Talk:Mitt Romney/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

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." [1]. 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)

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)

Revert war

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

Bishop

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why not an issue in 1968

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

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

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

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

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

Multiple links to Criticisms of Mormonism

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

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

Semi-protect

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What? We semi-protect high-profile articles. That is the norm, and it's been that way for years. The Jimbo post suggested protecting lightening rods like George W. Bush, and this isn't even unusual. We've got everyone from Ann Coulter to Weird Al.[2] Like Jimbo says, many bios are "high profile" and attract "POV pushing trolling." The major presidential candidates are both, at least until their bids resolve themselves. Cool Hand Luke 12:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

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

More specificity in treatment of blacks

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doesn't drink alcohol or smoke, and rarely swears

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

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

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

C. If you rarely swear, you still swear.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mormon Underwear or Temple Garment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Qworty, WP:BLP says: "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." That person is you, right?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the original source I had used, out of the Baltimore Sun [3], though I should note that there are plenty of other reliable sources that state Romney has been asked the question and refused to answer. Yes, there are those who think this entire issue is "silly," but in fact there are voters who are interested in it as a religious question. Furthermore, I think it's original research and POV-pushing for editors here to proclaim this a silly matter. If they want to play that game, other editors could argue that the entire issue of religion itself is silly. But we don't need to go there. Qworty (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bullshit again. It's a non-issue. Romney has apparently refused to answer the question several times, but the level of coverage never escalates. Newsweek isn't saying "Romney's candidacy is marred by his refusal to earnestly explain Mormon underwear." WP:WEIGHT It's bullshit, and you know it's bullshit when you offer to accept ransom and "end this entire content dispute" by removing the lines about tobacco and alcohol. WP:POINT Do you have a different proposed question for RfC? I'll go along with whatever you want if you agree to abide by the outcome. Cool Hand Luke 05:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Where did "Criticisms of Mormonism" go?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If we're going to keep this religion section, it ought to go at the end. Other candidates don't have such a section, and this material is not the most important stuff about him. But Tvoz insisted that it be up front, and accused me of trying to bury it (Tvoz is a Democrat by the way). Qworty, did it ever occur to you that a lot of Christians wear a necklace with a cross, and that doesn't make them nuts any more than some special garments makes them nuts? Nor does a yarmulkah make a Jew nuts.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop trying to bury this section. All of the other editors on this page agreed with the current placement of this section. TVOZ was just one of many so stop trying to denigrate the integrity of others.Turtlescrubber (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, would that be the Washington Post article where you admitted that you made a financial contribution to the Fred Thompson campaign and were also heavily editing the articles about Thompson? Funny that you leave that out of your gratuitous parenthetical posting of the link and comment about my politics (about which you actually know nothing). If you have an accusation to make about my editing, come out and make it in the proper forum, rather than by snide innuendo that you sneak into a comment section that I was not even participating in. What actually happened three days ago is we reached a compromise - and that's how we got the page unlocked. If you had continued to raise your objections to the placement, it is likely the article would not have been unlocked, as the placement was part of the compromise - as you well know. So stop pretending otherwise. And get over your obsession with me - as if I singlehandedly "insisted" on anything here. Tvoz |talk 04:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz, you are the most accusatory person I have ever encountered at Wikipedia. It seems that every comment you make contains one accusation or another. Please let up. If you want to accuse me of welching on a compromise, then please point out where in that section there was any mention of placement.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm accusatory? Would you care to explain your gratuitous comment Tvoz is a Democrat, by the way if it was not a not-very veiled accusation regarding my motivations and my editing? Do I really have to remind you about NPA? And I didn't say you "welched" on a compromise, I said that the reason the page was opened was because the rest of us had reached a compromise on wording and placement - had you continued your objections then, I believe the page would have remained locked. See Cool Hand Luke on this down below. Tvoz |talk 06:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz, was the Washington Post also making a personal attack against you when it mentioned on page one that you're a Democrat? Can we please move on now?Ferrylodge (talk) 06:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second! Yellowdesk and I were robbed!! http://wikidashboard.parc.com/wiki/Mitt_romneyNotmyrealname (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you capable of assuming good faith, Qworty? I pushed hard for a religion section. It's not because I was trying to defend Romney. It's because religion is the issue of his candidacy. I'm not just saying things (like that Mormon underwear is UNDUE weight) because I want to defend Romney. I want to get the article right, even if that means including a potentially embarrassing aspect about him. I find your attitude enormously disruptive. You tell us now (as you did then) that we should have just let the uncontextualized polygamy reference alone. You state now that we could get rid of your absurd Mormon underwear demands by abstaining from tobacco and alcohol. You speak and behave, in other words, as if you're holding the article hostage. Stop it. Cool Hand Luke 05:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Placement of Religion section

I believe that this religion section ought to be moved down to another location, for example immediately after the section on his presidential campaign. Other candidates do not have a huge religion section. If the need for one in this case is due to the role of religion in the presidential campaign, then there is no reason to have this section before the section on his presidential campaign. Does anyone object? Does anyone agree? I'll move it if no one objects.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I object. Thie current position is the correct chronological place for the section. Ordering the article by chronology is the most neutral way to order it. Ordering it by any other criterion (and you have not provided any criterion at all) implies some manner of bias. However, there is an additional, important, fully verifiable reason for keeping it where it is--religion has been the most important factor in the Romney campaign so far. We must reflect this real-world reality, rather than burying the information. For reasons of chronology and importance, the section should stay where it is. Qworty (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit Conflict - After reading through some other bio's most of it should be moved to his presidential campaign article. The vast majority of this section is related to his presidential campaign. Other presidential candidates do not have such a hefty religious section, and it would appear that most of this is related to general issues people have with the Mormon religion. Arzel (talk) 00:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Arzel, would it be acceptable to have it immediately after his presidential campaign section? It will be hellish to decide how to break up this section.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Arzel is incorrect. There are three paragraphs in the section. Only the middle one regards the presidential campaign. The rest is chronological biography and must not be moved. Qworty (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not suggested removing anything. And Qworty, the material is obviously not chronological, unless you believe that 1969 is before 1884.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh, excuse me, but 1884 is 123 years before the presidential campaign! Qworty (talk) 00:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The section on religion is not written in a chronological manner. The years "1969" and "1968" explicitly appear before the years "1884" and "1878".Ferrylodge (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This has already been settled by consensus with you being the only opposing opinion. Stop trying to get around consensus by exhausting the patience of the editors on this page. Turtlescrubber (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge and Arzel, as I cannot believe you don't recall, we discussed this very point ad nauseam very recently above and reached an agreement that the material about religion would be separated from Early life and family background which would be come Early life and education, with education moved in, and religion would be the second section. Not way down on the bottom of the article, not moved out to presidential campaign article. We talked about all aspects of this, especially and specifically including placement, and we reached an agreement. That consensus was the basis of the page being unlocked, so why is this being raised now as if it had not been thoroughly gone over? I find this disingenuous section quite amazing, in fact, although I guess I shouldn't, given past events. Tvoz |talk 01:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, nine different people agreed on where this section should be placed. [4] That's an overwhelming consensus. There's no reason for you, Ferrylodge, to try to rewrite history according to your own POV-pushing initiative at this late date. Qworty (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agreed to adding a new section on religion. I never agreed that it should be the second section in the article, so please cut out the nonsense. And why can't an editor suggest how to change an article to make it better?

Your accusations that I am trying to "bury" the section are insulting and obviously mistaken. I suggested putting the religion section immediately after the section on the presidential campaign, where it obviously belongs (i.e. before the sections on political positions and electoral history). I could just as easily accuse you of trying to bury the various sections that are now located after the religion section.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What’s happening here is that Ferrylodge is realizing what a mistake it was for him to push for the religious background section to begin with. This entire controversy started because there was a single line in the article discussing a polygamous ancestor of Romney. Ferrylodge kept screaming for context, context, context. Well, now he’s got his religious context, and he’s realized it makes Romney look far, far worse than he looked when the only issue was a single line about his ancestral polygamy. So now that Ferrylodge realizes that he’s knifed Romney in the side with all of this religious babble, Ferrylodge wants to bury his own edits! This is both hilarious and absurd. However, it is precisely what I predicted would happen. [5] Qworty (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Nail on the head. I actually get a kind of perverse pleasure in seeing FerryLodge trying to censor the article and is instead eventually forced to create a whole section. Now he/she is scrambling to mitigate the truth. Very funny. Turtlescrubber (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how Qworty and Turlescrubber could make it any more clear that their goal is to make "Romney look far, far worse" and to "knife[] Romney in the side." Very kind of you to make that crystal clear for any dopes who didn't realize it already. For the record, I have consistently said that this should not be the second section in the article. And for the record, I think having it be the second section is a vast improvement compared to the version that you had insisted upon (i.e. having a statement in the first section about polygamy without even hinting that both Romney and his church have denounced that practice). Anyway, chill out, or I may decide to go over to the Democrat candidate articles and do the kind of thing that you've done here.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh, excuse me, but if you want to hurt the articles of the Democratic candidates, you shouldn't do what other editors have done here, you should do what you've done here: spend days and days screaming for a section detailing the most embarrassing aspects of their backgrounds, spend days and days doing all of the major writing yourself, demand to the skies that your section be inserted, and then call even more attention to it by calling for it to be buried. Tell us the truth--are you a paid staffer for Huckabee? What do you have against Mitt Romney anyway? LOL! Qworty (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, you wrote the section. I just wanted a brief mention. However, in the end I think the article has been vastly improved by your edits. It's your motivations that I find funny. This isn't a D vs. R war. This is just about editing wikipedia. I have improved the hell out of Republican candidate articles in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Isn't this the same kind of behavior that got you that community wide ban? Maybe you should stay away from contentious topics as it doesn't really seem to be working out for you? Not a threat (like your threat above) just a thought. Turtlescrubber (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess we agree about something: "the article has been vastly improved" by my edits. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Turtlescrubber (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Qworty, your attitude hear is very disturbing. TVOZ, concensus can change. Turtlescruber, please assume good faith. Ferrylodge, I don't think the section should be moved, only parts of it be moved to his presidential election article.

The following section within the religious paragraph deals explicitly with his presidential campaign and has no context outisde of his presidential aspirations. Remember this is an article about Romney, not his current attempt to be president. I am suggesting this section be incorporated into his presidential campaign article. And before anyone gets into a hissy thinking I am trying to censure, or hide, or whitewash anything, know that I am not a supporter of Romney and would never vote for Romney.

Religion has played a major role in the 2008 presidential campaign, with polls indicating that a quarter of Republican voters are "less likely" to vote for a presidential candidate who is Mormon.[17][18] Among other criticisms, some evangelical voters view the LDS Church as a cult.[19] However, some social conservatives and evangelicals criticize Romney for not being Mormon enough, regarding social policy.[20][21] He has avoided speaking publicly about specific church doctrines, and has pointed out that the U.S. Constitution prohibits religious tests for public office.[17] Declining to discuss details about his religion also reduces the risk that doctrinal differences will alienate evangelical Christian voters.[20] 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."[17] Mormonism was not an issue in his father's presidential campaign in 1968, for several possible reasons: he dropped out before it could become one, the candidacy of John F. Kennedy (a Catholic) had neutralized the religion issue, religion generally was not a major stump issue, and the LDS Church was much smaller at the time.[17][22] Other presidential aspirants of that faith have included Joseph Smith, Morris Udall (a nonpracticing Mormon),[22] and Orrin Hatch.[23]

Arzel (talk) 02:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There are three paragraphs now in the Religious Background section. If what you're suggesting is to move the second paragraph to the section on the presidential campaign, and leave everything else the same, then I could live with that. It seems to make sense, since info about the 2008 campaign is not really "religious background".Ferrylodge (talk) 02:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what I am suggesting. Arzel (talk) 05:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid that won't work. The reason we debated all of this ad infinitum a week ago, before the section was included, was so everybody could comment on the structure and contents of the section before it went in. If you wanted to cut up and scramble the contents, the time to do so would have been then, before consensus had been established. You do not have an authorized consensus to make these radical changes at the present time. You are only two editors, whereas the consensus was reached by nine editors. Qworty (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you address the merits of Arzel's suggestion instead of being like Khrushchev at the UN?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Every single sentence that Arzel wants to lobotomize through burial has to do with religious background. Gee, guess what, all of those sentences are contained in a section called "Religious background"! Hard to see how that screams out for a remedy of any sort. As for Krushchev at the UN, do I recall correctly that he banged his shoe on the desk and said "We will bury you"? Seems to me that only those who are attempting to bury things around here are acting like Mr. K. Qworty (talk) 03:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

One week ago I was at a conference and did not have either the time nor the ability to discuss these issues. Not all of us have so much free time on their hands. That said, you seem to make a presumtion which I explicity stated prior to my remarks to not make. It is sad that some editors can not get past their own personal predjutices and approach these articles in a neutral manner. This is why WP is not respected in the professional or academic community as a reliable source of information. Given your stated stance it is clear that this is nothing more than a WP:COAT to point out issues with the Mormon religion by means of a presidential candidate. I am by no means trying to "bury" these issues, only put them into the appropriate place. Arzel (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh, excuse me, but I initially opposed the writing of this section entirely, arguing instead that the single sentence regarding polygamy be retained. When it came time to build consensus, I agreed to the section's inclusion (and placement) because I thought it was important to unlock the article so that all of its sections could be edited. Besides, I knew that the problematic religious-background section could be tweaked and edited once it was in place and the article unlocked. If I'd been interested in WP:COAT, I would have been insisting from the beginning that the section be included. But from the beginning, this section has been Ferrylodge's baby, not mine or that of any of the other eight editors who eventually approved its placement. So stop trying to rewrite the history of this section for your own personal, rhetorical POV reasons. This is not part of a conspiracy. Instead, what's happened here is that a couple of editors who've been screaming the loudest all along for a more "balanced" view of religion in this article have finally gotten exactly what they were asking for, and they don't like it one tiny bit, exactly as I predicted would happen. And now, with the section locked into place and no consensus whatsoever for moving it, you want to blame me for all of this? LOL!!! You must be really desperate to find a scapegoat for your own rhetorical entanglements. The time to speak up was before the religious can of worms was opened (and remember, I opposed opening it). You should have listened to me then. All that's happening now is that every time you make a post to this talk page, more and more lurking, passive readers are made aware of everything certain people don't want them to be aware of. Qworty (talk) 06:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You initially opposed the section, eh? You were only opposed to the religion section when you were using it as a threat to get your way on polygamy. Cool Hand Luke 06:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly right: I opposed the section as originally written and came up with a half-dozen reasons why. Here they are: [6] You should be aware of this because you responded to some of them. As your link shows, I was not opposed to the idea of a religious section; as my link shows, I was opposed to the section as it was ultimately written. That's what we're talking about--the religious section that came into existence. Since I entirely opposed the way it was written, it would be an incredible stretch for anybody to blame all of the controversies regarding it on me, LOL. But thank you for granting me that power. All of this must have been my fault. It had nothing at all to do with the people who were clamoring for the section, lobbied for it, wrote it, and have now decided they don't like it. I doubt any of them can get off the hook by attacking me for the direction the section has taken. I've in fact made relatively few edits to it. Qworty (talk) 06:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I see. So when you "opposed the writing this section," you really mean that you opposed it as originally written because it was supposedly too favorable to Romney. OK. Cool Hand Luke 06:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I still think it's too favorable to Romney. I'm sure that most Romney supporters, on the other hand, would be completely appalled by the section as it stands. There is a spectrum of opinion and reaction here, you know. The article that Romney supporters would write would never get approved here, and the one I would write would never get approved here. That's why the process is collaborative. Qworty (talk) 07:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Moving the section? No. We got consensus for this section by placing it just after early life, which is like the Eisenhower article. I think that's fine, and many of the comments suggested they would not support a religion section if we were "burying" polygamy (for example) late in the article. Consensus can change, but we're dealing with mostly the same people days later. Maybe suggest it again in a few weeks. I would not be opposed to moving campaign 2008-specific material to that section as Arzel suggests, though. Cool Hand Luke 05:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I withdraw the suggestion about moving the section, for now. My main problem with the Religious Background section is that it contains so much info about the 2008 campaign before the section on the 2008 campaign. Arzel's suggestion would solve that problem. Otherwise, I hope we can return later to the idea of moving the whole section. Not to "bury" it, but to put it immediately after the 2008 campaign section, seeing as how it provides further info about that campaign.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Since you don't have consensus to move the section, you are now trying to take an axe to it and smash it into smaller bits that can be moved around and diluted. This is a rhetorically disingenuous tactic to try to get around the complete lack of consensus for your unpopular editing proposals. I realize that you are a known and self-admitted Fred Thompson supporter, but the fact is that your proposed bowdlerization of the section in question would dovetail perfectly with the aims of the Romney campaign, which you may or may not realize. But Wikipedia articles cannot be structured in order to satisfy one presidential campaign or another. Wikipedia must report the verifiable facts and remain neutral. Qworty (talk) 06:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF. An edit may or may not please the Romney campaign. We don't care, because our articles are written to please WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT, and so forth. Do you have an argument that 2008 campaign-related material should not be in the 2008 campaign section? I think Romney's polygamist roots should certainly stay as a general element of his religious background, but lines about evangelical voters fit in the campaign section, right? Cool Hand Luke 06:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

As I've said before, the entire article is campaign-related material, since the article's about a presidential candidate. Every single fact in the entire article is part of the campaign. That's the way presidential campaigns work. But that doesn't mean we're going to move everything in the article into the campaign section. But more specifically: We have tons of RS that state that a significant percentage of Republican voters have issues with Romney's religious background. That's why that information belongs, lo and behold, exactly where it is, in the "Religious background" section. What we don't have is a single RS that would support the move you're suggesting. In other words, we don't have a single source that states that Romney is, for example, running his campaign as part of a Mormon "cult." The cult stuff belongs exactly where it is, as an evangelical criticism in the religious-background section. All of the information in that section would continue to belong in that section even if Romney were not running for president, but merely living as a Mormon with certain beliefs, attitudes, and responses to ideas about being a Mormon. Qworty (talk) 07:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it's peculiar political criticism, and would not be in the article at all without his bid. Mormon biographies don't normally say that evangelical voters view them as cult members, and it's only here in direct relation to his presidential campaign. At the least you see that this information would be on-topic in either section, right? Cool Hand Luke 07:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

As I've said, it's a presidential campaign, and therefore everything about Romney has been politicized. He's been criticized, for example, for going by "Mitt" instead of his actual given name, "Willard." What are you going to do, suggest that we move his name to the political campaign section? Of course not. Your line of reasoning would lead eventually to every significant fact in the article drifting into the political campaign section. Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008 already exists, and even that article is not organized in the way you suggest. In fact, since that article exists, the campaign section in Mitt Romney shouldn't do much more than point to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008, and in fact it doesn't do a heck of a lot more than that as it is. Thus, your suggested move, moving only the religious-controversy stuff to the campaign section, is in fact undue weight. Look at how skimpy that section is--the religious stuff would really stick out there. Qworty (talk) 07:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No it does not. I said clearly that polygamy, for example, is in the correct section, but that evangelical voters are a campaign issue. But since you're worried about slippery slopes, let's draw a boundary line here and now. How about this rule of thumb: when the article is talking about the attitudes of prospective voters, it belongs in the campaign section. Cool Hand Luke 07:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes I can't believe the way arguments are formulated around here. Has no lesson been learned from the religious-background issue? I argued against the opening of that can of worms, but now it's been opened and the worms are out. So a proposed solution is to open yet another can of worms? Let's put a halt to this right now, before it's too late. If you're serious about using attitudes of prospective voters as a rule of thumb for including new material in the campaign section, you are asking for a nightmare that's going to make the religious-background controversy sound like a soothing tune from the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. Attitudes of prospective voters as a rule of thumb would allow for so much well-sourced, highly verified voter hatred of Mitt Romney that anybody who agrees to such an inclusion guideline would eventually be very sorry--without my having to make a single edit to the section, I might add. The guy has the highest negatives of any candidate, Republican or Democrat. Just look at all the mayhem that ensued when the "religious background" section came into being as a "solution" to problems with this article. We need to quit while we're ahead here. Each new solution, each new avenue for approaching the material, only leads to more "balance" and "counterbalance," more facts about Mitt Romney that just end up pissing off more people. Anybody who's seriously interested in helping to cool this article off should just let it rest for a while. As long as Romney is a candidate, expansion of sections and agreements and consensus and guidelines will only lead to greater strife, edit warring, and frustration. Nobody listened to me the first time. All right, ignore me this time too. I'll sit here watching it as it unfolds. Qworty (talk) 07:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not an inclusion guideline. The content is already included and is notable, with weight. The threshold question is just what section it belongs in. I say that material that has to do with voter attitudes is a campaign issue and belongs in that section. This isn't a can of worms, and if it is, it's already opened—in the wrong section. I think the religion section looks pretty good right now. The article has been improved, in spite of your predictions of doom. I hope for your sake that you do just "sit here" rather than again edit war against WP:BLP. Cool Hand Luke 08:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, believe me, I'm quite content with the way the article looks now. Of the two of us, you're the one who says it's not good enough. The only doom I allude to is the unhappiness of others. But your job isn't really to convince me. Instead, you need to convince the editors [7] who provided the consensus for the revert you are proposing, some of whom have already dropped by to state they oppose any monkeying with the religious-background section. You have some politicking ahead of you. Qworty (talk) 08:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

So far, you're the only objection, and you say you won't stand in our way. Tvoz hasn't It's unclear who has commented on Arzel's proposal, but we don't have to convince everyone before editing. We just have to avoid BLP problems and discuss, not revert, following reversions. There's a commonly-accepted editing style by this method: WP:BRD. Cool Hand Luke 08:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I never said I approved of your proposal or would refrain from proposing other edits or non-edits. In the interests of good faith editing, the burden is on you to go to everyone who originally approved the consensus and explain your arguments to them in detail. To do otherwise is to go behind their backs on a very serious matter that had to do with unlocking a protected article. In any case, this should not be done rashly or too quickly—the new section hasn’t existed very long yet, and it should be allowed to stand for a while, so that previously uninvolved editors can become familiar with it. And if you actually do succeed in arriving at a new consensus, then who would li'l ole me be to block it? I would have no such power. Really, you think too highly of me. Best of luck. Qworty (talk) 09:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no burden on me. All I'm getting at is that consensus is not required to edit an article boldly. If the article is changed and is stable, there's no reason to re-poll everyone (or anyone, for that matter). For the sake of harmonious editing, and as a practical matter, I think we should discuss this, but an editor violates no policies by editing beforehand. Cool Hand Luke 09:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of this, but this article has a history of people trying to sneak edits in without allowing enough time for a full discussion. I commend you for your commitment to discussion, and am only saying that radical changes shouldn't be made before a lot of people--including those who were previously involved--have been heard from. I am quoting no guideline here apart from good faith, which I'm sure you'll follow. Qworty (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

True that. Tvoz |talk 19:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[outdent] As I said - I think we ought to wait more than just a few days after a compromise was reached before changing this section - I believe, Cool Hand Luke, that you said you supported the religious background section, located just after 'early life and education' - a tweaked "Eisenhower" solution - with article stability in mind, so it seems to me we ought to leave this alone for a while to try out the concept of stability. Therefore I did not respond to the specifics of Arzel's suggestion, just against the idea of moving it wholesale. However, when the time comes to revisit this, I could support the second paragraph (only) moving into the presidential campaign section of this main article - not moving it out altogether to the sub article. But the current 1st and 3rd paragraphs I believe should stay as the basis of the section on "Religious background", just after "Early life and education", possibly to be expanded if more reliably sourced information is available regarding his personal religious beliefs, practices, and history. I will not support this change as a prelude to removing any of it altogether - and I think we should let it settle in for a bit as we agreed. Tvoz |talk 09:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That sounds right. Only the second relates to the campaign. If I understand Arzel, the material would stay in this article, but you're right that there's no need to rush. Might as well get other opinions first. Cool Hand Luke 09:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I agree with Luke, Arzel, and Tvoz that it would be appropriate to move the second paragraph of the religion section into the campaign 2008 section, while leaving the first and third paragraphs in the religion section. My understanding is that none of those three paragraphs would change, and only the placement of the second would change.

Incidentally, if you look at the Dwight D. Eisenhower article, the religion section does not address anything campaign-related.Ferrylodge (talk) 09:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If the "understanding is that none of those three paragraphs would change," then the understanding is incorrect. Any of those three paragraphs can of course be edited. Furthermore, are you reading the same Eisenhower article I'm reading? The religion section does indeed contain political material, even though Ike's religion, unlike Romney's, was never a major issue in a campaign. Qworty (talk) 09:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course those paragraphs might be changed subsequently. I only meant that they would not be changed as part of this particular proposal. Regarding Ike, "Eisenhower's religious background was used by some to argue that he was not fit to become president: Both Eisenhower and Stevenson were vigorously challenged by some Protestant[s]...for their religious ties. The association of Eisenhower's mother with the Jehovah's Witnesses was exploited to make the GOP candidate appear as an 'anti-Christian cultist' and a 'foe of patriotism.'"[8]Ferrylodge (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Outdent: I've lost some of the thread of this discussion so I don't know whose proposing what, but I would agree with a proposal that moves the second paragraph of the religious background somewhere else. Really it doesn't cover his background, so much as describing the issue of a non-protestant running for president. Mbisanz (talk) 10:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to restate my opinion so it is not lost and remove any confusion. I propse only the second paragraph be moved to the presidential article, either wholesale or incorporated into existing section. The rest should remain after his personal background for chronological reasons. Arzel (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

See below. Tvoz |talk 20:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Just an FYI that this page made http://www.wikirage.com/ 's list of "what's hot now" so I might expect a little extra scrutiny over the next few days. Mbisanz (talk) 10:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Moving paragraph

In case anyone didn't see in the discussion above, a proposal has been made to move the second paragraph of the "Religious background" section to the campaign 2008 section. The first and third paragraphs would remain in the "Religious background section." I agree with Luke, Arzel, and Tvoz that it would be appropriate to do that.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Object - I would agree, provided that the 2nd paragraph becomes a named sub-section under the Candidacy section. Name it something like "Religion in the Campaign" or "Mormonism at Issue" or whatever. Without a named section, it is just burying controversial material, and I would Object. Noleander (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Noleander, I don't think it's accurate to say that everything in the campaign 2008 section is "buried" unless it falls within a named subsection. So, I'd prefer not to have subsections, but I have no strong feelings either way. All of this talk baout "burying" stuff is not exactly consistent with AGF. Certainly the section on political positions has not been "buried", merely because it is later in the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess I used the word "buried" because, as a rather unpolitical person (Im not that interested in the USA presidential campaign) it just appears that Romney's faith is a heavily discussed topic in major newspapers and TV shows. To not have it in a named section just strikes me as, well, intentional hiding. Im not saying anything about editor's faiths, or editor's political views: Im just sayin' that Wikipedia's emphasis needs to reflect the information that wikipedia readers are looking for when they come to these pages. Noleander (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that the second section of this article should not begin with the word "religion." And I don't think that people who scroll down to the section on the 2008 campaign are more likely to be interested in religious matters than, say, polling information, or flip-flopping.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Im changing my opinion to "object". It looks like this change will reduce the quality and usefulness of this article: the change would obscure key information about the candidate. Noleander (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Once more: My potential support (I said "could", not "would", "will" or "do") of this proposal is contingent upon these things: (1) I do not think we should rush into this change and rather should wait for some stability and more of a cross-section of the editors who have participated here to comment - the article was unlocked because we reached consensus on the article section as it now stands, so a major change like this should be done with caution and discussion lest the article be locked up again; (2) the 2nd paragraph would move into this article's presidential campaign section where it would remain, and by the way, it goes without saying that it could expand if more, reliably sourced, material related to his religion specifically regarding the campaign is uncovered or new reporting occurs (but see my next paragraph for qualification of this); (3) the 1st and 2nd paragraphs would be the basis of the section of "religious background" just after "early life and education", and again - as explicitly stated above - this section could be expanded if additional reliably sourced information is or becomes available regarding his personal religious beliefs, practices, and history. So this is about placement of the second paragraph, and I expect that future changes to the consensus language will be discussed and hidden text should be added requesting that if it wasn't yet, to minimize "bold" edits that are contentious.

And although I am saying that I could support this change in the future, I am absolutely not precluding the possibility that other editors' arguments will convince me to withdraw my support. In fact, I plan to take some time with that section and the presidential section to see just how it fits in, and the discussion here, to see if I think any of it more properly should stay in "Religious background". I think the parts that directly relate to the campaign could be in the campaign section, but I take Qworty's point that his religious beliefs and practices transcend the campaign, and I want to be sure that the article stands as an overall bio, not a campaign bio. And I just saw Noleander's note and think it is also a good point to consider. That's why we need more time to live with the article as we reached consensus on it, as it is now. There is no emergency requiring a rush to change it. So please do not take these comments as definite support for the proposal, because they are not. Tvoz |talk 20:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Take your time, Tvoz.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with Ferry to the extent that I've realized over the next couple of weeks, the Campaign section is probably gonna grow a great deal. Then depending on what happens in January, either the page will be so active it will probably be protected (Romney winning primaries) or all interest will cease (Romney losing). So in that case, I'm willing to defer the rearrangement of the article until its stability is a tad more predicatble. Mbisanz (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I do think we should defer the matter for the present, for the reasons given. We are in the midst of the political season, and there will be much material--relevant, and indisputably appropriate--that will belong in the campaign section. That section is going to be overwhelmed with events soon enough, and doesn't need a lot of experimental editing with religious-background issues that already have a place in the article. For instance, if present trends continue and Huckabee trounces Romney in Iowa, we're going to have to find ways to put a lot of new info and stats into the campaign section in quick order, and do so in an NPOV manner that's well-cited. For another matter, if other present trends continue and McCain continues his surge and comes back to beat Romney in New Hampshire, again we're going to have to find ways to put a lot of new info and stats into the campaign section in quick order, and do so in an NPOV manner that's well-cited. This is a tremendous amount of editing that will fill the section very quickly. Furthermore, any concession speech by Romney, regardless of when given, would be a major event that would have to conclude the campaign section. Or, should Romney survive and win in, say, South Carolina, we have more work to do. Can you imagine doing all of this work while stumbling over religious-background edits in the campaign section and trying to decide what goes where? Look at how much work it is to decide where stuff goes when we haven't been at the height of the campaign season, as we are now. I don't think that a major move, involving trying to shoehorn religious-background issues into the campaign section, is the best thing to attempt at the height of the campaign season. The article needs more stability, not less, and the campaign will bring enough instability as it is. Qworty (talk) 05:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, that is a pointless argument. We don't just wait until it is "convenient" to move stuff to where it should belong. Furthermore, Qworty, please do read up on WP:BLP you most recent attempt to "shoehorn" mormon criticism is nothing more than further WP:COAT. People need to come up with a good reason why that paragraph shouldn't be moved other than simply "I don't like it". Arzel (talk) 14:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Manticore55 (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)I vote to leave it.

WP is not a democracy, exactly what is your reasoning? Arzel (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Manticore55 (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)It may not be a democracy, but it does rely on consensus. Consensus may be fluid, but the weight of that consensus and hybrid of ideas has resulted in more mention of religion, not less. Many of my arguments about the placement of the statement of ancestry (see above) apply here as well, so I see no need to repeat them. While consensus might not be written in stone, inertia should be given consideration unless a more compelling reason exists to change it. Having said that, I unfortunately agree that three paragraphs on Mormonism in Mitt Romney's biography is a bit much. Context is important, especially in Romney's case due to his ties with the LDS Heirarchy (which DOES distinguish him from any other LDS candidate save his father or Joseph Smith), but a recitation of LDS doctrines that can be found elsewhere is a bit much. Mention of the garmnents does not strike me as at all relevant. If the article mentions he is mormon, you're going to know that. And if you don't want to know that, you can find out if you want to know by the linked articles. On the other hand, because of his ties to LDS leadership, the ancestry (including the fact that his father was born in Mexico) is not only relevant, but, in my opinion, vital for a complete understanding of the article. He isn't 'just' a mormon, he is a Mormon of 'royal' descent.

Mormonism as an issue in his father's 1968 run

I always thought it was odd that Mormonism "had not been an issue" during George Romney's 1968 run. Now it turns out that it was an issue, as reported today in the New York Times: "Attention to George Romney’s membership in the Mormon Church concentrated on its policy at the time of excluding blacks from full participation."[9] I have made the appropriate edit to the article. Qworty (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a BLP violation, this article is NOT about his run for president. This article is NOT about previous Mormon controversies. This article is NOT about previous Mormon presidential elections. Arzel (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The George Romney stuff has been in the article for weeks, but you haven't tried to revert any of it till now. Furthermore, how in the heck can this possibly be a BLP violation if it's about a dead person? If it's the race issue that you object to, you have to realize that reliable sources state that it was an issue in the 1968 Romney campaign as well as the 2008 Romney campaign. Commentator after commentator is talking about it out in the real world, but Wikipedia must censor it? No, you are wrong about that. For an example, go and read this: [10]

The link you included doesn't make general remarks that his religion was an issue like it is today, what you are supposing is synthesis of material. If you can't understand how this is a violation of WP:COAT within the framework of WP:BLP then there is little I can do to make it more clear. These continued violations of BLP issues are not acceptable regardless of your personal feelings of the Mormon Church or its previous practices. Arzel (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh, excuse me, but if you look at what I actually wrote in the article, it says that George Romney's religion got some attention in 1968. Of course Mitt's is getting more attention today. The article doesn't indicate otherwise. The source regarding his father in 1968--who is dead--is about the 1968 run alone. I have discovered a source that contradicts the information you are defending--namely, that religion was supposedly not at all an issue during the 1968 run. That has now been proven to be nothing more or less than a lie. Your revert causes the article to contain false information. Well, was religion an issue during the '68 race or not? Our job isn't to suppress the information and call it BLP just because you don't like something about a dead man. Our job isn't to put false information about that dead man out there. Our job is to present facts as verified by RS, and that's what the New York Times link does. Qworty (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

EC - :::Additionally. This article is NOT about Romney's presidential aspirations. This is clearly further evidence that this section needs to be moved to his presidential campaign article. Arzel (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No, that is incorrect. The religious issues having to do with his father's 1968 campaign--some forty years ago--clearly constitute a religious background issue, rather than having anything to do with the 2008 campaign. The section should not be moved. Qworty (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to discuss this right now. I will comment more later. Arzel (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

For a long time now the article has stated that religion was not an issue during George Romney's 1968 campaign, and given a long list of speculations for why that might have been the case. Today, the New York Times has reported that religion was an issue in the elder Romney's 1968 run, though not to the extent that it is in is his son's run. I simply cannot see how we can exclude this very well sourced information from Wikipedia and retain information that is wholly or at least partially incorrect. Qworty (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

For a long time you have been trying to get into the article in any way possible that the Mormon religion is Racist. It may be, I don't know. But I do know that Romney is not, and this is not about the Mormon religion, it is not about George Romney, it is not about Romney's presidential election. If you want to change the wording to state that it was not a Major issue and leave it at that without interjecting your synthesis of material then do that. The one citation you give does not even make the argument that you are currently claiming. Furthermore, the ref to Kennedy states that "Religion was not generally a stump issue". STOP trying to turn this into an article about Mormon Controversy. Arzel (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You are the one employing "synthesis" to state that race in the 1968 campaign has something to do with the 2008 campaign. You are the one employing synthesis by actually wanting to move the George Romney stuff into the 2008 campaign section! I am one of several editors who oppose all of that. Also, you are incorrect that I have been making edits relevant to race to the Mitt Romney article. You obviously have me confused with another editor who made the bulk of those edits. And your contention that I am trying to turn this article into a "Mormon controversy" is disingenuous in the extreme. Don't you follow the news? The presidential campaign of Mitt Romney is itself one of the biggest Mormon controversies to come along in years, and tons and tons of commentators and pollsters out there assert that his religion is the #1 reason Republican voters (not liberals, mind you) are refusing to vote for him. Qworty (talk) 18:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

But wait, why is this relevant to a biography of Mitt Romney? George Romney, perhaps, but Mitt??? I don't see the connection. Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

George Romney is part of Mitt's personal, political, and religious background, and therefore belongs in all background sections of the article, and not in the 2008 campaign section. Qworty (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought.. Why include if religion was an issue or not for his father's campaign at all? Inclusion of that sentence only invites expansion and it doesn't really add any substantive value to the article itself. It's not really that important if a campaign 40 years ago ran across the same problem, politics have changed since 1968, and what happened then isn't really indicative of what happens in today's politics. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and outright deleted the last two sentences on the paragraph. Whether or not being Mormon was an issue for George Romney in 1968 is not material to an article about Mitt Romney, so since people are fighting over the content, it's better to not have the information in the article at all. I also got rid of the list of other Mormons that have run for President because it's not important in a section about Mitt Romney's religious beliefs. If the paragraph is moved to the presidential campaign section/sub-article then the sentence can be re-added. If anyone has a problem with me removing the sentences, please discuss it here on the talk page rather than blindly reverting. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The George Romney information was in the section for a long time, and in fact was part of the consensus version that was agreed upon in order to unlock the article. The information was originally put in the article by people who wanted to argue, in effect, "Hey, any mention of Mitt Romney's religion must be part of a modern anti-Mormon conspiracy; as proof of that, look at the fact that religion was never a factor in his father's 1968 campaign." As long as that was the way things looked, then people were perfectly fine with the George Romney information being in the article, and even wanted to move it to the 2008 campaign section! The only reason the information is suddenly not okay now is because--lo and behold--I found information today--in the New York Times no less!--that proves that Mormonism was a factor in George Romney's 1968 run. Rather than going for balance by presenting both views in the article, the recent edit has simply removed all of it, because the George Romney information is no longer useful in "showing" that there is some kind of anti-Mormon conspiracy against Mitt Romney today. The irony in all of this is that of course there is anti-Mormon sentiment against Romney today, and I and other editors are not the source of it. According to every poll on the subject, the source of it is the Republican electorate itself. Qworty (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of how long the content has been in the article it does not add to this article except as a possible point of trivia and it is more suited for George Romney's article and not this one. Inclusion of the sentence apparently encourages edit warring over how to phrase if religion was an issue for George Romney so it's inclusion is more harmful than it is worth. The Republican electorate's anti-Mormonism isn't really applicable to Mitt Romney's religious beliefs, so it isn't really appropriate for his religious belief section. However, it is applicable to his presidential campaign, so it is applicable to that section or the campaigns sub-article, where it is already covered in detail. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you. I'm just pointing out that the George Romney stuff was put in there because some editors wanted to "prove" that there's an anti-Mormon, anti-Romney conspiracy out there, one that supposedly didn't exist when George ran. What's strange about such a rhetorical strategy is that there are far better ways to indicate that a huge chunk of voters will never support Romney because of his religion. Furthermore, my pointing all of this out is not in itself anti-Mormon editing, but merely a statement of political fact, which you are quite right in saying the article must address. Qworty (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• I just want to buzz in that the only person who can win this is User:Qworty: You can never prove something doesn't or won't, only that it has or did. This was an issue, and you can never say it wasn't an issue and be correct; ie it takes only one reference to prove it was an issue --which has been provided, it takes all knowledge and the assumption it was absolute to prove it wasn't: Karl Popper prerequisites of falsifiability. With that said, it doesn't matter how long this trash was in this article, it probables deserves to be moved to George's article. EvanCarroll (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Civil Rights marches?

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

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

I don't know if this sentence is still in the article or not, but maybe the New York Times fact checkers fell down on this one.

This 1968 Grosse Pointe appearance is the one that Romney spokesperson Eric Fehrnstrom initially insisted, in email exchanges with the Phoenix, was the event in question. Fehrnstrom cited the Broder column and “the Romney family recollection.” // Of the many contemporaneous and historical records of the Grosse Pointe speech, none make any mention of George Romney’s attendance. It is unlikely, if not implausible, that his presence would have gone unnoticed: not only was he governor of the state, he had just, weeks before, dropped out of the race for President. // And, Mitt Romney would not have known about the event, let alone had a chance to “see” it. He was at that time in the middle of his two-year mission.... --David S. Bernstein in "Was it all a dream," Dec. 19, 2007 The Phoenix

Justmeherenow (talk) 03:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) The article you cite by David Bernstein says, "George Romney would later lead a 10,000-person march through Detroit, but not with King." So, it's pretty clear that George Romney did march for civil rights, and therefore I don't see any indication that the New York Times fact checkers fell down on this one.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious that Romney is lying that his dad marched with King. This fact should be in the article. Qworty (talk) 04:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That conclusion is synthesis. A. Romney claimed his dad marched with King, B. his dad did not, therefore C. Romney lied. See WP:SYN. Cool Hand Luke 04:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Arzel (talk) 06:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Romney may have lied or only been confused. Either is a bad trait in a candidate, but that is neither here nor there. The fact is that the--how would a politician put it?--"discrepancy" should be mentioned in the article. You have no argument for keeping it out. Qworty (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't engage in speculative conclusions ("may have lied or may only been confused"). What would you propose adding to the article? Cool Hand Luke 20:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This is already covered in his campaign article, which is really where it should be. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What I propose adding is something along the lines of "Romney has claimed that his father marched with Martin Luther King, Jr. There is no historical evidence for the claim, but there is strong evidence that George Romney and Rev. King were never in the same city during a civil-rights march." This strikes me as a completely reasonable addition to the article. What do others think? Qworty (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a fascinating choice of words from the one who complains that we can't prove a negative. Here you're asserting both "no historical evidence" and evidence of "never" being in the same city. Anyhow, this is better than your remarks for avoiding synthesis, but it seems like Undue weight in the overview biography. Agree with Bobblehead. Cool Hand Luke 21:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue is already properly covered where it should be covered, in his campaign article. This is purely a campaign issue and a minor one at that. At this point in time, there is no reason to add anything about his father's civil rights marches or what Romney has said about them in this article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

So do you agree with my position here [11] that mention of the civil rights marches is undue weight and should be removed from the article? Qworty (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)*sigh* I did not say there could be no mention of civil rights marches that Mitt participated in. The addition your trying to make is about a march his father, not Mitt, may or may not have participated in, thus Mitt's comments should be included where it is most appropriate, in Mitt's presidential campaign article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a Romeny supporter, but come on. Mitt's speech was partly about how religious people campaign for change--so, in the 60s (when Mitt was still a teen) he saw his dad march "with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King," figuratively! (That is, in the era's marches for Amercian civil rights!, the Gandhi-emulating campaign of which King's Sousthern Christian Leadership Council was the organizer. But I wonder what Jesse Jackson's take will be on this, and I would bow to him!) Justmeherenow (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Slow the Religion Talk !

Please - This is getting out of control. Let's focus on discussion that relate to leadership, policies, and relevant presidential issues. Yes, we all get it. I shriek to think of how John F. Kennedy would have faired on Wikipedia in a discussion of how the 'Catholic in the White House gets his marching orders from the Pope'. Looking back at it ... a bit silly, eh? I'm not suggesting that we remove any controversies of concern to the general public - but - look at the magnitude of dialogue on religion on this talk page ... OxfordDen (151.197.127.231 (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)).

No, we can't slow the religion talk. That would be irresponsible of us. Polls show that religion is the #1 issue occasioned by Romney's campaign. Also, Romney himself claims that the Mormon religion is the #1 factor in his personal life. Wikipedia must reflect what reliable sources report about the importance of the Mormon religion in Romney's private and public lives. Qworty (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This artile is NOT about his campaign. Wikipedia is not here to promote an agenda. Arzel (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether it's about his campaign or not doesn't matter. I'll repeat: Mormonism is the #1 factor in his campaign and, as Romney has stated himself, Mormonism is the #1 factor in his non-political life as well. So either way you cut it, Mormonism is extremely important and relevant to this article. Those are the verifiable facts from RS. Qworty (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that focusing on this person (Romney) political viewpoints is irresponsible. If you review the other candidate Wiki's, they have a structure that is far different than this one. Yes, all the candidates have controversies, political positions, personal beliefs, foibles, etc. Romney is a politician. Surfers don't go to WP to read ad infintum about how Romney managed the Olympic security issues (although some may care to read about it in a paragraph or two). It is my belief that we are to be balanced, equitable in treatment, and informative to the best of our editing abilities. If choosing to focus on one issue is the concensus of the larger Wiki community - I believe it would be an inequitable balance of information IMHO. I am only trying to point out that there is an overt skew in the read. Resume the dialogue, if you will ... (Oxfordden (talk) 03:29, 21 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 06:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Looking over the postings here over the last few days, maybe I should have disagreed a little more vociferously. Notmyrealname (talk) 04:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Inequity and Imbalance? Why does the Romney entry have a "Religious Life" section as number 2 on the page. No such section or discussion exists for any of the other candidates running for the Republican nomination, and certainly if they did you would not expect that they would be number 2. Flingford (talk) 04:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

See this section below.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Battlefield Earth (novel)

How come the article doesn't mention Mitt Romney's favorite book? Cirt (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources citing and/or discussing Mitt Romney's favorite book, Battlefield Earth:

Here are some sources:

1. Heslam, Jessica (May 2, 2007). "Mitt's new flip-flop is out of this world". Boston Herald. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
2. Sarasohn, David (June 8, 2007). "Romney Regales: The lure of a candidate who might say anything". The Oregonian. p. C04. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
3. Smith, Adam C. (August 18, 2007). "Romney Builds Image as Front-Runner". St. Petersburg Times. p. 1A. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
4. Jones, Tim (October 9, 2007). "Smartest guy in the room - He's a perfectly packaged overachiever with all the answers, but one question remains: Who is the real Mitt Romney ?". Chicago Tribune. p. 1. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
5. Miller, David (May 1, 2007). "Pure Horserace: Image Accomplished: Casting Politicians In A Good Light Is Essential, But It Can Easily Backfire". CBS News. CBS Interactive Inc. Retrieved 2008-02-19. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
6. Staff (May 4, 2007). "Favorite novel? For Mitt, its Scientology founder's bizarre sci-fi classic". The Salt Lake Tribune. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
7. Barnett, Dean (May 21, 2007). "Battlefield Earth and Other Faves: Presidential candidates and pop culture". The Weekly Standard. News Corporation. p. Volume 012, Issue 34. Retrieved 2008-02-19. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
8. Brand, Madeleine (May 3, 2007). "Romney Reveals Favorite Novel: 'Battlefield Earth': Mitt Romney's favorite novel is by controversial Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard". Day to Day. National Public Radio. Retrieved 2008-02-19. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
9. Rutenberg, Jim (April 30, 2007). "Romney Favors Hubbard Novel". The New York Times. The New York Times Company. p. The Caucus: The New York Times Politics Blog. Retrieved 2008-02-19. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
10. Beggy, Carol (May 2, 2007). "Candidate Romney talks tomes". Boston.com - your connection to The Boston Globe. The New York Times Company. Retrieved 2008-02-19. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
11. Glenn, Joshua (May 13, 2007). "Pulp affection: What Mitt Romney's taste for science fiction really means". Boston.com - your connection to The Boston Globe. The New York Times Company. Retrieved 2008-02-19. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)