Talk:Mitt Romney/Archive 6

message: The article currently discusses whether  Romney has hunted varmints or rodents (as opposed to deer and elephants, for example).  I don't think this is relevant in a section on political positions.  Here's what one strong supporter of the Second Amendment says:
"As a Second Amendment supporter, I don’t care about Romney’s hunting history. I’ve never hunted, nor has Don Kates, who is one of the most influential pro-Second Amendment scholars ever. I know plenty of outstanding pro-rights legislators and activists who have never hunted, or who haven’t been hunting for many years. When Second Amendment supporters vote, they know that they’re choosing a political official, not a game warden. If we voted based on hunting prowess, we would have voted for John Kerry, who — besides going on a some hunting publicity trips during the campaign — also went trap shooting in Wisconsin and proved that he is skilled with a shotgun.  While Kerry claimed to be a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, his Senate record showed that he voted against gun-owner rights 95 percent of the time."
That's Dave Kopel writing in National Review on April 11, 2007.  Additionally, Romney has not just hunted rodents and varmints.  He has also hunted rabbit and quail, but that fact has been deleted from this article.  Likewise, his NRA rating ("B") has also been deleted from this article.  I fail to see why the rodent-hunting is more important than his NRA rating.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Varmints 

message: Virtually everything in this article about Romney's religion is now repeated twice.  FYI, I brought this matter to ANI today, at this link.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then lets keep the section that was agreed to by a consensus of editors (seen in archive 3 and 4 and written by Ferrylodge himself) and remove all the scattered random bits. Problem solved. No duplicate material. Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything in the agreed-upon section remained in the article, except for one sentence about his wife's family.  As I understand it, your main reason for wanting to keep all of the religious stuff in a single section is so that it will be easier for you to monitor.  I don't think that's a good rationale for structuring the article.  The desirability of integrating some of the religious material into other sections of the article was discussed at this talk page here.  Your only contribution to that discussion was to accuse me of removing material from this article which I did not in fact remove.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It's the compromise version. It's there because ultra majority of editors agreed upon it. Everyone thought it would be a good idea for the material to have its own section. Why do you keep switching your arguments. Do you want me to removed the duplicate material? Would that make you happy? Or are you ashamed of his Mormon faith? Why do you want to hide his faith so very badly? Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am very tired of your relentless insults, Turtlescrubber.  As you know very well, the very first section of this article (on his Early Life) contains the following: "Romney was raised as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), also known as Mormons. His great-great-grandfather, Parley P. Pratt, was among the first leaders of that religion. Plural marriage or polygamy was at one time practiced by the LDS Church, but the Church renounced the practice in 1890,[7] and Romney has too.[8] Romney's paternal great-grandparents fled to Mexico in 1884 in order to maintain plural marriages without fear of legal retaliation.[9] Mitt's father, George, was born in Mexico in 1907, and came to the United States in 1912 with Mitt's grandparents.[10] Mitt's maternal lineage, as well as all grandparents, were monogamous.[11][12]"  Your accusation that I want to "hide his faith" is complete rubbish, and you know it.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I removed the duplicate material that you were so worked up about. Hope you are happy. I tried to run this solution by you three times on the ANI page, I even bolded it each time, hope thats okay. Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not okay.  But since you own the article, who am I to quarrel?  The article was fine before you started hurling false accusations and edit-warring.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought your main concern was that there was duplicative material? Thats what you named this section. Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my main concern.  May I have others?Ferrylodge (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, lol. But you could have asked me at anytime to remove the duplicate material. I offered on many occasions but you always ignored the offer. Really strange behavior on your part. Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good night, Turtlescrubber.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hasta la proxima y tenga una buena noche. Turtlescrubber (talk) 06:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

message: There are currently three paragraphs in the section on "Religious background."  I suggest that the first paragraph be moved to the section on "Early life and education", that the second paragraph be moved to the section on "Campaign for United States President, 2008", and that the third paragraph be moved to the section on "Personal life."  None of the material would be removed, but it would be organized more in line with the articles about other candidates, and in a more logical manner.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted the changes Ferrylodge made prior to adding the above comment because, quite frankly, it was horribly written. To see the version (including which paragraphs Ferrylodge would like moved) see . --Bobblehead (rants) 18:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bobblehead, the stuff you reverted has developed over weeks, and was removed wholesale yesterday.  All I did was restore it in the Religion section.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet, it was still horribly written. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Why are we going over this again? Ferrylodge, you agreed less than a month ago that a "Religious background" section should be added and made dozens of edits to the proposed wording to get it in a form that you at least found acceptable (For most of these edits, see ). Heck, when I hadn't weighed in, you even asked me to add an agree. Considering you were part of the consensus that agreed upon not only the addition of the section, but it's content as well, why do you want a reorganization of the article? --Bobblehead (rants) 18:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually placement of the aspect relating to his presidential run was discussed but no concensus was reached.  Not that it should matter because it clearly belongs within the presidential section.  Arzel (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Arzel.  There was consensus to insert the material on religion, but not a consensus as to placement.  I am more concerned about content than placement, but placement is still an important concern.  Regarding content, I do not believe that the content should be permanently frozen, or that weeks of changes should suddenly be reverted.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a consensus on having a section on his Religious background a month ago, to which Ferrylodge agreed, and part of that consensus was some pretty severe wordsmithing on what should and should not be in that section. So claiming that it's placement did not have consensus is a bit revisionist. There was discussion to move the paragraph that mentions his campaign out of the religious background section and into the 2008 presidential section after the version agreed upon was implemented, but no consensus was reached to move, so lacking consensus it should remain in the religious background section until consensus for a move has been reached. As far as permanently frozen, there is no requirement for wording to be frozen once consensus has been reached, but edits to contentious sections (including their dismantling), should be discussed on the talk page prior to them being made, particularly if you are one of the people that agreed to the consensus version. As far as undoing weeks of work.. If the weeks of work introduced poor sentence structure, introduces bias, and is detrimental to the quality of the article, then it is perfectly acceptable to undo those edits.--Bobblehead (rants) 19:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Ferrylodge's claim isn't "revisionist" it's a lie. Turtlescrubber (talk) 02:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it was Arzel's claim, and I was just agreeing with him.  Feel free to provide diffs to prove us wrong.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So you want me to show the diffs of every editor on the articles talk page agreeing? Even you relenting to the consensus that allowed the page to get unblocked? I am through wasting my life arguing with you and your obsessive compulsive addiction to wikipedia. You won't get your way in the end, you never do. You might even end up with another ban when you exhaust the patience of those new to your mental affliction. Turtlescrubber (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Turtlescrubber, please see WP:Civility.  Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume no good faith from you, just like all the other editors who are familiar with how you operate. Turtlescrubber (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: People can go see for themselves.  The question was whether the new section would be added, not where it would be located.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your diff went to the wrong discussion. I have pasted the archived text of the placement discussion below. Now stop obfuscating. Turtlescrubber (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization of religious material 

message: :: As written of this version, I 100% support the proposed text.  I'll watch the page and of course attempt to maintain it to thise standard of fairness and verfiability.  Mbisanz (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support inclusion of this in the article, in order to overcome the controversy that has caused the article to be protected.  The other sections would then contain some redundant language which would need to be reconciled (e.g. regarding missionary work).  Since this is not a standard section for presidential candidates, perhaps it would best be located after the section on political positions?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, as far down as possible in the article, as the last section of text?  Could we possibly make it less likely to be read?  I'm still considering the text, but did want to question the placement. Tvoz |talk 04:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's discuss the section's placement too. That's what derailed the first attempt. Mbisanz proposed it to be like the Eisenhower article, which is one of the first sections, immediately following early life. I think it has more affinity to the campaign issues, so should belong there (which is admittedly lower in the article), but I'm not trying to bury it. If others support it, I would be willing to live with the Eisenhower placement as a practical consensus. Cool Hand Luke 05:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not tied to any particular place for placement.  Ideally it would be in Early life (Not cause of Eisenhower, but cause its more about his life then anything else).  As a second choice, I'd say "Political positions" as it gives a context to his stance (i.e. Mormons on a whole tend to be Republican conservatives). Mbisanz (talk) 05:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree it is best placed in conjunction with "early life"  - which is why there was a section "early life and family background". So if we go with this section, I'd say we could change "early life" to "early life and education", move that stuff up, and make the second section about his religion.  But I haven't commented on the actual text of that section - just that if we go with a separate section it should be up after early life, not way down in the nether regions. (And Luke - I didn't think you were trying to bury it.) repl  Tvoz |talk 05:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should go before the campaign sections start, so yeah, near early life would be a good place. I also like Tvoz's suggestion. Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Tvoz.  I should also note that, chronologically, placing the new section next to early life and education would make the most sense. Qworty (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the good faith. I'll certainly support it after "early life" if that's what makes the article stable (and it looks like it will). I think unifying education with early life is actually an improvement over Eisenhower's structure. Cool Hand Luke 05:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You omitted this.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, because you linked to that above. But really, that is where you yourself agree to the placement of this section because it was all part of the consensus version that got this paged unblocked. The section I reproduced above is right above the formal agreement in your diff. Why are you posting that link? To show that you yourself were the first to agree to the placement? Turtlescrubber (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived discussion on placement of section 

message: I have removed the "see also" link to Romney's "Faith in America" speech, since that speech had nothing to do with the information in the Religious Background section of this article.  There may be a better place for that link in this article, somewhere further down.  But the fact is that the "Faith in America" speech did not get into any of the specifics of Mormon practice that constitute Romney's religious background.  Thus the link is irrelevant to the Religious Background section. Qworty (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Qworty, this speech was given to calm fears about his Mormonism. Since we have a single section on religion, there's no way this isn't relevant. You know that, and commented on it over a month ago. Cool Hand Luke 01:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Did he use the word "Mormon" in the speech?  How many times?  Linking the Mormon section of this article to that speech makes about as much logical sense as linking this section to the article about pancakes. Qworty 01:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For example: "There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs."Ferrylodge (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What he lives by is his Mormon faith, huh?  Clearly it's the most important thing in life to him.  Good thing the article about him has a Religious Background section up top where it belongs. Qworty (talk) 03:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The comparison to pancakes insults the intelligence. It was a speech intended to calm fears about his religious background. It makes sense as a "see also" from a religion background section. It could be worked into the text, but it's clearly relevant in spite of your disappointment that he didn't weigh in on the all-important Mormon underwear issue. Cool Hand Luke 03:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a speech intended to defend his religious background by not getting into any of the specifics of his religious background.  That was his strategy, and therefore the speech doesn't mention any of the major issues that are covered in the Religious Background section of this article.  It's not appropriate to link a section to another article that has nothing to do with the specifics of that section.  You could just as easily place a "see also" in that space to any number of articles about Mormonism.  Why focus on the irrelevant "Faith in America" speech?  The purpose of a Wikipedia article is not to link to distracting and self-serving material generated by failed political campaigns. Qworty (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I preferred Turtlescrubber.  Where are you, Turtlescrubber?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe he moved to Michigan.  Latest poll there: McCain 27%, Romney 26%.  And McCain's rising in the national polls as well.  However, I intend to stick around here even after Tuesday and to continue to help the rest of you arrange the Titanic deck chairs of this particular article.  Just to make sure the article continues to hold to the historical record, you know. Qworty (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Qworty, your attitude here suggests that you not be allowed to edit pages relating to Romney in the future.  You obviously have a specific agenda which involves the defeat of Romney.  This kind of attitude jepordizes the neutrality of WP in general.  Arzel (talk) 03:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, excuse me, but your argument is not with me, but with the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire.  If you don't like what they've done to Romney or what they think of his religion, go start an argument with them.  I would appreciate it if you stopped trying to make this personal.  I am doing what any good Wikipedia editor must do--report the facts.  And there are tons and tons of RS out there that show how Romney and his Mormonism are viewed by thousands of Republican voters.  Heck, I'm not even a Republican, and I have absolutely nothing to do with how Romney is performing in the voting booths.  Now, would you care to get back to the topic and off personalities?  We're supposed to be objective here. Qworty (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: My "see also" edit was made in good faith.  The fact that Romney's speech was off-topic is supported by the many RS that have reported that view.  That's not something I'm making up.  You can't take a verifiable fact that exists independently out in the world and then blame it on me just because I am reporting it objectively here.  Also, how was I to know Ferrylodge would quote that passage from the speech?  What you're accusing me of would have required me to predict his future response, which is an illogical supposition.  I didn't edit on this article or its talk page for three weeks and there were very ardent content disputes during that time by POV-pushing editors.  Did you admonish the participants?  (Perhaps you did.)  As for editing elsewhere, I'm happy to do so, as opposed to others, who are practically SPAs in this particular little teacup.  For that matter, if current trends continue, there won't be much more interest in this article after Tuesday, so things will undoubtedly cool off.  Finally, I am not disrupting this article or the section under discussion, as I support the current version.  Where do you stand on that issue?  Should the Religious Background section be moved, broken-up, retained as is? Qworty (talk) 06:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You lately don't seem to be much better than an SPA yourself. There should be a religion section. I helped push for it, and I'm mostly pleased with how it turned out. I only quibble with the placement. That's not the topic of this heading though—You apparently do not support the current version. You claimed that link to the speech does not belong in the religious background section. That argument is absurd on its face. Cool Hand Luke 06:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The speech in question is not about Mormonism, but about a bunch of other stuff .  In the unlikely event that Romney ever gives a speech about his religious background, then it would make sense to link to it from the Religious Background section of this article.  It is an inaccurate accusation to say that I am making all of this up.  I don't write Romney's speeches.  I don't move his jaws and make the words come out of his mouth.  I don't write dozens of news articles that point out that the speech in question in fact has nothing to do with Mormonism.  I'm merely objectively reporting these facts from RS.  Really, I don't have all of this power over Romney or the media that you seem to think I have.  Insofar as the speech in question addressed Mormonism (he mentioned Mormonism only once), it may as well have been about pancakes.  If there is any intellectual "insult" regarding the notion of irrelevancy, it comes entirely from Romney's pretense that he ever gave a speech about Mormonism.  He's never given such a speech and we shouldn't report that he has. Qworty (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing "see also" link 

message: I believe very strongly that our purpose here on Wikipedia is to objectively report what the verifiable and reliable sources require us to report.  This is why I think the Religious Background section must remain where it is--not because of any personal beliefs of mine, but because Romney's Mormonism is a major factor both in his personal and political lives.  I am not a Republican, and so I could never be a POV advocate for whatever strain of Republican intolerance may be at work in specific elections, whether it be intolerance of gays, Mexican immigrants, or Mormons.  Objectively, however, I can observe (as can anyone else) that Romney's religion sank him with the religiously intolerant evangelicals in Iowa, and that this loss destroyed Romney's momentum, leading to his defeat in New Hampshire.  These facts belong prominently in the article. Editors who have insisted that this is my personal POV are mistaken--these are merely the political facts as reported by RS.  Given that these are the most notable facts at the moment (and yes, notability does rise and fall with the flux of real-world events over time), the article should reflect these facts.  The Religious Background section is therefore properly placed, but we need something in the introduction to this article that indicates the highly notable facts that Romney has lost in Iowa and New Hampshire.  These are not secrets, as the whole world knows them--and yet they are buried way, way deep in the article, down the same rhetorical black hole where a few other editors want to consign the religious issues.  There appears to be a highly POV inclination here to bury or eliminate everything that would be even of minor embarrassment to Romney.  The true POV-pushers are those who would edit the article in this non-neutral manner.  Instead, the article should reflect real-world realities as verifiable through RS. Qworty (talk) 04:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The topic is Mitt Romney and not Mitt Romney's presidential run. The results in two states are not the most significant things in his life. Also, the intro summarizes the article itself, which it does. To put your proposed information in the intro seems out of balance and not in line with the topic at large. --Voire Dei (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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

text: Also, such structuring fails the standard of recentism. The subject of the article is the life of Romney, not his presidential campaign. To overbalance the article to reflect material about his presidential campaign, including the religious controversy, very likely fails the standard of WP:Undue weight, placing excessive emphasis on factors regarding a specific event. The fact that the subject also relates to an event which is still occurring, Romney's presidential campaign, also very seriously runs the risk of making comments about the outcome before the outcome is decided, failing the policy of WP:CRYSTALBALL. I have every reason to believe that these policies far outweigh the value of the material, particularly, as has been stated above, that the editor starting this thread has made several other at best unusual statements, including stating that the article should refer to Mormon underwear and attempt to name the planet that Mormon religion indicates the subject might rule in a future life. On the basis of that editor's own comments, I find that it might not be unreasonable to question that editor's judgement in these matters. John Carter (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I see it, a short note on the negative press coverage of him in his presidential campaign related to his Mormon faith may be appropriate, if the coverage is as extensive as I, an overseas person who's been learning of the election mainly through incidental exposure, have gotten the impression. However, we should set this out neutrally, attribute the criticism (probably to "several commentators", followed by a ref providing the names and articles, because if it's not several commentators, we should leave it out.) However, while saying that his faith has been a political issue, and briefly mentioning some of the talking points may be appropriate, we must be careful that we report on others attacking him for aspects of his religious beliefs, not attack him ourselves. Adam Cuerden talk 18:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While I don't agree with you on the placement of the material, I do agree with you on your central point, which is that our job here is to present RS with the proper weight.  I discuss all of these issues in greater depth here  Some editors are having trouble distinguishing the difference between the messenger and the message.  I am not here to attack Romney; rather, like a good Wikipedia editor, I am merely reporting the criticism that is to be found in verifiable RS.  I did not invent any of the issues that are troubling Romney's presidential bid.  The argument is not against me or any of "my" views, but against media pundits and thousands of Republican voters.  The article should not whitewash these facts.  Here is just one example of the kind of source you are talking about , and anybody who doesn't like it can stop arguing with me and start arguing with Jacob Weisberg and tens of thousands of Iowas caucus goers.  In short, we should report views from RS, summarize the criticisms and carefully cite the sources, and not confuse messages and messengers or make any of this personal. Qworty (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What evidence do you have of the role Romney's religion played in the Iowa and N.H. results?  Any exit polls or demographic analyses done after the two elections?  I have more the impression that he's struggled due to likeability problems, being perceived as too negative in campaigning, being perceived as too insincere in his conversion to orthodox American conservative viewpoints, and due to being up against two candidates who happened to catch fire in states receptive to their mesages (Huckabee, McCain).  Wasted Time R (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  (edit conflict response to Qworty) However, you seem to believe that the Iowa caucus results be given a degree of weight which most other editors disagree with. By your statements above, you seem to be implying that the article should be subjected to a major rewrite after each separate primary, which is both extremely unlikely and almost certain to ultimately give very undue weight to the election. I once again urge you to reread several of the pages for which you have already had links provided, particularly WP:Undue weight, regarding the material at hand. Also, most of this material probably belongs more appropriately on the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008, as it directly relates to that subject much more than Romney's biography per se. Also, I too would welcome the reliable sources which specifically indicate that Romney's religion clearly played a significant role, provided that such content be placed on the appropriate page, which I have every reason to believe is not this one. John Carter (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  To echo the previous sentiments, the Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain articles all have very little space devoted to the 2008 campaign, and very long presidential campaign articles.  That way the main articles stay biographical and stable. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's unreasonable to mention in the intro that Romney has lost the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary.  It's not undue weight to briefly indicate in the intro how Romney is doing, and doesn't require a "major rewrite after each separate primary."  It's only one sentence, and indeed I put that sentence in there before Bobblehead took it out.  I didn't edit war on it.  It's being discussed here.  The "recentism" charge makes no sense to me, since a lot of this stuff is recent.  At such time as Romney is no longer a candidate, for example, that fact will be recent.  Will that mean that certain editors will then wikilawyer the recentism policy to censor Romney's concession out of the article?!  You can't just start wikilawyering all of these policies beyond the realm of common sense.  There's a lot of info here for example which is in the present tense but which in the future--due to "recentism"--will have to be changed into the past tense.  This would be a major grammatical job, requiring one of us to react to recent events and make the necessary changes. Qworty (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We've struggled in the other candidates' main articles to figure out how to phrase primaries developments in the lead section, too.  I would have no objection to briefly mentioning that he came in second in the important Iowa and N.H. events.  The good news is in a few weeks these questions will resolve themselves.  What is recentism is to put campaign-related material into the second section of the article, way out of chronlogical place.  That presupposes that the article is about his presidential campaign, which it isn't.  Wasted Time R (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you referring to the Religious Background issues?  This was debated at length last month and a consensus reached to unfreeze the article.  One view is that Romney's religious background is relevant regardless of his status/success/failure as a presidential candidate, because he has run in other races and held other offices and his Mormonism was an issue at those times as well, and that therefore the information belongs where it is as important background, and also for general chronological reasons. Qworty (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I disagree on that, as my view in the RfC above indicates.  Wasted Time R (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: (ecx2)I'm not sure there is any value in including primary results in the lead section of candidate articles, especially this early in the game. In the general scheme of things these results are not important enough to be included in the lead, but they are definitely notable enough for a brief mention of them to be included in the campaign section of this article. The results of a single primary are not particularly notable unless they are the impetus for a more notable event. As an example, if Romney doesn't win Michigan and decides to drop out of the race, then his placement in the primaries could be included as an explanation for why he dropped out of the race. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not primary results should be mentioned in the lead of this article is kind of incidental to this discussion.  The discussion here was about religious issues, and in particular the proper content and location of the various paragraphs in the "Religious background" section.  I really don't care much one way or the other whether recent primary results are mentioned in the lead, though I tend to agree with Bobblehead about it.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, it might be relevant to give a quick summary of recent results in the lead while the primaries are ongoing, but the essential point is whether the separate section should remain. Apparently, we are still being told that the prior consensus should be taken as authorititative, despite the fact that policy clearly states consensus can change. At this point, I think I have contacted every relevant group regarding this discussion, and I cannot help but think that it would be extremely premature for anyone to attempt to indicate that the previous consensus must be taken as written, particularly until such time as all the anticipated responses appear. John Carter (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if we were to interpret the previous consensus as holy writ (which of course we should not), the consensus was most clearly about whether to include a religion section as opposed to where that section ought to be located.  If the present Religion Section belongs anywhere in the present article, it would be after the section on Romney's presidential campaign, for obvious chronological reasons.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Obama, Hillary, and McCain main articles all have "Cultural and political image" sections near the end, which try to address, in at least somewhat scholarly terms, what it is about these figures that resonates (either positively or negatively) with the American cultural-political landscape.  This might be a place where you could try to address the intersection of Romney's religion with American value systems and electoral realities ... if you can find some scholarly/serious sources to work from.  Wasted Time R (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I support the move. It can always be moved back, should that be the way consensus develops, but it is a good idea to see how the article flows in the alternative form as well before a final decision is reached. John Carter (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose any such move without the input of the previously involved editors. Qworty (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose any such move without a stronger consensus than last time. That's right, I want more than ten editors to agree to such a move. Or at least the same level of discussion.Ferrylodge, do not start another edit war! Turtlescrubber (talk) 02:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Seeing as the last discussion only gathered so many opinions because the page was locked for over ten days, I think you'll have to be satisfies with a normal practical consensus, because that ain't happening again for a while. Cool Hand Luke 03:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious intolerance and the election results 

message: Stop reverting the page. A new consensus has not been established. You are being disruptive. Please stop. Turtlescrubber (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Turtlescrubber, as you know, the previous "consensus agreement" of a few weeks ago was most clearly about whether or not to include the Religious Background section, rather than where it should be located.  During the past couple days, numerous editors have indicated quibbles here with its placement as the second section in the article: Cool Hand Luke, John Carter, me, Arzel, ThuranX, Wasted Time R, and Random Name.  It is not for you to declare yourself a majority regardless of reality.  And even if you were the majority, that does not entitle you to override clear Wikipedia policy about WP:Undue weight.  So please relax, and let the discussion proceed without another revert war.  Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The extant consensus of at least six parties favors removal of the religion section, over three individuals who seem to demand its inclusion. John Carter (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You know very well that location was part of the agreement. I reprinted that on this page like 3 times. You are being disruptive and are now actively lying about the previous consensus agreement. You have not reached consensus and there are just as many people on this page who disagree. Please stop and try to reach a proper consensus instead of just edit warring. Turtlescrubber (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with John Carter.  Additionally, Turtlescrubber, it is vandalism for you to revert edits that you're not even complaining about, for example in the "Personal life" section.  Cut it out.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict response to Turtlescrubber) And that consensus seems to have been superceded. As you should know, consensus can change, and seems to have done so in this case. I suggested above that we all be able to see how the article would look with the content moved. Should consensus change again, the religion section can be restored. However, it would be interesting to see whether the prior concerns of content which seems to have perhaps violated wikipedia policy regarding undue weight hold true with the revised version as well. And, as stated, if consensus leans that way, it can be reverted. John Carter (talk) 02:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see a consensus. I see a continuing pattern of intimidation. Please show me the consensus. Turtlescrubber (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seven people have indicated that they believe the former article structure violated wikipedia policy of Undue weight. That is a very serious concern, and I personally believe it probably supercedes consensus policy per se. Taking into account that the previous consensus included people who have at least temporarily indicated that they believed such a violation may have taken place, I believe that there now is, at least potentially, a consensus to remove the section temporarily to remove those concerns. As indicated above, seven people have expressed serious reservations about that section being in accord with Undue weight policy. If concensus changes, however, it certainly can be restored. However, as indicated above, it seemed to me, at least temporarily, reasonable to see how the alternate version looked, so that all parties could compare and contrast the different versions to determine which is more acceptable. And, as indicated, if consensus of all the involved groups indicates that the previous version was preferred, it can be restored without difficulty. However, as it seems several parties who agreed to the previous consensus have changed their positions, it seems at least to me that the previous consensus no longer holds. John Carter (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No they have not. Show me 7 diffs for 7 people expressing the concern of undue weight. Cherry picking and intimidation is not how consensus is reached. There are at least 6 people on this page who disagree with your "consensus". Please act more impartially. Turtlescrubber (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not acted directly at all, although you have, possibly violating guidelines in the process. Several policy concerns have been raised and not yet acknowledged. It is reasonable to have those concerns ameliorated until such time as a final decision is reached, particularly in BLP articles like this.  John Carter (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you working on those 7 diffs? Turtlescrubber (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool Hand Luke, John Carter, Ferrylodge, Arzel, ThuranX, Wasted Time R, Random Name.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see your diffs too, Turtlescrubber, when you're through with your 3RR complaint against me.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Only 4 of your diffs are actually calling for the section to be moved further down (including yourself of course). Off the top of my head there is Tvoz, Bobblehead, Qworty and myself that disagree about moving the section down. Thats 4 to 4. That's some consensus you have there. Lol. Oh, there's wrad too. That makes it 5 against moving the section down. I can look for more? Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about if you identify which three diffs you find lacking?  And I'd like to see the diffs from you and your colleagues, please.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about you read your diffs and see how many of them mention moving the section down in the article? Spoiler: 4. Anyway, please sift through your dozens upon dozens of comments that do nothing to further the conversation on this page. You will probably find more than 5. I really didn't even have to look. I am done arguing with you for tonight. :) Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you name which editors you think disagree? It seems that some don't mention the section's placement just because they think it shouldn't exist at all. I disagree with them, but I think they would also favor aligning it with Romney's politics. (Incidentally, you can add User:Storm Rider to that list, I believe.) If I'm one of the supposed three, I'll say clearly that I have always been in favor of moving the section to be with his politics—the one area where his religion is extremely notable. I also have always favored moving presidential material to the 2008 campaign section. Cool Hand Luke 03:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can provide more diffs of people who favored moving the material late last year.  I only looked for diffs from people who voiced an opinion during the past few days.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ferrylodge 

message: Aside from the fact that the article reads like a hagiography, I'm trying to discern the releevance of "Mitt Romney is a jogger, and likes Roy Orbison’s music. As for his dislikes, they include “eggplant, in any shape or form.”"  I recall see junk like this purred by Playboy centerfolds. •Jim62sch• 20:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Jim I just deleted/reverted a request of a reference you placed. Though you noted it was already referenced you wanted more. Your point was that the reference was wrong. That is your opinion; your disagreement is with the position taken by whoever was referenced. To ask for more references that say the same thing would not produce a different position, but just more of the same. I think what you want is to produce a counter to the position be supported by the reference. Does this make sense to you? --Storm Rider (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Jim is correct - the cited reference says "Yet Mr. Romney's showing remains the best of any challenger Mr. Kennedy has faced".  In Kennedy's 1962 election (when he was initially elected), he was the challenger - in his subsequent elections, he was an incumbent facing a challenger. So Romney was the closest challenger, but not the closest overall opponent. --B (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance 

message: I have a question about this line in "Governor of Massachusetts, 2003–2007": "Through a combination of spending cuts, lower state taxes, increased fees, and removal of corporate tax loopholes, the State had a $700 million surplus by 2006."
This implies that the "lower state taxes" contributed to the budget surplus, which is a bit counterintuitive.  Has this already been discussed?  I suggest it be reworded to say something like this: "Through a combination of spending cuts, increased fees, and removal of corporate tax loopholes, by 2006 the state had a $700 million surplus and was able to cut taxes."
Csrwizard (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The daughter article Governorship of Mitt Romney#Fiscal policy has a longer take on this. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From an ecnomic standpiont is can certainly support one of the steps that may help to produce a budget surplus. The concept is that lower taxes lead to more consumer/business activity, which in turn produces more tax revenue. The increase in revenues being the result of more activity. Does this make sense? --Storm Rider (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be the case, but I don't see anything in the cited sources or the article Wasted Time R linked to that supports that interpretation.  It can be fairly circular logic (did the tax cuts stimulate economic growth, or did the growing economy make lower tax rates possible?), and the linked article actually starts on the other side of that particular circle.  Csrwizard (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it can be fairly circular argumentation, but it is the basis of Supply-side economics, which is the Republican version of raising government revenue in the United States. In a perfect economic environment, the theory makes sense. Whether that perfect environment ever exists, and whether it works predictably in the real world, are other matters entirely. John Carter (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So with that said, I think we definitely need to source this assertion or change it to a more "generally acceptable" statement of the facts.  Csrwizard (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess, and it is a guess, is that while Romney was governor he ensured that the economic reports the state issued said something to indicate that the amount of state revenue coming in increased because of the tax cuts and, possibly, new business maybe also coming into the state as a result. I forgot that part earlier. If a source indicating that the tax-cut was credited for helping increase revenue can be found, and again I don't know, then we would probably have a theoretically reliable source for the inclusion of the tax cut part. It might not be objectionable to add disagreeing interpretations if they can be found, but I tend to think that the state governmental offices have to be counted as reliable or at least includable if they made such a statement. John Carter (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but I think we need to take care to use independent sources.  Romney's political advisors are obviously not NPOV, but the Massachusetts Treasury or a peer-reviewed economics study would be good sources.  Also, unless there is evidence of a broad consensus, both sides of the argument should be presented.  Csrwizard (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think the statement can be defended as is by viewing it as, "Romney did these N things that have an effect on fiscal status" (these might be things that tend to increase or decrease a deficit) "and the net result was X".  Wasted Time R (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs to be rewritten if that is the intent.  I definitely see an implication here that the tax cuts led to the surplus.  Csrwizard (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Budget surplus 

message: Mitt is a *nickname*.  The article should start off giving his name as Willard Milton Romney, rather than Willard Mitt Romney.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.142.254 (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reliable source to back this up?  TableMannersC·U·T 05:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article appears to confirm it in the fifth paragraph: http://www.mittromney.com/News/In-The-News/Romney_Campaigns_Midland  Random name (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think his name is not Milton. He was named after a Milton, but his name is Mitt. I think it's feedback from Wikipedia itself. The article used to say Milton for a time. Talk:Mitt Romney/Archive 1#Milton vs. Mitt. Searching lexisnexis shows that no source called him Milton before July 2007, and there are only three sources that do, including this Wonkette post: "His first name is Willard?! He and Bush were in the same Harvard Business School class! He's just definitely not like Bush, though. Ha ha we just checked Wikipedia, his name is "Willard Milton Romney." And he thinks he will be President!" Cool Hand Luke 10:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get His Name Right? 

message: In 'Political Positions' second paragraph : "Romney was filmed partisipating in..."
should read '...participating...'  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.110.245.150 (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I fixed it.  — Val42 (talk) 05:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  spellcheck 

message: Men on the Moon! If Mitt believes these things, how would he impact NASA or other government organizations?  Mormon Prophets claim the moon is inhabited
As incredible as it may seem, LDS publications bear testimony that Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon Church, and Brigham Young, second Prophet of the Church, taught the moon was inhabited. In an 1892 LDS publication under the heading "THE INHABITANTS OF THE MOON," this interesting information is given by Oliver B. Huntington:
"Nearly all the great discoveries of men in the last half century have, in one way or another, either directly or indirectly, contributed to prove Joseph Smith to be a Prophet.
"As far back as 1837, I know that he said the moon was inhabited by men and women the same as this earth, and that they lived to a greater age than we do -- that they live generally to near the age of 1000 years.
"He described the men as averaging near six feet in height, and dressing quite uniformly in something near the Quaker style.
"In my Patriarchal blessing, given by the father of Joseph the Prophet, in Kirtland, 1837, I was told that I should preach the gospel before I was 21 years of age; that I should preach the gospel to the inhabitants upon the islands of the sea, and to the inhabitants of the moon, even the planet you can now behold with your eyes." (The Young Woman's Journal, published by the Young Ladies' Mutual Improvement Associations of Zion, 1892, vol. 3, pp. 263-64
President Brigham Young not only taught the moon was inhabited, but the SUN as well". In a sermon delivered in the Tabernacle in Salt Lake City, President Young made these unbelievable statements:
"Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon?...when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the ignorant of their fellows. So it is in regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 271)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiboleth (talk • contribs) 01:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a biography of Mitt Romney -- not the place to discuss the LDS church and its bizarre teachings. I'm sure if you delved in to the religion of any public figure, you would find some doctrines that are ridiculous and not actively believed by anyone who actually thinks about them.  Paisan30 (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What a worthy entry! Shiboleth. I reformatted your redundant edit by deleting the repetition (gotta to be careful with those artful cut and pastes). I have not checked your edit for actual correctness or context of the comments from past leaders, but just a knee jerk reaction it is a wonderful bit of Evangelical anti-Mormon fluff piece. I would look more into polygamy though; it is even more sensationalistic. I have also heard that Mormons have horns and grow forked tails. I would get a few pictures of those and include them. Contact the National Enquirer; I am sure they have at least a few of those pictures. Gosh, I am glad we have such great editors like you around to demonstrate the true strength of Wikipedia to the world. Three cheers to you. --Storm Rider (talk) 01:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If you can find reliable sources which pose these questions regarding Romney, please do so. You cannot just ask them yourself in the article. Paisan30 (talk) 02:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does Mitt Romney believe the prophecies of Joseph Smith as a Christian Believes the prophecies of Jesus Christ? 

message: These two edits:
# (cur) (last)  01:24, 19 January 2008 Bobblehead (Talk | contribs) (62,288 bytes) (Undid revision 185320389 by Coralin (talk) Despite what LDS claims now, it was in response to persecution by the feds.) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 00:19, 19 January 2008 Coralin (Talk | contribs) (61,759 bytes) (→Religious background - Previous statement on LDS church renouncing polygamy was somewhat misleading; the LDS church holds that it was renounced for religious, and not political or legal, reasons.) (undo)
So why is this article on Mitt Romney, man of the 1980s through 2000s, trying to explain the history of LDS in the 1890s?  Isn't that, like, the job of the LDS history articles?  Does the Barack Obama article try to explain the history of racism or biracial children in the 1890s?  Does the Hillary Clinton article try to explain the history of feminism in the 1890s?  Trying to give century-old LDS history here is a bad idea.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn good question, why are we trying to explain the 1890 Manifesto in this article... Heck, not even sure why the heck Romney's ancestor's polygamy is on this article. --Bobblehead (rants) 02:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also agree. The Romney Campaign article should not contain a discussion of all things controversial about Mormonism. DavidBailey (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somebody explain to me ... 

message: Shouldn't it say an American businessman and politician from the state of Massachusetts with strong connections to Michigan, instead of "an American businessman and politician from the state of Michigan and with strong connections to Massachusetts," seeing as he was Governor of Massachusetts and was never much in Michigan seeing as he left after graduating from high school? -Ethan c.00 (talk) 06:43, 18 January 2008 (PST)
:Yes, the first sentence is awkward, and probably wrong.  "Willard Mitt Romney (born March 12, 1947) is an American businessman and politician from the state of Michigan and with strong connections to Massachusetts."  How about we change it to "Willard Mitt Romney (born March 12, 1947) is an American businessman and politician from Massachusetts, with strong connections to his native state of Michigan"?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What about if we break it up into two sentences: "Willard Mitt Romney (born March 12, 1947) is an American businessman and politician.  He was born in Michigan, but moved to Massachusetts after high school and has lived most of his life there since."  Or, something like, "Willard Mitt Romney (born March 12, 1947) is an American businessman and politician has resided in Massachusetts for the past XX years but was born in Michigan." — Val42 (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

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

message: I was wondering if we should mention the video of Mitt Romney showing a group of black children how cool he is: 
:"Wouldth though divulge to mineself whom hast released hounds upon us? Whom? Whom? Whom?. Furthermore, thou dost wear shiny baubles upon thine gullet." Mitt Romney 2008 - Transcript courtesy of CNN. 64.230.85.80 (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mitt Romney want's to know 

message: The following items have been moved from the article due to relevance and NPOV. Please discuss them here before moving them back into the article. My question is, why are these items relevant to his religious background? These items seem more appropriate to be discussed in the LDS page. The first statement about Ann's family attending the temple ceremony seems irrelevant and anti-NPOV to include it. The second item is making an unsupported assertion about the reason for the change in policy/doctrine. The LDS church states " In obedience to direction from God, Latter-day Saints followed this practice for about 50 years during the 1800s but officially ceased the practice of such marriages after the Manifesto was issued by President Woodruff in 1890."
:Ann's family could not attend their wedding ceremony that was held at a temple, due to a rule preventing non-members from entering LDS temples, but they attended another ceremony held for non-Mormons.
:Due to legal pressure by the U.S. federal government,Salt Lake Herald, 1889-10-27, quoted in Richard S. Van Wagoner (1989, 2d ed.). Mormon Polygamy: A History (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books) p. 136. When asked by a reporter what the Church's attitude was toward the anti-polygamy laws, church president Wilford Woodruff stated in 1889, "we mean to obey it. We have no thought of evading it or ignoring it." the LDS church renounced polygamy in 1890.Dahleen Glanton and Margaret Ramirez, Romney a hard sell for evangelicals, Chicago Tribune,  December 9, 2007.
Thanks. DavidBailey (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just went ahead and removed the sentences of LDS stopping the practice of plural marriage. As mentioned several previously by Wasted Time R, it isn't really up to the Mitt Romney article to discuss why LDS stopped the practice. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from Religious background 

message: The article now says: "When his father ran for president in 1968 his religion was not a factor. This shift is often attributed to the rise of the Christian movement in politics within the last twenty years."  No references are provided.  Either we should be accurate and well-sourced, or the role of religion in his father's run in 1968 should not be described in this article.  This article used to have an accurate and well-sourced statement on this subject:
"Mormonism was not an issue in his father's presidential campaign in 1968, for several possible reasons: he dropped out before it could become one, the candidacy of John F. Kennedy (a Catholic) had neutralized the religion issue, religion generally was not a major stump issue, and the LDS Church was much smaller then.[1][2]"
[1] Linda Feldmann, "Romney moves to allay Mormon concerns directly", Christian Science Monitor, December 11, 2007.
[2] "Romney's 'symphony' should also embrace freedom from religion", Seattle Times (2007-12-12).
Seems to me the current statement in the article is simplistic.  We should either replace it with the correct info that the article used to contain, or just delete the whole discussion of religion in his father's campaign.  The previous consensus was to do the latter, and I support that.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: George Romney’s membership in the Mormon church was a factor in his presidential campaign, with attention focusing on his church’s policy at the time of not allowing blacks to participate fully. Qworty (talk) 05:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Richard Nixon was a Quaker, which demonstrated to everyone in the 1960s that a political figure's religion might tell you nothing at all about the politician. Somehow this truth has been lost along the way. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is a tersary reference at best.  I would rather see something from the time, rather than a one sentence specualation.  I have read several articles that said Mormonism was not a factor.  In fact, I read one that said the black issue wasn't even brought up.  Does anyone remember this and other articles? Actually I think it was Mormon America by the Ostlings.  I will see if I can find it. Bytebear (talk) 05:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bytebear, why bother?  Do you really think this article should explore how religion may or may not have affected his father's campaign forty years ago?  That stuff ought to go in the article about his father.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was thinking about it, and I do think it has a place somewhere in Wikipedia, but probably not in this article.  Is there an article that would be more appropriate?  Bytebear (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Maybe a more appropriate spot would be in the George W. Romney article.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the George Romney article would not be good, because we are basically contrasting the two campaigns.  Maybe a more generic article like US Politics and Religion or something like that. 68.4.232.4 (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, if you're aiming to compare and contrast the role of religion in the campaigns of father and son, then I agree the main George Romney article would not be good.  There are a lot of alternatives, but maybe the best would be Mitt Romney's "Faith in America" speech.  That article can compare the speech to JFK's similar speech, and to the absence of such a speech by George Romney.  Other articles (where a comparison of the role of religion in the campaigns of father and son might be appropriate) are Latter Day Saint political history, Pratt–Romney family, Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008, History of the Latter Day Saint movement, and George Romney presidential campaign, 1968.  All of those article would be more appropriate for such a discussion than this article, IMHO.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

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

message: Please put somewhere in this article that he is Fluent in French.  I think that is an important attribute about anybody, and should be known.
Source: YouTube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyP2M0DTch8
Article: http://www.early-advantage.com/Articles/bilingualcelebs.aspx
Thanks!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.70.46 (talk) 14:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fluent in French 

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

message: Please indicate your support of given positions below, adding additional sections as appropriate. Note also I have added some names to sections which they had earlier seemed to support. Those names have a ? attached to them. Those opinions should not be considered binding, and any editors who return to the discussion are more than encouraged to replace or remove them at will. However, given how I had poorly structured the RfC initially without this section, it seemed the only way to place their expressed opinions in this section.
*(1) the content should be contained in a separate section of this article.
#? User:Tvoz indicated support of this position earlier in this discussion.
#? User:Wrad indicated support of this position earlier in this discussion.
#? User:Cool Hand Luke indicated support of this position earlier in the discussion.
*(2) the content should be spread throughout the article, as appropriate
#John Carter (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinions

message: Maybe someone needs to include a comment on his long history of blatantly lying as evidenced by this most recent encounter with journalists here. 134.174.1.18 (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: About the lobbyists?  I am sort of surprised not to see that included, as well as his others like the flap about his quote about marching with MLK and so on.  They might not be overt lies, they could also be Bush-style extreme carelessness with language, or Clinton-style legalistic defining.  Шизомби (talk) 13:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Details about his presidential campaign go in the presidential campaign article, if at all.  Additionally, some sources argue that he was not lying about the lobbyists.  He said there is a difference between lobbyists running his campaign (which he denied) versus lobbyists advising his campaign (which he acknowledged).  Thus, to say that he was lying may itself be a lie.  Anyway, this is not the proper article for such discussion.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, well the question of whether he's a liar isn't restricted to his campaign, but I suppose if the other candidates have the question of their veracity raised in their own article, then I guess it doesn't belong here either.  However, Romney did not merely say lobbyists aren't running his campaign.  He said  "I don't have lobbyists that are tied [to my campaign]" (the AP reporter interrupted him at the point, and he also said  "I don't have lobbyists at my elbows."  Anyway, fair enough.  22:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  a couple points.  First, it could be argued, that since he is not taking any special interest money, they are not "tied to his campaign", second, this is not the proper article.  Third, Wikipdeians do not have opinions.  We deal in facts and the opinions of others.  In other words, get some reliable sources, balance them out by finding all pertinent views on the subject, and then add them to the approprate article. Bytebear (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lies 

message: I just put in a few words adding a bit more import to his having been a Stake President.  In the LDS church, a Stake President is the leader over a group of congregations (maybe the equivalent of a Bishop or Cardinal in other churches).  Romney was therefore the overt clergical leader for close to 5,000 Mormons, surely volunteering 40+ hours a week on top of his corporate life to counseling individuals.  Anyway, maybe I'm just a values voter, but it seems to me that this kind of stuff is a crucial lens to the understanding of even the basics of who Romney is...  --Mrcolj (talk) 06:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did you get that 5000 figure? I think the true average in the US is closer to 2500. I think we should just link to Stake (Latter Day Saints), which lays this all out; the "Bishop" metaphor is more misleading than enlightening. Cool Hand Luke 06:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed.  The position of Stake President is temporary, part time, lay, unpaid position.  Very different than a Cardinal, or even a minister. Bytebear (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick Stake President Note 

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

message: I checked the talk archives and was only able to find it discussed once before, but the discussion never went anywhere.  Did Mitt Romney put his pet dog in a carrier and fasten it to the top of a car for a twelve hour ride back in 1983?  If so is it notable enough to mention in this article?
A few sources I found:
* http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1638065,00.html
* http://www.pr-usa.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=61056&Itemid=9
* http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/01/0113young_edit.html
* http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119949556092669169.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
* http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/13620311.html
I won't jump in and make any article changes yet, please let me know what you think. Gh5046 (talk) 11:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it isn't notable. Bytebear (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you explain why? Gh5046 (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Just pasting a whole lot of links does not render something notable.  You ought to pick out one of the links that you think is most relevant, and then quote from it.  For example, your quote from the WSJ says almost nothing about the incident: "Talk about a family vacation caused an outcry when it revealed that Mr. Romney put the dog in its carrier on top of the car on a long trip."  The WSJ thus devoted a grand total of one sentence to this matter, and the sentence does not even indicate that Romney did anything wrong.  After all, dogs are put in carriers on airplanes all the time.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not "just pasting a whole lot of links" to make it notable, I provided the links to help with the discussion, so people could see what I do.  I'm not trying to create sensationalism about the issue, I'm trying to find out if there was any.  (just as a side note, there is a huge difference between locking up an animal in an enclosed and evironmentally controlled space than strapping it to the roof of a car.) Gh5046 (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: While bizarre, the story doesn't seem to rise to the level of notability here (and the bar is being set ever higher as the campaigns heat up and these articles get bloated). The key question is not what anybody thinks of the story but how it has actually affected Mitt Romney or his campaign (not really at all, in this case).--Loonymonkey (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, that pretty much answers my questions.  I wasn't able to find any big press on it, but I felt it was important enough to check here first before passing the matter by.  Gh5046 (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Gh5046, sorry if I came off as impolite.  It's just that there are a lot of people who would like to include as much dirt as possible about Romney in this article, whereas the article is supposed to have an NPOV.  So maybe I was overly defensive.  Anyway, if a carrier is nice and roomy, and it's a nice sunny seventy-degree day, and the opening of the carrier is facing away from the wind, it doesn't seem like a big deal.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Have you followed me here IAA?  As you can see from the discussion above, there is no consensus for including that material.  However, if you would like to make an argument for including that material, then please go ahead and explain why you think it should be included.  And why quote stuff about Martin Luther King when the subject here is animal cruelty?Ferrylodge (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Martin Luther King, Jr. was mentioned in the same paragraph as the dog incident.  I simply copied and pasted what was in the article.  There was no ulterior motive on my part, and no reason to be paranoid. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: IAA, I was arguably being paranoid about you following me, not about MLK.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animal cruelty? 

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

message: the link for Mormon at the end of the first paragraph in the early life and education section has been vandalised to point to an external website promoting his presidency nomination campaign - someone please fix.
Masterplan79th - 18:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it is fixed now.  If not, please list the citation number and I'll get it.  --BizMgr (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalism of link on page 

message: See Talk:Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008#Campaign Suspended. Mike R (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it has been confirmed that his highly expensive campaign (to a large part funded by himself) has ended. One down one left (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campaign "Suspended"? 

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

message: Would his campaign go down in American history or even world history as the most expensive failure? Approximately $40 million of his own funds. I'll try to find sources on this. One down one left (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In terms of most money spent per delegate won, I'm sure he's not close ... John Connally 1980 and Phil Gramm 1996 are the gold standards for futility in this area.  In terms of own money spent, check out Steve Forbes 1996 and 2000.  Wasted Time R (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How much did Steve Forbes spend of his own money? One down one left (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ross Perot's gotta have taken the cake (bought the cake?). His Wikipedia article says he spent over $65 million in 1992 (so you'd have to adjust for inflation to compare to today). Notmyrealname (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expenses 

message: Why is it important to mention that LDS has renounced plural marriage or not? As has been mentioned several times before, this article is about Mitt Romney, not LDS and whether or not LDS has renounced the practice is immaterial to Mitt Romney. All that matters is that Romney has renounced the practice.  If someone wants to find out if LDS has renounced the practice, they can go to the LDS article (which conveniently enough is linked several times in the article). --Bobblehead (rants) 23:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to say that polygamy has been part of the Romney family religion, but you don't want to mention that polygamy's no longer part of the family religion, then that's misleading.  We've already been over this ground many times.  I don't think the polygamy of great-grandparents should even be in this article, but if it remains here then we can spend a couple extra words mentioning that it's no longer part of Romney's church.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree.  I think the whole subject should be removed.  After all, it isn't mentioned in the Steve Young (American football) article, and he is a direct descendant of Brigham Young. Bytebear (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been rather consistent in saying that the polygamy of Romney's ancestors is not worthy of main article coverage and my first comment on this talk page shows that.  It's really only applicable to his presidential campaign and the article on his family tree and really has no place in his "religious beliefs" section.  The fact that he renounces plural marriage doesn't even belong in the religious belief section, if anything it's a political position and belongs in that section, or on the political positions article.--Bobblehead (rants) 01:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you want to get rid of the polygamy paragraph, go for it.  I'm not in the mood to be brave and daring right now.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The removal of the polygamy paragraph is contentious and requires more discussion than what has so far taken place. If discussion on whether or not the paragraph should be removed leads to a consensus on its removal, then I'd be more than glad to do so, but so far we have just three editors in favor of its removal. That's hardly consensus. --Bobblehead (rants) 01:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I hope we can still devote a few words to saying that Romney's church has repudiated polygamy, as in the consensus agreement of last month.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it sounds like we are a concensus of 3.  If we don't hear a compelling argument for the inclusion within a few days, I saw we remove it.  Regardless, the church denouncement must be present if polygamny is mentoned.  It's all or nothing. Bytebear (talk) 06:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in favor of removing polygamy altogether.  It went bye-bye for mainstream Mormons in the 19th century; this is the 21st century.  It should be sufficient to state that Romney is a mainstream Mormon (whatever the best wlink is for that); once you know he isn't a Mormon fundamentalist, you know there's a bunch of stuff he doesn't believe in, including polygamy.  Wasted Time R (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Wasted Time R (WTR), as already mentioned.  However, I'd also like to head off any future effort to use the term "Mormon fundamentalist" in this article.  Romney is not a lot of things, but that doesn't mean we should mention those things (e.g. wife-beater, tax cheat, space cadet, et cetera).   According to the LDS Church, the word "Mormon" applies only to church members, and so there is no such thing as a "Mormon fundamentalist".Ferrylodge (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

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

text: Ummm, no. I just reinserted it. This has been extensively discussed, was the subject of at least one rfc, and was the cause of the page getting frozen for several days. After all of this, a couple of people wondering if it is relevant shouldn't be sufficient cause to just delete the entire consensus paragraph.Notmyrealname (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that Romney is no longer a high profile public figure, are the religious background and political view sections even still necessary, or at the very least can they be reduced? Alanraywiki (talk) 05:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Romney is still a major political figure, so I think the political views section ought to remain for now, as it is (incidentally, he's also a leading contender for the vice-presidential slot on the GOP ticket).  Regarding the religious background section, I support at least removing the stuff about ancestors' polygamy, as I have always said.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed on both points. The VP race is still wide open, and he is as good a candidate as any. Also, I cannot see how it is relevant to say that a member of a religious body which has itself renounced plural marriage has to have specifically indicated on his page that he has done so as well. If he were a member of a body which still accepted plural marriage, that might be the man biting the dog and notable on the basis of being unusual, but there's no reason to say that a member of a given religious group has individually done what the group itself has done. John Carter (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding polygamy of ancestors, I agree that it should not be in the main Mitt Romney article.  However, if it is included here in the religion section of the main Mitt Romney article, then the implication is that his church condones polygamy, in which case it should be briefly clarified (as the article now does) that his church rejected polygamy long ago, IMHO.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

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

text: This isn't a WP:V problem. Plenty of reliable sources also cover the history of American Motor, but it's just not relevant to an encyclopedia biography about Mitt Romney—especially not when users can click a link to learn more. That said, there should be a short note somewhere about this (perhaps in the footnotes), and it should probably link to something like 1890 Manifesto. Cool Hand Luke 08:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The current religion section is trash, but any changes keep getting reverted. I don't think anyone agrees with the status quo, so why keep it? Enigma (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: CHL-You are correct, this is not a WP:V problem. The point of this abbreviated list of recent media reports is to show that media outlets, across the political spectrum, have decided that this is a relevant and interesting piece of biographical information regarding Mitt Romney. The list includes interviews with the man himself regarding this, as well as a several part series looking at the extended Romney family that resulted from his family's polygamy. Enigmaman asks a reasonable question. As I noted, the current version is a compromise that apparently pleases no one. My personal inclination is that we should stick to the relevant bit that directly relates to Romney and his family and drop the rest, or at worst, stick it in a footnote. Given the acrimonious nature of this relatively minor point on this page, I would recommend that we try to work out a better version that everyone can live with on the talk page here rather than getting the page frozen again amidst a series of revert wars. Notmyrealname (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't understand why anything about polygamy needs to be included. It's not newsworthy that he's against polygamy. No politician would ever admit to being in support of polygamy, even if he were. Let's reach a consensus so we can have an article that at least a large percentage of editors support, if not all. Enigma (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I generally agree with Enigmaman.  An extraordinarily large amount of info about Romney has been published repeatedly in many reliable sources, so we have to do some picking and choosing.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources cited above (and there are more if you look) show that this facet of his personal background is noteworthy. Also, it's been discussed by Romney himself. I agree that we could drop the long background about the Church's history with polygamy. 155.212.229.115 (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll say it again. That version is NOT the consensus version. No one has posted here that they agree with it as currently constituted. Enigma (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is getting ridiculous. I'd prefer this be submitted to mediation. The recent consensus has been against that paragraph, or at least portions of it. Repeatedly putting a controversial paragraph back onto the page is wrong. Enigma (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've generally found mediation not to be very useful for resolving content disputes. I put forth a proposal below. Hopefully with Romney out of the Presidential race, the conversation can be a little calmer.Notmyrealname (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  LDS renouncing plural marriage, Who cares? 

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