Talk:Rick Santorum

traditionalist Catholic

Is there a single citation for Santorum being a traditionalist Catholic? I've yet to find a single source labeling him as such. I won't remove the categories but this seems iffy. Traditionalist Catholic is not synonymous for conservative Catholic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GBVrallyCI (talk • contribs) 15:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Politicisation

The cornerstone of Santorum's current legislative agenda is the politicization of the Charity, Aid, Recover and Empowerment (CARE) Act.

The above along with the rest of the paragraph doesn't actually describe what it means by him wanting to politicise it. Later on, it's clear he doesn't like the act but what he wants to do with it is never made clear. Does it just mean he wants to make it a political topic in hope it will eventually be repealled or substantially modified? Of course Santorum is going so whatever his intentions, it doesn't matter I guess but it still should be clear Nil Einne

Irrelevant issues?

Regarding the section "Declaration Regarding WMD in Iraq". The section is about the senator's declarations specifically, so the information regarding the very general facts of the situation are out of place. Not only that, but they strike a deliberate dischord with the facts recorded directly regarding what he said.
I dislike that frothy fuck as much as the next guy, so I'm not going to pretense complete objectivity. But I'll acknowledge that the entire section stands as a pretty strong negative towards his credit as a competant and well-intentioned senator--he is a controvercial figure in a controvercial time. So framing is the real problem for NPOV, and so the seemingly irrelevant information regarding the broader picture does serve some relevance.
So the question is, should this article be about Santorum or the controversy surrounding him? If the controversy, then the uncited crap following the story should be reworded and cited. spetz:68.44.192.170 19:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The section probably shouldn't even be there, and it looks like a sanitized, overly wordy compromise that places too much credence to a small event. Patstuart^talk|edits 02:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"Knight of Malta?"

In the categories section of this page, it has Rick Santorum listed as a Knight of Malta. In the article, it said nothing about it so I will assume that he was not, and delete this.--Freiberg, Let's talk!, contribs 00:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Except that, according to this newsletter (PDF) from the American Association of the Order of Malta (see page 8, or the Google cached version), he is. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 00:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

My sincere apologies. I had just been vandal-fighting (this was clearly vandalism0, and I wasn't thinking right. I also thought that if he was a Knight of Malta, it would have been listed in the article. It won't happen again. --Freiberg, Let's talk!, contribs 23:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of "santorum" term

As has been discussed ad nauseum (see archives for illumination on the topic), this term has been shown not to have gained currency, other than links to it by those who chose to mock Rick Santorum. This is hardly encyclopedic. Just because a well-known person calls another well-known person a name in a political attack, and the call is taken up by bloggers, doesn't mean it needs to be put into an encyclopedia article. This appears to me to be a violation of Wikipedia:Coatrack. It is not appropriate to have linked to Rick Santorum's biography.

The following should be removed from the article:

In addition to the criticism of Santorum's views on homosexuality, there was an effort, led by American humorist and columnist Dan Savage, to coin "santorum" as a sexual slang word in English. [59] Since its initial appearance in 2003 in Savage's column Savage Love, this word has been used in its slang sense, but its currency and status as a neologism is unclear.

For those who want to find it, the separate article can be found by those who want to look it up in Santorum controversy.

DavidBailey (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Is DavidBailey the user who has been vigilantly deleting this material from the article non-stop for the past year? I commend him on the time commitment, which I imagine must be enormous . . . not to mention his Latin (by "ad nauseum" I think he means "ad nauseam") Mardiste (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be bizarre for Rick Santorum not to mention the term that was named after him. The term remains notable, so it remains relevant. Spotfixer (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Placing slurs into BLPs is not a good thing in general. Collect (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you actually know what a slur is. Spotfixer (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

All those objecting to this edit then must find it incumbent upon themselves to argue for the deletion of Santorum (sexual neologism). AnyPerson (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Why? - Schrandit (talk) 02:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If it's a slur to mention it in the Rick Santorum article, then it's obviously not an acceptable article. If it's an acceptable article, then it can't be a slur to mention it in the Rick Santorum article. AnyPerson (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Right. So long as the article for the term exists, the article for the person it's named after must link to it, else it would be an orphan. Spotfixer (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The slur wetback merits an article and yet it does not merit mention in the pages of those it describes. Why can't the slur about Mr. Santorum be the same way? - Schrandit (talk) 03:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Because the slur was created in order to denigrate one specific person. The article about that person should mention it. AnyPerson (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I'm headed off to disambiguate the obamanation article into the book and the term coined "in honor" of Barack Obama. Then I'm free to link to it from Barack Obama's article. As I understand this discussion, that's not only warranted but also quite necessary in order to have a thorough and fair encyclopedia. 68.104.176.42 (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The term wetback was created in order to denigrate one specific race. Does an article about that race need to mention it? - Schrandit (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This is comprehensively refuted below, but I'll add one more point: Theodore Roosevelt does indeed link to teddy bear, which makes sense because the latter are named for the former. This is precisely the relationship between the two religious Ricks and the Savage's coined terms. As all of your arguments have been trivially refuted, I suggest you either accept the presence of these terms or go file an RfC. Best of luck. Spotfixer (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, yes, it probably should. AnyPerson (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)

The term was named in honor of Rick, not about him. Nobody suggests that Rick is made of, emits, or is otherwise involved in santorum. (For that matter, nobody said Rick Warren practices saddlebacking or even directly endorses it). That's why your analogy is broken and therefore applies to neither Rick.

It also doesn't help that this is not a slur. Try using it in a sentence the way you would "wetback", presuming you'd use such a slur. Spotfixer (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Santorum now redirects to a disambiguation page. That "Santorum redirects here" templage should be removed.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the change that made it redirect to the dab; consensus has been for it to come here instead. Mike Christie (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me if I am mistaken but hasn't previous consensus held that the word "Santorum" should redirect here? - Schrandit (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. See Talk:Santorum. The change I made restored the consensus decision. Mike Christie (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope this is adding something new to the debate. The following article describes the popularity of the term in relation to Santorum's presence on the internet. The website dedicated to the santorum slur gets more hits than Santorum's own official site.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/08/rick-santorum-google-problem-dan-savage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.231.129.54 (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I was barely aware of Rick Santorum's existence until seeing a clip of the guy mention his "google problem", but I've heard the term "santorum" used many times. It should be mentioned in the first couple paragraphs that the term is based on his name. It has to be the most notable fact of his biography. 96.57.9.142 (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Rewording on Savage's coinage

A question about the recent re-wording -- there is a legitimate question as to whether the evidence cited for usage of "santorum" are bona fide evidence. I know this is controversial, so I thought I'd post here rather than edit, but I'd like to remove the assertion that the term has been used. Wiktionary has not found any reliable evidence of usage, for example. Mike Christie (talk) 01:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no question that the word has been used (I heard it on an episode of Veronica Mars!), the only question is how and how much it has been used, and the article makes that ambiguity clear by saying, "but its currency and status as a neologism is unclear." --Samuel Wantman 08:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we cite that episode? That would be very valuable. Mike Christie (talk) 09:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Any such citation should already have been added to Santorum (sexual slang). I am surprised it hasn't. I also don't see why the deleted words "occasionally" and "by writers in English" were deemed to violate NPOV. What POV do you think they were pushing, save perhaps a bias for clinical specificity? — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 10:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the use of the word has spread through the gay community around the world. I have no specific knowledge that it has or hasn't been used by speakers in any other language. I think it would be very difficult to determine that no writers of other languages had used the word, so I removed the phrase "by writers in English". The "occasionally" sounded to me like it was trying to downplay the success of Savage's efforts to get the word used with its new meaning, in other words, it sounded like it was implying "on rare occasions". As a member of the gay community, I suspect the opposite is true. It seems to be widely used for its new meaning because there was no other word and the new word was so politically juicy (so to speak). But, because of the nature of the new definition this is something that is very difficult to document. So rather than make any judgement about its currency, I thought it best to remove the "occasionally". As it reads now, it makes no assesment of how often it is used, which seems the most NPOV. -- Samuel Wantman 09:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, The Veronica Mars use is mentioned in the santorum article, as is a use from The Simpsons. --Samuel Wantman 09:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite the use of the word santorum in non-English languages? Difficulty of finding such citations should not obviate the need for them, and indeed might indicate that the word isn't used by non-English speakers. Remember that WP operates on the principle of verifiability, not truth. I'll re-instate the note that it is an English word now, as all the citations so far are in English. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 16:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason why the article does not spell out the slang definition of Santorum? I quickly scanned the talk pages and couldn't find a justification. Fireplace 01:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, WP:BLP. (In particular, WP:BLP#Critics.) The purported definition of the slang term is not essential to the notability of the subject (it has always been much more closely associated with Dan Savage than with Rick Santorum), and, by its very nature, any representation of the slang term amounts to denigration of the subject of this article. The term is presented in its proper context of a political protest in santorum. There have been other discussions in the past, but you will need to scan the history of various talk pages. (User:Mike Christie was a participant in most of them, so you might ask him to elaborate.) — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 16:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

As funny as it is, and perhaps few deserve to be mocked more than Santorum, there is a disambiguation for the word and the article on the sexual term gives an explanation to its origins (i.e. the political criticism of Santorum and Dan Savage). Belabouring the point in this article violates WP:BLP. Will the word live on? Will Rick Santorum always be tied to it (i.e. will his obituary mention it)? Who knows? WP:CRYSTAL applies here. Anything more is blatant POV. Freshacconci 14:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I just today looked for a wikipedia explanation of this term as I had heard it and wondered if there was any greater weight to it. It's only now that I saw the Dan Savage/actual senator connotation. My exposure to the term indicated neither of those elements. Either a disambiguation page should be very specific, or the point deserves to be addressed on this page. 208.75.98.1 (talk) 02:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Chris

Animal rights legislation

I have never heard of the animal rights bill that is mentioned in a newly added paragraph, but the language used by the editor who added it was strongly NPOV -- "unconstitutional", "burdened" and so on. I've removed everything that seemed biased, but the rest still needs sourcing as it has no sources at the moment. Some of what I removed could be put back with sources; some probably can't -- e.g. the bit about deliberately misleading other congressmen is unlikely to be sourceable. Mike Christie (talk) 04:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Mike, I added that. The Pet Animal Welfare Statue of 2005 (PAWS) was a bill that attempted to ammend the Animal Welfare Act. Their goal was to reverse the recent Federal court ruling (Doris Day Animal League vs Venemen, Anne 2003) upholding the USDA's position that retail sellers were not to be regulated -- with "retail sellers" referring to small or hobby breeders. Commercial breeders are already regulated fully by the USDA. In Santorum's own words: "PAWS will strengthen the authority of the Secretary to obtain injunctions to shut down dealers who fail to comply with the law." Many small or hobby breeders would have been reclassified as "dealers" under PAWS -- and yes, Santorum's statement and the text of the bill would have served to eliminate due process to which every citizen is entitled and contradicts the 4th amendment. The text of Santorum's statement read before Congress on 27 July 2005 and rebuttal response is located at: [www.ncraoa.com/alerts.html/SantorumRebuttal_July_27] Cindy Cooke's article Is PAWS Justified?: Examining the Claims delves into the topic in depth and explains fully the controversy. [1]

I was very involved in publicizing and taking action in the effort to defeat the PAWS bill. I met personally with Senator Russ Feingold, twice, who told me the bill was being promoted in Washington as "the puppy mill bill" - which was NOT at all true. Once he became aware of what the bill was really about, he withdrew his support.

Try, as we would, none of the national media outlets would cover this issue. Our grassroots effort mobilized thousands of pet owners, breeders and hunters, nationwide, who contacted their elected officials. Many - Democrats and Republicans, alike, worked to defeat Santorum in his re-election bid by volunteering for Casey - and sending him donations.--Crickette 20:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi -- thanks for the additional information. I think Santorum's support of the bill is probably noteworthy, but since the standard for Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, things like "puppy mill bill" are going to need some sort of reliable source. The same goes for the rest of the stuff I deleted -- I have no opinion about its accuracy, but it really does need a source.

Given your extensive involvement, do you have access to written sources that would be regarded as reliable? You say there was no national media coverage; was there some lower-profile coverage that could be used? Mike Christie (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have a folder full of data on this topic. Since it's been several months since this was current, I will revisit websites for sourcing and get back to you. Thanks.

Re: sourcing... I am new to this and haven't yet figured out all of the formatting, but did include three sources on the "articles" list, the last three items. I will see what else I can provide.--Crickette 20:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes! I have plenty of sourcing...

[2] The Cat Fanciers' Association, Inc., CFA Legislative Alert. Aug 17, 2005

[3] Virginia Hunting Dog Owners' Association, PAWS The Most Significant Animal Rightist, Anti-Hunting Legislative Attack Ever Launched, Jun 4, 2005

[4] PAWS anaylsis by Jeffrey P. Helsdon, www.tacomalawfirm.com -- Excellent!

[5] Tougher PAWS: Proposed law for breeders aims to close puppy mills by Linda Wilson Fuoco, Post-Gazette, Pittsburgh PA, Aug 7, 2005, a mis-leading article suggesting the bill is aimed at "puppy mills" - includes some Santorum comments. Typical of the type of coverage "news" media gave... always one-sided and always painted the opposition to the bill as being "puppy mills", which was NOT at all true!

[6] HSUS Q & A page suggests the purpose of the bill was to regulate "puppy mills".

[7] North Carolina Responsible Animal Owners' Alliance (NCRAOA), No PAWS, PAWS 2005 FAQ, Senate bill 1139/House bill 2669 This piece is another excellent write-up.

The Bob Kane article [8] gives a first hand account of what Santorum's sham of a hearing on the bill was... no one who really represented the opposition was allowed to speak and those in attendance who opposed, were kept away from the news media!

So, yes, animal owners, small and hobby breeders do have a negative view of the ex-Senator Santorum.--Crickette 21:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify... the proponents claims that the bill would regulate "puppy mills", which was an innaccuracy in itself. These groups HSUS, DDAL - have a goal to do away with pet ownership. (I can provide quotes.) Most states and localities already have laws in place against animal abuse and neglect. Local authorities handle these cases whenever they come forth. The proponents of PAWS and other similar type legislation initivites try to use an emotional argument against "puppy mills" to get their agenda passed into law - and always paint the opposition as being "puppy mills". It is an uphill battle.

Please forgive me if I am not following protocol... I'm trying to learn... and am very passionate about animals.--Crickette 21:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Some of these sound fine; some you'll probably have to use with a bit of caution. For example, the dog owners' group and the cat fanciers wouldn't really be expected to try to give a balanced view of the topic, since their goal is to represent the interests of their members. (I don't mean anything pejorative by that, just that they represent an interest group.) So they can be cited for what they show about those groups' opinions, but it might be trickier to cite them for whether or not the law actually would have been a violation of due process. That would have to come from an independent analysis. One assumes that there were arguments made that it was not a violation of due process either, so that should really be cited too, if you have any of the sources for that side of the dispute. Does that make sense? I really don't know anything about this particular issue, I'm just trying to help you add the information in a verifiable and NPOV way. I hope this is helpful. Mike Christie (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the above before your most recent note. No problem, I think we can make this a useful section. It is a bit risky editing articles you're passionate about; see WP:NPOV for the official Wikipedia policy on that, but it can be done, and it sounds like you have lots of great information to contribute. Just keep in mind that we're obliged to represent Santorum's point of view too (whatever we may think of him personally). It's got to avoid being advocacy, in other words; it has to document the issue in a way that a proponent of either side would find hard to disagree with. Please ask again, here or on my talk page, if I can help more. Mike Christie (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Given all that's been written about Santorum, having three ext links to articles about this one particular bill seems inappropriate to me. Although I agree in general with Mike Christie's comments about documenting both sides of the issue, that level of detail doesn't belong in the Santorum article. It would be better to have a separate article on PAWS (with suitably NPOV recounting of proponents' and opponents positions, as well as reporting on the facts of its introduction, any hearings, votes, etc.), and then link to that article from this one. JamesMLane t c 05:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Declaration regarding WMD in Iraq

This section incorrectly reads: "The specific weapons [Santorum] referred to were chemical munitions dating back to the Iran-Iraq War that were buried in the early 1990s." In fact, these munitions were actually found in various different locations in small numbers. Some were "improperly destroyed" (presumably excavated from pits where the Iraqis had attempted to destroy them in 1991). Rusted shells were also found abandoned along rapidly shifting Iran-Iraq battlefield lines. Some unmarked munitions had been misplaced in conventional storage bunkers -- many were completely empty. These five-hundred or so munitions were described as "inert" and incapable of being reconditioned during a June 2006 U.S. House Armed Services Committee hearing. David Kay was particularly scornful of Santorum's claims. [9] smb 11:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Against homosexuality?

The article says: "Santorum has said he is personally against abortion and has expressed disapproval of homosexuality, issues that he believes should be decided by elected officials rather than the Supreme Court."

I'm assuming the author meant that Santorum disapproves of gay marriage, rather than homosexuality, per se. Correct? Or does he want elected officials deciding people's sexual orientation for them?M. Frederick (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the section should changed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schrandit (talk • contribs) 15:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Santorum has made numerous other disparaging comments about LGBT people (homosexuals)outside of same sex marriage discussions. --DCX (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Santorum is the best candidate for 2012 too. All the more reason to ask why the heck his official website has to contain all this gay stuff about anal sex and froth on it now. I want my whole family (including my two kids!) to be able to look at his website SAFELY and find out what he stands for policy-wise. Not very classy, Mr. Santorum. I'm seriously disappointed. Mardiste (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, you just made my day. :D

Rebbing (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I have nothing against gay and lesbian people whatsoever. I just don't think Mr. Santorum's website should include all that graphic detail. It should have more about what he stands for politically and why he should be the nominee for the GOP. Mardiste (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Robert Traynham

I think it is inappropriate to include personal information about a former Santorum staffer on the page. I think the article's point can be made without this information. Obviously, this guy no longer works for the Senator, so I don't see how what he does in private remains relevant, except as a way to embarrass the staffer by trying to paint him as a hypocrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.30.103 (talk) 03:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If Santorum made public statements about the matter, it certainly is relevant to Santorum. Gamaliel (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Santorum made public statements about thousands of things, but not everything is noteworthy enough to go on his page. This is one of those things, and there is still no response about how this guy's personal life remains noteworthy enough to be included on a page about this ex-boss. Mr. Traynham is not a public figure, did nothing scandalous, didn't cause his boss's downfall and a brief look through the pages of other sitting and former Senators shows nothing about their former staffer's personal lives.

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "forbes%com" :
  • {{cite news|url=http://www.yorkdispatch.com/pennsylvania/ci_4404075|title=Casey Doubles Lead Over Santorum|author=Kimberly Hefling|publisher=[[York Dispatch]]|date=[[September 26]], [[2006]]}}
  • {{cite news|url=http://www.forbes.com/business/businesstech/feeds/ap/2006/09/25/ap3043325.html|title=Pa. Judge to Drop Candidate from Ballot|author=Martha Raffaele|publisher=[[Forbes]]|date=[[September 25]], [[2006]]}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Article length

At 85KB, this article is considerably longer than Wikipedia's style guidelines recommend, making it slow to load and edit for users with older Internet browsers. (Per Wikipedia:Article size, any article over 60KB should be split, unless it is on an extremely significant or wide-ranging topic, which is not the case for Rick Santorum.) It should either be cut down, or split up into multiple articles along the lines of Wikipedia:Summary style. I would suggest the former - there's a lot of trivial detail in this article related to his 2006 Senate race that just doesn't need to be here any more. If all that material is to be kept, it should be spun off from this article and merged into United States Senate election in Pennsylvania, 2006. Terraxos (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear. I'm all for editing, & wanna offer my help. But R.Santorum remains **Presidential** in political minds- as well as a controversial social figure. By the tone of numerous comments above, this article's still hot. Editing could be messy- a potential revert-war.

And the article should also respect the tag on the "Controversy" section that suggests to achieve NPOV that section should be considered extraneous and re-integrated with the main article. But- Would partisans let this happen? "Controversy" sections begin when partisans object to such material messing up glossy, POV articles.

Would anyone object to following the advice of these tags? Could anyone admit to objecting the tags? Maybe when the *USA* becomes a trifle less polarized with fast-buck politicians... when R.Santorum fades into a long law-practice &(Oh yeah-) the issue of neologisms gains the perspective of time- Maybe THEN I can feel comfortable working on the article objectively w/o interference from partisans. I feel yer so right tho'- & I say 'Thanks' to you for the well-observed suggestion of spinning-off to Pennsylvania Elections 2006. Our '2006 Election' section is 1/8 of the total length problem, and I forsee no criticism for doing just as you suggest there. Any more brilliant ideas for spin-offs? The article is rather well-written [mostly] so I am loathe to attempt to edit it; yet at this size I suggest it needs at_least 3 more such spin-offs. But where? Happy New Years, O Editors. 8-D Hilarleo (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problems removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Some of this material was copied from these URLs: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06286/729698-177.stm, http://www.postgazette.com/pg/06202/707588-177.stm, http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07103/777609-28.stm, http://www.yourpennhills.com/pennhillsprogress/article/santorum-campaign-no-county-tax-break http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07180/798038-85.stm and http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06300/733425-177.stm and introduced in these edits: [10] and [11]. Additional was introduced here, replicating these sources: http://www.slate.com/id/2277/ and http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06295/732138-192.stm.

Please note that citing a source is insufficient to allow extensive copying of material from sources per our non-free content guidelines. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of Dan Savage insult

To those in favor of keeping the mention of the Dan Savage insult of Santorum, are you OK with adding to the BLPs of certain liberals the monikers assigned to them by individuals like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin? Drrll (talk) 03:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If those monikers escape the orbits of those folks and gain wider usage, why not? "Slick Willie" is mentioned in Bill Clinton's article. Gamaliel (talk) 04:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I know that some of Limbaugh's monikers have appeared in reliable sources, including news sources. What criteria do you suggest be met as far as "wider usage"? Don't you think that explicitly laying out the definition of "santorum" within his BLP is a little over the top, especially since the term is wikilinked within the paragraph? Drrll (talk) 06:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

On BLPN I noted there were 207 news stories about this. That's a pretty good criteria. And if the guy's name is now a word, it's not over the top to define it. The reader will expect a definition. This isn't a family newspaper, so we should define it. Gamaliel (talk) 07:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll second Gamaliel, Wikipedia uses reliable sources to determine what's notable, and hundreds of reliable sources have discussed both Santorum's "Google problem" as well as "Slick Willie". Omission of the topic would be a significant disservice to readers. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Of the 207 results from Lexis-Nexis on "santorum" & "dan savage", many are non-reliable sources, sources that discuss Savage and Santorum without mentioning the coined term (the two of them do have a history with each other), as well as opinion pieces within reliable sources. You think that explicitly defining the term in a BLP fits in with the language of WP:BLP?:

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment...The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material.

Drrll (talk) 11:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Defining a term seems a pretty basic and fundamental piece of information that the reader would expect and defining something that's already being widely cited and discussed does not violate privacy, titillate, or create further harm. We have pictures of hardcore porn and Muhammad on Wikipedia, there's no need for us to be coy about uncomfortable words because we personally find them distasteful, and this distaste is not enough to invoke BLP to remove this material. Gamaliel (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I continue to be against inclusion. - Haymaker (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If a reader wants to know the specific definition, it's easy enough for them to use the wikilink in the same paragraph for the term. There are hardcore porn images and images of Muhammed on Wikipedia, yes, but they appear in articles that one would expect have such images. The consensus on WP:BLPN now appears to be strongly against including the specific definition. I plan on removing it again if the consensus there doesn't change. Drrll (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe you have accurately summarized the discussion on BLPN nor do I believe there is consensus there. Opinions appear to be split on the matter. I think you may have missed some of the more recent comments. Gamaliel (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's how I see it breaking down at the WP:BLPN as of now as far as inclusion of the definition here:

• Favors inclusion: Gamaliel (although you don't mention your support for inclusion of it there), Merrill Stubing
• Appears to favor inclusion: Will Beback
• Unstated/unclear: Mike Christie, Dezidor
• Opposes inclusion: Joe Decker, Anythingyouwant, SchmuckyTheCat (endorses Joe Decker's comments as neutral), Jonathanwallace, Drrll, Haymaker

Agree with that summary? Drrll (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd quibble with placing someone here or there, but they can clarify their positions if it comes to a !vote. At this point, I'd say this represents a roughly even split, not a consensus one way or the other. Also there are editors here who have not chimed in there and vice versa. Gamaliel (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Throw me in the "Opposes inclusion" camp. - Haymaker (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I will. Please register your opinion at WP:BLPN in the Rick Santorum entry. Thanks. Drrll (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard discussion

I have started a discussion at the BLP noticeboard about this article, santorum (sexual neologism), and santorum that editors here may wish to join. Mike Christie (talk – library) 10:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd say keep both separate, but obviously this article should have a disambiguation marker. There are some other Santorums in politics and people might not know the first name. And also people might accidentally click the senator when looking for the sexual slang term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.176.122.34 (talk) 02:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Lawmaking

Sen. Santorum hosted an episode of Today's Issues where he explains his views on lawmaking in contrast to Shariah law. In the March 24th episode [12] Santorum explains that it is the duty of Americans to change our laws to comport with God's law. Quote:

Jesus said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's" and that huge piece of wisdom has really set the course for western civilization where you have civil laws and have civil penalties - we exact justice in a civil fashion - and then we have higher laws, we have God's law. Now our civil laws are supposed to comport with God's laws but sometimes they don't, and so it is always the obligation of those, for example, the issue of abortion - the civil law does not comport with God's law, in my opinion and I think the opinion of many people in this country and it is our obligation to continue to try and change that law. We have to live under the civil law, we have to obey that law because it is the civil law but we need to continue to try to change it to make sure that these laws, the laws our country, comport.

Would you agree that this is an important enough political statement to warrant being on his Wikipedia page?--TheAlmightyGuru (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I fear that you are using OR to make a claim which is clearly not in the quote furnished. Collect (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Philadelphia Daily News, June 24, 2005.

I reverted an unexplained removal of content (including a reference). The removal left a paragraph that mentioned an opinion column but said nothing about the contents. My revert was again reverted with the comment that I should take it to the talk page, which I am happy to do. So, I see no reason to mention the opinion piece without context. Comments?Sjö (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The opinion had zero valid relevance to a BLP, in my opinion. There are thousands of columns with such opinions abot people - on all sides of every issue. Naked opinions are generally not used in BLPs unless they show specific relevance to the person and his biography. Cheers. Now let's see how relevant this specific opinion is to other editors. "I'd remind you this is the same Senate leader who recently likened Democrats fighting to save the filibuster to Nazis. Collect (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

As I see it, the paragraph is hardly notable, and as you say there are BLP issues. I won't mind if you remove the paragraph altogether. If the paragraph should remain, it makes sense that there is a reference, and a short summary of what was said. As I thought I made clear in my edit comment, the worst option is the version you restored where an opionion piece is mentioned, but the reader has no way of knowing what was said since there is no link. (By the way, "ultimata" is plural which is inappropriate since there never was even one.)Sjö (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Great - you gave two choices "this paragraph should be complete or not in the article at all" which I read as being in the plural. The intermediate position was the one I chose. I only had four years of Latin. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

List of political stances

The second paragraph is an editorial. The contributor who mentions homosexuality, intelligent design and Terry Schaivo - especially so early in the article - is making a subtle character attack. The article for citation #3 does not mention Terry Schaivo or homosexuality at all - the contributor simply threw them on his own authority. Since Santorum is running for President this article must be continually checked for opinion masquerading as fact - especially at the beginning.Ononuofk (talk) 00:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)209.212.5.67 (talk) 00:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

2012 cleanup

On May 26, a staffer close to the Santorum camp told CNN that Santorum will formally announce his candidacy on June 6, in the same town where his father worked in a coal mine. Santorum formally announced his run for the Republican presidential nomination on ABC's Good Morning America Monday, June 6, 2011.

As it stands, Santorum's father mined coal on ABC's Good Morning America... perhaps during the David Hartman era? This bit of promotional text needs revision, better sourcing, tense correction, and somebody to cleanup the shards of crystal ball. - Dravecky (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Intelligent design / creationism heading

A couple of editors are changing the 'Intelligent design' heading to creationism, the latest on the basis that it's a self-serving euphemism. The section itself describes the issue as "intelligent design", as does the main article on the 'Santorum amendment', as do reliable sources that discuss Santorum about the issue. Using "creationism" is unsourced POV within a BLP that belittle his position on the issue. Drrll (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

"Creationism" should be used as per the manual of style's preference for common English usage. "Intelligent design" is a euphemism designed to show creationism in a more favorable light. It's just another strain of creationism, no different than, say, Young Earth creationism. Our article on Intelligent design calls it creationism in the introduction. One of the key findings in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District was that, based on analysis of the positions and published writings of intelligent design was that it was essentially creationism and thus could not be taught in US science classes per the Establishment Clause. Gamaliel (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see your evidence that "creationism" is common English usage when "intelligent design" is discussed in reliable sources. The two terms, while certainly related, are hardly interchangeable, with "intelligent design" being a subset of creationism that differs significantly from Young Earth creationism or other forms of creationism. As far as the intelligent design article calling it creationism in the lead, that assertion is actually sourced to a non-reliable source from an old-school, Young Earth creationist (Henry M. Morris)! Drrll (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a BLP, I think it is OK to use the subject's language. At George W. Bush there is a "War on Terrorism" section. Intelligent design is pretty widely known these days anyway. –CWenger (^ • @) 02:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

His position in 2001 was pretty clearly Intelligent Design, not Creationism. Now we all know that anti-scientific crapola, whatever name is is called, is based on tremendous insecurity. "What if evolution is true? Then there is no God, and life is meaningless. This feeling hurts! I better make it go away by shoving my religion down the throats of other people's children." Nevertheless, ID was the last refuge of this feeling in public policy debates in 2001, and it was a viable policy idea at the time. Only later was ID was utterly destroyed in 2005 by Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, including the evidence of the Wedge Document and being definitively shown to be Creationism in disguise. Speciate (talk) 04:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Even in 2001 it was no secret that ID was creationism. Pennock's book, for example, was published in 1999, I think and the Wedge document was leaked in 1999. Not that anyone really thought that ID was not creationism...it was simply designed to skirt the line drawn by Edwards v. Aguillar. Guettarda (talk) 05:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

We're not trying to determine whether or not intelligent design is creationism. We're trying the determine what to call it in a BLP about a politician that supports the teaching of intelligent design. –CWenger (^ • @) 05:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Call it what he called it. It's not like he invented the term, like Tim Pawlenty just made up "Obamneycare" the other day. Intelligent Design has its own article, and is uncontroversial as a term; both sides use it without rancor. Calling it Creationism is unnecessary and faintly biased; it presumes to know what was in his head. The reader will not be fooled. Speciate (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

But he didn't call TTC ID. So we're not "calling it what he called it". We're picking our own header for the section. Now one can make arguments for calling the section "intelligent design", or "creationism" or "Discovery institute campaigns"...but "calling it what he called it" is only an option if we call the section "Intelligent design and teach the controversy" (although even that falls a little short). Guettarda (talk) 05:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I am well aware of that, CW. Not only did I read the entire thread, more importantly, I read the section being discussed. If you are concerned about "us[ing] the subject's language", why are you OK with calling Teach the Controversy "intelligent design". Just as ID was a campaign to bypass Edwards, TTC is a campaign to get around Kitzmiller. Calling TTC "intelligent design" is worse than calling ID "creationism" since that fact has been firmly established by a court ruling (and a large amount of peer-reviewed literature). Most people have stopped pretending that ID is not "creationism". But the standard DI line remains that TTC is not ID, that TTC is simply an analysis of evolution. So how is it unacceptable to call ID creationism, but acceptable to call TTC ID? It strikes me as utterly illogical. Guettarda (talk) 05:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not hard to find examples of Santorum using the term "intelligent design", e.g. [13], if that is the concern. –CWenger (^ • @) 05:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't ask that. I asked why you say that we should "use the subject's language", but then you completely contradict that, by calling TTC "intelligent design". Surely that's a simple enough question. Guettarda (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Using the subject's language is a good way to avoid bias in a BLP, particularly if it is a well-known term like "intelligent design". We could use "teach the controversy" instead but I'm not sure how familiar people are with that phrase. I was just showing that "intelligent design" is a viable option because the subject has used it extensively. –CWenger (^ • @) 16:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Ugh.

• Using the subject's language is a good way to avoid bias in a BLP particularly if it is a well-known term like "intelligent design"

  And yet, the section subsumes TTC under ID. Since the article doesn't do this, it's irrelevant. Had you read what I had written, you would have realised that.

• We could use "teach the controversy" instead but I'm not sure how familiar people are with that phrase

  No, we couldn't. Not if the plan was the "us[e] the subject's language", since TTC is supposedly not ID, just as IS is supposedly not creation science. Again, I already explained this.

• I was just showing that "intelligent design" is a viable option because the subject has used it extensively

  So now you're saying that "using the subject's language" is irrelevant? If that's the case, why not use creationism, since it is even more widely used?

So which is it? Are you saying that we should "us[e] the subject's language", or that we should ignore "the subject's language"? You are forcefully arguing both A and notA. Are you intentionally obtuse, or have you just not bothered to read what I have written? Guettarda (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand your complaint. My argument is that we should use the subject's language where it is commonly understood. Santorum has used both "intelligent design" ([[14]]) and "teach the controversy" ([15]), so we could use either or both. I support using "intelligent design" as it is more widely known. –CWenger (^ • @) 19:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, heavy use of "Teach the Controversy" postdates the Santorum Amendment. Speciate (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused about why we should "use the subject's language" in a section header. Quote him using his language in the article text? Sure. But I don't know why we should defer to the subject when naming a widely-discussed issue that he had relatively little involvement in. Gamaliel (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

If "Intelligent Design" is a subset of "Creationism", why not use "Intelligent Design Creationism" as the heading?189.233.95.90 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC).

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington criticism

What are people's thoughts on the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington criticism in the 'Legislation and issues' section? I think it should be removed because CREW is described by everybody as a liberal/Democratic group that almost always targets Republicans, and as such is questionable as a source for a WP:BLP. CREW criticizing a conservative is not really notable. Additionally, Santorum receives a lot of criticism, but this is the first time I've heard him called "corrupt". –CWenger (^ • @) 18:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that "corrupt" implies "violation of law" (bribery is against the law) which requires a far stronger source than a possibly partisan group can furnish. Collect (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Why no mention of his "Google problem" in the lede?

Probably the most noteworthy thing about this man is his "Google problem" (http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2011/06/america-right-huckabee-libertarian-evangelical-cruise/) . This should be mentioned in the lede - not doing so is biased against fact.189.233.95.90 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC).

I doubt that. He is a prominent conservative, former U.S. senator, and presidential candidate. His "Google problem" is pretty low on the notability list in my book. –CWenger (^ • @) 19:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It's borderline IMO. The lead section needs to be expanded anyway to summarize the whole article (see John McCain, a similar politician/pres. candidate). If it is expanded, some mention of the Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality may be warranted. But it is, indeed, very low on the notability list. —Designate (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

As long as it is somewhere in the article then there is no problem. Mention is made of his political positions in the lead. Reactions to his positions is handled in detail lower down. Speciate (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Outside the USA, Senators are not very noteworthy. Santorum + "google problem" gets 71,500 results. "Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott" and santorum gets 14,500 results. Currently the lede says "In March 2007, Santorum joined the law firm Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC. He was to primarily practice law in the firm’s Pittsburgh and Washington, D.C. offices, where he was to provide business and strategic counseling services to the firm's clients. In addition to his work with the firm," and nothing about his google problem. This seems wrong to me.189.233.95.90 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC).

It is also important in the lede, as it is widely cited in the media as a significant reason for his lack of electoral support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.233.95.90 (talk) 10:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Some reliable sources - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/06/opinion/main20069538.shtml

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/14/don-lemon-rick-santorum-gay-friends_n_876545.html http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/jon-stewart-makes-rick-santorum-187219 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/rick-santorum-google-problem-on-the-daily-show-13571274 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/20/wikipedia_and_santorum/ http://www.webpronews.com/rick-santorum-trending-on-google-thanks-to-jon-stewart-nsfw-2011-05 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.233.95.90 (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

In the lede -"He is known for his stances on the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Social Security, intelligent design, homosexuality, and the Terri Schiavo case."

This needs expanding- possibly at the expense of details of his legal practice, which does not seem notable enough for the lede. At the moment this sentence tells very little. It should at least say which he supports!93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)