Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:32, 15 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 Iraq. Then another editor thought it was important to explain why his father's ancestors moved to Iraq 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)

This topic needs addressing, but I would have suggested that a small mention in the "Personal Life" section as well as an entry in his Campaign section would be most appropriate. Having a large section on his religion at the beginning is clumsy, and besides, that section appears to repeat various facts which readers can (and should) get from articles on mormonism, except for areas having a direct bearing on the campaign or his personal life. Those could be split up appropriately.

I suggest this all only because it seems to best match what is being done for other candidates. I know that mormonism raises eyebrows, and religion is a touchy topic at the best of times, but singling out one candidate like this seems innappropriate. Just my two cents. Random name (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2008 (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)

Bobblehead, the stuff you reverted has developed over weeks, and was removed wholesale yesterday. All I did was restore it in the Religion section.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And yet, it was still horribly written. --Bobblehead 19:11, 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)

I agree with Arzel. There was consensus to insert the material on religion, but not a consensus as to placement. I am more concerned about content than placement, but placement is still an important concern. Regarding content, I do not believe that the content should be permanently frozen, or that weeks of changes should suddenly be reverted.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There was a consensus on having a section on his Religious background a month ago, to which Ferrylodge agreed, and part of that consensus was some pretty severe wordsmithing on what should and should not be in that section. So claiming that it's placement did not have consensus is a bit revisionist. There was discussion to move the paragraph that mentions his campaign out of the religious background section and into the 2008 presidential section after the version agreed upon was implemented, but no consensus was reached to move, so lacking consensus it should remain in the religious background section until consensus for a move has been reached. As far as permanently frozen, there is no requirement for wording to be frozen once consensus has been reached, but edits to contentious sections (including their dismantling), should be discussed on the talk page prior to them being made, particularly if you are one of the people that agreed to the consensus version. As far as undoing weeks of work.. If the weeks of work introduced poor sentence structure, introduces bias, and is detrimental to the quality of the article, then it is perfectly acceptable to undo those edits.--Bobblehead 19:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge's claim isn't "revisionist" it's a lie. Turtlescrubber (talk) 02:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was Arzel's claim, and I was just agreeing with him. Feel free to provide diffs to prove us wrong.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

So you want me to show the diffs of every editor on the articles talk page agreeing? Even you relenting to the consensus that allowed the page to get unblocked? I am through wasting my life arguing with you and your obsessive compulsive addiction to wikipedia. You won't get your way in the end, you never do. You might even end up with another ban when you exhaust the patience of those new to your mental affliction. Turtlescrubber (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Turtlescrubber, please see WP:Civility. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I assume no good faith from you, just like all the other editors who are familiar with how you operate. Turtlescrubber (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please. Bobblehead is correct. The reason the full protection was removed from this page after quite a while of having it locked was because the editors agreed to have a religious background section as the 2nd section, just after early life. No conclusion was reached about moving the 2nd paragraph to presidential campaign as far as I know. I've already written this here, as you know. Tvoz |talk 19:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

People can go see for themselves. The question was whether the new section would be added, not where it would be located.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Your diff went to the wrong discussion. I have pasted the archived text of the placement discussion below. Now stop obfuscating. Turtlescrubber (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Archived discussion on placement of section

As written of this version, I 100% support the proposed text. I'll watch the page and of course attempt to maintain it to thise standard of fairness and verfiability. Mbisanz (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I support inclusion of this in the article, in order to overcome the controversy that has caused the article to be protected. The other sections would then contain some redundant language which would need to be reconciled (e.g. regarding missionary work). Since this is not a standard section for presidential candidates, perhaps it would best be located after the section on political positions?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In other words, as far down as possible in the article, as the last section of text? Could we possibly make it less likely to be read? I'm still considering the text, but did want to question the placement. Tvoz |talk 04:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's discuss the section's placement too. That's what derailed the first attempt. Mbisanz proposed it to be like the Eisenhower article, which is one of the first sections, immediately following early life. I think it has more affinity to the campaign issues, so should belong there (which is admittedly lower in the article), but I'm not trying to bury it. If others support it, I would be willing to live with the Eisenhower placement as a practical consensus. Cool Hand Luke 05:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not tied to any particular place for placement. Ideally it would be in Early life (Not cause of Eisenhower, but cause its more about his life then anything else). As a second choice, I'd say "Political positions" as it gives a context to his stance (i.e. Mormons on a whole tend to be Republican conservatives). Mbisanz (talk) 05:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it is best placed in conjunction with "early life" - which is why there was a section "early life and family background". So if we go with this section, I'd say we could change "early life" to "early life and education", move that stuff up, and make the second section about his religion. But I haven't commented on the actual text of that section - just that if we go with a separate section it should be up after early life, not way down in the nether regions. (And Luke - I didn't think you were trying to bury it.) repl Tvoz |talk 05:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it should go before the campaign sections start, so yeah, near early life would be a good place. I also like Tvoz's suggestion. Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tvoz. I should also note that, chronologically, placing the new section next to early life and education would make the most sense. Qworty (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the good faith. I'll certainly support it after "early life" if that's what makes the article stable (and it looks like it will). I think unifying education with early life is actually an improvement over Eisenhower's structure. Cool Hand Luke 05:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Just so everyone can see. This discussion is what got the page unprotected. Turtlescrubber (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You omitted this.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because you linked to that above. But really, that is where you yourself agree to the placement of this section because it was all part of the consensus version that got this paged unblocked. The section I reproduced above is right above the formal agreement in your diff. Why are you posting that link? To show that you yourself were the first to agree to the placement? Turtlescrubber (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Material regarding subject's religious affiliation

Template:RFCpol The questions which seem to remain unresolved are: (1) how much weight the matter of Romney's Mormonism should receive in the article, (2) whether that content should have it's own section or (3) be separated out into a different article, and (4) where in the article the content or section should be placed. John Carter (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Easily deserves it's own section, just be sure to include both sides: some think it's relevant to the campaign and some are annoyed at how much his faith has taken center stage. Wrad (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on that. But if you could indicate how much and where that content should be, speficially in this article or another, I think that would be quite welcome. Personally, I think, given the existence of as much material as there is, maybe separating out an entire article might be the way to go here. John Carter (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, if a separate article is created, there is additional material that could be included beyond what's now in the present article. See here. I'm not supporting or opposing a separate article at this point, until more people have expressed their thoughts on the matter.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, if a separate artice is created, that new article could perhaps be merged with the already-existing article about his speech on the subject.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have just expanded the scope of the already-existing article about his "Faith in America" speech, and renamed that article "Religion in the life and background of Mitt Romney."Ferrylodge (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I came here from the AN/I thread. I actually prefer the version with distributed information. I've found repeatedly that attempts to play gotcha on Romney with his ancestors' behaviors amounts to little more than a smear against his religion. Lumping all the Mormon stuff into one section frames that gotcha attitude with a neon headline. It is lousy writing, and putting the relevant Mormon incidents, be they his family, wife's conversion, or the disputes about how he reconciles his faith and his political behavior are all more relevant in their own sections than as a lump of 'he's one of THOSE wierdo' sections. Doing it all in the name of 'it's easier to monitor changes' is absurdist. Good writing is more important than catering to lazier editors, and it's better writing to keep things in relevant sections rather than pull out, nad force readers to jump around to make sense of it all. Why put stuff about presidential run criticisms four sections above his presidential run when it can be IN the section? no reason at all. ThuranX (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree 100%. However, since there is now a separate article about Religion in the life and background of Mitt Romney, perhaps we don't need either a long religion section in the present article, or a distribution of religion stuff throughout the present article.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Anything to shuffle it off the article. That has been Ferrylodge's goal from the beginning. Turtlescrubber (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that is the goal of ThuranX and John Carter as well? Seems to me that the most material about religion that has ever been removed from this article was removed yesterday.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You wanted that removed and I obliged. Can't you ever make a straight argument? You are going to waste hours and hours of what could be productive time like you always do. Are you going to fill another 2 archives with your bad faith argumentation? Turtlescrubber (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Starting yesterday, there has been a separate article about Religion in the life and background of Mitt Romney. Is there any reason why we should not adhere to Misplaced Pages Summary Style guidelines, and accordingly modify the religion section of the present article?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Those are the edits you just made to go against the compromise version and your agreement two days ago. So no. We will not be dismantling this section. If need be we can always undo your changes to the other article. Why won't you just leave well enough alone. You wrote this section and you agreed to its placement and that is what got the article unlocked. Why do you always edit in such bad faith? Turtlescrubber (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem solved. Please don't make drastic changes to supporting article when an RFC is underway. Especially when those changes are made solely to advance your own agenda. Turtlescrubber (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

By all means, don't be polite to me, don't assume good faith, revert my edits to other articles without a word of talk page discussion, insult me at other users' talk pages, edit war, continue to get this article frozen, insert massively duplicative material into this article. It says much more about you than it does about me.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, I have never been blocked and have never had a Community Ban. Do you know how hard it is to achieve a community ban? You have had both. "It says much more about you than it does about me", that I am so fed up with having to deal with you that I forget myself. I don't assume good faith anymore for a reason. Turtlescrubber (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The Community Ban had nothing whatsoever to do with the present article, and that ban was unanimously overturned by ArbCom. Please stop trying to club me to death with it. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Diffs? Turtlescrubber (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent>FL, are you not on probation for bad behavior? Why do we not pursue you more aggressively for wider range of bad behaviors on a wider range of articles? Sounds good to me. How about to you?--Filll (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Fill, are you going to follow me to every article I edit, regardless of whether you have any idea about what is happening?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I have been called by others a conservative, and even a Republican. I'm not sure I agree with those assessments, but think the information might be useful to determine if I might have a conflict here. I also self-identify as a Roman Catholic.

Maybe I'm wrong here, and if I am let me know. But I'm not particularly comfortable in separating out the subject's entire religious life into a separate section, although I wouldn't object to an explicit mention in the lead, which his Mormonism currently doesn't have. If nothing else, it damages the chronological flow, which I tend to think biographies should have. I wouldn't mind seeing the information on his activities as a Mormon included in chronological order in the Early life and business career sections, and would actually support it. That might allow for a separate section, possibly around the political career area, for religious activities as an adult, which I can more reasonably see being separated out, particularly as they impact his political career. My reasons for raising these questions are somewhat based on WP:Undue weight. I'm not entirely sure that the subject himself might not agree that the current structure of the article might not place undue importance on his status as a Mormon. Just one opinion, anyway, and possibly influenced by my own existing prejudices, but I wonder what the rest of you think of it, particularly as most of that section seems to relate to his career as a politican. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

CommentIt doesn't look good when Ferrylodge supports your request for adminship yesterday, the day you start editing this article. I am not saying that you are posting for that reason or implying any malfeasance on your part, but that strikes me as unfortunate.

Support - getting rid of the term "warlord" in user name is a good portent.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Turtlescrubber (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. My vote didn't make the slightest bit of difference, given that he already had over a hundred supporters and no opposers. And even if it did make difference, can we please, please start assuming good faith? Regarding John Carter's comment, I think he's correct on the merits, and in fact I have already supported distributing the material (that distribution is shown being removed here). Alternatively, I support converting the section on his religion into a summary form, since the material is also in the separate article referenced at the beginning of that religion section.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You wanted that material removed! What is going on with you? The article you speak of is the on you "created" yesterday and then added all that material to. I assume good faith from John Cater and it is obvious to even the most casual observer why I can no longer assume anything but deception from you.

Turtlescrubber (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Possibly true. However, reviewing the extant article, there seem to be exactly two matters which directly relate to his pre-political life, his descent from Parley Pratt and his marriage to Ann. I think the reference to abstaining from alcohol and smoking could be included. As stated on the WP:Undue weight page, "undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quanitity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements". Placing this section in second page certainly gives it a more prominent place than the rest, and it really doesn't matter what we in our own opinions think people want to read first, as seems to have been one of the bases for the current placement, as that probably has problems with WP:OR, but reporting the material as fairly, accurately, and NPOVly as possible. However, it does make sense to that the part on his political life would have a subsection on his religious behavior and opinions, as it is more clearly relevant and has significantly more to discuss in that section. John Carter (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

As you know very well, Turtlescrubber, I wanted the material to be distributed, instead of having a consolidated religion section. However, having only the consolidated religion section is preferable to having both. I again urge you to see WP:Civility. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You said the duplicate material was your main issue and all others were "tangential"! Please start telling the truth. Turtlescrubber (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You are quoting me out of context. Please stop.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That is completely in context and near verbatim. Why can't you stop making shit up?

Here is some text from this very talk page

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)

(undent)Turtlescrubber, may I please kindly ask you to try not to copy and paste so much material into this RfC? It is not directly pertinent, and it is undoubtedly making it difficult for newcomers to follow the RfC. Perhaps you could instead use brief quotations with diffs? Or start a new section? Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If you would only stop telling fibs and start speaking honestly than I wouldn't have to cut and paste anything. Turtlescrubber (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

But don't just take my word for it,

"I see that Ferrylodge has focused primarily on maligning me, which is at first glance completely irrelevant to whether his ban is appropriate. My character has nothing to do with this. However, it highlights the issues. This is typical Ferrylodge. Rather than address the issue at hand, he engages in character assassination of the person or person he perceives as his enemy, or opposition, by misrepresenting others. He does not attempt to work towards consensus with others, but rather works to attack and undermine those with whom he disagrees - and I have evidence that this is deliberate and malicious. He edit wars across multiple articles, using this technique to castigate or drive away those who disagree, This has been effective. One editor left the project altogether rather than deal with the type of venomous allegations which are Ferrylodge's preferred method of interaction, and others have been driven away from "his" articles. He wages POV wars designed to wear down opposition, even where he is in a minority of one, by sheer unreasonable persistence in the face of consensus, and he maligns those opposing him to make it appear that it is a personal matter on their part, rather than a policy matter on his." Statement by Killer Chihuahua concerning Ferrylodge's behavior. Turtlescrubber (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Turtlescrubber, the statement you just quoted mentions nothing about Mitt Romney, or about his religion. Please stop sidetracking this RFC. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

People should know what you are doing here. Stop sidetracking this entire article, as you have been doing for months. Turtlescrubber (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Since this is an RfC, and since I have intimate knowledge of this article and its editing history, I'll comment. Turtlescrubber is absolutely correct in everything he says. Ferrylodge is showing real ownership issues here, and really needs to step away at this point before the entire discussion dissolves into his personal history and personal issues and more personal attacks and accusations back and forth. Please be aware, everyone, that the religious section now being discussed was Ferrylodge's idea to begin with, and that its wording and placement received enormous consensus from nine different editors, including Ferrylodge himself. Ever since that time, which was last year, Ferrylodge has been trying to censor the Mormon stuff in this article. It doesn't really matter what his motives are; his edits speak for themselves. Mind you, Mormonism is the most important fact about Romney, both as a person and as a politician. As a politician, he's found that his Mormonism has destroyed his campaign and political career, which is why he's no longer a serious contender, due to the intolerance of Republican "Christian" evangelicals. As a man, Romney has stated that his "faith" is the most important thing in his life. For these two reasons, the religion section belongs exactly where it is and should not be broken up. And for all of these reasons, going back to last year, Ferrylodge's editing here can only be described as the utmost in bad faith. At this point, he is way past the horizon of constructive editing or trying to build any kind of consensus. All he wants to do is vandalize the religion section he himself wrote and shove his edits down everybody's throats and fight about every tiny nuance of it endlessly. The article of a presidential candidate--even a defeated one like Romney--deserves better than this. Qworty (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Qworty, you have always made it clear that your POV is "Mormonism is the most important fact about Romney." But this article should not endorse your POV, just as it should not endorse mine.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again. It's not my point of view. It's only the point of view of Iowa caucus goers, the national and international press, and Romney himself. I'm merely reporting those views, which is what a good editor is supposed to do. But really Ferrylodge, your posting about this POV "issue" is just further evidence of what you're doing here--wasting time by hurling false accusations and trying to draw people into your personal Mitt Romney flame war. You pick, pick, pick, pick, pick endlessly on tiny issues where often enough you don't even have the facts straight and the next thing we know, the article and the discussion page are melting down. This really has to stop. I suggest you take a well-deserved vacation from this article. Qworty (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please focus on the subject of the RfC: (1) how much weight the matter of Romney's Mormonism should receive in the article, (2) whether that content should have it's own section or (3) be separated out into a different article, and (4) where in the article the content or section should be placed.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Ferrylodge's community ban was not overturned on the merits of his editing style, and anyone reading it can see that - Arbcom did not deny or endorse his behavior: he got lucky and they gave him another chance for reasons that had nothing to do with his behavior, and he's proceeding in that same style as if he had been vindicated. Time will tell.
2. Ferrylodge's idea that he write a separate article, make it say what he wants, then modify the "summary" section here accordingly to remove material that editors felt was necessary in this article is falling to a new all-time low in creative manipulation of policy.
3. This article was locked until we reached a consensus agreement - and that included editors like Cool Hand Luke who was not initially in favor of the end conclusion but compromised and agreed to the placement and the setup of a religious background section.
4. ThuranX, I don't question that you came here because you saw the AN/I thread, but I recall you participating in this issue before - was it the earlier RfC here in December? This is not at all to say you shouldn't weigh in again - your point of view on this is welcome - but just to be clear that you aren't a totally uninvolved editor which it could have sounded like.
5. I remain in favor of the separate religious background section where we had placed it, and as numerous editors from different points of view agreed to, which agreement unlocked a page that had to be locked because of this very issue. And agree completely with Qworty's summary and analyses above. Tvoz |talk 20:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The "consensus agreement" is here. People can judge for themselves what it says and does not say. Tvoz accuses me of "falling to a new all-time low in creative manipulation of policy." John Carter suggested in his first post in this section that it might be wise for the Religion material to "be separated out into a different article." I then pointed out that there is already a separate article about his religion speech, and editors at the discussion page for that article were objecting that the scope of that article was too narrow. It therefore makes perfect sense to broaden the scope of that article about his religion speech. You may disagree (for reasons I do not comprehend), but please stop with the hyperbole about "falling to a new all-time low in creative manipulation of policy." Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy to explain - one time. Setting up another article that goes into much greater depth probing Romney's religious background may or may not be a good idea. I'm not commenting on that right now - it would depend on how much more material is available to put there that would be inappropriate here. That's not the "new low". What I am commenting on is the tactic of setting up such an article by taking material from this one, and then coming back here and disingenuously - I know you don't like that word applied to you, but it's how it looks to me - saying that oh, policy says this should just be a summary so we can remove all of this stuff from here. Which would end up with what it appeared all along that you wanted, and that is very little mention of Romney's religious background here. To me that tactic is "falling to a new all-time low in creative manipulation of policy". The policy being the one that calls for just a summary here. But you shouldn't be so incensed - I gave you credit for being creative. I am going to try to stick to my resolve of not going another ten rounds with you, and it would be so refreshing if you would stop. I wait with bated breath. Tvoz |talk 21:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have never said one word describing what a summary of Romney's religious background would look like. You are free to "stop" arguing this point at any time, Tvoz.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I must be misreading this, then: Agree 100%. However, since there is now a separate article about Religion in the life and background of Mitt Romney, perhaps we don't need either a long religion section in the present article, or a distribution of religion stuff throughout the present article.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC) (emphasis added). You have been crystal clear - "100%" clear - all along that you want to downplay the religion here in this article. As for stopping arguing the point - if you ever conceded a point maybe others wouldn't have to point out where your replies are not correct. I wonder if I'll be able to post this without an edit conflict from yet another comment by you. Tvoz |talk 22:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You paraphrased me this way, above: "oh, policy says this should just be a summary so we can remove all of this stuff from here." That is incorrect. I never said one word about what stuff can be removed. And you have been 100% clear all along that you want every last possible syllable about Mitt Romney's religious background to be near the beginning of this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The Consensus Agreement included this discussion:

As written of this version, I 100% support the proposed text. I'll watch the page and of course attempt to maintain it to thise standard of fairness and verfiability. Mbisanz (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I support inclusion of this in the article, in order to overcome the controversy that has caused the article to be protected. The other sections would then contain some redundant language which would need to be reconciled (e.g. regarding missionary work). Since this is not a standard section for presidential candidates, perhaps it would best be located after the section on political positions?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In other words, as far down as possible in the article, as the last section of text? Could we possibly make it less likely to be read? I'm still considering the text, but did want to question the placement. Tvoz |talk 04:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's discuss the section's placement too. That's what derailed the first attempt. Mbisanz proposed it to be like the Eisenhower article, which is one of the first sections, immediately following early life. I think it has more affinity to the campaign issues, so should belong there (which is admittedly lower in the article), but I'm not trying to bury it. If others support it, I would be willing to live with the Eisenhower placement as a practical consensus. Cool Hand Luke 05:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not tied to any particular place for placement. Ideally it would be in Early life (Not cause of Eisenhower, but cause its more about his life then anything else). As a second choice, I'd say "Political positions" as it gives a context to his stance (i.e. Mormons on a whole tend to be Republican conservatives). Mbisanz (talk) 05:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it is best placed in conjunction with "early life" - which is why there was a section "early life and family background". So if we go with this section, I'd say we could change "early life" to "early life and education", move that stuff up, and make the second section about his religion. But I haven't commented on the actual text of that section - just that if we go with a separate section it should be up after early life, not way down in the nether regions. (And Luke - I didn't think you were trying to bury it.) repl Tvoz |talk 05:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it should go before the campaign sections start, so yeah, near early life would be a good place. I also like Tvoz's suggestion. Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tvoz. I should also note that, chronologically, placing the new section next to early life and education would make the most sense. Qworty (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the good faith. I'll certainly support it after "early life" if that's what makes the article stable (and it looks like it will). I think unifying education with early life is actually an improvement over Eisenhower's structure. Cool Hand Luke 05:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to correct Ferrylodge's half-truth about what the consensus was all about. Turtlescrubber (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The so-called "consensus agreement" regarding the Religion section can be seen here in the history of this talk page. It's also at the very end of Archive 3, here. People can read it for themselves.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the above, I would still like to raise what I think are serious questions regarding the inclusion of a separate "religion" section. Granted the subject has said his religion is the "most important thing in his life". As a bit of a religious observant myself, I can say that it is somewhat a rational conclusion for one who honestly believes in an afterlife to make such a statment. To paraphrase Ed Wood, the afterlife is where we will spend the rest of eternity, and, according to most religions, one's final destination is irrevocable. So, if you ask the average observant religious person whether, for instance, the winner of the Chargers-Colts game is more or less important to them than than spending the rest of eternity in a pleasant or less than pleasant location, there's rationally not much of a choice there. It could be argued that, on that basis, a separate religion section could be required of every biography article of an individual before in the Western World from the Christianization of Rome to the Reformation. However, as someone somewhat actively involved in the Saints Project, I can say from firsthand knowledge that there are articles about several prominent saints of various Christian churches which do not have separate religion sections, or even much religious content. On that basis, I can and do think that, comparatively, creating a section for this subject's religion, separate from the surrounding material, might well constitute WP:Undue weight. I grant that a good deal of this material is relevant to his political career, and certainly can see a separate subsection of that section devoted to the religious controversy. However, I honestly cannot see how this figure deserves a separate, early, religious section when FAs on such "saints" as the Lutheran saint Leonhard Euler lack them. John Carter (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Such a large section, located so near the beginning of the article, is WP:Undue weight. Note that the material is also covered in the "seealso" article linked at the top of the religion section, so I would support changing "seealso" to "main". Comparison to biographies of saints is interesting. Also pertinent is comparison to other presidential candidates. Religion of Fred Thompson and Barack Obama is covered in the "Personal life" section near the end of their articles. Mike Huckabee has a brief section, near the beginning of his article, on his pastoral career. I don't see that there's much about religion in the articles on John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, et cetera. I could probably dig up quotes from all those candidates about how much their religion means to them.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

"Obama says faith ‘plays every role’ in his life: Dem presidential candidate asks worshippers to pray for him and his family" from NBC News.

"Can She Reach Religious Voters?" from the Washington Post (her biographer calls Hillary Clinton "the most religious Democrat since Jimmy Carter").

Ferrylodge (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I disagree with all of that. The religious section should not be broken-up or moved, and there is no consensus to do so. Ferrylodge is personally obsessed with trying to destroy that section of the article and is showing ownership issues that should diqualify him from editing there. Furthermore, comparing Romney to a "saint" is a false analogy. Romney is not a "saint," even though Mormons call themselves "saints," and it is not the job of Misplaced Pages to say that Romney is a "saint" or compare him to "saints," Roman Catholic or otherwise. The reason there isn't a special religion section in articles about "saints" is because religion is a usual feature of being a saint, not a notable one. The opposite is true of Romney. He was the first major practicing Mormon candidate for president (his father's bid was quite short, while Mo Udall stopped being a Mormon because of the church's racism); also, very notably, Romney's Mormonism is the reason Christian evangelicals voted against him in Iowa, thus ending his presidential aspirations. All of this is highly notable, and therefore the religious section should remain intact and as high up in the article as possible. A better analogy for this article would be Chang and Eng Bunker. What Ferrylodge is proposing would be analogous to taking the most notable feature about Chang and Eng--the fact that they were conjoined twins--and burying that fact way down at the bottom of the article, then setting up a separate article for the fact that they were conjoined twins, and then using that as an excuse for completely removing from the original article the most notable fact about them--that they were conjoined twins! The fact is that the most notable thing about Romney is that he was a high-profile Mormon who ran for president but he was stopped in the Iowa caucuses because he was a Mormon. None of this is my personal POV; it is what has been reported in the national media ad nauseum with plenty of RS. If anything, the religious section should contain more Mormon facts--the Mormon underwear, Kolob, Baptism of the Dead, and whatever planet Romney would rule once he was done being president--so that the reader will have a fuller grasp of why those intolerant Christian evangelical bigots denied Romney his win in Iowa and destroyed his political career. Qworty (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you review some of the articles on saints such as David I of Scotland, Charlemagne, and others then. Also, there is a question, particularly regarding such things as the Mormon underwear, which in many cases would rather clearly very likely fall under the scope of WP:Undue weight. We don't for instance note the baptism date of most Christians, for example. Also, much of what you're saying bears the unfortunate taint of recentism, particularly the comment about "being stopped at the Iowa caucuses" and it having "destroyed his political career". That statement also seems to be predicting the future, which probably clearly violates relevant wikipedia policy. Overloading the page with content specifically important perhaps only for a short period is extremely questionable. Also, it should be noted that a request has been made for further comment. I agree there is no consensus yet, however, few if any outside comments have come in it. Those comments will help determine what the consensus will be. I very much suggest that we wait until those comments arrive. John Carter (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As much as FL might be trying to limit religion in this article, several others are hell-bent on making sure that everyone knows their own bias against Mormons. There clearly needs to be a move to a more neutral presentation of the material. Specifically, subject matter relating to his presidential run should be within the section relation to his presidential run. Arzel (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the material in the Religion Section on his presidential run would be much more appropriate in the section on his presidential run. Regarding whether "others are hell-bent on making sure that everyone knows their own bias against Mormons", I would speculate that the bigger motive is instead to emphasize the subject's Mormonism so that some Christian evangelicals will vote against him, thus ending his presidential aspirations which may be a result desired for any number of reasons other than the subject's Mormonism.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Our only purpose here is to report the sourced, notable facts. The guy was a leading candidate for the nomination until he was stopped in Iowa and New Hampshire. He was stopped because Christian evangelicals don't like his Mormonism. Those are the notable, verifiable facts. A few editors here are going against a large consensus--which has already been established--in order to push their personal POVs that the "embarrassing" facts of Romney's Mormonism--even though they are highly notable and reliably sourced--should be buried in the article, scattered, ultimately removed. That is bad faith editing, as other editors have already pointed out here. So give it up guys. It will never work. All you have to do is try again to be bold, move the material, and see what happens. The consensus that has already been established will immediately move the material back into place, and you guys will be exposed yet again as edit warriors. Qworty (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, if facts are notable due to his presidential run, then they belong in the section on his presidential run.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Qworty, you seem to be strongly pushing your own POV. I realize you dislike Mormons, you have made that abundantly clear. However, this is not the place to present your personal bias against the Mormom religion. Arzel (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Your argument is not against me or other editors, but against the thousands of evangelical Iowa caucus goers who handed Romney his defeat due to his Mormonism. Perhaps you should go argue with them. Their antipathy to Mormonism is a well-sourced fact. You are the one pushing POV by trying to whitewash this fact. Editors really should keep their personal opinions out of this, especially when they contradict reality. Qworty (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I very much suggest Qworty familiarize him/herself with several other policies, WP:Undue weight among them. Also, as per policy, consensus can and sometimes should change, as the number of editors involved increases and more opinions regarding matters of policy and guidelines, not simply personal opinions, are added. And I note once again that Qworty seems to be taking as a given the candidate's loss. That is an explicit violation of the policy I linked to above. I would like to once again state that the matter of exactly how to proceed is still being discussed, and several groups which have been contacted have yet to respond. I very strongly urge that editor, and any others, to refrain from seeking to impose a consensus of a few as an absolute rule for the future, and perhaps better familiarize him/herself with all the provisions of WP:CONSENSUS, particularly WP:CONSENSUS#Consensus can change, and wait for the further comments to arrive before attempting to prejudice the discussion. John Carter (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a "consensus of the few," but the consensus of nine different editors. Again, if you want to be bold and challenge that consensus, go right ahead and make the edits to the article and see for yourself what happens. This RfC is already quite extensive and the only thing it's accomplished is the introduction of the absurd notion that Romney's life story is somehow comparable to that of a "saint"! Nothing I have stated here is my personal opinion--RS are abundant that support the fact that Romney has lost the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary. Perhaps you should go out and buy a newspaper. The reason he lost in Iowa was because he's a Mormon. Republican "Christian" evangelicals don't want a Mormon candidate. The attempts to blame me or other editors for this well-sourced fact are comical. The notability of Romney's Mormonism is quite well established and there is no way you can whitewash it out of this article. Qworty (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been following this article much and I certainly haven't been following this whole dispute. But I have worked heavily in other 2008 presidential candidate articles, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, John McCain, Mike Gravel, and Rudy Giuliani, so I've got a pretty good sense for how these kinds of articles should be structured. Here's my take on the "Religious background" section: It shouldn't be here. The first paragraph in it, which seems like legitimate biographical material, should be blended into the early life and personal life sections. The second paragraph in it, which seems like legitimate campaign material, should be moved into the presidential campaign section; it jumps the chronology horribly to have it where it is now. The third paragraph in it deals with the history of polygamy and the Romney family tree; none of it seems to have anything to do with Mitt, and belongs in articles for past generations of the Category:Pratt-Romney family. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for answering this RfC. At the least, several commentators said around December 20 that the second paragraph was campaign-related and should be moved to that section. I think we can safely act on this now; the sections have been stable. Cool Hand Luke 18:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing "see also" link

I have removed the "see also" link to Romney's "Faith in America" speech, since that speech had nothing to do with the information in the Religious Background section of this article. There may be a better place for that link in this article, somewhere further down. But the fact is that the "Faith in America" speech did not get into any of the specifics of Mormon practice that constitute Romney's religious background. Thus the link is irrelevant to the Religious Background section. Qworty (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Qworty, this speech was given to calm fears about his Mormonism. Since we have a single section on religion, there's no way this isn't relevant. You know that, and commented on it over a month ago. Cool Hand Luke 01:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Did he use the word "Mormon" in the speech? How many times? Linking the Mormon section of this article to that speech makes about as much logical sense as linking this section to the article about pancakes. Qworty 01:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

For example: "There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs."Ferrylodge (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

What he lives by is his Mormon faith, huh? Clearly it's the most important thing in life to him. Good thing the article about him has a Religious Background section up top where it belongs. Qworty (talk) 03:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The comparison to pancakes insults the intelligence. It was a speech intended to calm fears about his religious background. It makes sense as a "see also" from a religion background section. It could be worked into the text, but it's clearly relevant in spite of your disappointment that he didn't weigh in on the all-important Mormon underwear issue. Cool Hand Luke 03:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It was a speech intended to defend his religious background by not getting into any of the specifics of his religious background. That was his strategy, and therefore the speech doesn't mention any of the major issues that are covered in the Religious Background section of this article. It's not appropriate to link a section to another article that has nothing to do with the specifics of that section. You could just as easily place a "see also" in that space to any number of articles about Mormonism. Why focus on the irrelevant "Faith in America" speech? The purpose of a Misplaced Pages article is not to link to distracting and self-serving material generated by failed political campaigns. Qworty (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I preferred Turtlescrubber. Where are you, Turtlescrubber?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he moved to Michigan. Latest poll there: McCain 27%, Romney 26%. And McCain's rising in the national polls as well. However, I intend to stick around here even after Tuesday and to continue to help the rest of you arrange the Titanic deck chairs of this particular article. Just to make sure the article continues to hold to the historical record, you know. Qworty (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Qworty, your attitude here suggests that you not be allowed to edit pages relating to Romney in the future. You obviously have a specific agenda which involves the defeat of Romney. This kind of attitude jepordizes the neutrality of WP in general. Arzel (talk) 03:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, excuse me, but your argument is not with me, but with the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire. If you don't like what they've done to Romney or what they think of his religion, go start an argument with them. I would appreciate it if you stopped trying to make this personal. I am doing what any good Misplaced Pages editor must do--report the facts. And there are tons and tons of RS out there that show how Romney and his Mormonism are viewed by thousands of Republican voters. Heck, I'm not even a Republican, and I have absolutely nothing to do with how Romney is performing in the voting booths. Now, would you care to get back to the topic and off personalities? We're supposed to be objective here. Qworty (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have an argument with you. I'm not a Romney supporter, but it looks like you once again made a bad faith edit and an absurd argument (that Romney's speech is as off-topic as pancakes), just for the sake of proving a WP:POINT. It seems that you made this proposal so you could tell Ferrylodge "Clearly it's the most important thing in life to him. Good thing the article about him has a Religious Background section up top where it belongs." You repeatedly disrupt the article in this way. (on Mormon underwear idiocy, BLP violation, POV-pushing) You're utterly incapable of NPOV editing here, and I think you should edit elsewhere. Cool Hand Luke 05:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

My "see also" edit was made in good faith. The fact that Romney's speech was off-topic is supported by the many RS that have reported that view. That's not something I'm making up. You can't take a verifiable fact that exists independently out in the world and then blame it on me just because I am reporting it objectively here. Also, how was I to know Ferrylodge would quote that passage from the speech? What you're accusing me of would have required me to predict his future response, which is an illogical supposition. I didn't edit on this article or its talk page for three weeks and there were very ardent content disputes during that time by POV-pushing editors. Did you admonish the participants? (Perhaps you did.) As for editing elsewhere, I'm happy to do so, as opposed to others, who are practically SPAs in this particular little teacup. For that matter, if current trends continue, there won't be much more interest in this article after Tuesday, so things will undoubtedly cool off. Finally, I am not disrupting this article or the section under discussion, as I support the current version. Where do you stand on that issue? Should the Religious Background section be moved, broken-up, retained as is? Qworty (talk) 06:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You lately don't seem to be much better than an SPA yourself. There should be a religion section. I helped push for it, and I'm mostly pleased with how it turned out. I only quibble with the placement. That's not the topic of this heading though—You apparently do not support the current version. You claimed that link to the speech does not belong in the religious background section. That argument is absurd on its face. Cool Hand Luke 06:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The speech in question is not about Mormonism, but about a bunch of other stuff . In the unlikely event that Romney ever gives a speech about his religious background, then it would make sense to link to it from the Religious Background section of this article. It is an inaccurate accusation to say that I am making all of this up. I don't write Romney's speeches. I don't move his jaws and make the words come out of his mouth. I don't write dozens of news articles that point out that the speech in question in fact has nothing to do with Mormonism. I'm merely objectively reporting these facts from RS. Really, I don't have all of this power over Romney or the media that you seem to think I have. Insofar as the speech in question addressed Mormonism (he mentioned Mormonism only once), it may as well have been about pancakes. If there is any intellectual "insult" regarding the notion of irrelevancy, it comes entirely from Romney's pretense that he ever gave a speech about Mormonism. He's never given such a speech and we shouldn't report that he has. Qworty (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Religious intolerance and the election results

I believe very strongly that our purpose here on Misplaced Pages is to objectively report what the verifiable and reliable sources require us to report. This is why I think the Religious Background section must remain where it is--not because of any personal beliefs of mine, but because Romney's Mormonism is a major factor both in his personal and political lives. I am not a Republican, and so I could never be a POV advocate for whatever strain of Republican intolerance may be at work in specific elections, whether it be intolerance of gays, Mexican immigrants, or Mormons. Objectively, however, I can observe (as can anyone else) that Romney's religion sank him with the religiously intolerant evangelicals in Iowa, and that this loss destroyed Romney's momentum, leading to his defeat in New Hampshire. These facts belong prominently in the article. Editors who have insisted that this is my personal POV are mistaken--these are merely the political facts as reported by RS. Given that these are the most notable facts at the moment (and yes, notability does rise and fall with the flux of real-world events over time), the article should reflect these facts. The Religious Background section is therefore properly placed, but we need something in the introduction to this article that indicates the highly notable facts that Romney has lost in Iowa and New Hampshire. These are not secrets, as the whole world knows them--and yet they are buried way, way deep in the article, down the same rhetorical black hole where a few other editors want to consign the religious issues. There appears to be a highly POV inclination here to bury or eliminate everything that would be even of minor embarrassment to Romney. The true POV-pushers are those who would edit the article in this non-neutral manner. Instead, the article should reflect real-world realities as verifiable through RS. Qworty (talk) 04:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The topic is Mitt Romney and not Mitt Romney's presidential run. The results in two states are not the most significant things in his life. Also, the intro summarizes the article itself, which it does. To put your proposed information in the intro seems out of balance and not in line with the topic at large. --Voire Dei (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No, for the biography of a somewhat notable person, the campaign results for individual state primaries are not so notable. This is an encyclopedia article WP:NOT#NEWS. We don't say that Clinton got third in Iowa behind even Edwards (although it was similarly surprising), nor do McCain or Huckabee announce their victories. We have a couple paragraphs to describe an entire lifetime. Individual state results don't make the cut. Cool Hand Luke 05:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, such structuring fails the standard of recentism. The subject of the article is the life of Romney, not his presidential campaign. To overbalance the article to reflect material about his presidential campaign, including the religious controversy, very likely fails the standard of WP:Undue weight, placing excessive emphasis on factors regarding a specific event. The fact that the subject also relates to an event which is still occurring, Romney's presidential campaign, also very seriously runs the risk of making comments about the outcome before the outcome is decided, failing the policy of WP:CRYSTALBALL. I have every reason to believe that these policies far outweigh the value of the material, particularly, as has been stated above, that the editor starting this thread has made several other at best unusual statements, including stating that the article should refer to Mormon underwear and attempt to name the planet that Mormon religion indicates the subject might rule in a future life. On the basis of that editor's own comments, I find that it might not be unreasonable to question that editor's judgement in these matters. John Carter (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, a short note on the negative press coverage of him in his presidential campaign related to his Mormon faith may be appropriate, if the coverage is as extensive as I, an overseas person who's been learning of the election mainly through incidental exposure, have gotten the impression. However, we should set this out neutrally, attribute the criticism (probably to "several commentators", followed by a ref providing the names and articles, because if it's not several commentators, we should leave it out.) However, while saying that his faith has been a political issue, and briefly mentioning some of the talking points may be appropriate, we must be careful that we report on others attacking him for aspects of his religious beliefs, not attack him ourselves. Adam Cuerden 18:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

While I don't agree with you on the placement of the material, I do agree with you on your central point, which is that our job here is to present RS with the proper weight. I discuss all of these issues in greater depth here Some editors are having trouble distinguishing the difference between the messenger and the message. I am not here to attack Romney; rather, like a good Misplaced Pages editor, I am merely reporting the criticism that is to be found in verifiable RS. I did not invent any of the issues that are troubling Romney's presidential bid. The argument is not against me or any of "my" views, but against media pundits and thousands of Republican voters. The article should not whitewash these facts. Here is just one example of the kind of source you are talking about , and anybody who doesn't like it can stop arguing with me and start arguing with Jacob Weisberg and tens of thousands of Iowas caucus goers. In short, we should report views from RS, summarize the criticisms and carefully cite the sources, and not confuse messages and messengers or make any of this personal. Qworty (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

What evidence do you have of the role Romney's religion played in the Iowa and N.H. results? Any exit polls or demographic analyses done after the two elections? I have more the impression that he's struggled due to likeability problems, being perceived as too negative in campaigning, being perceived as too insincere in his conversion to orthodox American conservative viewpoints, and due to being up against two candidates who happened to catch fire in states receptive to their mesages (Huckabee, McCain). Wasted Time R (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict response to Qworty) However, you seem to believe that the Iowa caucus results be given a degree of weight which most other editors disagree with. By your statements above, you seem to be implying that the article should be subjected to a major rewrite after each separate primary, which is both extremely unlikely and almost certain to ultimately give very undue weight to the election. I once again urge you to reread several of the pages for which you have already had links provided, particularly WP:Undue weight, regarding the material at hand. Also, most of this material probably belongs more appropriately on the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008, as it directly relates to that subject much more than Romney's biography per se. Also, I too would welcome the reliable sources which specifically indicate that Romney's religion clearly played a significant role, provided that such content be placed on the appropriate page, which I have every reason to believe is not this one. John Carter (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

To echo the previous sentiments, the Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain articles all have very little space devoted to the 2008 campaign, and very long presidential campaign articles. That way the main articles stay biographical and stable. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's unreasonable to mention in the intro that Romney has lost the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary. It's not undue weight to briefly indicate in the intro how Romney is doing, and doesn't require a "major rewrite after each separate primary." It's only one sentence, and indeed I put that sentence in there before Bobblehead took it out. I didn't edit war on it. It's being discussed here. The "recentism" charge makes no sense to me, since a lot of this stuff is recent. At such time as Romney is no longer a candidate, for example, that fact will be recent. Will that mean that certain editors will then wikilawyer the recentism policy to censor Romney's concession out of the article?! You can't just start wikilawyering all of these policies beyond the realm of common sense. There's a lot of info here for example which is in the present tense but which in the future--due to "recentism"--will have to be changed into the past tense. This would be a major grammatical job, requiring one of us to react to recent events and make the necessary changes. Qworty (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

We've struggled in the other candidates' main articles to figure out how to phrase primaries developments in the lead section, too. I would have no objection to briefly mentioning that he came in second in the important Iowa and N.H. events. The good news is in a few weeks these questions will resolve themselves. What is recentism is to put campaign-related material into the second section of the article, way out of chronlogical place. That presupposes that the article is about his presidential campaign, which it isn't. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Religious Background issues? This was debated at length last month and a consensus reached to unfreeze the article. One view is that Romney's religious background is relevant regardless of his status/success/failure as a presidential candidate, because he has run in other races and held other offices and his Mormonism was an issue at those times as well, and that therefore the information belongs where it is as important background, and also for general chronological reasons. Qworty (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I disagree on that, as my view in the RfC above indicates. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(ecx2)I'm not sure there is any value in including primary results in the lead section of candidate articles, especially this early in the game. In the general scheme of things these results are not important enough to be included in the lead, but they are definitely notable enough for a brief mention of them to be included in the campaign section of this article. The results of a single primary are not particularly notable unless they are the impetus for a more notable event. As an example, if Romney doesn't win Michigan and decides to drop out of the race, then his placement in the primaries could be included as an explanation for why he dropped out of the race. --Bobblehead 19:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not primary results should be mentioned in the lead of this article is kind of incidental to this discussion. The discussion here was about religious issues, and in particular the proper content and location of the various paragraphs in the "Religious background" section. I really don't care much one way or the other whether recent primary results are mentioned in the lead, though I tend to agree with Bobblehead about it.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it might be relevant to give a quick summary of recent results in the lead while the primaries are ongoing, but the essential point is whether the separate section should remain. Apparently, we are still being told that the prior consensus should be taken as authorititative, despite the fact that policy clearly states consensus can change. At this point, I think I have contacted every relevant group regarding this discussion, and I cannot help but think that it would be extremely premature for anyone to attempt to indicate that the previous consensus must be taken as written, particularly until such time as all the anticipated responses appear. John Carter (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if we were to interpret the previous consensus as holy writ (which of course we should not), the consensus was most clearly about whether to include a religion section as opposed to where that section ought to be located. If the present Religion Section belongs anywhere in the present article, it would be after the section on Romney's presidential campaign, for obvious chronological reasons.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The Obama, Hillary, and McCain main articles all have "Cultural and political image" sections near the end, which try to address, in at least somewhat scholarly terms, what it is about these figures that resonates (either positively or negatively) with the American cultural-political landscape. This might be a place where you could try to address the intersection of Romney's religion with American value systems and electoral realities ... if you can find some scholarly/serious sources to work from. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm planning to soon move the Religious Background section to a location immediately after the presidential campaign 2008 section. Not one word within the Religious Background section would be changed, and such changes would remain under consideration here at the talk page. As others have indicated above, we've got a serious WP:Undue weight problem with all of this stuff located at such a prominent position in the article. It's also incredibly bad writing to discuss the impact of religion on the campaign, before the campaign section.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I support the move. It can always be moved back, should that be the way consensus develops, but it is a good idea to see how the article flows in the alternative form as well before a final decision is reached. John Carter (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I oppose any such move without the input of the previously involved editors. Qworty (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I oppose any such move without a stronger consensus than last time. That's right, I want more than ten editors to agree to such a move. Or at least the same level of discussion.Ferrylodge, do not start another edit war! Turtlescrubber (talk) 02:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Seeing as the last discussion only gathered so many opinions because the page was locked for over ten days, I think you'll have to be satisfies with a normal practical consensus, because that ain't happening again for a while. Cool Hand Luke 03:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge

Stop reverting the page. A new consensus has not been established. You are being disruptive. Please stop. Turtlescrubber (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Turtlescrubber, as you know, the previous "consensus agreement" of a few weeks ago was most clearly about whether or not to include the Religious Background section, rather than where it should be located. During the past couple days, numerous editors have indicated quibbles here with its placement as the second section in the article: Cool Hand Luke, John Carter, me, Arzel, ThuranX, Wasted Time R, and Random Name. It is not for you to declare yourself a majority regardless of reality. And even if you were the majority, that does not entitle you to override clear Misplaced Pages policy about WP:Undue weight. So please relax, and let the discussion proceed without another revert war. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The extant consensus of at least six parties favors removal of the religion section, over three individuals who seem to demand its inclusion. John Carter (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You know very well that location was part of the agreement. I reprinted that on this page like 3 times. You are being disruptive and are now actively lying about the previous consensus agreement. You have not reached consensus and there are just as many people on this page who disagree. Please stop and try to reach a proper consensus instead of just edit warring. Turtlescrubber (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with John Carter. Additionally, Turtlescrubber, it is vandalism for you to revert edits that you're not even complaining about, for example in the "Personal life" section. Cut it out.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict response to Turtlescrubber) And that consensus seems to have been superceded. As you should know, consensus can change, and seems to have done so in this case. I suggested above that we all be able to see how the article would look with the content moved. Should consensus change again, the religion section can be restored. However, it would be interesting to see whether the prior concerns of content which seems to have perhaps violated wikipedia policy regarding undue weight hold true with the revised version as well. And, as stated, if consensus leans that way, it can be reverted. John Carter (talk) 02:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not see a consensus. I see a continuing pattern of intimidation. Please show me the consensus. Turtlescrubber (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Seven people have indicated that they believe the former article structure violated wikipedia policy of Undue weight. That is a very serious concern, and I personally believe it probably supercedes consensus policy per se. Taking into account that the previous consensus included people who have at least temporarily indicated that they believed such a violation may have taken place, I believe that there now is, at least potentially, a consensus to remove the section temporarily to remove those concerns. As indicated above, seven people have expressed serious reservations about that section being in accord with Undue weight policy. If concensus changes, however, it certainly can be restored. However, as indicated above, it seemed to me, at least temporarily, reasonable to see how the alternate version looked, so that all parties could compare and contrast the different versions to determine which is more acceptable. And, as indicated, if consensus of all the involved groups indicates that the previous version was preferred, it can be restored without difficulty. However, as it seems several parties who agreed to the previous consensus have changed their positions, it seems at least to me that the previous consensus no longer holds. John Carter (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No they have not. Show me 7 diffs for 7 people expressing the concern of undue weight. Cherry picking and intimidation is not how consensus is reached. There are at least 6 people on this page who disagree with your "consensus". Please act more impartially. Turtlescrubber (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have not acted directly at all, although you have, possibly violating guidelines in the process. Several policy concerns have been raised and not yet acknowledged. It is reasonable to have those concerns ameliorated until such time as a final decision is reached, particularly in BLP articles like this. John Carter (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you working on those 7 diffs? Turtlescrubber (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool Hand Luke, John Carter, Ferrylodge, Arzel, ThuranX, Wasted Time R, Random Name.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see your diffs too, Turtlescrubber, when you're through with your 3RR complaint against me.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Only 4 of your diffs are actually calling for the section to be moved further down (including yourself of course). Off the top of my head there is Tvoz, Bobblehead, Qworty and myself that disagree about moving the section down. Thats 4 to 4. That's some consensus you have there. Lol. Oh, there's wrad too. That makes it 5 against moving the section down. I can look for more? Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

How about if you identify which three diffs you find lacking? And I'd like to see the diffs from you and your colleagues, please.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

How about you read your diffs and see how many of them mention moving the section down in the article? Spoiler: 4. Anyway, please sift through your dozens upon dozens of comments that do nothing to further the conversation on this page. You will probably find more than 5. I really didn't even have to look. I am done arguing with you for tonight. :) Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you name which editors you think disagree? It seems that some don't mention the section's placement just because they think it shouldn't exist at all. I disagree with them, but I think they would also favor aligning it with Romney's politics. (Incidentally, you can add User:Storm Rider to that list, I believe.) If I'm one of the supposed three, I'll say clearly that I have always been in favor of moving the section to be with his politics—the one area where his religion is extremely notable. I also have always favored moving presidential material to the 2008 campaign section. Cool Hand Luke 03:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I can provide more diffs of people who favored moving the material late last year. I only looked for diffs from people who voiced an opinion during the past few days.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Reversion to last stable version

The editor "Table Manners" has just reverted the article. The edit summary says, "Reverting to last stable version pending discussions on talk page not using AWB." Actually, the so-called "stable version" is not stable at all. For example, it did not even exist as recently as January 11.

In any event, is there some Misplaced Pages policy that favors reverting articles to "stable" versions, even if most involved editors oppose it?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember that content disputes are not vandalism, and that labeling them such will not keep you from being blocked under the 3RR, Ferrylodge.

That said, I don't see why that version is supposed to be stable. Cool Hand Luke 04:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I made the reversion to a stable version. If this is not allowed, please point me to the policy and I will revert myself. Also, if requested by both sides of the disputing parties, I can revert it. Also, anybody else is free to revert it so long as it doesn't put them over the 3RR limit. If I can be of further help in resolving the dispute, let me know. TableManners 04:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Luke, I have not said anything about Table Manners committing vandalism. What I said was that Turtlescrubber committed vandalism by messing with the "Personal life" section. There was no content dispute about the "Personal life" section, and yet Turtlescrubber repeatedly messed with it without explaining why, and without even disagreeing with anything in the "Personal life" section. Isn't that vandalism?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You could be right that it's lazy junk editing during a revert war, but there's no vandalism in that edit. Please see the narrow definition of WP:VANDALISM; vandalism must be intentional. I'm just cautioning you that the label "vandalism" won't keep you from a block. Be careful. Cool Hand Luke 04:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Luke, you can see from the edit history of the main article that, at 02:14 on 15 January 2008, I warned Turtlescrubber: "If you disagree with one thing, that's no reason to revert other things as well." Then he went ahead two more times to intentionally edit the "Personal life" section. There was no content dispute about that section, and he could have easily avoided editing it. If that's not intentional vandalism, then maybe I was mistaken. I thought it was.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Table Manners, both Luke and myself are questioning why you believe the version that you reverted to was "stable." Why do you think so? That version did not exist as recently as January 11.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted to the version I identified before the recent content disputes. I may have identified the wrong stable version, though. TableManners 04:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you did identify the stable version. That was reached after weeks of discussion and has only been changed by one editor. You might as well just give up though and let Ferrylodge and his friend have their way. Turtlescrubber (talk) 04:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit dispute resolution

If you can describe what is the dispute is about in 100 words or less I can offer an opinion. Please let's all be WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA as well as WP:AGF. Please do not describe contributors but contributions. TableManners 04:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

My summary: It's argued that the religious background section is undue weight for the biography of a man primarily notable as a business leader, politician, and presidential candidate. It's supposed to be undue weight with its content (giving in-depth coverage about polygamist ancestors, in particular), and placement (as the second section). Others disagree because this is arguably the biggest issue for his presidential candidacy, and because Romney says religion is important to him. But compare the treatment of religion for Mike Huckabee—who was professional clergy, unlike Romney. Cool Hand Luke 04:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Table Manners, I assume that by "the dispute" you mean the content dispute. This is an impornmat distinction, because there are other aspects of the dispute as well (e.g. what is the last stable version, what is the current consensus, what does "vandalism" mean, et cetera). The content dispute is complicated too. But for present purposes, the immediate dispute is whether the section on "Religious Background" should be located before the section on the 2008 campaign. The reason why I and several other editors believe it should not be located before the 2008 campaign section is because doing so gives the Religious Background material WP:Undue weight. It also throws off the chronology of the article by having a discussion of religion in the campaign before the subject of the campaign is even introduced. The Religious Background section also contains material about polygamy of the subject's great-grandparents that is extremely tangential to the subject's own life, and therefore should not be given WP:Undue weight in the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fuck you all

It doesn't matter. Just give up. Ferrylodge wins and I am leaving the project. There will only be disputes with every other editor. Turtlescrubber (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

and John Carter you should be ashamed of yourself. You aren't going to last long as an admin with your decision making capabilities. Turtlescrubber (talk) 04:23, 15 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