Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:03, 30 December 2007

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

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

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

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

Biography: Politics and Government

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

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

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

Archives

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

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

Add new section on religion?

Agreed I concur that the new section (described above in this Talk page) should go in. Certainly the new section does need work, and is not perfect. But waiting for perfection could take years :-) Given the topical nature of this article, I would suggest that it is acceptable to insert the current version of section, and continue enhancing it here in the Talk page. Noleander (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed Ferrylodge (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed We may as well get this in so the article can be unlocked and we can start editing the rest of it right away. If current trends continue, the article will have a traffic window of three weeks at the max, which means that very few people will be reading it--and the religion section you've worked so hard on--after the Jan. 3 Iowa caucusus. Already Mike Huckabee is getting far more action on Misplaced Pages, and he has more to do with religion anyway, being a preacher. So by all means let's get the Romney article activated again so that we can continue to add developments such as his continuing slide in the polls. These matters will be of some slight historical interest. Qworty (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's fine for you to have a POV Qworty, but not fine to insert it here.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not my POV, but the POV of pollsters as reported through reliable sources. In any case, I said "IF current trends continue..." And you have a POV as well, as does everybody. Qworty (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Disagree There should be an agreement on the material before it is put into the article. Turtlescrubber (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment. There will never be final agreement on the material, since it is endlessly tweakable, which is being demonstrated at the rate of every two or three minutes. The larger issue is whether the article should be unlocked. Once it's unlocked and the new material inserted, that material can be endlessly adjusted, tweaked, and revised, just as is happening now. Qworty (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Yes, there should be general consensus about the Religion section. The three "agrees" above seem to indicate they are satisfied. Do you have a specific objection to the section, as it appears now? If so, make the change. Otherwise, dont withhold agreement unreasonably. I dont think wiki policy permits a single individual to "veto" text without a rational, specific reason. Be bold. Noleander (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Did I "veto" anything. NO. Please read what I wrote before making uninformed comments. I just think that we should all agree to keep it more or less how it is now. I have already said I am okay with the section but if it gets changed every "two or three minutes" then it obviously isn't ready to go back in the article. Once again, because I have to spell it out, I am fine with the section but I am not fine with it being constantly changed. The section should be relatively stable before it goes back in to prevent edit warring. Jesus wept. Turtlescrubber (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Comment I agree with Bobblehead, and I hope you will consider crossing out your "disagree" Turtlescrubber. Some admin may see it, and decide to keep this article frozen even longer (in the version that you preferred several days ago). And how about an "Agreed" from you Bobblehead?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

CommentWell if you two can agree to play nice then I would be fine with this being put in the article. But Ferry, you can take your slight "(in the version that you preferred several days ago)" home with you because even after all your "work" on this page the article is going to turn out exactly how I wanted it to. Yeah, we have our religion section. Cheers. Turtlescrubber (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed Mbisanz (talk) 01:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Add my agreed by request. The dispute that got this page edit protected is resolved and anything else is just minor wording tweaks that don't seem likely to blow up into full on edit warring. --Bobblehead 01:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Agreed Daniel 06:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Disagreed (but not enough to cause any trouble) -- I'm concerned that this is going to open up a can of worms and make this biography page into an endless battle about religion. My original concern was simply that we include an interesting fact about his family that had been repeatedly discussed in the media and by Romney himself. But if everyone feels that this is a good idea I won't stop them. I do ask that all sides try to be respectful.Notmyrealname (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Yes, everyone should be respectful. As to your overall point--I think what's happening here is just a reflection of the real-world fact that religion is the number-one issue of Romney's campaign, the biggest thing to keep him from being president. I'm not saying it's right or wrong--I'm not even a Republican--but Republicans tend to have a huge issue with his Mormonism. Qworty (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking over the postings here over the last few days, maybe I should have disagreed a little more vociferously. Notmyrealname (talk) 04:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's moot, but I agree, obviously. Good work everyone, especially Ferrylodge for the writing and Mbisanz for the suggestion. Cool Hand Luke 20:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Inequity and Imbalance? Why does the Romney entry have a "Religious Life" section as number 2 on the page. No such section or discussion exists for any of the other candidates running for the Republican nomination, and certainly if they did you would not expect that they would be number 2. Flingford (talk) 04:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

See this section below.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight potential

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

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

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

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

See this section below.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Civil Rights marches?

Regarding sentence on civil rights marches: Perhaps I am following the wrong citation, but the article Im reading (Salon) doesnt have the word "march" (or "walk" etc) in it. If Ive got the wrong link, I apologize. Anyway, can someone double check the cite? Noleander (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"Mitt Romney had walked in civil rights marches with his father and said he shared his concern for racial equality." David Kirkpatrick, Romney, Searching and Earnest, Set His Path in ’60s, New York Times, November 15, 2007.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this sentence is still in the article or not, but maybe the New York Times fact checkers fell down on this one.

This 1968 Grosse Pointe appearance is the one that Romney spokesperson Eric Fehrnstrom initially insisted, in email exchanges with the Phoenix, was the event in question. Fehrnstrom cited the Broder column and “the Romney family recollection.” // Of the many contemporaneous and historical records of the Grosse Pointe speech, none make any mention of George Romney’s attendance. It is unlikely, if not implausible, that his presence would have gone unnoticed: not only was he governor of the state, he had just, weeks before, dropped out of the race for President. // And, Mitt Romney would not have known about the event, let alone had a chance to “see” it. He was at that time in the middle of his two-year mission.... --David S. Bernstein in "Was it all a dream," Dec. 19, 2007 The Phoenix

Justmeherenow (talk) 03:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) The article you cite by David Bernstein says, "George Romney would later lead a 10,000-person march through Detroit, but not with King." So, it's pretty clear that George Romney did march for civil rights, and therefore I don't see any indication that the New York Times fact checkers fell down on this one.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious that Romney is lying that his dad marched with King. This fact should be in the article. Qworty (talk) 04:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That conclusion is synthesis. A. Romney claimed his dad marched with King, B. his dad did not, therefore C. Romney lied. See WP:SYN. Cool Hand Luke 04:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Arzel (talk) 06:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Romney may have lied or only been confused. Either is a bad trait in a candidate, but that is neither here nor there. The fact is that the--how would a politician put it?--"discrepancy" should be mentioned in the article. You have no argument for keeping it out. Qworty (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't engage in speculative conclusions ("may have lied or may only been confused"). What would you propose adding to the article? Cool Hand Luke 20:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This is already covered in his campaign article, which is really where it should be. --Bobblehead 20:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What I propose adding is something along the lines of "Romney has claimed that his father marched with Martin Luther King, Jr. There is no historical evidence for the claim, but there is strong evidence that George Romney and Rev. King were never in the same city during a civil-rights march." This strikes me as a completely reasonable addition to the article. What do others think? Qworty (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a fascinating choice of words from the one who complains that we can't prove a negative. Here you're asserting both "no historical evidence" and evidence of "never" being in the same city. Anyhow, this is better than your remarks for avoiding synthesis, but it seems like Undue weight in the overview biography. Agree with Bobblehead. Cool Hand Luke 21:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue is already properly covered where it should be covered, in his campaign article. This is purely a campaign issue and a minor one at that. At this point in time, there is no reason to add anything about his father's civil rights marches or what Romney has said about them in this article. --Bobblehead 21:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

So do you agree with my position here that mention of the civil rights marches is undue weight and should be removed from the article? Qworty (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)*sigh* I did not say there could be no mention of civil rights marches that Mitt participated in. The addition your trying to make is about a march his father, not Mitt, may or may not have participated in, thus Mitt's comments should be included where it is most appropriate, in Mitt's presidential campaign article. --Bobblehead 21:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a Romeny supporter, but come on. Mitt's speech was partly about how religious people campaign for change--so, in the 60s (when Mitt was still a teen) he saw his dad march "with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King," figuratively! (That is, in the era's marches for Amercian civil rights!, the Gandhi-emulating campaign of which King's Sousthern Christian Leadership Council was the organizer. But I wonder what Jesse Jackson's take will be on this, and I would bow to him!) Justmeherenow (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Slow the Religion Talk !

Please - This is getting out of control. Let's focus on discussion that relate to leadership, policies, and relevant presidential issues. Yes, we all get it. I shriek to think of how John F. Kennedy would have faired on Misplaced Pages in a discussion of how the 'Catholic in the White House gets his marching orders from the Pope'. Looking back at it ... a bit silly, eh? I'm not suggesting that we remove any controversies of concern to the general public - but - look at the magnitude of dialogue on religion on this talk page ... OxfordDen (151.197.127.231 (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)).

No, we can't slow the religion talk. That would be irresponsible of us. Polls show that religion is the #1 issue occasioned by Romney's campaign. Also, Romney himself claims that the Mormon religion is the #1 factor in his personal life. Misplaced Pages must reflect what reliable sources report about the importance of the Mormon religion in Romney's private and public lives. Qworty (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This artile is NOT about his campaign. Misplaced Pages is not here to promote an agenda. Arzel (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether it's about his campaign or not doesn't matter. I'll repeat: Mormonism is the #1 factor in his campaign and, as Romney has stated himself, Mormonism is the #1 factor in his non-political life as well. So either way you cut it, Mormonism is extremely important and relevant to this article. Those are the verifiable facts from RS. Qworty (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that focusing on this person (Romney) political viewpoints is irresponsible. If you review the other candidate Wiki's, they have a structure that is far different than this one. Yes, all the candidates have controversies, political positions, personal beliefs, foibles, etc. Romney is a politician. Surfers don't go to WP to read ad infintum about how Romney managed the Olympic security issues (although some may care to read about it in a paragraph or two). It is my belief that we are to be balanced, equitable in treatment, and informative to the best of our editing abilities. If choosing to focus on one issue is the concensus of the larger Wiki community - I believe it would be an inequitable balance of information IMHO. I am only trying to point out that there is an overt skew in the read. Resume the dialogue, if you will ... (Oxfordden (talk) 03:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC))

Civil rights marches--undue weight?

This is continuing to be discussed back here: I've proposed adding "Romney has claimed that his father marched with Martin Luther King, Jr. There is no historical evidence for the claim, but there is strong evidence that George Romney and Rev. King were never in the same city during a civil-rights march." However, it's been pointed out that this "discrepancy" is already covered here: My concern is this--the Mitt Romney article currently states "He has been involved in politics from an early age, having joined his father in pro-civil rights marches." While this may have been true, it strikes me as undue weight--the young Romney was involved in many aspects of his father's political life, not just "civil rights marches." This reads like something out of a Romney campaign brochure, designed to deflect that fact that Romney, at the time his father was running for president, was in France trying to get people to convert to the Mormon church, which at the time had a racist policy against African-Americans. My question is this: If my proposed addition to the article does not achieve consensus, how would the rest of you feel about our removing the phrase about civil rights marches altogether? Again, it appears to be undue weight to focus on civil rights marches and ignore the other involvement of the young Romney in his father's political life. Qworty (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Huge reversion

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

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

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

Are you trying to discredit me with that link to one of your supporters chiding me about a bogus 3 month old concern, or is it that you're trying to intimidate me? Help me out here, because I can't think of any other reason for you include that link. Odd nature (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I include the link for background. Anyway, let's move on, okay? What was it about the Roe v. Wade changes that appear to you "less neutral"? Was it italicizing the case name, or wikilinking the case, or something else?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Odd Nature, you still have not provided any reason why wikilinking Roe v. Wade is less neutral than not wikilinking it. I believe it is proper to wikilink in a situation like this, so I will revert unless you provide some explanation. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, absent any explanation of why wikilinking a court case is a non-neutral thing to do, I have re-wikilinked that court case. Next, I plan on re-editing the "political positions", but without addressing whether his views have changed over time (and without addressing abortion-related stuff).Ferrylodge (talk) 02:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) 1. I've reinstated edits unrelated to changing positions over time, and unrelated to abortion. As to those matters, there is much in this "Political positions" section that remains problematic, if not outright false. The lead sentence is: "Mitt Romney's political positions have changed considerably over the course of his political career." But many of his positions have not changed, like on taxes, death penalty, school choice, et cetera. I suggest deleting that sentence, and simply discussing one issue at a time.

2. The article also says, "Fellow Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain also criticized Romney, saying 'Maybe I should wait a couple of weeks and see if it Romney's views on immigration changes because it's changed in less than a year from his position before.'" However, the main article (on Romney's political positions) does not seem to say anything about this, and McCain does not identify in this quote what the change is, so it seems like a bare allegation that ought to be covered in the "Political Positions" article first (if at all).

3. The article also now says, "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." This is misleading, and I suggest we quote Rokney directly: "Romney now believes that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, that 'abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother,' and that 'states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.'"

4. I suggest we reorganize so that the gay stuff is all in one paragraph, and so that the abortion stuff is all in another single paragraph. Right now it's all mixed together, and mixed with other stuff, and separated by other stuff.

5. The article says, "Romney repeatedly claimed to hold liberal or moderate views on social issues such as abortion and gay marriage." That seems true regarding abortion, but the cited source does not verify it's true regarding gay marriage. I suggest we change to, "Romney repeatedly claimed to hold liberal or moderate views on abortion but has since changed his position; gay and lesbian groups also accuse him of flip-flopping on civil unions."

6. The article also says, "Romney has explained his changing views as a process of evolution, contending that he has gradually come to agree with the conservative position on numerous social issues." Romney was not talking about "numerous social issues." What he was talking about was abortion, so let's says so.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've numbered your proposals for ease of discussion. I don't think the opening sentence in 1 should not be deleted—it's one of the main claims about the candidate—but it should be qualified. As noted, many of his positions have not changed. At minimum, we should add the qualification that "some" have changed. 3 seems like a good idea to me becausee the direct quote is concise and avoids the possibility of mischaracterization. 4 is a great idea, and 5&6 are necessary unless other sources are found. I'm not sure what to make of 2. One might argue that the McCain criticism should be included in the sub-article and is also notable enough to include here. I think it's probably not, but we should at least move it into the sub-article.

Unless there is objection, I will edit along the lines of Ferrylodge's proposals 3, 4, 5 & 6. Cool Hand Luke 22:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks okay to me. Thanks for taking care of it.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the text per 2, I think we should just move that McCain quote to the subpage. It stands out in this otherwise pithy section. Cool Hand Luke 08:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds okay to me (I don't know what immigration change McCain had in mind). Also, I've added a sentence to the first paragraph (of the political positions section) that I assume will be unobjectionable.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Introduction paragraph

I found it odd that the introduction made no mention of church membership. I moved the church section down in the article to reflect its secondary status; he is know being a politician and businessman, not being a LDS. Also, shouldn't there be some data on his marital status? --Storm Rider 09:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, but the current odd state of the article has some history. Religion was originally covered in the early life section, which included—among other things—his polygamist ancestry. When a religion section was suggested, some editors felt that we were trying to "bury" Mormonism by moving it far down into the article. Therefore, a rough consensus was reached that we would revise the article (which had been locked for over a week) if religion was made into the second section after "early life." I think LDS membership wasn't previously in the lead because it used to be in the first paragraph. This placement has been guarded until now, but I also think it makes more sense with "political positions" because it doesn't really deal with a chronological era of his life so much as it deals with his convictions. Cool Hand Luke 09:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I may have been overly bold; I am new to this article and unfamiliar with history. My edits were a newcomer's perspective. The introductory paragraphs need to briefly summarize the content of the article. It is somewhat surprising that a religious affiliation would be of superior import than his political career given that if he was not a politician his religious affiliation would be of little interest. Saint another way, it is because he is a politician that his church affiliation is of value, which only further underscores the importance of him being a politician first, which should guide the order of coverage. Have I missed something? --Storm Rider 09:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

As I'm one of the ones who suggested the current layout, I'll try to defend it. I used the Dwight D. Eisenhower article as a model to resolve the dispute at Romney. I am against putting religion in the first paragraph, since I feel it puts undue weight on his religion. Bush, Kerry, etc. Maybe we could eliminate the Bain Capital line? Its a POV issue for me. Is it interesting that he was a Mormon?, yes, but is that what he's known for?, no. He's known for the olympics, running for president, Mass. etc. The second persona life paragraph is prominent enough fo rme to convey an interesting and important detail of his personal life. The part of him being married with kids is really not notable to me at any level of a lead para. Mbisanz (talk) 10:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Bain Capital is a huge deal, especially now that private equity has entered the popular vocabulary, and Romney was an important leader there (or perhaps I'm just saying that because I know some Chicago grads doing quite well at Bain). I think that religion and family also make sense in a single sentence. A mention to his religion alone would seem naked to me. Cool Hand Luke 10:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"I think that an introductory paragraph should summarize the basic points of the article. If there is going to be a section on his religious affiliation, then I think some mention of it should be in the introductory section. I read above that someone felt that his church membership was of significant importance; however, I agree with you in the order of importance. He is known first and foremost as a politician and business man. His church affiliation is only of interest because of the first two things.

Given that this article is about the man, it seems a summary of the entire man is of merit. For that reason I suggest that his marital relationship would seem to be of value to the article. I still laugh about the joke told about the only republican front runner with a single wife was the Mormon, Mitt Romney. It may be of value to be a bit broader in coverage, then just focus on his political career, his business career, and his church membership. --Storm Rider 10:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, there was such an uproar against his religion being mentioned in the first section - that is, the first section after the introduction, that it would seem to me that to add it to the intro is going against the detente we reached. I don't myself object to including his religion in the intro, but I would like to avoid a repeat of the voluminous commentary against having it prominently mentioned, so I removed it. But I do object to including the latter part of the sentence I removed, which said he is "a husband and father" - that hardly seems notable on its own. We could say something like "He has been married to his wife Ann since 1969; they have five sons and eleven grandchildren." except that's almost exactly what we say in the early life section, so what's the point? It doesn't seem necessary to me. Tvoz |talk 00:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Religious affiliation section

Has anyone read this section? I wonder how many times it can come back to polygamy or be any more redundant. I think it best that it be cleaned up by some of the more active editors to this article; if I were to start I would delete all the redundant information. I think stating that his ancestors were polygamists once is sufficient. Can someone explain why a conversation about the US Supreme Court decisions is included in the section? What is the topic and what agenda is being pandered to? This strikes me a very odd for the topic of the article. --Storm Rider 10:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It was like the old lady who swallowed the fly. One editor thought it was important to mention that his father was born in Mexico. Then another editor thought it was important to explain why his father's ancestors moved to Mexico in the first place, et cetera et cetera. I still think it's important to mention that the LDS renounced polygamy in 1890, in this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

As for placement of this section, I agree that it's undue weight to make it the second section in the article, for reasons including those you described. While there was a clear poll as to whether this section should be included in the article (I agreed it should), there was not such a clear consensus about where it should be placed.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there was a very clear consensus with you being the only one against it. The agreement on the placement was what allowed the article to become unprotected. Turtlescrubber (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Turtlescrubber, you are correct that I was against it. Things became quite heated and accusatory when I objected to such a prominent placement. But do you really think Luke advocated the present placement? How about Daniel and Flingford? I don't think they endorsed the prominent placement, did they?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No, things become "heated and accusatory" when you tried to bury the section at the bottom of the article. And yes, they agreed to the placement by apparently allowing the consensus to happen and never once raising and objection. Not only that, the consensus was reached with something like 7 to 1. Then you tried to go against consensus about 48 hours later and had your hat handed to you. Consensus was reached by the editors of this page. Oh, and without even looking back I can tell you that Luke did agree to the placement. I really don't think you understand the concept of consensus. Turtlescrubber (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, buddy. See WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Did I move the section or merely suggest moving it? And do you consider the "Political Positions" section to now be "buried"?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No, but I consider the reference section to be buried. I think we should move it up. Turtlescrubber (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

All I said was, "Since this is not a standard section for presidential candidates, perhaps it would best be located after the section on political positions?" That was not a burial attempt. It was an attempt to avoid an undue weight problem. I was surprised at the response.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I am shocked that you were surprised. But then you started it again right after the page became unprotected. AGF? Turtlescrubber (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was best to take one thing at a time. Get a religion section included, get the article unfrozen, and worry about placement later. 100% GF. Anyway, when further editors show up, there's nothing wrong with reconsidering matters that you or I may have thought were resolved.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(new indent) I am having trouble finding the consensus agreement that approved the religion section to go at the very beginning of the article. Would someone point this out. Is there really someone that thinks his personal religion is the most important thing in his man's life, superior to his political or business career? --Storm Rider 01:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ann Romney's family

I've inserted the info about Ann Romney's family into the article about Ann Romney.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

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