Talk:Rick Santorum/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Euthanasia

Santorum to believe the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. It is not especially notable that he does so, and trying to make a big argument about it is simply going to reach UNDUE very rapidly. Collect (talk) 10:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

This edit amounts to WP:SYNTH and is thus a BLP violation. Please do not repeat it. And please be mindful of 3RR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Note that it now has separate and distinct sentences, and references that he is Catholic, and that the church opposes euthanasia, even though "Catholic" appears more than twenty times in the article. But it is reasonable for you to insist on citation overkill in a Captain Obvious situation. Oh hell -- you DELETED the citations! You are at 3RR by the way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Adding a cn request is not a revert… There was no citation for Santorum opposing euthanasia. It's disturbing that you don't see the WP:SYNTH problem here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a revert. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You think adding a cn request is a revert? Then I suggest you report me now to AN3, because I'll persist in adding that tag where necessary even if I've already had 3 reverts on an article in one day. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

From the deleted ref: "Sean Reilly, a former aide to Santorum in the Senate and now a political consultant in Philadelphia, said that he has come to view his former boss in other than political terms. Rick Santorum is a Catholic missionary, he said. That's what he is. He's a Catholic missionary who happens to be in the Senate." Capitalismojo (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Also from that deleted ref: "Several times he used the phrase culture of life, which for religious conservatives generally encompasses opposition to abortion, embryonic stem-cell research and euthanasia (but not always opposition to the death penalty, which Santorum supports)." Capitalismojo (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Collect's synthesis was obvious: S is a Catholic (reference), Catholics generally oppose euthanasia (reference), therefore S opposes euthanasia (no reference). "Culture of life" when S hasn't said in his own words that that term includes opposition to euthanasia does not mean there is a reference for his opposition to euthanasia. It is ridiculous that this apparently needs explaining. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Classic synthesis. WP:SYNTH says "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." Source A (and B and C and D) says he's a catholic A, and source B says catholic doctrine opposes Euthanasia B, but doesn't say anything about Santorum, and certainly not why he opposes Euthanasia - perhaps he has a different reason than "my church told me to oppose this." Hipocrite (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

And SYNTH involves linked catenation -- where there are three separate statements, SYNTH is not applicable. Each statement stands on its own and is sourced. No conclusion is made about the catenation of the sentences, thus no SYNTH is involved, unless you wish to declare every section of every article to be SYNTH because two or more sources are used in the section <g>. I personally find it risible that someone would defend the UNDUE section predecessor to this edit, and find this clear and simply sourced section to be "SYNTH" but apparently your mileage varies a great deal from what the Wikipedia definition of SYNTH is.

Virtually anything can be shoehorned into a broad reading of SYNTH, but the vast majority of it shouldn't be.[1] and Nothing is insinuated by the mere fact that these sentences are in the same paragraph.

Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The linked diff from Collect was certainly synthesis, and was rightly removed. I went further and removed the section under dispute, as it had no good source to support it. Binksternet (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Collect is further incorrect about what WP:SYNTH entails. In linking to a random essay, he ignores the policy itself, which states "Both parts of the sentence may be reliably sourced, but here they have been combined to imply that the [Santorum opposes Euthanasia because he's a Catholic]. If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research." I'm unsurprised that Collect misremembers policies to support his political whims. Hipocrite (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

And you get from "both parts of the (single) sentence" into extending it to three separate sentences how? Collect (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Collect, if you actually fail to see how this was WP:SYNTH, there might be difficulties for you in the future -- because if you add more material along these lines in the future I will propose at AN that you be topic-banned from BLPs. This is the second time in less than a month that you have been persistent in failing to conform to BLP (the other was that unsubstantiated allegation on BLPN that you refused to redact). Once again, the problem here is that there was no source for the assertion that Santorum opposes euthanasia. I think it's unlikely that you don't understand this and are simply being obstinate, but if I am wrong and you don't understand -- and then repeat the behaviour -- I'll take it as a sign of a larger problem. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

You object to the first sentence being "Santorum opposes euthanasia" and then in the next breath support "Santorum is strongly against euthanasia". Do you see precisely how strange this dichotomy is in your position? Cheers. `Collect (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Because the proposal came with a reference, unlike your edit. At Wikipedia, any material an editor wants to add must be supported by a reference. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Alternate text for section

Before Collect deleted most of the new Euthanasia section, it looked like this:

Euthanasia Santorum is strongly against euthanasia. This became especially clear during an interview on American Heartland in which he claimed that in The Netherlands half of all euthanizations are involuntary. The reason for this, according to Santorum, is that Dutch hospitals euthanize elderly patients for financial reasons. Santorum also claimed that 10% of all deaths in The Netherlands were the result of these involuntary euthanizations. According to journalist Glenn Kessler, writing for the The Washington Post, these claims are bogus.

A little more work produces this:

Euthanasia Santorum is strongly against euthanasia. In 2012 Santorum claimed that half of all euthanizations in The Netherlands are involuntary, because hospitals are euthanizing elderly patients for financial reasons. Santorum also claimed that 10% of all deaths in The Netherlands are the result of these involuntary euthanizations. According to both Washington Post journalist Glenn Kessler and to FactCheck.org, these claims are bogus. Santorum's comments caused a significant backlash in The Netherlands.

Are there any objections to inclusion of this material? The article currently says nothing about Santorum's stance on euthanasia. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. This gives UNDUE weight to a single speech by Santorum and an extensive rebuttal of points made in the single speech. It uses the word "claimed" which is a "word to avoid." It includes "according to Santorum" which is argumentation in Wikipedia's voice. The "backlash in the Netherlands" is opinion and not particularly relevant to a BLP. The extended use of opinion columns to make "points" in a BLP is problematic considering NPOV requirements, and the avoidance of any other sources making different claims. And the fact that Santorum believes in the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church is not all that amazing considering that it is well established in the article that he is, indeed, a Roman Catholic. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Adrian's proposed material looks reasonable to me. Taking Collect's concerns one by one:

• It's hard to credit the assertion that four sentences in a massive biography constitute undue weight—particularly since the incident in question was heavily covered by independent, reliable sources. (For context: we spend 4 sentences on a crap-sourced section on "Poverty").
• The word "claim" is generally to be avoided, but may be appropriate here in describing what was, after all, a false claim. (Note that the term is widely used in independent, reliable sources: Wall Street Journal, New York Times, NBC News, International Business Times, FactCheck.org, etc). That said, the word "claim", while justifiable here, is hardly essential and could be changed to "state" or some other such term if it will move the discussion along.
• The fact that a US politician's claims caused substantial and well-documented outrage in a foreign country seems to be reasonably relevant to that politician's biography.
• I don't see which "opinion columns" Collect is concerned about; the sources listed by Adrian, and by me above, are all news pieces rather than opinion columns. If there are equally high-quality news sources (again, not opinion pieces) defending Santorum's claim, then those could be mentioned as well, but as per the sources I've listed above the reception of Santorum's claims in high-quality reliable sources seems pretty uniform.

No comment on the "Catholic" issue, but for the rest, I don't see the BLP or undue-weight issues in writing 4 solidly-sourced sentences on this topic. MastCell ^Talk 17:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: The first sentence is not referenced. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Alright. So take out the first sentence. We're good now? MastCell ^Talk 00:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with MastCell, taking out the first sentence (unless/until it can be sourced) leaves a perfectly reasonable section to include in the article. I've gone ahead and added it into the article. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 01:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The IBT source supports the first sentence (Collect forgot to check). But the section is fine the way it is. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 03:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm new to this article, so give my opinion it's relative lack of weight. :) Based on my review of the sources, I would include the initial sentence and cite the ibitimes article as source for that. The wording looks otherwise good. I agree that it should be included, as it represents his views on the subject and seemed important enough to warrant news covereage and Dutch attention.-Lciaccio (talk) 00:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage

The section in this article called "same-sex marriage" should be renamed. It discusses Santorum's views on a number of issues, not only same-sex marriage. Perhaps the section should be merged with the "pornography" section to form a new "sexual issues" section? It does seem that the section is actually about sex, so why not identify it that way directly? ImprovingWiki (talk) 08:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

In response to Roscelese, who recently made this edit, I have to note that the section she has called "LGBT rights" discusses Santorum's views on several issues that are not LGBT-related, for example, polygamy and adultery. The section should be called something else, perhaps "marriage", "family issues", or something of that kind. ImprovingWiki (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The general topic of the section is LGBT related, although the heading LGBT rights is somewhat imprecise (I can't think of a better one). I don't think that marriage or family issues would be an improvement. The section is not really discussing those other topics; it merely mentions them to provide context for Santorum's remarks. - MrX 23:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

That's an interpretation of the article that has no basis. The section is about what it mentions. It begins by saying, "In his 2005 book, It Takes a Family, Santorum advocated for a society oriented toward "family values" and centered on monogamous, heterosexual relationships, marriage, and child-raising." To say that that is not "really" discussing Santorum's views on marriage in general simply looks like a rationale for keeping "LGBT rights" as the name of the section. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The section is about Santorum's highly-publicized views on same sex relationships, broadly speaking. It's not about his book per se. The book merely introduces the topic. Perhaps there should be another section that discusses his views about families, provided that you can find secondary sources (other than book reviews) that discuss his views in depth.- MrX 23:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The section is about whatever it discusses. Anyone can see that it discusses more than same-sex relationships. Why pretend otherwise? I never said it was only about one book. Rather, I said it was about Santorum's views on marriage and related issues. Everything you said in response has been irrelevant. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, the 'family' content provides context for the main section topic which is Rick Santorum's views on same-sex relationships (and rights).- MrX 23:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Dan Savage

i wish this article said somewhere that after Savage started his attacks, Santorum never won another election. Can anyone supply a reference that relates these?

No, I've not read any RS that commits that particular post hoc fallacy. Incidentally, if you would contribute NPOV content here, avoid referring to criticism and ridicule with a biased word like "attack". ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Santorum opposed to reuniting families

How is Santorum's anti-family stance not notable?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rick_Santorum&action=historysubmit&diff=644762031&oldid=644761749

Hcobb (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Not what the source says and there is not enough information to make that statement. Please try to write in a neutral tone. Arzel (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

From the source: "called for more restrictions on family immigration". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

That is not what Hcobb wrote or you reverted. Please remove your original research immediately. Arzel (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Text: "In 2015 Santorum called for restrictions on family immigration." Source: "called for more restrictions on family immigration". You were saying?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I fixed it for you since you apparently do not think original research or NPOV should be followed. Arzel (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

There was nothing to fix -- it's obvious to anyone with sense that the text was very close to the source -- perhaps too close. I don't really mind your version, though there was no reason to delete the wikilink. Oh, and I'm not keen on misspellings. But as some might say, YMMV. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

What is obvious is an attempt to twist what he said to fit a political attack. Arzel (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Santorum wishes to change Federal law in order to keep Americans apart from their families. How could the sources be any clearer on this? Hcobb (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

That is BS. You should really try to write in a neutral tone and not impart your own personal opinion into your edits. Please stop making such personal attacks on the subject of a BLP. Arzel (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

"Family reunification" is evidently the common name for this policy. Removing the piped link won't change that. What a weird hill to die on. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The policy of the United States is to allow families to re-unify. Santorum is opposed to this. What part of this needs further explanation? Hcobb (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

You make it sound like his intent is to keep families split up, there is noting to support that position and is a logical fallacy. Another example might be someone that is against a raise in gas taxes is for bridge failures. Just write without trying to present your conclusions. Arzel (talk) 04:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The important thing is the headline is now here. Richardson mcphillips (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

RFC about whether presidential candidacy belongs in lead paragraph

Talk:Rick_Perry#RFC_about_whether_his_presidential_candidacy_should_be_mentioned_in_the_lead_paragraphAnythingyouwant (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Could Santorum be considered a Theocrat?

His idea of blending religion into to law certainly fits within definition of a Theocrat.

Any comments?

Mfernflower (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

2012 presidential candidate mentioned twice in lead

It's mentioned in both the first and fourth paragraphs. Shouldn't it only be mentioned once? pbp 20:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

His website now states that he has dropped out. This is consistent with press coverage: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/03/politics/rick-santorum-dropping-presidential-bid/index.html , so I think that's an end to it. -- The Anome (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rick Santorum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110612233738/http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential/eib_interviews/senator_rick_santorum_.guest.html to http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential/eib_interviews/senator_rick_santorum_.guest.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Rick Santorum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130516133948/http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/CONVENTION-WATCH-Santorum-Mitt-in-the-house-3822311.php to http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/CONVENTION-WATCH-Santorum-Mitt-in-the-house-3822311.php#page-2
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110614140153/http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/15511495.htm to http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/15511495.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070929121828/http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/16032443.htm to http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/16032443.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rick Santorum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120301224854/http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/pennsylvania/counties/montgomery_county/15524018.htm to http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/pennsylvania/counties/montgomery_county/15524018.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Removing religion from infobox

Previously, I asked for citations showing that this page meets Wikipedia's requirements for listing religion in the infobox and in the list of categories. I also did my own search. There do not appear to be sources establishing compliance with the rules for inclusion, so I have removed the religion entry and categories. It appears that this page does not meet Wikipedia's requirements, so I am removing religion from the infobox and categories. Editors are encouraged to add properly sourced religion information to the body of the article, subject to WP:V and WP:WEIGHT.

As a reminder Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox and categories (religion in the body of the article has different rules):

Extended content

Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes: "the 'religion=' parameter and the associated 'denomination=' parameter should be removed from all pages that use Template:Infobox person. Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability. Inclusion is permitted in derived, more specific infoboxes that genuinely need it for all cases, such as one for religious leaders." Please note that if nobody has bothered to mention religion in the body of the article, that is strong evidence that the subject's beliefs are not relevant to their public life or notability. Per WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements". In the context of politicians and political candidates, there is a strong consensus in discussion after discussion that The "relevant to their public life or notability" clause should be interpreted as follows: Would this individual be notable for his/her religion if he/she were not notable for running for US president? Are we talking about someone who is notable for being religious, of someone who is notable who also happens to be religious? Per WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." In other words, if someone running for US president has never publicly stated on the record that they belong to a religion, we don't take the word of even reliable sources on what their religion is. Per WP:CATDEF: "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define in prose, as opposed to a tabular or list form the subject as having -- such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. (Emphasis is in original) Per WP:DEFINING: "Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes: standard biographical details: year of birth, year of death and nationality [and] the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for. For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right [...] a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun..." or "Subject, an adjective noun,...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject. If the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining. [...] Often, users can become confused between the standards of notability, verifiability, and "definingness". Notability is the test that is used to determine if a topic should have its own article. This test, combined with the test of verifiability, is used to determine if particular information should be included in an article about a topic. Definingness is the test that is used to determine if a category should be created for a particular attribute of a topic. In general, it is much easier to verifiably demonstrate that a particular characteristic is notable than to prove that it is a defining characteristic. Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox. That RfC has a handy list of religions and nonreligions to avoid the inevitable arguments about what is and what is not a religion. Everyone who !voted on the RfC saw that list and had ample opportunity to dispute it if they disagreed with it.

Note: this page has not been singled out. I asked for citations on all forty candidates (some now withdrawn) for the 2016 US presidential election. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The criteria read, in part, "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." Santorum has rather obviously publicly self-identified with a particular set of religious views, and it seems again rather obviously relevant to his public life and notability, given that he is a politician who is strongly identified with a religiously-based morality. It seems unusual to suppose that reliable sources could not be found to support this. It truly isn't harmful to state the obvious, Guy. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

There are many citations about him being catholic, but I couldn't find a place where he self-identifies his religion using direct speech. Do you have a citation for that? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a link to a New York Times story, discussing how Santorum has publicly identified his religious views. It mentions a speech in which Santorum relates how he moved from being a "nominal Catholic" to his current position. The speech itself might be exactly what you have requested. I'm not precisely sure why you believe it is necessary, however. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It is necessary because WP:BLPCAT says that it is necessary. You are required to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines whether you like them or not. The source above is close (he does say what his religion used to be), but contains no quote from Santorum himself that actually self-identifies his religion using direct speech as required by Wikipedia policy. This is why the policies and guidelines exist. You claim that his Catholicism is very important to him but you cannot find a reference to a quote where he says "I am a catholic" or "I belong to the Catholic church". --Guy Macon (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support removal per overwhelming consensus at WP:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes. Also Oppose insertion of a custom religion parameter. Pump Policy page consensus is that Religion cannot be included in infoboxes merely because a source exists for it. Consensus included plans to remove the parameter from the infobox itself. This means the religion value will disappear from all un-fixed articles when the template is ultimately updated. Consensus was that the religion parameter would be included in relevant subtemplates such as clergy, and that religion could be inserted into generic infoboxes via a custom parameter in exceptional cases similar to clergy. The religion value will disappear from this article unless there is an affirmative consensus to insert it via a custom parameter here. (Which I just opposed.) Alsee (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Category:American Roman Catholics

The category "American Roman Catholics" was recently removed from the article. That seems absolutely bizarre to me. Santorum is a Catholic, and presumably no one is claiming otherwise. The category is surely appropriate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Per WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources".

• Per WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion."

• Per WP:CATDEF: "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define in prose, as opposed to a tabular or list form the subject as having -- such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. (Emphasis is in original)

• Per WP:DEFINING: "Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes: standard biographical details: year of birth, year of death and nationality [and] the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for. For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right [...] a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun..." or "Subject, an adjective noun,...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject. If the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining. [...] Often, users can become confused between the standards of notability, verifiability, and "definingness". Notability is the test that is used to determine if a topic should have its own article. This test, combined with the test of verifiability, is used to determine if particular information should be included in an article about a topic. Definingness is the test that is used to determine if a category should be created for a particular attribute of a topic. In general, it is much easier to verifiably demonstrate that a particular characteristic is notable than to prove that it is a defining characteristic.

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

So, per WP:BLPCAT, the category "should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources". What, then, are you claiming, Guy Macon? That Santorum does not, in fact, publicly self-identify as a Roman Catholic, and that his beliefs are not relevant to his public life? Or would it be rather that sources do not exist to show that this is the case? Either contention seems incredible to me. If someone wanted to devote much effort to working on the Santorum article - and I freely admit that I do not - it ought to be reasonably easy for them to find sources showing that Santorum does indeed identify as a Catholic and that this is relevant to his public life, as most of us believe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• I think the category is amply justified. Santorum does in fact self-identify in reliable sources as a Catholic, and it is (in my judgment) quite salient in relation to his notability, sufficient to constitute a defining characteristic. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• Do you have a citation for the self-identify claim? I did a search and was surprised that I could not find one. As for the defining characteristic, Wikipedia:Defining is a how-to essay (The actual guideline is at WP:CATDEF), but I am curious as to whether you think Santorum meets the definition in that essay. I did a Google search on "santorum biography" and got a bunch of results like "Rick Santorum is an American attorney and Republican Party politician", "...American politician who served as a U.S. representative and senator from Pennsylvania.", "Representative and a Senator from Pennsylvania", etc. and none that defined him as a catholic instead of defining him as a politician, candidate, or lawyer. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• Of course: "I am proud of being Catholic." Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• So he publicly self-identifies as Catholic, and Rick Santorum#Religious faith cites a whole bunch of sources discussing his religion and how it strongly affects his politics, which is what he's notable for. Can we re-instate the cateogory and put this to rest now? Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 00:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be in favor of that. Not seeing a cogent objection. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Got any references where Catholicism it is used as a defining characteristic? Any evidence at all that the requirements of WP:CATDEF have been met? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Your view about the application of that guideline does not appear to have support from the Wikipedia community. Taking your approach, we'd have to remove "American male writers" and perhaps even "Living people" (and many of the others) -- where are the references that consistently give us "Rick Santorum, a living person..."? As FKC says, not a cogent objection. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The requirements I listed only apply to religion, ethnicity, and accusations of criminal misconduct. The categories you list above simply have to meet WP:V and WP:WEIGHT -- a far looser standard. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Nomoskedasticity, but even the extremely high bar Guy Macon seems to be setting is surely met by Catholic Republican Rick Santorum Enters 2016 Race, Catholic Rick Santorum struggling to convert GOP Catholics to his cause, Catholics Jeb Bush, Rick Santorum say Pope should stay out of climate change debate and Pope Francis Told To Stay Out Of Climate Change By Devout Catholic Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

That's good enough for me. All I wanted was sources for the claims of self-identification and Catholicism being a defining characteristic. Now that I have them, I have no problem with the categorization.

Some people may think that when I ask for citations I am asking for too much in cases like Rick Santorum where "everybody knows" these things, but in my going though multiple pages and checking sources I found some real problems. For example, Rick Perry was listed as "Nondenominational Evangelicalism", but the reference said "Perry now attends Lake Hills [nondenominational evangelica] Church more frequently than he attends Tarrytown [United Methodist Church], in part because it's closer to his home"[2] and assigned him as being a member of Lake Hills Church based on that slim evidence. Or look at Marco Rubio; the citation says "Rubio... attends Catholic churches as well as a Southern Baptist megachurch."[3], but someone arbitrarily assigned him to the Roman Catholic category based on that citation. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Guy Macon, thank you for allowing for use of the category. For the record, Rubio is a practicing and baptized Catholic who sometimes attends Baptist megachurches. Display name 99 (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

"allowing" is really not the right word to use... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Right. It's the sources that do or do not allow things. If the sources meet Wikipedia's requirements, then religion is allowed as a category If there are no sources showing that the requirements were met, it isn't allowed.

One of the reasons I decided to take on this task is because I really don't care one way or the other what is in politician's Wikipedia pages. I do a quick search for sources (Ben Carson is a good example of clearly meeting all of the requirements), and if I can't find any I put out a call for sources on the article web page. Then I have to patiently deal with editors who post all sorts of arguments for not needing sources showing that the requirements are met. And yes, I am confident that I am properly interpreting the requirements. I have done over 200 pages so far, had my work reviewed by dozens of administrators, and so far not one page has ended up with religion in the infobox or categories without sources showing that it meets Wikipedia's requirements, including ones people don't like such as self identification using direct speech or being a defining characteristic. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Rick Santorum. 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/20120210095501/http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/santorum-examiner-stands-93-nafta-nay/302866 to http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/santorum-examiner-stands-93-nafta-nay/302866
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://njtoday.net/2012/02/09/fact-check-is-santorum-the-biggest-senate-loser/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060221000000/http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf to http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/15511495.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-05/santorum-becomes-millionaire-in-six-years-after-u-s-senate-loss.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://alumniweb.oru.edu/oru%20alumni/right106.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C200499%2C00.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

CPR

Here's a quote that you might want to add to the Gun laws section:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/santorum-protesting-parkland-students-learned-cpr-article-1.3895083
Clueless Rick Santorum suggests Parkland students who rallied against gun violence should learn CPR
BY Terence Cullen Leonard Greene
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
March 25, 2018

Eugene Gu, a surgeon at Vanderbilt University Medical Center and vocal Trump critic, added that Santorum’s argument makes no sense on a basic level.

“As a surgeon, I’ve operated on gunshot victims who’ve had bullets tear through their intestines, cut through their spinal cord and pulverize their kidneys and liver,” Gu tweeted. “Rick Santorum telling kids to shut up and take CPR classes is simply unconscionable.”

--Nbauman (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The media response turned out to be even bigger than I expected. Columbia Journalism Review had an article about how the response to the quote turned into a media phenomenon. I'm adding it to the entry. --Nbauman (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Repeated controversial statements

Besides his extreme political opinion about homosexuality (he's compared it to bestiality and pedophilia), Rick Santorum also recently encouraged young gun control activists to learn CPR instead of protesting (this is in the wake of a number of large mass-shootings, including at schools such as Parkland). Santorum has repeatedly demonstrated his willingness to court controversy throughout his career, and yet there's no prominent mention of this in the lede of his biography. His opinions about same-sex marriage are allowed to stand in paragraph 2 without any commentary, as if they are mainstream, with zero mention of the fact that there's an entire wikipedia page dedicated to this controversial opinion. It made national news, people were talking widely about how extreme he was. Can the Wikipedia editors agree at least that Santorum is no stranger to making controversial statements to the press, and mention this alongside the first mention of aforementioned controversial opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.250.29.38 (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia guidelines and policies, which we are required to follow, all we are allowed to do is quote the extreme and controversial statements themselves, and quote the comments that WP:RSs (including editorials and columns) make in response to them. Please feel free to contribute, but as you may have noticed, contributions that don't meet those Wikipedia guidelines and policies will be quickly deleted. --Nbauman (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Karen Garver's previous relationship

We had a long discussion in Talk about whether Karen Garver's previous relationship with a doctor belongs in the entry. [4] The following text, which was supported by many WP:RS, was deleted:

Before Karen Garver met her husband, she had been living with Tom Allen, a Pittsburgh obstetrician and abortion provider 40 years older than her. She began the relationship in 1982, when she was a 22-year-old nursing student at Duquesne University and Allen was 63. They broke up in 1988, because she wanted to have children and he did not.

I think it was improperly deleted, for the many reasons given in that discussion. I think we should put it back in. It's especially relevant now considering the following text under "Religious faith":

Although he was raised in a nominally Catholic household, Santorum's faith began to deepen when he met his future wife, Karen. By his account, conversations with her father, Dr. Kenneth Garver, a staunch Catholic and pro-life advocate, solidified his understanding and opposition to abortion.

If the entry can include a discussion of how his faith began to deepen as a result of meeting Karen, including his opposition to abortion, we should also include the fact, as many WP:RSs do, that before her marriage, Karen cohabited with a doctor, and helped him perform abortions. --Nbauman (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Lead

In regard to this edit by an IP adding the information that Santorum is a CNN Senior Political Commentator to the lead, I think it is sufficient to point out that the lead already mentioned that, and that the IP's edit resulted in unnecessary repetition and duplication of information in the lead. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)