Talk:Mitt Romney/Archive 3

message: I think this article would benefit from a more in-depth summary than it currently has. This article has a lot of subpages (great) but lacks general content because of all these subpages (not so great). A bit of expansion (not too much) is probably in order. Turtlescrubber 13:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The tag and picture also look funny on such a stubby section. Turtlescrubber 13:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2008 election summary 

message: There is some information on who attended the wedding of the Romneys.  I'm not sure how relevant this information is to the overall article on Mitt Romney.  I think it should be deleted, but I wanted to discuss it on the talk page first.  Alanraywiki 14:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the basic fact is interesting, but agree it's too detailed.  This had been bugging me too, see what you think about my edit of the paragraph. Pro crast in a tor 19:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your changes make it look much better and much less complex.  I still am not convinced that it is notable because that situation is not that unusual (at least among LDS).  The wedding ceremony is generally small and short, but the reception that everyone attends is the larger, more social event.  (Disclosure: I was in that situation when I got married and know others whose families could not attend the actual ceremonies.)  In any case, if we want to keep it in, I'd go with your version. Alanraywiki 21:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, it's not unusual amongst LDS, but I think the two ceremonies is of interest to most people, being unfamiliar with LDS.  If a celebrity had a small private ceremony as well as a large public gathering, I think that might be of note, too(though in the briefest of words).  It also reverses the norm: usually it's a private legal wedding, and a large public reception.  In this case, it's a large civil ceremony, and a smaller unofficial (from a legal standpoint) wedding.  Also, many bios have a short description of weddings unless they've had a number of them.  I'm not Mormon, but I lived in Salt Lake for a while, and finding out that I couldn't enter the temple was rather surprising at the time. Pro crast in a tor 21:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not the reverse.  The temple ceremony is the legal wedding (at least in most states, and definitely in Utah), and the very rarely do active LDS have a large civil ceremony (most have a large reception or ring ceremony). Joseph Antley 07:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wedding 

message: Barak Obama's page has a "signature". It is a featured page for it's high quality. I think we should do some things on Romney's page that are done on that page...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barak_Obama
I found an electronic copy of Romney's signature here and uploaded it here:
http://myclob.pbwiki.com/f/romneysig.jpg
Can someone who knows how to upload images, upload this and make the Romney page look like Barak's page?
http://myclob.pbwiki.com/f/romneysig.jpg
I've tried doing stuff like this before, but haven't been able to figure it out...71.143.235.250 20:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signature 

message: Why does it re-direct you to Mitt's page? She used to have a page of her own.myclob 22:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it got deleted for copyrght violation, I made a new stub in its place but it needs more work. Pro crast in a tor 23:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does Ann Romney really deserve her own article? Joseph Antley 00:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe so, as a candidate's wife in the news, as well as a possible future First Lady.  I'll certainly agree that there doesn't appear to be anything in her biography that is notable under the Wikipedia criteria, but the hundreds of newspaper articles mentioning her in connection with her husband tip the balance IMHO. Pro crast in a tor 04:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't think any of the other candidate's wives are being mentioned.  But if there's concensus, I'm perfectly fine with there being an Ann Romney article. Joseph Antley 20:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got to disagree with you there, Elizabeth Edwards has been in the news a lot, Michelle Obama and Judith Giuliani have pages, and of course Tipper Gore and Bill Clinton have Wiki entries. Pro crast in a tor 03:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I stand corrected. =p Joseph Antley 02:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to Ann Romney's page? 

message: Correct me if I am wrong, but shouldn't there a section in the article about how has changed positions repeatedly over the last 2 decades? The man has repeatedly denied that in the past he was prochoice, but a simple search on youtube completely discredits that. I think it should be mentioned in the article that he has repeatedly denied documented proof of his former positions. I'm pretty sure it would be POV to do anything but that, the article is about a politician, it is paramount to make mention of such apparent and rampant lying.--165.91.189.172 15:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there shouldn't be.  And FYI, Romney has admitted several times that he was formally pro-choice.  If you're going to say ignorant things like he has "repeatedly denied" it, then you need to back it up with sources.  Joseph Antley 01:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, sorry Joseph but you're wrong.  The article DEFINITELY needs to mention Romney's flip flopping, although not in that language.  Romney has a very casual relationship with political principles.  Obviously the article wants to remain neutral in tone but doing so should not be at the expense of accuracy.  The OP is absolutely right that Romney HAS repeatedly denied and tried to obfuscate his changing political views.  While there are charitable explanations for Romney's behavior there are also very critical ones and the accusation of flip flopping is one of the most prominent ones against Romney and the most persistent part of his political image and career.  I would suggest that the "Political views" section be re-written to feature prominently the accusation of flip flopping and Romney's justification of it.  I also think that all of the statements of position should be rewritten to make it clear that the stated positions are what Romney CLAIMS to believe NOW, as well as including past statements of his which claim different positions.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.221.152 (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you mean formerly?  even though he's still a flip-flopper.  But it shouldn't get its own section.  72.206.97.34 05:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have to make a correction. Romney has never admited to being "formally pro-choice". He admited to doing exactly what he said he would do. When he ran for governor he said that he was personally pro-life, but that he believed in the rule of law, that Massachusetts had made up his mind, and he promiced that he would not expand or reduce a woman's right to choose in Massachusetts". He kept that promice, and when two bills came to his desk that would have greatly expanded abortion rights, he vetoed them. He admits to being "effectivly pro-life" because he would not change the "pro life" laws in Massachusetts. No one believed him. They said he was liying. They said that he was a Mormon, and that he was pro-life. His apponent tried to scare wemon in Massachusetts, that Romney wasn't going to keep the laws the way they were. That is when Romney had to make his point of why he would not change the laws, and you can see those videos of Romney, but no one cares about the context of those videos...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.143.239.170 (talk) 11:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romney flip flopping 

message: I requested semi-protection on WP:RFPP because the large number of anonymous IP vandals over the past few days & weeks.  This means only registered users may now edit the page.  If any IP users want to change the page, please either sign up for a free Wikipedia account, or post your changes here on the talk page and someone will add them for you.  Hopefully we'll be able to spend more time on editing than reverting now.  Pro crast in a tor 21:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: How do you determine whether Bain Capital is a "private equity firm" or a "venture capital firm?" It provided startup money to Staples. Isn't that what VC firms do? Are there rigid definitions for these things? Notmyrealname 20:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm no expert, but venture capital companies usually provide money for starting companies, and private equity firms buy up portions of existing companies.  Bain generally engaged in the latter, with huge investments in existing companies, rather than <$10M investments in start-up companies.  Staples is a special case, as it was one of their first investments, but even Staples existed prior to Bain's investment.  Here's some [definitions].  Romney has been clouding the issue by calling Bain a "venture capital" company, but technically, it is and was a private equity firm, and they are described as such on Bain's wikipedia article.  Pro crast in a tor 21:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bain Capital 

message: :In the 2002 Massachusetts gubernatorial campaign, he was endorsed by the Republicans for Choice coalition.[87] In a 15 March 2007 interview with Larry King, Romney explained that while governor he adapted his political position on abortion during a 9 November 2004 meeting with an embryonic stem cell researcher, where they discussed cloning human embryos for the purpose of harvesting stem cells.[88] Though there are discrepancies about what was talked about at the Harvard meeting, Romney soon sought out other pro-life scientists to learn more about the issue.[89] [90] [91] By late 2004 or early 2005, Romney had fully rejected his former pro-choice position and, since then, has firmly opposed stem-cell research and abortion in all cases that do not include incest or rape or that threaten the life of the mother
Is it true that he's basically said he developed his pro-life position because he doesn't agree with cloning human embryos for the purpose of harvesting stem cells and that he claims he consulted pro-life scientists but didn't give either the people involved in stem cell research or pro-choice scientists the chance to respond? This is what the above implies Nil Einne 12:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I understand better his (rather bizzare) claim/view now after reading the sub article. I still think it needs to be reworked though since currently the above is what it implies IMHO. Nil Einne 12:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro-life 

message: A claim that says 70% of Massachusetts residents viewed him "fair to poor" links as its source a site that says that 43% view him favorably.  The math doesn't add up.  While it's clear there's a dedicated cabal of people ready to downplay every last thing about the man in this incredibly POV article, you guys should at least limit your lies to things where the links don't refute your claims.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.184.99 (talk) 17:58, October 4, 2007
:I think it says a lot about the state of math literacy in Massachusetts. Notmyrealname 21:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do the Math 

message: Some juvenile decided to add a rant on the top of the talk page questioning whether Romney's first name was really Willard, and, among other things, suggesting Romney "get a life away from the presidential campaign." Please people, act like adults. Disagreeing (coherently) with a candidate's positions on the issues is one thing, that was just plain silly. SpudHawg948 10:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalizing the Talk Page 

message: 4- Romney's great-grand parants were polygamist. No other presidential candidate's article mentions their grandparents, even though their were slave holders among them. How is Romney's great-grand-parent's polygamy more relevant than slavery? It menions the word polygamy twice, even though he is the only republican candidate to not have been married more than once, it mentions his grandparents even though none of the other candidate's articles mention their grandparents, 
5- Romney doesn't smoke. Barak Obama is the only presidential candidate who does smoke. Hillary Clinton, Rudy, McCain, Huckabee... none of them smoke. Why does Romney's page mention that he smokes? It is another way for people to join the freak show and make everything about him go back to the fact that he is a Mormon. Yes, this article should mention his religion, but his biography should be changed to his "Mormon History" because that is all it is about... It mentions his "non-smoking" status, even though none of the other candidate's articles mention their "non-smoking" status.
6. It mentions that Romney "regularly" attends to his religious duties, but non of the other articles examine how "regularly" they attend church. Lets at least pretend that we are treating Romney simlar to other candidates, if we want this to look somewhat profesional. myclob 13:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding to the list from above... problems with the biography 

message: I removed the line primarily because it is bad writing. As a reader I don't want someone to tell me he  was a lifelong opponent of same sex marriage, I want to read the information myself and draw my own conclusions. It prolongs the article and takes away from the article these types of unnecessary sentences. 
The article contradicts the statement. If he was a lifelong opponent of gay marriage why did he say in 1994 that, "We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern." ? As for civil unions, they are a legal recognition of marriage and its debatable that they are different, as civil unions extend the same state-recognized rights to gays. Can you explain to me how they are different? 
Jeremy221 00:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This position is also not supported by his record. Romney was, and I would guess still is, a strong supporter of federalization of marriage and family law, which could only be accomplished by reclassifying it from civil law to social policy. It was the difference in constitutional requirements for social policy that led directly to the state court's mandate for acceptance of same-sex marriage. Although no furthher decisions have yet been made, social policy rules (basically equal protection under law only), would support equal recognition of polygamy and other preferences. (One researcher in The Neatherlands has already suggested that robot-human marriages will be legal in Mass. by 2050. I don't know if that will happen but he was right in selecting Mass. as having the legal precedent for it.) Rogerfgay 08:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Same Sex Marriage 

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

message: This is supposed to be a biography. It's a pretty poor one, when it lacks basic data. I want to know how many boys and how many girls he has, not really their names. He is running a campaign ad featuring home video footage of his "sons" (he doesn't mention his daughters -- JUST LIKE A MORMON, if I may ad, to downplay the daughters. Mister Joy Boy (talk) 04:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good grief. Trying to ignore your prejudiced comments about Mormons, I wonder - did you read the article?  It clearly says he has five sons and eleven grandchildren in the second paragraph of the "Biography" section.  Do you have some reason to believe that they have hidden away  some daughters?   Unbelievable.  And I just found their names, which I will add to the article. Tvoz |talk 03:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is a list of his children's names? 

message: I've noticed that Wiki editors whittle back the bios of persons they don't particularly care for to about nothing, despite the fact the person is significant in their field and has relevant achievements. In articles about lawyers who aren't celebrities, the bio will be denuded of the person's achivement, as those allegedly should be put in the article about their firm, and of course, they really aren't.
In the case of Mrs. Jean Yawkey, the first woman to be on the Board of Directors of the Baseball Hall of Fame, the Wiki editors wanted to eliminate her article all together, as she -- being a woman -- is just an appendage of a man, and unworthy of a bio of her own. (They must be MORMONS.)
I vote that this article be stripped down to essentials: Birth date, schools data, family data and just a list of dates for the offices Mitt has held.
Let the common slob go to another article to find information, or another site not dedicated to creating endless spam on the Web.
Have a nice day.Mister Joy Boy (talk) 05:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This should be reduced in length 

message: In a previous discussion, the mention of Mitt Romney's religion was compared to that of Harry Reid. Both are Mormons. In Senator Reid's article, the fact that he was the first Mormon to serve as Senate Majority Leader appears in the first paragraph. As such, would it not be fair to state that Mitt Romney was Massachussets' first Mormon governor? After all, the state is known for firsts; it just elected its first black governor, and was also known for electing the first black Senator by popular vote. 
Senator Robert Bennett's page also lists his religion in the first paragraph. As does Senator Gordon Smith's. In fact, the only current political figure not to have his Mormon religion mentioned in the first paragraph (aside from Governor Romney) is Senator Orrin Hatch. Senator Hatch's article is also the only one that mentions an endorsement of Governor Romney. I'm not sure if the others have, but the fact that these two do not have their faith listed as early as their fellow Mormons in politics is, I think, pretty POV.
I suggest the Harry Reid standard. Being the highest-ranking, most prominent Mormon on the Democratic side, we ought to apply the same standard to Romney as to Reid. I also think it would be fair to include Senator Hatch's Mormon faith in his first paragraph. I doubt there are as many who are concerned about Senator Hatch's page as Mitt Romney's, given the fact that Governor Romney is a candidate for President, so I figured I'd throw it out here, where the vested interests are, rather than simply sticking it in on Senator Hatch's page. Let me know what you guys thinks! Apartcents (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, lets make sure Romney is treated just as bad as the other Mormons on this site! Why don't you just treat Romney, like other presidential candidates... mentioning his religion 12 times on this page (he goes to the temple, his great-grandparents were polygamist, his father was mormon, his wife is mormon, but she was raised episcipol, he went on a mission, he is a biship, he was a stake president, etc... Look he is running for president... I know you are all fascinated with the fact that he is Mormon, but this page is not a place for you to get your kicks... go edit some other mormon websites, and leave this website's content so that it is similar in amount of details it deals with about religion, as other presidential candidates...myclob (talk) 02:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that Mitt Romney is Mormon, and what impact that may or may not have on his chances,  is discussed by news commentators all the time.  We absolutely should include it, and include the reliably sourced commentary that talks about it.   You can't pretend that it isn't an issue - and you might try leaving your POV out of this.  Accusing people of editing to get their kicks isn't exactly constructive criticism.  Tvoz |talk 02:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, We're not doing it for the lulz. I happen to have chosen a handful of Republicans and a handful of Democrats running for President to make this better, not to push agendas. Like it or not, Romney's religion is a significant issue. He is the most visible Mormon, with the best chance of winning, in U.S history. Orrin Hatch run in 2000 but dropped out early, as did George Romney in 1968. Mitt Romney doesn't get a wiki page cuz he's running for President, he's getting one because he is a notable figure. This is not the place for campaign material, one way or another. It's a place for information.Apartcents (talk) 08:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't think wikipedi has any obligation to treat Romney, who only gets a wikipedi article because he is running for president, like wikipedia treats the other presidential candidates? Lets be inteligent about this. You are saying the wikipedi article should discuss Romney's religion. I do not disagree. I'm not saying we should hide the fact. I'm just saying it is excesive. I also have a problem with the prominence of the discusion of his poligamy. I do not think that it is appropriate to have two mentions of the word poligamy in the very first part of the article about Romney. I am a Mormon. If I ever do anything newsworthy is poligamy going to be in my wikipedia article? Should poligamy be mentioned in every wikipedia article about Mormons? Anyways, back to Wikipedia, please look around the site and tell me what you think. Are they fair? Do they treat Romney the same as Rudy or Hillary? I say no. No other candidate has their religion mentioned 12 times. No other candidate has scandalous behavior of their grandparent's discussed. And it's not just the fact that these things are mentioned, but that they are mentioned at the top of the page, as the first (and most likely last things that people read about Romney, as most people just want the executive summary) thing in the page, which can, according to the people that edit the wikipedia article, be summed up with one word: MORMON. Not businessman. Not father. Not reformer. Not grandfather. Not Olympic turn-arounder… Not budget balance, not tax cutter, not border enforcer. No… just one word… the only word that matters when you are talking about someone who goes to the Mormon church: nothing else in their life matters, except the fact that they are Mormon.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myclob (talk • contribs) 04:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Look. You keep making the argument that his religion is important. No one disagrees with you... Please do not make that argument again. We are going around in circles. The question is weather or not the way the article, as written now, is appropriate? I have two questions, and please try to focus your responce to these two questions. 1) should there be 12 references, as outlined below, to Romney's religion within his "biography" and 2) Should the first thing you read about Romney be the biography, which mentions his religion 12 times? Please focus your effort on weather you think we should create a seperate "religion" section. Also you did not respond to my question. This is a very serious question. If I become famous, and get a wikipedia article, will my article mention poligamy because I am a Mormon? What is it about Romney that makes poligamy an issue, from a encyclopedia stand point. This is the issue that I want arbitration over. I WANT ARBITRATION myclob (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See my edit - by changing the headings, perhaps your concerns will be allayed. As I said I didn't write this article and don't think it was very well organized.  I've changed the headers to give equal weight to his background, business career and Olympics work, and take out the problematic "biography" - the whole article is his biography. "Early life and family background" seems more focused on its contents, "Education" is self-evident.  As to your questions:  No, I do not think we should have a separate religion section.  I also do not think the number of times something related to his religion is mentioned is at all excessive - and your count is skewed anyway - defining LDS as Mormon is 2 refs?  I don't see it that way.  And see Huckabee.    As for polygamy:  it is not mentioned here because he is Mormon, and I have no idea what would be in your biography if you became famous.  Polygamy is in his direct family background - it is the reason his father was born in Mexico - and, most importantly, it is discussed in reliable sources and so cited.  That makes it notable, and should be in his encyclopedia article because it is something readers may be looking for information on.  Other LDS/Mormons, like Orrin Hatch, do not have polygamy mentioned in their articles because apparently if it is in their family backgrounds it has not been discussed in reliable sources. If it was, it would be there. This is not an attack on Mormons as you seem to be taking it.   And finally, as I said elsewhere, if you want to get an outside opinion, feel free to ask for one in the appropriate venues - saying it here won't do it.  And take a little time to learn some more about how Wikipedia works - we try to edit by consensus, not by getting hysterical (which is how lots of people read comments posted in all caps to be).  I've tried to address your concerns by reworking the structure of the article - I very much disagree with you, as others have as well, that the references to Romney's religion are excessive, or that his family history should be excised.  Again, sorry if this offends you as a Mormon - it is not the intention of the editors, at least not this one.  I am interested in producing a fair and comprehensive article, not one that is censored.  Tvoz |talk 19:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Harry Reid Standard 

message: Most candidates have mention of family background, especially if it is prominent. Someone removed the several paragraphs of Romney's family's polygamist history. I agree that it is not notable or NPOV to include that his great-grandparents fled somewhere because of polygamy. However, this was also removed:
Romney's father, George Romney, was born in Chihuahua, Mexico, and the family moved to the United States in 1912 after the outbreak of the Mexican Revolution.   
- [ref name="ancestors"><http://www.4thefamily.us/mitt_family_tree Could ancestors haunt Romney? Polygamous family tree of Mitt Romney] Salt Lake Tribune, August 21 2006</ref>http://www.epcc.edu/nwlibrary/borderlands/19_mormons.htm 
I think that ought to stay, with an expansion as to who George Romney was. He was a prominent person, Governor of Michigan. In fact, he ran for President briefly in 1968. I know this for fact, and it is also on his Wikipedia page. However, I'd dispute that he was born in Mexico. If he were born in Mexico he'd be unable to run for President. If I get the green light of consensus to include a bit of NPOV family history for Governor Romney I can dig around and see if I can find out where his father was really born. As this is a charged topic I don't want to unilaterally make a change. Apartcents (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: George Romney was born in Mexico - one or both of his parents were American citizens, so despite his place of birth, George was automatically entitled to citizenship, and therefore was eligible to be President; he did run in 1968. I agree that George's background should be here, and I think the fact that a Presidential candidate's great-grandparents (not great-great-grand - let's keep that straight) fled the country so that they could practice their religious beliefs is indeed notable and should be included. Keeping it out of the article is POV - there are sources, and there are sources who discuss Mitt's ancestry and whether it is an impediment to his Presidential chances - this is notable material that needs to be here.  Tvoz |talk 02:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, always thought people had to be born in the U.S. or its territories to be President. I will see if I can find more sources on George Romney, it could be incorrect he was born in Mexico. Maybe even call the campaign just to rest the suspicion. After all, I remember the media mentioning Bill Richardson was born in Mexico years ago, and that was obviously wrong (he was born in Cali). Thanks for your comment! Apartcents (talk) 07:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means, check it out - but I assure you, George Romney was born in Mexico. Tvoz |talk 05:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romney's Family Background 

message: I will refrain from speculating, but would like to point out for the record that at least one comment posted above by IP 71.143.239.170  was then re-signed by IP 208.96.213.98; and at least one comment posted by IP 208.96.213.98  was resigned by Myclob.  So I am assuming that all three ids are the same person. I raise this in the event that anyone wants to discuss consensus.  Tvoz |talk 00:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No freaking kidding... I sign my name when ever I remember, and when I put thesemyclob 23:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one said there was a conspiracy.  Changing IPs to your name is no problem - people sometimes forget to log in.  But changing one IP to another IP signature is at least confusing to readers as it suggests that there are other people agreeing with you, when in fact it's just you agreeing with yourself. Tvoz |talk 00:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not change my IP. I put my signature, when I wasn't logged in, and realized I wasn't logged in, and I logged in, and re-put in my signature...I did this same thing from home, and I made the same mistake at work. myclob 15:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  changing signatures 

message: I have just plowed through all this Talk page, with its (seemingly) endless fascination over Mr. Romney's religion and family background.  Nowhere do I see anybody interested in the reported fact that he supported the invasion of Iraq, or that he wants to increase the military presence in that country, or that he wants to greatly increase our country's spending on military outlay, or that he condones waterboarding and other "non-torture coercion".  Aren't those positions of much greater portent than what y'all have been fighting over??  Raymondwinn (talk) 10:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Raymond, some of us are interested in those much more important issues.  But the purpose of the Talk page is to discuss items in the article that need editors' attention, not a place to discuss what any of us thinks of Romney or his positions.  Please see the section of the article that is headed "Political positions" (which is supposed to be a summary) and the separate sub-article "Political positions of Mitt Romney" for how his stands on Iraq, torture, and military spending are handled. I don't doubt that the sub-article could use some critical review and expansion - if you have any suggestions about what is missing there (and if anything seems to missing from this article's summary), please share them.  But the talk page is not a forum for discussing our personal opinions about the subject. (I can see why you might have gotten that impression from some of the comments above, though.)  Tvoz |talk 16:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look Tvoz, you keep saying there is all this concensus to keep the page the way it is, with 13 references to Romney's religion at the top of the page, mentioning his great-great grandparent's poligamy twice, and talking about how he goes to the temple... but your the only onle that keeps saying that it is good the way it is, but Raymondwinn, Cool Hand Luke , and I think it needs to change, and you are the only person that wants it to stay the same!myclob 15:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The comment immediately above this one is a good example of what I mean when I say you are out of control, Myclob. How is your comment in any way responsive to what I said to Raymondwinn in this section?  Did I say anything here about consensus?  Had Coolhandluke commented when I posted here?   Adding the same thing over and over on this page doesn;t make your point more correct, and it doesn't give you consensus. There I used the word. By the way, when did it become 13 references?  Previously you said it was 12.  Tvoz |talk 17:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you give me a call, so we can talk this out? We are going in circles, it is getting ugly, and we are making no progress... You ask, " How is your comment in any way responsive to what I said to Raymondwinn in this section?" Well Raymondwinn said about this article, there is "endless fascination over Mr. Romney's religion and family background". So in my mind, his comments showed that, unlike what you say, there is not a consensus that the article needs to stay the way it is. Raymondwinn said there is too much fascination with religion... it sounds to me like he thinks you are wrong... I was pointing that out... that you don't have a consensus... what down't you understand about that? How is it so difficult for you to understand that you don't have consensus? "Did I say anything here about consensus?" Yes. "Had Coolhandluke commented when I posted here?" Yes. Look below. "Adding the same thing over and over on this page doesn't make your point more correct, and it doesn't give you consensus." I don't mean to be repeating myself, but you see we are doing this thing back and forth, and it takes two to tengo, and so everywere that you say we should keep the 13 mentions of his religion, I place why I disagree... I don't mean to be repeating myself, but that is getting off the topic, and is open to enterpretation. For instance, I think you are repeating yourself, but lets not get sidtracked into an argument over who is repeating his/herself... why don't you ever respond to my arguments, but nevermind, lets not get into all these accusations... just look below... I think I have a solution... we can vote on each specific mention of religion.. that is democratic... I have organized a good way that we don't repeat ourselves... lets just take each mention of his religion, one at a time, and vote on how it should be handled... See below for the count of every 13 references...myclob 20:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Relevant Questions than His Great-Grandparents? 

message: Romney now believes that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and believes a constitutional amendment is appropriate when America is ready for it and that abortion is wrong except to save the life of the mother.[95] Romney has made pro-choice comments in the past, but now says he has reversed his position.[96]
Romney now believes that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and believes a constitutional amendment is appropriate when America is ready for it and that abortion is wrong except to save the life of the mother.[97] Romney has made pro-choice comments in the past, but now says he has reversed his position.[98]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.131.18.130 (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  duplicate text 

message: I think this section could use some work.  New stuff is italicized:
Mitt Romney is the son of former Michigan Governor and 1968 presidential candidate George W. Romney and 1970 U.S. Senate candidate Lenore Romney. His name "Willard" was after hotel magnate J. Willard Marriott, his father's best friend. Mitt, his middle name, comes from a relative who played football for the Chicago Bears.<BR><BR>
Romney married his high school girlfriend Ann Davies in 1968, and they remain married. Both are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, (the LDS Church, commonly known as Mormons) though Ann was raised Episcopalian (she converted to Mormonism). They have five married sons — (Tagg, Matt, Josh, Ben and Craig) — and eleven grandchildren.  Romney's great-grandparents were polygamist Mormons who fled to Mexico in 1884 after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld various anti-polygamy laws in 1879.  Some of Romney’s ancestors were polygamists, which is a practice that he has denounced.<BR><BR>
Romney's father, George Romney, was born in Chihuahua, Mexico, and the family moved to the United States in 1912 after the outbreak of the Mexican Revolution.  Romney is a former bishop and stake president in his church, and he attends a temple regularly. As a devout Mormon, he  He does not drink or smoke. He's , and he is also a proponent of family values, saying that he abstained from sex until marriage and has since remained faithful to his wife of 39 years.
First off, we don't need to provide all these synonyms for his religion.  Just say "Mormon" and that's plenty.
The bit about his great-grandparents is just plain false.  Not all of them were polygamists, and even the cited article's title only involves a "branch" of his family.  Let's not dwell on the black sheep.
Also, if he's a former bishop and stake president, it's redundant to say that he's devout and that he attends temple.  The stuff about being married to only one woman fits better where his wife is first mentioned.  As for his smoking and drinking habits, do we know whether he would smoke if he weren't a Mormon?  Do we mention the smoking habits of other candidates?  There's no need to repeatedly ( over and over again and redundantly) indicate that he is a Mormon.Ferrylodge 19:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have to include the full name of the church on first notice. I agree with the rest of your suggestions. Cool Hand Luke 19:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I modified my initial comment accordingly.  Mrs. Romney's bio says that she was only Episcopalian "nominally", so there's no need to mention it here.  Okay now?Ferrylodge 19:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

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

text: If the above changes are acceptable to people, then I will also insert the following Romney quote into the corresponding footnote: "Asked if he had premarital sex with Ann, Romney tells Wallace, 'No, I'm sorry. We don’t get into those things. The answer is no.'"  Such titillating trivia does not belong in the main text.  See, for example, the Fred Thompson article, where such stuff is only in a footnote, and not in the main text.Ferrylodge 20:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please hold off on all of this until more editors have weighed in on this - there has been an ongoing discussion about this with numerous editors, and they should be heard from.  I for one am looking it over and would like to hear from others.   But as for his great-grandparents, sure we should qualify which ones we mean - but this is something that has been discussed in the media and our removing it strikes me as POV.  Tvoz |talk 21:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tvoz, you say that some of the edits I've suggested strike you as POV.  If you mean that I am trying to slant the article, nothing could be further from the truth. I have no objection if the article says "Some of Romney’s ancestors were polygamists, which is a practice that he has denounced."  What is slanted about that?  I have identified outright falsities in this article, and you say that I have a POV?  Could we please turn down the temperature here?  Thanks.Ferrylodge 21:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I wasn't saying you were trying to slant the article, as a matter of fact.  And I've said several times that I didn't write this piece and think it needs a lot of work - so in fact I welcome new editors taking a look at it. I said that I don't think the polygamy should be removed as a few have wanted to do, because more editors here have felt that it was notable and should be included. And I asked that you wait before making major changes for others to speak up on your suggestions - I haven't said what I think of them yet. Tvoz |talk 21:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

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

text: We're in the middle of discussing just that - see above - so please hold off until we reach consensus  - we did have consensus, I believe, about including the well-sourced and notable polygamous background, which is why it was back in the article.  Tvoz |talk 21:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arzel, this has been in the article for a long time - you don';t like it, you;'ve made that quite clear, but we reached consensus a while ago on this. The appropriate thing to do is to leave it alone while it's being discussed again, not to remove it.  I didn't add it, I reinstated consensus wording.  Do you get the difference?  If a new consensus is reached, that's one thing - but taking it out and saying we should discuss it with it out is edit warring. Tvoz |talk 21:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone other than Tvoz disagree with the edits I've suggested?Ferrylodge 21:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say if I agree or disagree with them, and you only posted them a couple of hours ago, so how about waiting for people who have been editing here to read and reply - that's what I said.  Tvoz |talk 21:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You said that some of my suggested edits strike you as POV, which did not strike me as an endorsement of those edits.  In any event, I am not impatient.  I don't think I asked anyone to hurry up and answer.  Take all the time you like to study these three paragraphs.Ferrylodge 21:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the talk page and follow the edits, Ferrylodge - you've just arrived here.  I can tell the difference between removing any reference to his polygamous family and qualifying it - you qualified it, and I haven't evaluated your qualification yet, but a couple of others removed it completely, which I think is POV. OK, is that clearer?  I'm glad you're not in a rush - I must have misunderstood your question above.  And as long as you're asking for the temperature to be turned down, how about reducing the sarcasm inherent in your last sentence?   Tvoz |talk 21:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been following this talk page for awhile, but was prevented from commenting by several distractions.  In any event, I will be quiet as a mouse now, so that you can read those three paragraphs that I've proposed to edit.  Thanks.Ferrylodge 21:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Please don't speak for other editors, Myclob - I haven't said what I think of Ferrylodge's wording and Raymondwinn's comments were actually about the talk page discussion, asking why we weren't talking about Romney's Iraq and other positions - he didn't say what he thought should be in the article or not.  FInally - I'm sure you know that consensus does not mean vote or majority rule, so there's really no point in counting heads, is there.  The idea is to come up with wording that  editors agree on - which is why I removed "biography" which was the earlier thing you were complaining about, and what I hope we will achieve on this matter.  Tvoz |talk 21:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't "speak for them" I gave a direct quote... They spoke for themselves. Also, JGoldwater, StrumTurner, Alanraywiki, and others have complained about too much religion, along with other people who weren't signed in, but it just had their IP address... I guess I don't have to tell you this, because it looks like you argued with them above... But I do think at some point we need to count heads in order to get to a consensus... else how are we going to know if we get a consensus? We have to say it somehow, unless you can read minds, and I was just trying to make an organized way of showing it... I am not speaking for anyone, Arzel, myself, Ferrylodge, and Coolhand Luke have all made direct approval of the new wording, and the other people I mention have complained about too much religion... Thanks for re-naming the biograph section, but as you can see that was the tip of the ice-berg as far as problems I saw with the sitemyclob 21:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early life and background 

message: I'm not an expert on wiki etiquette.  When there's a controversy at a talk page, is it appropriate to contact people to urge them to join in?  If so, is it appropriate to look back upon previous days' discussion at the talk page, and pick out the people who might support your position, in order to notify them only?Ferrylodge 01:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's perfectly fine to let people know that a subject that they have discussed in the past is being discussed again.  This is not a formal proceeding, it is merely a discussion.   What would be wrong would be to ask friends who support you elsewhere to come in to an article they have had nothing to do with in order to support your position in this discussion.  That's meatpuppetry. Do you have an accusation to make based on your apparent scrutiny of my contribution history?  Did I "urge" anyone to do something?  Or did I say "whatever your view is on this now" or words to that effect?  Tvoz |talk 01:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that it's "perfectly fine to let people know that a subject that they have discussed in the past is being discussed again."  What I was wondering is if it's appropriate to pick and choose among such people, to exclude those who have expressed a different viewpoint from one's own.  It's a serious question, and I don't know the answer.Ferrylodge 02:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I guess I have found an answer to my own question.  Wikipedians should "not preselect recipients according to their established opinions."Ferrylodge 03:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a little more complicated than that, as WP:CANVAS itself explains. First off, this is a "behavioral guideline," not Wikipedia policy. I think Tvoz's actions fall under the description of "Examples of friendly notices include: Notifying all editors who substantively edited or discussed the article or project." (myself, for example). This is very different from votestacking or other disruptive behavior. Notmyrealname 03:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If Tvoz notified "all" such editors then there's no problem.Ferrylodge 03:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, this is not official policy. It would be of serious concern if this were about an RFC vote (at this point no official RFC has been officially made). There's an open discussion currently on WP:BLPN, so it's not like this isn't going to get some attention. Remember to assume good faith.Notmyrealname 03:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone likes to win arguments, especially if they sincerely believe they've got the better arguments.  But as a simple matter of fairness, it's not fair to quietly notify only people who were previously on your side.  Doesn't matter if it's a guideline or a policy, IMHO.  Anyway, I'm not blasting anyone for this.  I'm just kindly requesting for next time.Ferrylodge 03:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calling for reinforcements 

message: Rudy's page says that Rudy is a businessman, although I hardly think charging people to talk about septermber 11th counts as a business... Romney graduated at the top of his Harvard Law school, and passed the bar exam, does that make him a lawyer?myclob 02:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The key to whether he's an attorney (or was an attorney) is whether he passed the bar exam, and if so in what state.  The article doesn't mention that, and such info would be very relevant and useful.  Even if he passed the bar in one or more states, a lawyer still has to pay annual dues to remain a lawyer, and I have no idea if Mitt has done that.Ferrylodge 03:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He passed the bar exam in Michicagan... He mentioned coming back to Michigan to take the bar exam in a couple of speeches... I don't think it needs including. myclob 14:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  a lawyer? 

message: Just checked back in on this page after a long absence. Look, the question of whether it is relevant to include the information that some of Romney's great grandparents were polygamists and fled to Mexico (where his father was born) should really be considered beyond dispute at this point. By Wikipedia's standards, the issue is whether it is published in reliable third-party sources. If you Google "Mitt Romney Polygamy" links to these and the following stories:
# Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romney's Family Tree from Fox News, Feb 24, 2007
# Mitt Romney's Evangelical Problem The Washington Monthly, September 2005
# The march of the Mormons The Guardian, Feb 27, 2006. The article says "...Mitt Romney's father, George, an automobile executive and a three-term Republican governor of Missouri who was born in a polygamous Mormon community in Mexico."
# Romney Family Tree Has Polygamy Branch - White House candidate Mitt Romney condemns polygamy, but his great-grandfather had 5 wives CBS News, Feb 24, 2007
# Romney Family Tree Has Polygamy Branch ABC News, Feb 24, 2007
# The Making of Mitt Romney Boston Globe, June 25, 2007
# Mitt Romney on 60 Minutes with Mike Wallace - Mormonism 60 Minutes interview on YouTube.
This is a VERY abbreviated list. The mainstream media from all sides of the political spectrum has decided that this is an important part of Romney's biography. He has discussed it publicly on many occasions. It seems to me that it belongs in the "family background" section of his bio, but if others think it belongs elsewhere I won't lose any sleep over it. If people still disagree, it can be brought up on the WP:BLPN, but experienced editors will surely agree that this has met the threshold for inclusion. Notmyrealname 02:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again I ask, Should everything that has ever been mentioned about Romney "in the media" be included in the first paragraph of his wikipedia article? No one disputes weather or not people have asked Romney about poligamy, and included poligamy in news stories. The question remains weather or not "all news stories about Romney"{ would fit in the first paragraph of Romney's wikipedia article. I do not think all news stories about Romney would fit in the first paragraph, and so we have to choose the ones that seem most important. The second question, that I have asked about 3 times, and not gotten an answer to, does the media ever make mistakes? Can we mention Romney's poligamy without saying that Romney has said that "he can't imagine anything worse than poligamy?" and that he said that it should not be mentioned in context with him? I have never gotten an answer from this question... if I become famous, will poligamy be mentioned in my wikipedia article, because I am a Mormon? What is different between me and Romney? I answer that question, ROmney is running for office, and people wan't to associate him with embarasing aspects of Mormonism. This is the only explanation, as not every famous Mormon's wikipedia article discusses poligamy, just Romney's because he is running for office. Like I have said a couple of times, when ever anyone finds out I am LDS (for instance a co-worder saw my Resume, and that I went to BYU, before I was hired, and the first thing they asked me was how many wives I have) they ask me how many wives I have. Romney is the only front tear Republican candidate to have had only one wife. I want to ask why people want to include poligamy in Romney's article (if its not just to associate him with with negative aspects of Mormonism)? If its just to give more background, should we add a section on poligamy to Steve Young's wikipedia article? Should we add a section on poligamy to Glen Beck's page? See what he has to say about poligamy? WHat did Farlo to Farnsworth inviter of the TV think about poligamy? How about Danny Ainge? WHy doesn't his article have anything about Mormonism? Because he is not running for office, and people arn't trying to slander him by associating him with Mormonism.myclob 14:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Romney is also descended from Rebecca Nurse, who was hanged for witchcraft in 1692 after the Salem witch trials, and of Anne Marbury Hutchinson, religious reformer, heretic and a founder of Rhode Island. FWIW. - Nunh-huh 03:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be worth just a sentence or two (we'll have to watch WP:UNDUE) under the Mormonism or family history section. I would not be against saying something like "His ancestors were known polygamists, though Romney has denounced the practice." The Evil Spartan 04:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of Polygamy 

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

message: .. for one week. If you are ready to resume editing before the protection expires, or to contest the protection, please place a not at WP:RFPP. Editors are encouraged to evaluate the disputed material in the context of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize that I made an edit to this article last week. Leaving the protection (that I believe is still needed) to an admin that has not edited this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A week seems a bit extreme, especially given that this is the bio page of a top-tier presidential candidate. But a block of a day or two would probably be a good way for all concerned to cool off. Notmyrealname 04:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protected... 

message: Read this Notmyrealname 22:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And hopefully that speech will only be a couple of sentences in the Wikipedia article like it was for John F. Kennedy, and should show up on the campaign article rather than the biography. Alanraywiki 23:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: I guess the only way to resolve this is a vote straw poll.  This has been going on for days, and I thought that a good faith consensus had been reached, but the article continues to be reverted.  Here is how I edited the article in order to get a consensus version.  Who supports it?
SupportFerrylodge 03:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Straw polls are a normal part of Wikipedia, and that is why there are straw poll guidelines.  This approach was suggested above by another editor, which is why I thought it might be worth a try.Ferrylodge 03:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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

message: This statement violates the WP:NPOV and WP:BLP policy:
Another criticism of Romney is that he is the Republican version of John Kerry. Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, one of his main rivals, accused Romney of 'flip-flopping' on issues[77].
I checked the reference, and it does not actually say that Giuliani accused Romney of flip-flopping. Please just remove the statement. If a good reference is found then the statement can be rewritten neutrally and added back in. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: . (re-worded statement to remove that it's an accusation of flip-flopping, replaced with generic "compared him to Kerry" which the source does support - didn't want to change the structure of the paragraph too much) —Random832 14:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The republican version of John Kerry" 

message: Hi User:Leon7, you said in an edit summary: "Let's be fair; either you add that his religion banned polygamy 100+ years ago, or you dissassociate the 2 words, like this."
I think that "polygamist mormon" is a more apt term in this situation than just "polygamists".  The reason for their polygamy was deeply rooted in their faith: see Polygamy#Mormonism.  I've added back in "mormons" and some context about the situation.
In any case, are we agreed that this is notable?  I think it is, and it's not just "look at the funny mormons".  His family history back 3 generations (father, grandfather, and great-grandfather) is tied to northern Mexico, the birthplace of his father.  Any other opinions?  Pro crast in a tor 06:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, not to be protectionist of Romney, but when you go to Barack Obama, you are not treated with the dispute that he may or may not have been taught fundamentalist Islam in a maddrasa.  So what if Romney's forefathers were polygamists?  That doesn't affect how he views himself or how he conducts himself, unless he demonstrates otherwise.  That's akin to someone ginning up that I'm a descendant of Jefferson Davis.  Unless Mitt himself believes in polygamy, or tries to defend it, it shouldn't matter.Shrekums 06:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's any doubt that Mitt's father, grandfather, and great-grandfather lived in Mexico for 20 years (except his father, who was born and moved when he was 5), making it quite unlike the Barack Obama dispute you mention.Pro crast in a tor 21:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do all other presidential candidate pages include lineage from their great grandfathers, or go back 124 years?  This seems irrelevant. -- 14 September 2007  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.211.33.62 (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is customary to mention something about the person's father and/or mother.  Earlier, the page just said that his father was "Mexican-born", and many people (myself included) thought this looked like it was designed to incite immigration tensions.  Now it includes some context, which obviously includes his grandfather (the father of his Mexican-born father), but his great-grandfather's polygamy is actually the reason they both moved to Mexico.  So, yes, in this case, I do think you have to go back 3 generations to give reasonable context to the situation.Pro crast in a tor 05:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it seems out-of-place, myself, and highly irregular.  If anything must be said about Romney's distant ancestors, keep it as simple as possible, something like "where his great grandfather had moved".  Personally, I don't think it should be included at all.  75.14.215.62 19:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, ;) I think you're wrong. I think it is fair to say that Romney is known_for being a Politician because of his Religion, and Pedigree. All material pertaining to that, which can also be cited seems fair ground for inclusion. We aren't talking about a closet case believer here, we are talking about someone who receives a large portion of press for his stance on social issues; and, because of this, I feel anything that can influence his stance, or further clarify it is required for an article that fulfills WP:WEIGHT. With that said you're more than welcome to object to WP:NPOV, and balance the content, but don't argue WEIGHT. EvanCarroll (talk) 06:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polygamist geneology 

message: Does this really belong here? I removed that paragraph but someone reversed my edits. I suspect that this family tree info was added by the vandals because it's clearly an instance of POV pushing. I'm sure that if we go back far enough we can find some of his ancestors who were slave owners, etc.. and this applies to everyone. This info should be removed. This is a lame attempt to incite bigotry against mormons. --JGoldwater 00:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's enough to note that he is a Mormon. Digging up dirt on his grandpa seems like a reach. --StrumTurner 01:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The point of the paragraph was to illustrate why his family tree going back three generations was in Mexico.  Earlier versions just had "Romney's father was born in Mexico", which didn't really give any context.  I think it's biographically quite relevant that his father, grandfather, and great-grandfather all spent significant time in northern Mexico, though, of course, and the outlawing of polygamy in the US is the reason they were there.  In any case, I agree there was too much talk about his great-grandparents, I removed the mention about his 5th wife.  Pro crast in a tor 07:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, maybe you should consider creating a separate article about his great grandfather. The actions of his ancestors centuries ago do not belong in the third paragraph of his biography. This is a selective presentation of facts to push a POV. So here is the deal. I will remove the info about his great grand father and if too many people object, I offer as a compromise the inclusion of the contributions of his great-great-grandfather Carl Wilcken during the civil war and the work of his father as head of the Automotive Council for War Production during the second world war. --JGoldwater 14:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this info should be mentioned somewhere in the article, especially considering the fact that Romney's father was born in Mexico. However, it doesn't really fit in the bio section. Maybe we should have a family history section as JGoldwater suggests? Turtlescrubber 14:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you agree then why did you put it back on? Any info about his great grandparents does not belong in a 3 paragraph bio of Mitt Romney. I'll add some more info later about Mitt Romney which is what this section is about. Maybe the two of you can start a project to trace back his family tree but this certainly does not belong here.--JGoldwater 15:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with what? Don't put words into my mouth. I never said that I agree with you. It certainly belongs in the article, maybe we should keep it in the bio? Turtlescrubber 15:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You wrote "it doesn't really fit in the bio section" then you added it back TO THE BIO SECTION.  Look, I don't think you have a case here. This info does not belong in this section and any impartial observer will agree. When I add more bio information about Mitt Romney I'll remove the 19th century info from this section again. If this is really important to you we'll have to call in a mediator. --JGoldwater 15:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OH, NO! You caught me REDHANDED leaving it in the article but DISCUSSING its proper place. Heavens to Betsy, I should die of shame. Turtlescrubber 21:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't doubt the veracity of the info. My only point is that it does not belong in the bio section. As I mentioned before, there is also well sourced info about his great-great-grandfather Carl Wilcken during the civil war but I'm not including it here. This is a section about the biography of Mitt Romney, not the biography of his 19th century ancestors.--JGoldwater 15:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With a one-minute Google search I just posted links for half a dozen major news organizations (including those on the right) that have posted stories on this recently. He even discussed it during his 60 Minutes interview. That is more than sufficient for relevancy. I suggest bringing it to the BLP Noticeboard to bring more editors to weigh in on this.Notmyrealname 15:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with JGoldwater.  The information may be interesting as trivia, but really is not relevant to a bio about Mitt Romney himself.  Most other articles, particularly of those involved in politics, do not go that far back in the family tree.  Alanraywiki 16:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the other candidates don't have their family tree discussed in all the major news outlets and speak about them on 60 Minutes.Notmyrealname 16:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Look, I checked your sources and they all trace back to one AP article that talks about his great-grandfather's five wives. You posted links to blogs, etc.. that quote that one article. If you want to include this, the appropriate way to do it is to create a separate page about his great-grandfather, include this info there and then link that page to this one. This is how the Ann Romney MS thing was handled. It makes no sense to talk about his great-grandfather's trip to Mexico on the third paragraph of Romney's bio. There are more important things that I will include later and this is just not relevant. --JGoldwater 19:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this shows that the story was widely considered to be important. But not all of the links were connected to the AP story. The Boston Globe Boston Globe] story was much more in depth and involved original reporting. The Salt Lake Tribune posted a story on this a year earlier but removed it from its archives (see this retrieved version). Then there is the 60 Minutes interview where Romney discuss it. There is also a Slate article that discusses the issue as it relates to Romney politically, cites his jokes about it, and predates the AP article by about a year. Notmyrealname 19:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. I know the story is true but I don't think it's relevant because Romney wasn't alive at the time. So Romney can't be in favor of traditional marriage because his great-grandfather, whom he never met, was a polygamist? So if someone's ancestor was a slave owner they can't be in favor of civil rights? There are many stories out there. Not all of them should be included just because they are out there.--JGoldwater 19:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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

text: The reason for inclusion of the polygamy is for telling the story behind why his family, going back three generations, was in northern Mexico for a significant period of time.  You can't tell that story without mentioning polygamy.  If you just say his dad was born in Mexico and moved to Idaho in 1912, it implies his family emigrated at that time, which is obviously not the case. Pro crast in a tor 18:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But should that story really be told here? Are we including the story of everyone's ancestors on their biographies? If you are bringing this up as a way to justify his father being born in Mexico, maybe you should include this on his father's page here. Biography means story of life.  Therefore anything that happened before the person in question was born is irrelevant. --JGoldwater 19:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's in the same line of thought that led to including Barak Obama's ancestral relationship to Jefferson Davis. As the Boston Globe story shows, this resulted in the creation of a lot of Romneys in the world and continues to be an issue that Mitt has to contend with politically. Notmyrealname 19:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "story of life" includes your parents, and I disagree with the assertion that anything that happens before you were born is irrelevant (as do hundreds of other Wikipedia articles).  Many people consider parental ancestry to be quite notable, and given the extensive press coverage, this is notable by Wikipedia criteria.  Not as determined by us, or what we think, but by what the professional press thinks: see WP:Notability.  Finally, as pointed out, Barack Obama includes two sentences about his ancestors, as does Hillary Clinton, and Rudy Giuliani goes back two generations to mention that his grandparents were Italian immigrants.  The other 3 top 2008 presidential contenders mention ancestry beyond parents, so I don't believe we are giving this issue undue weight with two sentences. Pro crast in a tor 21:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: I also question the relevance of the section in question.  If Romney's father was born in Mexico does that make Romney a 2nd generation immigrant?  How was George Romney able to run for president if he was a non-native born US citizen?  I'm not seeing the point of this section as it is written now.  Romney's view are obviously not based on this as he holds a strict traditional view on marriage and families.  Furthermore, I don't think we need to include it just because the sensationalist media thinks it is important.  It should be rewritten. --Tripzero (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As written that segment is directly from George Romney's bio, which was written up for Wikipedia before anyone knew Mitt Romney was running for President. Therefore it is not POV pushing, it is fact. Besides, I doubt anyone will go OMG his great-grandparents were Mormons so I'm not voting for him. Those kind of people are bigots and its enough that he's a Mormon for them to ignorantly dismiss him. Wikipedia is a place for facts, not campaign material. Apartcents (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The segment about polygamy of great-grandparents was put into this article in September, after Mitt Romney announced for President.  Just because stuff is in his father's article does not mean it belongs in this article, even assuming it's appropriate for the father's article.  For example, the following material would be ridiculous in this article: "Romney's father stated, 'When I came back from Viet Nam [in November 1965], I'd just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get.'  The topic of brainwashing quickly became newspaper editorial and television talk show fodder, with Romney bearing the brunt of the topical humor."  Yes, it would be POV-pushing to insert such material into this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polygamist Great-Grandparents? 

message: There are a number of facts presented on the first paragraphs without source and otherwise irrelevant. Here is a list:
1-Ann was raised Episcopalian (no source)
2-Ann was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998 (Not part of Romney's bio. Redundant info already linked )
3-LDS are commonly known as mormons (Not part of Romney's bio either. Info already linked )  
--JGoldwater 14:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just sourced 1. I agree that 2 could be removed. 3 is helpful information to the average reader (there is a policy somewhere about the usefulness of stating the obvious). Notmyrealname 15:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1 is relevant, 2 should be removed, and 3 is helpful to common readers, and can be proven via wikilinks. The Evil Spartan 16:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, 1 is relevant, 2 could be removed (it's left over from when Ann Romney didn't have a wiki article of her own), if she were handicapped as a result I think it should be included but perhaps not now, and 3 is useful to the average reader as the 11-syllable "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is rarely used, and almost all the media references use "Mormon". Pro crast in a tor 18:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed #2.Notmyrealname 18:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biography 

message: I tried adding some information about campaign advisors. If anyone can find more information about the campaign advisors/staff, I think it would be interesting. I found the staff . However, I didn't get a whole lot of information from there.
--Cronian 05:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campaign Advisors 

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

message: Interesting this article puts up high that Mitt is Mormon, yet the article on Harry Reid doesn't mention at all that Reid is Mormon.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidshare (talk • contribs) 00:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it was altered at the time you accessed it, but it is in the opening paragraph to Reid's article. WTStoffs 04:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MITT ROMNEY IS A MORMON?!?! OH MY GOD WHY DIDN'T SOMEBODY SAY SOMETHING!?!? --79.184.148.107 (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mormon context 

message: ===Statements by editors previously involved in dispute===
Note: Statements made by editors currently involved in the dispute may be made in this section.
*This should go into a section on Romney's religion as it pertains to his presidential bid. Everyone seemed to agree to this solution except for one editor. Cool Hand Luke 04:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment Since the point of an RFC is to bring in outside comment, involved parties in a dispute should really avoid making comments in an RFC section. Granted, more than welcome to discuss things in a discussion section. --Bobblehead (rants) 04:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I was just responding. Turtlescrubber 04:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See here for an example of an RfC.Ferrylodge 04:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Red Herrings and Straw Men. I am sick and tired of your insistence on bringing up these silly and tired arguments. I am only against you censoring the page for your personal or political reasons. Why don't we discuss a compromise instead of wasting time with these dumb straw men arguments. How about that Obama like political and religious image section we were discussing. I think it belongs on the main page just as it is on the Obama article. The section itself would be about Mitt Romney and not primarily about his political campaigns. What do you think? Turtlescrubber 05:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not how you engage in argument... You don't just state your conclusion that our arguments are "Red Herrings" and "Straw Men" you have to make an actual arguments saying why our arguments are "dumb", "staw-men" or "Red Herrings"... The only way we can move forward is appealing to reason... Ferrylodge makes comparisons of ROmney's page to Barak's page... What is "dumb" about that? Should we not compair Romney's page to Barak's? IF you really just wanted to educate people about Romney's ancestors, why not include information about his ancestors that faught in the revolutionary war? I mean you have no agenda right? You just want the truth? You're not trying to drag Romney through the mud? If you are willing to talk about Romney's poligimast ancestors, you would shurley want to talk about his ancestors that were not involved in controvery in order to give a accurate Romney background wouldn't you? These are not "staw-men" these are logical arguments, and they sure beat the hell out of calling names..., cussing, and acting like a 2-year old. myclob (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: No, they're valid arguments that you seem unwilling or unable to address.  If it were up to me, his great-grandparents wouldn't be in this article at all.  The compromise is to put them in the section on his 2008 campaign.  All of the cited references deal with the 2008 campaign.  Show me where Obama's great-grandparents are mentioned in his article.Ferrylodge 05:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're being too literal, Ferrylodge, I don't think Turtlescrubber is talking specifically about the religious practices of Obama's great-grandparents being included in his article, but rather the "controversial" part about his religious beliefs, which is the impact of his biological father's and step-father's upbringing as Muslims and whether or not their upbringing influenced Obama's upbringing. Both the issues of Obama's fathers' religious upbringing and the polygamy practiced by Romney's great-grandfather are similar in that they feed upon misperceptions of their respective religions and are used as justifications as to why they are "bad people". --Bobblehead (rants) 06:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Big difference: Romney was not raised by his four polygamous great-grandparents.  He probably never even met them.Ferrylodge 06:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And Obama wasn't raised by his Muslim grandparents (that raised his fathers) and may have never met them. When you're talking about misperceptions/prejudices about a religion a difference of a single generation is not that big. --Bobblehead (rants) 06:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bobblehead, as far as I can tell, our Obama article says not a single word about his paternal great-grandparents OR about his paternal grandparents.  There's no valid comparison between how Obama is treated, and how Turtlescrubber wants to treat Romney.Ferrylodge 07:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The RFC is only a couple hours old. I'd let it germinate for at least five days before any conclusions are drawn from the comments of uninvolved editors. Of course, that doesn't preclude a resolution from being reached prior to then, but at this early stage conclusions should be avoided.;) --Bobblehead (rants) 06:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know. I would just like the page unlocked; it's a timely topic. I just want to know whether our dissenter would be willing to abide with the proposal everyone else has assented to. I understand that Ferrylodge didn't implement it precisely as discussed, but I think reverting was very counter-productive. Cool Hand Luke 06:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How so? A religious/political heading on the Mitt Romney page would go a long way in assuaging my concerns. I already replied to your comment suggesting this. You never replied back. Turtlescrubber (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For one thing, in your haste to change one aspect of the article to your liking, you reverted a bunch of other edits that weren't in the least bit controversial.  Additionally, we had been discussing putting this polygamy info in the campaign section since 5:19 on 2 December.  Your edit was more than 45 hours later, during which you could have objected at the talk page (but did not).  Instead, you edited without any discussion on this point, and you caused the article to get locked up again.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The preceding comment was double-posted.  Responses to it can be found below.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC: polygamy of paternal great-grandparents 

message: Note: Statements made by editors currently involved in the dispute may be made in this section.
*This should go into a section on Romney's religion as it pertains to his presidential bid. Everyone seemed to agree to this solution except for one editor. Cool Hand Luke 04:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

message: Note: Editors that are uninvolved in the dispute at hand may place their comments in this section 
* This information is not significant enough to justify inclusion in the main article, especially not in the "Early life and family background" section. This is a campaign issue and a minor one at that. The fact that some are dragging it up during his campaign belongs in Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008#Religious beliefs, where it is already covered in a neutral manner. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statements by uninvolved editors 

message: Note: Discussion of comments made by editors (involved or otherwise) can be made here
:Comment Since the point of an RFC is to bring in outside comment, involved parties in a dispute should really avoid making comments in an RFC section. Granted, more than welcome to discuss things in a discussion section. --Bobblehead (rants) 04:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I was just responding. Turtlescrubber 04:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See here for an example of an RfC.Ferrylodge 04:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Red Herrings and Straw Men. I am sick and tired of your insistence on bringing up these silly and tired arguments. I am only against you censoring the page for your personal or political reasons. Why don't we discuss a compromise instead of wasting time with these dumb straw men arguments. How about that Obama like political and religious image section we were discussing. I think it belongs on the main page just as it is on the Obama article. The section itself would be about Mitt Romney and not primarily about his political campaigns. What do you think? Turtlescrubber 05:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not how you engage in argument... You don't just state your conclusion that our arguments are "Red Herrings" and "Straw Men" you have to make an actual arguments saying why our arguments are "dumb", "staw-men" or "Red Herrings"... The only way we can move forward is appealing to reason... Ferrylodge makes comparisons of ROmney's page to Barak's page... What is "dumb" about that? Should we not compair Romney's page to Barak's? IF you really just wanted to educate people about Romney's ancestors, why not include information about his ancestors that faught in the revolutionary war? I mean you have no agenda right? You just want the truth? You're not trying to drag Romney through the mud? If you are willing to talk about Romney's poligimast ancestors, you would shurley want to talk about his ancestors that were not involved in controvery in order to give a accurate Romney background wouldn't you? These are not "staw-men" these are logical arguments, and they sure beat the hell out of calling names..., cussing, and acting like a 2-year old. myclob (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: No, they're valid arguments that you seem unwilling or unable to address.  If it were up to me, his great-grandparents wouldn't be in this article at all.  The compromise is to put them in the section on his 2008 campaign.  All of the cited references deal with the 2008 campaign.  Show me where Obama's great-grandparents are mentioned in his article.Ferrylodge 05:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're being too literal, Ferrylodge, I don't think Turtlescrubber is talking specifically about the religious practices of Obama's great-grandparents being included in his article, but rather the "controversial" part about his religious beliefs, which is the impact of his biological father's and step-father's upbringing as Muslims and whether or not their upbringing influenced Obama's upbringing. Both the issues of Obama's fathers' religious upbringing and the polygamy practiced by Romney's great-grandfather are similar in that they feed upon misperceptions of their respective religions and are used as justifications as to why they are "bad people". --Bobblehead (rants) 06:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Big difference: Romney was not raised by his four polygamous great-grandparents.  He probably never even met them.Ferrylodge 06:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And Obama wasn't raised by his Muslim grandparents (that raised his fathers) and may have never met them. When you're talking about misperceptions/prejudices about a religion a difference of a single generation is not that big. --Bobblehead (rants) 06:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bobblehead, as far as I can tell, our Obama article says not a single word about his paternal great-grandparents OR about his paternal grandparents.  There's no valid comparison between how Obama is treated, and how Turtlescrubber wants to treat Romney.Ferrylodge 07:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The RFC is only a couple hours old. I'd let it germinate for at least five days before any conclusions are drawn from the comments of uninvolved editors. Of course, that doesn't preclude a resolution from being reached prior to then, but at this early stage conclusions should be avoided.;) --Bobblehead (rants) 06:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know. I would just like the page unlocked; it's a timely topic. I just want to know whether our dissenter would be willing to abide with the proposal everyone else has assented to. I understand that Ferrylodge didn't implement it precisely as discussed, but I think reverting was very counter-productive. Cool Hand Luke 06:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How so? A religious/political heading on the Mitt Romney page would go a long way in assuaging my concerns. I already replied to your comment suggesting this. You never replied back. Turtlescrubber (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For one thing, in your haste to change one aspect of the article to your liking, you reverted a bunch of other edits that weren't in the least bit controversial.  Additionally, we had been discussing putting this polygamy info in the campaign section since 5:19 on 2 December.  Your edit was more than 45 hours later, during which you could have objected at the talk page (but did not).  Instead, you edited without any discussion on this point, and you caused the article to get locked up again.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The preceding comment was double-posted.  Responses to it can be found below.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC discussion 

message: BLP guidelines say that administrators "may protect or semi-protect the page after removing the disputed material" (emphasis added).  The following sentence in the article is disputed and ought to be removed pending a consensus to insert it: "Romney's paternal great-grandparents were polygamist Mormons who moved to Mexico in 1884 after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld various anti-polygamy laws in 1879.[10]"  This sentence is disputed because it gives the impression that Mitt Romney's religion endorses polygamy, when in fact Mitt Romney's religion has opposed polygamy since the 1890s.  This sentence is disputed material, and should not be in the protected article.  While the sentence is factually correct, it is not presented in context and is therefore very misleading, as multiple editors have stated at this talk page for the article.
The final edit prior to protecting the page reinserted this disputed sentence.  Several editors have disputed that this material is neutral and on-topic.  While it is common for article protection to protect the wrong version, BLP guidelines (quoted above) say that the protected version should not contain the disputed material.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ferrylodge, it's not that biographies can't contain disputed content, it's that they can't contain disputed content that violates BLP, hence the name of the section that the sub-section you quoted is located in. At this point I haven't seen anyone successfully claim BLP and the section for this article on the BLP Noticeboard was closed because the complaint was a content dispute and not BLP. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bobblehead, the BLP Noticeboard is not a dispute resolution forum. The BLP Noticeboard says, "For general content disputes regarding biographical articles consider using Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies."  Therefore, we conducted just such an RfC above, and the RfC showed very clearly that there is a dispute as to whether the sentence about polygamy is neutral and on-topic.  According to Wikipedia guidelines, "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is sourced, neutral, and on-topic. Administrators who suspect malicious or biased editing, or who have reason to believe that this policy may otherwise be violated, may protect or semi-protect the page after removing the disputed material."Ferrylodge (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Edit declined, currently no consensus. It is uncontested that the sentence is factual and sourced, so BLP does not mandate its deletion. Whether or not it is otherwise appropriate for inclusion (on which matter I have no opinion) must be decided by consensus. Sandstein (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: PS. Actually, I'd like to have an opinion on this matter, but the RfC and the other discussions above are too confusing to contribute to, sorry. Sandstein (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The BLP policy would be much shorter if it merely required verifiability.  It also requires that material be neutral and on-topic, among other things, and if there's a dispute about neutrality  or topicality then the article should be pared back.  If the sentence in question stated that Britney Speers has been in a custody battle for her children, with supporting footnotes showing that the statement is factual and sourced, it would still not be consistent with BLP in this Mitt Romney article.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You really need to avoid the strawman examples, Ferrylodge, especially the ones that have absolutely no relation to the dispute at hand. There are no reliable sources tying Britney Spears and her custody issues with Mitt Romney and it is for that reason that your "example" could be removed as a BLP violation, unfortunately there are a number of reliable sources tying Mitt Romney to his ancestors' polygamy and saying that it is an issue for Romney. You really need to familiarize yourself with how to use Wikipedia policies. In this case it is clear from the location of the text you've been quoting that the removal of disputed content is in relation to removal of content where the focus of the dispute is BLP concerns in order to prevent a BLP violation while the dispute is in progress. As I said earlier, there have been no successful claims of BLP violations in regards to the disputed content, so trying to get the content removed under BLP is a non-starter.  This is particularly true when the requested edit just rewords and moves the disputed content and doesn't actually remove it. It is clear that there are NPOV and undue weight concerns, but those concerns do not equal BLP violations. It is apparent that the RFC has failed to reach consensus, perhaps a stop at informal mediation is in order? --Bobblehead (rants) 02:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Ferrylodge is making a totally new claim about these statements. I disagree that the average reader would draw the conclusion that Ferrylodge claims, and there is really no basis for that. This is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Even if Ferrylodge were correct, the mistaken impression would relate to the LDS church and not Romney, so it still wouldn't be a BLP violation. Let's just stick to the problem at hand and figure a way out so that we can all get back to properly editing this article. Notmyrealname (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Chicago Tribune, "It is a common misconception that the Mormon church sanctions polygamy; it banned the practice in 1890."  If a Wikipedia article further spreads that misconception, that is a big problem.  It becomes an even greater problem in a Wikipedia biography that states the subject of the biography is Mormon.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: And Notmyrealname, perhaps it would help if the admins involved in this dispute would abide by BLP guidelines: "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material."  You have not met your burden of proving that info about polygamy should be added or restored to the first section of the article.  You have also not met your burden of proving that this article should mislead people into thinking that Mormons condone polygamy.  Wikipedia policy on BLP is being violated here.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: FYI, I have started a section at the BLP Noticeboard regarding this polygamy smear.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to your question to me, while it may be a common misperception of Mormons, I don't see how the content in question has any effect to that misperception, either positively or negatively, nor do I see how it should be the responsibility of this article to dissuade this misperception. It would also be a touch odd to include in the paragraph that LDS banned the practice as the banning took place six years after Romney's ancestors left the US, didn't have anything to do with their departure, and also wasn't part of their decision to return to the US. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with every point you've made.  Editing on this article has been frozen due to a single sentence, a sentence that does not state or imply that Romney or contemporary mainline Mormons condone polygamy.  I don't see how anybody can read that sentence, which mentions events from 1879 and 1884, and conclude that Romney has multiple wives in 2007.  That argument makes no sense at all, and the article should be unfrozen as soon as possible. Qworty (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit  request 

message: #All that matters is whether the claim is verifiable and whether it is not undue weight. It's clearly verifiable, and multiple reliable sources highlight it as a potential issue for his candidacy. That is, I don't think it would be undue weight in a section on religion and his candidacy. It should not be in "early life," however, where it's a tangent that has nothing whatsoever to do with his upbringing. Cool Hand Luke 18:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: It should be covered, but not in "Early life..."

message: Every one of the numerous links from NotMyRealName make cheap shots at Romeny for being either a hypocrite for opposing polygamy, mock it as a trivial detail, or just muckraked with it. It's trivia hyped on a slow news day. This would be akin to finding every right wing article that warns that Obama is a secret evil muslim, simply because there are vaguely reliable sources for his ancetors being Muslim, or that Obama's secretly a bigamy supporter because his did it, or that he's secretly a bigot because one grandparent was a bigot. I'm sure that the editors so concerned with NPOV here wouldn't put such stuff in the Obama article either.
There's nothing, in any citation given thus far, to support any genetic fault through inbreeding, (which happens when your wife is your sister, not when you have five wives), thus eliminating medical notability. There's nothing in any of those articles to suggest that Romney supports polygamy, in fact, one flat out concedes that his family's been monogamous after the 1890 edict against it by the LDS since those GGPs. Finally, this does in no way narrow his family tree, as there's no inbreeding. his generational count still goes 1,2,4,8,16,32,64.... and so on, till he almost inevitiably hits sibling pair marriages(Smith boy A marries Jones girl B, Miller boy D marries Jones girl E, two generations later, miller and smith marry. it happens.), and , or cousins marrying other cousins, which is pretty unavboidable once you get back to the small european towns white folks came from. Few people actually have 8192 (14 generations before you) distinct ancestors. BY the extended logic of this, one could argue that Mike Huckabee's views on science and religion make him the greatest traditionalist running, since his family has never stopped believing in creationism, all the way back tot he dark ages and before. That too, would be absurd in the context of the article on Huckabee. The inclusion of this serves only to smear a candidate by those opposing the candidate. Verifiably, he's had numerous haircuts, or not enough haircuts, in the last 50 years. is it relevant? no. Verifiably, he eats, or does not eat his wheaties daily. Relevant? no. His ancestors held to one religious belief, he doesn't hold to it. Relevant? No.  If you think that's relevant, I expect to see every one of the protestant candidates get a section about heresy, for diverging from the Catholic church of their ancestors.
To summarize:Making an issue of the fact that a person thinks differently than their ancestors is rarely notable. Only in cases of extreme irony would it have a case, like if the founder of the KKK's descendant was now one of the most outspoken proponents of both Affirmative Action and Slave Reparations. But in Romney's case, all that happened was his family, like many American families, conformed to social standards, before he was born. There's zero relevance. as for what IS relevant to Romney's religion? His position in the church, his recent 'Kennedy speech', and so on. Stuff about HIM and his religion, not his ancestors.
That I have to write this twice, because this thing's moving so fast my last comment, in the actual RfC, was ignored, is even more irritating, because it shows that only certain people are being accepted into this discussion, based on their acceptance of one segment's foregone conclusion that smearing Romney matters, and where it goes is the only argument left. ThuranX (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's great that more people are showing up to discuss this thing.  I hope those people will also leave a statement in the RFC section titled "Statements by editors previously involved in dispute", or alternatively in the RFC section titled "Statements by uninvolved editors".  Thx.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just saw this - Thuran, I don't see how you can compare  "right-wing articles" making up lies about Obama to these sources writing truthfully about Romney's family background:  Slate, Boston Phoenix, ABC News, Boston Globe, Reuters, Boston Herald, The National Review, Christian Century, Boston Globe, Archived version of Salt Lake Tribune article, 60 Minutes interview, Fox News, Washington Monthly, The Guardian (UK), CBS News.   They are not fringe, they are not extremist, and they are not making up stories.   And no one said Romney is secretly a polygamy-supporter.  Tvoz |talk 04:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: It should not be included at all

message: See 2008, new Mitt Romney book , esp about his famil history and ancestors
Mitt Romney Widow's Son  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.165.95 (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference / Further Reading