Romney the politician from Romney the man. So far as I know, they are the same person. The only variance exists within Romney the politician, since he keeps shifting his views. Qworty (talk) 05:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

←I'm not asking to try and split him into two people. I'm just asking that the controversy over his views on polygamy, and how his ancestors may or may not have influenced those views, go in the article about his campaign. Splashing "HIS GREAT-GRANDPARENTS WERE POLYGAMISTS!!!" on this page, even in more subtle terms, implies that Romney supports polygamy. That's just not the whole story. Wherever we decide to discuss polygamy, we also need to discuss who says it's an issue and what Romney actually thinks about it. The best place to do that is Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008#Religious beliefs. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well why in the heck wouldn't he support polygamy? If it weren't for polygamy, Mitt Romney wouldn't even exist. There would be no Romney campaign at all if it weren't for polygamy. If he comes out with a statement against polygamy, then he's arguing that it was a mistake for him to have ever been born. Of course, this is precisely the kind of double-talk which Romney is famous for. Qworty (talk) 06:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does a child born because of rape have to support raping people?

The issue is more complicated than that, but you get the idea. Romney's great-grandparents' beliefs, at a time when polygamy was allowed by the LDS church, do not reflect either his current position on polygamy or the LDS church's current position on polygamy. Whether or not is was OK then, no one is saying that it's OK now. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there are children of rape who wish they did not exist. If Mitt Romney wants to come out and say that polygamy is "evil" and that therefore his existence on this planet is the result of "evil," I won't argue with him. But however you want to slice it, the fact is that Mitt Romney would not exist if it were not for polygamy. Therefore, polygamy is essential to this article, for it is essential to the existence of Mitt Romney. We must include his polygamous background here. Qworty (talk) 06:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. All that matters is whether the claim is verifiable and whether it is not undue weight. It's clearly verifiable, and multiple reliable sources highlight it as a potential issue for his candidacy. That is, I don't think it would be undue weight in a section on religion and his candidacy. It should not be in "early life," however, where it's a tangent that has nothing whatsoever to do with his upbringing. Cool Hand Luke 18:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   See above - I would place it in a section called "Early life and family background" not one called "Early life". Tvoz |talk 05:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I believe it is clearly a campaign issue. All coverage to this point has been how this may affect his ability to be elected president. I still don't feel it should be included, but if it is, it should be included under the correct context which is how it may affect his campaign as is currently being reported. Arzel (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes. There are plenty of sources, but they all treat it as a campaign issue. We have to follow reliable sources. We can't just make up a section on "family background" that includes details on non-notable great-grandparents. Such section is employed by no biography I'm aware of. Cool Hand Luke 03:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Agreed. This article is about Mitt Romney, not a collection of random details about ancestors 4 generations past. It's a completely unrelated, politicized issue. So much of the arguments I've read in the "Reasons for" section fall in the synthesis category. DMCer (talk) 09:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every one of the numerous links from NotMyRealName make cheap shots at Romeny for being either a hypocrite for opposing polygamy, mock it as a trivial detail, or just muckraked with it. It's trivia hyped on a slow news day. This would be akin to finding every right wing article that warns that Obama is a secret evil muslim, simply because there are vaguely reliable sources for his ancetors being Muslim, or that Obama's secretly a bigamy supporter because his did it, or that he's secretly a bigot because one grandparent was a bigot. I'm sure that the editors so concerned with NPOV here wouldn't put such stuff in the Obama article either. There's nothing, in any citation given thus far, to support any genetic fault through inbreeding, (which happens when your wife is your sister, not when you have five wives), thus eliminating medical notability. There's nothing in any of those articles to suggest that Romney supports polygamy, in fact, one flat out concedes that his family's been monogamous after the 1890 edict against it by the LDS since those GGPs. Finally, this does in no way narrow his family tree, as there's no inbreeding. his generational count still goes 1,2,4,8,16,32,64.... and so on, till he almost inevitiably hits sibling pair marriages(Smith boy A marries Jones girl B, Miller boy D marries Jones girl E, two generations later, miller and smith marry. it happens.), and , or cousins marrying other cousins, which is pretty unavboidable once you get back to the small european towns white folks came from. Few people actually have 8192 (14 generations before you) distinct ancestors. BY the extended logic of this, one could argue that Mike Huckabee's views on science and religion make him the greatest traditionalist running, since his family has never stopped believing in creationism, all the way back tot he dark ages and before. That too, would be absurd in the context of the article on Huckabee. The inclusion of this serves only to smear a candidate by those opposing the candidate. Verifiably, he's had numerous haircuts, or not enough haircuts, in the last 50 years. is it relevant? no. Verifiably, he eats, or does not eat his wheaties daily. Relevant? no. His ancestors held to one religious belief, he doesn't hold to it. Relevant? No. If you think that's relevant, I expect to see every one of the protestant candidates get a section about heresy, for diverging from the Catholic church of their ancestors.

To summarize:Making an issue of the fact that a person thinks differently than their ancestors is rarely notable. Only in cases of extreme irony would it have a case, like if the founder of the KKK's descendant was now one of the most outspoken proponents of both Affirmative Action and Slave Reparations. But in Romney's case, all that happened was his family, like many American families, conformed to social standards, before he was born. There's zero relevance. as for what IS relevant to Romney's religion? His position in the church, his recent 'Kennedy speech', and so on. Stuff about HIM and his religion, not his ancestors.

That I have to write this twice, because this thing's moving so fast my last comment, in the actual RfC, was ignored, is even more irritating, because it shows that only certain people are being accepted into this discussion, based on their acceptance of one segment's foregone conclusion that smearing Romney matters, and where it goes is the only argument left. ThuranX (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's great that more people are showing up to discuss this thing. I hope those people will also leave a statement in the RFC section titled "Statements by editors previously involved in dispute", or alternatively in the RFC section titled "Statements by uninvolved editors". Thx.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this - Thuran, I don't see how you can compare "right-wing articles" making up lies about Obama to these sources writing truthfully about Romney's family background: 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. They are not fringe, they are not extremist, and they are not making up stories. And no one said Romney is secretly a polygamy-supporter. Tvoz |talk 04:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} BLP guidelines say that administrators "may protect or semi-protect the page after removing the disputed material" (emphasis added). The following sentence in the article is disputed and ought to be removed pending a consensus to insert it: "Romney's paternal great-grandparents were polygamist Mormons who moved to Mexico in 1884 after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld various anti-polygamy laws in 1879.[10]" This sentence is disputed because it gives the impression that Mitt Romney's religion endorses polygamy, when in fact Mitt Romney's religion has opposed polygamy since the 1890s. This sentence is disputed material, and should not be in the protected article. While the sentence is factually correct, it is not presented in context and is therefore very misleading, as multiple editors have stated at this talk page for the article.

The final edit prior to protecting the page reinserted this disputed sentence. Several editors have disputed that this material is neutral and on-topic. While it is common for article protection to protect the wrong version, BLP guidelines (quoted above) say that the protected version should not contain the disputed material.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrylodge, it's not that biographies can't contain disputed content, it's that they can't contain disputed content that violates BLP, hence the name of the section that the sub-section you quoted is located in. At this point I haven't seen anyone successfully claim BLP and the section for this article on the BLP Noticeboard was closed because the complaint was a content dispute and not BLP.[7] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bobblehead, the BLP Noticeboard is not a dispute resolution forum. The BLP Noticeboard says, "For general content disputes regarding biographical articles consider using Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies." Therefore, we conducted just such an RfC above, and the RfC showed very clearly that there is a dispute as to whether the sentence about polygamy is neutral and on-topic. According to Wikipedia guidelines, "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is sourced, neutral, and on-topic. Administrators who suspect malicious or biased editing, or who have reason to believe that this policy may otherwise be violated, may protect or semi-protect the page after removing the disputed material."Ferrylodge (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N Edit declined, currently no consensus. It is uncontested that the sentence is factual and sourced, so BLP does not mandate its deletion. Whether or not it is otherwise appropriate for inclusion (on which matter I have no opinion) must be decided by consensus. Sandstein (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Actually, I'd like to have an opinion on this matter, but the RfC and the other discussions above are too confusing to contribute to, sorry. Sandstein (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP policy would be much shorter if it merely required verifiability. It also requires that material be neutral and on-topic, among other things, and if there's a dispute about neutrality or topicality then the article should be pared back. If the sentence in question stated that Britney Speers has been in a custody battle for her children, with supporting footnotes showing that the statement is factual and sourced, it would still not be consistent with BLP in this Mitt Romney article.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to avoid the strawman examples, Ferrylodge, especially the ones that have absolutely no relation to the dispute at hand. There are no reliable sources tying Britney Spears and her custody issues with Mitt Romney and it is for that reason that your "example" could be removed as a BLP violation, unfortunately there are a number of reliable sources tying Mitt Romney to his ancestors' polygamy and saying that it is an issue for Romney. You really need to familiarize yourself with how to use Wikipedia policies. In this case it is clear from the location of the text you've been quoting that the removal of disputed content is in relation to removal of content where the focus of the dispute is BLP concerns in order to prevent a BLP violation while the dispute is in progress. As I said earlier, there have been no successful claims of BLP violations in regards to the disputed content, so trying to get the content removed under BLP is a non-starter. This is particularly true when the requested edit just rewords and moves the disputed content and doesn't actually remove it. It is clear that there are NPOV and undue weight concerns, but those concerns do not equal BLP violations. It is apparent that the RFC has failed to reach consensus, perhaps a stop at informal mediation is in order? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bobblehead, do you agree that the sentence about polygamy (in the "Early Life...." section) gives the impression that Mitt Romney's religion condones polygamy? And do you agree that such an outrageously misleading paragraph is a BLP violation? There are no reliable sources that discuss the polygamy of Romney's great-grandparents without also clarifying that the Mormon church does not condone polygamy, and has not condoned it since the nineteenth century.

The sentence about polygamy may be factual and sourced, but it is not neutral. It has been yanked out of context.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrylodge is making a totally new claim about these statements. I disagree that the average reader would draw the conclusion that Ferrylodge claims, and there is really no basis for that. This is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Even if Ferrylodge were correct, the mistaken impression would relate to the LDS church and not Romney, so it still wouldn't be a BLP violation. Let's just stick to the problem at hand and figure a way out so that we can all get back to properly editing this article. Notmyrealname (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Chicago Tribune, "It is a common misconception that the Mormon church sanctions polygamy; it banned the practice in 1890."[8] If a Wikipedia article further spreads that misconception, that is a big problem. It becomes an even greater problem in a Wikipedia biography that states the subject of the biography is Mormon.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Notmyrealname, perhaps it would help if the admins involved in this dispute would abide by BLP guidelines: "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." You have not met your burden of proving that info about polygamy should be added or restored to the first section of the article. You have also not met your burden of proving that this article should mislead people into thinking that Mormons condone polygamy. Wikipedia policy on BLP is being violated here.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have started a section at the BLP Noticeboard regarding this polygamy smear.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your question to me, while it may be a common misperception of Mormons, I don't see how the content in question has any effect to that misperception, either positively or negatively, nor do I see how it should be the responsibility of this article to dissuade this misperception. It would also be a touch odd to include in the paragraph that LDS banned the practice as the banning took place six years after Romney's ancestors left the US, didn't have anything to do with their departure, and also wasn't part of their decision to return to the US. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with every point you've made. Editing on this article has been frozen due to a single sentence, a sentence that does not state or imply that Romney or contemporary mainline Mormons condone polygamy. I don't see how anybody can read that sentence, which mentions events from 1879 and 1884, and conclude that Romney has multiple wives in 2007. That argument makes no sense at all, and the article should be unfrozen as soon as possible. Qworty (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone object to editing the "Early life..." section to clarify that his grandparents and parents were not polygamists, and that the Mormon Church currently forbids the practice?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I object to that very strongly. I fail to see what relevance a sequence of tangential refutations would have to a section that is about a person's early life. Far more relevant to that section is information about how Willard (Mitt) Romney came into the world. Just as the article about the origins of water includes a discussion of hydrogen mixing with oxygen, an article about Romney must discuss how Romney came into existence. And the fact is that there would be no Romney today, and no Romney presidential campaign, if it were not for polygamy.

More specifically, Romney and his campaign would not exist if it were not for the fact that his family fled the United States in order to practice polygamy in Mexico. By the way, polygamy is and was illegal in Mexico as well, so the Romney family was basically an international criminal syndicate, and it is because of this international criminal syndicate that Willard (Mitt) Romney came into the world at all. These are the facts. The facts belong in the intro to the article, because the reader has an expectation of learning how Romney came into existence, just as articles about aluminum or automobiles or television sets have sections on the "early" years that explain how those things came into existence. It is a basic encyclopedic requirement. Qworty (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will not object, with two conditions. Either the early life section be rephrased as "Romney's paternal great-grandparents were polygamist Mormons who moved to Mexico in 1884. This was after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld various anti-polygamy laws in 1879 and prior to the LDS' ban on pologamy in 1890."

or

A new section under it, called "Religious Background" be created (in the style of the Eisenhower article), that states his great-grandparents, were polygamists, who were also Mormons, who left this country as a response to the SC decision, as well at that the LDS banned it in 1890 and that small breakoff sects have continued to practice it (gives a fuller context to me) Is that agreeable to you? Mbisanz (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mbisanz, either of your suggestions is fine with me as an immediate measure, because the article currently contains a misleading and unfair smear. Also acceptable would be immediate removal of the sentence on polygamy, pending consensus for its inclusion. In short, I don't care how the smear in this protected article is corrected, as long as it is corrected immediately.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the sentence that you falsely call a "smear": "Romney's paternal great-grandparents were polygamist Mormons who moved to Mexico in 1884 after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld various anti-polygamy laws in 1879." How in the world is that a smear? It is merely a statement of fact, and it is only one sentence long. If anything, this sentence whitewashes the Romney family, placing it in a better light, because the fact is that the family didn't "move" to Mexico, they fled to Mexico. This is in the Mormon tradition of fleeing just ahead of the law, just as Joseph Smith and his followers fled Kirtland after bilking people out of money through the Mormon wildcat bank, just as Mormons fled Missouri in the 1840s ahead of those who wished to enforce anti-polygamy laws, etc. So, if anything, we should retain the sentence and change "moved to Mexico" to "fled to Mexico." And we should also add that polygamy was and is against the law in Mexico, so the Romney family was still breaking the law. If you don't include this fact, then you are falsely smearing Mexico as a polygamous country, which it is not and which it has never been. Qworty (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It implies that Mitt Romney's religion (Mormonism) condones polygamy.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. "Condones" is in present tense, while the sentence mentions 1884 and 1879, which is far from present tense. Besides, the ArbCom found that "Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly." [9]. Since the requisite broad interpretation of polygamy issues involves pregnancy issues, you shouldn't be editing here.Qworty (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I was unaware of the Arbcom issue. I'd strongly suggest a more involved user contact an Arb for an opinion. As I stated on the BLP NB, I do not see a BLP issue in the article currently. My suggestions are merely ways to expand the article's context. Mbisanz (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qworty, if a Wikipedia article says that a person's religion condoned something, then the obvious implication is that the religion still condones it, unless the Wikipedia article says otherwise. Your other remarks are irrelevant.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence in question does not state or imply that contemporary mainline Mormons condone polygamy. The actual words used in the sentence are "polygamist Mormons." The implication of those words is that other Mormons were/are NOT polygamous. So the existence of non-polygamous Mormons is already implied by the sentence. As for the ArbCom issue, you are expressly forbidden to edit articles that are broadly related to "pregnancy or abortion." Polygamy relates to pregnancy because of reproduction, and Mitt Romney in general relates to abortion because he has shifted his position to an anti-abortion stance. You are here to defend an anti-abortion candidate, when you have been expressly forbidden to edit "broadly" on this topic. I suggest that you follow the ArbCom decision and limit your editing to topics that are in no way connected to pregnancy or abortion. Qworty (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No more attempts to reason with you, Qworty.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And ditto for Mbisanz.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is enthusiasm, zealotry, then there are you guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.215.208.235 (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Mormon belief, the assistance of a Mormon's departed ancestors is important for entering Heaven. Thus, if Romney is a practicing Mormon, which he himself says he is, one of the first things he will do in the White House is get on his knees and pray to his polygamous ancestors for direction in leading the United States. Thus, Romney's polygamous ancestors are extremely important to the article. And it would be a contradiction for Romney to condemn his polygamous ancestors at the same time that he is kneeling in the White House praying for their assistance in leading the US in a way that is consistent with saving Romney's soul. Why do you think the Mormons have the largest genealogical databases in the world? One of the reasons is so people like Romney can look up all of their polygamous ancestors and ask them for help getting into Heaven. I think that all of the arguments given above in other sections prove that the information belongs in the article, and the importance that Mormons themselves place on the assistance of polygamous ancestors makes those ancestors extremely important to Willard (Mitt) Romney--in terms of who he is and what formed him as a person. This is a capstone reason for including the polygamy information. Qworty (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh, there are some logical leaps that I disagree with, but, the fact that past relatives are important in the Mormon faith, Mitt Romney claims to be a parcticing Mormon, therefore past relatives are fair material if sourced. Mbisanz (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mormons do not pray to their ancestors. Please do not synthesize claims, especially ones based on false premises. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not synthesizing anything. I'm not saying that the article should say that Romney engages in ancestor worship. I'm not even saying that Romney is a practicing Mormon, since that would require psychic powers on my part. That's why I said "IF Romney is a practicing Mormon..." My point in raising this ancestor business is that it is prominent in the Mormon faith, and Romney does claim to be a practicing Mormon, and so for that reason, in addition to all of the excellent reasons given previously in this discussion, the polygamous ancestors should be mentioned in the article. Qworty (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I answered this before. It might matter to Mormons that Romney's ancestors were pioneers, but it's inconceivable that they would respect him more because his great-grandparents were non-notable polygamists in a Mexican colony. Even if this were true, it's a logical leap that entails original research—we have no evidence that polygamist ancestors mean anything to Mormons. As I've said, this fact is much more notable in relation to his campaign because evangelical voters are disturbed by it. We have many reliable sources for that, and none that suppose Mormons like him because of his ties to polygamy. Cool Hand Luke 23:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea whether some, most, or no Mormons "respect" Romney because of his family's polygamous past. I imagine that a few Mormons are even ashamed of it. But all of that is neither here nor there. We DO know that family history (genealogy) is of religious importance for Mormons. That is a fact. And it is also a fact that Romney claims to be a practicing Mormon. Thus, it is not "synthesis" or "original research" to say that Romney, if he is telling us the truth about being a practicing Mormon, considers that his ancestors have religious significance. As it happens, he has polygamous ancestors, so it would follow that polygamous ancestors ( as well as other ancestors) are religously important to Romney, as they are to so many Mormons. And you make a very good point when you state that this is exactly the sort of thing that makes so many evangelicals very, very nervous about Romney as a presidential candidate. Since this is a feature of the campaign, mention of the polygamous ancestors clearly belongs in the article. Qworty (talk) 23:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if I understand you, we should write articles that reflect the culture they're from? Mormon articles should include genealogy, maybe Christian articles should include date of baptism, and maybe the article on e. e. cummings has way too many capital letters. On the face of it, that sounds like an unencyclopedic NPOV problem. The rule for all biographies is the same: we report what reliable sources say without undue weight. They uniformly suggest his ancestry might be a campaign issue, so we should cover it that way. Cool Hand Luke 00:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about polygamy's relevance as a campaign issue, although I think there are other reasons for including the information, including the fact that Romney and his campaign would not exist if it were not for polygamy. But I do not think at all that this is an issue of "undue weight," since this entire debate (and the lockdown of the article) is due to one single sentence in the article! I don't think that the inclusion of one little sentence about polygamous ancestors could possibly constitute undue weight. Qworty (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Romney would not exist if it weren't for polygamy." That's a silly distinction. By that rationale, we should use the article to discuss Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, George Washington, the sun, sea, and atmosphere.

We should include the sentence, but it should be in the campaign section as the RFC commentators suggested. Cool Hand Luke 00:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I strongly disagree with moving the polygamous ancestors down. Polygamy is a background issue here and therefore belongs in an "early life and background" section. True, it is also a campaign issue, and I would not object to it being mentioned there in greater detail. Very often, facts that are introduced early in an article are expanded upon in later sections of the article. I think this would be the proper way to proceed. Qworty (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no. Reliable sources don't treat it this way, which is why I believe it's undue weight up front. The "Early life and background" section should be changed into simply "Early life" to match almost all of the other biographies on Wikipedia. Cool Hand Luke 00:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources are important for determining the validity of information, not for determining how the information is organized in a completely different kind of medium, such as an encyclopedia. Issues of undue weight have to do with discussing a matter in an article to an excessive extent, so that it appears proportionally more notable than it actually is. You are the one advocating undue weight here--by starting a polygamy section in the campaign part of the article. All I'm advocating for is a single sentence under "early life and background." Qworty (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never advocated a polygamy section—that would be absurd. We should have a religion section because it's the issue for the Romney campaign according to the bulk of reliable sources. This polygamy bit would fit neatly there. Although we have some freedom to organize information, reliable sources indicate this is notable as a campaign issue, so it would be most logical to present it there. Cool Hand Luke 00:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against having a religion section, since I agree with you that Romney's religion is the number-one reason most people don't want him to be president. And the polygamous past of his family could certainly be mentioned there. But Romney and his campaign would not exist if it weren't for polygamous Mormons reproducing like rabbits in Mexican colonies, so it is very important for the "early life and background" section to include the reason that Romney exists in the first place--and that reason is polygamy. Qworty (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is a silly argument, and the weight you place on his polygamist ancestors betrays your POV. Mitt Romney would not exist without Brigham Young, the sun, and many other things, including all of his non-polygamist ancestors as well. We don't have get into this kind of metaphysical debate, hoever. We're an encyclopedia, and we follow reliable sources, and they say it's a campaign issue. Cool Hand Luke 01:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is meaningless to assert it is only a "campaign issue," since Romney is a politician and therefore everything about him is a campaign issue. Campaign issues in and of themselves are therefore not the determining factor in organizing the article. At the very least it should be chronological, so the polygamous ancestors should appear early. As for POV, I don't know what you're complaining about, since you have a POV too and I'm not complaining about yours, though I easily could. Qworty (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not complaining about your POV, but it shouldn't be part of the article. Cool Hand Luke 01:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that our POVs shouldn't be part of the article. We simply disagree on the cause-and-effect relationship between polygamy and the existence of Mitt Romney. Polygamy is much more important to Romney's existence than is the sun or Brigham Young, so I think polygamy should be mentioned early on. We agree the sentence belongs in the article, but disagree as to where it should be placed. Since the major issue--whether or not the sentence belonged--has probably been resolved at this point in the affirmative, the article should probably be unfrozen. Qworty (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm not making myself clear. We don't need to debate whether "polygamy" is more important to Mitt Romney's existence than the Sun or Brigham Young. This is not a coffee shop where we sling bullshit arguments about metaphysics and ontology. We're an encyclopedia, so we just follow reliable sources. Cool Hand Luke 01:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

←We can include the information in the encyclopedia, but wherever we decide to put it we must tell the whole story: why people are bringing it up, the LDS church's current stance on polygamy, and Mitt Romney's personal views on polygamy. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that's the other reason that it would make more sense to cover the issue in a religion/campaign section. One sentence is not enough to explain that neither Romney nor the LDS Church continue to practice polygamy. It needs context, and the current version does not provide it. Cool Hand Luke 01:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned it before, so I'll mention it again in a different context. What if we cover it the same way religion is covered in the Dwight D. Eisenhower article, with a paragraph under Early Life & Family Background that among other things explains his great-grand parents, pologamy, LDS banning it, father not being born in US, influence on his life, etc. That would permit greater context without overwhelming the rest of his family life. Mbisanz (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Providing the kind of "context" that's being talked about here has the potential of opening a tremendous can of worms, since it's going to require huge assumptions on our parts that we have no business making. None of us is a mind-reader, so none of us knows what Romney actually believes. We only know about what he has claimed to believe, and the great number of times that he has contradicted those claims. So if we're going to have a large section on his religious "beliefs," NPOV and accuracy are going to be huge issues, since his beliefs are political issues and Romney has a history of fudging and distorting and outright changing his political stands, as dictated by the politics of the moment. The fact that the things he's fudging about in this instance--Mormon beliefs--are so wildly out there and in themselves hopelessly unverifiable just throws a whole new set of monkey wrenches into the problem. Qworty (talk) 02:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you hell-bent on getting into philosophical arguments? Yes, that's true, we can only report on what he claims to believe. There's an epistemological gap between minds, so we can never know what someone "really" thinks. This is all fascinating, but we don't have to deal with it. We just report what's been reported about him, including, yes, self-characterizations. The section sounds fine, but I would like it to at least briefly mention the campaign concerns, and perhaps link to an appropriate subheading of the campaign page. That should work. Cool Hand Luke 02:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) I know it will be difficult (as with most BLPs), but as long as reliable sources of facts are included, a sentence such as "He has claimed to be a Mormon (cite), however, some question the dedication of his faith (cite), (cite), (cite)." Mbisanz (talk) 02:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the major things that's been reported about him is that he's changed a lot of his major beliefs as quickly and as easily as changing his socks. So I'm assuming that once the article is unlocked, none of you will have any protest to including a full rundown of all the times Romney has changed his stated beliefs. This is not a simple editing matter, nor is it a "philosophical" matter. The fact is that Romney has expressed no consistent beliefs, religious or political or otherwise, and that once you open this can of worms there are going to be a lot of pro-Romney people who aren't going to like one little bit all of the facts that are sourced about his shifting beliefs, and they are going to create tremendous editing problems for us. Qworty (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly certain we don't need to cover "every" instance where Romney ever said something that contradicted something else he had said. For example I sincerly doubt he has ever said he was not a Mormon. Also, the purpose of this new paragraph is a summary of his religious background, not a blow by blow of his life's beliefs. So it might be interesting if he drank in college, but it probably doesn't matter if over the course of several decades, his view on divorce were have to changed. Mbisanz (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds right. Some of his flip-flops (religious or otherwise) are widely reported, so should be included. We don't need to compile a new survey of every time Romney changed his mind—just follow the sources without undue weight. It's not different from any other BLP. Cool Hand Luke 02:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you agree that flip-flops on political issues belong in Political positions of Mitt Romney, not here. Only a summary goes here.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you're missing is that "a summary of his religious background" will center on all of the unverifiable Mormon claims, many of which will make him sound highly irrational. He's going to come off sounding like a fool to many people, and there are a lot of pro-Romney people who aren't going to like it, and who are going to challenge and revert the edits, no matter how well sourced they are. And they are extremely well sourced. Qworty (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lets give this a try. Talk:Mitt Romney/Sandbox can be a place to test the creation of a section Religious Beliefs. We'll get all the sources, facts, etc, then propose it for an edit protected change. Rather then continuing the debate of how a change will be bad, we can test out what it will look like . Mbisanz (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we just do all the editing on this talk page instead? That way we would have an easy way to keep the contribution history of the section, without having to maintain yet another page. I'll get it started below with what's currently in the article. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I severely doubt that. Mainstream coverage does not assign esoteric doctrines to Romney. They don't talk about the Adam-God theory, or anything else like that. This is not an article on Mormonism. Again, this is just a normal BLP problem. Mbisanz' suggestion is good. Cool Hand Luke 02:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really like where this is going. Everything is being bullet-proof sourced, so I think any objections will have a difficult time, once this is put in the article. I might drop that thing at the end that says none of the Mormon candidates have succeeded to the presidency. Seems a little self-evident that none of the names are presidential names, but I'm felxible on this one. Mbisanz (talk) 09:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about that. I dropped it.Ferrylodge (talk) 10:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mitt Romney is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), more commonly known as Mormons. His great-great-grandfather, Parley P. Pratt, was among the first leaders of the religion in the early 1800s. Mitt's wife Ann converted to Mormonism before they were married in 1969.^[1] Ann's family could not attend their wedding ceremony that was held at a temple, due to a rule preventing non-Mormons from entering LDS temples, but they attended another ceremony held for non-Mormons.^[2] Before college, Romney served in France for 30 months as a missionary^[3] and later was a bishop and stake president. Romney does not drink alcohol, smoke, or swear.^[4][5]

Romney's religion has played a major role in his 2008 presidential campaign, with polls indicating that a quarter of Republican voters are "less likely" to vote for a presidential candidate who is Mormon.^[6][7] However, some social conservatives and evangelicals criticize Romney for not being Mormon enough, regarding social policy.^[8][9] He has avoided speaking publicly about specific church doctrines, and has pointed out that the U.S. Constitution prohibits religious tests for public office.^[6] Declining to discuss details about his religion also reduces the risk that doctrinal differences will alienate evangelical Christian voters.^[8] Romney has instead addressed religion in general, saying that as president he would "need the prayers of the people of all faiths," and that he would "serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A president must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States."^[6] Mormonism was not an issue in his father's presidential campaign in 1968.^[6] Other presidential aspirants of that faith have included Joseph Smith, Morris Udall, and Orrin Hatch.^[10]

Romney's church has been criticized for policies that some perceive as sexist or racist; for example, males of African descent could not be ordained to the priesthood until 1978. However, Romney participated in pro-civil rights marches with his father^[11] and "hoped that the time would come when the leaders of the church would receive the inspiration to change the policy."^[12]

Romney has denounced polygamy and is a proponent of monogamous marriage.^[13] Like his ancestor Parley Pratt, Romney's paternal great-grandparents practiced plural marriage, and they fled to Mexico in 1884 after an 1878 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld laws banning polygamy.^[14] Subsequent generations of Romney's paternal lineage have been monogamous and none of his mother's Mormon ancestors appear to have been polygamists.^[15][16] Due to legal pressure by the U.S. federal government,^[17] the LDS church renounced polygamy in 1890.^[18] Mitt's father, George, was born in Mexico in 1907, and was brought to the United States in 1912 by Mitt's grandparents.^[19]

I agree with excluding all of the strikethrough statements, whoever added them. I think there are reliable sources on polygamy being illegal in Mexico (D. Michael Quinn talks about it), but it's immaterial here and covered elsewhere such as the 1890 Manifesto article, which I've linked. Cool Hand Luke 14:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this phrase might be surplus: "Some people mistakenly believe that Romney’s religion still sanctions polygamy." I'm not sure if we need to call so much attention to some people's mistaken beliefs. The actual stance is explained well in following sentences. Cool Hand Luke 18:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, good point. I put it in, so I took it out.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section now reads like a campaign brochure for Mitt Romney as well as a whitewash of the Mormon church. There isn’t even an attempt here at NPOV. Let’s take it point by point:

1) None of you knows whether Romney “drinks, smokes or swears.” The most you can say is that he claims he doesn’t drink, smoke or swear. You can’t present something as a fact when it’s completely unverifiable. There is no such thing as a reliable source on this, since no reliable source follows him around all day.

As Cool Hand Luke said below, "there's epistemological doubt over whether he really abstains from alcohol, et al, but we don't care about it. We just follow reliable sources." 60 Minutes and CBS News seem like reliable sources on this point.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2) The sentence “Matters of religion have played a limited role in his 2008 presidential campaign” is a wholesale fabrication, completely unsourced and false, an untruth designed to whitewash his Mormon background. The fact is (and there are plenty of sources for it) that religion is the number-one issue in Romney’s campaign, which is in fact the reason some editors here are so worked-up by the issue. In fact, it’s because of this number-one issue that evangelicals are uniting behind Huckabee. It’s because of this number-one issue that Romney has sunk in the polls in Iowa and nationwide.

No, it's not a fabrication, wholesale or otherwise. Religion is playing a major role in his campaign, but its role is limited by the fact that he won't discuss details. I have just edited the section to emphasize that religion is playing a major role (and this is also clear from the last sentence of the section, re. poll results).Ferrylodge (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3) Romney’s “Faith Speech” completely sidestepped all of the odd religious practices of Mormons, and in fact he said the word “Mormon” only once. The reason he did this is because he wants to sweep Mormonism under the carpet rather than address it. There are plenty of sources for this. Editors here shouldn’t help him do it. We need to have a section on odd Mormon practices. It’s double-dealing to claim he doesn’t drink, smoke, or swear without mentioning his Mormon underwear, the baptism of the dead, the corporeal nature of God, and all the other weird stuff Romney claims to believe. You guys are cherry-picking Mormon facts to make Romney look good, and ignoring those that make him look ridiculous. I’ve never seen such blatant POV-pushing on an article.

Provide a reliable source about him wanting to sweep Mormonism under the carpet, and your objection will then be worth considering. Until then, it's unsourced and therefore not worth taking the time to discuss further.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4) “Mormonism was not an issue in his father's presidential campaign in 1968.” So what? This is just a Mormon whitewash, and doesn’t belong here. When I add things that are sourced and true and pertinent, you take them out, but then you feel free to add irrelevancies that only serve to whitewash? That is POV-pushing in the extreme.

No, it's not POV-pushing. It's a historical fact. Do you deny it? Do you think the article in the Christian Science Monitor was POV-pushing? This info provides context.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5) The edits make it look like the Mormons did away with polygamy because they are such good guys who had a change of heart, when actually it was because they knuckled-under due to pressure from the U.S. government. The wording is false, completely historically untrue.

Just as a specific example of your suggestion, the wording is silent on the issue. It says absolutely nothing about why they gave up polygamy, and it certainly doesn't promote the modern Mormon POV that it was a revelation from God. It, however, points to 1890 Manifesto which fully describes the circumstances of the renouncement. We don't have to here because this is not an article about the 1890 Manifesto. It's an article about Mitt Romney. Cool Hand Luke 19:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6) Double standards in editing must be avoided. If it was wrong to mention without three paragraphs of “context” the fact that the Romney family was polygamous, because that would “imply” something about Mormonism, then it’s wrong to say without context that polygamists went to Mexico, because that implies that polygamy was/is legal in Mexico. It is not. This is a smear against Mexico. Polygamy was illegal in the U.S. AND Mexico, which made the Romneys criminals in the U.S. and criminals in Mexico. These facts about these Mormon criminals should not be whitewashed. Polygamy has never even been legal in Utah! This article is not supposed to be a Romney campaign brochure. Romney speaks out against illegal Mexican gardeners, yet his own family were illegal aliens in Mexico, where they committed criminal acts.

Provide a reliable source about polygamy having been illegal in Mexico, and your objection will then be worth considering. Until then, it's unsourced and therefore not worth taking the time to discuss. Did Mexico ban only polygamous weddings, or ban state recognition of polygamous weddings, or ban plural cohabitation generally (even if the wedding occurred legally in another jurisdiction or on the high seas)? I agree with Cool Hand Luke that this is kind of tangential to the article. Romney never even met the ancestors who allegedly were the transgressors here.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7) There’s no reason to mention Lenore Romney. This is just another whitewash: “Hey, look, a Mormon in Romney’s family tree who was not polygamous!”

No, the info about Lenore Romney is not merely about "a Mormon in Romney's family tree." It is about half his family tree. Do you think the cited sources (Associated Press and Boston Globe) are part of our right-wing conspiracy?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the men in Romney's family don't score extra points for sleeping with only one woman 50% of the time. This is a section on religious background, but you fail to show what the Lenore business has to do with religious background. So I'll help you out here. Mormons taught that a man would go to Hell if he didn't have multiple wives. So according to Mormon dogma, Lenore's non-polygamous ancestors were damned to hell by their fellow Mormons for having only one wife. If you provide this information, then Lenore will have relevance in a "religious background" section. Otherwise she's irrelevant. Qworty (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a reliable source that says the Mormon church purported to damn any ancestor of Lenore Romney to hell, or that says any of her ancestors were not regarded as Mormons in good standing with their church. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are the words of Joseph Smith, Jr., Himself, from Joseph Smith, Jr. and polygamy: "The same God that has thus far dictated me and directed me and strengthened me in this work, gave me this revelation and commandment on celestial and plural marriage, and the same God commanded me to obey it. He said to me that unless I accepted it, and introduced it, and practiced it, I, together with my people would be damned and cut off from this time henceforth. We have got to observe it. It is an eternal principle and was given by way of commandment and not by way of instruction."Qworty (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert on Mormon theology, but I think the document you're referring to is here. Does anyone know whether the Church ever considered this as a requirement that every adult male must have more than one wife? By what age did this requirement kick in? Was it good enough to practice polygamy for a few minutes, or did you have to do it from puberty continuously until death? And is there any reliable source that discusses this church doctrine in connection with Mitt Romney?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For all of these reasons, I have tagged the proposed section as an advertisement, though I see it's now been removed. I'll re-tag it. If I can find a tag that states that a section reads like a campaign brochure, I will tag it with that one. It should also be tagged for lack of neutrality. This section is completely un-encyclopedic, is total POV-pushing, does not contain any balance, and serves no purpose other than to promote Romney’s candidacy and whitewash Mormon history. Qworty (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a talk page. Box templates serve to alert the reader of an editorial problem. They serve no purpose here. It would be like tagging your comments as religious bigotry. It might be true, but it doesn't have a place on the talk page. Your suggestions are undue weight, and in some cases are silly philosophical points. Yeah, there's epistemological doubt over whether he really abstains from alcohol, et al, but we don't care about it. We just follow reliable sources. Cool Hand Luke 19:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section is proposed as a sample of what might go into the article. Thus, every aspect of the proposed edit must be presented here. And since this is a heavily POV, pro-Romney, Mormon whitewash section so far, the appropriate neutrality tags must go with it. As far as “silly philosophical or epistemological points” go, I can find tons of reliable sources that show that they are indeed the basis of Mormonism and that they are, therefore, an important part of Romney’s religious background, which this proposed section purports to describe. You can’t just cherry-pick some reliable sources about Romney’s religious background and ignore others that you don’t happen to like. Everything relevant has to be included for the sake of balance. Qworty (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any impartial party who took a look at this proposed section would have to blink hard. An article section "about" Romney's religious beliefs that doesn't mention Romney's religious beliefs! I think this entire exercise is absurd, and I strongly oppose the inclusion of this section in the article unless it is actually going to do what it purports to do, which is to present Romney's religious beliefs.

The religious beliefs of Mormons are well-documented and well-sourced from highly reliable venues. You can't just whitewash it all away by repeating the rumor that Romney doesn't drink or smoke or swear. (I bet he'll be swearing up a storm after he loses the Iowa caucuses!)

This section should include Romney's racist Mormon beliefs against African-Americans, for example. The church was a racist institution during the time Romney was a member of it. He traveled to France to spread this racist religious dogma and was largely stymied there, and with good reason. All of these facts are well-established and well-sourced and should be in the article.

Since he's supposedly a practicing member of the Mormon church, then all of the present beliefs of mainline Mormons will have to be ascribed to him in the article as well. That's right, folks. Baptism of the dead. Little gold tablets with "Egyptian" on them. Book of Mormon passages plagiarized from the King James Bible, even though the tablets supposedly predated the King James. Romney's weird temple undergarments, the "Mormon underwear." The planet that Romney will rule after he's done being president and gets his celestial promotion. And so much more that will be so much fun to write about and that will certainly belong in the "Romney's religious beliefs" section, once you open this particular can of worms. And every single bit of it completely verifiable through reliable sources.

You can't cherry-pick reliable sources. In a section about religious beliefs, all reliable sources must be admitted that describe Romney's purported religious beliefs. You can't just include the "doesn't smoke, drink, or swear" beliefs that whitewash Romney and his church. The article must be balanced. Qworty (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree with Qworty that having a long section about Romney's underwear would be much more relevant than a discussion of mating habits of people he never even met.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! I'm so glad to hear that. Let's get something about Romney's silly religious underwear into the religious background section right away so that everybody can read about it! Good job, men. Qworty (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're not cherry-picking. We need to use reliable sources that describe Romney's beliefs and are not undue weight. Tell me what reliable sources talk about Mitt Romney in relation to "Mormon underwear." Newsweek? The Chicago Tribune? The Boston Globe has mentioned it in relation to people asking him embarrassing questions about it, but in a biography on Mitt Romney it doesn't belong unless reliable source indicate it's a WEIGHTy issue. For what it's worth, I think that blacks not holding the priesthood should be mentioned; I've seen it mentioned more than a few times.

The fact that blacks were not considered equal in the eyes of God until 1978 according to Mormons is an interesting point. Mitt served his mission in the 1960's. Therefore, at the time he was out proselytizing for the Mormon church he was supporting the position that blacks were not equal in the eyes of God at that time. To me this seems relevant to his candidacy for President.

And once again, this isn't an article. I'm removing the templates. Cool Hand Luke 21:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? Every single article that refers to his membership and position in the church supports the inclusion of the underwear. The burden of proof would be on you to show that he is wearing the wrong underwear and therefore going to hell. I'm glad you agree about the racist stuff. I concur that it belongs in the religious background section. It happened while Romney was alive and a member of the church. As for the tags, they belong here because we need to see what the entire proposed article section will look like. Qworty (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that racism stuff could be usefully included in this section. As for the tags, I agree they're inappropriate here. The section we have includes strikethroughs which will not ultimately be included in the article, and conversely tags needn't be shown here even if they will ultimately be included in the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell are you talking about? Plenty of biographies on wikipedia discuss Mormons, but not a single one states "X is a Mormon. Therefore, we can assume he wears magic underwear." That's original synthesis. I'm not sure what the going hell comment means, but I think you're operating under the erroneous assumption that I'm a practicing Mormon. Let me tell you something: "New Mormon History" means "naturalistic history." I don't accept the Mormon doctrines nor religious explanations for events in LDS history. When you lecture me about how the Church was pressured by the government, I'm not surprised for I wrote the article on the subject. Not only were they pressured, but as I wrote over two years ago, several apostles would have rather seen their church destroyed by Federal marshals then give up polygamy. Indeed, their strong sentiments are what gave birth to Mormon fundamentalism. However, none of this is connected to Mitt Romney, let alone by the reliable sources it would require to avoid undue weight. You seem to be editing disruptively on this topic. If you're not going to provide reliable sources, I ask that you stop contributing here. Cool Hand Luke 22:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the way you understand synthesis, then the drinking, smoking and swearing claims don't belong here. To use your own reasoning: "Plenty of biographies on wikipedia discuss Mormons, but not a single one states 'X is a Mormon. Therefore, we can assume he has never tasted alcohol, used tobacco, or uttered the f-word.'" I did not assume you were a practicing Mormon, and have had no idea what your views on Mormonism are, and don't see what your personal religious beliefs would have to do with anything here. In terms of the U.S. government pressuring the Mormons on polygamy, which you obviously know a lot about, it's going to be a challenge to draw the line on what aspects of Mormon history are or aren't relevant to Romney's campaign. Qworty (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Read WP:SYN. We have a source that specifically states he abstains from these things. We are not combining premises to make new conclusions. We are following reliable sources. If you can't edit Romney without making BLP violations, I suggest you find a new topic. Cool Hand Luke 22:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't there an incident where a black leader called him out on purported LDS racism? I seem to remember something like that being reported, but I haven't followed this candidate closely. Cool Hand Luke 23:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there was minor incident with Al Sharpton, but that would probably belong in the article on Romney's 2008 campaign (maybe it's already there).Ferrylodge (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I think you're right. At any rate, I don't think we need many more details of the actual religious beliefs (which aren't usually reported in depth). What's missing are some cites to polls that say, for example, that many Republican voters would reject him or any Mormon. Lots of sources go into considerable detail on that point. The Newsweek cover story does, for example, and I think it's a good model for WEIGHT because it's a reliable retrospective look at the candidate. Cool Hand Luke 23:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've got enough on polls. The section above says, "with polls indicating that a quarter of Republican voters are 'less likely' to vote for a presidential candidate who is Mormon." Two refs are footnoted.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, go to Jacob Weisberg and scroll to the bottom paragraph for one overview of what you're talking about. Qworty (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just mention that this is the most difficult and painstaking work on a section of a Wikipedia article that I have ever encountered, given the length of the section. Let's hope it's not for naught.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to write a well-annotated BLP passage from scratch. I think it's pretty good work, and is comparable to the controversial points about other candidates like Guliani (personal life), Obama (race), and Edwards (plaintiff lawyer). Actually, it looks more open and direct than some of those article's sections. What do other editors think. Mbisanz? Cool Hand Luke 04:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I re-phrased the sentence on Blacks as follows: "Romney's church has been criticized for policies that some percieve as sexist or racist, for example, males of African descent ...". I think that this broader statement, which includes a wikilink to another article, strikes a good balance between ignoring the criticisms and listing them here in gory detail. The link should address concerns any "anti Romney" editors have that this article is white-washing the church's policies Noleander (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad this is all resolved. Might there be some wisdom in semi-protecting the article to prevent IP vandalism? Mbisanz (talk) 04:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to avoid future edit tweaking, figured I'd start the ole discussion. It's pretty much accepted that the reason why the LDS Church stopped recognizing plural marriage was because of pressure applied by the US federal government, but the pressure was more than just the Edmunds-Tucker Act as the current wording implies. While the Edmunds-Tucker Act and the subsequent Supreme Court decision that upheld the law where the final nail in the coffin, the US government also passed the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (which the Supreme court upheld as well), delayed statehood for Utah, arrested Brigham Young, prevented George Q. Cannon from taking a non-voting seat in Congress, passed the Edmunds Act (Different than the Edmunds-Tucker Act), etc, etc. Basically, the culmination of all this pressure was that the LDS church found it difficult to continue to exist and when the Supreme Court upheld Edmunds-Tucker they had no choice but to prohibit plural marriage or else the Federal government would seize all of their assets (temples, money, etc, etc).--Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the wikilink to the Edmunds-Tucker Act, so I think the problem that Bobblehead mentions is solved. The wikilink later in the article to the 1890 Manifesto discusses the various reasons, including the Edmunds-Tucker Act. Needless to say, this is all very tangential to Mitt Romney, and so need not be detailed in this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That works. Not even sure why the sentence itself is in the article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed I concur that the new section (described above in this Talk page) should go in. Certainly the new section does need work, and is not perfect. But waiting for perfection could take years :-) Given the topical nature of this article, I would suggest that it is acceptable to insert the current version of section, and continue enhancing it here in the Talk page. Noleander (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Ferrylodge (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed We may as well get this in so the article can be unlocked and we can start editing the rest of it right away. If current trends continue, the article will have a traffic window of three weeks at the max, which means that very few people will be reading it--and the religion section you've worked so hard on--after the Jan. 3 Iowa caucusus. Already Mike Huckabee is getting far more action on Wikipedia, and he has more to do with religion anyway, being a preacher. So by all means let's get the Romney article activated again so that we can continue to add developments such as his continuing slide in the polls. These matters will be of some slight historical interest. Qworty (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine for you to have a POV Qworty, but not fine to insert it here.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my POV, but the POV of pollsters as reported through reliable sources. In any case, I said "IF current trends continue..." And you have a POV as well, as does everybody. Qworty (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree There should be an agreement on the material before it is put into the article. Turtlescrubber (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There will never be final agreement on the material, since it is endlessly tweakable, which is being demonstrated at the rate of every two or three minutes. The larger issue is whether the article should be unlocked. Once it's unlocked and the new material inserted, that material can be endlessly adjusted, tweaked, and revised, just as is happening now. Qworty (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, there should be general consensus about the Religion section. The three "agrees" above seem to indicate they are satisfied. Do you have a specific objection to the section, as it appears now? If so, make the change. Otherwise, dont withhold agreement unreasonably. I dont think wiki policy permits a single individual to "veto" text without a rational, specific reason. Be bold. Noleander (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did I "veto" anything. NO. Please read what I wrote before making uninformed comments. I just think that we should all agree to keep it more or less how it is now. I have already said I am okay with the section but if it gets changed every "two or three minutes" then it obviously isn't ready to go back in the article. Once again, because I have to spell it out, I am fine with the section but I am not fine with it being constantly changed. The section should be relatively stable before it goes back in to prevent edit warring. Jesus wept. Turtlescrubber (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pay no attention to Ferrylodge's and my tweaks, they are just minor wording changes and should in no way delay the unprotection of this article. It is pretty clear that the source of the edit war (the inclusion or not of his great-great-grandparent's plural marriage) is resolved. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Bobblehead, and I hope you will consider crossing out your "disagree" Turtlescrubber. Some admin may see it, and decide to keep this article frozen even longer (in the version that you preferred several days ago). And how about an "Agreed" from you Bobblehead?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWell if you two can agree to play nice then I would be fine with this being put in the article. But Ferry, you can take your slight "(in the version that you preferred several days ago)" home with you because even after all your "work" on this page the article is going to turn out exactly how I wanted it to. Yeah, we have our religion section. Cheers. Turtlescrubber (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Mbisanz (talk) 01:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Add my agreed by request. The dispute that got this page edit protected is resolved and anything else is just minor wording tweaks that don't seem likely to blow up into full on edit warring. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belatedley - agreed Tvoz |talk 05:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Daniel ⁵¹²⁷ 06:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreed (but not enough to cause any trouble) -- I'm concerned that this is going to open up a can of worms and make this biography page into an endless battle about religion. My original concern was simply that we include an interesting fact about his family that had been repeatedly discussed in the media and by Romney himself. But if everyone feels that this is a good idea I won't stop them. I do ask that all sides try to be respectful.Notmyrealname (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, everyone should be respectful. As to your overall point--I think what's happening here is just a reflection of the real-world fact that religion is the number-one issue of Romney's campaign, the biggest thing to keep him from being president. I'm not saying it's right or wrong--I'm not even a Republican--but Republicans tend to have a huge issue with his Mormonism. Qworty (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's moot, but I agree, obviously. Good work everyone, especially Ferrylodge for the writing and Mbisanz for the suggestion. Cool Hand Luke 20:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for page unprotection in light of the conversation above. I have also inserted the compromise section into the article. Feel free to fix grammar, placement and any other small changes. Let's use the talk page for any major disputes. Turtlescrubber (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked further - WP:LAYOUT says here: Between paragraphs and between sections, there should be only a single blank line. Multiple blank lines unnecessarily lengthen the article and can make it more difficult to read. I don't know that I necessarily agree with that conclusion - in fact when I started editing here I frequently added white space between paragraphs to (I thought) increase readability, but the extra spaces were always removed. I'm used to how the single space btwn grafs looks now, so it no longer bothers me - I doubt the double space will survive here, as there's no reason for this article to be different from others in this regard. Anyone else? Tvoz |talk 05:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, the article is only 58 KB, so the concerns about lengthening the article are not pressing. If this article were the size of other grotesquely bloated articles, then it would be another story. I would like to please leave the extra spacing between paragraphs the way it is in this article, but if others disagree then I'm not going to raise hell about it.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Grotesquely bloated"? Nothing like a little buried POV pipe in a seemingly innocuous discussion about spacing. Really. Tvoz |talk 06:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the point is moot. An admin got rid of the spacing. As for POV, yes, my POV is that articles of 138 KB are grotesquely bloated.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 06:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. You were making a general point. Got it. Tvoz |talk 06:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And a jest. Let's see some of that sense of humor. Anyway, it's among the largest articles I know of, and I also know you're familiar with it.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you remove the templates, references, see also, links and images, the readable prose of the Clinton article is under 55kb. Pushing the limits for sure, but I personally would not characterize the article as grotesquely bloated based on KB alone (keep in mind I've seen sections of articles that I would call "bloated" that only take up 2kb). Also, while I'm here, good work everyone on working together and solving the content dispute. Congrats all around.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus fucking Christ. How hard is it to fix a bad link?? If all that is wrong with a reference is that it is pointed to a bad site, then fire up google and do a search on the title of the article, and fix the goddamn link. If someone reverts your addition and says one of your link is bad, ask the person which link is broken on the article's talkpage, and then *gasp* fix the goddamn link. At least attempt to work together rather than firing up the undo button over the most minor of issues. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 06:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you're criticizing me. I spelled out the link in the edit summary so he could fix it. Jeez.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a general criticism aimed at all involved and not aimed at any one editor in particular. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 06:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree, and I wholeheartedly apologize for adding the incorrect link and for the subsequent revert. I simply pasted in the wrong link into the citation template when I prepared it. You are right that we should have handled it differently, and I thank you for interceding. Qworty (talk) 06:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another suggestion, do not use edit summaries to have a discussion about content that is contentious. If you find yourself in a situation where someone reverts one of your edits/reverts come to the article's discussion page and explain your reasoning for your edit/revert and ask for an explanation. Unless the addition is a blatant BLP violation there is absolutely no harm in keeping an edit you don't agree with on the article for a short period of time. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 06:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so, and thanks for the suggestion. It's always better to be patient and get the problem talked out. Things can get crazy with everyone trying to make changes and post edit summaries on the edit history at the same time. Qworty (talk) 06:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Noted for future. Alanraywiki (talk) 07:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree generally. However, the reason for the revert wasn't complicated, and it ought to have been understood from the edit summary.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if this page shouldn't be semi-protected to prevent random IP vandalism. Already today we've had two vandals, one I caught and one cluebot caught. Really wouldn't impede editing. Mbisanz (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, will get a lot of that as the primaries approach. Looks like his peers are already protected. Rudy Guliani (which has been semi'd since April!), Mike Huckabee. I'm adding semiprotection termed to expire in two months. After Feb 5 Super Tuesday, it either won't be necessary, or might have to be re-extended. Cool Hand Luke 20:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged Mbisanz (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:PROT- Semi-protection should not be used:

• As a preemptive measure against vandalism before any vandalism has occurred.
• In a content dispute between registered users and anonymous users, with the intention to lock out the anonymous users.
• With the sole purpose of prohibiting editing by anonymous users. Protection should be used only to prevent continuing disruption.

In general, isn't it better to have the involvement of anon editors and just keep clearing away the vandals then to prevent a whole class of editors from being able to get involved with the article? Notmyrealname (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism has occurred. It was unprotected only a few hours, vandalized twice, and spammed once. See also Jimbo's thoughts on semi-protection to prevent drive-by nonsense. All other major candidates have semi-permanent semi-protection because they are POV-magnet BLPs. Cool Hand Luke 04:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Jimbo's reference to "drive-by nonsense" is specifically about non-notable bios that don't get a lot of oversight. Vandalism happens all over the place and then it gets quickly reverted. If there's been a general decision to semi-protect all the presidential candidates, then fine. But it seems to be contrary to the norm for high-profile articles.Notmyrealname (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? We semi-protect high-profile articles. That is the norm, and it's been that way for years. The Jimbo post suggested protecting lightening rods like George W. Bush, and this isn't even unusual. We've got everyone from Ann Coulter to Weird Al.[10] Like Jimbo says, many bios are "high profile" and attract "POV pushing trolling." The major presidential candidates are both, at least until their bids resolve themselves. Cool Hand Luke 12:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okey-doke. Not trying to start a fight or anything. I never saw a policy posted anywhere. By high profile I was thinking about featured articles and the others on the main page. It was my impression that these were specifically not semi-protected. From that discussion you cited, it seemed that a special exception was made for Bush. The discussion also seemed to be about a totally tangential issue of how and whether to post a notice about semi-protection. The problem is that a new user has to wait four days to make edits and someone who wants to stay with an ip address is prohibited from editing. Again, not something I'm losing sleep over. Notmyrealname (talk) 03:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the word "Bishop" should be changed to priest. Here's why:

Bishop is the highest priesthood office of the Aaronic priesthood in the Latter Day Saint movement. A bishop is usually the leader of a local congregation of church members. The Latter Day Saint concept of the office differs significantly from the role of bishops in other Christian denominations, being in some respects more analogous to a pastor or parish priest. Each bishop serves with two counselors, which together form a bishopric.

This position is analogous to a pastor or priest in other demoniations, and is different from a "Bishop" in other denominations.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, "part-time lay minister" would be more descriptive.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend sticking with bishop. That is the title and it links to additional information about LDS bishops. Other denominations may also have positions called bishop, and that position should also be called bishop in their articles. No single denomination should need to use a term like "part-time lay minister" or "full-time clergy" instead of the proper term. If you want to add it parenthetically after the word bishop for clarification, that would be fine in my opinion. Also, priest is an entirely different office in the priesthood in the Mormon church, so that one definitely would cause more confusion. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 04:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Bishop" gives non-Mormons (like me) the impression that he was very high up the church hierarchy, so I'm glad you don't object to some sort of clarification here. I'll make an attempt.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Alanraywiki (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there is a similar problem with the sentence about perceptions that the church had racist policies: "Romney's church has been criticized for policies that some perceive as sexist or racist; for example, males of African descent could not be ordained to the priesthood until 1978". In the LDS church, virtually every white male, from teenage years up is a priest. Non-priests (blacks) could not enter any temple or participate in any significant ceremony. A casual reader familiar with Catholic priests may think "oh, that's not so bad, LDS blacks could still be full members .. they just couldnt be priests". So, in that sense, the sentence is rather misleading. Noleander (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we'd better clarify things before making changes to this article, regarding this issue of racism. My understanding is that Joseph Smith welcomed free blacks into the church, and ordained black men to the priesthood. After his death, LDS leaders continued to welcome all people regardless of color to be members, but excluded blacks from priesthood ordination and from participation in temple ceremonies. I'm still not clear about what "membership" allowed a person to do.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC) How about if we just make it ambiguous, like so: "Romney's church has been criticized for policies that some perceive as sexist or racist; for example, males of African descent were not treated equally until 1978"?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion, but there is an ambiguity there: your sentence could be read as: black males were not treated as well as black females :-) How about " ... blacks were not permitted to enter LDS temples or participate in significant ceremonies until 1978". Im a caucasian myself, but if I were black I would want specificity when it came to documenting the past discrimation against my race. Granted, this article is on Romney, not the LDS church, but we can at least be accurate: The whole point here is pointing out that Romney was a willing participant (leader, even) in a religion that continued segregation until 1978, 13 year _after_ the 1965 civil rights bill. Those details of the segregation are especially critical since Romney is running for president. Noleander (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still curious about the details. Are you saying that blacks were considered "members" but they couldn't enter temples until 1978? That sounds really bizarre. What good is membership if you can't go inside? Where were the marriage ceremonies performed? And keep in mind that the sentence wikilinks to Criticism_of_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement, so details can be found there.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this even an issue with Romney? This is really belongs within articles dealing with the actual religion, this association seems to imply that Romney does not feel blacks are equal to whites. In anycase, the first sentence really needs to be changed. It currently reads "Romney's church" which would imply that he has some control over the workings of the church in general which is clearly not the case. I will make this change right now, but I still question the need for this within his article, it seems to make a guilt by association arguement. Arzel (talk) 04:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romney is running for president. He belonged to an organization that until 1978 practiced discrimination. I think that is rather important to know. Even if he personally were non-racist, he continued to be an active member, leader even. "Guilt by association" is when you are in the wrong place in the wrong time; or your relatives are crooks. But here was a voluntary association that Romney kept up (and still keeps up). If I were a black voter, and were going to wikipedia for info on candidates, Id want to know some specific details about what groups the candidates are voluntarily involved with. Noleander (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You make an assumption that he joined this religion as a matter of choice. He was born into it, which is hardly the same. He clearly has denounced racisim and the previous racist pratices of the Mormon church and he actively worked on civil rights. I don't see how this would be different than being born into a mob family, and is clearly a guilt by association. Arzel (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both Arzel and Noleander. Those changes that Arzel just made look okay to me, and pretty straightforward. The article makes it clear that Romney was involved with a racist organization, that he objected to racism, and there is a wikilink for more details.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The cited references mention several reasons why Mormonism was not an issue in his father's presidential campaign. One ref says it's (1) because he dropped out so soon. The other ref says:

"Still, Mormonism was not an issue in the senior Romney's campaign. Some historians say that in effect, (2) the Kennedy speech a few years earlier had protected Romney from undergoing scrutiny over his faith. In addition, (3) religion was not the major stump issue it is today. And (4) in the 1960s, the Mormon church was much smaller than it is today."

I've inserted the numbers. Here's what the article presently says: "Mormonism was not an issue in his father's presidential campaign in 1968, with both John F. Kennedy's religious scrutiny during the 1960 presidential election and the fact that he droped out of the election during the primaries being cited as possible reasons."

I suggest that we instead write: "Mormonism was not an issue in his father's presidential campaign in 1968, possibly because he dropped out before it could become one, because the candidacy in 1960 of John Kennedy (a Catholic) had neutralized the religion issue, because religion was not a major stump issue in 1968, and/or because the LDS Church grew substantially between 1968 and 2007."Ferrylodge (talk) 04:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine to me. I simply made a first stab at it. Arzel (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who proposed a section on religion, however, I'm beginning to get a tad concerned with its length. From just the output text, it now makes up about 500 words of the 3500 word article. Thats not undue to me yet, but its getting close. I'm not gonna do anything as I don't see any problem information, but I would suggest that the other parts of the article, particularly his business career and olympics section, be expanded. That being said, I came to this article mroe by mistake than anything else, so I wouldn't know where to find that kind of info. Cheers. Mbisanz (talk) 05:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Let's try to cap the religion section at its present length. If something new needs to go in, then something ought to come out.

As for expanding other sections, I agree that ought to be done. But, the religion section took up so much time that I need a Romney break for awhile.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence currently reads "... people of African descent were not treated equally to other members until 1978". This is so vague, it gives the appearance of POV white-washing. The other extreme "... the racist LDS church treated blacks as subhumans for over a century" is also not appropriate. I think we need something more in the middle, that lets visitors to Wikipedia undestand what Romney's church did for over a century, perhaps: "... before 1978 blacks were not permitted to participate in key LDS ceremonies, such as marriage and baptism, that would enable them to enter the highest level of heaven" Noleander (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you have to ask yourself a couple of questions. Is the statement that Blacks were not treated equally to other members until 1978 true? Is it verifiable? If so, then why does it appear to be POV? There seems to be this association of ownership regarding Romney and the LDS church. It is not Romney's church, and this is not an article about the LDS church. It is not the job of wikipedia to provide a point of view of Romney based off the previous practices of the LDS church, but to provide a neutral representation of Romney and His personal history, works, beliefs and practices. This guilt by association is really getting quite tiresome, see WP:COAT. Arzel (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need to expand upon the LDS's treatment of blacks as they don't seem to apply to Mitt Romney. A brief mention countered by his participation in the pro-civil rights marches is fine. As Arzel points out, this article is supposed to be about Mitt Romney, not the actions of his church. We don't expand on the sexism and pro-life stance of the Catholic Church in the article for every Catholic in Wikipedia, if the Church's stance is included at all. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about this, the less I think it belongs at all. It really has nothing to do with Romney's religious background, rather it is more along the lines of his political stance on civil rights. It may be prudent to state that he was involved in some way with civil rights within his campaign article or some other area, but as it stands it is basically a coat to mention Mormon controversies. Therefore I am removing based on WP:COAT. Arzel (talk) 06:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 1000%. Perfect example of WP:COAT. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put the civil rights stuff into the section on his early life.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've tried to pare down the number of links to Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement twice in the last few days and had that undone both times, is it really necessary to link to Criticisms of Mormonism three times in the same sentence? Either link to the general article once (my preference) or link to the specific sections on sexism and racism. Linking to the general article only is my preference because it allows an interested party to read the entire article (including the sections on sexism and racism) and makes the links to the sexism and racism sections specifically redundant, it also reduces the number of links to one. Conversely, linking to the sexism and racism sections specifically makes the link to the general article redundant as it is obvious there is more to the article than just those sections, so if they want to they just need to scroll and read the other sections of the article. It is completely unnecessary and a bit coatracky to link to a criticism article three times in the same sentence when there isn't even any evidence that the criticisms applied against Mormonism is even applicable to Mitt Romney. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and am probably partially to blame. Arzel (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding sentence on civil rights marches: Perhaps I am following the wrong citation, but the article Im reading (Salon) doesnt have the word "march" (or "walk" etc) in it. If Ive got the wrong link, I apologize. Anyway, can someone double check the cite? Noleander (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Mitt Romney had walked in civil rights marches with his father and said he shared his concern for racial equality." David Kirkpatrick, Romney, Searching and Earnest, Set His Path in ’60s, New York Times, November 15, 2007.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This line being in the article is ridiculous on so many fronts.

A. Most voter's aren't in high school. Like, OMG, Mitt Romney, like, doesn't smoke or drink, and he, like, rarely even swears. I think I heard him use the S word once, lol, but it was after he slammed his fingers with his car door. Like, I heard he was some sort of virgin choir boy, OMG LOL.

B. Jesus Christ drank alcohol, turned water into alcohol, and instructed his followers to drink an alcoholic beverage in rememberance of him, so why does Mitt Romney feel morally superior for not doing something his God did?

C. If you rarely swear, you still swear.

D. Lastly, but most relevantly, why did someone feel it belongs in an encyclopedia? Is the fact that a presidential hopeful rarely swears academic in any way, shape, or form? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.53.138.64 (talk • contribs)

You can go back through the history of this article, and find that the stuff about smoking and drinking was added in September by an editor named Westbrook348. See here. There's a lot of stuff that has already been taken out of this article that doesn't belong in it. And there's a lot of stuff that remains in this article that many editors don't think is especially relevant. But admins have frozen the page more than once, and compromises have been made. The number one priority is to make sure that everything in the article is true, but beyond that there's probably no one who is entirely happy with the article. C'est la Wikipedia.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, my little rant was a dig at the person who added the comment, not a dig at the article itself or the faithful few who monitor it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.53.138.64 (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've always thought this was a ridiculous part of the article, since it is a prime example of Argument from ignorance. It is completely illogical and fallacious to require anyone to prove a negative, or to assert that the lack of proof for a negative is proof of its opposite. Nobody can prove that Romney or anyone else is engaged in NON-activities, as any such statement is on its face unverifiable. However, just because some illogical source states it is true, people who refuse to think want to put it into Wikipedia. A thoroughly illogical and never-provable proposition doesn't belong in an encyclopedia just because some ignorant reporter put it in a newspaper! What's next, Romney is the man in the moon and made of green cheese? We need to get rid of this smoking, drinking, and swearing argument from ignorance. Qworty (talk) 06:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I completely disagree with all the above. It is in the section about his religious faith, and many Mormons take not drinking and not swearing to be a very important part of their faith, and a measure of devotion. The references are quite verifiable, and to assume that the reporter is ignorant is false (several reporters have claimed it). With all due respect, Qworty, according to your argument, we should never say something is not true, because it can't be proven. But the reliable sources speak for themselves. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qworty, I'm looking at the sources, their 60 minutes, USA Today, and Chicago Tribune (Reliable at least for our purposes). I see the argument of trying to prove the negative and struggle with it. The way I've reconciled the Romney (and others) article is to remember that as long as the source is valid, presented in a way the user can evaluate it themselves, and isn't super-contradictory (NYT says one thing, Wash Post says opposite), I've done my duty to protect BLP. Mbisanz (talk) 06:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EC- I do agree that it is not an argument from ignorance, but I do question the logic for inclusion. From my knowledge, Mormons avoid all stimulants including caffine, perhaps it could be re-worded in that context. As for the swearing aspect, that is simply not very encyclopedic. "Rarely" is a weasle word which is not possible to quantify, but the implication is that he does swear sometimes. I will take a crack at trying to incorporate into a more appropriate form. Arzel (talk) 06:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your efforts, Arzel, but I really do think the swearing part is encyclopedic. This is precisely the kind of information that people would be interested in knowing about his biography, whether now or in 100 years. I don't believe those were weasel words. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)That is a good idea Arzel, if we include weasel words in a BLP, it really should be a quote as in "Jimbo Wales said 'I rarely edit Unencyclopedia'"[source], on the other hand, seeing EvilSpartan's EC, I'm now on the fence again (is there a policy here?). Still I wouldn't change liquor/tobacco to caffine, unless there is a bulletproof citation that it applies to Romney. All we need is some anon. user to post a link to a picture of him drinking a regular coke at some diner and we've shot BLP apart. On the other hand, if a broader statement that is at least as reliable as what we have, attributes no caffine to him in the religious sense, then it should be added. Mbisanz (talk) 07:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the swearing ref should go as unencyclopedic. However, we don't ignore sources, Qworty, even if we think they're logically questionable. We care about verifiability, not truth, and if no reliable source has questioned the propositions, we don't have cause to either. Cool Hand Luke 09:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The swearing ref should go as unencyclopedic - how is it unencyclopedic to quote two references, that probably know what they're talking about, when they say he doesn't swear often? Unless Romney is blatantly lying about this (if we are to hold the encyclopedia to such high standards, then we would have to ditch half the encyclopedia). And it's not like it's a BLP issue: it's not an insulting thing that he doesn't swear. The Evil Spartan (talk) 10:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a problem with the sources, and it's not a BLP issue. It's just not encyclopedic. The words used are almost meaningless ("rarely" compared to what, one wonders). Teetotaling is a definable and encyclopedic characteristic, but swearing "rarely" is not. Cool Hand Luke 10:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TES, the real problem is that it is impossible to quantify into any useful form. First one has to define "Rarely" which is practically impossible. Is once a day rare, once a week, once a month? It is an abstract concept usually quantified in some manner, "Joe, rarely swears, I have only heard him swear one time in my life and it was because he got his finger caught in the car door." Or "I rarely swear, I can't remember the last time I swore." Both statements may be true and verifiable, but they don't add anything about "Joe". Secondly there is the concept of what is a swear word. Occasionally I will say "Crap!" when I am around my parents. I don't consider that a swear word, but my dad does. The definition of what a swear word varies considerably between people. Thirdly, there is the defintion of "Swear" which has multiple meanings. There is the concept of swearing, as in to Curse. There is also the concept to swear, as in swearing to tell the truth. Aplying some abstract concept to someone that has no clearly defined meaning adds little to the article other than confusion. Arzel (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Cool Hand Luke 19:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that a source is attesting to things that cannot possibly be known, because they are non-activities rather than activities. That is the nature of Argument from ignorance. Arzel's argument, "From my knowledge, Mormons avoid all stimulants including caffine," is synthesis (and false generalization). Just because something is true of Mormons generally doesn't mean it's true of all Mormons. This is why people keep taking out the references to Mormon underwear. My problem with the non-drinking, non-smoking, and non-swearing is this: How do we deal with a source that is attesting to something that cannot in fact be known? In this case, it is illogical to prove a negative. What if a reliable source said that Romney had visited Mars? Would we still put it in the article? Saying that Romney doesn't drink, smoke, or swear is every bit as logically ridiculous, because it is logically impossible to prove a negative. Qworty (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your sterile "Mormon underwear" campaign, see WP:POINT. Cool Hand Luke 19:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's notable that Romney has refused to describe his underwear. Moreover, the news item seems to be from a gossip column.

Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article" at Wikipedia.

Additionally, Qworty agrees with me. He is inserting this into the article to make a point about inclusion of other info that he doesn't think should be included, namely info about drinking and smoking. See WP:Point.

It may also be pertinent to mention that the drinking habits of George W. Bush are discussed at Wikipedia, whereas stonewalling by Bush about his underwear is not. Qworty, do you have to take up our time with this stuff?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't agree with you. The non-smoking and non-drinking don't belong in the article. But if they did, the Mormon underwear has even more reason to be in the article. This is because all Mormons are prohibited alcohol and smoking, but only special Mormons (such as Romney) who've been through a special ceremony wear the temple garment. Thus, if the non-smoking and non-drinking belong in the article, then certainly the Mormon underwear belongs in the article. And it follows that if the Mormon underwear doesn't belong in the article, then the less notable Mormon characteristics regarding non-drinking and non-smoking don't belong either. And the Baltimore Sun is of course a reliable source, and not the only source on Romney's refusal to answer the question. Bush's underwear of course is not an issue since it has no religious connotation. Qworty (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qworty, you believe that "The non-smoking and non-drinking don't belong in the article" but the underwear does belong? That is utter nonsense.

I am no great fan of including the drinking and smoking information, but it is obviously very different from the underwear info. First, your underwear statement says we don't know anything about his underwear, whereas we do have reliable reports about his drinking and smoking policy. Second, drinking and smoking is relevant to the ability to think clearly and to life-expectancy.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will repeat the operative point on this issue: All Mormons are prohibited alcohol and smoking, but only special Mormons (such as Romney) who've been through a special ceremony wear the temple garment. If you're arguing that the non-events regarding his drinking and smoking habits belong in the article, then you must logically accept that Romney's far more notable Mormon religious attainment regarding the underwear also belongs. And of course it is notable that he refuses to answer any questions about the temple garment, whereas he has no problem with people asserting that he doesn't drink or smoke. Qworty (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will repeat my question: "Qworty, you believe that 'The non-smoking and non-drinking don't belong in the article' but the underwear does belong?"

Additionally, the Wikipedia article on this subject states: "Adherents consider them to be sacred and may be offended by public discussion of the garments." So it is not significant or surprising at all that he would decline to discuss his underwear. He would be more unlikely to discuss it than an average person, so it is completely non-notable.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the drinking and smoking do not belong because they are an appeal to ignorance. Also, they are non-notable because they apply to all Mormons. The temple garment reference does belong because of its higher notability--only certain Mormons who are higher up wear it. Romney is in that category. His refusal to discuss this notable fact is in itself notable, so that refusal belongs in the article. It doesn't really matter if some people are offended by the inclusion of these facts in the article, because Wikipedia is not censored. This is an encyclopedia, not a Mormon pamphlet or other apologia for the Mormon church. Qworty (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qworty, if Mormons "may be offended by public discussion of the garments," then why is it notable that they'd decline to discuss them? Most non-Mormons wouldn't discuss their underwear publicly, and Mormons are even more likely to not do so. It would be notable if he DID discuss it, just like it would be notable if Romney held a press conference to discuss whether he sleeps hanging upside down. But it's not notable that he has not discussed whether he sleeps hanging upside down.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you're one of the people who wanted to have this religious background section to begin with. If you really believe that Romney's religious background belongs in the article, then we have to put Romney's religious background in the article. Hanging upside-down is not part of a Mormon religious background. But the "Mormon underwear" or "temple garment" is. It really has nothing to do with whether Romney or other Mormons are "offended" by other people discussing this issue. The only relevant points are notability and verifiability. The underwear is a notable Mormon fact, Romney's pointed refusal to discuss it is a notable fact, and all of these points are completely verifiable. What more could anyone possibly ask for? Qworty (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to get sidetracked into a discussion of whether I did or did not want a section on religion in this article. Do you really think that Mormons are "offended" by other people discussing this issue, but don't mind publicly discussing it themselves? That strikes me as unrealistic.

An average person would be unlikely to publicly discuss his or her underwear. Do you really think that a Mormon would be more likely to do so?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing original research here. We really have no idea why Romney continues to refuse to discuss this particular element of his religious faith. That doesn't matter, because it's not our job to speculate as to his motives. Our only job is to report the verifiable facts. And that's why this element should remain in the article. Qworty (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Romney refused to tell us what he says in his prayers to God, would you also put that refusal into this article? I've written about all I care to write about Romney's underwear. I'll wait and see if others are willing to revert your edit, before reverting myself. I don't see any consensus for your edit, and you ought to remove it yourself for that reason alone.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Romney were asked about the nature of prayer and his specific prayer habits and refused to answer, I think that yes, absolutely, those facts would belong in a section about his religious background. Qworty (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(lose indent) I don't feel any of it is really that important, but the inclusion of the underwear issue is clearly off the mark. Qworty, you are violating revert violation by trying to make a WP:POINT make your arguements here, not on the article page. Arzel (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made my arguments on the talk page. You are the one who is reverting without making your arguments on the talk page. Qworty (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Conflict - I included my arguments for the swearing issue above. The smoking and drinking issues are marginal at best, but they are quantifiable and are generally questions people have regarding presidential candidate. My personal opinion is that they could go or stay. I would probably lean towards removal, but I have no strong feelings one way or the other. The underwear issue, however, does not belong. What difference does it make if he refuses to answer the question? Without context explaining the purpose or reasoning for the underwear it is a pointless statement, unless the goal is to try and expose a religious practice of the Mormon Church, in which case it is a WP:COAT not to mention it violates WP:BLP issues. Arzel (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, the entire religious background section makes Romney look bad, and thus the entire section is probably a BLP violation. The Mormon religion is by all reports the greatest hindrance to Romney's campaign. However, because this is the case, if we're going to have a religious-background section, then all of the Mormon religious controversies--including the underwear--that Romney has started (in this case by pointedly refusing to answer the question) belong in the article. There's a lot of cherry-picking going on here. It's not our job to judge if the issues make Romney and his religion look "ridiculous"--although I do indeed think that. But that is a problem with the entire section, not just the particulars of drinking, swearing, underwear, etc. Qworty (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arzel does not have to repeat what I said. Qworty, please look at WP:BLP.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not logical to argue that the tenets of Romney's faith are themselves a personal insult to Romney and therefore a violation of BLP. But if we are going to argue that, then probably the whole religious background section has to go. Qworty (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mormonism has a lot of tenets. There's no reason to pick out one about underwear and put it into this article. There obviously is not consensus to do so. See WP:Consensus.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but there's a reason to pick out drinking, smoking, or swearing and put them in the article? Your argument is not logical. Romney made the temple garment an issue when he refused to answer questions about it. As for consensus, you've merely choked off the discussion before a spectrum of editors have had a chance to weigh in. That is bad faith editing. Qworty (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the discussion is not choked off. We're just putting your edit on hold until the discussion reaches a consensus in favor.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You and Arzel are using 3RR in order to wedge in your edit, instead of putting your edit on hold until discussion reaches a consensus for including or not including the material. But all of this will be resolved over time, so I'll just be patient about it. Qworty (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qworty, WP:BLP says: "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." That person is you, right?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. And I have shown why the material belongs. However, we must still await further consensus before you prematurely decide that the issue is resolved. Qworty (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When one user edit wars against multiple users in violation of the 3RR, there's a prima facie case that consensus is against them. If you're concerned about the supposed drinking BLP violation, we can discuss that, but those who would include information on BLPs must carry the burden. In other words, you are edit warring against BLP. When BLP text is controversial, we remove it from the article while it's under discussion. As for the merits of your dispute, "Mormon underwear" (which you damn well know is a name Mormons find offensive) looks like undue weight here. Cool Hand Luke 19:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several errors in your reasoning. I didn't violate 3RR, for one thing, nor was I arguing against "multiple users," but two users, Ferrylodge and Azrel. You're really trying to stack the deck here. Also, you say "When BLP text is controversial, we remove it from the article while it's under discussion," yet you haven't done that during the discussion of drinking and smoking, which are in fact controversial issues within several BLP contexts. The drinking and smoking references should be permanently removed from the article for all of the reasons I and others have already given, including the undue weight that's placed on them. Also, it's not up to us to judge whether or not Mormons are offended by any of this, because Wikipedia is not censored. Qworty (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to weigh in on the side User:Qworty. I however would like to start out by saying, "[the] refusal to discuss [a] notable fact is in itself notable," is definitely WP:BOLLOCKS and probably violation of WP:BLP mindset. I believe he has made a valid point that is yet refuted with sound argument:

• If Romney's abstinence is the effect of his Mormon convictions → all Mormons hold said conviction → it isn't specific to Romney and thus doesn't belong on his article.
• In addition, I also follow his logic on this argument: Romney's undergarment is a status symbol of his place in the Mormon church → it is a rarity to garnish such garment → the garment is notable because of its occurrence amongst Mormons.

I think it is immature of other people to denigrate the religious significance of the undergarment. It would appear as if this factoid isn't just a jovial remark, but a serious matter which has been explicated on numerous websites by Mormons, as well as having it's own cited page on Wikipedia. I'd say, it (a) either stays, and general abstinence goes; (b) both go; (c) someone establishes abstinence as being of higher weight without invoking stereotypes against undergarments; or, (d) someone creates a page about Mitt Romney's religious conviction and discusses all of his practices in an WP:NPOV fashion. The effects of his convictions is certainly not a violation of WP:NPOV by themselves and is most definitely notable for inclusion somewhere. EvanCarroll (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evan you say that you disagree with the notion that the refusal to discuss a notable fact is in itself notable. If that's really what you think, then why put Romney's refusal to discuss underwear in the article?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a notable fact. On wikipedia, notability is objectively determined by actual reliable coverage, and the sources show that it's a good passing joke, but not that notable to the man or his campaign. It certainly doesn't rank with criticisms of the LDS Church mentioned in the section below. It's also not as rare as Qworty pretends. Most people who would call themselves Mormons have been to the temple and wear the garments (granted, most of the people the LDS Church maintains on their list don't wear garments, but the LDS Church counts everyone they can). But this doesn't really matter to non-Mormons except as a joke. That's why coverage of his underwear is light-hearted. It's not a notable fact being suppressed, it's inconsequential teasing, and including it is a WEIGHT violation. Cool Hand Luke 21:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've indicated before, the Mormon underwear is a far more notable fact than the drinking and smoking, because all Mormons are prohibited alcohol and tobacco but only some Mormons wear the garment. So if you are arguing that the Mormon underwear is religiously trivial, then you are arguing that the drinking and smoking are even more of a religious triviality. I can't see how you can reconcile these logical inconsistencies. The drinking and smoking are purely trivial and undue weight by the logic of your own argument or anybody else's reasonable assessment. Qworty (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several differences between underwear versus smoking and drinking, including: (1) a reliable source says whether he smokes and drinks, but no reliable source says what his undies are like; (2) drinking and smoking are relevant to clear-thinking and life-expectancy, respectively; (3) even if we knew that he wears special undergarments, we could instead say that he has participated in a ritual ceremony known as washing and anointing or that he has participated in an Endowment ceremony....without the appearance of teasing. P.S. I can't believe we are actually having this discussion.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources state that Romney has refused to answer the garment question. You can't deny that. Your statements about drinking and smoking are synthesis when you apply them to Romney, as we have no way of knowing whether his thinking patterns have been enhanced by his abstinence. As for the endowment ceremony, why is it being kept out of the article? If there are actually editors out there who think the underwear question is a joke, where do you draw the line between that and the endowment ceremony that sanctifies the "joke"? Something tells me that some of you people just don't like talking about underwear because you think it's silly. Believe me, there are even more people out there who don't like talking about religion because they think it's even sillier (and less essential) than underwear. Qworty (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most Mormons who don't drink or smoke also wear temple garments. Historically, some Mormons have worn garments but did in fact drink and smoke. But this isn't an argument we need to have. We don't decide what is in fact notable. Reliable source do, and we follow them. The Chicago Tribune, Newsweek and other reliable sources mention teetotaling as part of their serious and broad profiles of the candidate. Mormon underwear is mentioned occasionally in light-hearted columns. There's no comparison. Cool Hand Luke 22:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're engaging in POV-pushing when push your perception that this is a "light-hearted" matter. Presumably Mormons don't consider the endowment ceremony to be light-hearted or a joke, nor do they consider the related underwear issue to be light-hearted or a joke. If you're actually arguing that all of this is silly, then you're arguing that this aspect of the Mormon religion is silly. Qworty (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm clearly not. In the future, I would like you to assume I'm more than vaguely familiar with Mormonism, okay? I'm arguing that the only reason non-Mormons bring it up in relation to Romney is to make jokes. Even if one was, say, an atheist concerned about non-rational-behavior, "Magic underwear" would be way lower on the list than things like refusing to give blacks the priesthood before 1978. It's no accident, then, that non-Mormons cover this issue (and many others) to be much more seriously than Mormon underwear. Cool Hand Luke 22:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"On wikipedia, notability is objectively determined by actual reliable coverage". Not at all, notability has nothing to do with attribution. Attribution is a precursor to notability. I haven't seen the original passage, I assume it is attributed properly. You're opinion doesn't represent the whole. You are not the authority on what others will consider as a joke. Presenting an otherwise notable fact is not teasing - if you think it is you need to grow up. If I'm a voodoo practitioner and I sacrifice goats while dressing up as a wallaby, to appease some random the God by the name of Joe, you're not the one to say such information is teasing. If I take it seriously, an encyclopedia should be entitled to present it that way. The way the reader interprets it can sometimes be used to present the material in a different fashion, but the readers interpretation should not determine inclusion. If it did, it would be censor relative to what others might find amusing. If you don't think of it as a notable fact -- than do tell why? Personally, I'm an atheist and anything a person does that establishes non-rational-behavior is notable in my eyes; that includes all aspects of their superstitious side. If a person identifies with a religion, I want to know about it. If a person goes to church for a sense of community, I want to know about it. And, If a person takes communion versus if they believe in transubstantiation I want to know about. These aren't a laughing matter to me, nor do I use them for ridicule it allows me to more accurately scope out something I take seriously, and learn a little bit more about their convictions. For me, all things about Romney's faith is extremely important, and yet the remain extremely nebulous. EvanCarroll (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the original source I had used, out of the Baltimore Sun [11], though I should note that there are plenty of other reliable sources that state Romney has been asked the question and refused to answer. Yes, there are those who think this entire issue is "silly," but in fact there are voters who are interested in it as a religious question. Furthermore, I think it's original research and POV-pushing for editors here to proclaim this a silly matter. If they want to play that game, other editors could argue that the entire issue of religion itself is silly. But we don't need to go there. Qworty (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. Important campaign issues are not discussed in a regional paper by a columnist, for only half of a column, under the title "I see Utah, I see France ..." Will you agree to have a RFC on this issue and abide by the opinions of uninvolved third parties? Cool Hand Luke 22:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you deny that Romney has been asked the question multiple times and refused to answer it? Do you deny that there are multiple reliable sources for this? And what is it with your vulgar tone? If this is nothing more than a light-hearted or silly matter, as you seem to believe, why are you swearing about it and demanding an RFC? Religion is a big basket with lots of different cherries in it, and from the beginning of this discussion you and other editors have been picking the cherries that, in your personal POV-pushing view, make Romney look "good," while ignoring and suppressing all the other cherries. If you'd like an RFC on that, I'd certainly welcome it. Qworty (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell are you talking about? I'm not pushing a pro-Romney POV. You'll note that below I argue that criticism of the LDS Church in relation to Romney must be included, and I helped push through a religion section over some reluctance from apparent Romney supporters. I'm not a Romney partisan, and I'm using some vulgarity so that you don't get the impression I'm a Mormon apologist either. About three days ago I was accused of harassing Mormons on this project. I have no strong opinions about Romney, but I do fiercely believe in BLP, and I happen to know something about Mormonism. I'm asking about RFC because we manifestly need some more opinions about this. So how about this phrase for the RFC: Should Romney's refusal to answer questions about "Mormon underwear" be included in the religion section of his biography? Will you abide by the opinions of outside commentators? Cool Hand Luke 22:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You claim you're not pushing POV, and yet your proposed RFC is completely one-sided. Why don't you ask for an RFC on this drinking and smoking business? Why didn't you jump all over Ferrylodge when he produced original research on Romney's supposed lack of booze and cigarette intake supposedly leading to clearer thinking on Romney's part? Why do you insist that all of this is light-hearted and silly? You certainly must realize that the reason all of those reporters keep asking Romney, over and over and over again, about his sacred underwear is because they are attempting to discover whether a major presidential candidate actually believes that his underwear has magic powers--they are trying to find out if the man is in full possession of his faculties. Don't you think this underwear issue is a better indication of his "clear thinking" than whether or not he drinks and smokes, as Ferrylodge erroneously claims? And don't you realize that we can end this entire content dispute right now simply by striking that smoking and drinking business from the article? Qworty (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qworty, just what is your agenda? I am not a Mormon either, and I more than a few problems with some of their current practices much less their previous ones. However, that does not mean I cannot approach this with a neutral point of view. As I have said before, I have no strong feelings one way or the other regarding smoking and drinking, but it is a reliably sourced fact. The Underwear issue is nothing. WP is not hear to expose speculation regarding a person, which is exactly what you are trying to do. I am not sure why you continue to debate this issue as it clearly violates WP:BLP and must be removed immediately if it is put back into the article. Arzel (talk) 23:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All we have to do is state what is fully verifiable, that reporters keep asking and asking Romney about it and he continues to refuse to answer it. We're talking about putting one little sentence in the section, or perhaps only a phrase, as I originally wrote it. The reason the issue will not die is not because any of us is a Wikipedia editor, but because Romney keeps refusing to answer the question. Generally it is considered notable when presidential candidates keep controversial issues alive by refusing to answer questions about them. Qworty (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be a sentence in this article about the "percieved sexism and racism" of the LDS church ... why did that get removed? Romney is running for president; he belongs to, and was a leader of, a church that has many, many critics; he presumably endorses most of the church's policies. The sentence that was there seemed rather neutral: "The church has been perceived as sexist and racist". That was it, with a wikilink to "Criticism of Mormonism". We ought to discuss these things on the Talk page first. Removing a rather bland sentence like that is POV and borders on censorship. I'll put it back in. Noleander (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that Im not married to that specific sentence: "The church has been perceived as sexist and racist". If someone wants to propose an alternative wording/phrasing, that is fine with me. My point simply is that when a presidential candidate belongs to a group that has significant critics, the article must contain mention of that criticism, with a link. Visitors to wiki can follow the link or not. If wikipedia were around when JFK was running, Id expect the article on JFK to mention that lots of people were worried that JFK may be beholden to the Vatican. That Vatican concern may be irrational, it may be wrong, but it was a concern by a significant portion of the country. Same with Romney: The LDS church is a great church, but a signficant part of the country views the church critically, and that viewpoint may impact their voting. Omiting a slight mention of that criticism is POV and censorship. Noleander (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. They are notable arguments often brought up in relation to the candidate as a serious challenge for his presidential bid. (In contrast, for example, to "Mormon underwear," which is covered as a joke.) Cool Hand Luke 21:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the racist policy of the church ended in 1978. Why does the article now refer to it in the present tense? Also, the United States had plenty of racism before the Civil War, and much racism after the Civil War too (including some remaining racism). Yet, we don't mention it in every biography of an American. Is there some nexus between Romney and the past racist policies of his church, or between Romney and sexism?

Also, I don't think that either Noleander or Luke have addressed the objections above regarding WP:COAT.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I agree the arguments against Romney are bunk, but they are reported by reliable sources. And there is indeed enduring criticism of the church for both racism (for example, the book Priesthood Principles, which has not been repudiated), and especially sexism (because, like Catholics, Mormons do not allow women the priesthood). Moreover, some have criticized the pre-1978 structural racism in relation to Romney. However, I do think the line about the church's past practice of polygamy should go. Reliable sources don't mention it without immediately mentioning the discontinuance of it, and polygamy happened entirely before his lifetime.

As for COAT, a couple of sentences do not turn this article into one about Mormonism. Indeed, these arguments have been applied specifically in conjunction with his presidential bid, and are not (at this depth) UNDUE weight or SYNthesis. I would be skeptical about including much more detailed criticism, but we only have a couple of lines with links to the appropriate article for further reading. Cool Hand Luke 21:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "present tense" of racism: feel free to improve the wording somehow. Maybe the sentence about criticisms of the church should be moved up near to where the article says "1/4 voters may vote against Romney due to his faith" (? guessing on the wording here). As for the "nexus" .. well, that 1/4 voter statement _is_ the nexus. Why do so many voters feel as if Romney's faith would affect his qualification to be president? This article doesnt have to go into gory detail, but it should provide a link to additional information. Noleander (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we mention the sexism of the Catholic Church in all our articles about Catholics? Does the article about Rudy Giuliani discuss the alleged sexism of his church? Also, do we have any source whatsoever saying that 25% of GOP voters are less likely to vote for a Mormon BECAUSE of racism or sexism? Again, I think there has to be some nexus between Rommey and the alleged sexism. Same for the alleged racism. (Incidentally, I'm curious whether we should be hesitant about wikilinking to an article that has a neutrality tag at the top.)Ferrylodge (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed any mention of racism; and moved the sentence up near the "1/4 voter" sentence. As for your question about catholics: Yes, if a Catholic were running for president, and a significant number of voters said that they wouldnt vote for the candidate because of the Catholic church's policies X and Y and Z, I would expect a wiki article on the candidate to mention that. Noleander (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for your question about cites to explain precisely why the 1/4 voters are reluctant to vote for a Mormon: I dont have that data in front of me now. Someone else wrote that sentence and supplied those cites. If it is important, I suppose we could try to find out detailed reasons why they dont want a Mormon president. But I thought the point was to _not_ go into gory detail in _this_ article about what those reasons are? Noleander (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The "reasons for this..." sentence was pure OR. I'm sure plenty of Republicans won't vote for a Mormon out of bigotry. I've replaced the sentence with a sourced statement as BLP requires. I also don't find much on sexism, so I'll be removing that. Your comparison to Guiliani is persuasive to me. Cool Hand Luke 22:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) I still have some difficulty with the way this article treats race. The footnoted article by Linda Wertheimer does not mention "racism", but rather mentions "attitude toward race." Also, I don't think it's right to even imply racism, without mentioning that males of African descent were not treated equally until 1978, and that Romney "hoped that the time would come when the leaders of the church would receive the inspiration to change the policy."[ref]David Kirkpatrick, “Romney, Searching and Earnest, Set His Path in ’60s”, New York Times, November 15, 2007.[/ref]Ferrylodge (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me—go for it. I just think it's important that Criticism of Mormonism is linked from here. Cool Hand Luke 22:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last revision you did looks good. Im capturing it here for the record :-)

Religion has played a major role in the 2008 presidential campaign, with polls indicating that a quarter of Republican voters are "less likely" to vote for a presidential candidate who is Mormon.^[1][2] Among other criticisms, some evangelical voters view the LDS Church as a cult.^[3]

Noleander (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly looks good to me. The tremendous irony here is that the entire reason certain editors wanted this religion section in the first place was to protect Romney from the "unfair" perspectives of readers. And yet the result of all of this editing and editing and discussing and discussing is that Romney keeps looking worse and worse due to his religion. This is one dog that would have been better off left completely asleep. However, all of the discussions and edits here are accurate in real-world terms because, by all reports, Romney's religion is precisely what is sinking him in polls in Iowa and nationwide. So Wikipedia is reflecting the real world in this way. The real world is always the ultimate reliable source. Qworty (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly not the reason. The reason is to make sure that WP is viewed as neutral and unbiased. Wipipedia still has a long way to go, as it is mostly a skewed view of the extremes for controversal topics and political figures. Arzel (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sure that the religion section will guarantee that WP is viewed as "neutral and unbiased." By all means proceed. We are doing a bang-up job on poor old Romney here. He would have been better off if, instead of adding this religion section, we'd simply retained the single line about his distant ancestor's polygamy. But noooooo, that wasn't good enough. People had to "defend" Romney by expanding and expanding the religion section. With a few more "neutral and unbiased" edits by you guys, he's going to start looking like Jim Jones. Huckabee's people must be jumping up and down reading all of this. Bravo. Qworty (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to keep this religion section, it ought to go at the end. Other candidates don't have such a section, and this material is not the most important stuff about him. But Tvoz insisted that it be up front, and accused me of trying to bury it (Tvoz is a Democrat by the way). Qworty, did it ever occur to you that a lot of Christians where a necklace with a cross, and that doesn't make them nuts any more than some special garments makes them nuts.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]