Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:30, 11 January 2008

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.

Get His Name Right?

Mitt is a *nickname*. The article should start off giving his name as Willard Milton Romney, rather than Willard Mitt Romney. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.142.254 (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

I hope someone will answer your questions, Storm Rider. I can't answer them. The structure of this article is peculiar. For example, in the Early Life section, we have details about his grandchildren. That is nuts. What we need is a section on his "Personal life" as exists for other candidates like Barack Obama and Fred Thompson. That is also where religion stuff belongs too, as for Obama and Thompson, except that the role of religion in Romney's campaign should go into the section about his campaign.

I know that there were good faith efforts to model the Romney Religion section after a similar section for Dwight Eisenhower. That might be okay if Romney were a dead President, but he's not, and so his bio ought to be treated like that of Obama and Thompson. After this election, the second paragraph of the Religion section won't really be very relevant anymore, no matter who wins, so this situation is not comparable to the Eisenhower situation. Additionally, this Romney situation isn't like that of Mike Huckabee who actually had a religious career, whereas Romney has not.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Not the same as Huckabee, I agree, but this recent article certainly describes more than just a person who attends church like Obama and sometimes Thompson - I don't know that I'd call it a "religious career" either, but it seems to be more than just personal faith, and therefore relevant to his bio (even outside of the presidential campaign) and of interest to readers. Tvoz |talk 06:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent)That's an interesting article, Tvoz. Clearly religion is a big part of Romney's personal life, and he makes many charitable and community contributions through his church. But I would still like to see the Religion section blended into a section on his personal life. Some additional material for a section on his personal life could include stuff like the following (in addition to info about number of grandchildren that is currently misplaced in the Early Life section):

"Mitt and Ann Romney have two homes, one in suburban Boston and the other by a New Hampshire lake. Ann was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998, which he calls the worst day in his life, but she is in remission and is active in his presidential campaign. Mitt Romney has a quick temper, especially when things do not go as planned. He is a jogger, and likes Roy Orbison’s music. As for his dislikes, they include 'eggplant, in any shape or form.'"

Faye Fiore, "Does perfection have its price for Romney?” Los Angeles Times (2007-11-24).

Ann Sanner and Calvin Woodward, “Candidates Get Personal”, Associated Press (2007-12-20).

Ferrylodge (talk) 06:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and created a "Personal life" section. As mentioned, I believe that a subsection should be created for Religion. Then the first and last paragraphs of the Religion section should be moved into that subsection, and the middle paragraph in the Religion section should be moved into the section on his 2008 campaign. The majority of the "Personal Life" section would thus be occupied by stuff about religion, which accurately reflects the large role of religion in his personal life.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz, you said several days ago that you would think about whether it would be okay to move the middle paragraph of the Religion section to the section on his 2008 campaign. Have you decided about that?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC) I'm going to "be bold" and move that paragraph without changing it at all, for reasons already described: primarily, it's very strange to talk about the role of religion in his presidential campaign long before discussing any other aspect of his presidential campaign. Also, polls and comments of GOP voters are not part of Romney's "background."Ferrylodge (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's a sneaky way to vandalize the page. I restored the full section and will not let your pov and conflict of interest remove all references to religion from Mitt Romneys page. We had a compromise and once again you are the only one who needs to own this page. Maybe I shouldn't have stuck up for you when others wanted to ban you. I assume no good faith. Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned above on 30 December, I moved the middle paragraph of the "Religion" section to the section on his presidential campaign. Likewise, I moved the material about his grandparents and religious upbringing to the section on his "Early Life". And, I moved the material about his adult religious activities to the section on his "Personal Life." This puts the article more in line with the formats of other candidates, and none of the religious material has been deleted.

Anyway, I notice that Turtlescrubber now calls this "vandalism", accuses me of removing "all references to religion from Mitt Romney's page", and has reinserted the entire Religion section. Now everything in the Religion section is repeated twice in the article, which seems kind of redundant.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Correction: I did move the sentence about Ann Romney's family to the article about Ann Romney, but everything else from the agreed-upon religion section remains in the present article on Mitt Romney.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Does Misplaced Pages defend polygamy as a matter of religious freedom?

A new phrase in the article says that his ancestors went to Mexico "in order to continue to practice their religion without fear of retaliation by the US Federal government." This sounds like we are defending polygamy as a matter of religious freedom. I'll tweak it slightly, to say that his ancestors went to Mexico "in order to continue to practice their religion and lifestyle without fear of retaliation." Both the feds and the states were cracking down on polygamy.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

In the 1880's only the Federal government was persecuting Mormons in Utah. The state of Utah was not actively engaging in this activity at the time. Are you saying that Mormons were not engaging in polygamy as a result of their faith? That would be a novel position; do you have any references that the practice was anything but religious in nature? I can assure you that no references exist to support that position. The 3% to 20% of LDS men and women who engaged in plural marriage were doing so solely because of their religion; it was not a "lifestyle" choice. Now, I am completely aware that the south was engaging in polygamy, but those individuals were not LDS and that was strictly a lifestyle choice. --Storm Rider 01:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

My main concern is that the US Supreme Court continues to assert that people are free to practice their religions even though they are subject to generally applicable laws. See, for example, Employment Division v. Smith. For us to imply that violating generally applicable laws is necessary in order to practice one's religion may or may not be correct, but it is an argument that has been rejected by the US Supreme Court. As for Utah cracking down on polygamy, that state was admitted into the union only on condition that they do so, if I recall correctly.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've edited to try to address your concern: "fled to Mexico in 1884 in order to continue to practice it without fear of retaliation."Ferrylodge (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned it in my edit summary, but if the LDS renouncing plural marriage is to be included in the article, it really should be mentioned that it was due to the pressure applied to the church by the feds. Not going to say LDS Church would still be practicing plural marriage, but the decision to renounce the practice in 1890 was due to losing the Supreme Court case and the impending seizure of all the Church's assets. --Bobblehead 02:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not a debate, but it's worth noting that virtually no legal scholar defends the late 19th century decisions against Mormons. The laws were not passed as generally-applicable legislation which only happened to detriment Mormons; they were expressly anti-Mormon. Idaho territory banned all Mormons from voting, and the Supreme Court upheld it in Davis v. Beason. In this era, the Supreme Court compared polygamy to human sacrifice. They said that the free practice of religion referred not to actual practice—as one might suspect—but to the abstract right to believe in a religion, as if the Congress could ever infringe upon that. It took decades to purge this nonsense from the caselaw. At any rate, linking to the 1890 Manifesto should be sufficient as in "the LDS Church officially renounced polygamy in 1890." Cool Hand Luke 09:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that linking to the 1890 Manifesto should be sufficient as in "the LDS Church officially renounced polygamy in 1890." There's no need to say in this article that this Manifesto was issued under pressure from the federal government. That is not only very tangential to Romney, but also could easily be interpreted as a warning that if Romney is put in charge of the federal government then he'll help restore polygamy. In fact, we've got a footnoted quote where Romney discusses how much he abhors polygamy.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

IT MUST be mentioned that he dodged serving the army during the Vietnam war

I have several sources for the claims:

• http://ktracy.com/?p=621

• http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/15/the_skinny/main3505361.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3505361

• http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/romney/articles/part1_side_2/

So, Mr. Romney should stop insulting real heroes like John McCain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.184.124.48 (talk • contribs)

I think you mean it must be mentioned that Romney got draft deferments for being a missionary and then a student, both of which are perfectly acceptable reasons to have one's draft deferred. When he finished that, he lucked out and got a high draft number. There is no evidence that Romney dodged the draft, he just benefited from a system that was biased against the poor and favored the "well off". --Bobblehead 21:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sweeten it and spin it as you like, but the info should be mentioned.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.184.124.48 (talk • contribs)

The article already says, "Neither Romney nor his five sons have served in the military." That's a lot more detail on the issue than is included for some of the other candidates.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Varmints

The article currently discusses whether Romney has hunted varmints or rodents (as opposed to deer and elephants, for example). I don't think this is relevant in a section on political positions. Here's what one strong supporter of the Second Amendment says:

"As a Second Amendment supporter, I don’t care about Romney’s hunting history. I’ve never hunted, nor has Don Kates, who is one of the most influential pro-Second Amendment scholars ever. I know plenty of outstanding pro-rights legislators and activists who have never hunted, or who haven’t been hunting for many years. When Second Amendment supporters vote, they know that they’re choosing a political official, not a game warden. If we voted based on hunting prowess, we would have voted for John Kerry, who — besides going on a some hunting publicity trips during the campaign — also went trap shooting in Wisconsin and proved that he is skilled with a shotgun. While Kerry claimed to be a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, his Senate record showed that he voted against gun-owner rights 95 percent of the time."

That's Dave Kopel writing in National Review on April 11, 2007. Additionally, Romney has not just hunted rodents and varmints. He has also hunted rabbit and quail, but that fact has been deleted from this article. Likewise, his NRA rating ("B") has also been deleted from this article. I fail to see why the rodent-hunting is more important than his NRA rating.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Duplicative material in this article about religion

Virtually everything in this article about Romney's religion is now repeated twice. FYI, I brought this matter to ANI today, at this link.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, then lets keep the section that was agreed to by a consensus of editors (seen in archive 3 and 4 and written by Ferrylodge himself) and remove all the scattered random bits. Problem solved. No duplicate material. Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Everything in the agreed-upon section remained in the article, except for one sentence about his wife's family. As I understand it, your main reason for wanting to keep all of the religious stuff in a single section is so that it will be easier for you to monitor. I don't think that's a good rationale for structuring the article. The desirability of integrating some of the religious material into other sections of the article was discussed at this talk page here. Your only contribution to that discussion was to accuse me of removing material from this article which I did not in fact remove.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It's the compromise version. It's there because ultra majority of editors agreed upon it. Everyone thought it would be a good idea for the material to have its own section. Why do you keep switching your arguments. Do you want me to removed the duplicate material? Would that make you happy? Or are you ashamed of his Mormon faith? Why do you want to hide his faith so very badly? Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am very tired of your relentless insults, Turtlescrubber. As you know very well, the very first section of this article (on his Early Life) contains the following: "Romney was raised as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), also known as Mormons. His great-great-grandfather, Parley P. Pratt, was among the first leaders of that religion. Plural marriage or polygamy was at one time practiced by the LDS Church, but the Church renounced the practice in 1890, and Romney has too. Romney's paternal great-grandparents fled to Mexico in 1884 in order to maintain plural marriages without fear of legal retaliation. Mitt's father, George, was born in Mexico in 1907, and came to the United States in 1912 with Mitt's grandparents. Mitt's maternal lineage, as well as all grandparents, were monogamous." Your accusation that I want to "hide his faith" is complete rubbish, and you know it.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I removed the duplicate material that you were so worked up about. Hope you are happy. I tried to run this solution by you three times on the ANI page, I even bolded it each time, hope thats okay. Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not okay. But since you own the article, who am I to quarrel? The article was fine before you started hurling false accusations and edit-warring.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought your main concern was that there was duplicative material? Thats what you named this section. Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That was my main concern. May I have others?Ferrylodge (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No, lol. But you could have asked me at anytime to remove the duplicate material. I offered on many occasions but you always ignored the offer. Really strange behavior on your part. Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Good night, Turtlescrubber.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hasta la proxima y tenga una buena noche. Turtlescrubber (talk) 06:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Lose Indent - The part about religion relating to his 2008 presidential run definately needs to be moved from the religion section to the 2008 president section. Arzel (talk) 12:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Organization of religious material

There are currently three paragraphs in the section on "Religious background." I suggest that the first paragraph be moved to the section on "Early life and education", that the second paragraph be moved to the section on "Campaign for United States President, 2008", and that the third paragraph be moved to the section on "Personal life." None of the material would be removed, but it would be organized more in line with the articles about other candidates, and in a more logical manner.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the changes Ferrylodge made prior to adding the above comment because, quite frankly, it was horribly written. To see the version (including which paragraphs Ferrylodge would like moved) see . --Bobblehead 18:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are we going over this again? Ferrylodge, you agreed less than a month ago that a "Religious background" section should be added and made dozens of edits to the proposed wording to get it in a form that you at least found acceptable (For most of these edits, see ). Heck, when I hadn't weighed in, you even asked me to add an agree. Considering you were part of the consensus that agreed upon not only the addition of the section, but it's content as well, why do you want a reorganization of the article? --Bobblehead 18:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually placement of the aspect relating to his presidential run was discussed but no concensus was reached. Not that it should matter because it clearly belongs within the presidential section. Arzel (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• 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