Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:22, 26 December 2007

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

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

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

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

Biography: Politics and Government

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

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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

Archives

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

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

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 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 01:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Agreed Daniel 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)

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. 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)

Undue weight potential

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

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

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

Inequity and imbalance? -- I find it strange and imbalanced that the Romney article has, as its second point, a discussion of his religious background. I think the information is relevant -- even though it's too long. But why doesn't the Huckabee article or any other candidate for the 2008 nomination have a "religious life" section? (Especially if Huckabee considers himself a preacher.) I would strongly suggest the religious section be moved to a less prominent position in the article. Flingford (talk) 04:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

See this section below.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:55, 24 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, if the Church's stance is included at all. --Bobblehead 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)

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 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 21:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

So do you agree with my position here 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 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)

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 Misplaced Pages.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 Misplaced Pages. 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'", 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 Misplaced Pages.

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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, " refusal to discuss 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 , 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 Misplaced Pages 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."David Kirkpatrick, “Romney, Searching and Earnest, Set His Path in ’60s”, New York Times, November 15, 2007.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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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/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. 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. 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. Among other criticisms, some evangelical voters view the LDS Church as a cult. 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, 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. Other presidential aspirants of that faith have included Joseph Smith, Morris Udall (a nonpracticing Mormon), and Orrin Hatch.

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: 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 Misplaced Pages articles cannot be structured in order to satisfy one presidential campaign or another. Misplaced Pages 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 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)

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...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.'"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 Misplaced Pages'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." 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 Misplaced Pages must censor it? No, you are wrong about that. For an example, go and read this:

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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))

Civil rights marches--undue weight?

This is continuing to be discussed back here: I've proposed adding "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." However, it's been pointed out that this "discrepancy" is already covered here: My concern is this--the Mitt Romney article currently states "He has been involved in politics from an early age, having joined his father in pro-civil rights marches." While this may have been true, it strikes me as undue weight--the young Romney was involved in many aspects of his father's political life, not just "civil rights marches." This reads like something out of a Romney campaign brochure, designed to deflect that fact that Romney, at the time his father was running for president, was in France trying to get people to convert to the Mormon church, which at the time had a racist policy against African-Americans. My question is this: If my proposed addition to the article does not achieve consensus, how would the rest of you feel about our removing the phrase about civil rights marches altogether? Again, it appears to be undue weight to focus on civil rights marches and ignore the other involvement of the young Romney in his father's political life. Qworty (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No. The current wording only uses it in the context of him being involved in politics from an early age with civil rights marches being an example. I am not sure how this would indicate any undue weight. As for your other argument, it is a little disingenious to state that their is strong evidence that Romney and King were never in the same city during a civil-rights march. The article which you refed only states that the author was unable to correlate the statement which Mitt Romney made. You cannot make the next jump to say that that is proof that it never happened, much less the next step that they were never in the same town at the same time during any civil right marching. Furthermore, the article goes on to state that perhaps Mitt is confusing his timeline. He was only 15 at the time and probably only has a vague recollection of what happened. What is clear is that he has, or at least claims to have, stong beliefs in Civil Rights, and has an admaration of King and that his father was active in Civil Rights as well. Arzel (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

When confronted with the evidence from forty years ago, Romney today admitted that his father and MLK never marched together, that therefore the statement "I saw my father march with Martin Luther King" was not true. After being caught in this lie, Romney then tried to fudge the truth further by claiming that what he had actually meant--on all of those different occasions when he'd been spouting off on this topic--what he had actually meant was that his father and MLK had been marching together "figuratively". LOL! So this is where the state of this scandal now rests. Whether or not all of this or some of this belongs in this article is a matter of debate, but I don't think it's a matter of debate that mentioning civil-rights marches in and of themselves, at the expense of not mentioning any other political acitivity of the young Romney with his father, constitutes undue weight. In other words, the article is saying that the only political activity Mitt ever engaged in with his dad were civil-rights marches, and this is not true. Either we should add Mitt's other relevant political activities with dad, or strike the undue weight of the civil-rights marches altogether. What do other editors think? Qworty (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article's sentence ".. marched in civil rights marches with his dad ..." smacks of pro-Romney campaigning. More neutral sentences, worthy of an encyclopedia, would be (for example):

• Romney learned about politics and political issues at a young age because his father ..
• Romney sometimes accompanied his father on George Romney's political activities ...

I think it is okay for the article to have a sentence/paragraph describing Romneys opinions/beliefs on Civil rights, but that is more approporate in the Political Beliefs section. What a teenager did is not really relevant to an article about the adult (for instance, he may have been accompanying the father on the marches simply because the family did everything together, and maybe had a family lunch after the march). There is no significance to the fact that a teenager accompanied a family member in an event that the _other_ family member was the official participant in. The sentence, as it is now, is a bit pro-Romney biased, but also irrelevant. Noleander (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

So if I read you two correctly, if it appears positive about Romney, then it is biased in favor of Romney, but if it is criticsm of Romney then it is simply stating important facts about Romney.....hmmm, yes I see. I might remind Noleander that this is an article about Mitt Romney, which includes aspects about his ENTIRE LIFE, not just information relevent to his presidential article. The fact that he attended civil right marches with his father at an early age provide context into following him into politics. Please explain why you think this is pro-Romney campaigning? I am definitely not a pro-Romney guy, but I don't see the problem with a neutral referenced statement about his youth. Arzel (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, the original agreed-upon Religion section stated "Romney participated in pro-civil rights marches with his father." This was subsequently reworded and moved, so that it now says: "He has been involved in politics from an early age, having joined his father in pro-civil rights marches." The article has never said "marched in civil rights marches with his dad" (this quote is from Noleander above).Ferrylodge (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Building on what Noleander has suggested as a rewrite, how about this: "Romney learned about politics and political issues at a young age because he sometimes accompanied his father in political activities." This should cover everything without giving undue weight to civil-rights marches. What do others think? Qworty (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care as long as we avoid BLP violations and OR. The current sentence is low on specific content, and Qworty's rewrite (which looks like a fair compromise) is so vacuous, that I think we should strongly consider removing the passage altogether. It stands to reason Romney was more than slightly familiar with the accomplishments of his father. Cool Hand Luke 02:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer to leave it as is. It tracks the NYT article, so where's the problem? We're talking about something that Mitt Romney actually did, not something that his great-grandparents did, so it's very relevant. I'm sure if Romney robbed banks with his father, then Qworty would be supporting as much detail as possible. :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Romney has used the story of his father's marches with Dr. King when he has been questioned about his own lack of opposition to LDS's policy of denying salvation to blacks. He is using the Dr. King anecdote in order to shore up his presidential prospects. Romney's recent explanation about not ACTUALLY SEEING his father march with Dr. King but "seeing" in the sense of "awareness" bears mentioning. Also does the article mention the endorsements of National Review and Tom Tancredo? Hnhnhn (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

That stuff is covered in the article about his 2008 campaign.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Huge reversion

This huge reversion could surely be explained by more than an edit summary. The section was poorly written, so I rewrote it. Very little was removed. I removed a McCain quote alleging that Romney had flip-flopped on immigration, but the quote did not specify what the flip-flop was, and the main article (on Romney's political positions) didn't identify an immigration flip-flop either. Even if I was wrong to remove the McCain quote (which I don't think I was), why couldn't that quote be reinserted without making so many other reversions?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Strikes me huge undiscussed rewrites would need to be accounted for and discussed even more so. I reverted your 20 edits because they seemed to me to have replaced accurate and neutral content with content that appeared less neutral, the Roe v. Wade changes in particular. Odd nature (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

That;s fine, Odd Nature. I hope we can have an unusually productive discussion here. What was it about the Roe v. Wade changes that appear to you "less than neutral." Was it italicizing the case name, or wikilinking the case, or something else?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference speech was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Scott Keeter and Gregory Smith, "How the Public Perceives Romney, Mormons", The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, December 4, 2007.
3. Linda Wertheimer (2007-11-15). "Romney Faces Questions over Faith in S. Carolina". NPR. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• Old requests for Biography peer review
• WikiProject Biography articles
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Unknown-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists