Jump to content

Talk:Rick Santorum/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Santorum Amendment

Santorum is the author of the failed Santorum Amendment which relates to the teaching of evolution in U.S. public schools. Relates how? Encouraging it? Discouraging it? Kingturtle 19:48 18 May 2003 (UTC)

News item

[1] I will incorporate this news item into this article tomorrow. unless anyone wants to beat me to it :) Kingturtle 09:21 19 May 2003 (UTC)

I despise Rick Santorum as much as anyone, but is anyone else concerned about having so much info about Savage's frothy mixture stuff in an aricle about a sitting U.S. senator? Opinions? Comments? -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 20:24, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I trimmed it back - Dan Savage has the info. Martin 00:40, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I removed it. I don't think Wikipedia needs to include every random attack made against politicians. I don't care how much certain Wikipedians disagree with Rick Santorum and his views of homosexuality. His article should have the same straightforward treatment given to other politicians with views more accepted at Wikipedia. Including attack piece terms such as this, as if they were commonly used, well-accepted, or particularly significant, does not serve to make Wikipedia a more credible source of neutral and useful information. If we did this for every attack, or every politician, it would make Wikipedia look like a cesspool. Both literally and figuratively, in this case. Daniel Quinlan 17:19, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)

We do have criticism of other public figures in Wikipedia, however, I think I would say that, taken as a whole, the article was unbalanced by an excess of content regarding criticism of his stance on homosexuality. I therefore suggesting keeping the following content on the Talk page, and restoring it when the article becomes longer. Martin 18:30, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

In response to Santorum's comments, sex columnist Dan Savage promoted the use of the word "santorum" to refer to a byproduct of anal sex. See Dan Savage for more.
I don't think it's appropriate to include the sentence "In response to Santorum's comments, sex columnist Dan Savage promoted the use of the word 'santorum' to refer to a byproduct of anal sex. See Dan Savage for more." Even if Santorum deserves it, richly. Even if it is factually accurate that Dan Savage made that statement, which I assume he did.
I think NPOV might stretch as far as saying something like "Santorum's views have evoked strong criticism; some of his critics include (insert short list here) and Dan Savage." People can go to the Dan Savage page to see what he said.
The content of Dan Savage's remark is clearly ad hominem. It's different from mentioning, say, the circumstances Newt Gingrich's divorce which don't reflect well on Gingrich but which are objectively factual.
When and if some recognized dictionary includes the noun "santorum" sensu Dan Savage, I'd be happy to reconsider. Dpbsmith 23:45, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

There's a big difference between an ad hominem entry in an encylopedia, and an encyclopedic entry about an ad hominem attack. Andy Mabbett 23:52, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I see the difference, but my perception is that in this particular case the factuality is just a fig leaf, a way of justifying the inclusion of an attack on Santorum.
I didn't put the sentence in, I'm not going to take it out, but I don't think it belongs there. Just my $0.02.
Uh, and by the way, I don't care for Mr. Santorum. Not at all. Dpbsmith 02:25, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This is very non-neutral handling of a transparent ad hominem attack on Rick Santorum. Does the Bill Clinton article include the most savage attacks from Rush Limbaugh? No, of course not. The attempted neologism has had just about zero pickup, aside from a few specific sites devoted to attacking Rick Santorum. It's beyond the pale that a few activist editors are campaigning to include such an low profile and non-encyclopedic attack in this article (or any article). So, I removed it again. If it's added again, I'll remove it again. And again. And again. I don't care if it's factual. That's not at issue. What is at issue is NPOV handling of this person, deciding what is significant information and what is not, and writing dispassionately rather than like a political hack. Daniel Quinlan 23:44, Nov 27, 2003 (UTC)

But Wikipedia does include savage attacks on Bill Clinton. His article mentions that conservative pundits accused him of murdering Vince Foster. The only reason a goofy claim like that is at all notable is because it was leveled at a US president. Nate 15:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I did a search for news articles writing about the sodomy law stuff, found Howard Dean's statement mentioned several times, so I included a short quote from him instead. I think it is more informative than the attempted neologism anyway, it was far far far more widely covered, and it was made by the leading Democratic candidate for president, all good reasons to include it. The article still suffers from excessive negative focus on this one issue, but that's what you get when people focus on adding critism to selected articles rather than expanding entire articles neutrally and dispassionately. Daniel Quinlan 23:57, Nov 27, 2003 (UTC)
I like what Daniel Quinlan did to the paragraph beginning "Santorum's comments evoked responses..."
I'm about to try an experiment. I don't know the results yet. I'm trying to decide for myself whether the inclusion of any reference to the Dan Savage remark could possibly belong. What I'm going to do is try some Google searches on variations of "Santorum" to see how many of them pick up on Dan Savage, i.e. do Rick Santorum and Dan Savage go together like, um, Moriarty and Holmes. What I'm trying to figure out is whether Dan Savage is such a well-known or prominent critic of Santorum that it would be natural or expected to mention what he says.
  • Search on santorum. 139,000 hits.
  • Search on santorum savage. 4,000 hits, the first pageful anyway all being references to Dan Savage's attempt to establish "santorum" as a mocking neologism.
  • Searches on "santorum's critics", "santorum's adversaries", "attacks on santorum" don't seem to be very useful.
I can't draw much of a conclusion from this. I still think it's very hard to make a case for mention of the Dan Savage remark as conceivably representing a neutral point of view. Just my $0.02 Dpbsmith 00:47, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
That's funny, I just googled "Santorum savage" and got 13,800 hits. I guess it's really catching on, or more likely Google's database has gotten a lot bigger. Anyway as has often been observed Google hits are not always reflective of public consciousness. Santorum is a prominent senator, so there is an enormous quantity of factual, news, and legal data on the internet with his name on it. Most of it very boring and the average non-politics-junky will have no interest in it. How many non-Pennsylvanians would even know who Rick Santorum is? On the other hand, Dan Savage is the most widely read sex columnist in America, and the neologism has spread far and wide, and has spread Santorum far beyond Santorum's own constituency. So if you travel outside Pennsylvania it is probably safe to say that Santorum the substance is at least as well known as Santorum-the-Senator. Not that I will conduct a scientific poll to find out, but the unique "pop culture" impact of this "smear" against Santorum is quite undeniable. Finally this article is hardly unique in recording "ad hominem" attacks. For instance Bill Clinton mentions the "Slick Willy" slur. Ntk 05:30, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
For what it's worth I know the word santorum first, and that it refers to some right-wing politician second. I wouldn't have heard of Rick if it wasn't for the name of the sexual byproduct sheridan 21:12, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Before reading this talk page today I saw recently that there was nothing about the neologism 'santorum' on the Rick Santorum page, put it in, and am disappointed to see that it's been taken out again. Is it worth my pointing out that among the 95% of the world population who live outside North America (e.g. here in the UK), Rick Santorum is an almost unknown figure, but the word 'santorum' is somewhat known (because many people here read The Onion); and hence outside North America the neologism is probably the thing Rick Santorum is most famous for? (Certainly just about the only thing I know about Santorum is that the word was named for him.)

Thus not to mention it at all in an article about him seems perverse, or at least very US-centric. Rather as if the word Crap were not mentioned in an article about Thomas Crapper, populariser of the flushing toilet; which neologism is now his principal claim to fame. (And I'm glad to see that that has not been censored from his page.)

Additionally, the neologism can & should go in the Trivia section at the end (which is where I put it), which gives it no great prominence. I also might add that the neologism rather than the Senator continues to be the no. 1 Google search result for 'santorum', suggesting that this term surely has enough currency to merit a mention. Ben Finn 12:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm putting it back in - In Australia I've heard many people use it and thye would not have the faintest clue where the term comes from. The importance of the term is shown by the fact there is this behind the curtain 'details' approach. I'm not giving the term its own sub-heading, just an inclusion in the remarks on homosexuality section.

This is an article about a Senator, keep the stupid neologism out. It's covered properly in Santorum controversy and Dan Savage. Rhobite 02:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
But it is clearly known about the Senator all over the place, just because there are articles on D-Day does that mean we shouldn't mention it in articles about the second World War? It is clearly relevant to a page on the Senator. Just because the neologism may be stupid does not mean it is not worthy of mention. It's fine to mention nicknames of other political figures.
It has absolutely nothing to do with Santorum's life, it is just a barely-notable neologism which bears his name. The people who occasionally add it to the article clearly do so because they think it is funny and they oppose Santorum's politics. They have no consideration for whether it belongs in an encyclopedia article. Please keep in mind the Wikipedia:Three revert rule as well. You could be blocked from editing if you continue to revert. Rhobite 02:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Aw, sheesh. Instead of the standard dispute boilerplate,

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the article's talk page for more information.

an editor has inserted

Due to continued censorship of the reporting of the Dan Savage issue, the neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the article's talk page for more information.

This seems to me to be a thinly veiled—if veiled at all—way of re-inserting the disputed material into the page. And in a particularly conspicuous location.

Furthermore, the notice says that the factual accuracy, not the neutrality, is in question. But I don't think there's anything factually inaccurate in the current page. The page, IMHO, tells the truth and nothing but the truth; my perception is that the beef is about whether it tells the whole truth.

I think announcing the dispute is legitimate, but going beyond that isn't.

And claiming factual inaccuracy is wrong.

At this point, it certainly appears to me that an edit argument, or an edit skirmish, or at least an extremely spirited exchange of editing is in progress on this page. That's not a good thing. Dpbsmith 15:40, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Although I've never heard the term, if the word santorum is known widely, a mention in the Trivia section seems fine. But only as a mention. Something like, "Dan Savage successfully introduced the word santorum into the English language as a derogatory insult to the politician." Not a sentence as long and drawn out as the one that keeps getting on the article. If people want to read more on the origin and reason for the word, it should be on the Savage article, not on Santorum's, since Savage was the one who coined the word and uses and supports it. Thomas Crapper actually did something that connects him to the meaning of the word "crap". Clinton actually did something that connects him to the meaning of the nickname "Slick Willy". Except "santorum" is not a nickname for Rick Santorum. It's a word, and as such isn't really comparable to Clinton's nickname anyway. And Santorum didn't do anything to connect him to the definition of "santorum". So a mention on his page? I guess...but a mention in the trivia section. Not a long definition or reason behind it; that belongs on Savage's page.Stanselmdoc 14:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


OK, sounds sensible to me. I'll try adding your perfectly true and innocuous sentence to Trivia (and count the seconds before it gets reverted!) Ben Finn 18:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

it is very easy to make this article more NPOV. Start adding things to the article of things that he has done that you think are positive things. I agree that this article focuses mostly on the homosexual controvery. That information should not be removed (obviously), but other things can be added. Kingturtle 18:58, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Also, under the heading, "Political Philosophy," it merely states this Santorum quote, "Compassionate Conservatism relies on healthy families, freedom of faith, a vibrant civil society, a proper understanding of the individual and a focused government to achieve noble purposes through definable objectives which offers hope to all." ...
"Conservatism is based upon the idea of preserving the good in our society, adding to it the wisdom of experience coupled with the courage and optimism of a new generation. This formula inspired Reagan and Thatcher to hope, and to work together to change the world. Let us build upon their example to be a beacon of hope in this troubled world."...
without even mentioning any possible flaws or what critics say about this "philosophy". It is an overly simplistic statement taken out of context to make Santorum look like a man of the people instead of the anti-civil rights homophobe that most people know him as. 18:06, 8 March 2006 Nycbike
The text is mostly pablum, mitigated a bit by a link to the full article. But there is value in a bit of pablum, if that's the best that can be said of Santorum. Given how much of the article is (appropriately, in my opinion) negative, I suggest leaving the section as is, without calling the comments pablum. [What politician is against motherhood and apple pie?] John Broughton 21:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Lots of weasel words: "...is well known for...", "...many describe him as...", "...he has also been criticized for...", "Some also believe that...", etc. etc.

Dan Savage

I removed the Dan Savage blurb because he's just not particularly encyclopedic when it comes to Rick Santorum. Google for "Rick Santorum" gets 58,900. There are only 815 for "Rick Santorum" and "Dan Savage" (but you can get 6,320 if you combine with "Bill Clinton", 4,760 for "Howard Dean", 4,380 for John Kerry, etc.). The presidental candidates (as the leading liberal figures in the US right now) had far far more coverage and relevance in the scheme of things. Dan Savage is only worth linking if you want to make a POV statement and promote the neologism via Wikipedia. His commentary got far less coverage and play than statements by Human Rights Campaign and other gay advocacy groups. Daniel Quinlan 19:37, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)

- nice use of statistics to make a point. Here's an alternative use of alternative statistics to make the opposite point: Dan Savage and the Urban Dictionary definition of "Santorum" both appear in the top 5 google hits for "Santorum." So there. Dan Savage's definition is known to pretty much every gay person in the country. It is relevant. As such, I've re-added it under the heading of the Homosexuality Comments controversy. It was a part of that controversy. It is also icky, as such, I refer to the relevant article for details, with a warning. I think that's fair. I also think that anyone who isn't editing this article from the senator's staff office would agree. If anyone expands on what I've added, and does so in a way that is nasty or gross, I support reverting to my version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.103.173 (talk) 05:10, October 28, 2006

    • (a) Please sign your posts with ~~~~. (b) What's your source for it being "known to pretty much every gay person in the country"? (c) I don't agree, and I utterly loathe Santorum and all he stands for, with every inch of my being, so you can take your comment about the "editing from the senator's staff office" and coat it with your own santorum. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    • 1. I don't need a source for a comment on a talk page. 2. Nice use of the word "santorum". 3. I think you're just mad 'cause I called you a liar for putting "rm fecal matter" in your last edit... which you ARE, because as anyone who looks at the page history can see, I specifically avoided any potentially offensive terminology. My comment about the edits from the senators office wasn't directed at you, but rather a comment about a trend that actually happened, to the point where there was actually some IP blocking necessary against certain congressional offices. 71.202.103.173 10:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


Dan Savage's campaign to create the word santorum is described at Savage Love. --Uncle Ed 20:32, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

JAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA

I was wondering why this rubbish was in VfD (my mistake...). Man, this is an encyclopedia not a black-list-of-those-who-said-something-against-my-"""ideas"""! I am sure Rich Santorum has done more things than saying those phrases. By the way, why getting SO annoyed at the comparison between gay relations with incest? This reminds me a lot of Skinner's and Levi-Strauss' studies on sociology and anthropology... In the end everything sums up to an Oedipus Complex... doesn't it? Please remove this article as soon as possible, or give an honest description of his WORK. Pfortuny 17:34, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Please feel free to contribute "an honest description of his WORK." Dpbsmith 02:13, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Because gay sex has nothing to do with incest, and linking the two is merely an attempt to besmirch gay people. HTH. Andy Mabbett 12:04, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Also: my remark on "please feel free to contribute" was sincere. The present article is IMHO not balanced, but it's a little bit difficult for me to correct it, since my only awareness and knowledge of Mr. Santorum is as the issuer of a stupid and offensive remark attacking gays. This is literally the only thing I know about him. I would welcome the inclusion of some intellectually honest balancing material, but I cannot provide it. That must be done by Mr. Santorum's supporters. Certainly I think balance should be achieved by adding material, not removing existing material. Dpbsmith 16:56, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Santorum's slippery slope argument

Another nail has been driven into his argument that legalizing consensual adult gay sex would open the door to all kinds of immoral behavior. A man in Virginia was recently charged with adultery, a Class 4 misdemeanor in that state, and pled guilty. Story. - Tualha 14:56, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

We're not here to debate the correctness of Santorum's (ill-advised, mean-spirited, ignorant, intolerant, unfair, gay-bashing) remark, but to brood about how best to present Santorum in an article that has an appropriately neutral point of view. (And, as a subtopic—but IMHO this problem has been adequately solved—how to make available on Wikipedia the factual information about Dan Savage's clever attack on Santorum in a way that does not take sides or allow Wikipedia to be co-opted into attacking Santorum.)
So, all this is off-topic for this page. But... with the understanding that this is off-topic--I'm not sure that I understand how the Virginia story bears on Santorum's remark, anyway. It didn't even take place in his state (Pennsylvania). Indeed, it's sort of saying that Virginia has a law that criminalizes heterosexual relations between consenting adults, which would seem to me to legitimize state interference with consenting homosexual relations, because it means there is fairness--both kinds of behavior are being treated with equal stupidity... Or are you hoping that the case will make people understand that the state has no legitimate business in the bedroom with consenting adults? Not attacking you, just curious as to how you see it. Dpbsmith 15:35, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I would argue that, in addition to making the legal argument that the constitution doesn't contain a right to privacy, he also is against a right to privacy. From his AP interview:

And if you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it's in the privacy of your own home, this "right to privacy," then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home? If you say, there is no deviant as long as it's private, as long as it's consensual, then don't be surprised what you get.

AxelBoldt 13:21, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think, to be fair, that he hasn't said that. He may be against it, he may be for it, he may be for one defined differently than some courts have defined it, but we don't know and should not be guessing or implying (based on that excerpt at least). If you want to say that he's against bestiality or polygamy, I think you would have a better case since those are the specific consequences he's warning about. I'm not even sure the man wants homosexual sex to be illegal (I would not be too surprised), although I suspect he thinks it's wrong. My guesses or impressions don't belong in the article, though. Daniel Quinlan 19:13, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)

You don't have a responsibility to assume the astronomically unlikely, either. You're allowed to use some measure of critical reasoning. Furthermore, right now the article is bending over backward to avoid the statements Santorum made in an attempt to characterize what he might have really meant or not. Santorum expressed a problem with homosexual sex, and asserted that he has no problems with homosexuals, as long as they choose not to engage in such sex. He also explicitly asserted that he does not believe in a Constitutional right to privacy. He said that homosexual sex is part of a larger class of deviant sexual acts, including incest, polygamy, and bestiality, that threaten the institution of marriage and the fabric of society. He explicitly said that he would disagree with a state which decides not to have sodomy laws. It takes a deliberate avoidance of critical thought to understand that he is advocating outlawing homosexuality through efforts at the state level, and to removing bars to doing so at the federal level. --The Cunctator 11:02, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, he definitely expressed a problem with homosexual sex, but that's not what I was objecting to. I have no problem with the article noting that (other than my NPOV concerns that the article is massively overfocused on the one interview). I was objecting to the way his views on the privacy right was generalized: it was expanded from being an interpretation of current law to a desired outcome and it was expanded from being specific to sex acts (and abortion?) to being all forms of privacy. I don't disagree with your conclusion, though, so I added some of that to the introduction, and I also took liberty to simplify the quoting which seemed to be going into a discussion/diatribe about the AP story and what excerpts were quoted. Daniel Quinlan 20:36, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)
Well, I consider the fact that the word "gay" was not included in his original statement to be highly significant and have reinserted it. Above you said we should not make any guesses; changing a quote to clarify "what he really meant" thus seems to be very dangerous. His argument makes more sense the way he originally said it: if the SC rules that there is a general right to consensual sex, then surely there is an implied right to consensual adulterous or incestuous sex. But if the SC only says that you have the right to consensual gay sex, then nothing about (heterosexual) adulterous or incestuous sex can be deduced. AxelBoldt 15:07, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

I'm puzzled by a recent removal of the boilerplate saying that the neutrality of the article was disputed. The notice has since been restored.

The reason given for removal was that

removing NPOV dispute notice since I can't find an NPOV dispute in Talk.

Therefore, I'm adding this subhead to the page to make it perfectly clear that there is a dispute in active progress. It seems to me there has been pretty much since the article was created. (Some of the discussion did get siphoned off to Talk:Santorum).

Personally, I'm opposed to Santorum, but it has always seemed to me that the page is not neutral, and despite careful wordsmithing, the additional of material generally favorable to Santorum, and what I think is a good job in relocating the Rick Savage material and creating the Santorum disambiguation page, it seems to me that the article is still not neutral.

Since I know little about Santorum beyond his appalling and objectionable remarks that made headlines, I am not the one to help improve the article, but I think the dispute boilerplate should remain for the present. Dpbsmith 17:33, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, I wrote the comment that I can't find an NPOV dispute, and your statement above has still not explained what the NPOV dispute is. Which statement or omission is considered not NPOV? Is the article slanted against or in favor of Santorum? How are we to fix the article if people don't state their problems, besides "the neutrality is disputed"? Specifically, what would have to happen so that the NPOV notice can be removed? AxelBoldt 13:43, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)


I'm not the one who reinserted the notice, BTW. I don't feel strongly about about the topic to reinsert the notice if someone removes it, or remove it if someone reinserts it.
As to "what would have to happen," I'm still learning how things work around here... but I would guess that as long as people keep reinserting the notice a dispute is in progress. A decent respect for the opinions of Wikipedians would, I would think, require them to declare on the talk page the causes that impel them to the reinsertion.
I would guess that, being a Wiki, what would have to happen for the notice to be removed is for someone to remove it. If the notice stays removed, I'd suppose the dispute was over. For the notice to stay removed, I'd guess that there would have to be general consensus that the article was neutral, or that the people reinserting the notice were so clearly acting arbitrarily and not engaging in sensible discussion that the sysops would block them.
Now, as to what's not neutral: more than half of the article is still about Santorum's controversial statements on the sodomy law.
If you agree that Rick Santorum's public identity is, objectively, primarily that of an conservative ideologue, notable for his opposition to the gay-rights community, then there's no problem with the article so long as the facts about his ideology and actions are stated correctly and factually.
My feeling is that having more than half of the article devoted to this topic is non-neutral, even if the coverage of the topic itself is neutral.
Just my $0.02. Dpbsmith 15:53, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage

maybe some of this content is better suited for the Same-sex marriage article. Kingturtle 18:34, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Probably not, actually. I think it's more specific to this article. Daniel Quinlan 20:36, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)

As several people believe that the discussion of Rick Santorum's position on sodomy law is overweighting the entry--even though it evidently represents an accurate weighting of which of his actions have merited widespread interest--the obvious solution is to move the details of the discussion to a separate entry. --The Cunctator 16:24, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I like it better now. Dpbsmith 17:10, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Moving criticism to separate articles is the worst possible solution to NPOV. Daniel Quinlan 23:32, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

What's the big deal? Rick Santorum stands up for what is written in the Bible.

What do people know about ontheissues.org ?

It seems like an interesting site... politician's views on every topic sliced and diced and conveniently pigeonholed... and a little rating at the bottom, based on their voting record, and verbal summary. It says, for example, "Rick Santorum is a moderate conservative." Gotta look closer because scanning over the actual data I'm darned if I see the moderate part, but, there you go... Ted Kennedy rates as a "hardcore liberal."

The question I have is: does anyone know enough about ontheissues.org to know whether they'd generally be regarded as impartial? Dpbsmith 17:10, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It's run by a community activist and web designer in Cambridge, Mass -- Jesse Gordon (http://www.jessegordon.com) -- who's a sort of libertarian-liberal (and I can't explain it any better than that), and I think that the ratings at the site reflect that -- I don't really consider it impartial myself, but it's a good resource for lots of info... -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 00:40, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Splitting page

Splitting this page is the worst possible solution to solve NPOV. The article is not long enough to justify splitting. Someone also tried to solve the Mother Teresa criticism dispute the same way and the result was horrible, two non-NPOV articles instead of one NPOV article. I object to the split, but I'm not about to get into an edit war over it with The Cunctator, who is splitting articles all over Wikipedia. Instead, I propose a vote. Daniel Quinlan 00:05, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

Splitting which adds POV is bad. Splitting a page that is <20kb is bad. Angela. 00:19, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Instead of a vote, Mr. Quinlan, can we try discussing this and coming to a consensus? I don't understand the basis of your claim that "two non-NPOV articles" are being created. --The Cunctator 03:34, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Rick Santorum's arguments with regard to homosexuality are an integral part of a comprehensive biography about him. The article is nowhere near the maxiumum size of 30-40K, and splitting away only the parts of it that are controversial reduces exposure to these facts (because they are no longer readily visible from the main article) and is therefore POV.—Eloquence 07:16, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The present state fully discusses Rick Santorum's arguments with regard to homosexuality. The only thing it doesn't do is walk through the interview step by step, as the Rick Santorum's statements about homosexuality does.

There has been no attempt to strip away the controversial parts, and I challenge you to provide evidence for that claim. ---The Cunctator 07:28, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Apologies, I thought you wanted to split away the entire section. A summary is better, but I see no valid reason to split up the article in the first place.—Eloquence 07:37, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

Rather than splitting up the article, I think of it as promoting the Santorum affair. The reason is that Rick Santorum's statements about homosexuality (aka the Santorum affair) is a event of enough significance to cause specific responses, at least one of which is discussed in Wikipedia--Dan Savage's santorum competition. It is admittedly questionable whether Savage's neologism competition merits a link from Rick Santorum, but it's certainly not questionable that there should be a link from the Santorum affair. Does this seem right? --The Cunctator 07:45, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This is not an event of sufficient historical significance to justify a separate entry, and if we cut down the redundancy and fluff in the present version, this should become evident. I am not opposed to a link to Savage Love from here.—Eloquence 07:51, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)
How about the present summary as a compromise? This is sufficiently detailed for my taste, and those who want to add even more small factoids can do this in Santorum affair.—Eloquence

It's starting to look good to me. --The Cunctator 08:08, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

OK, let's agree to limit the discussion on this page to four paragraphs and one section.—Eloquence

I think we could reasonably get down to one paragraph, but the current state is satisfactory. --The Cunctator 08:23, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I find it problematic to matter-of-factly refer to it as "the Santorum affair", as this is not a generally accepted name of the incident. Given that Santorum has done other stupid things (Santorum amendment etc.), it seems unfair to single out this stupid thing and treat it as if it was the only stupid thing he's done.—Eloquence 08:34, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

It actually is a generally accepted name of the incident, as a Google search shows (see also talk:Santorum affair). --The Cunctator 08:38, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I checked Google before I wrote that. 77 hits, mostly weblogs, hardly counts as "generally accepted", especially when "Santorum homosexuals" returns 4700 hits.—Eloquence 08:42, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

This article has taken a severe turn downwards. Given that the above vote strongly supports a single article for Santorum and that the split has been used as an excuse to multiple the original text, I'm merging it back into this article and restoring the last somewhat less POV text. If that text is somehow limited, let's talk about it here. Daniel Quinlan 09:21, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

The above vote involves fewer than ten people. Please do not use it as justification for a reversion of a committed compromise effort between other editors. Voting is one of the worst ways to make decisions as a group.

I believe it's better than giving decision-making authority to whoever is the most persistent at pushing their point of view, those who abuse their power, or those who do not follow agreed-upon rules. Daniel Quinlan 09:52, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

What is the justification for your claim "This article has taken a severe turn downwards"? --The Cunctator 09:40, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think it overextends his remarks and is less neutral than the previous text. In addition, I think that splitting the page is unnecessary and it seems like you have done it to provide two forums for you to edit the same POV text rather than one. I tried discussing things here and when that did not prove fruitful, I asked other people to express their opinion, and they did. Your desire to split the page was a very small minority view. I am merely restoring the last version to enjoy some stability and which preceeded the page split. Given the consensus, I think we should restore it and discuss from there. The split is not supportable at all. Daniel Quinlan 09:52, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)
I'm torn. One the one hand I like articles in one piece. On the other hand, the level of detail is a bit extreme for what is not really such a big episode. In contrast, on Mother Teresa we summarized several quotes and removed some not so relevant details in order to trim the size of the criticism section. I did this in this revision of the present article. But I understand if if some people want these detailed facts -- who responded, what exactly did the transcript say etc. -- to be retained. For example, I could accept a detail article called Mother Teresa and Charles Keating to have quotes from the letter of the District Attorney to Mother Teresa etc., if the main article keeps its current level of detail which I regard as the minimum that is acceptable. The compromise solution seems to allow near-infinite expansion of the Santorum affair article while giving a fair overview of the case here. I would be interested in what others think, as balance, proportion and placement are tricky issues.
While I do not agree with Cunc's stance on voting, I do feel that it might be premature to enforce a vote result before the possibility to find consensus through discussion has been exhausted. This is an interesting precedent because I don't think anyone here feels really strongly about this issue.—Eloquence 09:55, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

I don't think it helped consensus at all to split the article, so now two different texts are being edited. The Cunctator did not achieve support and consensus for his split (followed by two moves of the page to keep people off-balance) before making it. The move appears to have had some tactical success, as the articles now make the points he wanted them to make, pushing Santorum's insensitive and homophobic remarks even further than the original, turning the split off article a one-sided discussion of the issue while this one remains quite focused on it as well. Simply, the version of the text I tried to restore was superior and succinct. His version merely adds POV and unnecessary quotes. The full text is in the external link, anyway. Daniel Quinlan 10:06, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

I don't think Cunc has an axe to grind here. He's been doing the split thing on quite a few articles in recent days. I believe he's trying to make a point. Out of curiosity, do you think that Book of Mormon and Book of Mormon controversies ought to be separate (as they are now) or merged (as I think they should be)? I'm trying to develop a generally agreeable policy here.—Eloquence 10:11, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)
I do think TC has an axe to grind (both directly related to this article and also an overwhelming campaign to split content more and more so it becomes impossible to read about any one subject meaningfully and easily), but maybe the POV text is yours.  ;-) It's hard to follow all these edits since the split. As far as the Mormon stuff goes, I think it also belongs in one article. I think splits for reasons of POV are almost always a bad idea. I don't actually object to all of TC's splits or proposed splits, although his unilateral editing style is not so great (frankly, it sucks) in my opinion. For example, I think moving the list of companies in NYC to a separate article is a great idea (Boston, on the other hand, no, the list was too short). The history of NYC, I am not so sure about. I think the history was perhaps better in the main article. Daniel Quinlan 10:20, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. I think we should leave the current compromise in place until we get some more feedback.—Eloquence
The current article is no compromise. Daniel Quinlan 10:30, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

Please, I ask you, do not make claims as to what my motives are, especially as claims that my motives are to be detrimental and biased. You are asserting a lot of negative motives to my actions which are simply not the case. That is just not right.

Please do not claim that this revision represents "my version". It does not. It represents a compromise effort between Eloquence and myself, based on our mutual goal to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the truth, even though we disagree on how best to implement that.

I do not think the Rick Santorum entry needs as much detailed information about the Santorum affair as Eloquence does. This is the text which I preferred, from this revision:

The Santorum affair is the controversy that arose among interested parties following U.S. Senator Rick Santorum's statements about homosexuality in an interview with the Associated Press taped on April 7, 2003 and published April 20, 2003. In the interview Santorum describes homosexual acts as part of a class of deviant sexual behavior, including incest, polygamy, and bestiality, which threaten society and the family. Furthermore Santorum stated that he believed consenting adults do not have a Constitutional right to privacy with respect to sexual act. Democratic politicians, gay rights advocates, and other liberal commentators condemned the statements, while Republican politicians, religious conservatives, and other conservative commentators supported Santorum and called the condemnations unfair.
After criticism by opponents and support from fellow Republicans, Santorum did not back down from his remarks, stating that his comments were not intended to equate homosexuality with incest and adultery, but rather as a critique of the specific legal position that the right to privacy prevent the government from regulating consensual acts among adults, because he does not believe that there is a Constitutional right to privacy.

Again, I ask you to not call the compromise revision my revision. I don't try to own articles, nor does the compromise revision reflect what I consider to be the best version.

However, I respect Erik Moeller as a person and as an editor, and I am willing--more than willing--to work with him--and anyone else--to find a compromise we can all accept. I find the satisfaction of developing a successful compromise significantly greater than having what I simply consider superior and succinct remain, to the detriment of my fellow contributors. Please, I beg you, extend a similar respect.

At no time did I take action with the intent to "keep people off balance" or to achieve "tactical success".

You are right that I have an axe to grind in regards to the Santorum affair. You know what it is? That the media coverage of this was confused, muddy, and partisan, since it quickly devolved into a reporting of what X said Y meant when he said Z said X meant "foo". That's my axe to grind.

Again, you attack my motives, stating that I am on "an overwhelming campaign to split content more and more so it becomes impossible to read about any one subject meaningfully and easily". Please stop making such attacks. Budding off topics is a necessary part of Wikipedia editing, and I make every effort to do it responsibly.

--The Cunctator 10:32, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Miscellaneous unasked-for thoughts on splitting. Please forgive me if this has all been hashed over for years. I love the Eleventh Edition of the Britannica, where the articles are long, rich, detailed, college-to-grad-school level, authoritative. They are full of verve and personality, yet extremely factual. I detest e.g. the current World Book or, worse yet, Grolier's, where the articles are short, bland, inoffensive, high-school level, and seem to have been written for approval by the Texas textbook committee, and resemble a bloated version of a one-volume desktop "encyclopedia."

I am not sure how the hypertext capabilities of the Internet fit in here. Wikipedia currently does not feel very hypertext-like to me. But then, pace Ted Nelson, I'm still not sure how I feel about hypertext. One humble thing that hypertext ought to do, IMHO, is to improve the presentation of things that are traditionally presented in print as footnotes and sidebars.

What I'd like to have is an encyclopedia article that, at first glance, is a well-written, short, smooth summary of the minimum amount of detail I'd like to know, yet has a UI that allows me to expand the parts I'm interested in effortlessly. An article that adjusts its depth continuously to the level of interest I have in the topic.

Now, applying this to Wikipedia. Because of Wikipedia's nature, I believe it is inevitable that Wikipedia's coverage will always be highly uneven, varying with contributors' personal level of interest in a topic, subtopic, or sub-sub-topic. Maybe that's good, maybe that's bad, but it's likely to be the way things are. It seems to me that today the typical good Wikipedia article is uniformly well-written and factual, but quite uneven in coverage and depth of its subtopics.

In an uncontroversial, factual article that's not a big problem. In a controversial article, the controversies attract attention and result in a lot of detail getting accumulated quickly. I thought that Microsoft's stance about the File_Allocation_Table being patented warranted a mention, and put in a short paragraph about it; within hours, the section had expanded to the point where it is now about half of the entire article. Well, that section is good. It's factual and its well-written. You wouldn't want to throw it away. But it doesn't look right to me.

I fantasize that an article that includes controversial topics should have some kind of top-level view in which the controversial topics are given their proper weight relative to the noncontroversial ones, but in which it is possible to "drill down" effortlessly into a footnote or whatever to examine the details. I think this might be what Cunctator is after, too.

The problem is that I don't think the technical underpinnings of HTML or Wikipedia really lend themselves to this. I don't want a decent long article fragmented. Perhaps this is because Wikipedia articles are full of links, they all look alike, and I can't tell which of them are going to get me to big juicy pieces that amount to continuations of the article and which are going to get me to silly little stubs that are unrelated to the article. And if the fantasy can't be realized given the present structure, I don't think long articles should be chopped up into index-card-sized fragments in the hope that someday in the future someone will implement virtual glue that lets us reassemble them to our personal taste.

I do see some validity, when a controversial section expands out of proportion, to replacing it with a good short summary and a link to a detailed article about the controversy. I do not agree that this necessarily amounts to "creating two NPOV articles instead of one." Any short summary is not going to be able to capture the nuances and details, and by itself is unlikely to win consensus agreement. However, if it is obvious that its purpose is to summarize enough about the controversy to let people know whether they should read the full account, people might be willing to let a reasonably OK summary stand.

The second point is that I (still) believe that devoting e.g. half of an article to a controversy is in itself not neutral. Why does moving it to another article change things? The answer is that it changes things because in Wikipedia there is no visual overview of the whole encyclopedia. In a print encyclopedia, one would be surprised if one saw that the bindings were labelled Aar-Bel, Bel-Cad, Cad-Cag, Cag-Cal, Cal-Cam, Cam-Can, Can-Cap, Cap-Fin, Fin-Zym. But in Wikipedia, variations in degree of coverage across articles are invisible, whereas variations in degree of coverage within articles are highly visible.

Just my $0.02. Dpbsmith 13:47, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Excellent thoughts. We do have a few tools to give a hint when links "are going to get me to big juicy pieces that amount to continuations of the article and which are going to get me to silly little stubs that are unrelated to the article". The two methods in practice are to do

History of X

Main Article: [[History of X]]

and to use bolded links:

The Santorum affair occured...

I have a strong personal preference for bolding. See also this revision of 9-11, this revision of US, and this revision of US for some alternate approaches. --The Cunctator 17:46, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I understand that Rick Santorum is a political figure, and even if he says some controversial things, he should be entitled to a page free of garbage. The question is, when somebody searches Wikipedia for Santorum, what should the definition be? In the English language definition is a technique to clarify words and their meanings to a reader. Since the definition for Santorum has been coined as a frothy mixture of you know what, it should be defined on its own page so the reader can clearly understand the definition for Santorum. That page should be linked to Rick Santorum's page to distinguish the differences between the two. SallyJBarnes

Welcome to Wikipedia Sally. I suggest you read talk:santorum first to see the previous discussions over this point. Angela. 09:36, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
You've come to the right place, Sally. On Wikipedia, issues like that are discussed at book length. ;-) —Eloquence

Is there a need for neutrality?

I am somewhat puzzled by the recurring attempts to find something "good" that Senator Santorum has said or done in order to be able to include it in the article and to "balance" his hateful, offensive and stupid comments about gay people and privacy. While a "neutral" and "balanced" stance for editing an encyclopedia is absolutely necessary, there seems to be a misunderstanding on the nature of "neutrality" here.

Writing a "neutral and balanced" article should not lead to the "net impression" on the reader's side that the person described is "neutral, possessing exactly the same amount of traits [or past actions] that evoke sympathy as those that evoke antipathy". If that was the aim, how would an article on Hitler have to look?

IMO it is good to report events without bias. But if someone has done a thing stupid, obnoxious, cruel or, on the other hand, beneficiary to the world, caring and good, the encyclopedia article on that person should not be hamstrung by a vain search for good or bad things to include for reasons of a misunderstood "balance".

I do not know whether I will visit this page later, so I would appreciate feedback at cobweb@gmx.net

cobweb

While I agree with what you're saying, I don't think that "balance" is the principal bone of contention here. The main argument about the "Santorum" page seems to be whether or not the (now largely forgotten) movement by Dan Savage to coin a word "santorum" to describe a sexual byproduct is appropriate material for an encyclopedia entry, whether it merits a redirect, or whether it needs to be mentioned on a page devoted to Savage and his work and nowhere else. (Anyone with the slightest iota of common sense, liberal or conservative, should immediately know what the right answer is here. To pretend that Dan Savage's remarks have absolutely any relevance to Rick Santorum's political career is to pretend that any semi-memorable political insult that has been semi-widely disseminated in any way is relevant to any politician's career.) Thunderbunny

A lot of time has passed since Santorum's remarks. Can we remove the NPOV warning now? Dan Savage's definition has no place in this article but I think the link here is fine. Aside from that, the idea that we need to dig up "good news" about Santorum in order to balance the controversy doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Any objection to removing the NPOV warning? Rhobite 19:00, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

Aspires to number two (introduction)

I trimmed this from the intro, right after the note about him being the third ranking Republican in the Senate...

...though he aspires to number two.

This is pretty uninformative, and even a little confusing. What is the title of the number two position, and is it worth mentioning that an obviously ambitious person seeks more power? I'm only explaining this because it was in the introduction. AdamRetchless 17:33, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

LGBT rights cat

I re-inserted this category--it pretty clearly applies to Santorum. If the category were to be deleted, we could justify its removal, but not until then. Meelar (talk) 23:08, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Weird Chronology

In September of 2004, Santorum stated his intention to run for United States Senate Republican Whip in 2006. However, he lost by a one-vote margin. He already lost in the future? Huh? --Mtrisk 02:26, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

My revert

I reverted the changes made by 210.xx.xxx.xx (the anon IP on May 31, 2005). They violated the neutrality policy, attacking Santorum over a controversy which the article already covered. Meelar (talk) 20:49, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Does anybody know what this guy's father's name was?

I'm curious about Santorum's immigrant father. What was his name? I googled around but can't find anything on him other than quotes of Santorum saying "my father came here from Italy." Checked death records for surname "Santorum" also, but none of the matching names show up on google.

Context in the 2002 Article on the Catholic Sexual Abuse Scandal

The first two sentences are not POV, but what Rick Santorum wrote. This is the Rick Santorum article and to accurately present this controversy, not only does Baer's excerpt need to be quoted, but Santorum's topic sentence from the article needs to be quoted. This will help the reader evaluate if the Boston criticism is the main point of "Fishers of Men" or taken out context and only incidental to the points the Senator raised. patsw 02:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


You are right, the first two were not POV, but they were quotes that were not directly relevent. As written, it looked like Baer was misinterpreting the words santorum said. It was implied that Baer was being an antagonist and falsifying issues. THat is NOT the case. The later part, namely "This insulting personal attack by Baer against Sen. Santorum " and "However, on July 12, 2005, a Boston Globe columist Brian McGrory wrote in_sanctum_santorum/ In sanctum Santorum] which transformed those ten words into a 709 word article which was entirely a personal attack on the intelligence of the senator." were definatly biased. First of all Baers artcle was NOT a personal attack, nor did the second article attack the senators intellegence. Also, as worded, it appears that they misquoted or other wise manipulated the words of santorum, which is not the case. If people want context, they can follow the link and read the articles themself. Regardless, the sentences I removed were strongly worded with POV heavy words. IreverentReverend 06:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The topic sentence of an article is always relevant. As for who is misinterpreting what, that's for the Wikipedia reader to decide. I never said that Baer was "falsifying issues", he's simply using ten words taken out of context from three years ago to insult Santorum and support Casey. Your opinion to the contrary isn't the authority to edit out what and why Senator Santorum was writing in his article Fishers of Men. Its context is the Catholic Church sexual abuse scandal and the mention of Boston was incidental. In discussing this on Hannity's show, Santorum himself mentioned this. My characterization of Baer's and McGrory's articles is accurate but too obvious to appear in the article. The reader can follow the link and see if the Baer and McGrory are objective in their analysis or insulting. patsw 20:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Let's discuss further changes to this section: I have restored the title, references to it being written three years ago, and being only ten words taken out of context, and that Kennedy's senate floor rebuke was criticized as reported in The Hill and the Boston Globe. patsw 22:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
My thoughts:
  • Until yesterday, the Boston controversy was included in the same section with the homosexuality controversy. There is some overlap and some fundamental similarity between the two. They differ from, for example, the school tuition controversy, or from any issue arising from Santorum's position on a particular bill, in that they're simply reactions to something he said. I suggest we have one section on "Controversial remarks", with a subheading for each of these incidents.
  • Many of Patsw's edits are clearly aimed at promoting Santorum's side. The current version isn't quite so bad as the original version (the one that described Baer's article as "an insulting personal attack by Baer"), but there's still a lot of room for improvement. We don't need to point out once, let alone twice, that a particular passage of an article is ten words long. We don't need to help the arithmetic-impaired reader by highlighting that 2,005 minus 2,002 equals 3.
  • The section in its current wording goes way too far into collateral issues and needs to be trimmed. This article is about Santorum. Whether a particular criticism of Santorum violated a Senate rule is irrelevant here, unless and until we're in a position of reporting on a complaint to that effect brought or endorsed by Santorum himself. Similarly, the blatant POV attacking the Boston Globe for an earlier story is not relevant to this article unless it played a role relevant to Santorum. Did Traynham cite the Globe's earlier story in responding on Santorum's behalf? That might make it worth noting, although even then we're getting kind of far afield from Santorum himself.
  • Kennedy's criticism could probably be summarized instead of being quoted verbatim.
These POV issues are unrelated to my suggestion for reorganizing the treatment of Santorum's controversial remarks. JamesMLane 22:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
James, I like your style. IreverentReverend 00:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
I reverted to FW's version as it seems more neutral than Patsw's. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:35, July 25, 2005 (UTC)


Glad we see eye to eye on this slimvirgin. Little too much bias in Patsw's version. Patsw, since you are insisting people read the talk page before edition, you should do so as well. I stand behind SlimVirgin on this one. IreverentReverend 03:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
I am not presenting a POV, or my POV, but summarizing Santorum's own response to the column by Baer, the column by McGrory, and the Senate speech by Kennedy. Santorum himself mentions:
  • it was ten words
  • written three years ago
  • out of context from a longer timely article on the sexual abuse scandal where the mention of Boston is incidental.
As written this section is merely a presentation of Baer's, McGrory's, and Kennedy's POV. They all get a pass.
I disagree that the floor rebuke of Santorum by Kennedy should not be remarked upon. I cited the criticism in The Hill and the Boston Globe as sources. This only became a national story because of Kennedy's speech. If that gets a mention in the article it follows that criticism of it is as relevant as anything else connected to the ten words. I'll see if Santorum's response gets any support here on the talk page. patsw 23:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


Since this article is about santorum, not kennedy, any flack kennedy got does not belong. Since it became national attention due to kennedy's comments, the comments themselves belong. I like how you keep stressing the ten words as if that makes any difference, they are just the number of words int he quote. The outrage is not over the whole article, but rather the message those particular words convey. Having read it, I can say that the context does not help the case. He is saying that the church needs to change. That it does. However, when he blames libralism in boston for the perverts he crosses the line. it is the crossing of the line people are upset by. IreverentReverend 02:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
If the article is about Santorum and not Baer, McGrory, and Kennedy, the context of 'Fishers of Men' needs to be included to make sense of Santourm's response to the criticism. The JamesMLane "trim" comes as a surprise and supports a free POV shot against Santorum by Baer, McGrory, and Kennedy. Oddly enough, the details that JamesMLane deleted were the context of the original article -- including the identification of its source in the text which is the critical element to understanding its been taken out of context and the mention of Boston is incidental. I hope to get something on the record from Santorum's office on this. patsw 15:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I trimmed things like the names of the Boston-area priests who were involved in 2002. All that's relevant here is that Santorum's article appeared soon after the Archdiocese of Boston had been in the news, which I left in because some people might consider that fact to be a justification of Santorum's remarks. (I, personally, don't think it is, but we'll give the readers the facts and let them decide.) What do you mean about the identification of the source? I left the link in, so anyone who wants to can click and read the article, or can mouse over it to see that it's from Catholic.org. As for the context, no one would assume that Santorum was writing a Boston travelogue; the obvious assumption would be that his focus was the scandal. Nevertheless, if you think that might be unclear, I've reworded the paragraph to convey that point to any reader who missed it. JamesMLane 17:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, let me restate this. Since this is an article about santorum, comments about santorum are ok. Additionally, since this is an article about santorum, comments about people who made comments about santorum are usually not. The fact that Kennedy got reprimaned (or at least is eligable for that) is irelevent. Now if you were, for instance, to say that Kennedy, in the past had made similar statments as santorum (which he hasn't), that MIGHT be ok. Kennedy picking the wrong time and place to comment on santorum is not relevent. The source is still included in the wiki article and people are able to find any extra context they want by following it, although I don't see what difference that would make, as even in context it is still a bash against the common person and liberals in particular in Boston. It is not as if santorum was using it as an example, or a hypothetical. He made the claim. No doubt about it. They are not twisting his words, since they are proveided fully. IreverentReverend 17:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


Replaced the earlier wording on McGrory, had a less accusiatory tone. I also removed the giant dialog between santorum and limbaugh. The conversation was longer than the rest of the section and it was just the two of them repeating over and over that it was taken out of context. It is ok to sumarize and link that conversation but the whole thing was not needed. They even both agree that he intended to mean "that it is no surprise that the center of the Catholic Church abuse took place in a very liberal, or perhaps the nations most of the nation's most liberal area, Boston" which is EXACLTY what he is accused of and asked to appologize for, blameing liberals for the perversions and moral failings of the priests. IreverentReverend 17:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


Let me clarify on the words I replaced, the wording i removed looked like "in sanctum sanctorum" was a regulare article, the phrase "wrote in his article that he called the senator" makes it sound like only claims to, and reads much less cleanly than "he called on santorum". IreverentReverend 18:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I have added my summary of Santorum's response to Kennedy's speech against him. patsw 18:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Looks much better. Much more concise. Just curious, why are both you and santorum up in arms about the context, when even santorum admits that the implication that he intended perfectly matches up with what was taken out of context? I.E. that it is no suprise that this outrage happened in a place with a high liberal population? That is EXACTLY what people are upset about, that santorum is blaming the population of boston, as liberals, for perverted priests. IreverentReverend 20:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I've shortened this again; explanations below.
  • Citation style: Having the title of a story and/or publication appear in the text as part of a citation tends to clutter the article and make it harder to read. This awkwardness isn't required by "Wiki-style citations". According to the most recent "Summary of formatting styles", there are different ways to present the information (inline links, footnotes, references, etc.) so that the text is more readable, but, of course, the citation information is still available to any reader who wants it. I put this section into the inline style, the first one listed there, because it's the one I'm most familiar with. It's also the one that's used everywhere else in the article. If someone wants to go through and put all the citations into one of the other styles, I won't care. I do care, however, about distracting the reader with unnecessary visible citations. Reference information that's of no intrinsic importance should be viewed only by a reader who looks for it, by clicking on a link or by following a footnote to a list of references at the end of the article. It's potentially useful information to know that the column challenging Santorum and quoting his response was in a Boston paper. It's less important, but still possibly useful, to know that the controversy was sparked most immediately by a column in a Philadelphia paper. The titles of these columns aren't important, though.
  • Limbaugh interview format: The text can readily be summarized in the normal paragraph form. It's not the kind of list that's improved by bullets.
  • Partisanship: I think it's pretty pathetic that Santorum points to the role of the DSCC. A leading Democratic Senator gives a speech, and the DSCC helps coordinate to get maximum media coverage? Horrors!! Appoint a special prosecutor!! OK, sarcasm aside, this is pretty normal behavior. If we're going to quote Santorum's attempt to make it a partisan issue, then we should also note what Romney, his fellow Republican, had to say.
  • Robert S. Bennett: On a related subject, in the long interview excerpt that Patsw included earlier, Santorum mentions Bennett but doesn't identify him as a prominent Democrat. I can't read the full interview because I'm not willing to inflate Rush Limbaugh's already bloated treasury. If, elsewhere in the interview, Santorum mentions Bennett's party affiliation, then we could consider whether to include that (depending on exactly what he said). If he didn't mention it, though, then we shouldn't interpolate it, because it would give a false impression that Santorum thought it was relevant. A reader who wants to know more about Bennett can follow the link to Robert S. Bennett.
I hate giving people a link that requires payment. Is there anywhere that the text of this interview is available online for free? JamesMLane 22:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
The wiki-style citations help here since the PDN and BG references were signed opinion columns and not editorial positions of the respective publications. The identification of the author and column title is helpful and especially so where the original link is broken and the article is indexed elsewhere by author and title. In the case of columnist Brian McGrory, you've deleted his name from the article more than once. I am not persuaded to accept your truncation of the cites. On the other hand, I'm not about to track down your contributions and edit your citation style to my liking either.
Sen. Santorum considers it a partisan issue. The first columnist, John Baer comments on Bob Casey, Jr., his Democrat opponent, in his article so Baer is partisan. This whole this is partisan. I'll provide a better identification of Keating and Bennett whom Santorum cites as confirming his observation of the impact of the wider culture on the population from which the Church draws priests. You might think this observation is obvious. If so, you might regard the reference to Boston as incidental and wonder why Baer, McGrory, and Kennedy made such a big deal about it. I looked in Google for a free source of the interview transcript and was unable to find one. Nevertheless, the interview happened and was heard by Limbaugh's audience of 20 million. patsw 03:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
It is misleading for you to act as if I were trying to "edit your citation style to my liking". I'm not asking you to take my word for anything or to cater to some personal idiosyncrasy of mine. I gave you a link to an explanation of Wiki-style citing. You can click on the link and read it. Furthermore, not only is the less cluttered style Wikipedia policy, but it's sensible. Even APA style, MLA style, and Harvard referencing, which were developed for dead-tree works and don't take full advantage of hyperlinking, wouldn't put the article title in the text. I agree with you that the reader should know that the quoted statements were from columns, not editorials or news reports, and should know which paper they were in. I, of course, preserved all that information in text. Beyond that, why should the casual reader care what the title of the article was, or McGrory's name? The casual reader wouldn't care. (I left in Baer's name because he was of more importance, as the writer whose work precipitated the current flap.) With the link, a reader who wanted to track down the reference could find the information. The concern about a link that goes bad is certainly less of a factor when we're linking to newspapers, as opposed to some more fly-by-night operation. Still, if you're concerned about it, you can put the citations in any one of the standard formats that preserve the information in a "References" section. While I'm sure there are articles in Wikipedia that cite the way you have, there are also articles that don't boldface the subject's name. They're wrong. Can you point to any policy that approves this kind of citation?
On another style point, we don't keep saying "Sen." Santorum after his position has been identified. This isn't some leftist bias against Santorum. I was going to give you the example of the Bill Clinton article, which doesn't refer to him as "President Clinton" but merely "Clinton". In double-checking it, however, I see that, since I last looked at it, some careless editors have slipped in improper references to Clinton as "the President" (which would be acceptable only in a context where it was necessary to distinguish him from Senator Clinton). I'll remove the improper references to "Sen." Santorum, and then go clean up the Clinton article.
Turning to the substance, there's no need for the long sentence about the review boards' conclusions. This section is about the flak Santorum caught for singling out Boston, not because many people cared about his analysis of the overall problem. Getting into the pros and cons of the overall problem of the sex abuse scandal is getting too far afield from the Santorum article. I understand that some people, wanting to back away from Santorum's smear on "liberal" Boston, would explain his focus on Boston as being a product of where attention was focused at the time. That's why my last version specifically noted that he was "[w]riting in the wake of developments in the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston". Having conveyed that information, we don't need to quote Santorum saying the same thing. JamesMLane 05:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Looking at some other articles, I see the complete citations go into External links and references. I'll consider adding it there. I've added back the Q&A on why Boston was specification mentioned. patsw 01:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
The information that Santorum wrote his article at the time of developments in Boston is worth including, but it's not worth including twice. Since you persist in restoring the lengthier version of it, I'll delete the more succinct (and preferable) one. JamesMLane 01:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Munchy

Hey, just letting everyone know that if Munchy continues to replace current text with his bias, it will re reverted and referenced to the talk page. Examples follow, such as:

"same-sex marriage" -> "as the importance of family in raising children," Which was changed due to the fact that he gets much more media time about same sex marrage
"controversial"->" celebrated" due to the fact that he is more controversial than celebrated. Even most of the people "celebrating" him admit that he is controversial, and as such I feel that that is more appropriate than the bias sounding "celebrated"
" Santorum is widely seen as one of the more ideologically conservative members of the Senate and has come under a great deal of criticism regarding many of his views." ->" Santorum is widely seen as one of the more ideologically conservative members of the Senate and has received a great deal of praise from the majority of constituents in our right-leaning nation." While the constituents are important, most politicians get praised by them, particulalrily multiterm constituents. While a properly cited line as to his popularity might be appropriate, the reason santorum is in the news is NOT because he is popular locally with his constituency, but rather that he is controversial and critisized nationally. Additionally, rightleanning nation would be irelevant to the sentence anyway, as it would be about santorum and his constituents, and not the nation as a whole.
various broken links where "Democratic" was changed to "Democrat", breaking the links in an act of vandalism.

I am fully willing to make the above changes, provided they are cited, and that they are neutrally worded. As they were, tehy were highly pro-santorum, and as such, not appropriate.

Munchy, please discuss these changes with us before you replace them again, it will avoid a lot of needless reversions. IreverentReverend 07:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


And so far as an "encyclopedia" goes, there is the fact that right-wingers are right, and left-wingers are wrong, on the majority of things they disagree on. But would you agree to have "inaccurate and erroneous beliefs" in the first paragraph for every leftist senator?

Of course everybody is wrong about everything, to the extent that reality is more complicated than any description anyone could give of it. But the best evidence I can offer leftists that they are wrong - evidence which they can understand - is that very many left-wing people become right-wing at some point in their lives. But very few people cross back the other way, from right-wing to Marxist. This is what you would expect from people "realizing their mistake."

Left-wing thought is just a primitive stage of human intellect. And the reason it is seized by smart people, is because their brains are efficient. There is always a simpler way of thinking about a problem. You should always use the simplest approach to any problem, the minimum necessary to get the right conclusion.

For example, you might round the number 67.6395 to 67.6. But you would probably not want to round 67.6395 to 100 in most situations. Similarly, leftists compress and summarize spatial phenomena as a very compact network of linguistic symbols. They then have a popular catalog of valid operators, associations, and rules which they can apply to those symbols to logically arrive at new conclusions. So that out of their system, the answer is obvious. But it is also wrong.

But I am not going to go around putting "right" under every Republican's wikipedia entry, and "wrong" under every Democrat's wikipedia entry, even though it is factually correct.

We have, in politics and economics, a problem which is not as present in disciplines such as physics. Debates in physics are a search for the truth, and so they take a path that leads to everyone agreeing about originally disputed matters. Political arguments, by contrast, are made for the sake winning or securing some advantage. They are arguments, at their root, over private property, and over the appropriate domain of collectives of various sizes.

There is no scientifically optimal size for a security collective, for example, no knowable truth. And a person will never learn, as truth, the fact that in some sense his neighbor should be richer than him. It is impossible to prove to a global-warming doomsayer, for example, that he does not own the world simply for having been born.

If he can get control of the world - by hook or by crook - then he owns it. So politics is a grabbing match, not a search for truth. There is no right for leftists, only how much power they can get by saying various things. And if their disposition is to gain power, or chase "social justice," or act out their paternal instinct on every living thing, you cannot say their values are wrong. Objectively, they are what they are.

But politics is at all times "controversial," since people will always be "critical" when someone else's values are realized, instead of their own.

You guys don't have to keep my edits. But to revert to something just as bad doesn't make any sense to me. Is it just laziness? Can we compromise, and delete the lines altogether?

To explain that Democrats want to defeat Santorum for the simple reason that he has been "much criticized" is a little too simpleminded and suspiciously neat. The paragraph works grammatically. But conceptually, it is the dysfunctional remains of whatever it was edited down from, to where it has become inane. Sometimes gradual changes cross a threshhold, to where you realize the original wording was a dead end.

And until somebody includes "controversial" and "out of the mainstream" in the first paragraph on Hillary Clinton - which I won't waste my time doing, because Wikipedia is not an outlet for my personal political polemic - then I will keep editing Santorum's first paragraph.

I chose the edits I chose, to illustrate what was wrong with the original lines. I thought somebody would figure that out. But I guess you guys are just too biased and wrapped up in your own little world. Look at the electoral map someday. Democrats are in the minority. Which means that every one of the views in their core value system is "controversial."

-Munchy

P.S. I don't even think that to say "Santorum is much criticized by Democrats" - similar to how Specter is "criticized by conservatives" - quite captures the reality of it. "Criticism" and political polemic and invective and demagoguery are all different things. To pretend one is the other is dishonest. This trick is like when Sandra Day O'Connor recently said that people who criticized her written ruling as a judge, were attacking her "free speech." In reality, they were "criticizing" a judge using their own speech, not censoring a pundit. Others wish to say that you're not allowed to criticize a judge, because it encourages people to engage in violence against judges. But would I say that Democrats are attempting to censor Rick Santorum, or are inciting violence against him? I might.

My very first edit changed it to something like "Santorum has been much the focus of Democrats who use his positions to scare their far-left constituents for the purpose of fund raising." That is a little odd, but to say that Democrats want to replace him because Democrats criticize him, is also kind of circular or inane or something. It is certainly not accurate to say that Democrats want to replace Santorum because non-Democrats criticize him. Oh, they're so selfless and civically minded, aren't they? Democrats don't care what people who do not share their philosophy want. And politicians like having someone who embodies "the enemy" around, whom they can point to.


Please keep your personal bias out of wikipedia. Please read this arcticle with an open eye. While the current version is not perfect, it is much better than the biased version you are supporting. Feel free to add substantivly but not any personal views. Please keep your personal political polemic out of wikipedia, to use your own words.
Again, the santorum is in the news for one reason, and it is NOT because he is popular with his constituents.
To address some of your comments ont he history page:
This article may not be perfect, but we are trying. We are much more neutral with your edits missing, due to careful wording.
This is not a Ted Kennedy article, nor is it a Hillary CLinton article. If you have issues with those articles, please edit them. This is wikipedia, and if you are careful and do not let your bias out in the edits, they will be kept.
Savage Love is relevent due to the fact that "santorum" as the by-product of anal sex is fairly common place. multiple places on line have picked up it's use in common speack. However since this article only references a critic who coined the term, and does not really say much about it, and it does so at the expense of much debate here on the talk page, it stays.
Please see above for indvidual edits reasoning for being removed. You have no convinced me not the revert your edits.
Finally, please stop vandalizing the wiki links. Changing the spelling to point at non-existant pages is simply that.
IreverentReverend 14:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


While I don't agree with some of Munchy's edits on this page (because I agree that they are biased), his point makes perfect sense. And frankly, I think you're missing it (whether voluntarily or involuntarily). For instance, Santorum's page calls him heavily controversial. For what? Having a system of beliefs that is out of the mainstream? Okay, sure, let's go with that. So does that mean I have permission to go onto every article in Wiki on a figure with beliefs out of the mainstream and say that they're heavily controversial? If I do, then I get to say it about Hillary, and Ted, and Michael Moore, and Jesus, and Gandhi, and pretty much everyone else in the world who's been doing or saying something out of the 'mainstream'. So I could also say it about any civil rights activist, any feminist, or anyone who worked to "bend the rules" of society. They're all controversial. EVERYONE'S controversial. And that's why they're on the news, because it's good entertainment. While I disagree with Munchy's edit of "celebrated", I agree with his point. Although Santorum IS widely seen as a heavily conservative and idealistic person in the Senate and he's criticized for it, it would be nice to have something mentioning the fact that many (in fact, many more people than the amount that criticize him) applaud him for it.
And since when did someone who defends the right of the family come out of the mainstream? Unless I have my history wrong, that's what's been in the mainstream (and frankly, that's what's worked) for....ever. If that's not "in the mainstream" anymore, I give up on wiki and America. For that matter, the majority of people don't agree with same-sex marriage. So technically speaking, that puts anyone who does agree with it OUT of the mainstream, and it puts Santorum IN. Why are people who are defending traditional values viewed on wiki as the "controversial" ones, and the people who disregard it are viewed as "activists"? Shouldn't "traditional" people be the non-controversial ones because they "follow the herd" and are "sheep people", as so many like to call them?
I think another point Munchy makes that I agree with is that this article is all about his controversy. While I agree he is controversial, and I don't think it should all be removed, there's a striking lack of anything showing the other side. And don't argue that the only reason he's in the news is because he's controversial. Michael Moore (regardless of what anyone thinks) is in the news waaaaaaaaaaay more for being controversial than he is for his movies, and yet his controversy section isn't nearly as long and drawn out as Santorum's.
The point Munchy makes about not going to other articles like you want him to, to edit those articles he's dissatisfied with...I don't wholly agree with. But if Santorum is the only article he's interested in, he doesn't have to go to the other articles to try and change them. Especially since EVERYONE knows if he (or anyone) were to go change the introduction to Michael Moore's page to state that he's extremely controversial, it wouldn't last 5 seconds. And yet Moore is infinitely more controversial and in the news more often than Santorum. This is just an example.
Santorum is widely seen as someone to beat by the Democrats? So is um....every Republican. I don't...I don't think that Democrats really want any Republicans to win. And I don't think Republicans want any Democrats. So...technically, the statement is pointless. And if it stays in the article, should there be statements in every person's article who are high on the Republican list to beat? Barbara Boxer, and Hillary for instance. They're certainly high on the "defeat" list.
I think Munchy is looking more for a standard than for the defense of an individual article. Are there no standards on wikipedia? Is there no defining aspect of all the politician's articles? Nothing that has to be in every article for a nation? If there really are none, then Munchy's trying to set a precedence that I think many people have previously tried to set, and that I don't think will ever be achieved. Because God forbid someone tries to hold anything to some sort of standard.Stanselmdoc 17:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Santorum is controversial not because "Having a system of beliefs that is out of the mainstream", but because he wishes to FORCE his beliefs on me. My tax money should not be spent teaching theology in a science classroom, my right to marry who I want should not be imposed. Homosexuals are not equal to pedifiles and beastifiles. Jesus, at least the jesus I have heard about was about choice. He didn't force anyone to do anything. Compairing santorum to a civil rights activist is quite horrid of you and is very ironic. Santorum is the equivlent of "the man" trying to keep the civil rights activists DOWN. He is trying to repress the rights of homosexuals to marry, denying them equal rights. While I agree that everyone can be construed as controvesial, some are much more so than others. That is their claim to fame. While their might be more people that support santorum, the problem is, if it were not for the controversy, no one would hear about it. If he was popular, so be it, so he gets re-elected. When was the last time YOU saw an uncontroversial politicial on the news, let alone the national news?
Again you bring up another ironic point. You say santorum stands for family values, and that family values "have been around forever", oddly enough family values have changed drastically since that buzzword was first coined, and even more so since the idea was defined. So santorum stands for family values? Which ones? Mixed marrages are evil? Women should not work outside the home? Men can have multiple wives? Women are the property of men? Arranged marrages? Family values have changed drastically throughout the ages, so you really can't say they have been mainstream forever, since they are completely different now than they were 80 years ago, or even 40.
Anyway, back on track, it is due to the standards on wikipedia that thing such as breaking links(see above for other break downs of his edits), that munchy gets reverted.
Munchy replaced the words "same-sex marriage" with "the importance of family in raising children", as if the two are mutually exclusive. The only reason santorum gets press time over the importance of family is his narrow minded view of what constitutes a family. Most people believe that the family is important to the formation of a child, and most of them would agree that a loving, caring family if better than a spiteful, hateful family. Not all people that believe in the importance of family define it as a man and a woman with children, particulalily single parents would argue against that, and many more admit that same-sex couples (be it marriage or civil union, the distinction is only legal) posess the same benifits as any other family unit.
Again, this is wikipedia, if you want to see change, propose one. I still feel that the article is a bit pro-santorum, but the sign of a balanced article is both sides unhappy. I would love to see more background on santorum, and more information. I don't know much about him, other than what has been on the news recently , and what I have looked into for this article.
I stand behind the removals of bias.

IreverentReverend 19:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


I'm glad to hear that you stand behind the removal of bias, and that you would like to see an unbiased page. And as I said before, I agree that some of Munchy's edits aren't necessary and are biased. But your previous edit to this talk page makes you sound like the one who has a vendetta against Santorum, which doesn't speak well of your edits, since you may not even realize you're not being fair to him.
I understand that you are pro-same-sex marriage, and that you dislike the fact that Santorum is against it. And I understand that what he says (because he's so forward about it) makes you consider him controversial. As we have both said before, every politician is controversial in some way or another. But your first paragraph is proving the point I was trying to say. You call him controversial because he tries to force his beliefs on you. Well, disregarding the fact that he's a politician and that's his job because that's why he was elected, you yourself are comparing him to civil rights activists. Why do you think it was such a big deal and a lot of people disagreed with them back in the day? Because they were telling people that they HAD to agree with them. I understand that it's a "crime" to be racist now, but as you said yourself, it wasn't back then. And people didn't like the fact that others were telling them what and how to believe. So while you disagree with Santorum "forcing" his beliefs on you, many people disagreed with civil rights activists "forcing" their opinions on them. And Santorum does it by writing books and proposing legislation. You made the comparison, I was only pointing it out, and saying that what goes for Santorum, should go for everyone. But on wiki, for some reason, it doesn't. The majority of articles on wiki don't have bias - the Santorum page seems to - that's why Munchy and I watch it.
When I say that Santorum stands for "family values" (or as I really said it "the rights of the family"), I'm not talking about his views on same-sex marriage. I'm talking about his belief in the family. Just stop for a second and don't connect his belief in a family to his views on same-sex marriage, understand what he's talking about, and THEN connect them. First of all, Santorum has worked extremely hard in his very poor community to foster a better environment for the family. He believes that two parents (which the majority of Americans agree with) are the best thing for children, but that doesn't mean he has something against single parents. He's worked hard to help single parents in his community - he's just done it differently than throwing money at them through welfare. He's helped them get on their two feet and get jobs and work within the community to create a better life for themselves and others and their children. When he says, "It Takes a Family", he's talking about the first step. He's talking about his belief that a community can only thrive if there's a core, solid base under it. Then the community comes into play. The opposing view of this position is Hillary's "It Takes a Village", the belief that the family isn't as important as the community around it. The issue of Santorum's family values is Family versus Village, not family versus same-sex marriage.
Now you connect his beliefs to same-sex marriage. If Santorum wants a community based on a family unit, what creates a family? In his opinion (and I haven't read his book so this is unsourced), a family consists of a mother and father. If you disagree with that, that's fine. It's funny how you wrote "Most people believe that the family is important to the formation of a child, and most of them would agree that a loving, caring family if better than a spiteful, hateful family. Not all people that believe in the importance of family define it as a man and a woman with children, particulalily single parents would argue against that, and many more admit that same-sex couples (be it marriage or civil union, the distinction is only legal) posess the same benifits as any other family unit." First, you switched 'most' with 'not all' when trying to make a point. But (to sound wikian) you're giving an unsourced opinion. True - Not all people believe in the importance of defining marriage as a man and a woman. Opinion - Most people believe it shouldn't be defined. The first is a fact, the second is an unsourced opinion based on the fact. If you want to source your opinion that Santorum's views on marriage are not in the majority of Americans, by all means. But over half of the Santorum article is on his same-sex marriage views. And you're arguing that that's the only thing important enough to write about. But if we went by importance, over half of wiki's articles should be deleted because they're of no importance. And he's not in the news because he's against same-sex marriage - most of the time, he's talking about the importance of a family versus a village and he's challenging Hillary to debate with him.
The problem seems to be that you're bashing a man who's done nothing but state his beliefs and defend them, and then you're calling it oppression. He's not out just to make laws, he's out to change hearts as well, perhaps even more so. He's not just trying to make same-sex marriage and abortion illegal - he's also trying to show people why he believes it's wrong. But the opposition immediately refutes his (perhaps valid) arguments by claiming he's trampling on their rights, without giving arguments back. Santorum has every right to say what he wants, and it shouldn't be masked by people accusing him of things. By doing that, they're trying to take away his freedom of speech. And he has the right to say things as much as everyone else in America does. And you have the right to disagree with him. And you (and Santorum) have the right to be wrong. That's not "tyranny" or "someone trying to force you to belief something".
That's democracy.Stanselmdoc 14:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh and another thing - how is an article in which over half is dedicated to a man's controversy Pro-Santorum? How is that possible? Have you seen the article? Almost the whole thing is on his controversy.Stanselmdoc 14:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
It's certainly true that the Democrats would, at some level, like to defeat every Republican Senator, but it's equally true that there are differences among them. Orrin Hatch is also up for re-election next year, but the Democrats are paying much more attention to beating Santorum. There are two factors that make him stand out:
  1. He's vulnerable. He represents a state that went for Kerry in 2004. Current polls show him trailing his most likely opponent. Democrats, like Republicans, go after targets of opportunity.
  2. He's outspoken. It's not so much what he believes. Believing in families, in the abstract, isn't at all controversial, and even the right to marry is opposed by many other Republicans. The difference is that Santorum makes comments that are widely seen as going beyond mere policy differences and evincing a deeper disagreement. Plenty of Republicans oppose same-sex marriage without equating homosexuality with bestiality -- at least, not when any reporters can hear them. I suspect that Santorum has only said publicly what many of them are thinking privately, but, whether that's true or not, he has gone beyond what most other Republicans have said. That's why the Democrats are much more keen to defeat him than they were to defeat the more circumspect Arlen Specter, also from Pennsylvania. This is the sense in which he's particularly "controversial".
As for the balance of coverage in the article, it often happens that a Wikipedia article covers one aspect of its subject more thoroughly than another. If you think there's an imbalance, the remedy is not to delete information, but to add material discussing the points you think are missing. JamesMLane 08:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
If the problem that democrats have with Santorum is because he's outspoken and vulnerable, then technically that's what the sentence on the article should say. Right now, it says that he's criticized for his views and makes him a high target to defeat. But what you're really saying is he's criticized for being outspoken on his views, and because polls show his popularity slipping in his state, he has become a high target to defeat. I motion to change the wording, to be more accurate.
And I think the difference we have on the balance issue, JamesMLane, is more of a preference balance. You prefer adding information, I prefer removing. I always go for what is more concise. But that doesn't mean I don't think information should be added. My problem is that people tend to continue adding more and more controversy, without realizing that they're strangling the actual article. The article is on Rick Santorum, not on his controversy. It should be about WHO he is, not the effects of who he is. It's not being fair to him as a person. Many people in the world have been victims of large amounts of controversy, but that doesn't necessarily mean their articles on wiki should be about that. Encyclopedias are biographical, not literary.Stanselmdoc 12:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
The preference for addition over deletion isn't some personal idiosyncrasy of mine. It's part of Wikipedia's approach to being balanced and informative. See Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance: "The remedy is to add to the article—not to subtract from it." Of course, you're right that the article shouldn't be cluttered with every minute little factoid that someone can dig up about the subject. It's an encyclopedia article, not a biography. Deleting things that are too trivial or repetitive is fine. That's different from the balance issue, though. If there's a passage that would be included in the ultimate "ideal" article, we don't delete it just because some countervailing passage that should also be included has yet to be written. JamesMLane 06:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
mm...I don't think I ever stated I was pro-removing things that mattered. In fact, I made a point to say that I think it can be added. But only if it matters. The difference is that we disagree on what matters in this article. Does Santorum spark controversy? Of course. But that's not WHO he is, or WHAT he does for a living. Controversy is great to be mentioned, but not to take up 3/4 of an article (unless said article is ABOUT the controversy). And I don't think you addressed my point of the fact that 3/4 of this article is Santorum's controversy, and not about him. Why don't we just rename this article "Santorum controversy"? The reason I am pro-removing a lot of the controversy section is because I don't think a lot of the things matter, and a lot of it can be re-worded better to be 1.more concise and 2.still informative. Our difference is that you (seem to) believe that everything in the controversy section matters. Or at least that it should stay the way it is.

"Different views don't all deserve equal space....The amount of space they deserve depends on their importance...

That's part of what I read in the thing you directed me to. It's a good thing different views don't all deserve equal space, because this article would be lacking severely. And I disagree with you on things that are important, that's all. Wait, I suppose I also disagree on things that are "interesting" as the rest of the article says. "Interesting" doesn't mean "everything."Stanselmdoc 16:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

2008 U.S. presidential campaign

Gets its own section. The edit by 216.45.235.226 is reverted. Santorum has made no comment indicating "[he] continues to leave all options open." patsw 02:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

According to this article, he is doing just that. I still think it's unlikely that he will run, but it is not correct to say that he definitely will not run. Maximusveritas 16:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Another proposal about the neologism

I agree with including this fact, but putting it in "Trivia" detaches it from its context. The creation of the word was one aspect of the controversy referred to in the earlier section. It could be mentioned there, as an illustration of the ire that his comments aroused. That would also let the reader know that this particular criticism is just another aspect of the one already discussed. Putting it in a separate section suggests it's a completely separate criticism, which it isn't.

I suggest we rewrite the paragraph about the reaction to his comments, as follows:

Santorum's statements were denounced by many commentators and by Democratic politicians, including the 2004 Democratic presidential candidates. Gay rights advocates were particularly critical; one of them, Dan Savage, used his Savage Love column to introduce the word santorum with a sexual meaning, as an insult to the politician. Some critics argued that Santorum's position might also affect heterosexual, as Santorum said that he did not believe there is a Constitutional right to engage in private consensual sexual acts. Republican politicians, religious conservatives, and other conservative commentators supported Santorum and called the condemnations unfair.

Another change here is to put all the criticism together, instead of the current structure of criticism-support-more criticism. This text would, of course, mean removing the separate mention of the item from the "Trivia" section. JamesMLane 06:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd prefer if we just kept the word out of the article. It's in the "santorum controversy" article, isn't that enough? When I picture an ideal encyclopedia article about a senator I do not picture the inclusion of an anal sex related neologism which received almost no press outside of some Internet boards and Dan Savage's readership. Why compromise? Keep the damn neologism out of the article. Rhobite 06:56, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Most encyclopedia articles about Senators wouldn't have such a reference -- but then, most Senators don't have a sex-related website like Spreading Santorum as the top Google hit for their last name. JamesMLane 07:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Seconded. It should be in there, but as no more than a link and passing mention.

Although I've never heard the term, if the word santorum is known widely, a mention in the Trivia section seems fine. But only as a mention. Something like, "Dan Savage successfully introduced the word santorum into the English language as a derogatory insult to the politician." Not a sentence as long and drawn out as the one that keeps getting on the article. If people want to read more on the origin and reason for the word, it should be on the Savage article, not on Santorum's, since Savage was the one who coined the word and uses and supports it. Thomas Crapper actually did something that connects him to the meaning of the word "crap". Clinton actually did something that connects him to the meaning of the nickname "Slick Willy". Except "santorum" is not a nickname for Rick Santorum. It's a word, and as such isn't really comparable to Clinton's nickname anyway. And Santorum didn't do anything to connect him to the definition of "santorum". So a mention on his page? I guess...but a mention in the trivia section. Not a long definition or reason behind it; that belongs on Savage's page.Stanselmdoc 14:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC) (copy-pasted from an above discussion)

I don't understand why there's even a discussion on this. In encyclopedias, if someone's name connects to another subject, a reader is directed to the other subject. Santorum himself has no connection to the word other than Savage's efforts to create one. So the word should be on Savage's page, or have a page of its own. And to the proposed paragraph above: it's too long and drawn out. Clearly gay rights activists are going to be the most outspoken against someone speaking against them. They're not "particularly critical", they're the most critical. It's redundant. And it should go in a Trivia section, because it's not a valid criticism of the politician. A valid criticism refutes arguments and proposes its own; it doesn't degrade and insult someone, so it shouldn't be in the "criticism" section.Stanselmdoc 13:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Discussion related to this in Wikipedia:Village Pump -- True and encyclopedic inclusion of insults and derogatory characterizations The insult reference doesn't belong in this article, it belongs in the Savage article. patsw 03:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The word is not known widely outside Dan Savage's audience, which took part in a concerted Googlebombing effort. I don't think successfully gaming Google is enough to get a mention in this article. As Patsw says, the word has more to do with Savage than Santorum. Rhobite 04:52, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
May I make a motion to remove the mention of it from the article, then? Perhaps someone who wants it mentioned could mention it on the Dan Savage article with a link to Rick Santorum, but not the other way around. But the Savage page already has a link to the Santorum controversy, so I don't see the point in that one either.Stanselmdoc 17:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
The Santorum controversy was spun off into a daughter article, but it's still necessary to leave a summary here. This is an aspect of the controversy, and it's an unusual way in which one side of the controversy conveyed its view. The mention of it should certainly make clear that it is just one side's view, which is what I was trying to achieve with the language I suggested at the top of this section. JamesMLane 18:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, my wording was horrible above. I meant that I don't see the point in adding a "santorum" word reference to Savage's page, since the reference to the controversy was already mentioned. I didn't mean that the Santorum controversy should be removed from this page. And you're right, it's an unusually unintelligent way the other side conveyed its view. There are much better (more reasonable and more intelligent) arguments against Santorum than the introduction of his last name as a vulgar word. Stanselmdoc 19:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Residency and tuition controversy

Dickius, please discuss controversial changes before making them. You've changed several factual statements without a citation, added some POV with "Failing to note that he got off on a technicality", "The Senator apparently does not find this logic to be circular", and how do you know it to be true that he and his family live "full-time" in Virginia? patsw 03:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I know that he and his family live full-time in Virginia because Virginia is the only place where they maintain a home. The PA home in which he claims to reside is (1) obviously too small, at two bedrooms, to hold Santorum's large family, (2) rented to and occupied by people other than the Santorum family, and (3) not a lawful residence, as it doesn't have a Certificate of Occupancy. This is the residence the Senator claims as his PA address!! All of this is as already noted in the article. The text I changed indicated that Santorum and his family "spend most of the year" in Virginia. This implies, falsely, that they spend some of the year as residents of PA. Suppose I live in PA, but I make occasional (once a month) business trips to New York, and I take my wife and children to New York for a two-week vacation every August, but we do not maintain a home in New York. Would you say that I spend "most of the year" in PA? No, you would say that I am a full-time resident of PA, and that I and my family frequently visit New York. Saying that Santorum's family spends "most of the year" in VA implies something which isn't true. Let's look at it another way: If Mrs. Santorum decided to run for the Senate in Virginia, would she be allowed? Of course! THAT'S WHERE SHE LIVES.

How is the statement about a technicality POV? Objectively speaking, and as noted in the article, the school district's petition was rejected because it was untimely. That is, Santorum did not win the case "on the merits" (as lawyers would say). The hearing officer did not find that Santorum or his kids live in the Penn Hills school district. The hearing officer did not find that the charges were "baseless and politically motivated." The hearing officer simply found that, due to the passage of time, he lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. Santorum is quoted in the article describing this as a victory on the merits, when in fact he got off on a technicality. This is a fact. It is indisputable.

As to the circularity of Santorum's logic, here's what the article says:

"They also claim that since Santorum votes in Penn Hills and pays property and school taxes there, he is entitled to the same privileges as any other Penn Hills resident."

First of all, paying property and school taxes in a jurisdiction does not make you a resident of that jurisdiction. Suppose I owned four homes (my primary home and three vacation homes) in four separate states. I would pay property taxes and school taxes in each of those four states. Does that make me a resident of all four states? No. Does that entitle me to vote in all four states? Again, no. Does that entitle me to run for four Senate seats simultaneously? Of course not.

Second, the fact that Santorum votes in Penn Hills--THIS IS THE ISSUE! The controversy is over whether Santorum can legitimately represent the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Assuming for the moment that he is a resident of Virginia, and not of Pennsylvania, then the fact that he votes in PA is a further misdeed; it is not proof that he is in fact a resident of PA. This is the circular argument.

Senator, you shouldn't be the Senator from PA because you live in Virginia.

But I vote in PA!

Senator, you shouldn't vote in PA, because you live in Virginia.

But I'm the Senator from PA!

Senator, you shouldn't be the Senator from PA, because you live in VA.

But my kids go to school in PA!

Senator, your kids shouldn't go to school in PA, since they live in Virginia.

But I vote in PA!

(et cetera.)

This is circular. It is apparent that the Senator does not find it to be circular (else he presumably would not make these arguments). Hence, my statement is objectively true.

--Dickius 17:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

If someone has evidence that Santorum's legal residence is no longer Penn Hills, please discuss it here. patsw 15:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
patsw, here's your evidence: Section 2814 of the Pennsylvania Election Code (Title 25) says that "In determining the residence of a person desiring to register or vote, the following rules shall be followed so far as they may be applicable: (a) That place shall be considered the residence of a person in which his habitation is fixed, and to which, whenever he is absent, he has the intention of returning."
It is indisputable that Santorum's habitation is not fixed in the Penn Hills home. First, he doesn't live there. Second, he rents it to another family, who does live there. Third, he could not possibly live there with his family of eight, as it has only 2 bedrooms. Fourth, the residence lacks a certificate of occupancy--thus, it would be ILLEGAL for his habitation to be fixed in the Penn Hills home. For the same reasons, it cannot be said that Santorum, with regard to the Penn Hills home, "whenever he is absent, he has the intention of returning." He does not "intend to return" to a home that is occupied by others and that is too small for his family.
Now, you may argue that Santorum intends to someday evict his tenants and retake possession of the Penn Hills home, or that he plans to move in with the tenants at some date in the future. But Section 2814 has a provision to deal with that situation: "(f) If a person removes to another state with the intention of remaining there an indefinite time and making such state his place of residence, he shall be considered to have lost his residence in this State, notwithstanding he may entertain an intention to return at some indefinite future period."
Most damning, however, is the next paragraph of Section 2814: "(g) If a person removes to the District of Columbia or other Federal territory or foreign country to engage in the government service, he shall not be considered to have lost his residence in this State during the period of such service, and the place where the person resided at the time of his removal shall be considered and held to be his place of residence." (emphasis added).
This means that, if Rick and his family lived in a home in Washington, or in some other Federal territory, while Rick is engaged in service as a senator, he would not lose his residency. Rick has chosen, however, to flout the law by living in Leesburg, VA, which is an hour outside Washington. Leesburg, VA is a part of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and is not a Federal territory.
Santorum is not a "legal resident" of Pennsylvania. QED.--Dickius 23:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I live in Pittsburgh, and from personal experience Penn Hills is one of the roughest, most economically depressed, most dangerous areas in the Pittsburgh area. Not I, nor anyone I know, would drive through there at night. While it was once a community of Italians, it is now an overwhelimingly african-american area. Many of the edifices and structures are vacant, badly maintained, or condemned. That Senator Santorum expects us to believe that under different circumstances he would live with his family in this area (let alone this specific house) boggles the mind.

telephone call-demand strategies

Rick Santorum was 'smeared' using a telephone call-demand stra-tegy with which callers demand responses from a designated contact. Here on the San Francisco (California) peninsula, a region of limited space and oceanside environs, a local janitorial business of some longevity bears a similar surname, and comments elicited through the telephone could only make direct referral to that local enterprise.

Intelligent Design

Just for reference, 'intelligent design' is considered a theory. It's not just a claim. It's been around as a theory much longer than evolution has. [2] [3] [4] Even wiki calls it the "Intelligent Design Theory".Stanselmdoc 13:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

A theory is based on a testable hypothesis. The premise of ID is, by definition, not testable. ID is therefore a claim, not a theory. QED. Unclebucky 09:15, 29 July 2006 (CDT)

Here is a quote from Intelligent Design "Despite ID sometimes being called Intelligent Design Theory, the National Academy of Sciences has said, intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because their claims cannot be tested by experiment and propose no new hypotheses of their own, instead they find gaps within current evolutionary theory and fill them in with speculative beliefs. The scientific community does not recognise ID as a scientific theory and considers it to be creationist pseudoscience. Both the Intelligent Design concept and the associated movement have come under considerable criticism. [2]" The reason I made the change was due to the fact that the way it was written was misleading. It is talking about teaching the ID theory in a science classroom, but was not using the scientific definition of theory, giving readers the wrong impression. Oh and what does age of the idea have to do with anything? IreverentReverend 13:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

You're right, reverend. I repeal what I said, though I would still call ID a theory, just not a scientific one. It's clearly a theological and arguably a philosophical one. But since the paragraph is talking about teaching the ID in a science classroom, I'll give it to you.Stanselmdoc 15:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I fully admit that calling it a "theory" is correct, and justified. One of the definitions of theory goes as loose as to allow a "hunch" to be a theory. 134.161.245.101 15:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you replicate evolution? 69.67.231.27

Commonwealth or State?

Reverend, you might know better than I, since you seem to be reverting it back a lot. Is there some sort of wikipedia policy that says all "states" in the Union should be called "states"? Because I know of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, that are not called states regularly, because they're not. They are commonwealths and they are referred to that way typically. At least I thought they were. Thanks! Stanselmdoc 15:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

This is turning into an edit war, and I don't know why. I don't know if wikipedia has a policy that Commonwealths should not be identified as such. If any such policy exists, it's a foolish one. In addition to MA, PA, and VA, mentioned by Stanselmdoc, Kentucky is also a Commonwealth (historically related to its status a former county of Virginia). Reverend seems to disagree, but doesn't seem interested in discussing the matter. I wish he would. --Dickius 15:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Regardless, both of you should stop throwing around the word "vandalism". There's no vandalism happening here; there's what appears to be an honest content disagreement. Typically, though, PA is only referred to as a commonwealth internally; when put in the contexts of the other states, it's referred to as a state. Does the US Constitution make reference to the "states and commonwealths", or just to the "states"? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Oooookay jpgordon, take a breath. I've re-read what both I and Dickius said, and neither of us ever mentioned the word "vandalism". If I considered it vandalism, I wouldn't have started the talk page discussion. The one calling it vandalism is Reverend. I asked an honest question, Dickius added information to my question...we're all just trying to get to the bottom of this. Stanselmdoc 16:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I put the "rv vandalism" comment on my last edit only in response to the Rev's similar comment on his. Giving Rev the benefit of the doubt, we're talking about a disagreement of opinion here. He chose to elevate it by accusing me of being a vandal. Two can play at that game. --Dickius 17:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, hahahahaha I see. So I'm just an innocent bystander in the "vandalism" discussion. Hahaha.  :) But judging by what is said on the article Commonwealth, it seems to me to be just a preference issue. Though the articles on Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Massachusetts all commonly refer to them as "states", and only mention the full term "commonwealth" in the beginning. MSN Encarta does the same. So it seems like the most common term of "state" would work. Stanselmdoc 17:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Silly me, I guess I didn't realize you were serious. I honestly thought you WERE vandalizing. I have only ever heard of a state being called a "commonwealth" in the same context the USA is refered to as a colony, either "back in the day" sort of talk, or a reference to "back in the day". I suppose that I assumed it was vandalism out of hand. I have no real objection to the term being used, other than it being less than common.
Appologies to Dickus for jumping the gun like that.
IreverentReverend 22:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


No problem, IR. I wish the proper designation of PA were the most controversial thing about this wack-job of a Senator. --Dickius 13:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Source and Re-Wording?

On Apil 14, 2005 Santorum introduced the National Weather Services Duties Act of 2005 to "better serve the public". This legislation will bar the National Weather Service from "competing" with private entities by making it unlawful for the agency to publish user-friendly weather data on its website because it might "compete" with the offerings of companies like AccuWeather that repackage taxpayer funded NWS data and resell it.

First, does someone have a source for this? It would just be kinda nice to have a source for it, because it's certainly something unusual. And second, does anyone not see the POV in the way this is written? Are the terms "better serve the public" and "compete" quotes from the act? If not, the quotation marks absolutely have to go. If so, it creates a bigger warrant for the source. And I don't think I'm understanding the description of AccuWeather correctly. Is it saying that AccuWeather repackages NWS data (and would this invalidate the AccuWeather corporation)? If not, I think it should be worded more clearly (maybe with some commas or something). If so, I think it should be worded differently (perhaps without the cynical "taxpayer funded" comment) so that it has a more neutral view of AccuWeather. After all, AccuWeather doesn't really deserve to be bashed on Rick Santorum's article. Stanselmdoc 15:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I've added the links, removed the POV, and summarized the pro and con. patsw 18:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Patsw. Knew I could count on someone for help. Stanselmdoc 18:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Patsw added the following: "Opponents of this bill contend that it will prevent the NWS from providing user-friendly presentation of the data it collects..." It's not only "opponents" of the bill who contend this; a plain reading of the bill indicates it. It's the intent of the bill. Ascribing the objective meaning of the bill to its "opponents" does not make the article NPOV. If stating the bill's effect makes it sound bad, maybe that's because it's a bad bill, and not because the person stating the bill's effect is an opponent.--Dickius 21:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

So change the wording to "Many oppose the bill because it will prevent the NWS from providing....and so forward." But I must say, it's awfully particular of you, seeing as anyone who is against what the bill says makes them opponents, so it's going to be redundant anyway. I'm not sure if anything I just wrote makes sense, hahahaha. But I don't have a problem if you change it to say something like what I just suggested. Stanselmdoc 21:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

IreverentReverend in his edit summary wrote "Blogs not acceptable links" Where is that stated as policy? I see links to blogs all over the Wikipedia. patsw 15:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


On a controversial article such as this one, it is pretty much standard to only use reputable links as sources. "Blogspot" and the blog in question did not look presentable, neutral, or any of the other standards of quality a link is typically put through.IreverentReverend 14:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
What is the guideline or policy that applies? In particular, what is the requirement that a link be neutral? My impression of what is "standard" does not match yours. Hence, my request for a guideline or policy that supports your editing choice before I revert. patsw 16:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


Take a look at the link you are trying to keep. It is not even a news blog, or even trying to be one. It is a person's mad ramblings, it is poorly written, adn it reflects poorly on any wikipedia article that links to it. It has nothing to do with any of the content of the article. If the blog was related to the content of the article, then ok. Their are much better written, and more reliable articles to link to, and their is absolutly no reason this particular link should remain. Since you claim santorum (the senator) is popular, it should be no trouble to find better written works to link to, with out resorting to something that makes the article as a whole look bad. IreverentReverend 17:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

homosexuality - the other (conservative) perspective

Is it really necessary to have a huge paragraph explaining a conservative argument against gay marriage in this article? I'm talking about the 5th paragraph in the "Controversy:Remarks about homosexuality" section. Unless Santorum has made the argument himself, it seems unnecessary and out of place. I don't want to cut it out if there are any objection, but I don't see how this warrants more than a single sentence. Maximusveritas 01:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

If someone had access to the Santorum's own position and summarized it, that would belong here. patsw 04:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Most conservative views can't be expressed in a single sentence. This is often in contrast to the opposing view, which need only state that something or someone is "racist" or "homophobic" or what have you and the argument is over. Which is essentially what we have here. A direct quote from his book may be desirable but may not summarize the author's worldview in a nutshell. The article is misleading as it stands now in that it implies there is an explicit right to privacy in the Constitution and that Santorum is accordingly opposed to the U.S. Constitution. How can anyone opposed to the Constitution deserve re-election as a Senator? My view is simply that it does not reflect well on Wikipedia for its articles on politicians of one party to read like talking points memos for the competing party. If the article wasn't such an attack job in the first place it would be unnecessary to provide a riposte. In any case, I could provide sources and that still wouldn't satisfy jpgordan because he has an unspecified but very real blacklist of sources that are "ipso facto" unreliable. Hence I'll just give up here.Bdell555 09:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane Katrina

So what's so encyclopedic about the senator's comments on the hurricane? patsw 03:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I see this section was added again. It will continue to be removed until there's a discussion and a consensus that it has some encyclopedic value as opposed to being in recent news. patsw 14:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Lost Whip Election in 2006?

The article says "In September of 2004, Santorum stated his intention to run for United States Senate Republican Whip in 2006, but he lost by a one-vote margin."

How did he lose (past tense) an election to be held in 2006? --Dickius 21:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

"Pro-Life" = NPOV?

I edited the article to replace the offensive POV term "pro-life" with "anti-abortion-rights," a NPOV term that more accurately describes people who oppose abortion rights. There is discussion in the pro-life article of the controversial and POV nature of the term "pro-life." Rather than start an edit war, or risk being banned for trying to make this article comply with wikipedia policies, I am opening the issue up for discussion here. --Dickius 21:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The term used by advocates of the right to life of the unborn, including the subject of this article, is "pro-life", just as advocates of abortion have chosen "pro-choice" to self-identify.
  • If you find either term offensive, then that would be your point of view.
  • If there is a Wikipedia policy that enforces the "anti-abortion" usage, please cite it.
  • If there's a discussion elsewhere, it ought not be repeated here. patsw 03:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
A few points
  • I've never met or heard of anyone who is an "advocate of abortion." You may be thinking of people who are advocates of abortion rights. There's obviously a big difference.
I've never heard of anyone who is an "advocate of slavery." You may be thinking of people who are advocates of "slavery rights." There's obviously a big difference.
  • The term "pro-life," as used in this article and which I changed, was used in reference not to Sen. Santorum, but to Robert Casey, Jr., and to his father. So the self-identification of the subject of this article is neither here nor there.
  • The fact that a particular term is offensive to one or more people may in fact be a point of view. That does not mean that the replacement of that term with a different term necessarily injects a point of view. For example, I think it would be offensive if the article referred to Mrs. Santorum as "the Senator's dame." That's my point of view. If I were to replace the word "dame" with "wife," would I be introducing a non-neutral point of view? I doubt it.
  • The Wikipedia policy that "enforces" the "anti-abortion" usage is the policy requiring a neutral point of view in all articles.
  • Patsw says that if there's a discussion elsewhere, it ought not be repeated here. I wasn't looking to insert a discussion of the issue into the Santorum article; I merely replaced the term "pro-life" with a more neutral term. (I assume, Patsw, that you're not objecting to a discussion on this discussion page.) I pointed to the Pro-Life article merely as lending support to the contention that "pro-life" is a phrase the neutrality of which is disputed. As further support, see here. My point is merely that this is an issue that has been identified by others; I'm not some lone wacko claiming that the term "pro-life" is not neutral.--Dickius 04:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
In the interests of even-handedness, then, all political personalities described as "pro-choice" should be described in terms of "anti-(something)", since it would be presumptively biased to deny one side of the debate its preferred self-styling as "pro-" something while permitting it for the other side. Don't you think?Bdell555 01:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I was under the impression that pro-life and pro-choice are widely used because they are the way in which the average person self-identifies. I've certainly never heard someone who is pro-life dispute the label; if anything, it would certainly seem to ellide with the term "culture of life" which is currently being advocated by conservatives. Freddie deBoer 04:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Editing this article

When you think something needs to be added to this article on Rick Santorum, be sure it is some verifiable fact about the Senator or some news the Senator has just made. Just as bringing your point of view or someone else's point of view to the Hillary Clinton article or the Teddy Kennedy article isn't going to acceptable to the editing cabal there, it is not likely to be acceptable here. patsw 03:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

patsw, I'm not sure what you're getting at, but I'm pretty sure that the standard for making revisions to this article is the same as the standard for revising any other wikipedia article. I don't see what Senators Clinton or Kennedy have to do with it, and I'm not sure what this "cabal" is.--Dickius 02:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

This article is packed with the words "controversy" and "controversial". So much in so, that some one can't merely call it a "controversy" but a "sizable controversy." These labels are POV. Politics is about changing the law and it is inherently controversial. I think he's the only Senator who's been labeled as "controversial" in the introduction. patsw 02:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, he is quite a shit-disturber, considerably more so than the average; he certainly doesn't seem to dodge controversy. Me, I think it's a sad thing that there aren't MORE "controversial" Senators; most of the current ones are utter bores. By the way -- are you sure that entire quote you inserted needs to be in there? Seems to me simply saying "Senator Santorum issued a strongly supportive statement, and expressed annoyance with his critics" with an external link to the full quote might be sufficient. I'm just thinking in terms of textual balance and flow here; all the words in the full quote really are just saying "Hey, I support this guy, and you jerks should mind your own goddamn business." --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree; we aren't here to reprint press releases. The prior text seemed to accurately summarize the release anyway. Plus, in adding the text of the release, Patsw removed Trayham's own comments which seem very relevant in this instance. I also happen to agree about using the word controversial to describe Santorum. He is a controversial figure, somewhat of a lightning rod. I find it imminently proper. Patsw, can you explain more what you felt was biased in the current presentation of the Traynham info? Maybe there's a simple way to fix it. · Katefan0(scribble) 03:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
On the clergy sex abuse stuff and Santorum's silence, Jpgordon and Patsw are right, insofar as suggesting that someone has been silent about it is tantamount to criticizing them for that inaction. What can be done in an unbiased fashion, however, is see if there has been someone who has criticized Santorum for his silence and then, if the critic is notable, summarize their remarks. · Katefan0(scribble) 03:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, besides that, Dickius's edit comment was unfair. He said, revert vandalism by Patsw--if you're going to delete something you should explain why. The accusation of vandalism was uncalled for and downright inaccurate, since Patsw said exactly why he deleted the paragraph. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
No, Patsw did not say "exactly why" he deleted the paragraph. He merely quoted my earlier note that I added when I ADDED the paragraph. This note was inapposite to the deletion. He did not explain the deletion. When an editor removes a significant amount of text from an article without explanation, that is considered vandalism. And I disagree that the statement Patsw deleted contains any POV. It states a neutral fact--Santorum is not known to have commented. Since the section of the article in question concerns Santorum's notorious COMMENTS, it is noteworthy to note that he has not COMMENTED on the same issue when it arose in his backyard. I've said it before and will say it again--if somebody does something bad, and a wikipedia editor points out that the thing was done, that does not mean a POV has been injected. Sometimes, when you tell true stories about evil people, those stories make those people seem evil. This is not the result of a POV; it's the result of the evildoing.--Dickius 18:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
What Santorum said is more accurate than some Wikipedian's spin. I did not remove Traynham's own comments:
In July 2005, Santorum's Director of Communication, Robert Traynham, confirmed speculation that he was gay, describing himself as an "out gay man" who strongly supported Santorum, "a man of principle, he is a man who sticks up for what he believes in."
Santorum's statement speaks for itself. It contains the facts that he wanted to convey, by definition. The old text praising Traynham and chiding those... is trite, awkward phrasing and I belive removes both the sympathy Santorum expressed for Traynham and Santorum's criticism for those who exploited Traynham's privacy -- that makes the old text incomplete and inaccurate. Using Santorum's own words is more accurate. My edit summary was accurate. The revert was unnecessary. patsw 05:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)patsw 05:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, yeah, but: Santorum's statement speaks for itself. It contains the facts that he wanted to convey, by definition. -- it's not our job here to convey what Santorum wants to convey, and it's particularly not our job to convey it the way he wanted to convey it. That's why I asked you about it in the first place; the quote is far longer than is necessary to convey the relevant fact: i.e., Santorum stood up for his gay staffer. Including the incident at all is questionable; well whoopee, the guy who holds positions that are in general quite unfriendly to gays employs one; so what? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Jpgordon. As I said earlier, we aren't here to reprint Santorum's press releases. We aren't an arm of his flack department. We are reasonable adults who are fully capable of summarizing the issue without reprinting a press release that's way too long and allows too much blah-blahing. You're outnumbered on this one. Maybe we can work to fix what's there instead of just reverting. I'll try to come up with another version later today. · Katefan0(scribble) 12:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
The quotes are relevant to the story. They define the reaction of Traynham and Santorum to the disclosure. They are succint, accurate, and relevant. That is my position as a reasonable editor. The "praising and chiding" summary did not do the job. A summary is not needed. I resent the threat implicit in "You're outnumbered on this one".
The press release is not succinct. We can -- and should -- summarize the situation if it's to be included at all. I wasn't threatening you, and I'm sincerely sorry if it came across that way. I was merely pointing out that right now, consensus is not with your position, so I was hoping you would see that finding a way to compromise is preferable to reverting. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
If you are really concerned about the length and readability of the article you might turn your attention to:
He visited Bucknell University (2005-03-23), Bucks County and Lafayette College (Northampton County) on (2005-02-25), Harrisburg (2005-02-24), Penn State University and Erie County (2005-02-23), Drexel University and Widener University (2005-02-22), and University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown and Duquesne University in Pittsburgh (2005-02-21). patsw 13:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Why is the story necessary at all? (I'm just focussing on this one section; if you have edits that would improve other areas, make 'em.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I don't see the need for that sort of laundry list, I wouldn't be opposed to excising it. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Katefan0, I don't know what they told you when you became an administrator (or whatever you are), but YOU ARE NOT IN CHARGE OF WIKIPEDIA. You are not the arbiter of disputes regarding the content of wikipedia articles. If you think that you are, you misunderstand your role. You don't get to tell people when they are outnumbered. (I don't think majority even rules, for that matter.)--Dickius 18:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Really, I don't think I ever suggested such a thing. I'm just as free to edit articles as you are, and consensus is accepted editing practice. Regardless, I really never meant to ruffle any feathers, so if I've also offended you then I extend you the same olive branch. However, my opinion about the clergy abuse paragraph you seek to retain remains unchanged. Have you given any thought to my suggestion for how it can be more properly couched? I would even be willing to help you search for such citations. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • so...wrapping back a bit...what does the description of the Traynham incident add to the reader's understanding of Santorum? Also, the section is called "Remarks about homosexuality", and the incident and the quote is not a remark about homosexuality. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Someone thought this was a big story back in July. Stepping out of my role as a Wikipedia editor and into my role as a blogger: I think the outing of Traynham was intended to trigger some sort of homophobic reaction on the part of Santorum. To their credit, Traynham and Santorum took it in stride with loyalty and understanding. I'd say that the target wasn't Traynham directly but Santorum -- to hold the senator up to ridicule or charges of hypocrisy. If that was its actual intent, it failed. It now acts as a balance to the negativity of the "Santorum controversy". patsw 05:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
My own opinion is that it could reasonably be left in if handled properly, although I don't have super strong feelings about it. The incident was pretty well-followed by the gay community, and I think beyond Patsw's points, a lot of folks view it as a strange hypocrisy -- Santorum says things and takes stances that the gay community views as adversarial, and yet he has a gay staffer. It's contradictory in a way. Sort of similar to the Mary Cheney/Dick Cheney issue, although on a much smaller scale. · Katefan0(scribble) 14:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent design

How about describing it as an "idea?" This seems a reasonable compromise to me. BTW, can we not have this debate in the context of this article? Whether ID is a theory, idea, or implant from Martians, that should be a debate for the ID article itself, not this one. · Katefan0(scribble) 00:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I can understand your point about the intelligent design debate not being germaine to the Rick Santorum article, and I agree--obviously, the debate over whether ID is scientifically valid or not does not belong here. At the same time, however, I don't think the description of ID as an "idea" is proper. There are plenty of 'ideas' about the development about the Universe, including the belief that aliens created things directly from their space ship. If we cast that wide of a net, then Darwinism would be an 'idea' too, but Darwinism is described as a theory, not an idea. There are books which put forth a scientific theory of intelligent design, written by legitimate scientists including William Dembski. Now, there are people who disagree with the theory, and many in the scientific community refuse to accept it--but then, in the age of Galileo, scientists of the era refused to consider the theory that the universe could be anything but geocentric. I shudder to think that more than four hundred years later, scientists remain just as stubbornly set on longstanding dogma and unwilling to consider new ideas.

Personally, I don't believe in Darwinism, but I accept that it is a scientific theory. I won't edit articles referncing Darwinism to assert that it is an "idea" or an "assertion." Likewise, I hope that the wikipedia community accept that intelligent design is a scientific theory, just one outside of the mainstream. I hope to get your response and I'll hold off on editing in the mean time.

A theory implies a large amount of experimental support, which evolutionary theory has. A scientific hypothesis must be testable, which ID is not. Dembski proposed an "explanatory filter" , not a scientific theory. ID has no predictive power, makes no predictions, and is supported by no experimental evidence. The hypothesis of ID is that there are biological processes and structures that are too complicated to have evolved. Unfortunately (i) it's too broad to be useful (disproving any example does not disprove the idea; thus it is unfalsifiable, and thus unscientific); (ii) it's purely phenomenological - if it were demonstrated that some process was too complex to have evolved, we would have no alternative hypothesis. All it would say is "we can't explain this right now". If 1000 years ago someone said "our current theories cannot explan bird flight" it would not mean that bird flight would never be explained scientifically. Same with ID. It isn't a theory. It isn't really an hypothesis. It's an idea. Little else. Guettarda 03:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Can you please sign your comments? Just type four tildes ~~~~ -- otherwise, it gets confusing to figure out who is saying what. I respect your disagreement, but I echo Guetterda's arguments. Intelligent design does not fit the definition of a theory, hypothesis or any other scientifically-proven mechanism. That's why I suggested idea. Or notion. Or concept. Something like that. For that matter, we could just leave out a descriptor at all -- since we have an article on intelligent design, anybody curious enough about the issue can just click on the link, and then we avoid reinventing the wheel way over here where the debate just isn't germane. · Katefan0(scribble) 05:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Ah, sorry about the no sign, still slips my mind once in a while. I removed the description of intelligent design altogether; I think that should aleviate things. Trilemma 20:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

This "distancing" comment is a POV that code for "duplicity" and asserts a bogus distinction between proponent and supporter.

By advocating a "teach the controversy" approach intelligent design proponents appear to be distancing themselves from the intelligent design movement while continuing to support the movement. Indeed, Santorum's support continues, as he has written the foreword for the March 2006 book, Darwin's Nemesis: Phillip Johnson And the Intelligent Design Movement a collection of essays largely by Discovery Institute fellows honoring the "father" of the intelligent design movement, Phillip E. Johnson.

Better written as:

Santorum wrote the foreword for the March 2006 book, Darwin's Nemesis: Phillip Johnson And the Intelligent Design Movement a collection of essays largely by Discovery Institute fellows honoring the "father" of the intelligent design movement, Phillip E. Johnson. patsw 01:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
It is duplicity: Like other prominent ID proponents, Santorum is speaking out of both sides of his mouth on the issue when he advocates teaching the controversy over teaching ID, which they all realize now will not pass consitutional muster.
The facts are simple: In 2001, working with Johnson, Santorum pushed the Santorum Amendment which advocated the teaching of ID. In 2004-2005 when it (rightly) appeared ID would not withstand First Amendment challenges, Santorum, along with every other prominent ID proponent adopted the Discovery Institute's "teach the controversy" strategy. In 2006 Santorum is still supporting the father of the ID movement, Johnson, writing the forward to a book about him. Santorum, just like Johnson he writes about, wants to have have his cake and eat it too; I see no reason why Wikipedia should help him. FeloniousMonk 03:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

A point of view and some original research. What makes your opinion suitable for inclusion in this article? patsw 02:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't see any POV or NOR problem in reporting that Santorum's current position differs from the one he advocated a few years ago. We shouldn't characterize his strategy as "duplicity", but NPOV would allow the reporting of such a characterization by a notable critic. JamesMLane t c 03:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
What difference in his position are you referring to? patsw 03:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The neologism, yet again

I guess we're going to discuss the word "santorum" again. The word has nothing to do with Santorum's life, it is just a barely-notable neologism which bears his name. People occasionally add it to this article because they think it is funny and because they oppose Santorum's politics. They have no consideration for whether it belongs in an encyclopedia article. It is covered in santorum controversy, please leave it there. Rhobite 19:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

It is not 'barely-notable' it's the top result on google and outside the states it's what Santorum means. How is that not encyclopedic? It's a passing mention that does not have any particular prominence in the article - is that too much for you to handle? I suppose the World War article shouldn't mention D-Day because it is covered elsewhere?
An excellent reason why people shouldn't use Google as a dictionary. The word "santorum" was the subject of a concerted googlebombing attempt by Savage's readers. That's why it's the #1 result. Rhobite 14:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
This appeal to Google is a classic example of bad faith to propagate a personal attack against the subject of a Wikipedia article. If it were not for the success of it as a Google bomb we'd not be concerned with this at all. It's worth a line in that article -- but that's not all, it gets a mention in Santorum controversy, homophobia, Savage Love, and Dan Savage. We're editing an encyclopedia, we're not the minions of Dan Savage as the anonymous coward is who adds the text which we delete. 18:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
At the risk of repeating myself: 95% of the world population, such as myself, do not live in the USA or follow the minutiae of US politics. Therefore the vast majority of people in the world (even highly educated people) have little idea who Rick Santorum is and so do not 'oppose Santorum's politics', not knowing anything about them (except that those who know the neologism probably guess that he is some way an opponent of homosexuality).
However, a fair number of us have at least heard of the neologism 'santorum' and that it was named after some American politician called 'Santorum'. For people such as myself, this is the best-known and pretty much the only fact they know about him. Therefore not to make at least some reference to the neologism in this article seems perverse. The fact that the neologism is already mentioned in other articles is beside the point; it's not mentioned in the most relevant article. (Should the article about Quisling not mention 'quisling'? Should the article about Thomas Crapper not mention 'crap'?) Ben Finn Ben Finn 19:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
You can type in "santorum" and see the disambig page. Why do we need to mention the word on this article? This article is about the senator, not the neologism. Rhobite 19:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
There is no need to mention the neologism in the article. The only reason to put it in the article would be a mock-innocent way of attacking the Senator. Furthermore, I see no evidence whatsoever that the neologism was more than a flash in the pan. "Male chauvinism" is an example of a neologism which has caught on. "Santorum" is an example of one that has not. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
How about the quite harmless wording (which was on the page a while back) "Dan Savage successfully introduced the word santorum into the English language as a derogatory insult to the politician." Which does not say what the word means, but acknowledges the connection between the word and the subject of this article. Or you may want to modify it as no doubt there will be dispute as to whether the word has been fully introduced into the English language. Ben Finn 11:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
P. S. I will reconsider if someone provides good, credible evidence that the word "santorum" in the sense of the neologism is in widespread, mainstream use outside of the U. S. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree it would need to be have a certain currency, but I don't think it needs to be mainstream. Cf the word 'quisling' is little used now and many people wouldn't understand it. And many genuine neologisms are not mainstream, and are undoubtedly less well-known than 'santorum'. I could cite innumerable examples; e.g. from philosophy, 'tonk' (the name of a particular, pathological, logical operator; 'autoinfanticide' or 'autofanticide' (going back in a time machine and killing oneself as a baby, a problematic case in metaphysics); from music, 'tuplet' (any fractional rhythm, e.g. quintuplet). These are probably not found in mainstream dictionaries, nor likely to be (except in a specialist or extremely comprehensive dictionary), but they are genuine neologisms nonetheless, which have currency in a limited section of the population. Ben Finn 11:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
P.S. a Google search for 'santorum anal' now produces 63,000 web pages. Though undoubtedly many of these are comments on the fact that 'santorum' has been proposed as a neologism, rather than independent uses of the neologism, I think it is impossible to argue that a new word mentioned on 63,000 different web pages does not have significant currency. To cite a comment above, 63,000 web pages is not compatible with a neologism being 'barely notable'. Ben Finn 11:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Featherman

I'll accept the current wording of Featherman -- based on his self-described fiscal and social stances; however, to call a Libertarian a moderate to me is the equivalent of calling a Progressive a Conservative. It just doesn't play.

Gang of Seven

Gang of Seven content and description comes directly from Rep. John Boehner's House website (http://johnboehner.house.gov/bio.asp). I disagree completely.

That is one of the reasons it is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Please do not plagiarize. It is also opinionated, since it is the congressman's own words. My understanding is the "drug sales in the House post office" thing is based on an off-hand comment by Newt Gingrich which was never followed up. Rhobite 15:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

It can be added if it is given correct attribution. Agreement or disagreement with Rhobite is not the standard that is applicable. patsw 16:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

What does that mean? If someone wants to discuss the house takeover that's fine, as long as they use their own words and cite a less opinionated source than a Republican congressman's website. Rhobite 17:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Robert Byrd Paragraph

This paragraph was in the 2006 re-election section; it certainly doesn't belong there:


In March 2005, Santorum criticized Senator Robert C. Byrd for comparing George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler. [5] On May 19 of that year, however, Santorum himself invoked the Nazi dictator, making an analogy between Senate Democrats opposing the anti-filibuster bill and Hitler's occupation of Paris. The Anti-Defamation League responded with a letter to Santorum condemning his remark as "utterly inappropriate and insensitive" and demonstrating "a profound lack of understanding." Pennacchio also promptly criticized Santorum, stating that "as an historian of Holocaust-era Germany, I find Rick Santorum's comment to be offensive, divisive, and destructive." [6] Pennacchio also posted a video on his website showing Santorum making comments in which he compared the New York Times to Communists, Baathists and Nazis. [7] In at least one letter to a constituent, Santorum admitted that his "words were poorly chosen" and that he "made a mistake," explaining his belief that any judicial nominee presented by the president is entitled to an "up or down vote" on the Senate floor. During the Clinton administration, however, Santorum blocked or voted to block a number of the president's judicial nominees from receiving such "up or down votes."

Elaboration on Dan Savage's "santorum" campaign

This was a controversial issue a few years ago, and don't expect that to have gone away. With that said, as gross as Savage's campaign is, it's also notable to the Senator's article, as it's the #1 google hit for his last name, and the #2 google hit for the Senator's full name. The American Dialect Society recognized the term, and santorum "Dan Savage" gets 26,500 hits. Finally, to preempt arguments about ickiness, we don't censor Wikipedia for children. In fleshing out the section, I tried to hit all the pertinent details while being as brief as was warranted. Regards, JDoorjam Talk 00:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The issue has gone away. Outside of Savage's readership and a handful of immature Internet users, this is not a well-known word. It has nothing to do with the senator Rick Santorum, and it's already properly covered in Savage's article. Please keep it out of this article. Rhobite 21:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Hm, I went to prove you wrong and... couldn't. Upon review, there really is no metric by which I can show that little-s santorum is notable enough to put in here (though most of what I said above still stands in regards to its being able to stand on its own elsewhere in the Wiki). Savage is mentioned as a critic of Santorum's stances earlier in the article; that's probably sufficient. In case this comes up again, the best argument against inclusion is the fact that googling " "Rick Santorum" homosexuality" gets about 20 times as many hits as " Rick Santorum" "Dan Savage" ", or even " "Dan Savage" santorum". Cheers, JDoorjam Talk 21:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
It is significant but not to the subject of this article. It's a word whose significance is limited to Dan Savage and google bombing. patsw 05:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

spreadingsantorum

Hi all. I removed this link because it's poor form and reflects badly on wikipedia. Is there some reason we would keep it? I don't see the content this link brings to the article. Monkeyman 21:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that's way too general. How, exactly is it poor form, and how does it reflect badly on Wikipedia? JDoorjam Talk 21:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
How does this link contribute to the article other than to take a cheap shot at him? Monkeyman 22:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't take a cheap shot at him as much as it documents a notable cheap shot at him. But if you'll scroll up one Talk page subject, you'll see that I've already conceded it's not notable enough to be here. Cheers, JDoorjam Talk 22:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

"santorum" mentioned in The Economist

I'm in favor of placing a very brief and nonjudgmental explanatory note regarding the slang use of "santorum" somewhere at the end of Rick Santorum's entry. This recently appeared in one of Dan Savage's columns:

Dear Dan Savage: I was flattered to hear that you and your readers had picked up our reference to santorum in the Economist, but I just wanted to disagree with—or hope to disagree with—your reader who ventured that they were unusual in reading both Savage Love and the Economist. I hope very much they are not. Although nonreaders often think of us as a conservative magazine, we've actually always been socially highly liberal, whether on immigration, gay rights, or many other things, including favouring the legalisation of drugs. But you were right: It is not only gay activists who use the term santorum in that way. Maybe being edited in London explains why we got that wrong. Bill Emmott, Editor The Economist, London

I tend to think that the slang term is just barely notable/common enough that those who have encountered it and may have been confused by it ought to be able to find a very short explanation somewhere on this page, even if those readers have never heard of Dan Savage.

  • Right, so you or someone put in an entire section about it. We've discussed this before and we'll keep it out. It's not even a "slang term". Figure out a way to make, as you say, a "very short explanation", and it might be ok. A pointer to Savage Love or something like that might be ok. But not 150 words. "See Savage Love for Dan Savage's use of the term 'santorum'" should suffice. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
After seeing the discussion here, I'm deferring and deleting my addition re the neologism story. I do think it merits at least a cross reference. --EECEE 18:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not from the United States, but I have heard of Rick Santorum. I only knew three thing about him: 1. He's a US politician, 2. He has controversial views about homosexuality and 3. the Santorum neologism. The 3rd point is the only reason I know of his existance. I now know he's a presidential candiate/influential politician to the american people, but to be blunt in the rest of the world, he's that politician with the anal fluids named after him. I'm not voicing an opinion on whether he's right or wrong, but this is his main claim to fame to the worldwide audience. This deserves a mention. Just a little link telling me where to go to find out more about this unique situation. I'll add the link in myself in a few days if no one argues why not. Dmn € Դմն 01:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I have the same experience as Dmn; I only know of Mr Santorum by the "other use" of the word. Thanks Hu Gadarn 22:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

No Rocket Scientist

I added the below entry to the article to balance out a similar entry for Patty Murry D-WA:

A September 2004 poll by the The Washingtonian reported, rather surprisingly given his educational and political credentials, that Santorum tied for first place with Democratic Senator Patty Murray of Washington for the title of No Rocket Scientist (also referred to as Dimmest Bulb) as voted on by top Capitol Hill staff (see [[8]]).

This started an edit war, that I decided to let drop, on Patty Murray. Since it was removed and no longer appears on that page, I was going to drop it here as well. Before removing, though, I wanted to get some input. I find it odd that it remained on Santorum without a problem (for that matter it was edited and improved!). --Geneb1955 23:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, first of all, it's pretty lame to "balance out" a bad edit on one article by making a bad edit on another article. And you have to be careful with POV ("rather surprisingly..."). It's not encyclopedic; it's nothing remotely like a scientific poll, so it's basically yammer. It is, indeed, odd that it remained here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty, then - gone it is --Geneb1955 00:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Pic?

If this is this Santorum, we have a nice pic at Image:Walesa and Santorum.jpg.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thug?

Before we have a huge fight over whether the "thug" comment belongs in the article on not, please note that it is STILL in there. It's part of the residency controversy, not a separate section to itself. I really did remove it only ONCE. But it is clearly (IMHO) not significant enough to be in the top of the article, or have a separate section to itself. John Broughton 00:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

missing verb

In recent years, Santorum's comments and public statements, particularly on homosexuality and sexual privacy rights.

Could someone please fix this sentence? I don't understand what it is trying to say.

Use of "santorum" as sexual term

Why shouldn't the double meaning of the word "santorum" appear anywhere in his entry? I don't think it should be a major part of his entry, but it ought to at least be mentioned -- mainstream media outlets have alluded to it, so it's not like it's some secretive underground thing.

Cite credible sources, and its mention in the article won't bother me. President Lethe 03:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Seems this is already discussed in multiple other places at this Talk page. Well, I've made my view known. President Lethe 03:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


Reason for block quotes?

Haven't visited the article in a while, but I was wondering if there's a reason there are so many block quotes in this article. In fact, there are way too many. It's extremely messy and it would be better if we could cut some out and just describe things without having to include the entire block quote. Objections? Stanselmdoc 19:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words

I put a weasel word warning up, to remind editors that we're trying to remove statements like "some believe" and "many say" and "widely believed" etc from articles. They're generalizations and need to be more specific. This article includes MANY weasel words.

Further....where are half the citations in this article? It's one thing to have weasel words, but to not even cite the places the statements come from? Come on...this article needs serious help. Stanselmdoc 19:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Instead of rushing to slap a bunch of templates on the article, how about contributing some the cites yourself? Otherwise it's just looks like partisan nitpicking and trying to mitigate criticism, a conclusion some may leap to since it was largely criticisms that you applied the citation templates to. Use of the templates is a last resort, not a first. FeloniousMonk 20:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I have no problem searching for some. I didn't realize it was a last resort, and I just assumed that those people who contributed to the article more than I have would know of better places to search, or might remember where they themselves had read the facts. Don't be mad, I am only trying to help. But I only put the templates in places where criticisms were because, well, you can't put it anywhere in this article without it being near criticism. I'm sorry it appeared I was "trying to mitigate" it. Stanselmdoc 20:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Very reasonable of you, thanks. I've just added the requested cites to the teaching evolution v. ID section (I knew those off the top of my head). I'll try to find some for sections that I'm not so familiar with. FeloniousMonk 20:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Aww man! When you reverted, you deleted all the real grammatical edits I had! *sigh* Guess I gotta do it all over again. Next time you want to delete something, try not to erase all my hard work.  ;) Stanselmdoc 20:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. OK, I've added 4 cites, that leaves 2 for you: That Santorum believes issues like homosexuality and abortion should be decided by state legislatures rather than courts, and the "your brother Gabriel" anecdote being raised in a 2005 New York Times magazine story on Santorum. Those should be pretty easy to find. If not, I'll come back to them tonight. FeloniousMonk 21:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

{{weasel}} removal

I am not able to find the discussion about the need for that template on this talk page and it is one hell of an ugly template to start an article off with. I am removing the template. Please discuss the weaseling here instead of playing the tagging game. 67.40.197.111 00:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing npov templates without a good reason is generally inadvisable. You might have missed the discussion in this section. If you are an established Wikipedian, please log in when editing, as your contributions look suspiciously like sockpuppetry otherwise. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 16:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

How about some source for this?

These two sentences -

He is widely believed to be one of the weakest incumbents in the Senate, due to the unpopularity of the President and of the emerging candidacy of the son of former Pennsylvania governor, Bob Casey. Some also believe that he may be too conservative for Pennsylvania, which is a swing state that has not voted for a Republican presidential candidate since 1988.

should really be cited. First, the sentences include weasel words (widely believed and some also) that could easily be changed. The sources I have found haven't mentioned anything about Santorum being "widely believed to be one of the weakest incumbents" (with the exception of an aids awareness site that is clearly POV). I've found things that I could change the two sentences to, but I wouldn't want to make any changes without asking first. Stanselmdoc 21:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I've already added a cite for the second sentence:[9]. The first sentence is a point raised in a number of articles I've read today, so finding a cite is not a problem. FeloniousMonk 21:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I've now added a cite for the first sentence:[10] FeloniousMonk 21:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to figure out how to properly resource the sites I found! (You can see how many different edits it took to actually get it right). But I did learn I think. If it's wrong, please let me know and I'll fix it. Stanselmdoc 01:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks good Stanselmdoc - thanks. Sorry about losing your grammatical edits eariler. FeloniousMonk 03:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

the dead fetus incident

it's something of a folklore around western pennsylvania that when his son gabriel was stillborn, he took the corpse home for his children to hold and kiss. i've found a few sources indicating that something along these lines occured. i didn't spot this in the article already, so how do you guys feel about a brief little mention of this, or at least the ensuing rumour? (edit- here's a google, but it's largely blogs)Joeyramoney 05:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Karen Santorum wrote a book about the experience: Letters to Gabriel: The True Story of Gabriel Michael Santorum (ISBN 1568145284). In it, she writes that the couple brought the deceased infant home from the hospital and introduced the dead child to their living children as "your brother Gabriel" and slept with the body overnight before returning him to the hospital. The anecdote was also written about by Michael Sokolove in a 2005 New York Times magazine story on Santorum.

Please note that the "folklore" you're talking about was actually written about by the Santorums and is in fact already mentioned in the article under the "Biography" section.Stanselmdoc 13:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
eww, i didn't know it was that real. i thought it was a semi-myth. Joeyramoney 05:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

How is any of this different than an open casket funeral (which is widely practiced in the USA)? I don't see the significance.

Quotes Section

Who added this quote section? And why wasn't it discussed on the talk page first? There's no reason to have a quote section when quotes can easily be worked into the body of an article. Encyclopedias don't have quote sections! Can we get a consensus on ruining this page before we actually do? I'm going to leave the quote section for now. Stanselmdoc 17:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Block Quotes again

I mentioned this above and no one commented, but I thought I would mention it again before beginning corrections. There are (I believe I saw) seven block quotes in this article. That's entirely too many. In dissertations there are fewer. I will probably go through soon and work the quotes into smaller portions and include them into paragraphs. No information will be lost, but general aesthetic will be created. Stanselmdoc 14:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD of Santorum

I feel it is important to bring to your attention an AfD on Santorum going on over here that will likely have implications for page naming and disambiguation of Santorum as a search term and dab content on this page. -- cmh 19:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sexy

Who else thinks Ricky is sexy, maybe we should get some nudes? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.201.115.69 (talk • contribs) 2006-11-09T02:26:33 (UTCUTC)

Please observe decorum. Talk pages are not intended for chatting. This section will be refactored to the archives in 12 hours. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 10:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Rick Santorum/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The article is well written and comprehensive, however, some clean up and polish is needed. There are sections of the article that need citations and the references section has many red links that need to be fixed. A peer review would help in identifying these details and go along way toward consisency in style. Nightngle 15:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 15:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 21:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rick_Santorum/Archive_1&oldid=1137157796"