Talk:Romney family

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


 * too far back to mean anything . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.208.79.102 (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

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

junk
a lot of these entries are pure junk. this is a noteable political family. do we really want to include "kinsmen" who are businessmen in non-noteable companies, etc., as if they merit entry next to governors, congressmen, etc?? I have removed what were in my humble opinion the flimsiest sounding entries. but i really feel that a lot more weeding needs to be done.

I propose that the only people included should meet the following criteria: 1. Be substantial enough to merit their own wiki article (even if one has yet to be written) 2. Be related in a substatial way to the other family members (kinsman of...) doesn't cut it. if they are listed, it should be known how they relate to the others here, else it is an unsubstantiated mess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.126.73 (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is the article version before the removals if anyone wants to see the additional names that used to be here. It provoked an edit war at the time.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Mitt Romney's birth date in the tree is wrong!
See above. It should be 1947, not 1948!!! 16:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.173.95 (talk)
 * ✅ Current descendancy chart has '1947' — You don't have to take time to look over to the Article. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

material removed
Per WP:RS and, in some cases, WP:BLP as well -- Wikipedia is not the place for folks to do genealogical research. Unless a reliable source makes a claim, it does not belong here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Cmt - I reversed the particular edit that had removed Lenore Romney and Ann Romney and a few others. I believe it more in keeping with editing principles to afix, say, a template:Fact tag, or something similar, wrt need for contributors to include sourcing for the fact that particularly notable Romney family members (i.e., the ones having WP bios) are indeed members of the R. clan.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope - unless and until a reliable source for this genealogical melange is given, the claims are not proper in any Wikipedia article. Cheers - but WP:RS does not say "unless we want to keep stuff which is not sourced in an article."  Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Question - Lede, as sourced, defines the family as notable primarily because of G.W.Romney and son, Willard Mitt, so what would justify removal of them from ensuing list?--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Collect, I think you're really going overboard here. To remove as you did George Romney and Mitt Romney, the two most famous members of this family, from this article for lack of 'sourcing' is just silly.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Um -- I think yo missed the discussion at RS/N? Unsourced material is deletable - and in the case of living persons pretty much required to be deleted.   "Famous" is not given as an exception for WP:RS and WP:V.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Somewhere those guidelines have an exception for citing that obvious, well-known facts such as that Paris is the capital of France, and in this context, this is the same thing.   Wasted Time R (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This diff is an open-and-shut case of improper removal of sourced content. George, Mitt or both are mentioned in, for example, just about each one of the article's current first dozen references, so I don't follow user:Collect's reasoning here. Furthermore, user:Collect deleted two citiations to a Jennifer Dobner and Glen Johnson Associated Press story when user:Collect deleted the article's summaries about George Romney and Mitt Romney.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 10:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:RS. Your attacks here are unwarranted - I am doing exactly what that discussion on RS/N determined - claims not made by a reliable source may be removed, and those about a living person must be removed.  As noted, Wikioedia is not the same as Ancestry.com.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Stop. Removing. Sourced. Material.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

(od_ I have removed no properly sourced material per WP:RS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's one thing to remove unsourced information about a person; it's another again to challenge dry, neutral genealogy data because you think commercial genealogy sites are unreliable. Note, however, that outside BLPs even unsourced material removed should actually deserve a challenge - there should be some legitimate iota of suspicion it is untrue, not just an editor's desire to delete all unsourced data.  As said above, the citation needed tag exists for a reason. Wnt (talk) 09:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at this and related pages, my main concern is, how do you define a "family"? It seems like these could and indeed have become rather open-ended.  My guess (not sure if I'm right) is that you should choose a specific notable historical figure, and include anyone descended from that person, and no one else, i.e. Descendants of so-and-so.  Such genealogy articles then are essentially subtopics of articles about specific historical individuals.  Articles about earlier historical figures can then be assembled (WP:summary style) from articles about their more recent descendants.  Note that the actual last name used by any of these descendants would be irrelevant. Wnt (talk) 08:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is great! The TALK is more interesting than the ARTICLE.!. Truly, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Article benefits from current politics and reader interest. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

OR and SYNTH
The claim that a Romney is a Pratt and therefore the Pratt family is intrinsically connected to the Romney family is absurd OR and SYNTH, and requires an actual, genuine WP:RS reliable source. Amazingly enough, I am "related" to at least severl thousand families  and I would suggest that anyone writing an article on my "genealogy" with such a weak argument would not get very far at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Because George adopted a paternal surname, not a maternal one? Seems sexist. (Sorta like saying Felipe Calderón is a Calderón but not a Calderón Hinojosa.)--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I've located another source and will append it to the article."Brian Lamb - I found the name Pratt in your background[...]. Mitt Romney - [...] Yes. [...] And as a matter of fact, my grandmother was a Pratt.  ---C-SPAN's Q&A, March 19, 2006 (video)"--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And how does that affect the claim as it was stated? Recall that the cite must support the stated claim, not just "well there are Pratts here somewhere." Collect (talk) 01:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the Pratt fam isn't "here somewhere" (vaguely defined) but specified as George's maternal line. In fact, a google search of news sources turn up dozens of hits for "parley," "pratt," "romney." Here's ten I picked out at random:
 * (from 2 days ago) Nat'l Review
 * (from 2 days ago) George Mason Univ
 * AP
 * CNN
 * FOX
 * LA Times
 * Time
 * Boston Globe
 * NPR
 * SLC Tribune
 * Google Books produces 810 hits. Google Scholar even produces 180.
 * --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 04:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Curiously enough, the fact that an article has "pratt" and "romney" in it does not make it a valid source for genealogical claims. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed a family narrative beats bare vital stats. Namely, this:""--is much better than this:""Nonetheless, both are sourced, encyclopedic material.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 11:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

(od) You should check the RS/N board -- a "masters thesis" is not a reliable source. NEHGS is likely "reliable enough" even though articles are not "fact-checked" and older editions are notorious for "bad genealogy" in a few cases. Collect (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The objections there are overwrought and not a firm consensus. I mean, some guy points out his thesis is "horribly out of date" as if that impeaches a RS.  What's clear is that a thesis with "scholarly influence", a mysterious phrase which I would interpret to mean "has been passed by the committee and therefore has been through peer review/editorial process", is acceptable. Wnt (talk) 13:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Might you show me any example at all where RS/N deemed a "masters thesis" to meet WP:RS?  O found none - and I suggest that such is unlikely to meet WP:RS as such.   And note that I made no charge that the thesis is "horribly out of date" so that is an extraordinary example of a straw man argument here.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

See, , , and so on. BTW, "scholarly influence" appears to have a Wikipedia usage of "being cited by scholarly journals" and not that the writer was influenced by any scholar . And also where Hirotoshi Takeda in his doctoral dissertation examines "‘Scholarly influence’ is broken down into ‘ideational influence’ or the influence that one has through publication and the uptake of the ideas presented in the publication, and ‘social influence’ or the influence that one has through working with other researchers." A thesis not cited by other scholars has no "scholarly influence" by such a definition. Collect (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * [Comment I'm shoehorning in, after the fact]: The master thesis merely states in that quote that Helaman (down in the Mexican capitol at the time) ponied up the cash on behalf of the Church for what would become the Colonia Juarez settlement. If there is something controversial about that, and this was the source for something stated in the article, then an additional source could be requested to be found. But doctoral dissertations are used as sources all the time. (I note one below the WP article for the Reed Smoot hearings.) Do you find the Helaman assertion, above, problematic, Collect? Btw, here is the webpage of the LDS Church on the history of Mormons in Mexico. (The church is a reliable source about itself.)"In 1876, Helaman Pratt and Meliton Trejo, a Spanish convert, traveled to Hermosillo, Sonora, where they baptized the first five members in Mexico. In 1885, a group of nearly 400 colonists from Utah arrived at the northern Mexico Casas Grandes River and acquired property. Mexico's first stake (similar to a diocese) was created in Colonia Juárez in 1895. By 1912, more than 4,000 members had settled in Chihuahua and Sonora.  When Rey L. Pratt returned to central Mexico in November of 1917, he found the members had remained faithful in difficult living circumstances."--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The discussions didn't come to a conclusion; they were both vague and, usually, quite general. Statements include "it depends what you're using it for".  Here, this is not rocket science, it's looking up old public records.  I doubt anyone had a reason to distort the truth one way or the other, and these people are descended from somebody.  Why not assume that the thesis gives accurate data? Wnt (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Um -- I do not find anything in WP:RS saying "RS does not apply except for articles on rocket science."    Wikipedia remains Wikipedia policy even when folks assert that they know the truth on a topic.  On genealogy try reading such essays as, and its example of One family website consists exclusively of data scanned in from one source - a book which was long ago derided by professional genealogists as badly flawed. No mention is made of the fact that the source for all of the information contained therein was one book - and certainly no mention is made of the fact that the various "Revolutionary War Soldiers" have been erroneously given service records. ...  It is vitally important for all who know something about genealogical research to continue to unpopularly rail against the overwhelming tide of poor or dishonest research and to continue to attempt to reach and teach those who will listen.  (Barbara A. Brown).   Collect (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources do seem to highlight that family connection. Does this help establish the link, for example? "Pratt's descendants include former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. The former Massachusetts governor is Pratt's great-great-grandson."; "Orson, in his own handwriting, kept meticulous genealogical records of the Pratt family, a record that has been donated to the church. Before his death, Orson founded the Jared Pratt Family Association, charging his descendants to keep track of one another. Those descendants include Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman, two U.S. presidential contenders.". The genealogy of Mitt son of George son of Gaskell, who married Anna Amelia Pratt is surely not in dispute and can be easily established in reliable sources, e.g. see p310 of Biographical directory of the United States executive branch, 1774-1989. There is nothing dishonest or underhand here. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * When user Collect engaged in the pointy prank of the removal of entries for Mitt, George, Lenore, Ann, et al, from the Romney family article's list, he simultaneously deleted a citation that was attached to both of the entries for Mitt and George referencing an AP story that had been hosted on the Fox News website. The AP story goes as follows:"Gaskell Romney, Mitt Romney's grandfather, was not a polygamist. He married Anna Amelia Pratt, the daughter of polygamists and the granddaughter of Parley P. Pratt, the apostle with 12 wives. Their marriage took place Feb. 20, 1895, in Dublan, Mexico. Gaskell Romney had moved to Mexico with his parents in 1884 amid the proliferation of U.S. laws prohibiting 'unlawful cohabitation.' Anna Pratt was born in Utah but had emigrated to Mexico and lived in one of nine colonies established by the church over the border. Gaskell Romney and Anna Pratt had seven children, including George Wilcken Romney, the former Michigan governor. He lived with his parents in Mexico until 1912, when the family returned to the United States.  George Romney married Lenore LaFount, who does not appear to have polygamy in her family tree. The couple, now deceased, had four children, including Mitt Romney."If Collect has a source calling into doubt that Helaman-Pratt-daughter Anna begat George R., he should bring it to the fore (and we'll inform celebrated genealogist Gary Boyd Roberts, who henceforth can asterisk the same!).--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed material without anything remotely approaching a reliable source for the claims made. That you wish to have them in a Wikipedia article seems rather to indicate that yo are unfamilar with Wikipedia policies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's your claim.... (And you're sticking with it, I see!... '~) <--that's a wink --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 00:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your posts are disruptive. You seem to forget why WP:RS exists, and to regard RS/N as meaningless since it did not back your assertions.  Cheers.  Collect (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that you characterize my talking about your removing of sourced content as my being disruptive. Unfortunately, this is not the forum for that, but only for improving the Romney family article. If you would be so kind, I would request you to strike your statement from this particular talk page as being out of place. (As a favor to me--as I cannot require that you do so.)--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The only thing I "characterize" is that WP:RS says that claims not backed by a reliable source can be removed, and WP:BLP states more strongly that material not backed by a reliable source should be removed.  I trust this is more than adequately clear. Collect (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec, believe it or not) Even for BLPs WP:RS only requires sourcing of contentious material - not every statement. It follows that "substandard" sourcing of facts which have no particular reason to be in dispute should be OK also.  Now, if someone here was trying to prove someone was in the line of male descent from Moses or Adam Weishaupt, maybe it would be time to really rake those sources over the coals.  But this is just a list of people being lined up for mild curiosity's sake - I don't see any such political issue involved, no difficult derivation that could be easily fouled up, just a lot of data piled up in a corner. Wnt (talk) 01:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hodgdon, I would avoid trying to use a masters thesis as a source. (Doctoral maybe, doctoral later turned into a book for sure.)  Collect, NEHGS has been accepted as a reliable source in BLPs that were up for FAC, so you have no reason to object to it here.  And Collect, why do you object to an AP story about a person's ancestors?  That seems like a reliable source to me.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I noted NEHGS was likely RS - but it can only be used for what the articles in it say. As is true of the AP story.   When a half-dozen "facts" about a person are sourced to something which does ''not' list those facts, only the facts in the source are actually "sourced."  Right?

family tree formatting
I am not extremely well versed in the best way to format family trees, but there must be a better way than nested unordered lists. Any recommendations ? --RichardMills65 (talk) 07:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There's often a tree diagram, such as in the Kennedy family article. This article had one too, see this past version, until it fell victim to an ongoing edit dispute.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Its main failure was that it was entirely OR and SYNTH and lacked sourcing. For some odd reason, claims made without sources are not good. Collect (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Cmt - Genealogies are obviously covered on WP (it's not the encyclopedia of all notable information except notable genealogies, but simply the encyclopedia of all notable information). Once a notable genealogy passes the threshold of having an article dedicated to its subject and its attendant relationships have been sourced, its pedigree, if you will, or relationship tree can be rendered in chart form--yetn such charts need not duplicate the sourcing already contained in the article. As for my impression of user Collect's position (see rmvl of George, Lenore, et al DIFF; rmvl of Parley, Orson, et al DIFF; &c &c) it seems to follow a program of deleting very uncontroversial info about very famous members of the Pratts and Romneys instead of fact tagging the same. Is this terrible? Probably not. The information can simply be reinserted by an interested party with any weaknesses in its sourcing having been addressed (or, indeed, fact tagged, I suppose).--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia policies are clear. If you do not like them, propose changes to them.  Making personal commnets attacking any editir,however, impresses no one.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Where did I attack you? I simply pointed out your edits to the article, which should be able to stand on their own merits w/o any um wp:WHINING kvetching.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If the tree diagram is put back now, but modified to include only those people currently in this article, would that satisfy your interpretations of guidelines and policies? Wasted Time R (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If and only if the "tree" includes no one not specifically linked by reliable sources directly to the people linked in the "tree" and conforms to all the rules about genealogical research otherwise - I would note that Wikipedia in generally does not like "genealogical research" in articles, as there is so much online which "just ain't so" as a rule. The temptation to say we only need a source that the person "exists" to place them in this article, and then to append unsourced material about them is contrary to Wikipedia policy, and, in the case of living people, contrary to WP:BLP ab initio.   Too many times I have looked at the "source" and found that it "mentions" existence" of a person, but does not include anything else which has been claimed.    Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * User Collect said, "Wikipedia policies are clear." Yes, and I would remind user Collect that any argument that cannot be backed up by the guidelines is equivalent to wp:DONTLIKEIT; hence the user's argument is "**I** generally don't like...." and, in point of fact, Wikipedia itself does not have a dislike for any kind of notable information being included in the encyclopedia. That said, oftentimes genealogical information is better placed in its own article, if notable. Eg, in this editor's humble opinion, Martin_Van_Buren is about the right amount of such detail for a blp whereas Theodore_Roosevelt is a bit much and should be split off into a daughter article. All that said, there are few editors currently interested in the topic of the extended Romneys or Pratts and the indefatigable aforementioned ed. dislikes the subject (although having no current interest w/rgd ao any other article within e/g the article List of United States political families or cat Category:Political_families_of_the_United_States) so that's the way things are going right now. --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The h you say .... Wikipedia polices, especially WP:BLP are not playthings - they are "da rulez."   And I think you well ought to recognize this.  It is not a matter of "not liking" information, it is a matter of following strong Wikipedia polices, such as requiring SOURCES for CLAIMS.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Kudos for this edit fleshing out some of the members of the youngest (adult) generation btw. (Note that this longtime reference to the Business Insider piece provides some further sourcing for one of the member's of the newest generation's profession.) W rgd to your comment above, Which of my edits to the list article have you found problematic? Perhaps reference them in specific. Say, this one, where I restored list entries for Ann and Lenore you'd deleted? I apologize for the tone I've taken on the talkpage w rgd to such deletions. Yeah, my automatic reaction to such a deletion including this pair of list entries pertaining to the former first ladies of Mass. and Mich., respectively, with the DONTLIKEIT edit summary of "Wikipedia is not the place for genealogical research" is that it comes across as sorta, I don't know, pusillanimous. That is: seems a wussy thing to do to approach a subject on WP one finds minimally notability via such deletions instead of an article talkpage ping or a straight-up AfD. But for me to give such an impression voice (per "wp:DUCK" or whatever) is indeed in vio of wp:AGF so yeah, I apologize for that. IAC from now I'll try to avoid such personal attacks, since that's how you seem to take my airing of this sense or feeling about such edits. IAC, for 6 1/2 years eds. with knowledge about the topic have seen fit to include entries for these two notable ladies with the last name of Romney who have blue-linked wikibios about them; yet, according to wp:EDIT, any editor, no matter what level of sophistication or competence within an area being covered can float by and edit, going by whatever sources are currently on the page. Granted. Yet notice in particular the section on this most basic of guideline pages that references what to do with information such an editor might feel unsure about. If one endeavors to follow such basic editing principles in good faith then such errors of judgment as the one cited are understandable as long as they aren't continually repeated. OK? Truce?  (Btw, you may have missed it, but the time of your deletion, for example, the state of the article was such that the very first reference in the lede contained this source):" “ ...Lenore Romney, ran for U.S. Senate in Michigan in 1970.... ” ---Business Insider"--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Collect that you do not have a consensus for adding this diagram. I also think the diagram is unnecessary - the article is already incredibly cluttered with a mixture of prose and diagrams. Adding one more doesn't help.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

findagrave is not an RS source
Per multiple discussions at WP:RS/N including


 * consensus was that Find a Grave was not a reliable source and this has not changed
 * basically "Find a Grave" makes us look bad - and at any opportunity it should be replaced post haste. reference Wiki to Wiki is not a good idea ever. Anyone can edit Find a Grave like Wikipedia and use its as a source

Gist is that I highly recommend removal of any claims based on that Wiki. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The o.p. is correct: the primary source of a photo of Geo. R.'s mother's 1926 gravestone is, indeed, hosted at the self-published source Find a Grave. Since the discussion on this article's talkpage seems to enjoy few visitors,  I've posted an inquiry about the utility of this source at the RS Noticeboard.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Findagrave.com is a Wiki and expressly not allowed as a source. Find one which meets Wikipedia policy please. Collect (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


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


 * There are some good biographies of George Romney that make mention of his mother. I would reccomend looking these up for additional sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Procedural note - The talkpage is to discuss appropriate content by citing guidelines. Merely stating "No consensus" w/o citing any guidelines is akin to deleting w/o comment (the point in the essay Wikipedia:Don't revert due SOLELY to "no consensus").--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Editing is, by its nature, the determining of what belongs and what does not belong in an article. See WP:CONSENSUS if the concept seems odd. Wikipedia is not a repository of every factoid findable under the sun. Where there is a dispute, it is up to the person trying to ADD the new material to obtain a consensus for the addition (WP:BRD). I trust this answers your questions. Collect (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, editing is, by its nature, the determining of what belongs and what does not belong in an article. (See wp:EDIT. Thus to use, "no consensus" as a deletion rationale is simply to waste bandwith and the energy of pressing fingers to keyboard bcs one's very act of deletion establishes that the one making the deletion doesn't agree w the material in question's inclusion. Ie 'tis better to say why not. Which is a better practice, innit? Cheerio luv, as they say in Gr. Br. (or I suppose in the States, at the breakfast table).--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Jared Pratt Family Assoc. website
"'For Parley P. Pratt, see now Terryl Givens and Matthew J. Grow, Parley P. Pratt: the Apostle Paul of Mormonism (NY: Oxford University Press, 2011); also Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, 571; Reva Stanley, The Archer of Paradise (Caldwell, ID: the Caxton Printers, 1937); Peter L. Crawley, ed., The Essential Parley P. Pratt. Classics in Mormon Thought, 1 (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1990). For Pratt’s family, “Parley P. Pratt His Twelve Wives,” in Carter, Our Pioneer Heritage 17:205-52; and the superb Jared Pratt Family Association website, at http://jared.pratt-family.org/ (accessed Jan. 18, 2012).'--- TODD COMPTON (link)"--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 18:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Discussed and dismissed as a private genealogical association of some sort. Collect (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Collect has offhandedly dismissed this source. Wikipedia as a whole never has and continues not to.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Read WP:NPA please. The private family association is an SPS for material about the private family genealogy.  Has been so. Remains so.   As to why it is somehow important to have such genealogical trivia in BLPs - that is beyond my ken.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Then I stand corrected: User:Collect now does not dismiss the Pratt Family Assoc. as a reliable source for non-controversial assertions about Pratt-related familial relationships/dates; thanks. Yes, of course, for such basic relationships as those among George Romney; his mother, Anna Pratt Romney; grandfather, Helaman Pratt; and great-grandfather, Parley Pratt; and such family members' birth and death dates, the venerable Pratt family association (founded by the professor Orson Pratt, who founded of Utah's genealogical work in the 19th century) is a reliable source. Likewise, self-published documentary information by the Bush family about the relationships among Jeb, Dubya, Poppy, Barbara, and Prescott, and these indiv.'s birth and death dates, would be considered reliable. Or self-published, non-controversial information about the relationship between Sir John Gielgud and Dame Ellen Terry from the Terry family.  (Admittedly, whether Wiki articles should exist for whatever family is a question best determined in such forums as RfD's: some families being more notable than others.)  --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

What remains true is that genealogical trivia is not encyclopedic, and using an SPS source for it does not mean that it is reliably sourced per WP:SPS. Cheers. BTW, you do not need to mention me by name in every post as though I were a bogey of some sort. Really. Collect (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Alas, said "trivia" is but a strawman. What was and is being sourced to the Pratt Family Assoc. in reality is such completely non-controversial assertions as the one, for example, that 1876 and 1926 are the birth and death dates, respectively, for Anna Pratt Romney and that Anna, George R's mother, was a granddauther of Parley Pratt.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOT please before making such silly aspersions on an editor who believes that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia and not a trivia compendium .  And I would note that being a "cousin" of a notable person is not a particular claim for notability of the "cousin" at all.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * On the Bush family talkpage user:Collect extolls hi/r long experience dealing with the intricacies of copyright law as it applies to the internet. Be what credentials/credentialism as they/it may/may not be exist/be applicable ...the current thread isn't about that--or even about which individuals, as belonging to the Pratt-Romney families, are/are not of especial note and why/why not. Rather, the thread is specifically about whether the Pratt Famlly Assoc. is a reliable source for non-contorversial assertions about notable family relationships/these relationships' constituent members' most basic vital stats. So, any argument(-by-mere-sloganeering) tangential to these closely aligned questions is but a distraction-- especially to the extent that whatever catch phrase as being bandied about cannot be grounded within many any verifiable assertions of alleged fact. (As an example of a possible specific arguement, if tangential, that could be put forth, it could be argued that Helaman Pratt's relationship to George Romney is insufficiently notable to be included in either the Pratt family or Romney family articles. Btw, in anticipation of such a contention, I've just added the following to the H's Wikibio's tkpg: ) --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Todd Compton
wp:SELFPUB: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Todd Compton is an award-winning scholar in the relevant field, hence his self-published monograph of the Romney family should be considered reliable esp. for non-controversial assertions.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note - I've also posted an inquiry at the RS noticeboard (ie here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Todd Compton's self-published paper on the Romney family).--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The bulletin bd discussion linked to abv is now archived but just wanna point out (re user:Collect's apparent opinion along the lines that the Mormon History Assoc. nor its awards are of much importance w/i the field of LDS studies) that today's NYT has a piece about scholarship among the LDS. A quote: " ... increasingly, Mormon studies isn’t just about history. The Mormon History Association’s annual meeting, [this year's] held in Calgary, Alberta, over the weekend, featured presentations by scholars trained in sociology, philosophy and gender studies, as well as plenty of amateur scholars, who have long played an important role in the field, often at a risk to their own standing within the [LDS] church. /grf/ The development of Mormon studies in some respects mirrors the academic study of other minority groups, which has typically begun with creating a basic account of their history and then moved toward theoretical approaches that bring the subculture into conversation with the bigger picture. /pgf/ The latest scholarship builds on the so-called New Mormon history pioneered in the 1960s and ’70s, ...." LINK--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Purported direct descent from painter
This article falsely claims the US Romneys enjoy direct descent from George Romney the painter. However"surer ground is reached with the arrival of George Rumley in Funness. In 1702 he married Jane burrow at Dalton Parish Church. Jane bore her husband four sons: John born at Millwood in 1703.... Of these John was the painter's father. Grandfather George was buried as from dalton in 1738 and his widow as 'Widow Rumley' in 1741. ..."Thus, while awaiting extracts from the parish registers of Dalton, we have every reason to conclude that all Rumleys, Rumneys or Romneys in that parish were descended from George Rumley and Jane Barrow, married in 1702. Their son Thomas, born 1709, is in all probability the great-grandfather of Miles Romney. A guide for genealogical research, ARCHIBALD FOWLER BENNETT, Genealogical Society of the CoJCoLDS, 1951, p154 --per the source I blockquoted above and other sources, the painter George Romney's grandfather was the great-grandfather (through his son Thomas Romney, 1709-1776) of Miles Romney.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Which is of precisely how much encyclopedic value in the WP:BLP at hand? Collect (talk) 00:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

One reason the family relation to George Romney, the painter, would be mentioned in a history of this Romney family is as a marker of the family's social class in England. Relations of this sort are of great importance in many societies. Although this Wikipedia article is not necessarily of sufficient length or of sufficient coverage to mention this relation, the connection is mentioned in many sources as being of importance to understanding the history of the family. (See Life Story of Miles Park Romney, others.)

Furthermore, certain media sources, as alluded to above, get the fact wrong and state that the painter is Miles Romney's grandfather, and that is another reason to state the actual relation in this article. When a story is repeatedly incorrectly told, it is useful to have the correct facts available at hand.

The correct place to very briefly mention the relation, if it is mentioned, may be in the short paragraph about Miles Romney in the section "Family members."

By the way, is the scope of this article limited clearly enough to the branch of the Romney family that emigrated from England in the 1840s? KHearts (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Mark Twain said he, himself, was descended from Adam. It is not given in his article genealogy . Seriously, a "non-fact" should not be presented in any BLP when no one gives a dang about the factoid." Heck, if Pratt had 200 wives, it would still be utterly unimportant here. Cheers. @WT - unless a specific Romney made the claim, what does Kranish have to do with it?  No one says he was not a cousin of some sort - but is it of any actual importance'' to the article at hand?  Collect (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The reason the area English papers got it confused is the fact that Thos. Romney's son was named Geo. Romney and his grandson was Geo. Romney Jun., and his great-grandson was Miles Romney. So they mistake Thos.'s son George Romney for Thos.'s nephew, Geo. Romney, the painter. I'll link to the prof. genealogist Archie Bennett's tome], where all of this info is contained, and include the relationship to the painter at this article's entry for Miles, as suggested above.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Has it occurred to you that the entire genealogical trivia stuff on the painter etc. is not encyclopedic in this article at all?   Collect (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Per the wp:RSes, it is notable.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The BBC:"The Romney name still resonates in the town [Dalton-in-Furness], thanks to George Romney, a first cousin of Miles' grandfather, who was one of Britain's leading portrait painters in the 18th Century, a rival to Joshua Reynolds. A primary school is named after him, and two streets also bear the Romney name - Romney Park and Romney Avenue. His prestige would have rubbed off on the whole family, Walton says. 'Anyone living in the town with the name Romney would have been respected.'"--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Romney family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081212055830/http://www.familysearch.org/eng/default.asp to http://www.familysearch.org/eng/default.asp
 * Added tag to http://www.cougarclub.com/hall_of_fame/romney_e.jsp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)