Talk:Mitt Romney/Archive 4

message: Wasn't there an incident where a black leader called him out on purported LDS racism? I seem to remember something like that being reported, but I haven't followed this candidate closely. Cool Hand Luke 23:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there was minor incident with Al Sharpton, but that would probably belong in the article on Romney's 2008 campaign (maybe it's already there).Ferrylodge (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I think you're right. At any rate, I don't think we need many more details of the actual religious beliefs (which aren't usually reported in depth). What's missing are some cites to polls that say, for example, that many Republican voters would reject him or any Mormon. Lots of sources go into considerable detail on that point. The Newsweek cover story does, for example, and I think it's a good model for WEIGHT because it's a reliable retrospective look at the candidate. Cool Hand Luke 23:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we've got enough on polls.  The section above says, "with polls indicating that a quarter of Republican voters are 'less likely' to vote for a presidential candidate who is Mormon."  Two refs are footnoted.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: I'm glad this is all resolved.  Might there be some wisdom in semi-protecting the article to prevent IP vandalism? Mbisanz (talk) 04:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the wikilink to the Edmunds-Tucker Act, so I think the problem that Bobblehead mentions is solved.  The wikilink later in the article to the 1890 Manifesto discusses the various reasons, including the Edmunds-Tucker Act.  Needless to say, this is all very tangential to Mitt Romney, and so need not be detailed in this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That works. Not even sure why the sentence itself is in the article. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semiprotection 

message: Just to avoid future edit tweaking, figured I'd start the ole discussion. It's pretty much accepted that the reason why the LDS Church stopped recognizing plural marriage was because of pressure applied by the US federal government, but the pressure was more than just the Edmunds-Tucker Act as the current wording implies. While the Edmunds-Tucker Act and the subsequent Supreme Court decision that upheld the law where the final nail in the coffin, the US government also passed the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (which the Supreme court upheld as well), delayed statehood for Utah, arrested Brigham Young, prevented George Q. Cannon from taking a non-voting seat in Congress, passed the Edmunds Act (Different than the Edmunds-Tucker Act), etc, etc. Basically, the culmination of all this pressure was that the LDS church found it difficult to continue to exist and when the Supreme Court upheld Edmunds-Tucker they had no choice but to prohibit plural marriage or else the Federal government would seize all of their assets (temples, money, etc, etc).--Bobblehead (rants) 23:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the wikilink to the Edmunds-Tucker Act, so I think the problem that Bobblehead mentions is solved.  The wikilink later in the article to the 1890 Manifesto discusses the various reasons, including the Edmunds-Tucker Act.  Needless to say, this is all very tangential to Mitt Romney, and so need not be detailed in this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That works. Not even sure why the sentence itself is in the article. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording on plural marriage banning 

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

message: Jesus fucking Christ. How hard is it to fix a bad link?? If all that is wrong with a reference is that it is pointed to a bad site, then fire up google and do a search on the title of the article, and fix the goddamn link.  If someone reverts your addition and says one of your link is bad, ask the person which link is broken on the article's talkpage, and then *gasp* fix the goddamn link. At least attempt to work together rather than firing up the undo button over the most minor of issues. --Bobblehead (rants) 06:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if you're criticizing me.  I spelled out the link in the edit summary so he could fix it.  Jeez.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a general criticism aimed at all involved and not aimed at any one editor in particular. --Bobblehead (rants) 06:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree, and I wholeheartedly apologize for adding the incorrect link and for the subsequent revert.  I simply pasted in the wrong link into the citation template when I prepared it.  You are right that we should have handled it differently, and I thank you for interceding. Qworty (talk) 06:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Quite so, and thanks for the suggestion.  It's always better to be patient and get the problem talked out.  Things can get crazy with everyone trying to make changes and post edit summaries on the edit history at the same time. Qworty (talk) 06:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.  Noted for future. Alanraywiki (talk) 07:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

message: I checked further - WP:LAYOUT says here: Between paragraphs and between sections, there should be only a single blank line. Multiple blank lines unnecessarily lengthen the article and can make it more difficult to read.   I don't know that I necessarily agree with that conclusion - in fact when I started editing here I frequently added white space between paragraphs to (I thought) increase readability, but the extra spaces were always removed.  I'm used to how the single space btwn grafs  looks now, so it no longer bothers me - I doubt the double space will survive here, as there's no reason for this article to be different from others in this regard. Anyone else? Tvoz |talk 05:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously, the article is only 58 KB, so the concerns about lengthening the article are not pressing.  If this article were the size of other grotesquely bloated articles, then it would be another story.  I would like to please leave the extra spacing between paragraphs the way it is in this article, but if others disagree then I'm not going to raise hell about it.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Grotesquely bloated"?  Nothing like a little buried POV pipe in a seemingly innocuous discussion about spacing.  Really. Tvoz |talk 06:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the point is moot.  An admin got rid of the spacing.  As for POV, yes, my POV is that articles of 138 KB are grotesquely bloated.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 06:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. You were making a general point.  Got it. Tvoz |talk 06:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And a jest.  Let's see some of that sense of humor.  Anyway, it's among the largest articles I know of, and I also know you're familiar with it.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you remove the templates, references, see also, links and images, the readable prose of the Clinton article is under 55kb. Pushing the limits for sure, but I personally would not characterize the article as grotesquely bloated based on KB alone (keep in mind I've seen sections of articles that I would call "bloated" that only take up 2kb). Also, while I'm here, good work everyone on working together and solving the content dispute. Congrats all around.-Andrew c [talk] 01:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spacing 

message: I think that the word "Bishop" should be changed to priest.  Here's why:
:Bishop is the highest priesthood office of the Aaronic priesthood in the Latter Day Saint movement. A bishop is usually the leader of a local congregation of church members. The Latter Day Saint concept of the office differs significantly from the role of bishops in other Christian denominations, being in some respects more analogous to a pastor or parish priest. Each bishop serves with two counselors, which together form a bishopric.
This position is analogous to a pastor or priest in other demoniations, and is different from a "Bishop" in other denominations.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, "part-time lay minister" would be more descriptive.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend sticking with bishop.   That is the title and it links to additional information about LDS bishops.  Other denominations may also have positions called bishop, and that position should also be called bishop in their articles.  No single denomination should need to use a term like "part-time lay minister" or "full-time clergy" instead of the proper term.  If you want to add it parenthetically after the word bishop for clarification,  that would be fine in my opinion.  Also, priest is an entirely different office in the priesthood in the Mormon church, so that one definitely would cause more confusion.  Thanks,  Alanraywiki (talk) 04:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "Bishop" gives non-Mormons (like me) the impression that he was very high up the church hierarchy, so I'm glad you don't object to some sort of clarification here.  I'll make an attempt.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. Alanraywiki (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way, there is a similar problem with the sentence about perceptions that the church had racist policies: "Romney's church has been criticized for policies that some perceive as sexist or racist; for example, males of African descent could not be ordained to the priesthood until 1978".  In the LDS church, virtually every white male, from teenage years up is a priest.  Non-priests (blacks) could not enter any temple or participate in any significant ceremony.  A casual reader familiar with Catholic priests may think "oh, that's not so bad, LDS blacks could still be full members .. they just couldnt be priests".  So, in that sense, the sentence is rather misleading.   Noleander (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we'd better clarify things before making changes to this article, regarding this issue of racism.  My understanding is that Joseph Smith welcomed free blacks into the church, and ordained black men to the priesthood.  After his death, LDS leaders continued to welcome all people regardless of color to be members, but excluded blacks from priesthood ordination and from participation in temple ceremonies.  I'm still not clear about what "membership" allowed a person to do.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good suggestion, but there is an ambiguity there: your sentence could be read as:  black males were not treated as well as black females :-)    How about  " ... blacks were not permitted to enter LDS temples or participate in significant ceremonies until 1978".   Im a caucasian myself, but if I were black I would want specificity when it came to documenting the past discrimation against my race.  Granted, this article is on Romney, not the LDS church, but we can at least be accurate:  The whole point here is pointing out that Romney was a willing participant (leader, even) in a religion that continued segregation until 1978, 13 year _after_ the 1965 civil rights bill.  Those details of the segregation are especially critical since Romney is running for president.  Noleander (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still curious about the details.  Are you saying that blacks were considered "members" but they couldn't enter temples until 1978?  That sounds really bizarre.  What good is membership if you can't go inside?  Where were the marriage ceremonies performed?  And keep in mind that the sentence wikilinks to Criticism_of_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement, so details can be found there.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is this even an issue with Romney?  This is really belongs within articles dealing with the actual religion, this association seems to imply that Romney does not feel blacks are equal to whites.  In anycase, the first sentence really needs to be changed.  It currently reads "Romney's church" which would imply that he has some control over the workings of the church in general which is clearly not the case.  I will make this change right now, but I still question the need for this within his article, it seems to make a guilt by association arguement.  Arzel (talk) 04:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Romney is running for president.  He belonged to an organization that until 1978 practiced discrimination.  I think that is rather important to know.  Even if he personally were non-racist, he continued to be an active member, leader even.  "Guilt by association" is when you are in the wrong place in the wrong time; or your relatives are crooks.  But here was a voluntary association that Romney kept up (and still keeps up).  If I were a black voter, and were going to wikipedia for info on candidates, Id want to know some specific details about what groups the candidates are voluntarily involved with.  Noleander (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You make an assumption that he joined this religion as a matter of choice.  He was born into it, which is hardly the same.  He clearly has denounced racisim and the previous racist pratices of the Mormon church and he actively worked on civil rights.  I don't see how this would be different than being born into a mob family, and is clearly a guilt by association.  Arzel (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

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

message: The cited references mention several reasons why Mormonism was not an issue in his father's presidential campaign.  One ref says it's (1) because he dropped out so soon.  The other ref says:
:"Still, Mormonism was not an issue in the senior Romney's campaign. Some historians say that in effect, (2) the Kennedy speech a few years earlier had protected Romney from undergoing scrutiny over his faith. In addition, (3) religion was not the major stump issue it is today. And (4) in the 1960s, the Mormon church was much smaller than it is today."
I've inserted the numbers.  Here's what the article presently says: "Mormonism was not an issue in his father's presidential campaign in 1968, with both John F. Kennedy's religious scrutiny during the 1960 presidential election and the fact that he droped out of the election during the primaries being cited as possible reasons."
I suggest that we instead write: "Mormonism was not an issue in his father's presidential campaign in 1968, possibly because he dropped out before it could become one, because the candidacy in 1960 of John Kennedy (a Catholic) had neutralized the religion issue, because religion was not a major stump issue in 1968, and/or because the LDS Church grew substantially between 1968 and 2007."Ferrylodge (talk) 04:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine to me.  I simply made a first stab at it.  Arzel (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not an issue in 1968 

message: Since I've tried to pare down the number of links to Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement twice in the last few days and had that undone both times, is it really necessary to link to Criticisms of Mormonism three times in the same sentence? Either link to the general article once (my preference) or link to the specific sections on sexism and racism. Linking to the general article only is my preference because it allows an interested party to read the entire article (including the sections on sexism and racism) and makes the links to the sexism and racism sections specifically redundant, it also reduces the number of links to one. Conversely, linking to the sexism and racism sections specifically makes the link to the general article redundant as it is obvious there is more to the article than just those sections, so if they want to they just need to scroll and read the other sections of the article.  It is completely unnecessary and a bit coatracky to link to a criticism article three times in the same sentence when there isn't even any evidence that the criticisms applied against Mormonism is even applicable to Mitt Romney. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and am probably partially to blame.  Arzel (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple links to Criticisms of Mormonism 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protect 

message: The sentence currently reads "... people of African descent were not treated equally to other members until 1978".  This is so vague, it gives the appearance of POV white-washing.  The other extreme "... the racist LDS church treated blacks as subhumans for over a century" is also not appropriate.   I think we need something more in the middle, that lets visitors to Wikipedia undestand what Romney's church did for over a century, perhaps:  "... before 1978 blacks were not permitted to participate in key LDS ceremonies, such as marriage and baptism, that would enable them to enter the highest level of heaven"  Noleander (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I don't see the need to expand upon the LDS's treatment of blacks as they don't seem to apply to Mitt Romney. A brief mention countered by his participation in the pro-civil rights marches is fine. As Arzel points out, this article is supposed to be about Mitt Romney, not the actions of his church.  We don't expand on the sexism and pro-life stance of the Catholic Church in the article for every Catholic in Wikipedia, if the Church's stance is included at all. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Agree 1000%. Perfect example of WP:COAT. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put the civil rights stuff into the section on his early life.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More specificity in treatment of blacks 

message: This line being in the article is ridiculous on so many fronts.
A.  Most voter's aren't in high school.  Like, OMG, Mitt Romney, like, doesn't smoke or drink, and he, like, rarely even swears.  I think I heard him use the S word once, lol, but it was after he slammed his fingers with his car door.  Like, I heard he was some sort of virgin choir boy, OMG LOL.
B.  Jesus Christ drank alcohol, turned water into alcohol, and instructed his followers to drink an alcoholic beverage in rememberance of him, so why does Mitt Romney feel morally superior for not doing something his God did?
C.  If you rarely swear, you still swear.
D.  Lastly, but most relevantly, why did someone feel it belongs in an encyclopedia?  Is the fact that a presidential hopeful rarely swears academic in any way, shape, or form? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.53.138.64 (talk • contribs) 
:You can go back through the history of this article, and find that the stuff about smoking and drinking was added in September by an editor named Westbrook348.  See here.  There's a lot of stuff that has already been taken out of this article that doesn't belong in it.  And there's a lot of stuff that remains in this article that many editors don't think is especially relevant.  But admins have frozen the page more than once, and compromises have been made.  The number one priority is to make sure that everything in the article is true, but beyond that there's probably no one who is entirely happy with the article.  C'est la Wikipedia.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: For your sterile "Mormon underwear" campaign, see WP:POINT. Cool Hand Luke 19:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't drink alcohol or smoke, and rarely swears 

message: 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)
thread_title:  FYI 

message: Please - This is getting out of control. Let's focus on discussion that relate to leadership, policies, and relevant presidential issues. Yes, we all get it. I shriek to think of how John F. Kennedy would have faired on Wikipedia in a discussion of how the 'Catholic in the White House gets his marching orders from the Pope'. Looking back at it ... a bit silly, eh? I'm not suggesting that we remove any controversies of concern to the general public - but - look at the magnitude of dialogue on religion on this talk page ... OxfordDen (151.197.127.231 (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we can't slow the religion talk.  That would be irresponsible of us.  Polls show that religion is the #1 issue occasioned by Romney's campaign.  Also, Romney himself claims that the Mormon religion is the #1 factor in his personal life.  Wikipedia must reflect what reliable sources report about the importance of the Mormon religion in Romney's private and public lives. Qworty (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This artile is NOT about his campaign.  Wikipedia is not here to promote an agenda. Arzel (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Slow the Religion Talk ! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: See this section below.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add new section on religion? 

message: How come the article doesn't mention Mitt Romney's favorite book?  Cirt (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Battlefield Earth (novel)]]