Talk:Romney family

message: Through Pres. Gerald R. Ford's maternal line, Dorothy Ayer Gardner Ford, you can trace his ancestry back to a common ancestral couple shared with Mitt Romney, namely William Pratt Jr., 1609 - 1670 + Elizabeth Clark 1622-1636. William Pratt Jr. emigrated from Hertfordshire, England. Died in Connecticut. Married Elizabeth Clark in Connecticut.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.205.215.48 (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: too far back to mean anything .  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.208.79.102 (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  President Ford 

message: I had no idea that the Romney's were related to the Pratts and the Smiths
GneissRocks (talk) 08:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you know. With Wikipedia, we are always learning. Truly, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: No idee

message: a lot of these entries are pure junk.  this is a noteable political family.  do we really want to include "kinsmen" who are businessmen in non-noteable companies, etc., as if they merit entry next to governors, congressmen, etc??  I have removed what were in my humble opinion the flimsiest sounding entries.  but i really feel that a lot more weeding needs to be done.
I propose that the only people included should meet the following criteria:
1. Be substantial enough to merit their own wiki article (even if one has yet to be written)
2. Be related in a substatial way to the other family members (kinsman of...) doesn't cut it.  if they are listed, it should be known how they relate to the others here, else it is an unsubstantiated mess.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.126.73 (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the article version before the removals if anyone wants to see the additional names that used to be here.  It provoked an edit war at the time.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: junk

message: I put this in the discussion page: "David G. Reed, entrepreneur and socialite living in Salt Lake City."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsnow75 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: To whom it may belong

message: I've merged in some overly detailed geneaological information from this version of the George W. Romney article.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge done 

message: See above. It should be 1947, not 1948!!! 16:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Current descendancy chart has '1947' — You don't have to take time to look over to the Article. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Mitt Romney's birth date in the tree is wrong!

message: Per WP:RS and, in some cases, WP:BLP as well -- Wikipedia is not the place for folks to do genealogical research.  Unless a reliable source makes a claim, it does not belong here.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Cmt - I reversed the particular edit that had removed Lenore Romney and Ann Romney and a few others. I believe it more in keeping with editing principles to afix, say, a template:Fact tag, or something similar, wrt need for contributors to include sourcing for the fact that particularly notable  Romney family members (i.e., the ones having WP bios) are indeed members of the R. clan.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope - unless and until a reliable source for this genealogical melange is given, the claims are not proper in any Wikipedia article.  Cheers - but WP:RS does not say "unless we want to keep stuff which is not sourced in an article."  Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Question - Lede, as sourced, defines the family as notable primarily because of G.W.Romney and son, Willard Mitt, so what would justify removal of them from ensuing list?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Collect, I think you're really going overboard here.  To remove as you did George Romney and Mitt Romney, the two most famous members of this family, from this article for lack of 'sourcing' is just silly.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Um -- I think yo missed the discussion at RS/N?  Unsourced material is deletable - and in the case of living persons pretty much required to be deleted.   "Famous" is not given as an exception for WP:RS and WP:V.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Somewhere those guidelines have an exception for citing that obvious, well-known facts such as that Paris is the capital of France, and in this context, this is the same thing.    Wasted Time R (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This diff is an open-and-shut case of improper removal of sourced content. George, Mitt or both are mentioned in, for example, just about each one of the article's current first dozen references, so I don't follow user:Collect's reasoning here. Furthermore, user:Collect deleted two citiations to a Jennifer Dobner and Glen Johnson Associated Press story when user:Collect deleted the article's summaries about George Romney and Mitt Romney.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 10:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:RS.  Your attacks here are unwarranted - I am doing exactly what that discussion on RS/N determined - claims not made by a reliable source may be removed, and those about a living person must be removed.  As noted, Wikioedia is not the same as Ancestry.com.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop. Removing. Sourced. Material.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

text: It's one thing to remove unsourced information about a person; it's another again to challenge dry, neutral genealogy data because you think commercial genealogy sites are unreliable.  Note, however, that outside BLPs even unsourced material removed should actually deserve a challenge - there should be some legitimate iota of suspicion it is untrue, not just an editor's desire to delete all unsourced data.  As said above, the citation needed tag exists for a reason. Wnt (talk) 09:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Looking at this and related pages, my main concern is, how do you define a "family"?  It seems like these could and indeed have become rather open-ended.  My guess (not sure if I'm right) is that you should choose a specific notable historical figure, and include anyone descended from that person, and no one else, i.e. Descendants of so-and-so.  Such genealogy articles then are essentially subtopics of articles about specific historical individuals.  Articles about earlier historical figures can then be assembled (WP:summary style) from articles about their more recent descendants.  Note that the actual last name used by any of these descendants would be irrelevant. Wnt (talk) 08:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is great! The TALK is more interesting than the ARTICLE.!. Truly, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Article benefits from current politics and reader interest. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  material removed 

message: I am not extremely well versed in the best way to format family trees, but there must be a better way than nested unordered lists. Any recommendations ? --RichardMills65 (talk) 07:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There's often a tree diagram, such as in the Kennedy family article.  This article had one too, see this past version, until it fell victim to an ongoing edit dispute.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Its main failure was that it was entirely OR and SYNTH and lacked sourcing.  For some odd reason, claims made without sources are not good. Collect (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the tree diagram is put back now, but modified to include only those people currently in this article, would that satisfy your interpretations of guidelines and policies?  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If and only if the "tree" includes no one not specifically linked by reliable sources directly to the people linked in the "tree" and conforms to all the rules about genealogical research otherwise - I would note that Wikipedia in generally does not like "genealogical research" in articles, as there is so much online which "just ain't so" as a rule.  The temptation to say we only need a source that the person "exists" to place them in this article, and then to append unsourced material about them is contrary to Wikipedia policy, and, in the case of living people, contrary to WP:BLP ab initio.   Too many times I have looked at the "source" and found that it "mentions" existence" of a person, but does not include anything else which has been claimed.    Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: User Collect said, "Wikipedia policies are clear." Yes, and I would remind user Collect that any argument that cannot be backed up by the guidelines is equivalent to wp:DONTLIKEIT; hence the user's argument is "**I** generally don't like...." and, in point of fact, Wikipedia itself does not have a dislike for any kind of notable information being included in the encyclopedia. That said, oftentimes genealogical information is better placed in its own article, if notable. Eg, in this editor's humble opinion, Martin_Van_Buren#Early_life is about the right amount of such detail for a blp whereas Theodore_Roosevelt#Genealogy is a bit much and should be split off into a daughter article. All that said, there are few editors currently interested in the topic of the extended Romneys or Pratts and the indefatigable aforementioned ed. dislikes the subject (although having no current interest w/rgd ao any other article within e/g the article List of United States political families or cat :Category:Political_families_of_the_United_States) so that's the way things are going right now. <shrugs> --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The h you say .... Wikipedia polices, especially WP:BLP are not playthings - they are "da rulez."    And I think you well ought to recognize this.  It is not a matter of "not liking" information, it is a matter of following strong Wikipedia polices, such as requiring SOURCES for CLAIMS.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Kudos for this edit fleshing out some of the members of the youngest (adult) generation btw. (Note that this longtime reference to the Business Insider piece provides some further sourcing for one of the member's of the newest generation's profession.)</p>W rgd to your comment above, Which of my edits to the list article have you found problematic? Perhaps reference them in specific. Say, this one, where I restored list entries for Ann and Lenore you'd deleted? I apologize for the tone I've taken on the talkpage w rgd to such deletions. Yeah, my automatic reaction to such a deletion including this pair of list entries pertaining to the former first ladies of Mass. and Mich., respectively, with the DONTLIKEIT edit summary of "Wikipedia is not the place for genealogical research" is that it comes across as sorta, I don't know, pusillanimous. That is: seems a wussy thing to do to approach a subject on WP one finds minimally notability via such deletions instead of an article talkpage ping or a straight-up AfD. But for me to give such an impression voice (per "wp:DUCK" or whatever) is indeed in vio of wp:AGF so yeah, I apologize for that. IAC from now I'll try to avoid such personal attacks, since that's how you seem to take my airing of this sense or feeling about such edits. <clears  throat> IAC, for 6 1/2 years eds. with knowledge about the topic have seen fit to include entries for these two notable ladies with the last name of Romney who have blue-linked wikibios about them; yet, according to wp:EDIT, any editor, no matter what level of sophistication or competence within an area being covered can float by and edit, going by whatever sources are currently on the page. Granted. Yet notice in particular the section on this most basic of guideline pages that references what to do with information such an editor might feel unsure about. If one endeavors to follow such basic editing principles in good faith then such errors of judgment as the one cited are understandable as long as they aren't continually repeated. OK? Truce?(Btw, you may have missed it, but the time of your deletion, for example, the state of the article was such that the very first reference in the lede contained this source):“...Lenore Romney, ran for U.S. Senate in Michigan in 1970....”---Business Insider--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  family tree formatting 

message: Per multiple discussions at WP:RS/N  including 
::consensus was that Find a Grave was not a reliable source and this has not changed
::basically "Find a Grave" makes us look bad - and at any opportunity it should be replaced post haste. reference Wiki to Wiki is not a good idea ever. Anyone can edit Find a Grave like Wikipedia and use its as a source
Gist is that I highly recommend removal of any claims based on that Wiki.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. The o.p. is correct: the primary source of a photo of Geo. R.'s mother's 1926 gravestone is, indeed, hosted at the self-published source Find a Grave.</p>Since the discussion on this article's talkpage seems to enjoy few visitors,  I've posted an inquiry about the utility of this source at the RS Noticeboard.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

text: I agree that Findagrave won't cut it as a source (although it's tempting to believe the photo of the gravestone).  But I've rewritten the Anna Amelia Pratt entry to indicate that Findagrave is only being used for the birth/death years and places.  The rest of the entry is established with mainstream book and wire service sources.  I got rid of the 2012.republican-candidates.org source entirely, since that's just some random website somebody threw together.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  findagrave is not an RS source 

message: Is not a "vote" and two editors agreeing on something do not create a WP:CONSENSUS.  If you wish to establish a consensus per WP:BRD the procedure is to start a discussion on the bold edit. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and I also agree that the addition of the diagram is unwarranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Indeed, editing is, by its nature, the determining of what belongs and what does not belong in an article. (See wp:EDIT. Thus to use, "no consensus" as a deletion rationale is simply to waste bandwith and the energy of pressing fingers to keyboard bcs one's very act of deletion establishes that the one making the deletion doesn't agree w the material in question's inclusion. Ie 'tis better to say why not. Which is a better practice, innit? Cheerio luv, as they say in Gr. Br. (or I suppose in the States, at the breakfast table).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  CONSENSUS 

message: "For Parley P. Pratt, see now Terryl Givens and Matthew J. Grow, Parley P. Pratt: the Apostle Paul of Mormonism (NY: Oxford University Press, 2011); also Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, 571; Reva Stanley, The Archer of Paradise (Caldwell, ID: the Caxton Printers, 1937); Peter L. Crawley, ed., The Essential Parley P. Pratt. Classics in Mormon Thought, 1 (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1990). For Pratt’s family, “Parley P. Pratt His Twelve Wives,” in Carter, Our Pioneer Heritage 17:205-52; and the superb Jared Pratt Family Association website, at http://jared.pratt-family.org/ (accessed Jan. 18, 2012)."---TODD COMPTON (link)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussed and dismissed as a private genealogical association of some sort. Collect (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Collect has offhandedly dismissed this source. Wikipedia as a whole never has and continues not to.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Read WP:NPA please.  The private family association is an SPS for material about the private family genealogy.  Has been so. Remains so.   As to why it is somehow important to have such genealogical trivia in BLPs - that is beyond my ken.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I stand corrected: User:Collect now does not dismiss the Pratt Family Assoc. as a reliable source for non-controversial assertions about Pratt-related familial relationships/dates; thanks.</p>Yes, of course, for such basic relationships as those among George Romney; his mother, Anna Pratt Romney; grandfather, Helaman Pratt; and great-grandfather, Parley Pratt; and such family members' birth and death dates, the venerable Pratt family association (founded by the professor Orson Pratt, who founded of Utah's genealogical work in the 19th century) is a reliable source. Likewise, self-published documentary information by the Bush family about the relationships among Jeb, Dubya, Poppy, Barbara, and Prescott, and these indiv.'s birth and death dates, would be considered reliable. Or self-published, non-controversial information about the relationship between Sir John Gielgud and Dame Ellen Terry from the Terry family.(Admittedly, whether Wiki articles should exist for whatever family is a question best determined in such forums as RfD's: some families being more notable than others.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Alas, said "trivia" is but a strawman. What was and is being sourced to the Pratt Family Assoc. in reality is such completely non-controversial assertions as the one, for example, that 1876 and 1926 are the birth and death dates, respectively, for Anna Pratt Romney and that Anna, George R's mother, was a granddauther of Parley Pratt.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:NOT please before making such silly aspersions on an editor who believes that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia and not a trivia compendium <g>.   And I would note that being a "cousin" of a notable person is not a particular claim for notability of the "cousin" at all.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: On the Bush family talkpage user:Collect extolls hi/r long experience dealing with the intricacies of copyright law as it applies to the internet. Be what credentials/credentialism as they/it may/may not be exist/be applicable <sighs> ...the current thread isn't about that--or even about which individuals, as belonging to the Pratt-Romney families, are/are not of especial note and why/why not. Rather, the thread is specifically about whether the Pratt Famlly Assoc. is a reliable source for non-contorversial assertions about notable family relationships/these relationships' constituent members' most basic vital stats. So, any argument(-by-mere-sloganeering) tangential to these closely aligned questions is but a distraction-- especially to the extent that whatever catch phrase as being bandied about cannot be grounded within manyany verifiable assertions of alleged fact. (As an example of a possible specific arguement, if tangential, that could be put forth, it could be argued that Helaman Pratt's relationship to George Romney is insufficiently notable to be included in either the Pratt family or Romney family articles. Btw, in anticipation of such a contention, I've just added the following to the H's Wikibio's tkpg:  ) --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jared Pratt Family Assoc. website 

message: wp:SELFPUB: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."</p>Todd Compton is an award-winning scholar in the relevant field, hence his self-published monograph of the Romney family should be considered reliable esp. for non-controversial assertions.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Note - I've also posted an inquiry at the RS noticeboard (ie here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Todd Compton's self-published paper on the Romney family).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The bulletin bd discussion linked to abv is now archived but just wanna point out (re user:Collect's apparent opinion along the lines that the Mormon History Assoc. nor its awards are of much importance w/i the field of LDS studies) that today's NYT has a piece about scholarship among the LDS. A quote: " ... increasingly, Mormon studies isn’t just about history. The Mormon History Association’s annual meeting, [this year's] held in Calgary, Alberta, over the weekend, featured presentations by scholars trained in sociology, philosophy and gender studies, as well as plenty of amateur scholars, who have long played an important role in the field, often at a risk to their own standing within the [LDS] church. /grf/ The development of Mormon studies in some respects mirrors the academic study of other minority groups, which has typically begun with creating a basic account of their history and then moved toward theoretical approaches that bring the subculture into conversation with the bigger picture. /pgf/ The latest scholarship builds on the so-called New Mormon history pioneered in the 1960s and ’70s, ...." LINK--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Todd Compton 

message: This article falsely claims the US Romneys enjoy direct descent from George Romney the painter. However----surer ground is reached with the arrival of George Rumley in Funness. In 1702 he married Jane burrow at Dalton Parish Church. Jane bore her husband four sons: John born at Millwood in 1703.... Of these John was the painter's father. Grandfather George was buried as from dalton in 1738 and his widow as "Widow Rumley" in 1741. ... Thus, while awaiting extracts from the parish registers of Dalton, we have every reason to conclude that all Rumleys, Rumneys or Romneys in that parish were descended from George Rumley and Jane Barrow, married in 1702. Their son Thomas, born 1709, is in all probability the great-grandfather of Miles Romney.</p>----A guide for genealogical research, ARCHIBALD FOWLER BENNETT, Genealogical Society of the CoJCoLDS, 1951, p154--per the source I blockquoted above and other sources, the painter George Romney's grandfather was the great-grandfather (through his son Thomas Romney, 1709-1776) of Miles Romney.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is of precisely how much encyclopedic value in the WP:BLP at hand? Collect (talk) 00:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

text: I think a brief mention of the portrait painter is warranted.  The Kranish-Helman biography The Real Romney, page 32, mentions the portrait painter as an example of the tendency of Romney family members being willing to move geographically (in this case, from Northern England to London) and being able to move up in status.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Mark Twain said he, himself, was descended from Adam. It is not given in his article genealogy <g>. Seriously, a "non-fact" should not be presented in any BLP when no one gives a dang about the factoid." Heck, if Pratt had 200 wives, it would still be utterly unimportant here. Cheers.  @WT - unless a specific Romney made the claim, what does Kranish have to do with it?  No one says he was not a cousin of some sort - but is it of any actual importance to the article at hand?  Collect (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Has it occurred to you that the entire genealogical trivia stuff on the painter etc.  is not encyclopedic in this article at all?   Collect (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the wp:RSes, it is notable.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purported direct descent from painter 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Romney family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081212055830/http://www.familysearch.org/eng/default.asp to http://www.familysearch.org/eng/default.asp
*Added  tag to http://www.cougarclub.com/hall_of_fame/romney_e.jsp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified