Talk:Mitt Romney

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any sections older than 10 days are automatically archived.

Polygamist geneology

Hi User:Leon7, you said in an edit summary: "Let's be fair; either you add that his religion banned polygamy 100+ years ago, or you dissassociate the 2 words, like this." I think that "polygamist mormon" is a more apt term in this situation than just "polygamists". The reason for their polygamy was deeply rooted in their faith: see Polygamy#Mormonism. I've added back in "mormons" and some context about the situation.

In any case, are we agreed that this is notable? I think it is, and it's not just "look at the funny mormons". His family history back 3 generations (father, grandfather, and great-grandfather) is tied to northern Mexico, the birthplace of his father. Any other opinions? Pro crast in a tor 06:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, not to be protectionist of Romney, but when you go to Barack Obama, you are not treated with the dispute that he may or may not have been taught fundamentalist Islam in a maddrasa. So what if Romney's forefathers were polygamists? That doesn't affect how he views himself or how he conducts himself, unless he demonstrates otherwise. That's akin to someone ginning up that I'm a descendant of Jefferson Davis. Unless Mitt himself believes in polygamy, or tries to defend it, it shouldn't matter.Shrekums 06:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any doubt that Mitt's father, grandfather, and great-grandfather lived in Mexico for 20 years (except his father, who was born and moved when he was 5), making it quite unlike the Barack Obama dispute you mention.Pro crast in a tor 21:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Do all other presidential candidate pages include lineage from their great grandfathers, or go back 124 years? This seems irrelevant. -- 14 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.211.33.62 (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It is customary to mention something about the person's father and/or mother. Earlier, the page just said that his father was "Mexican-born", and many people (myself included) thought this looked like it was designed to incite immigration tensions. Now it includes some context, which obviously includes his grandfather (the father of his Mexican-born father), but his great-grandfather's polygamy is actually the reason they both moved to Mexico. So, yes, in this case, I do think you have to go back 3 generations to give reasonable context to the situation.Pro crast in a tor 05:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it seems out-of-place, myself, and highly irregular. If anything must be said about Romney's distant ancestors, keep it as simple as possible, something like "where his great grandfather had moved". Personally, I don't think it should be included at all. 75.14.215.62 19:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, ;) I think you're wrong. I think it is fair to say that Romney is known_for being a Politician because of his Religion, and Pedigree. All material pertaining to that, which can also be cited seems fair ground for inclusion. We aren't talking about a closet case believer here, we are talking about someone who receives a large portion of press for his stance on social issues; and, because of this, I feel anything that can influence his stance, or further clarify it is required for an article that fulfills WP:WEIGHT. With that said you're more than welcome to object to WP:NPOV, and balance the content, but don't argue WEIGHT. EvanCarroll (talk) 06:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the most important element that has not been discussed here is the fact that the move to Mexico by the Romney family was not voluntary, they were refugees from murderous mobs. (Not, I would add, a particularly shining period of history in this country founded on religious toleration.) Might I suggest instead of writing euphemistically that they had 'moved to Mexico', which reads as a voluntary act, but rather wording it to be "...were driven into Mexico..." which would more properly express the situation. Perhaps it might also explain the permissiveness of the govt with the George Romney campaign in regards to the location of his birth, in that there was an acknowledgement of the involuntary nature of the location of his birth and the inability of the US govt to protect its citizens. 222.2.98.43 (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Mitt's Father

It's stated that his father ran for president and lost to Richard Nixon. It's also stated that his father was born in Mexico. If he was not a natural-born American citizen how could he run for president?

Also, I noticed a discussion note about fairness regarding the way his polygamist great grandparents are described...The truth is not fair, politically correct, or slanted; it's just the truth.

H. Simon, see George W. Romney#Natural born citizen? Sbowers3 13:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

There was debate about whether his dad was eligible for the presidency. He did have two American parents, but was just born out of the country, so he was likely American enough to be eligible. It's a gray area that the courts might have needed to get involved in had he won. This is certainly too much detail for Mitt's page, though.

The question about Romney's family history is not whether it's true or false, but whether it is notable. Since that paragraph has been up the past week or so, I'm more sure that it's notable. It explains why the past 3 generations of his family (father, grandfather, great-grandfather) were in Mexico for 20-odd years, and why his dad was born there. If you were to say exactly one thing about his family history (which is what we are doing), this is what you'd say, so I'm quite convinced of it's notability at this point. Pro crast in a tor 20:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"American enough"?? Folks, the US Constitution guarantees that a baby born to an American citizen, regardless of where the parents live or where the child is born, is entitled to full American citizenship. George Romney's parents retained their American citizenship - and their citizenship guaranteed George his citizenship. It is not a gray area - George was completely eligible to run for the Presidency and he did. He dropped out because of his infamous comment that he had been "brainwashed" by the US military when he visited Vietnam - not because of his place of birth, or his Mormon religion, or his grandfather's polygamous life. By the way, John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, and he too is eligible. Tvoz |talk 02:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Polygamist Great-Grandparents?

Does this really belong here? I removed that paragraph but someone reversed my edits. I suspect that this family tree info was added by the vandals because it's clearly an instance of POV pushing. I'm sure that if we go back far enough we can find some of his ancestors who were slave owners, etc.. and this applies to everyone. This info should be removed. This is a lame attempt to incite bigotry against mormons. --JGoldwater 00:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's enough to note that he is a Mormon. Digging up dirt on his grandpa seems like a reach. --StrumTurner 01:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The point of the paragraph was to illustrate why his family tree going back three generations was in Mexico. Earlier versions just had "Romney's father was born in Mexico", which didn't really give any context. I think it's biographically quite relevant that his father, grandfather, and great-grandfather all spent significant time in northern Mexico, though, of course, and the outlawing of polygamy in the US is the reason they were there. In any case, I agree there was too much talk about his great-grandparents, I removed the mention about his 5th wife. Pro crast in a tor 07:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, maybe you should consider creating a separate article about his great grandfather. The actions of his ancestors centuries ago do not belong in the third paragraph of his biography. This is a selective presentation of facts to push a POV. So here is the deal. I will remove the info about his great grand father and if too many people object, I offer as a compromise the inclusion of the contributions of his great-great-grandfather Carl Wilcken during the civil war and the work of his father as head of the Automotive Council for War Production during the second world war. --JGoldwater 14:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that this info should be mentioned somewhere in the article, especially considering the fact that Romney's father was born in Mexico. However, it doesn't really fit in the bio section. Maybe we should have a family history section as JGoldwater suggests? Turtlescrubber 14:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If you agree then why did you put it back on? Any info about his great grandparents does not belong in a 3 paragraph bio of Mitt Romney. I'll add some more info later about Mitt Romney which is what this section is about. Maybe the two of you can start a project to trace back his family tree but this certainly does not belong here.--JGoldwater 15:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with what? Don't put words into my mouth. I never said that I agree with you. It certainly belongs in the article, maybe we should keep it in the bio? Turtlescrubber 15:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You wrote "it doesn't really fit in the bio section" then you added it back TO THE BIO SECTION. Look, I don't think you have a case here. This info does not belong in this section and any impartial observer will agree. When I add more bio information about Mitt Romney I'll remove the 19th century info from this section again. If this is really important to you we'll have to call in a mediator. --JGoldwater 15:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

OH, NO! You caught me REDHANDED leaving it in the article but DISCUSSING its proper place. Heavens to Betsy, I should die of shame. Turtlescrubber 21:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Mitt Romney's family history of polygamy has been widely reported and documented by reliable sources throughout the political spectrum (ABC News, Boston Globe Reuters Boston Herald, The National Review, Christian Century, to name just a few) . His great grandfather was also a major figure in Mormon history. Mitt's father was born in Mexico as a direct consequence. Mitt Romney has commented publicly on it, and has made "traditional marriage" part of his campaign. It is reliably sourced and significant enough to merit a mention in this biography. WP:BLP is clear that you can't delete what some view as negative information if it is accurate and reliably sourced.Notmyrealname 15:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt the veracity of the info. My only point is that it does not belong in the bio section. As I mentioned before, there is also well sourced info about his great-great-grandfather Carl Wilcken during the civil war but I'm not including it here. This is a section about the biography of Mitt Romney, not the biography of his 19th century ancestors.--JGoldwater 15:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

With a one-minute Google search I just posted links for half a dozen major news organizations (including those on the right) that have posted stories on this recently. He even discussed it during his 60 Minutes interview. That is more than sufficient for relevancy. I suggest bringing it to the BLP Noticeboard to bring more editors to weigh in on this.Notmyrealname 15:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with JGoldwater. The information may be interesting as trivia, but really is not relevant to a bio about Mitt Romney himself. Most other articles, particularly of those involved in politics, do not go that far back in the family tree. Alanraywiki 16:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the other candidates don't have their family tree discussed in all the major news outlets and speak about them on 60 Minutes.Notmyrealname 16:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, I checked your sources and they all trace back to one AP article that talks about his great-grandfather's five wives. You posted links to blogs, etc.. that quote that one article. If you want to include this, the appropriate way to do it is to create a separate page about his great-grandfather, include this info there and then link that page to this one. This is how the Ann Romney MS thing was handled. It makes no sense to talk about his great-grandfather's trip to Mexico on the third paragraph of Romney's bio. There are more important things that I will include later and this is just not relevant. --JGoldwater 19:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, this shows that the story was widely considered to be important. But not all of the links were connected to the AP story. The Boston Globe Boston Globe] story was much more in depth and involved original reporting. The Salt Lake Tribune posted a story on this a year earlier but removed it from its archives (see this retrieved version). Then there is the 60 Minutes interview where Romney discuss it. There is also a Slate article that discusses the issue as it relates to Romney politically, cites his jokes about it, and predates the AP article by about a year. Notmyrealname 19:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I know the story is true but I don't think it's relevant because Romney wasn't alive at the time. So Romney can't be in favor of traditional marriage because his great-grandfather, whom he never met, was a polygamist? So if someone's ancestor was a slave owner they can't be in favor of civil rights? There are many stories out there. Not all of them should be included just because they are out there.--JGoldwater 19:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Notmyrealname here - this is well sourced information and more cited than a lot of other things in this article - to leave it out suggests sanitizing, and we wouldn't want to do that. Tvoz |talk 16:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I just posted a note on the WP:BLPN here.Notmyrealname 16:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason for inclusion of the polygamy is for telling the story behind why his family, going back three generations, was in northern Mexico for a significant period of time. You can't tell that story without mentioning polygamy. If you just say his dad was born in Mexico and moved to Idaho in 1912, it implies his family emigrated at that time, which is obviously not the case. Pro crast in a tor 18:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

But should that story really be told here? Are we including the story of everyone's ancestors on their biographies? If you are bringing this up as a way to justify his father being born in Mexico, maybe you should include this on his father's page here. Biography means story of life. Therefore anything that happened before the person in question was born is irrelevant. --JGoldwater 19:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's in the same line of thought that led to including Barak Obama's ancestral relationship to Jefferson Davis. As the Boston Globe story shows, this resulted in the creation of a lot of Romneys in the world and continues to be an issue that Mitt has to contend with politically. Notmyrealname 19:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The "story of life" includes your parents, and I disagree with the assertion that anything that happens before you were born is irrelevant (as do hundreds of other Wikipedia articles). Many people consider parental ancestry to be quite notable, and given the extensive press coverage, this is notable by Wikipedia criteria. Not as determined by us, or what we think, but by what the professional press thinks: see WP:Notability. Finally, as pointed out, Barack Obama includes two sentences about his ancestors, as does Hillary Clinton, and Rudy Giuliani goes back two generations to mention that his grandparents were Italian immigrants. The other 3 top 2008 presidential contenders mention ancestry beyond parents, so I don't believe we are giving this issue undue weight with two sentences. Pro crast in a tor 21:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This was an important point in Romney's father's presidential campaign. Mitt's father George was born in a polygamous colony in Mexico where his parents had fled to avoid polygamy charges in the United States. If this is an important issue in Mitt's father's presidential hopes, then it should be an important issue in Mitt's presidential hopes. Corvus cornix 23:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Definitely important. This is the man's history, the reason why he holds the views he does. Should be highlighted in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitemensburden (talk • contribs) 17:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I also question the relevance of the section in question. If Romney's father was born in Mexico does that make Romney a 2nd generation immigrant? How was George Romney able to run for president if he was a non-native born US citizen? I'm not seeing the point of this section as it is written now. Romney's view are obviously not based on this as he holds a strict traditional view on marriage and families. Furthermore, I don't think we need to include it just because the sensationalist media thinks it is important. It should be rewritten. --Tripzero (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

As written that segment is directly from George Romney's bio, which was written up for Wikipedia before anyone knew Mitt Romney was running for President. Therefore it is not POV pushing, it is fact. Besides, I doubt anyone will go OMG his great-grandparents were Mormons so I'm not voting for him. Those kind of people are bigots and its enough that he's a Mormon for them to ignorantly dismiss him. Wikipedia is a place for facts, not campaign material. Apartcents (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The segment about polygamy of great-grandparents was put into this article in September, after Mitt Romney announced for President. Just because stuff is in his father's article does not mean it belongs in this article, even assuming it's appropriate for the father's article. For example, the following material would be ridiculous in this article: "Romney's father stated, 'When I came back from Viet Nam [in November 1965], I'd just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get.' The topic of brainwashing quickly became newspaper editorial and television talk show fodder, with Romney bearing the brunt of the topical humor." Yes, it would be POV-pushing to insert such material into this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Whats saddest about this debate is that Romney's ancestors naively believed that there was religious freedom in the US, and found themselves persecuted, and run out of the country by murderous mobs. One hundred years later, the children of these victims are still being stigmatized for their having been victims. Must the injustice be compounded for so many generations? He has denounced the polygamy that his forefathers have renounced. What more do you guys want? 222.2.98.43 (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Sign me as another great grandson of a Chihuahua polygamist.

Biography

There are a number of facts presented on the first paragraphs without source and otherwise irrelevant. Here is a list:

1-Ann was raised Episcopalian (no source)

2-Ann was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998 (Not part of Romney's bio. Redundant info already linked )

3-LDS are commonly known as mormons (Not part of Romney's bio either. Info already linked )

--JGoldwater 14:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I just sourced 1. I agree that 2 could be removed. 3 is helpful information to the average reader (there is a policy somewhere about the usefulness of stating the obvious). Notmyrealname 15:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

1 is relevant, 2 should be removed, and 3 is helpful to common readers, and can be proven via wikilinks. The Evil Spartan 16:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, 1 is relevant, 2 could be removed (it's left over from when Ann Romney didn't have a wiki article of her own), if she were handicapped as a result I think it should be included but perhaps not now, and 3 is useful to the average reader as the 11-syllable "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is rarely used, and almost all the media references use "Mormon". Pro crast in a tor 18:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I just removed #2.Notmyrealname 18:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the use of the proper name The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would eliminate criticism of whether or not "mormons" are christians. "Mormons" refer to themselves by their proper handle, or LDS which is an abbreviation. "Mormon" was a term used by those persecuting the church's members because it seemed more foreign and less like their own faith. It has become such a burden on the church and its members that the church logo has been changed to "The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints" so that there was no mistaking. 222.2.98.43 (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Mormon context

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)

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)

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)

Same Sex Marriage

I removed the line primarily because it is bad writing. As a reader I don't want someone to tell me he was a lifelong opponent of same sex marriage, I want to read the information myself and draw my own conclusions. It prolongs the article and takes away from the article these types of unnecessary sentences.

The article contradicts the statement. If he was a lifelong opponent of gay marriage why did he say in 1994 that, "We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern." ? As for civil unions, they are a legal recognition of marriage and its debatable that they are different, as civil unions extend the same state-recognized rights to gays. Can you explain to me how they are different?

Jeremy221 00:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This position is also not supported by his record. Romney was, and I would guess still is, a strong supporter of federalization of marriage and family law, which could only be accomplished by reclassifying it from civil law to social policy. It was the difference in constitutional requirements for social policy that led directly to the state court's mandate for acceptance of same-sex marriage. Although no furthher decisions have yet been made, social policy rules (basically equal protection under law only), would support equal recognition of polygamy and other preferences. (One researcher in The Neatherlands has already suggested that robot-human marriages will be legal in Mass. by 2050. I don't know if that will happen but he was right in selecting Mass. as having the legal precedent for it.) Rogerfgay 08:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Mitt Romney campaigned as gay-friendly, but the truth of the matter was that he proved to be anything but, abolishing funding for the Governor's Commission on Hate Crimes, for one thing. You can look it up.Mister Joy Boy (talk) 06:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

too much religion

When you "google" Mitt Romney his wikipedia article is the 2nd thing that comes up. As such it gets thousands of hits a day. I started supporting Mitt Romney, by reading his Wikipedia article. When I first read it, it sounded like a 3rd grader had written it. All it focused on was his religion. I tried cleaning it up. I fixed some spelling mistakes, and stuff like that. I tried to make the formating better. If you go to the top right hand corner of Barak Obama's article, you will see a little star that indicates that it is a "featured article". This means that it meets high standards of professionalism. I tried submitting the Romney article, but it is severely lacking. Here are some examples: His biography which is only one paragraph mentions his religion 6 times. It has the word "polygamy" twice. It says "he attends a temple regularly. As such, he doesn't drink or smoke. he attends a temple regularly. As such, he doesn't drink or smoke." None of the other articles about any of he presidential candidates mentions weird actions of their ancestors. Nothing in Bill Clinton's history about his Grandfather holding slaves. But somehow within something that tries to be professional, non-biased, and encyclopedic, they think it is important to mention Romney's, great-great grandfather's polygamy. It says he doesn’t drink or smoke. George W. Bush has been dry for many years. He does not drink or smoke, but does it get mentioned in their biography? The encyclopedia says Romney says “he abstained from sex until marriage and has since remained faithful to his wife of 38 years.” This is a total mischaracterization of what happened. Romney (unlike other candidates) was asked about his sex life. He first said it was no one else’s business, but according to the people who edit Romney’s biography, it should be in the first paragraph of his biography, along with six references to his religion (all in one paragraph). Specifically Romney’s Biography (2nd paragraph) says Romney is “member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”, a “Mormons”, his wife was “raised Episcopalian”, his great grandparents were, “polygamist Mormons who fled to Mexico in 1884 after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld various anti-polygamy laws in 1879” (2nd use of the word “Mormon” and “polygamy” in one paragraph, and no other presidential candidate’s article makes references to their great-grandparents, and Romney is the only top tier candidate to only have one wife, but that is all the people at Wikipedia care about), —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myclob (talk • contribs) 20:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

just wanted to add i completed the funding section, just forgot to sign in Czsargo 04:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this article is ridiculiously religion centered and none of it is encyclopedia worthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.40.43 (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Campaign Advisors

I tried adding some information about campaign advisors. If anyone can find more information about the campaign advisors/staff, I think it would be interesting. I found the staff [2]. However, I didn't get a whole lot of information from there.

--Cronian 05:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, especially since his advisor on security is BLACKWATER'S VICE CHAIRMAN Cofer Black. 222.2.98.43 (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Mister Joy Boy (talk) 04:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)== none of my issues that I mention with the biography are argued with but... ==

... when ever I try and chane the biography, it gets changed back...

what gives? I would like to register a formal complaint... The biography is the biggest pile of hud I have ever read... every senstense has something to do with his religion, it mentions poligamy twice, discusses his great-grandparents (which no other wiki-article does)... it is a freaking pile of hud, and I'm sick and tired of looking at it every time I come to this site, and complaining about it, and no onle letting me change it, and no one responding to my critisism! myclob (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Where is a list of his children's names?

This is supposed to be a biography. It's a pretty poor one, when it lacks basic data. I want to know how many boys and how many girls he has, not really their names. He is running a campaign ad featuring home video footage of his "sons" (he doesn't mention his daughters -- JUST LIKE A MORMON, if I may ad, to downplay the daughters. Mister Joy Boy (talk) 04:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. Trying to ignore your prejudiced comments about Mormons, I wonder - did you read the article? It clearly says he has five sons and eleven grandchildren in the second paragraph of the "Biography" section. Do you have some reason to believe that they have hidden away some daughters? Unbelievable. And I just found their names, which I will add to the article. Tvoz |talk 03:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This should be reduced in length

I've noticed that Wiki editors whittle back the bios of persons they don't particularly care for to about nothing, despite the fact the person is significant in their field and has relevant achievements. In articles about lawyers who aren't celebrities, the bio will be denuded of the person's achivement, as those allegedly should be put in the article about their firm, and of course, they really aren't.

In the case of Mrs. Jean Yawkey, the first woman to be on the Board of Directors of the Baseball Hall of Fame, the Wiki editors wanted to eliminate her article all together, as she -- being a woman -- is just an appendage of a man, and unworthy of a bio of her own. (They must be MORMONS.)

I vote that this article be stripped down to essentials: Birth date, schools data, family data and just a list of dates for the offices Mitt has held.

Let the common slob go to another article to find information, or another site not dedicated to creating endless spam on the Web.

Have a nice day.Mister Joy Boy (talk) 05:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The Harry Reid Standard

In a previous discussion, the mention of Mitt Romney's religion was compared to that of Harry Reid. Both are Mormons. In Senator Reid's article, the fact that he was the first Mormon to serve as Senate Majority Leader appears in the first paragraph. As such, would it not be fair to state that Mitt Romney was Massachussets' first Mormon governor? After all, the state is known for firsts; it just elected its first black governor, and was also known for electing the first black Senator by popular vote.

Senator Robert Bennett's page also lists his religion in the first paragraph. As does Senator Gordon Smith's. In fact, the only current political figure not to have his Mormon religion mentioned in the first paragraph (aside from Governor Romney) is Senator Orrin Hatch. Senator Hatch's article is also the only one that mentions an endorsement of Governor Romney. I'm not sure if the others have, but the fact that these two do not have their faith listed as early as their fellow Mormons in politics is, I think, pretty POV.

I suggest the Harry Reid standard. Being the highest-ranking, most prominent Mormon on the Democratic side, we ought to apply the same standard to Romney as to Reid. I also think it would be fair to include Senator Hatch's Mormon faith in his first paragraph. I doubt there are as many who are concerned about Senator Hatch's page as Mitt Romney's, given the fact that Governor Romney is a candidate for President, so I figured I'd throw it out here, where the vested interests are, rather than simply sticking it in on Senator Hatch's page. Let me know what you guys thinks! Apartcents (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, lets make sure Romney is treated just as bad as the other Mormons on this site! Why don't you just treat Romney, like other presidential candidates... mentioning his religion 12 times on this page (he goes to the temple, his great-grandparents were polygamist, his father was mormon, his wife is mormon, but she was raised episcipol, he went on a mission, he is a biship, he was a stake president, etc... Look he is running for president... I know you are all fascinated with the fact that he is Mormon, but this page is not a place for you to get your kicks... go edit some other mormon websites, and leave this website's content so that it is similar in amount of details it deals with about religion, as other presidential candidates...myclob (talk) 02:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Mitt Romney is Mormon, and what impact that may or may not have on his chances, is discussed by news commentators all the time. We absolutely should include it, and include the reliably sourced commentary that talks about it. You can't pretend that it isn't an issue - and you might try leaving your POV out of this. Accusing people of editing to get their kicks isn't exactly constructive criticism. Tvoz |talk 02:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, We're not doing it for the lulz. I happen to have chosen a handful of Republicans and a handful of Democrats running for President to make this better, not to push agendas. Like it or not, Romney's religion is a significant issue. He is the most visible Mormon, with the best chance of winning, in U.S history. Orrin Hatch run in 2000 but dropped out early, as did George Romney in 1968. Mitt Romney doesn't get a wiki page cuz he's running for President, he's getting one because he is a notable figure. This is not the place for campaign material, one way or another. It's a place for information.Apartcents (talk) 08:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't think wikipedi has any obligation to treat Romney, who only gets a wikipedi article because he is running for president, like wikipedia treats the other presidential candidates? Lets be inteligent about this. You are saying the wikipedi article should discuss Romney's religion. I do not disagree. I'm not saying we should hide the fact. I'm just saying it is excesive. I also have a problem with the prominence of the discusion of his poligamy. I do not think that it is appropriate to have two mentions of the word poligamy in the very first part of the article about Romney. I am a Mormon. If I ever do anything newsworthy is poligamy going to be in my wikipedia article? Should poligamy be mentioned in every wikipedia article about Mormons? Anyways, back to Wikipedia, please look around the site and tell me what you think. Are they fair? Do they treat Romney the same as Rudy or Hillary? I say no. No other candidate has their religion mentioned 12 times. No other candidate has scandalous behavior of their grandparent's discussed. And it's not just the fact that these things are mentioned, but that they are mentioned at the top of the page, as the first (and most likely last things that people read about Romney, as most people just want the executive summary) thing in the page, which can, according to the people that edit the wikipedia article, be summed up with one word: MORMON. Not businessman. Not father. Not reformer. Not grandfather. Not Olympic turn-arounder… Not budget balance, not tax cutter, not border enforcer. No… just one word… the only word that matters when you are talking about someone who goes to the Mormon church: nothing else in their life matters, except the fact that they are Mormon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myclob (talk • contribs) 04:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[outdent] No- this article was started in January 2004, a full three years before Romney set up his exploratory committee. It started as a stub, was expanded by January 2005 into a short article; by July 2006 it was a full-fledged piece which has been further expanded. He does not have an article only "because he is running for president" as you claim. This has been said a few times and you don't want to take the point: this is a biography of a former governor, Olympics CEO, businessman, and politician. His Presidential run is only one of the things discussed, and he had an article well before that. His family history is notable; his religion is notable. Take a look at Mike Huckabee, who is a Baptist minister. Lots of references in that article to his religion. I'm sorry if this article offends you as a Mormon - I don't think anyone's intention is to do that, and I don't think an objective reading of the article would see it as offensive or only being about his religion - not by a long shot. I'm afraid that your personal feelings here are coloring your objectivity. Tvoz |talk 05:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Look. You keep making the argument that his religion is important. No one disagrees with you... Please do not make that argument again. We are going around in circles. The question is weather or not the way the article, as written now, is appropriate? I have two questions, and please try to focus your responce to these two questions. 1) should there be 12 references, as outlined below, to Romney's religion within his "biography" and 2) Should the first thing you read about Romney be the biography, which mentions his religion 12 times? Please focus your effort on weather you think we should create a seperate "religion" section. Also you did not respond to my question. This is a very serious question. If I become famous, and get a wikipedia article, will my article mention poligamy because I am a Mormon? What is it about Romney that makes poligamy an issue, from a encyclopedia stand point. This is the issue that I want arbitration over. I WANT ARBITRATION myclob (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

See my edit - by changing the headings, perhaps your concerns will be allayed. As I said I didn't write this article and don't think it was very well organized. I've changed the headers to give equal weight to his background, business career and Olympics work, and take out the problematic "biography" - the whole article is his biography. "Early life and family background" seems more focused on its contents, "Education" is self-evident. As to your questions: No, I do not think we should have a separate religion section. I also do not think the number of times something related to his religion is mentioned is at all excessive - and your count is skewed anyway - defining LDS as Mormon is 2 refs? I don't see it that way. And see Huckabee. As for polygamy: it is not mentioned here because he is Mormon, and I have no idea what would be in your biography if you became famous. Polygamy is in his direct family background - it is the reason his father was born in Mexico - and, most importantly, it is discussed in reliable sources and so cited. That makes it notable, and should be in his encyclopedia article because it is something readers may be looking for information on. Other LDS/Mormons, like Orrin Hatch, do not have polygamy mentioned in their articles because apparently if it is in their family backgrounds it has not been discussed in reliable sources. If it was, it would be there. This is not an attack on Mormons as you seem to be taking it. And finally, as I said elsewhere, if you want to get an outside opinion, feel free to ask for one in the appropriate venues - saying it here won't do it. And take a little time to learn some more about how Wikipedia works - we try to edit by consensus, not by getting hysterical (which is how lots of people read comments posted in all caps to be). I've tried to address your concerns by reworking the structure of the article - I very much disagree with you, as others have as well, that the references to Romney's religion are excessive, or that his family history should be excised. Again, sorry if this offends you as a Mormon - it is not the intention of the editors, at least not this one. I am interested in producing a fair and comprehensive article, not one that is censored. Tvoz |talk 19:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Romney's Family Background

Most candidates have mention of family background, especially if it is prominent. Someone removed the several paragraphs of Romney's family's polygamist history. I agree that it is not notable or NPOV to include that his great-grandparents fled somewhere because of polygamy. However, this was also removed:

Romney's father, George Romney, was born in Chihuahua, Mexico, and the family moved to the United States in 1912<ref name="polyroots"/> after the outbreak of the Mexican Revolution. - [ref name="ancestors"><http://www.4thefamily.us/mitt_family_tree Could ancestors haunt Romney? Polygamous family tree of Mitt Romney] ''Salt Lake Tribune,'' [[August 21]] [[2006]]</ref><ref>http://www.epcc.edu/nwlibrary/borderlands/19_mormons.htm</ref>

I think that ought to stay, with an expansion as to who George Romney was. He was a prominent person, Governor of Michigan. In fact, he ran for President briefly in 1968. I know this for fact, and it is also on his Wikipedia page. However, I'd dispute that he was born in Mexico. If he were born in Mexico he'd be unable to run for President. If I get the green light of consensus to include a bit of NPOV family history for Governor Romney I can dig around and see if I can find out where his father was really born. As this is a charged topic I don't want to unilaterally make a change. Apartcents (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

George Romney was born in Mexico - one or both of his parents were American citizens, so despite his place of birth, George was automatically entitled to citizenship, and therefore was eligible to be President; he did run in 1968. I agree that George's background should be here, and I think the fact that a Presidential candidate's great-grandparents (not great-great-grand - let's keep that straight) fled the country so that they could practice their religious beliefs is indeed notable and should be included. Keeping it out of the article is POV - there are sources, and there are sources who discuss Mitt's ancestry and whether it is an impediment to his Presidential chances - this is notable material that needs to be here. Tvoz |talk 02:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, always thought people had to be born in the U.S. or its territories to be President. I will see if I can find more sources on George Romney, it could be incorrect he was born in Mexico. Maybe even call the campaign just to rest the suspicion. After all, I remember the media mentioning Bill Richardson was born in Mexico years ago, and that was obviously wrong (he was born in Cali). Thanks for your comment! Apartcents (talk) 07:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

By all means, check it out - but I assure you, George Romney was born in Mexico. Tvoz |talk 05:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"saying that he abstained from sex until marriage and has since remained faithful to his wife of 39 years"

The way the article reads, it sounds like Romney is making this part of his campaign message. That he speaks about it on the stump.

This is not true. He was asked if he had premarital sex in an interview, and he said that that was none of his business, but then he flip-flopped and answered the question...

It needs to be re-worded if kept, but I hardly think the pre-marital sex life of presidential candidates is important, but if we are going to be examining it, it should be for all candidates...

PLEASE DO NOT PUT BACK IN INFORMATION ABOUT HIS SEX PRE-MARRAGE SEX LIFE (WITHOUT DISCUSSION) OR I WILL COMPLAIN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myclob (talk • contribs) 02:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down, Myclob. No one is attacking Mitt for his sex life. Fred Thompson's marriage at 17 to his pregnant girlfriend is in his article, and lots of other stuff is all over the place - it's not for us to censor, and if information is reliably sourced it's reasonable to include. Tvoz |talk 02:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say anyone was "attacking" Mitt for his sex life. Agenda journalism, isn't saying things that aren’t true, its not using the same standard for both sides. Please show comparable discussions of a Democrat's pre-marriage sex life. It does not matter, and it does not belong in an encyclopedia... perhaps you thought you were editing a gossip journal? You say, "Fred Thompson's marriage at 17 to his pregnant girlfriend is in his article". I did not see it says; "In September 1959, at the age of 17, Thompson married Sarah Elizabeth Lindsey.[90] Their son, Freddie Dalton "Tony" Thompson Jr.[2], was born in April 1960.[91] Another son and a daughter were born soon thereafter. While Thompson was attending law school, both he and his wife worked to pay for his education and support their three children." This does not speculate or go into his pre-marital sex life... Our "professionally written Romney article" (sarcasm) goes into his pre-marital sex life within the first few paragraphs of the article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myclob (talk • contribs)

Please sign your comments with 4 tildes like this: ~~~~ . And you might take a look at WP:AGF - as I said above, attacking other editors with your assumption that they are editing for kicks or suggesting that people think they are editing a gossip journal is not conducive to reaching consensus. In case you didn't realize it, we are not editing an article about a candidate - we are editing a biography of a notable individual who is a former Governor, businessman, etc and now happens to be running for President. It is not relevant to look at the articles about other people running for President and we aren't expected to be "fair" in that way - to only include something here if the discussion also takes place on another person's article. I actually think it's an unverifiable claim that he makes, to say that he has remained faithful to his wife since marriage, so in fact I wouldn't include that here - I never got to the point of discussing that, when I was stopped by your incorrect statement that if we discuss something about one person we have to discuss it about all of them. And your all caps demand is somewhat out of control. If you want to discuss the relative merits of including or not including things in the article, great - this is the place to do it. If the material has been there for a while - which suggests consensus - then come here and talk about it if your removal is reverted - don't go ballistic, and don't edit war, and don't accuse others of bad faith editing. And your sarcasm is also not appreciated. Tvoz |talk 03:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Back to the substance: you are quite wrong about Fred Thompson. I'm afraid you didn't read far enough - specifically see footnote 90 which reads: Mathews, Joe. "Thompson wed his ambition", Los Angeles Times, (2007-09-06). Retrieved on 2007-09-07. : "In the summer of 1959….Lindsey told Thompson she was pregnant. He responded, friends say, by asking her to marry him…. Freddie and Sarah exchanged vows in a Methodist church during the second week of his senior year. Seven months later, in April 1960, 17-year-old Thompson had a son." That together with the section it is footnoting is quite clearly discussing his pre-marital sex life, as it is relevant to his personal life and children. As I said above, please calm down. Tvoz |talk 03:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You say, "suggesting that people think they are editing a gossip journal is not conducive to reaching consensus"... I am making a logical argument that discussing Romney's premarital sex life is more conducive to a gossip journal than an encyclopedia.... Is it against the rules to criticize your belief that Romney's pre-marital sex life deserves to be discussed? I'm not saying your acting in bad faith, I just disagree with your conclusion that this needs to be included. I would like to formally request arbitration... I have tried on a number of times to remove the references to Romney's great-grandparent's polygamy...., his pre-marital sex life, that he supposedly goes to the temple regularly... there are like 12 mentions of his religion in his "biography" and it is just ridiculous... The argument that people are interested is not a valid argument... people are interested in porn, but that does not mean that wikipedia should give it to them... wikipedia has a certain professional obligation, and they should treat Romney similar to other candidates... this is not just a "free-for-all"" were we "give people what you say they want to know"... I would like to formally request arbitration, if someone knows how to accomplish this...., please help me myclob (talk) 03:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously comparing what is said in a "footnote" at the bottom of the page, to what is said about Romney? I think a candidate who is supposed to be the savior of the religious right, like Fred Thompson, who had his first kid out of wedlock is bigger news than when Mike Wallace asked Romney if he had premarital sex, and Romney said no, but the way it is written now makes it sound like Romney uses his lake of pre-marital sex in his stump speech… the way it reads is deceptive, and it does not belong at the very top of the Romney page, and I think it is hilarious that you point out that a footnote, at the very bottom of Fred Thompson’s page, mentions that his first child was born out of wedlock! How many people read Fred Thompsons’ footnotes, let alone the 90th footnote?! Do you really think these are equivalent? But I mentioned like 7 problems with the Romney article, and that is your only argument? And your telling me to calm down? myclob (talk) 03:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

(1) Yes, I am suggesting that you calm down. (2) When you question editors' motives ("perhaps you thought you were editing a gossip journal" and "I know you are all fascinated with the fact that he is Mormon, but this page is not a place for you to get your kicks" among other comments) you are not assuming good faith on the part of others here, and that is not conducive to reaching consensus. In other words, if you're going to attack someone, that person is less likely to be interested in reaching consensus with you - you see? (3) You seem to have tried to remove anything that you view as negative about someone you are supporting in an election according to your user page; your concerns have been responded here on Talk numerous times, by more than one editor, and the reason the material remains in the article is that others find it to be notable - you don't have consensus for your point of view. Indeed, part of the problem seems to be that you are editing with a point of view, not objectively. (4) I didn't make the argument, as you claim, that Romney's religion should be included because "people are interested" - I said above that it is notable for inclusion because "The fact that Mitt Romney is Mormon, and what impact that may or may not have on his chances, is discussed by news commentators all the time." Therefore reliably sourced references to his religion absolutely should be included. Please don't mis-state what I said in order to refute it. (5) I mention the Fred Thompson premarital sex reference because you claimed that Romney was being singled out for such discussion - my point was that such discussions are included when they are notable. Again, perhaps you missed it above - this is not an article about a candidate, it is a biography of an individual who is running for office at the moment, and comparisons to articles about other people who are also running for office are not relevant. This is not a matter of fairness or so-called equal treatment. Each article stands on its own, and includes things that are relevant to that particular individual. Barack Obama's piece talks about his use of alcohol and drugs as a teenager; it would be incorrect to say that this should not be in Obama's article unless similar discussions are in all of the other biographies. It is relevant to Obama so it is included. (6) Finally - I don't think this is a particularly well-written article, and it would benefit from some editing and expanding. I didn't write it - and I'm not defending the way it is constructed: I'm merely saying that his religion is a major subject of discussion, and his personal morals and values were discussed by him and therefore perhaps notable. As I said earlier, I don't think that his saying he has been faithful to his wife is verifiable, so I'm not necessarily comfortable with including it as a fact - but I think it is notable that he made the point - presumably to contrast himself with some others running against him - and therefore it's not gossip, but is notable. If you want to ask for other opinions, please do - I'm not claiming to be anything more than one editor here, but there are others here - like Apartcents recently - who have made similar points to mine and who have retained the material you are questioning. Tvoz |talk 05:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

So, if I do something famous, will polygamy be mentioned in my article because I am a Mormon? Or is that just reserved for Mormons running for office? You keep arguing that wikipedia should mention his religion. I do not disagree... I have a problem with 12 references to his religion at the very top of the article, in a negative way. Its not the fact that his religion is mentioned, but the way that it is discussed... "The media" is a very large organization, with thousands of people... whenever someone sees my resume, and they see that I went to BYU, they ask how many wives I have... Yes, a lot of people in the media have mentioned Romney's great-grandparents polygamy... does that mean that this article should have 12 mentions of his religion, at the very top of the page? Is Romney famous because he goes to the temple? Does Romney have a wikipedia article because he was a Bishop? No these things are secondary...

I propose that we make a "religion" section, and move all this stuff into the religion section, and out of the biography. It is stupid, in my opinion, to have Romney's great-grandparent's polygamy in his biography sections. Most biographies start in the teen age years, or at birth.... anyways what do you think? Can we create a Religion article, and not have it be the very first thing in the article? If we do mention Romney's great-grandparent's polygamy, can it not be the very first thing in the article... can it be in a religion sub-section?

Romney's Religion or Romney's religion has been a factor throughout his political career. In 1994 Ted Kennedy ran commercials that mentioned ... Oops I meant for this to be part of the previous section 71.143.239.170 (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think we want a religion section. See my comments above in the Harry Reid section. And please note that even before my latest edit the first thing in the article is the intro which is a summary of the article, reflecting the major points that are discussed in the article. Not including his religion - because any objective reader would agree that it's not one of the major points of the piece at present. I'm afraid you are not reading in an objective manner here. (Also, it is apparent that the IP comment just above is by Myclob.) Tvoz |talk 20:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Why aren’t you responding to any of my arguments? I want arbitration. So, if I do something famous, will polygamy be mentioned in my article because I am a Mormon? How do you respond to my pointing out that no other candidate mentions their premarital sex life WITHIN THE ARTICLE? Yes you pointed out that Fred Thompson's 90th footnote mentions the fact that he hade a child out of wedlock, but you have not responded to my arguments that they are not the same thing. THAT IS WHY I WANT ARBITRATION! You are not responding to any of my arguments, and you are not allowing me to make changes! myclob (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the fact that their is an into section. But there is false advertisement when that article is called "biography" or "Family and Early life" because their are two sentences or 3 that don't mention his religion. That is why I think we should re-label the section something to do with religion... that’s what all the info is... then you can separate the facts in their about his kids, and grandparents, and you can put all that info in about polygamy, and him going to the temple, and whatever the heck you want to put in their about his religion, and weather or not Mormons think the pearly gates slide or swing, but it should all be in it's own religion section, that is not the first thing you read about, besides the intro. Please, I want arbitration, and I don't think Tvoz is God of this article... I want some other people's opinions, because I know how important it is to TZoz that we keep the information in their about Romney's great-great grandpa's polygamy, because according to TZoz, that is the first thing you need to know when you want to know about Mitt Romney, and it should be in the first section, after the intro, and we should call all this religious information "biography" or "early life and family" even though it all has to do with Romney's religion, and TZOz apparently thinks every famous Mormon should have polygamy discussed in their wikipedia article, because he refuses to give reasons why it should be discussed with regard to Romney, and not other famous Mormons. myclob (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. Tvoz |talk 00:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"Good grief"? That's not are argument. myclob 16:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"Good grief" was a response to your apparent inability or unwillingness to read. Please point me to where I said or even implied this: "I know how important it is to TZoz that we keep the information in their about Romney's great-great grandpa's polygamy, because according to TZoz, that is the first thing you need to know when you want to know about Mitt Romney, and it should be in the first section, after the intro, and we should call all this religious information "biography" or "early life and family" even though it all has to do with Romney's religion, and TZOz apparently thinks every famous Mormon should have polygamy discussed in their wikipedia article, because he refuses to give reasons why it should be discussed with regard to Romney, and not other famous Mormons. " I have explained, and explained, and explained numerous times; I edited the article to try to accommodate your person concerns; I have suggested that you stop screaming at readers with your insistence on all caps; I answered your question about whether your biography would have polygamy mentioned in it: but you are only able to repeat your screed. So, good grief. Tvoz |talk 17:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"Good grief was a response to your apparent inability or unwillingness to read" Look both of us think the other person isn't willing to read what the other person has written... Yes you have implied and specifically stated that you think Romney's religion, and his grandparent's poligamy is the most important thing about him, because you continually insist that they be the first thing in this article. How have you; "edited the article to try to accommodate your person concerns"? It looks the same now, as it has for the past two weeks? Every time I change it (I think I have tried two or three times after explaining myself) you change it back, without responding to my arguments... I am not repeating my screed... I am repeating myself, because it takes two to tengo... everywere you put your side, I respond. I don't know why you think my arguments are a screed, but what do you think I think about your lack of arguments? The only argument you have made is that "the media" has mentioned poligamy... when ever I try to engage you in a more specific discussion of weather or not we should do everything "the media does" you say that I am writting a screed, or say that I am being unfair, or you change the subject from the points I am making to something personal... or you just say "good grief". myclob 21:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Biography (2)

Below is Mitt Romney's Wikipedia biography. It is the first thing you read about Mitt Romney on the site. Lets see if you can count, with me, the number of times his religion, religious practices, and polygamy are mentioned as important facts about Romney in the minds of the people who edit Wikipedia.

Born on March 12, 1947 in Detroit, Michigan, Mitt Romney is the son of former Michigan Governor and 1968 presidential candidate George W. Romney and 1970 U.S. Senate candidate Lenore Romney. His name "Willard" was after hotel magnate J. Willard Marriott, his father's best friend. Mitt, his middle name, comes from a relative who played football for the Chicago Bears.

Romney married his high school girlfriend Ann Davies in 1968. Both are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1), commonly known as Mormons (2), though Ann was raised Episcopalian (3). They have five married sons (Tagg, Matt, Josh, Ben and Craig) and eleven grandchildren.

Romney's great-grandparents were polygamist (4) Mormons (5) who fled to Mexico in 1884 after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld various anti-polygamy (6) laws in 1879. Romney's father, George Romney, was born in Chihuahua, Mexico, and the family moved to the United States in 1912 after the outbreak of the Mexican Revolution.

Romney is a former bishop (7) and stake president (8) in his church, and he attends a temple (9) regularly. As a devout Mormon, (10) he does not drink (11) or smoke (12). He's also a proponent of family values, saying that he abstained from sex until marriage and has since remained faithful to his wife of 39 years.

Do you think democrats are trying to make this all about Romney's unpopular religion? There are 12 mentions of his religious practices, and polygamy in his biography. How many times do you think the articles about Rudy, McCain, HIllary, and Barak mention their religion? Take a wild guess.

Do you think this page is fair to Romney? Do they treat Romney the same as Rudy or Hillary?

I say no.

No other candidate has their religion mentioned 12 times! No other candidate has scandalous behavior of their grandparent's discussed! And it's not just the fact that these things are mentioned, but that they are mentioned at the top of the page, as the first (and most likely last things that people read about Romney, as most people just want the executive summary) thing in the page, which can, according to the people that edit the wikipedia article, be summed up with one word: MORMON.

Not businessman. Not father. Not reformer. Not grandfather. Not Olympic turn-arounder… Not budget balance, not tax cutter, not border enforcer. No… just one word… the only word that matters when you are talking about someone who goes to the Mormon church: nothing else in their life matters, except the fact that they are Mormon. myclob (talk) 04:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I WANT ARBITRATION FOR THIS SITE. myclob (talk) 04:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do you blame Democrats? It's only conservative Republicans that are concerned about Romney's religion. Corvus cornix_talk 23:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not, "only conservative Republicans that are concerned about Romney's religion". Once again liberels are not liberal... if you look at all the polls, you will find that democrats are less likely to vote for someone who is a mormon than evangelicals are less likely to vote for a Mormon...http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19441.

What does this have to do with Republican or Democrat? If the article is incorrectly biased, we should change it. Try WP:RFC if you think there is a problem here. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This is an out of control POV editor - he doesn't seem to grasp the meaning of consensus or objectivity, and ignores the changes that already have been made to try to accommodate to his concerns - see this comment of mine above, among others. The article is not biased: Romney's religion is not overly stressed, and this editor is not engaging in constructive discussion. As I've said repeatedly, if he wants to seek outside opinions he's more than welcome to. Tvoz |talk 00:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz, do not call m an "out of control POV editor". I am not an editor... you do not let me edit! Look, everything is just the way you like it... You say I "don't seem to grasp the meaning of consensus or objectivity"... but cool hand luke, I, and others all have problems with the way it reads now, but you are the out of control editor that keeps all 13 references to Romney's religion under an article that is titled, "family and earl life". You do not grasp the meaning of concensus.... lots of people have problems with the way it is written, but you are the one that gets his way in the end and keeps changing it, without reachin a consensus... How can you say an article is not biased, when it mentions Romney's religion 13 times? myclob 16:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright... we are kind of going in circles... lets discuss each of these seperatley... Here are the 13 mentions of his religion... lets discuss each one seperatly, so that we don't miss-understand each other...

1.) "Both are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"

Both is refereing to Ann Romney and Mitt Romney... This article is about Mitt Romney, do you need to discuss Ann Romney's faith in Mitt Romney's article if you link to Ann Romney's article? I don't think so...

Do we need this? I say no myclob 17:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC) Please vote (I think it makes sense to keep the grand total of votes at the bottom of the argument, so that as new information comes in we can keep a running total of the votes.

Do you need to mention that Mitt Romney is a member of the church of Jesus Chrit of Latter-day saints? I don't think so. It already mentions his denomination off to the right, below his picture, but you may disagree... If you do want to mention it again, I think you should make a section called "religion" instead of stuffing religion informtion into his "Family life" section or "Family History" section or "early history section". The church he goes to has nothing to do with any of these sections.

2. "commonly known as Mormons"

Do you need this? It already says his religion under his picture.... if people want to know more about his religion, they can click on the link... this article is about Mitt Romney not about the common name that people call his religion... I say nomyclob 17:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC). Please vote.

3. "though Ann was raised Episcopalian"

This aticle is not about Ann. If people want to read about Ann, they can click on the link. This is Mitt Romney's article, and it seems odd to me to have what denomination Ann was raised in, at the very top of Mitt Romney's article... I say nomyclob

4. "Romney's great-grandparents were polygamist"

I do not think this belongs at the top of Mitt Romney's article. I we need to talk about it I think it should go in a seperate section. First of all it is not true... Not all of Mitt Romney's "grandparents" were polygimast Mormons... Some of them were... But again, this is an article about Mitt Romney... should every famous Mormon's wikipedia article be another oportunity for people to discuss poligamy? What is it about Mitt Romney that makes it good to talk about poligamy? If you do mention it, do you think that you should mention what Romney has said about it? Perhaps? Romney has said that it is discusting, and that he can't imagine anything that could be worse than poligamy... If you are going to mention it, do you think you should give a balanced discusion about it? Like I say, I am a Mormon, and when people see my Resume, and that I went to BYU, they ask how many wives I have... I think that is very imuture... our religion stopped that 108 years ago... I think people are just trying to make Romney look stupid by mentioning it... people with agendas... or else why isn't poligamy mentioned in every famous mormon's biography? No, they just mention it in Romney's because they don't want him to get a vote... I know I'm not supposed to question other's motives, but you have to ask yourself why it is OK to talk about Romney's poligamy ancestors, when they don't get spoken off in all famous Mormon's wikipedia article? My only explanation is that people want to bring it up to give him a black eye, because they don't want people voting for him...

5. "Mormons" (5)

We have already established the fact that they are Mormon, do we have to keep saying the word? I say take it out, or move it to a religion section myclob 17:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC) please vote

6. "who fled to Mexico in 1884 after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld various anti-polygamy laws in 1879"

Again, 2nd use of the word poligamy, in an article about the only republican to have only been married once. This is rediculous. I say take it out, or move it to a religion section myclob 17:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC) please vote

7. "Romney is a former bishop "

I say take it out, or move it to a religion section myclob 17:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC) please vote

8. "and stake president"

I say take it out, or move it to a religion section myclob 17:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC) please vote

9. "in his church" 10. " and he attends a temple regularly"

I say take it out, or move it to a religion section myclob 17:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC) please vote

11. "As a devout Mormon"

I say take it out, or move it to a religion section myclob 17:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC) please vote

12. "he does not drink" A lot of the candidates do not drink. Bush has been dry for many years. Why doesn't his article say, "as a divout baptist (or whatever he is) he does not drink"

I say take it out, or move it to a religion section myclob 17:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC) please vote

13. "or smoke" Barak Obama is the only smoker... is Romney's "not smoking" really important?

I say take it out, or move it to a religion section myclob 17:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC) please vote

14. "He's also a proponent of family values, saying that he abstained from sex until marriage and has since remained faithful to his wife of 39 years." See my argument above

I say take it out, or move it to a religion section myclob 17:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC) please vote

changing signatures

I will refrain from speculating, but would like to point out for the record that at least one comment posted above by IP 71.143.239.170 was then re-signed by IP 208.96.213.98; and at least one comment posted by IP 208.96.213.98 was resigned by Myclob. So I am assuming that all three ids are the same person. I raise this in the event that anyone wants to discuss consensus. Tvoz |talk 00:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No freaking kidding... I sign my name when ever I remember, and when I put thesemyclob 23:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC) and it says, this IP address, I realize I put these myclob 23:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC) without being signed in and so I signed in and put them in. Myclob=home IP and work IP, no conspiracy...myclob 23:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No one said there was a conspiracy. Changing IPs to your name is no problem - people sometimes forget to log in. But changing one IP to another IP signature is at least confusing to readers as it suggests that there are other people agreeing with you, when in fact it's just you agreeing with yourself. Tvoz |talk 00:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not change my IP. I put my signature, when I wasn't logged in, and realized I wasn't logged in, and I logged in, and re-put in my signature...I did this same thing from home, and I made the same mistake at work. myclob 15:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

More Relevant Questions than His Great-Grandparents?

I have just plowed through all this Talk page, with its (seemingly) endless fascination over Mr. Romney's religion and family background. Nowhere do I see anybody interested in the reported fact that he supported the invasion of Iraq, or that he wants to increase the military presence in that country, or that he wants to greatly increase our country's spending on military outlay, or that he condones waterboarding and other "non-torture coercion". Aren't those positions of much greater portent than what y'all have been fighting over?? Raymondwinn (talk) 10:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Raymond, some of us are interested in those much more important issues. But the purpose of the Talk page is to discuss items in the article that need editors' attention, not a place to discuss what any of us thinks of Romney or his positions. Please see the section of the article that is headed "Political positions" (which is supposed to be a summary) and the separate sub-article "Political positions of Mitt Romney" for how his stands on Iraq, torture, and military spending are handled. I don't doubt that the sub-article could use some critical review and expansion - if you have any suggestions about what is missing there (and if anything seems to missing from this article's summary), please share them. But the talk page is not a forum for discussing our personal opinions about the subject. (I can see why you might have gotten that impression from some of the comments above, though.) Tvoz |talk 16:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Look Tvoz, you keep saying there is all this concensus to keep the page the way it is, with 13 references to Romney's religion at the top of the page, mentioning his great-great grandparent's poligamy twice, and talking about how he goes to the temple... but your the only onle that keeps saying that it is good the way it is, but Raymondwinn, Cool Hand Luke , and I think it needs to change, and you are the only person that wants it to stay the same!myclob 15:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The comment immediately above this one is a good example of what I mean when I say you are out of control, Myclob. How is your comment in any way responsive to what I said to Raymondwinn in this section? Did I say anything here about consensus? Had Coolhandluke commented when I posted here? Adding the same thing over and over on this page doesn;t make your point more correct, and it doesn't give you consensus. There I used the word. By the way, when did it become 13 references? Previously you said it was 12. Tvoz |talk 17:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you give me a call, so we can talk this out? We are going in circles, it is getting ugly, and we are making no progress... You ask, " How is your comment in any way responsive to what I said to Raymondwinn in this section?" Well Raymondwinn said about this article, there is "endless fascination over Mr. Romney's religion and family background". So in my mind, his comments showed that, unlike what you say, there is not a consensus that the article needs to stay the way it is. Raymondwinn said there is too much fascination with religion... it sounds to me like he thinks you are wrong... I was pointing that out... that you don't have a consensus... what down't you understand about that? How is it so difficult for you to understand that you don't have consensus? "Did I say anything here about consensus?" Yes. "Had Coolhandluke commented when I posted here?" Yes. Look below. "Adding the same thing over and over on this page doesn't make your point more correct, and it doesn't give you consensus." I don't mean to be repeating myself, but you see we are doing this thing back and forth, and it takes two to tengo, and so everywere that you say we should keep the 13 mentions of his religion, I place why I disagree... I don't mean to be repeating myself, but that is getting off the topic, and is open to enterpretation. For instance, I think you are repeating yourself, but lets not get sidtracked into an argument over who is repeating his/herself... why don't you ever respond to my arguments, but nevermind, lets not get into all these accusations... just look below... I think I have a solution... we can vote on each specific mention of religion.. that is democratic... I have organized a good way that we don't repeat ourselves... lets just take each mention of his religion, one at a time, and vote on how it should be handled... See below for the count of every 13 references...myclob 20:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

duplicate text

Romney now believes that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and believes a constitutional amendment is appropriate when America is ready for it and that abortion is wrong except to save the life of the mother.[95] Romney has made pro-choice comments in the past, but now says he has reversed his position.[96]

Romney now believes that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and believes a constitutional amendment is appropriate when America is ready for it and that abortion is wrong except to save the life of the mother.[97] Romney has made pro-choice comments in the past, but now says he has reversed his position.[98] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.131.18.130 (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No consensus for these changes

The idea of a separate religion section was proposed above and there was no consensus reached here to include it - I've reverted it pending discussion. My opinion is that having a section called religion calls more attention to it, not less - and since the objection raised by one editor here has been that too much attention has been paid to Romney's religion, I don't see how having a separate section is any help at all. I addressed his stated concerns by removing "biography" and changing several headings earlier and he had no reply. And as for the polygamy material - see the discussions that appear above regarding keeping this well-sourced material that has been written about extensively in the press. Again, no consensus was reached to remove it, and since it is under discussion I think it is inappropriate for it to be removed now. It has been repeatedly suggested to the editor who is having a problem with it that he is welcome to ask for other opinions. But generally when other opinions are asked for, they make their comments here on Talk, in hopes of reaching consensus. Tvoz |talk 02:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a section would be best—probably below political positions. It is a major aspect of this candidate; it should be a separate section because it's a major issue (observe headlines like Newsweeks "A Mormon's Journey") and it's orthogonal to his financial and political accomplishments. We would also avoid front-loading the article with discussions of his religion including non-notable polygamist great grandparents. Cool Hand Luke 08:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

There was no consensus for the way that you keep changing it back to! Come on! The heading says, "Early life and family background" but all it talks about is his religion. It is confusing and missleading. I've been editing this article way longer than you have Tvoz, and the way it reads is very new, and no "consensus" was reached for the way it reads, except if you think your opinion is automatically a "consensus"myclob 14:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

So, family background is an inappropriate place to discuss his family's background? How does that work? Do we need a section entitled, "Time family spent living in Mexico". If you think you can integrate this into the article better, let us know how because it would probably be acceptable. Removing it from the article because you think it is negative is unacceptable. It is sourced, neutral, factual and encyclopedic. Turtlescrubber

Look, do you really have to ask that question? They say to be nice, but this is rediculous... I THINK THAT ROMNEY BEING A BISHOP IN HIS RELIGION, GOING TO TEMPLE, NOT DRINKING, NOT SMOKING, BEING A STAKE PRESIDENT, ABSTAINING FROM SEX, should be moved to religion section because they have nothing to do with "Early life and family background"... And no other presidential candidate (how many times do I have to say this) has an "family background" section... this is just an excuse for you to mention his great-grandparent's poligamy...myclob 15:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

So you want to reduce what you see as undue weight by creating a whole section specifically devoted to the facts that "ROMNEY BEING A BISHOP IN HIS RELIGION, GOING TO TEMPLE, NOT DRINKING, NOT SMOKING, BEING A STAKE PRESIDENT, ABSTAINING FROM SEX", or whatever all that means. Other articles have sections that are very similiar to an early life and family background section. I haven't checked but I do not recall many "Religion" sections. If you think about it Religion, in many cases, is tied in very deeply to family so it is not out place here. Should we follow this section with a religion section? All it would take would be adding a header. Is that what you are looking for? Turtlescrubber 15:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I want an honest article. If you HAVE to talk about Romney's great-grandparent's poligamy, I want you to call it what it is. It should not be icluded in Romney's earl life... If you are going to talk about him being a steak president, it should not be included in "ear;u life"... he was very old when he was steak president... I don't like the sneaky, dishonest way that 13 mentions of Romney's religion are put within the catigory "early life"... If you want to talk about his early life, talk about what he did in grammer school... look I have to go get my pictures taken, but this is what think... we should make a list of all 13 references to his religion, and figure out where each one should go, and we can have a vote on which ones we keep... that way we are not talking about generalities, and taking for ever, but if we get into the details, it may seem like it will take longer, but we will talk past each other less and stuff...

Other people don't normally have a background section including their great grandparents. It's notable to be sure, but not notable as part of his family background. It's discussed because of his religion, which is a central question about this candidate. Therefore, we should include it in a section about religion and controversy. Cool Hand Luke 19:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"Born on March 12, 1947"

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

Early life and background

I think this section could use some work. New stuff is italicized:

Mitt Romney is the son of former Michigan Governor and 1968 presidential candidate George W. Romney and 1970 U.S. Senate candidate Lenore Romney. His name "Willard" was after hotel magnate J. Willard Marriott, his father's best friend. Mitt, his middle name, comes from a relative who played football for the Chicago Bears.

Romney married his high school girlfriend Ann Davies in 1968, and they remain married. Both are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, (the LDS Church, commonly known as Mormons) though Ann was raised Episcopalian (she converted to Mormonism). They have five married sons — (Tagg, Matt, Josh, Ben and Craig) — and eleven grandchildren. Romney's great-grandparents were polygamist Mormons who fled to Mexico in 1884 after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld various anti-polygamy laws in 1879. Some of Romney’s ancestors were polygamists, which is a practice that he has denounced.

Romney's father, George Romney, was born in Chihuahua, Mexico, and the family moved to the United States in 1912 after the outbreak of the Mexican Revolution. Romney is a former bishop and stake president in his church, and he attends a temple regularly. As a devout Mormon, he He does not drink or smoke. He's , and he is also a proponent of family values, saying that he abstained from sex until marriage and has since remained faithful to his wife of 39 years.

First off, we don't need to provide all these synonyms for his religion. Just say "Mormon" and that's plenty.

The bit about his great-grandparents is just plain false. Not all of them were polygamists, and even the cited article's title only involves a "branch" of his family. Let's not dwell on the black sheep.

Also, if he's a former bishop and stake president, it's redundant to say that he's devout and that he attends temple. The stuff about being married to only one woman fits better where his wife is first mentioned. As for his smoking and drinking habits, do we know whether he would smoke if he weren't a Mormon? Do we mention the smoking habits of other candidates? There's no need to repeatedly ( over and over again and redundantly) indicate that he is a Mormon.Ferrylodge 19:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

We have to include the full name of the church on first notice. I agree with the rest of your suggestions. Cool Hand Luke 19:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I modified my initial comment accordingly. Mrs. Romney's bio says that she was only Episcopalian "nominally", so there's no need to mention it here. Okay now?Ferrylodge 19:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, our article provides a false title in the footnotes. The correct title is "Romney family tree has polygamy branch" (emphasis added).Ferrylodge 20:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If the above changes are acceptable to people, then I will also insert the following Romney quote into the corresponding footnote: "Asked if he had premarital sex with Ann, Romney tells Wallace, 'No, I'm sorry. We don’t get into those things. The answer is no.'" Such titillating trivia does not belong in the main text. See, for example, the Fred Thompson article, where such stuff is only in a footnote, and not in the main text.Ferrylodge 20:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Please hold off on all of this until more editors have weighed in on this - there has been an ongoing discussion about this with numerous editors, and they should be heard from. I for one am looking it over and would like to hear from others. But as for his great-grandparents, sure we should qualify which ones we mean - but this is something that has been discussed in the media and our removing it strikes me as POV. Tvoz |talk 21:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz, you say that some of the edits I've suggested strike you as POV. If you mean that I am trying to slant the article, nothing could be further from the truth. I have no objection if the article says "Some of Romney’s ancestors were polygamists, which is a practice that he has denounced." What is slanted about that? I have identified outright falsities in this article, and you say that I have a POV? Could we please turn down the temperature here? Thanks.Ferrylodge 21:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I wasn't saying you were trying to slant the article, as a matter of fact. And I've said several times that I didn't write this piece and think it needs a lot of work - so in fact I welcome new editors taking a look at it. I said that I don't think the polygamy should be removed as a few have wanted to do, because more editors here have felt that it was notable and should be included. And I asked that you wait before making major changes for others to speak up on your suggestions - I haven't said what I think of them yet. Tvoz |talk 21:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz: You seem to have the mistaken impression that consensus is required to edit the article. To the contrary, until there is consensus, we are free to hammer it out. No one has objected to these changes—not even you (if a assume good faith that you really are holding out for more commentary). For what it's worth, I think the polygamy and Mormonism should be explored in a section about his nomination bid. It's a big deal to his candidacy, but not so much to his upbringing. Cool Hand Luke 23:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The stuff regarding his great-grandparents is not relevant given that they are not notable in their own right. I would imagine most everyone has someone in their history which by today's standards would ne viewed negatively, but that is no reason to include it in that persons BLP. Arzel 21:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

We're in the middle of discussing just that - see above - so please hold off until we reach consensus - we did have consensus, I believe, about including the well-sourced and notable polygamous background, which is why it was back in the article. Tvoz |talk 21:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Tvoz said; "but this is something that has been discussed in the media and our removing it strikes me as POV". However, there are many examples of people in the media saying things that don't belong in a wikipedia article, and more specifically, this does not belong in Romney's first paragraph (outside of the intro.) One example of media mistakes is when Dan Rather from CBS news discussed a forged paper, about Bush in the reserves... Just because people are “from the media” doesn’t mean they never make mistakes. CNN had people from Clinton's campaign ask questions, and give a speech at the republican debate. Fox news made bad statistical comparisons between violence in Iraq and California... everything in the media does not deserve to belong in the first paragraph (besides the intro) of presidential candidates... People in the media speculate that Vince Fauster's suicide was a Clinton murder, because he had dirt on Bill, which was in the Media... should I put that speculation in the first article about Hillary Clinton? It is impossible to put everything that was "in the media" within the first paragraph about Romney... the first paragraph would be 500 pages long... you keep repeating yourself that Romney's great-grandparent's polygamy was "in the media". No one disagrees with you, but just because someone mentioned it "in the media" does not mean that it belongs in the first paragraph of the Romney page under the heading "family history and early life". myclob 21:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Arzel, this has been in the article for a long time - you don';t like it, you;'ve made that quite clear, but we reached consensus a while ago on this. The appropriate thing to do is to leave it alone while it's being discussed again, not to remove it. I didn't add it, I reinstated consensus wording. Do you get the difference? If a new consensus is reached, that's one thing - but taking it out and saying we should discuss it with it out is edit warring. Tvoz |talk 21:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone other than Tvoz disagree with the edits I've suggested?Ferrylodge 21:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say if I agree or disagree with them, and you only posted them a couple of hours ago, so how about waiting for people who have been editing here to read and reply - that's what I said. Tvoz |talk 21:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You said that some of my suggested edits strike you as POV, which did not strike me as an endorsement of those edits. In any event, I am not impatient. I don't think I asked anyone to hurry up and answer. Take all the time you like to study these three paragraphs.Ferrylodge 21:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Read the talk page and follow the edits, Ferrylodge - you've just arrived here. I can tell the difference between removing any reference to his polygamous family and qualifying it - you qualified it, and I haven't evaluated your qualification yet, but a couple of others removed it completely, which I think is POV. OK, is that clearer? I'm glad you're not in a rush - I must have misunderstood your question above. And as long as you're asking for the temperature to be turned down, how about reducing the sarcasm inherent in your last sentence? Tvoz |talk 21:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been following this talk page for awhile, but was prevented from commenting by several distractions. In any event, I will be quiet as a mouse now, so that you can read those three paragraphs that I've proposed to edit. Thanks.Ferrylodge 21:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

For the new wording: Cool Hand Ferrylodge myclob Arzel Raymondwinnl said about this article, there is "endless fascination over Mr. Romney's religion and family background" so I would count him for the new wording myclob 21:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Against the new wording: Tvoz

Please don't speak for other editors, Myclob - I haven't said what I think of Ferrylodge's wording and Raymondwinn's comments were actually about the talk page discussion, asking why we weren't talking about Romney's Iraq and other positions - he didn't say what he thought should be in the article or not. FInally - I'm sure you know that consensus does not mean vote or majority rule, so there's really no point in counting heads, is there. The idea is to come up with wording that editors agree on - which is why I removed "biography" which was the earlier thing you were complaining about, and what I hope we will achieve on this matter. Tvoz |talk 21:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't "speak for them" I gave a direct quote... They spoke for themselves. Also, JGoldwater, StrumTurner, Alanraywiki, and others have complained about too much religion, along with other people who weren't signed in, but it just had their IP address... I guess I don't have to tell you this, because it looks like you argued with them above... But I do think at some point we need to count heads in order to get to a consensus... else how are we going to know if we get a consensus? We have to say it somehow, unless you can read minds, and I was just trying to make an organized way of showing it... I am not speaking for anyone, Arzel, myself, Ferrylodge, and Coolhand Luke have all made direct approval of the new wording, and the other people I mention have complained about too much religion... Thanks for re-naming the biograph section, but as you can see that was the tip of the ice-berg as far as problems I saw with the sitemyclob 21:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

myclob 21:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

my revision of Ferrylodge's rewording

I agree with most of Ferrylodge's suggestions, but not all, and have reworked it again as below, including the references (may need a one or two more) and making it fewer short paragraphs. As explanation:

1. I've added his siblings;
2. tightened the sentence about his marriage, removing the awkward "and they remain married";
3. I agree we don't need "the LDS Church" but think we need to include the word "Mormon" in the text because the average reader may not know what the formal name refers to - "Latter Day Saints" is not at all as well-known as "Mormon" to the general public;
4. agree about removing Episcopalian and in fact think his wife's conversion is not needed here at all as it is covered in her article;
5. agree about taking out his temple attendance, and the references to his sex life pre and post marriage which I've said a couple of times are not verifiable claims anyway, although I do think it is notable that he did reply to being questioned that way a la Obama and drugs. A footnote about it would be fine with me. It would also be fine with me to remove the "does not drink or smoke" (although I left it in for now) - I see no real point in including that.
6. But here's where I disagree: in looking back through earlier edits and talk archives here and doing a little research, I believe more, not less, is needed about his family background. He is descended from a prominent person in the church and readers should have access to that material in a biography. His campaign literature may not stress it - his supporters may not be comfortable about it - but this is not campaign literature and I'm sure objective editors will agree that it should not be sanitized. I believe that his family background, which has been written about extensively, is relevant to his encyclopedia biography, and I've therefore included it in this proposal. I think it is well placed in "early life and family background" which makes it less prominent than a separate religion section. I could go along with a separate religion/family background section, but if we add it I think we'd need to include something about it in the intro summary to the article above the Table of Contents - and I don't think that will fly. So as a small part of his "early life and family background" section, I think we may be able to leave his religion out of the intro (although FA reviewers might disagree, and I am not opposed to mentioning it in the intro). I reinstated and reworked the religion/background part but did not add, and in fact removed, another extraneous mention of "polygamist Mormons", and kept his denouncement prominent with citation.

So, here's my suggested wording:

Mitt Romney is the son of former Michigan Governor and 1968 presidential candidate George W. Romney and 1970 U.S. Senate candidate Lenore LaFount Romney. His name "Willard" was after hotel magnate J. Willard Marriott, his father's best friend;<ref name="willard">{{cite news| url=http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/romney-appeals-to-core-audience/ | title=Romney Appeals to Core Audience | author=Sarah Wheaton | publisher=''The New York Times'' |date=2007-01-28 | accessdate=2007-12-01}}</ref> Mitt, his middle name, comes from a relative who played football for the Chicago Bears. Mitt Romney has three older siblings: Lynn Romney Keenan, Jane Romney Robinson, and G. Scott Romney.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nndb.com/people/373/000044241/|title= Mitt Romney|publisher=nndb.com|accessdate=2007-12-01}}</ref> Romney has been married to his high school girlfriend, Ann Davies, since 1968. Both are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, (commonly known as Mormons). though Ann was raised Episcopalian (she converted to Mormonism) . They have five married sons — Tagg, Matt, Josh, Ben and Craig — and eleven grandchildren.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/08/AR2007060802781.html|title=Romney brothers dish on Dad|author=Jose Antonio Vargas| publisher=''[[Washington Post]]''|page=A01|date=2007-06-09|accessdate=2007-11-24}}</ref>

Romney is a former bishop and stake president in his church. He does not drink or smoke, and he is a proponent of family values., saying that he abstained from sex until marriage and has since remained faithful to his wife of 39 years. Some of Romney’s ancestors were polygamists, which is a practice that he has denounced.<ref name="ancestors">{{cite news| url=http://www.4thefamily.us/mitt_family_tree | title=Could ancestors haunt Romney? Polygamous family tree of Mitt Romney | author=Thomas Burr | publisher=''Salt Lake Tribune'' | date=2006-08-21 | accessdate=2007-12-01}}</ref> His great-great grandfather, Parley Parker Pratt, was a prominent leader in the Latter Day Saint movement; his paternal great-grandparents were polygamist Mormons who fled to Mexico in 1884 after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld various anti-polygamy laws in 1879.<ref name="polyroots">{{cite news | url=http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/02/24/romney_family_tree_has_polygamy_branch | title=Romney's family tree has polygamy branch |author=Jennifer Dobner and Glen Johnson| publisher=''Associated Press''| date=2007-02-24| accessdate=2007-12-02}}</ref><ref name="ancestors" /> The family abandoned the practice of polygamy with his paternal grandfather and moved back to the United States in 1912 after the outbreak of the Mexican Revolution, when Mitt's father George was a small child.<ref name="polyroots"/><ref name="ancestors" />

Again, this is an encyclopedia article, where we have the room and the obligation to clearly examine the life and career of the individual, and sometime that includes looking at his family and his background. I think in the context of the entire article this is not at all excessive or given undue weight, is notable, and makes the piece a more comprehensive biography. Comments? Tvoz |talk 00:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you please try again. You say that the "family abandoned the practice of polygamy." That implies that Mitt Romney's family at some point adopted that practice, but in reality most half of his great-grandparents never adopted such a practice. Also, your use of the term "paternal great-grandparents" suggests all of his father's grandparents. That's not true, is it? I feel very uncomfortable with your characterization of this family history, as well as your placement at such a prominent location in this article.Ferrylodge 00:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not my characterization and you don't have it right, according to the sources I've read. I'll see if that line about abandoning it might be better expressed, but in fact the paternal line of the Romney family did adopt and later abandon the practice of polygamy. And yes, all four of his father's grandparents were polygamous. This is one source that happens to be easier to read than some of the others; others are available too:

Willard Mitt Romney is the son of George Wilcken Romney and Lenore LaFount. George W. Romney was born in Colonia Dublán, Galeana, Chihuahua, Mexico, on 8 July 1907, to Gaskell Romney and Anna Amelia Pratt....

Gaskell Romney was not a polygamist, but he was a son in a polygamist family. Born on 22 September 1871 in St. George, Washington, Utah to Miles Park Romney and Hannah Hood Hill (first wife in a family of five wives), he, with his parents and family, moved to the Mexican colonies in 1884. He married Anna Amelia Pratt on 20 February 1895.

Gaskell, Anna and family moved back to the U.S. in 1912, due to the upheaval attendant on the Mexican Revolution, called the “Exodus” in colony lore.

Anna Amelia Pratt was also raised in a polygamous family. She was born on 6 May 1876, in Salt Lake City, Utah, to Helaman Pratt and Anna Johanna Doratha (“Dora”) Wilcken, second wife in a family of three wives.

So, If I understand this correctly, Mitt's paternal grandfather Gaskell Romney and paternal grandmother Anna Pratt, George's parents, were both born into polygamous families, but they apparently were not polygamous - they were the ones who abandoned their parents' practice. All four of Mitt's paternal great-grandparents - that is, the parents of Gaskell and Anna, his paternal grandparents (i.e., all 4 of George's grandparents) were polygamous. Mitt's maternal line is something else- I am only talking about his paternal line. As for placement, it's family background and history, and our biographies generally try to be somewhat chronological - look at others. If you have a suggestion where this would be better placed, say so - but it seems to me that the logical progression is this way. Tvoz |talk 01:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I was not questioning whether all of Mitt Romney's paternal great-grandparents were in polygamous relationships. I was questioning whether they all "fled to Mexico" as you contend.Ferrylodge 02:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If the primary reason for the notability of his great-great-grandparents and his great-grandparents is that they practiced poligomy then they should not be included. I think far too much weight is being given to his distant relatives when they have absolutly no bearing on his current stated beliefs. The wording as such ascribes some wrong doing on Romney because of his ancestors. In essence it reads. "Romney dencouces poligamy, but his ancestors didn't....so judge for yourself. (wink)" Arzel 00:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You're reading something that isn't there. Tvoz |talk 01:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

And do most Wikipedia biographies include a listing of siblings? Seems like minutae. And, if I recall correctly, Reagan's father was an abusive alcoholic, which isn't mentioned in his Wikipedia bio. Certainly such a thing does not become more relevant if it's a great-grandfather instead of a father.Ferrylodge 00:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read more of them then - of course they include siblings. Try Hillary Rodham Clinton, George Romney, Ron Paul, Lyndon Johnson to give a cross-section. I don;t know anything about why Reagan's father was not identified that way - if there were verifiable, reliable sources, I would include it. And what is being said about Romney's family is just fact - no one is putting a spin on it. This is an encyclopedia, not a campaign piece. Tvoz |talk 01:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll look at some of the other articles to see how siblings are treated. Are you suggesting that I am trying to make this article into a "campaign piece"? I obviously deny that. Until earlier today, this article falsely implied that Mitt Romney's 8 great-grandparents were polygamous, and falsely implied that they fled to Mexico. And this was supported by a footnote containing a clearly false title about his "polygamy roots" when in fact the title used the words "polygamous branch." That may all be coincidence, and mistake, but it certainly was not I that caused any of it, and fixing it certainly does not amount to campaigning.Ferrylodge 02:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding naming all the siblings, I'll withdraw my objection, in view of stuff like this.Ferrylodge 02:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Calling for reinforcements

I'm not an expert on wiki etiquette. When there's a controversy at a talk page, is it appropriate to contact people to urge them to join in? If so, is it appropriate to look back upon previous days' discussion at the talk page, and pick out the people who might support your position, in order to notify them only?Ferrylodge 01:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine to let people know that a subject that they have discussed in the past is being discussed again. This is not a formal proceeding, it is merely a discussion. What would be wrong would be to ask friends who support you elsewhere to come in to an article they have had nothing to do with in order to support your position in this discussion. That's meatpuppetry. Do you have an accusation to make based on your apparent scrutiny of my contribution history? Did I "urge" anyone to do something? Or did I say "whatever your view is on this now" or words to that effect? Tvoz |talk 01:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I know that it's "perfectly fine to let people know that a subject that they have discussed in the past is being discussed again." What I was wondering is if it's appropriate to pick and choose among such people, to exclude those who have expressed a different viewpoint from one's own. It's a serious question, and I don't know the answer.Ferrylodge 02:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess I have found an answer to my own question. Wikipedians should "not preselect recipients according to their established opinions."Ferrylodge 03:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a little more complicated than that, as WP:CANVAS itself explains. First off, this is a "behavioral guideline," not Wikipedia policy. I think Tvoz's actions fall under the description of "Examples of friendly notices include: Notifying all editors who substantively edited or discussed the article or project." (myself, for example). This is very different from votestacking or other disruptive behavior. Notmyrealname 03:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If Tvoz notified "all" such editors then there's no problem.Ferrylodge 03:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is not official policy. It would be of serious concern if this were about an RFC vote (at this point no official RFC has been officially made). There's an open discussion currently on WP:BLPN, so it's not like this isn't going to get some attention. Remember to assume good faith.Notmyrealname 03:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Everyone likes to win arguments, especially if they sincerely believe they've got the better arguments. But as a simple matter of fairness, it's not fair to quietly notify only people who were previously on your side. Doesn't matter if it's a guideline or a policy, IMHO. Anyway, I'm not blasting anyone for this. I'm just kindly requesting for next time.Ferrylodge 03:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

a lawyer?

Rudy's page says that Rudy is a businessman, although I hardly think charging people to talk about septermber 11th counts as a business... Romney graduated at the top of his Harvard Law school, and passed the bar exam, does that make him a lawyer?myclob 02:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Also I tried to make the first two sentenses more like Rudy's (I thought rudy's sounded pretty good)... Thanks to whoever helped with the duplication that I left, and tell me if you think it sounds awkward at all... or feel free to work on it...myclob 02:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The key to whether he's an attorney (or was an attorney) is whether he passed the bar exam, and if so in what state. The article doesn't mention that, and such info would be very relevant and useful. Even if he passed the bar in one or more states, a lawyer still has to pay annual dues to remain a lawyer, and I have no idea if Mitt has done that.Ferrylodge 03:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

He passed the bar exam in Michicagan... He mentioned coming back to Michigan to take the bar exam in a couple of speeches... I don't think it needs including. myclob 14:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of Polygamy

Just checked back in on this page after a long absence. Look, the question of whether it is relevant to include the information that some of Romney's great grandparents were polygamists and fled to Mexico (where his father was born) should really be considered beyond dispute at this point. By Wikipedia's standards, the issue is whether it is published in reliable third-party sources. If you Google "Mitt Romney Polygamy" links to these and the following stories:

1. Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romney's Family Tree from Fox News, Feb 24, 2007
2. Mitt Romney's Evangelical Problem The Washington Monthly, September 2005
3. The march of the Mormons The Guardian, Feb 27, 2006. The article says "...Mitt Romney's father, George, an automobile executive and a three-term Republican governor of Missouri who was born in a polygamous Mormon community in Mexico."
4. Romney Family Tree Has Polygamy Branch - White House candidate Mitt Romney condemns polygamy, but his great-grandfather had 5 wives CBS News, Feb 24, 2007
5. Romney Family Tree Has Polygamy Branch ABC News, Feb 24, 2007
6. The Making of Mitt Romney Boston Globe, June 25, 2007
7. Mitt Romney on 60 Minutes with Mike Wallace - Mormonism 60 Minutes interview on YouTube.

This is a VERY abbreviated list. The mainstream media from all sides of the political spectrum has decided that this is an important part of Romney's biography. He has discussed it publicly on many occasions. It seems to me that it belongs in the "family background" section of his bio, but if others think it belongs elsewhere I won't lose any sleep over it. If people still disagree, it can be brought up on the WP:BLPN, but experienced editors will surely agree that this has met the threshold for inclusion. Notmyrealname 02:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Again I ask, Should everything that has ever been mentioned about Romney "in the media" be included in the first paragraph of his wikipedia article? No one disputes weather or not people have asked Romney about poligamy, and included poligamy in news stories. The question remains weather or not "all news stories about Romney"{ would fit in the first paragraph of Romney's wikipedia article. I do not think all news stories about Romney would fit in the first paragraph, and so we have to choose the ones that seem most important. The second question, that I have asked about 3 times, and not gotten an answer to, does the media ever make mistakes? Can we mention Romney's poligamy without saying that Romney has said that "he can't imagine anything worse than poligamy?" and that he said that it should not be mentioned in context with him? I have never gotten an answer from this question... if I become famous, will poligamy be mentioned in my wikipedia article, because I am a Mormon? What is different between me and Romney? I answer that question, ROmney is running for office, and people wan't to associate him with embarasing aspects of Mormonism. This is the only explanation, as not every famous Mormon's wikipedia article discusses poligamy, just Romney's because he is running for office. Like I have said a couple of times, when ever anyone finds out I am LDS (for instance a co-worder saw my Resume, and that I went to BYU, before I was hired, and the first thing they asked me was how many wives I have) they ask me how many wives I have. Romney is the only front tear Republican candidate to have had only one wife. I want to ask why people want to include poligamy in Romney's article (if its not just to associate him with with negative aspects of Mormonism)? If its just to give more background, should we add a section on poligamy to Steve Young's wikipedia article? Should we add a section on poligamy to Glen Beck's page? See what he has to say about poligamy? WHat did Farlo to Farnsworth inviter of the TV think about poligamy? How about Danny Ainge? WHy doesn't his article have anything about Mormonism? Because he is not running for office, and people arn't trying to slander him by associating him with Mormonism.myclob 14:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've said all along that I have no objection to inserting a sentence like the following, with appropriate footnotes: "Some of Romney’s ancestors were polygamists, which is a practice that he has denounced." The issue here is giving this stuff appropriate weight, as well as accuracy. I don't know that all four of Romney's paternal great-grandparents "fled to Mexico." If so, then maybe we could briefly mention that too. But I have much difficulty justifying lengthy discussion about distant ancestors, especially when they were somewhat disreputable. Many presidents have ancestors who were aboard the Mayflower, or who were criminals, or who were all kinds of things, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia biographies should give every detail, regardless of what the mass media says.Ferrylodge 03:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Romney is also descended from Rebecca Nurse, who was hanged for witchcraft in 1692 after the Salem witch trials, and of Anne Marbury Hutchinson, religious reformer, heretic and a founder of Rhode Island. FWIW. - Nunh-huh 03:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It might be worth just a sentence or two (we'll have to watch WP:UNDUE) under the Mormonism or family history section. I would not be against saying something like "His ancestors were known polygamists, though Romney has denounced the practice." The Evil Spartan 04:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Restored family background section

I restored the family background section because I have seen no justifiable reason for it's removal. It is sourced, factual and written in a neutral tone. It explains why Romney's father was born in Mexico. Today's blitzkrieg removed this section. I would like to see some good explanations for why Romney's family background does not belong in the family background section. Turtlescrubber 04:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

No, you have restored false information. Contrary to your recent article edit, four of Romney's great-grandparents were not in polygamous relationships. Additionally, one of the footnotes that you have jammed back in the article has a falsified title ("polygamous roots" was not in the actual Associated Press title). Additionally, I have seen no support for the notion that all of his four polygamous great-grandparents fled to Mexico. All of this has already been mentioned above, but Turtlescrubber thinks that false info in Wikipedia articles is fine?

Additionally, info about his great-grandparents is extremely remote, and is being given vastly undue weight by Turtlescrubber. As mentioned above, many presidents have ancestors who were aboard the Mayflower, which explains how they got to America, but that doesn't mean such info needs to be mentioned (much less at great length at the beginning) of Wikipedia articles on Presidents.Ferrylodge 04:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Turtlescrubber, you can't be lazy and just say there is "no justifiable reason for it's removal". We have been making many arguments why it does not belong in that section... you have to go through the effort of proving why our reasons are "not justifiable"... you can't just pretend you are the god of reason, and ignore all our arguments, and come to conclusions, without at least responding to our arguments. myclob 15:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Romneys father being born in Mexico because of his grandparents is perfectly analogous to the Mayflower. Romneys father has no connection to Romney according to Ferrylodge.

Ferrylodge prefers to blank entire sections instead of fixing the wording in question to match the source.

In addition, Ferrylodge prefers to be combative on the talk page instead of discussing things like a reasonable person. This is what Ferrylodge prefers. Jeez dude. Calm yourself. Turtlescrubber 04:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Cease-fire, guys. No reason to get angry, as both users seem to be editing in good faith. In any case, I don't find the text to have WP:WEASEL problems at all. Ferrylodge, perhaps you could change the text to say, "several of Romney's great-grandparents". Just as a note, I didn't necessarily read the text to mean all of his great-grandparents (it seems unlikely that all 8 would go through the same situation). The Evil Spartan 04:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that would be extremely notable. Lol. Turtlescrubber 04:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Evil Spartan. I'm very glad to see you around these parts. I thought maybe I had something to do with your leaving.

Turtlescrubber, Ferrylodge didn't blank anything, dude. And none of Romney's grandparents emigrated to Mexico, as far as I know.

Anyway, it appears that we've got discussion going on at both BLP and here. Kinda confusing.Ferrylodge 04:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The whole issue is undue weight. Inclusion seems to driven by those that wish to ascribe some connection between Romney and Polygamy, when he has denouced the practice many times. Arzel 04:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course he has denounced polygamy. That has nothing to do with this. This is his family's background. The BLP discussion is irrelevant as this has been dubbed a content dispute that has nothing to do with BLP violations. Check the noticeboard. And if you can't figure out who the grandparent remark refers to check the subject of the sentence. Hint: Its Romney's father. Bro. Turtlescrubber 04:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't really appreciate that tone "Bro" and I disagree with that contention. This is a BLP issue, assigning some link to distant relatives to acribe some negative connotation does not belong in a BLP when the person of the article could have had absolutely zero influence on that relative. It is clear that some are trying to link Romney to Polygamy for political reasons. Arzel 16:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Since this issue has been covered by the media "as an issue that may affect voter perception of his campaign", can we agree that this kind of material would be most appropriate in the campaign section of the article, rather than in the section about his early life and family?Ferrylodge 05:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

So you agree that this subject is notable, factual and well-sourced. I think it is an integral part of Romney's family history. If your concern is to move it away from the beginning of the article then we can work on that. I think some editors would be more comfortable with this information removed or completely hidden from view. We could probably find some kind of middle ground. But, this info should not be stricken from the article. I have heard zero compelling arguments for it's complete removal. Turtlescrubber 05:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I have never edit-warred about this material, and I have always said that it warrants some mention in this article. I think something like this ought to go in the section about his campaign: "Some of his father’s ancestors were polygamists, which has been reported by the national media as a factor that may affect voter perception of his campaign. Mitt Romney has denounced the practice of polygamy, and is a proponent of traditional marriage." Of course, appropriate footnotes should be included, for people who would like to learn more about this. Putting this stuff in the section about his early life and family still seems to me as inappropriate as mentioning Rebecca Nurse in that section.Ferrylodge 05:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Rebecca Nurse? Who cares? That's a very transparent straw man argument. Not going to bite. "Some of his fathers ancestors" How about his paternal great-grandparents? We should mention that his father was born in Mexico. Also, that his paternal great-grandparents fled to Mexico to escape anti-polygamy laws. "Mitt Romney has denounced the practice of polygamy, and is a proponent of traditional marriage", seems unnecessary to me but I am not against it. So where exactly do you want to put all this? Turtlescrubber 05:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem specifying his paternal great-grandparents: "His father’s grandparents were polygamists, which has been reported by the national media as a factor that may affect voter perception of his campaign. Mitt Romney has denounced the practice of polygamy, and is a proponent of traditional marriage." I'd put it in the section on his presidential campaign. His father was indeed born in Mexico, as his Wikipedia article explains; I don't see why that fact needs to be mentioned in the Mitt Romney article, especially without mentioning that Mitt Romney's mother was born in Utah.Ferrylodge 06:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The "compelling argument" is that it’s not up to you or any other editor to decide unilaterally; instead this needs to be worked through with others to reach a consensus. To say that this content is not covered under BLP is certainly not true, I am not sure on what basis you are claiming that, as BLP states “Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to... neutrality…” which is the problem. I also might point out that “The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.” At this time there is no consensus, find that and THEN add your material. But don’t hold your breath as I don’t see your position gaining much ground. Brimba 05:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, this has been in the article for weeks. It is sourced, verifiable, factual and relevant. On the WP:BLP noticeboard this was deemed a content dispute and NOT a wp:blp issue. The undue weight has been addressed. This is completely neutral and you have no argument. Great job being constructive. Turtlescrubber 05:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Turtlescrubber, we're talking about four of Mitt Romney's great-grandparents. Would you change your position if we were instead talking about four of his great-great-grandparents? Maybe if we understood your thoughts on these matters, it would be easier to reach a consensus. Is the media coverage determinative as to the relevance of the polygamy? Why is it more relevant that his father was born in Mexico, than that his mother was born in Utah? Please explain, and people will listen to you.Ferrylodge 07:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Republican Presidential candidates, please raise your hand if your father was born in a foreign country. Oh, it's just you Mitt Romney. Now raise your hands if your father was born in one of the fifty U.S. states. Oh, it's everyone else. Now raise your hand if your father was a notable public figure born out of country and it has been discussed multiple times in relation to your polygamous paternal great grandparents in the mass media. Oh, it's Mitt again. Huh. Turtlescrubber 18:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear republican presidential candidates, raise your hand if you are the only presidential candidate to have had a child out of wedlock? Oh, that is Fred Thompson... according to your logic, that should go in the very first paragraph of Fred Thompson's wikipedia biography, because, after all, he is the only presidential candidate to have gotten a girl pregnant before they were married... Also raise your hand if you married your 2nd cousin? According to your logic, that fact should be in Rudy's the first paragraph after the introduction to Rudy's wikipedia article... There are all sorts of things that each candidate is unique for... that does not mean we need to put those things in the first paragraph of their articles.... myclob 19:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop the edit warring, guys

This should be talked out. Use MEDCAB, take a poll, whatever. I'm close to reporting the page for protection. The Evil Spartan 04:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight?

Polygamous family tree: Political pros say the past won't dim the ascendant candidate's future By Thomas Burr Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune

WASHINGTON - Mitt Romney took a hard line against polygamy when asked about it in a television interview earlier this year. Like his church, the Mormon politician is against it.

"My church has long ago given up that practice in the 1800s, but putting that aside for a moment, it's real clear that Americans, myself included, believe that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman and not more than that, and also not same sex couples," Romney told MSNBC's "Hardball" host Chris Matthews.

Romney, of course, didn't mention that about the time The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints renounced polygamy in 1890, his great-grandfather was among those Mormons who fled to Mexico to start their own community where plural marriage continued to be practiced.

As the Massachusetts Republican governor ascends into the elite ranks bidding for the presidency in 2008, the public interest in every aspect of his life - including his family history - will undoubtedly become more intense. Everyone will want to know what's in the Romney closet. Many Americans still associate Mormons with multiple wives. That stereotype has long been battled by the faith that now claims more than 12 million members worldwide. But it has been reinforced of late with the HBO show "Big Love," about a Salt Lake Valley man with three wives, and with the elevation of fundamentalist Utah polygamist Warren Jeffs to the FBI's Top 10 Most Wanted list.

Do you want me to dig up ten more articles just like this one? Easily done. Why don't you tell me why this should be completely censored from the article?Turtlescrubber 04:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE try to keep this discussion in one place. We are already talking about this on two other places on this talk page, and on the BLP noticeboard. The Evil Spartan 04:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well the blp discussion has already been deemed unnecessary but OK. Turtlescrubber 04:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, his religious background is important in connection to his presidential bid. Let's cover it there in a section about religious background instead of shoehorning it into the beginning of the article where non-notable great grandparents are rarely discussed. Cool Hand Luke 17:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

His father was born in Mexico because Miles fled the US to continue practicing polygamy. That strikes me as significant to his family background. Also, the Boston Globe has run stories about Mitt's extended family that resulted from the polygamy. Notmyrealname 17:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It strikes me (the descendant of polygamists, like millions of other Americans) as not nearly as significant to his background as his father's accomplishments at AMC, governor of Michigan, and innumerable other things that are not only more unique to Romney, but actually occurred in his lifetime.

I agree that polygamy is significant, and his religion is extremely significant, in relation to his presidential bid. It's ludicrous that this article goes into detail about his flip-flopping (also significant) but does not have a section about his religion. More than any other candidate, his bid turns on the question of whether a Mormon is nationally electable. Cover stories about Obama do not say "An African American's Journey," for example, yet Obama has a section on "Cultural and political image," and Romney does not. I suggest we add a section on "Religious and political image" where this information on his great grandparents would neatly fit. Cool Hand Luke 17:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the Romney campaign article, it has a subsection on religious beliefs, including some discussion of polygamy. This main article should address polygamy in a summary style. Again, I'd suggest a couple sentences in the campaign section of the Mitt Romney article, like this: "Romney's paternal great-grandparents emigrated to Mexico to avoid polygamy laws in the United States, and this fact has been reported by some media outlets as a factor that may affect voter perception of his campaign. Mitt Romney has denounced the practice of polygamy, and is a proponent of traditional marriage."Ferrylodge 18:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Romney's mother was born in Utah, directly the result of Mormons fleeing persecution in the Midwest; her family appears to have been completely monogamous rather than polygamous, but no one is suggesting to put those facts in the Mitt Romney Wikipedia article. Likewise, no one is seriously suggesting to put Romney's ancestor Rebecca Nurse in the Mitt Romney Wikipedia article. He has only three siblings, and they're all listed in the article. How many first cousins does he have? If it's some incredibly huge number, then we might want to mention that. But, putting the polygamous behavior of his paternal great-grandparents into the article would be kind of unusual. I'd have no objection to a couple sentences in the campaign section of the Mitt Romney article, like this: "Romney's paternal great-grandparents emigrated to Mexico to avoid polygamy laws in the United States, and this fact has been reported by some media outlets as a factor that may affect voter perception of his campaign. Mitt Romney has denounced the practice of polygamy, and is a proponent of traditional marriage." This could be footnoted, so that interested readers can learn more if they want to. Sound okay?Ferrylodge 18:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, we have to follow the weight of reliable sources, which indicate polygamist ancestry is notable in context of his presidential bid. The plight of the Mormons is well-known, and can be looked up from the appropriate wikilinks. Cool Hand Luke 18:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

"putting the polygamous behavior of his paternal great-grandparents into the article would be kind of unusual." Yeah, Ferrylodge. That's because it is unusual. This is his family's background and if you think it deserves mention in his campaign article. Then we can put it in both sections. Does that work for you? Turtlescrubber 18:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would make sense to mention in both sections that Romney's father was born in Mexico. The first section can also mention that his wife was born in Utah. And, the second section can say something like this: "Romney's paternal great-grandparents emigrated to Mexico to avoid polygamy laws in the United States, and this fact has been reported by some media outlets as a factor that may affect voter perception of his campaign. Mitt Romney has denounced the practice of polygamy, and is a proponent of traditional marriage."Ferrylodge 19:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I just saw the comment from Cool Hand about a "Religious and political image" section. That could be a workable compromise. What are the thoughts about that? Turtlescrubber 18:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

As a subsection of the 2008 campaign section, that would be fine, though it's unnecessary and I'd prefer no such subsection.Ferrylodge 19:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not on the main page. That is where the similar section on Obama's (FA) article is. This isn't Romney's first political campaign and I doubt it will be his last.Turtlescrubber 19:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

As a subsection of the 2008 campaign section on the main page, that would be fine, though it's unnecessary and I'd prefer no such subsection. I don't think any of the other candidates have separate sections devoted to their religion and/or the misadventures of their ancestors.Ferrylodge 19:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

They don't, but reliable sources don't bring them up in relation to their presidential bids. I think the closest analog is Obama, where pundits have questioned whether he's "black enough," as well as whether an African American is electable. Romney has similar issues, and it makes sense that we would have an analogous section for him. By framing it in terms of elections, we are following reliable sources, which have repeatedly raised these points. We also avoid distorting his early life by implying that polygamy was a major part of his upbringing. A section therefore avoids undue weight and puts the polygamist ancestors in the correct context. Cool Hand Luke 21:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

By "main page" I assume you mean as a top-order section as opposed to a subsection. That's reasonable, it was apparently (a less high-profile issue) during his Mass campaign. The section should be near his other political runs, like Obama's; religion is logically connected to his political adventures. Cool Hand Luke 20:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Luke, you're referring to Obama's "Cultural and political image" section. That's a much broader topic than the topic you're suggesting about the impact of his family's religious and social history upon his campaigns. It seems to me that creating a top-level section on that subject in Romney's main article will give it undue weight, and I'd prefer that it be a subtopic of the section on his 2008 campaign. It's already a subtopic of the separate article on Romney's 2008 campaign. Additionally, I don't think there's enough material to justify a top-level section at the main article. What else do you want to say, beyond something like this: "Romney's paternal great-grandparents emigrated to Mexico to avoid polygamy laws in the United States, and this fact has been reported by some media outlets as a factor that may affect voter perception of his campaign. Mitt Romney has denounced the practice of polygamy, and is a proponent of traditional marriage"? How about if we start it as a subsection of the 2008 campaign section, and then if it gets big enough it can be spun off into a top-level section?Ferrylodge 21:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's reasonable too. I'm indifferent about the section level, but this detail about his religious background is only relevant to his political runs—not his early life. Your proposed sentence is a nice start, but you surely realize the amount of ink that's been spilled on the subject, right? There are surveys about the number of Americans who will not vote for a Mormon, political science suggesting that Romney will have a problems with Republicans in the evangelical South (Southern Baptists consider Mormons a cult, for example). There are the incidents of people associated with other candidates calling Mormons non-Christian, ect. Crap like this is considered legitimate political commentary. This is THE issue about the candidate according to reliable sources. Hence the Newsweek cover "A Mormon's Journey." Cool Hand Luke 21:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Something to keep in mind: "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. And these days, major media outlets are not above tabloid journalism, unfortunately.Ferrylodge 22:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That might be, but we just follow reliable sources without injecting our own analysis. The religion issue is a big deal for his candidacy when so many people seem to be opposed to him based on it. Cool Hand Luke 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

(left indent) Something else to keep in mind Well known public figures In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out. Example "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is it important to the article, and has it been published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. Example A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source..

When something is covered over the course of years from Fox News to 60 Minutes (as well as international press) and a zillion other outlets, it is verifiable and true, then it is censorship to keep it out of wikipedia. My objection to the proposed wording by Ferrylodge is that it does not make clear that Mitt's relatives fled to Mexico because they PRACTICED polygamy. I have no doubt that if other candidates had similar family histories that were covered as thoroughly and extensively in the mainstream press it would be on their wikipedia bios as well. Notmyrealname 22:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Knock this "censorship" stuff off. It's not helpful. Assume good faith; I think most people here are trying to write an NPOV biography. That said, I agree that a wording change is appropriate for the sake of clarity, but it should be in a section related to his politics, not "early life". Cool Hand Luke 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Notmyrealname, you must realize that the BLP info you've quoted refers to allegations and incidents like a subject's divorce or affair --- rather than activities by a third party that the subject had nothing to do with. If Mitt Romney favored polygamy or engaged in polygamy, then of course it should go prominently in this article. The problem here is that we're talking about polygamnous practices of people that Romney apprently never even met, namely four of his great-grandparents. Would you be equally as adamant about describing polygamous practices in this article if it were Romney's great-great-great-grandparents, or his sixth cousins twice removed? Can you see why some of us find this somewhat absurd? As far as rephrasing the sentences I proposed, how about this....

"Romney's paternal great-grandparents emigrated to Mexico to avoid being prosecuted for polygamy in the United States, and this fact has been reported by some media outlets as a factor that may affect voter perception of his campaign. Mitt Romney has denounced the practice of polygamy, and is a proponent of traditional marriage."Ferrylodge 03:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This latest revision seems fine by me. My only suggested modification would be to add a couple (2-3) of the articles I've cited previously (or some others) as sources. Obviously, there's no need to list all the places that simply reprinted the AP story, but there has been serious reporting about this over a long period of time. I would suggest the AP story, the 60 Minutes interview, and one of the Boston Globe pieces that discuss Mitt's extended family. Notmyrealname (talk) 05:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Page protected...

.. for one week. If you are ready to resume editing before the protection expires, or to contest the protection, please place a not at WP:RFPP. Editors are encouraged to evaluate the disputed material in the context of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I realize that I made an edit to this article last week. Leaving the protection (that I believe is still needed) to an admin that has not edited this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

A week seems a bit extreme, especially given that this is the bio page of a top-tier presidential candidate. But a block of a day or two would probably be a good way for all concerned to cool off. Notmyrealname 04:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

In case there was any remaining doubt as to whether religion should have a prominent place on this page

Read this Notmyrealname 22:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

And hopefully that speech will only be a couple of sentences in the Wikipedia article like it was for John F. Kennedy, and should show up on the campaign article rather than the biography. Alanraywiki 23:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it is interesting that you use the fact that people won't stop hounding Romney about his religion, as a reason to hound him about his religion... Romney has mentioned many times that he is not running for paster, and he has cited Lincoln's speech saying that when you are a government official, that that comes before the religion, but people keep hounding him about his religion, as was stated in the CBS story about the speech, he doesn't do an ask mitt anything in Iowa (and I think he has done 1 or 2 hundred of them) without getting asked about his religion... And then you site a news story that he is going to give a speech telling people to leave him alone, and treat him like everyone else, you use this news event to say that you should have a big section about Romney's religion, and not treat him like everyone else? myclob 18:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus Proposal

In the existing section on "Early life and family background", shorten the title to "Early life and family", and add a sentence briefly mentioning that his father was born in Mexico and his mother was born in Utah.

In the section on "Campaign for United States President, 2008 election", add the following: "Romney's paternal great-grandparents emigrated to Mexico where they would not be subject to laws and church policy banning their polygamous practices, and this fact has been mentioned by some media outlets as a factor that may affect voter perception of his campaign.[1] Mitt Romney has denounced plural marriage, and is a proponent of traditional monogamous marriage."[2]

1. Romney's family tree has polygamy branch Associated Press, February 24 2007 via Boston Globe.

2. Douglas Kmiec, Revising Kennedy, National Review, November 14 2007, quoting Romney: "There is nothing more awful, in my view, than the violation of the marriage covenant that one has with one’s wife. The practice of polygamy is abhorrent, it’s awful, and it drives me nuts that people who are polygamists keep pretending to use the umbrella of my church....My church abhors it, it excommunicates people who practice it, and it's got nothing to do with my faith."

Okay?Ferrylodge 14:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Ferrylodge, for all the work that you have done. You have corrected two mistakes that were absolutely wrong... This sounds much better, and more balanced... even with these changes there are 5 uses of the word "Mormon" on Romney’s front page... one below his picture, one in the "Early life and family background" section, 3 in the references (#12, #26, and the article: "Is America ready for a Mormon president?" Reuters, 23 November 2006 ), and at the bottom of the page were it says, "Mormon missionaries in France"... Also there is some slight duplication were it says "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)" twice... it gives the official name and the slang for the church under the photo, and duplicates this in the "Early life and family background" section... I say you only need to give the slang or official name once... You don't need to tell people twice, it is redundant... The word "church" also appears 4 number of times... (1) Romney is a former bishop and stake president in his church. (2) under the "Education" section it says; "Romney served in France for 30 months as a missionary for LDS Church" The abbreviation LDS is never explained, but the word Mormon was explained twice... I say take the abbreviation, or slang, and use it instead of explaining the slang twice, and never introducing the abbreviation... The word "church" also appears under the "See Also" section under the title (3) "Presidents and Prophets: the Story of America's Presidents and the LDS Church", and the heading at the very bottom (4) "Bishops of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"... I still see far many more references to Romney’s church than any other candidate… I wish they were all treated fairly, but what are you going to do? Overall I see a total of 9 references to Romney's religion on his main wikipedia article... I think 4 or 5 would probably be fair, but we can save that fight for another day. myclob 19:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The convention on Mormon-related articles is to use the church's full name on first reference. We can't say he served a mission for the "Mormon Church," so I think it would be useful to define the church's abbreviation. Alternatively, we could rephrase it to say he served a Mormon mission. Even here, we generally prefer to refer to "Latter-day Saints." See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints)

As for your last point, there should be more references to Romney's religion than any other candidate. No other candidate's religion is a central question to their electoral success. Cool Hand Luke 19:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Which is first reference, the info box or the section on "Early life and family background"?Ferrylodge 19:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

We usually use the full name in both. The sidebar is not part of the article text, and the full name is more correct than "Mormon." Cool Hand Luke 20:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Then let's leave "Mormon" out of either the sidebar or the section on early life. Any preference? Incidentally, I want to point out that the Google news archive has less than 50 hits for "Mitt Romney" and "polygamy" and "Mexico". See here. Add "grandparent" and there are no hits at all.Ferrylodge 20:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the three phrases in conjunction are of note, but if you do "Mitt Romney" and "polygamy" you get 351 hits (a small number) and if you do "Mitt Romney" and "Mexico" together you get 2400 hits (still a small number, even less so if you look at the hits as most are more in relation to the current immigration issues).--Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That's 351 NEWS stories, which is more than the vast majority of items in this article merit. If you do a general google search for Mitt Romney and Polygamy you'll get 63,800. On top of that, the level of the news hits is 60 Minutes, Fox News, the Boston Globe, AP, Reuters, the Guardian, etc. This isn't some Rush Limbaugh gets in trouble for having bootleg viagra story. This has been a significant enough story to merit a few sentences in this article. Notmyrealname 04:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus has not been reached

I am against hiding all of this information on a separate page. I go to work and come back and somehow a "consensus" has been reached? How is this possible? Shouldn't you give editors a reasonable amount of time to be able to discuss an issue? Turtlescrubber 02:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I want to see these issues discussed on the main page as they relate to the man and his family. How can you say that his membership in the Mormon church only affects his political campaign and not the man himself. Adding one sentence to the bottom of a summary section for an entirely different article is sloppy and wrong. Tidbits of info is not what summary sections are for as they summarize an entire article. There should be a section concerning Romney's roots, his beliefs and their political impact. Romney has run many political campaigns and putting his beliefs and family in the 2008 election summary is just plain silly. Turtlescrubber 02:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Turtlescrubber, you just reverted at 2:30 on 4 December. As anyone can see, the information that you erased (about Romney's great-grandparents) was inserted in the campaign section of this article, and not hidden on some separate page somewhere as you allege. And you've erased it completely.

We have been discussing putting this polygamy info in the campaign section since 5:19 on 2 December. That's more than 45 hours in which you could have objected.Ferrylodge 02:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no campaign section in the Mitt Romney article. That is a summary of a separate sub-article. Adding information to that section and not to the actual article being summarized is inappropriate. And this hasn't been in the mix for 45 hours. Consensus proposal was proposed this morning I believe, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mitt_Romney&oldid=175486532. Great way to reach consensus. Just wait for the other editors to go to work. Turtlescrubber 02:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidently, it is impossible to reason with you. There most obviously is a campaign section in the Mitt Romney article.Ferrylodge 03:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidently, you can't grasp the concept of a sub-article summary. There most obviously are places you can read about that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SUMMARY Turtlescrubber 03:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, just in case you can't be bothered to hit the link:

Sometimes editors will add details to a summary without adding those facts to the more detailed article. To keep articles synchronized, editors should first add any new material to the appropriate places in the main article, and if appropriate, summarize the material in the summary article. In other cases, the detailed article may grow considerably in scope, and the summary needs to be re-written to do it justice. These problems may be tagged with {{Sync}}.

Turtlescrubber 03:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent)The campaign section is a summary section. Why do you deny that this is true?Ferrylodge 03:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Quit the straw man arguments. You really aren't very good at it and it is quite transparent. "Adding one sentence to the bottom of a summary section for an entirely different article is sloppy and wrong." Turtlescrubber 03:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Turtlescrubber: both are sections in the article. The information is not being hidden. It was simply moved from one section on the main page to another. Incidentally, we're allowed to edit without consensus. Besides, no one—not even you—claimed to be against a religion subsection. This did indeed seem to be a consensus; a compromise solution. Ferrylodge didn't add a section heading as discussed, but I can't understand why you wouldn't have fixed that instead of revert. Cool Hand Luke 04:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I would say requesting for a page to be unprotected when you don't have a consensus is definitely not the right thing to do. Technically against the rules, I don't know. But definitely not the right thing to do. The info is being hidden as it was not only moved but reduced. Also, what religion subsection? Where is it? This article is being cleansed of info. Turtlescrubber 04:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

We need to add a religion section. As discussed, we'd be using the Obama article as a guide because it's clearly notable to his campaigns. Not so much relevant to his upbringing. Cool Hand Luke 04:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that would go a very long way towards satisfying my concerns. I would be okay with the recent changes if a proper section modeled on the Obama section was also added to this article. We are talking about a religion section in the main article, right. That is the article we are discussing. Turtlescrubber 04:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Obama's "Cultural and political image" section covers a much broader topic than the impact of the Romney family's religion upon his campaigns, and would give the latter topic undue weight. Religion is already a subtopic of the separate article on Romney's 2008 campaign, so it ought to be covered there and summarized in the main article. Additionally, I don't think there's enough material to justify a top-level section at the main article.Ferrylodge 04:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

How is Romney's religion inappropriate for a biography article. You don't think there is enough info on this? Seriously? We could write tomes. It deserves to be on the main article. It's on the main article on Obama's page it should be on the main article in Romney's page. Turtlescrubber 04:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am going to sleep. Try not to reach a "consensus" until I get back. Turtlescrubber 05:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Milt Romney

There was a citation request regarding Milt Romney playing for the Chicago Bears. Will someone please add the following reference: http://www.chicagobears.com/tradition/alltimeroster.asp#r Thanks, Alanraywiki 20:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The reference was removed because the section keeps getting changed to earlier versions. The reference is here for when everything is resolved in that area of the article. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Voting

I guess the only way to resolve this is a vote straw poll. This has been going on for days, and I thought that a good faith consensus had been reached, but the article continues to be reverted. Here is how I edited the article in order to get a consensus version. Who supports it?

SupportFerrylodge 03:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC) myclob (talk) 03:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy You are trying to ram your changes through, especially when you assume consensus is reached when I don't post for 15 hours. This conversation has been going on for what, like two days. You need to at least try and reach consensus instead of this, your way or the highway stuff. I am going to open an RFC and this matter will be settled when an appropriate compromise is reached. Turtlescrubber 03:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Straw polls are a normal part of Wikipedia, and that is why there are straw poll guidelines. This approach was suggested above by another editor, which is why I thought it might be worth a try.Ferrylodge 03:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Why don't my honorable Wikpedians pursue dispute resolution? That is why we have it for. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think an rfc would be more beneficial to resolving this than a straw poll. What we obviously need here are a few more voices of folks who have some perspective on all of this. Notmyrealname 04:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

RFC: polygamy of paternal great-grandparents

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

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

Statements by uninvolved editors

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)

• 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.[3][4] 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)

• 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)

• 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)

RFC discussion

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

"The republican version of John Kerry"

{{editprotected}}

This statement violates the WP:NPOV and WP:BLP policy:

Another criticism of Romney is that he is the Republican version of John Kerry. Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, one of his main rivals, accused Romney of 'flip-flopping' on issues[77].

I checked the reference, and it does not actually say that Giuliani accused Romney of flip-flopping. Please just remove the statement. If a good reference is found then the statement can be rewritten neutrally and added back in. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done. (re-worded statement to remove that it's an accusation of flip-flopping, replaced with generic "compared him to Kerry" which the source does support - didn't want to change the structure of the paragraph too much) —Random832 14:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This just in!

Romney's great-great-greant grandpa kicked his dog! Lets put that in there too! myclob (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This just in!

Romney's great-grandpa.....was forced out of his home in Illinois and had to walk to Utah, in the middle of winter... This has nothing to do with Romney but apparently we are going to start talking about his Great-grandparents for some reason.... myclob (talk) 03:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Romney's paternal great-parents' polygamy...

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)
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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

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

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

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)
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)
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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

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)

   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)

2. No other presidential candidate's great-granparents are brought up. myclob (talk) 04:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)

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

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

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)
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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

    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)

    No, it's not irrelevant. Obama's mother "divorced her husband after she discovered his bigamous double life."[5] 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.[6] 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)

    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)

    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.[7]Ferrylodge (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

←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)

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)

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)

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)

It should be covered, but not in "Early life..."

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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

It should not be included at all

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)

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)

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)

Edit request

{{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)

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.[8] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

According to the Chicago Tribune, "It is a common misconception that the Mormon church sanctions polygamy; it banned the practice in 1890."[9] 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Any objections to a clarification?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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." [10]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

Another very important reason to include Romney family's polygamy

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

←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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Proposed new section on his religious background (feel free to edit)

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. 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. Before college, Romney served in France for 30 months as a missionary and later was a bishop and stake president. Romney does not drink alcohol, smoke, or swear.

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. However, some social conservatives and evangelicals criticize Romney for not being Mormon enough, regarding social policy. He has avoided speaking publicly about specific church doctrines, and has pointed out that the U.S. Constitution prohibits religious tests for public office. Declining to discuss details about his religion also reduces the risk that doctrinal differences will alienate evangelical Christian voters. 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." Mormonism was not an issue in his father's presidential campaign in 1968. Other presidential aspirants of that faith have included Joseph Smith, Morris Udall, and Orrin Hatch.

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 and "hoped that the time would come when the leaders of the church would receive the inspiration to change the policy."

Romney has denounced polygamy and is a proponent of monogamous marriage. 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. Subsequent generations of Romney's paternal lineage have been monogamous and none of his mother's Mormon ancestors appear to have been polygamists. Due to legal pressure by the U.S. federal government, the LDS church renounced polygamy in 1890. Mitt's father, George, was born in Mexico in 1907, and was brought to the United States in 1912 by Mitt's grandparents.

Comments

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

More comments

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Semiprotection

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)

Wording on plural marriage banning

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)

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)

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

Add new section on religion?

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

Agreed Daniel ⁵¹²⁷

Page unprotected

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)

Spacing

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)

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)

"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)

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)