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)

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)

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)

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)