Talk:Mitt Romney/Archive 5

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


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

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


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

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


 * No. The current wording only uses it in the context of him being involved in politics from an early age with civil rights marches being an example.  I am not sure how this would indicate any undue weight.  As for your other argument, it is a little disingenious to state that their is strong evidence that Romney and King were never in the same city during a civil-rights march.  The article which you refed only states that the author was unable to correlate the statement which Mitt Romney made.  You cannot make the next jump to say that that is proof that it never happened, much less the next step that they were never in the same town at the same time during any civil right marching.  Furthermore, the article goes on to state that perhaps Mitt is confusing his timeline.  He was only 15 at the time and probably only has a vague recollection of what happened.  What is clear is that he has, or at least claims to have, stong beliefs in Civil Rights, and has an admaration of King and that his father was active in Civil Rights as well.  Arzel (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * When confronted with the evidence from forty years ago, Romney today admitted that his father and MLK never marched together, that therefore the statement "I saw my father march with Martin Luther King" was not true. After being caught in this lie, Romney then tried to fudge the truth further by claiming that what he had actually meant--on all of those different occasions when he'd been spouting off on this topic--what he had actually meant was that his father and MLK had been marching together "figuratively".  LOL!  So this is where the state of this scandal now rests.  Whether or not all of this or some of this belongs in this article is a matter of debate, but I don't think it's a matter of debate that mentioning civil-rights marches in and of themselves, at the expense of not mentioning any other political acitivity of the young Romney with his father, constitutes undue weight.  In other words, the article is saying that the only political activity Mitt ever engaged in with his dad were civil-rights marches, and this is not true.  Either we should add Mitt's other relevant political activities with dad, or strike the undue weight of the civil-rights marches altogether.  What do other editors think? Qworty (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article's sentence ".. marched in civil rights marches with his dad ..." smacks of pro-Romney campaigning. More neutral sentences, worthy of an encyclopedia, would be (for example):
 * Romney learned about politics and political issues at a young age because his father ..
 * Romney sometimes accompanied his father on George Romney's political activities ...
 * I think it is okay for the article to have a sentence/paragraph describing Romneys opinions/beliefs on Civil rights, but that is more approporate in the Political Beliefs section.  What a teenager did is not really relevant to an article about the adult (for instance, he may have been accompanying the father on the marches simply because the family did everything together, and maybe had a family lunch after the march).  There is no significance to the fact that a teenager accompanied a family member in an event that the _other_ family member was the official participant in.  The sentence, as it is now, is a bit pro-Romney biased, but also irrelevant. Noleander (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So if I read you two correctly, if it appears positive about Romney, then it is biased in favor of Romney, but if it is criticsm of Romney then it is simply stating important facts about Romney.....hmmm, yes I see.  I might remind Noleander that this is an article about Mitt Romney, which includes aspects about his ENTIRE LIFE, not just information relevent to his presidential article.  The fact that he attended civil right marches with his father at an early age provide context into following him into politics.  Please explain why you think this is pro-Romney campaigning?  I am definitely not a pro-Romney guy, but I don't see the problem with a neutral referenced statement about his youth.  Arzel (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, the original agreed-upon Religion section stated "Romney participated in pro-civil rights marches with his father." This was subsequently reworded and moved, so that it now says: "He has been involved in politics from an early age, having joined his father in pro-civil rights marches." The article has never said "marched in civil rights marches with his dad" (this quote is from Noleander above).Ferrylodge (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Building on what Noleander has suggested as a rewrite, how about this: "Romney learned about politics and political issues at a young age because he sometimes accompanied his father in political activities." This should cover everything without giving undue weight to civil-rights marches.  What do others think? Qworty (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


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


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


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


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

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


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


 * That's fine, Odd Nature. I hope we can have an unusually productive discussion here.  What was it about the Roe v. Wade changes that appear to you "less neutral"?  Was it italicizing the case name, or wikilinking the case, or something else?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to discredit me with that link to one of your supporters chiding me about a bogus 3 month old concern, or is it that you're trying to intimidate me? Help me out here, because I can't think of any other reason for you include that link. Odd nature (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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


 * Sounds okay to me (I don't know what immigration change McCain had in mind). Also, I've added a sentence to the first paragraph (of the political positions section) that I assume will be unobjectionable.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)  I'll go ahead and move the McCain quote.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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


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


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


 * As I'm one of the ones who suggested the current layout, I'll try to defend it. I used the Dwight D. Eisenhower article as a model to resolve the dispute at Romney.  I am against putting religion in the first paragraph, since I feel it puts undue weight on his religion.  Bush, Kerry, etc.  Maybe we could eliminate the Bain Capital line?  Its a POV issue for me.  Is it interesting that he was a Mormon?, yes, but is that what he's known for?, no.  He's known for the olympics, running for president, Mass. etc.  The second persona life paragraph is prominent enough fo rme to convey an interesting and important detail of his personal life.  The part of him being married with kids is really not notable to me at any level of a lead para.  Mbisanz (talk) 10:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Bain Capital is a huge deal, especially now that private equity has entered the popular vocabulary, and Romney was an important leader there (or perhaps I'm just saying that because I know some Chicago grads doing quite well at Bain). I think that religion and family also make sense in a single sentence. A mention to his religion alone would seem naked to me. Cool Hand Luke 10:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "I think that an introductory paragraph should summarize the basic points of the article. If there is going to be a section on his religious affiliation, then I think some mention of it should be in the introductory section. I read above that someone felt that his church membership was of significant importance; however, I agree with you in the order of importance. He is known first and foremost as a politician and business man. His church affiliation is only of interest because of the first two things.
 * Given that this article is about the man, it seems a summary of the entire man is of merit. For that reason I suggest that his marital relationship would seem to be of value to the article. I still laugh about the joke told about the only republican front runner with a single wife was the Mormon, Mitt Romney. It may be of value to be a bit broader in coverage, then just focus on his political career, his business career, and his church membership. --Storm Rider (talk) 10:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


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


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

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

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


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


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


 * I've edited to try to address your concern: "fled to Mexico in 1884 in order to continue to practice it without fear of retaliation."Ferrylodge (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I mentioned it in my edit summary, but if the LDS renouncing plural marriage is to be included in the article, it really should be mentioned that it was due to the pressure applied to the church by the feds. Not going to say LDS Church would still be practicing plural marriage, but the decision to renounce the practice in 1890 was due to losing the Supreme Court case and the impending seizure of all the Church's assets. --Bobblehead (rants) 02:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


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


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

IT MUST be mentioned that he dodged serving the army during the Vietnam war
I have several sources for the claims:


 * http://ktracy.com/?p=621


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


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

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


 * I think you mean it must be mentioned that Romney got draft deferments for being a missionary and then a student, both of which are perfectly acceptable reasons to have one's draft deferred. When he finished that, he lucked out and got a high draft number. There is no evidence that Romney dodged the draft, he just benefited from a system that was biased against the poor and favored the "well off". --Bobblehead (rants) 21:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sweeten it and spin it as you like, but the info should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.184.124.48 (talk • contribs)


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