Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:38, 13 January 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rick Santorum article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pennsylvania Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. U.S. Congress Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", or "Events". Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Virginia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Creationism: Intelligent design Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Intelligent design task force (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Journalism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pittsburgh Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pittsburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pittsburgh and its metropolitan area on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PittsburghWikipedia:WikiProject PittsburghTemplate:WikiProject PittsburghPittsburgh Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rick Santorum article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Question

The lead says "He...has been a firm supporter of the U.S. invasion of Iraq". That's great, I'm assuming he's also a firm supporter of raising taxes to pay for the cost of his war? I don't see that in the lead. Surely, he can't support a war and not support paying for it. Please clarify this in the lead. Viriditas (talk) 06:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything about his political position on taxes in the article. Either I'm missing this most important position, or someone has taken great pains to avoid discussing it. How can we represent his position on spending money to fight a war but not his position on how he intends to raise this money? Viriditas (talk) 06:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

What is his position on the financial cost of the Iraq War he supported? Will he raise taxes to pay for it? Viriditas (talk) 10:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Classic example of WP:OR. Unless y find a reliable source making the claim as you state it, it simply can not be used in a WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like you don't know what OR is. This is not OR. This is an observation that a basic biography of a notable politician lacks any and all specifics on his positions regarding revenue. For example, the subject evidently supports government programs like war, yet there is nothing in the article explaining how these government programs will be funded. As a reader, one would expect to know about his political position in more detail. This article appears to lack essential, relevant information about the financing of large government programs favored by conservatives, who seem happy to wave the flag and hoist a yellow ribbon, but when the troops come home, seem unwilling to pay for the war they just fought or for the veteran's programs needed to reintegrate soldiers into civilian life. This raises more questions. What is the position of the candidate when it comes to the VA? This article is deficient when it comes to actual information about the candidate. Viriditas (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

No -- you are asserting that a claim that he favoured the war must be combined with claims that he opposes tax increases -- which is WP:SYNTH unless you find a source making that claim, and WP:OR specifically states:

This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources.

Next time - read WP:OR before averring something errant. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, a request to expand missing major article elements is not OR. How about doing some research and article expansion for the first time? Neither of those are OR. The article must discuss his political position on revenue and taxes, just as it must discuss the major government spending he supports. Viriditas (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

If I didn't see "Viriditas" tagged to the above entries, I'd swear this topic was something created by a throwaway WP:SPA. How can you possibly think that this article says X, we must find !X to balance it" is in any way a proper approach to editing political biographies. You're basically adopting the Grundle2600 Style of NPOV Editing here. Tarc (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

His position on revenue generation, including taxation, is entirely absent from this article, yet his position on things that require revenue is included. It isn't a violation of NPOV to request that an incomplete article be made complete, it's a prerequisite for every good and featured article criteria. Viriditas (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

about Santorum's tax plan

I agree that we need to have more coverage of Santorum's tax plan. Two different RSs have this recent report from the Tax Policy Center's Howard Gleckman:

"His playbook: lower rates for individuals and corporations, substantially cut taxes on capital, and increase the personal exemption for dependent children. … The Tax Policy Center has not yet formally modeled the former Pennsylvania senator’s tax platform. However, because it cuts rates significantly but does not eliminate tax preferences—and even expands a few—it would very likely add trillions of dollars to the federal deficit.  Looked at from that prism, it is not so different from the ideas raised by most of his GOP rivals." - Forbes, Money & Politics and Christian Science Monitor

His official website confirms the details from the report above with a "12-point plan" . At the moment there are only a few scant mentions of his tax policy here and none at Rick Santorum presidential campaign, 2012. -El duderino (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Neologism to See also

Can you also remove the reference to Nazi's in the article about Germany? It makes Germany look bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.106.186.6 (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I WP:BOLDly removed the Santorum neologism section as WP:UNDUE and linked to the pertinent articles in the see also section. This is what Misplaced Pages has done with the 9/11 conspiracy theories in the September 11 attacks article and I think it's what should be done here. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The google bomb included a notable piece from Santorum himself and his stances on homosexuality carry a lot of weight in his political rhetoric and his public image as a politician. It's actually an example of UNDUE weight to do the opposite; you see, if we remove the google bomb and decrease it to just a small link, we are doing a disservice to the readers who may have looked up his name on google and want to know exactly what the story is. I know the google bomb was malicious and highly offensive to readers, but wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, and this remains a significant issue to his political career, especially with the influence the Internet has on a peron's public image.--Screwball23 talk 03:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The original controversy shouldn't be removed. It was a highly noted incident and the protests weren't limited to the Savage Google bombing matter. I see over 200 newspapers and magazines have quoted part of it and have done so as recently as November 2011, and that excludes those who mention Savage or Google.   Will Beback  talk  05:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Good move. Misplaced Pages should not be used as a means of PR for Mr. Savage and his editorial opinions about people, which is what all of this actually boils down to. Collect (talk) 12:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely untrue. Where is this an "editorial opinion"? And how is this a means of PR? We are not promoting Savage here, all this is about is the inclusion of a section explaining the google bomb that has affected Santorum's candidacy and public image.--Screwball23 talk 17:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Eh? The concept of "Google bomb" is specifically a "promotional" concept - and Mr. Savage has been using that PR effect. And I daresay it is Mr. Savage's "editorial opinion" about Sen. Santorum which is the root cause of the "Google bomb" stunt. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

How is that a legitimate argument? You are saying that we should not include ANY mention of the google bomb - despite all the references and newsworthiness it has received with Santorum's candidacy - all because it reflects the opinion of Savage, and in your interpretation, that is PR work? I advise you read into wikipedia's policies before you start citing policy incorrectly, my friend. :-< --Screwball23 talk 17:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

As the argument is based on the discussions heretofore held on this topic, I suggest your ad hom fails. As for policies, I think that I have a fairly good grasp of WP:BLP in this case. Cheers - but at this point you do not have consensus on your side, nor do you have WP:BLP on your side. Collect (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Ad hom? "Think you have a fairly good grasp?" Do you have any real arguments, or are you just going to spew more jargon and throw out more hyperlinks? Because nothing you said - PR work, "editorial opinions" - has been stated by other editors, and I don't see this "consensus" you refer to. Also, I recommend you bone up your "fairly good grasp" with a check here : WP:Don't revert due to "no consensus".--Screwball23 talk 05:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Um -- ESSAYS are not POLICIES. Cheers - but WP:BLP for some odd reason applies to BLPs and is policy. Collect (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no policy which allows you to remove the very well-cited and perfectly relevant Google bombing section. Binksternet (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Bad move. Santorum was the target of one of the most prominent Google bombs. This article is about the man Santorum, and the man has been grievously affected by a Google bomb. One cannot hope to deliver a neutral article without discussing the problems faced by Rick Santorum because of the work of Dan Savage. Binksternet (talk) 05:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Now if only Collect could only own up to the fact that he's wrong once again .... --Screwball23 talk 16:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Bad move, but not that bad. On one hand, the two removed/restored paragraphs in question are unnecessarily detailed; why have separate articles when practically everything pertinent to the neologism is right here? On the other hand, it's the first damn hit when you Google the guy. It matters, even if it's, you know, stupid. Cut it down and keep the "See also" with the two links. CityOfSilver 00:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

All that goes to show is the ease in which google can be manipulated, it does not actually confer extra notability on the topic. Tarc (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

How about this: Keep (possibly cut down) original controversy about his comments in the article. Move the neologism to the see also. Thoughts? NYyankees51 (talk) 03:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Nope. The 'neologism' as you put it is worthy of an explanation. Because of the requirement of an explanation, it should not be relegated to "see also" status. Binksternet (talk) 05:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• The attempts to remove or downplay this controversy have failed again and again. Why would you possibly think they would succeed this time? The controversy was notable at the time and it's continued to affect his presidential campaign. You may not like it, but it's part of the story of Santorum. (And Collect: the argument that by covering the event, Misplaced Pages is furthering it, was made and rejected, both on evidential grounds and on policy grounds.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Collect even believes the arguments he makes. :-) --Screwball23 talk 16:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I think your continued bad faith and personal attacks in this and other political articles is showing that your last 1 week time-out wasn't nearly long enough. Chill out a bit, please. Tarc (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

You're the last person who should mention bad faith. If you had even an ounce of good faith in your editing, you would not have blocked me for adding material that you refused to discuss productively. If you look at what your editing behavior resulted in, which was a 1 week block, compared to the editing I did, which resulted with collaboration, into a well-referenced paragraph on Santorum's faith, you might reconsider your unfounded editwarring now.--Screwball23 talk 18:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

As for the topic, IMO a useful comparison would be of Barack Obama to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. The former does not contain either a link to or a mention of the latter. Tarc (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Obama's problem and Santorum's problem are quite different. Binksternet (talk) 17:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Why? Tarc (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Obama didn't say mean things about gay people?101.118.21.109 (talk) 19:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Surprised to see that comparison, and more so to see the user asking to have it explained why they're not the same. To state the obvious: Santorum's problem is not a conspiracy theory. And User:Tarc is incorrect about there being no link to Citizenship conspiracy theories which in fact is linked in the Public Image section of links at the page's end. El duderino (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should the information about the Santorum neologism be reduced to a link in the See also section, as has been done with the 9/11 conspiracy theories article on the September 11 attacks page? NYyankees51 (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Policy-based arguments for or against

user:NYyankees51: The article as it currently stands violates wp:UNDUE. user:Collect, user:Lionel, user:Mike Christie agree. User:Ucanlookitup, User:JamesMLane, User:Johnathlon, User:Tryptofish, User:Nomoskedasticity, User:Malke_2010, user:Nomoskedasticity, and user:Will Beback, disagree because it is verified by multiple reliable sources. Youreallycan has factually conditional opinion which appears to indicate (based on the facts) that he is disagrees with NYyankees51. However his intent seems to be to agree with NYyankees51.

User:Roscelese argues this RfC violates wp:CONSENSUS because it is an example of forum shopping. User:Screwball23 and User:Binksternet agree.

There have been general disagreements about wp:BLP but some unclear statements on both sides of the disagreement. user:Collect, User:Arzel, and User:Malke_2010 seem to think the article as it stands violates wp:BLP but it is unclear on how it might. User:Binksternet and User:Roscelese argue that the article as it currently stands does not violate wp:BLP because the policy states that all information should be included, not just positive information.

Essay-based arguments were not included

Comments

• Yes per WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK, among many other issues. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
• No It is certainly not WP:UNDUE since his Google Problem] continues to receive recent coverage. It is often discussed as a factor in his electability. Nor does WP:COATRACK seem to apply, since his stance on homosexuality (and the backlash against it) are completely relevant to his political career. The bottom line is that, flattering or unflattering, an article about Santorum would not be complete without a discussion of this topic. Ucanlookitup (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, per precedent at other articles on politicians. We have to take the utmost care with BLPs to ensure that they are free of bias, COI meddling, and no not come across as either a piece of yellow journalism written be detractors or puff-piece resumes by adherents. Given the nature of politics, I'd say this is doubly true with politician bios. I fail to see the slightest whiff of a mention in the Barack Obama article about the birther junk, and rightly so; it is not a significant aspect of his personal biography. The fake santorum word stuff may have an impact on Santorum's presidential run, but not on him personally. Tarc (talk) 00:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so you realize now that it is significant to his presidential run? You see that is affects his public image, and you understand that it is a problem that has affected him and his relationship with voters. Now, you may be surprised to learn that this issue is not a new one; back in 2006, during his Senate run, this same google bomb was an issue. It has been a major problem for him in terms of his political career, and he has even taken measures to contact Google to remove it. It is also an issue for his family, as the Santorum surname and his descendants live with a name that is connected to an Internet meme. For someone to say that it has no impact on him personally is pure delusion.--Screwball23 talk 02:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

One could also retort that for someone to say that it has any impact on him personally is pure partisanship. Tarc (talk) 03:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Don't be a sore loser, my friend. --Screwball23 talk 16:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

That would be quite easy to be, since I have not lost anything. Tarc (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yo, you just wasted days and hours trying to censor the entire section on his google bomb and with all your forum shopping, you still didn't get anything. I don't know what you think you've gained, but you sure spent a lot of time trying to get it.--Screwball23 talk 16:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• No. Mainstream media coverage, such as here, here, here, and here, shows that the subject is significant. Here, the disputed passage gives two sentences about the Google bomb and two sentences about Santorum's response to it, which seems about the proper weight. Political figures will frequently be affected by actions motivated by others' opinions, favorable or (as here) unfavorable. It's not a violation of NPOV for us to give a neutral report about the nature and effects of an opinion-motivated action. For example, the Smear Boat Veterans' mendacious attack on John Kerry is covered in its own article but with a summary in his main bio (at John Kerry#Controversy). The same is true of the Jeremiah Wright controversy -- a separate article but with a summary in the main bio (at Barack Obama#Religious views). The Santorum/Googlebomb, Kerry/Vietnam, and Obama/Wright attacks are all more significant than the Obama/birther stuff; whether Obama/birther merits summary in the main bio should be taken up at Talk:Barack Obama. JamesMLane t c 05:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• No not undue, not coatrack, not COI meddling, does not come across as a piece of yellow journalism written be detractors. This article is good as is and this small mention is appropriate. Johnathlon (talk) 10:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Yes It decidedly fits "Undue" to a T, and the use of any BLP for reasons other than being a neutrally worded biography is contrary to Misplaced Pages policies ab initio. Collect (talk) 13:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• RfC comment. A couple of things about this RfC are unclear. One is whether editors commenting here are already involved, or coming here via the RfC notice. (I am the latter, although I commented in an earlier RfC about the neologism, and the ArbCom cases that grew out of it.) Another is what the material is to be changed from. The question posed is only what it should be changed to, but I figure that we are talking about the section of the page titled "2003 interview and Google bomb". Given the material just above that section, about the subject's views on abortion and his proposed amendment, that section appears to me to be appropriate to the page, adequately supported by sources, and not particularly undue. I'll also point out that the page currently doesn't have a dedicated "See also" section, so putting the link there might actually make it more conspicuous. However, I think it would be a good idea to put more emphasis on the subject's own position expressed in the interview, and to shorten the discussion of the Google bomb. I suppose a case could also be made for making the section only about the interview, and moving the Google bomb material to a few short sentences in the later section about the current Presidential campaign. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Yes I think this is a good position - this article is primarily about Rick S and if his views on support for the traditional family and his position on homosexuality is such a high point in his opinions then his notable comments should be given more weight here than the detail about the gay activists response. If the whole thing is about one single interview and then its undue as presently covered - We already have an article about that. Youreallycan (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Yes Unlike the other examples provided as a reason to keep, this is not the result of anything Santorum did or casued upon himself by his actions. This is simply a situation where a person wished to harm him as much as possible on the internet because of Santorum's beliefs; a personal attack of the most egregious form possible and WP should take no part in furthering it. I am not even sure why there is such a desire to make a point of it. It is akin to kicking someone in the gut when they are already on the ground. Is it not enough already for those on the left that his name is forever tarnished? Or is the hate that severe? Arzel (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• His name is not tarnished. The vile attacking name association reflects poorly on the homosexual activists more than it does on Santorum. - which is why any bloat about it belongs either on their article or in the specific article about it. He is allowed his opinions and views, the fact that these people have chosen to attack him for disagreeing with them speaks more about them. Santorum has stuck by his views. His support for the traditional marriage model is a conservative view and is a position that appears to have some support in the republican party.Youreallycan (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• What a silly comment, Arzel. Would you care to try a policy-based argument, instead of a failed melodramatic appeal to emotion? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• I thought the BLP argument was quite just and the comparison for keep from others quite apt. Arzel (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Arzel, I'm not sure what your last comment meant, but I can tell you that there is no place for statements like "Is it not enough already for those on the left that his name is forever tarnished?" in a discussion about inclusion in wikipedia.

Johnathlon (talk) 03:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• I am making a statement that this appears to be more of a case of trying to inflict pain on a living person. What I find most ironic is if Savage had simply called Santorum what he did it would be a personal attack and a BLP violation, but since he convinced a large number of followers to do his bidding it is now not only ok to have an article stating what Savage called him, but to make sure that there is a link to the article talking about it. Yet if I were to say the definition of Dan Savage is a (some suitable inflamatory remark), it would be a personal attack. I thought BLP was an overiding policy regardless of reliable sources, but apparently that is not the case here. Arzel (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• BLP cannot be ignored—you are correct there. Scroll down to Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons#Public_figures and you will see the relevant section. There, it says, "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." That is plain enough for all of us to abide by. The Google bomb / Dan Savage bit should stay in. Binksternet (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Santorum's homophobic comments are much more vile and offensive than the response by gay activists. And appealing to anti-gay sentiment here is deplorable. El duderino (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• No, of course not. The attempts to remove or downplay this controversy have failed again and again, and this new RfC smacks of forum shopping/keep listing it till it's deleted. The controversy was notable at the time and it's continued to affect his presidential campaign, and as such, receives continued coverage. We don't remove it just because it makes him look bad; that's not how BLP works. BLP ensures that content in a biography is reliably sourced, not that it is 100% positive. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• This is not about making him look bad, since he did nothing, that argument is lost. This is about a personal attack on a living person, which is a far more important BLP policy aspect to weigh. RS does not trump BLP, you have your logic backwards. Arzel (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• BLP ensures that content in a biography is reliably sourced, not that it is 100% positive. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• No: it is not undue, a point readily available in the wealth of sources on the issue. The sources make it clear this is a highly pertinent issue in regard to his political life. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

  So...if it is important to his political life, then doesn't it belong in a politics article and not his main bio? Tarc (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

  No -- most of the article is about his political career. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• No. This is forum shopping and not appropriate for wasting editors' time. The sources all say that the Google bomb and Dan Savage issue is a very important one, deeply affecting Santorum's career as a politician. The issue must be addressed in the main biography article, not relegated elsewhere with only a pusillanimous link provided. Binksternet (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• It's not had any apparent affect on his career, he is doing well. This is the type of content that is being reported about R Santorum, and what this article should be expanding. Rick Santorum Blasts Gay Marriage Supporters, Defends Support For Anti-Sodomy Laws - 25 Oct 2011 in the Huffington Post - with the main focus on what Santorium's notable views are and a minor mention of what the Homosexual activist did in response to his comment in an interview. The google bomb is history, and appears to have no actual affect on his career - as I said above, the creation of the attacking neo says more about Savage than it does this living person and the weight should be minimal here to reflect that. It seems to me that Santoriun is proud of his views and is sticking by an defending his objections to Gay Marriage and defending his support For Anti-Sodomy Laws and the focus in this article is primarily on him, and focus in this article should be on the subjects notable views, rather than the focus being on what the the activists that disagree with him said or did. Youreallycan (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Rob, you are helping me make my point with your link to the HuffPo article which reinforces the importance of Santorum's "Google problem". Even at this stage in Santorum's career, articles about the man still mention the Dan Savage attack. Binksternet (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hi, it's just a small matter of fact mention (a historic note)- the article is focused primarily on R Santorium's views. Its a matter of weight, we already have an article about it, its quite a reasonable suggestion to simply have a basic mention here or a see also link.Youreallycan (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Again, you are arguing for my point. The RfC is about reducing the Savage/neologism/Google bomb text to a single link. You and I appear to be in agreement that more than a link is appropriate. I think a two paragraphs is apt, you think there should be "a basic mention". Binksternet (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Yes: it has more to do with Savage than Santorum: it is peripheral to Santorum. This seems perfectly in line with WP:UNDUE. – Lionel 20:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• No. The standard for WP:WEIGHT says to give attention to issues in proportion to their prominence in independent secondary sources. While the exact amount of weight this matter deserves is up for debate, the correct weight is certainly not zero. Some mention is necessary.   Will Beback  talk  00:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Yes This is exactly what Merriam Webster says it is, "A meaningless term coined by a psychotic." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/neologism This has no place in a BLP. This is a disgusting, disgraceful addition to a living person's BLP and it should be deleted, as should the Misplaced Pages article about it. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Um... Actually M-W gives two usages "1 : a new word, usage, or expression." and "2 : a meaningless term coined by a psychotic." The OED gives four usages and replaces psychotic with "c. Psychiatry. A nonsense word interpolated in an otherwise correct sentence by a person suffering from a neuropsychiatric disorder, esp. schizophrenia." So, unless you have a source that supports your claim that Savage is suffering from a neuropsychiatric disorder, you should consider redacting your comments (or request they be deleted).

Abusing sources to make a point is not acceptable anywhere on Misplaced Pages. WP:BLP also applies everywhere. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

NO! Where is the connexion between conspiracies denied by the governments, and one this man claims to suffer from. It is by far the most interesting thing about this man, and the only reason I came to this page!92.231.85.213 (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Yes Attempts at defamation via slander are not encyclopedic. Were there a wisp of truth in the Google bomb, and there very clearly is not, then I might be persuaded otherwise. Including the 'neologism' (slander) in the Santorum article is just political ax grinding. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• No 1) As a non U.S. citizen who learned that an internet meme was related to him, I checked wikipedia to find out what it was. 2) It is certainly not a central piece, only a brief referral in a very long text. 3) Also, if someone was the victim of a murder attempt, that would be added on wikipedia, right? Sinas (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Current (extensive) coverage of Santorum in reliable sources does not seem to regard this as more than a very minor footnote; it rarely merits mention. I think at the current length of the article it violates undue weight to give as much as a sentence to it. The coinage deserves coverage in Misplaced Pages (and it has it); we shouldn't cover it beyond the degree to which other reliable sources cover it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• Nope As others have already pointed out: it's a minor, yet notable part of Santorum's image. In just about any article, far more trivial facts are allowed, even for politicians. If anything, it should be spelled out here in the article. Unless of course this particular article is somehow an exemption to WP:CENSOR. Peter 01:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• 'No. It would be a true disservice to Misplaced Pages to leave out this significant controversy. Santorum's anti-gay views and homophobic policies deserve coverage and context. The nonconventional response by gay activists is a part of that context, despite the disingenuous efforts by some biased editors to characterize it as a 'personal attack' -- a term which is too easily tossed around here in absence of real argument. El duderino (talk) 04:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's clear we don't need more comments, we have plenty of people involved in this contentious discussion. Are there any objections to removing the RfC banner? Johnathlon (talk) 07:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it should be removed yet; comments are still coming in fairly rapidly. I'm not very hopeful we'll reach a long-lasting consensus, but we shouldn't give up just yet. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not trying to give up on reaching consensus, I'm arguing that what we suffer from here is not a lack of viewpoints. We clearly have enough people here sharing their opinion. What we lack is cohesion as a group of editors and an insistence on advancing the discussion from "I have a viewpoint too" to "how can we resolve this?". Advertising a contentious issue for more comments gives the impression that we're short on comments. While that may have been true in the beginning, it is no longer true. Johnathlon (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestion on how we advance from the opinion-stage? The only concrete suggestion in this discussion is "reduce it to a see also-link". That doesn't seem like it's going to get consensus support any time soon. Peter 18:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess my first suggestion is to remove the RfC banner to stop the influx of opinion-givers. Johnathlon (talk) 08:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Why? Because you don't care about other people's opinions? As far as "how we can resolve this" goes, that's pretty clear: you do not have a consensus to censor this article, so the content stays in the article. Just because you don't get your way doesn't mean that the issue isn't resolved. A number of the editors trying to remove this have run all across Misplaced Pages backwards and forwards trying every little WP:WIKILAWYER trick they know to try to find a sneaky way to do what they know they shouldn't be doing. And they've failed time and time again. That *is* the resolution. DreamGuy (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey DreamGuy. Nice to meet you. Could you clarify your comment because it's unclear to me who you're talking to and what you're referring to. thanks Johnathlon (talk) 03:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Yes: In my apparently minority opinion, Santorum was the victim of a vile smear attack and excess information about the incident should mainly if not exclusively be contained within the neologism campaign article. The 9/11 conspiracy theories are much more well-known and much more well-reported than Santorum's Google troubles, and if a "See also" is (or at least was) good enough for them, it ought to be done so here. Excessive coverage of the neologism on this article simply renders Misplaced Pages a surrogate for Dan Savage's propaganda, even if written about in a neutral fashion. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 08:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• Weak No We need to thread the needle here between actively advancing Dan Savage's vendetta against Santorum and actively resisting because we've decided to "take a stand." We need to be passive here, meaning we neither underplay nor overplay the neologism/Google bomb thing. The proposal to eliminate entirely from the main body or text of the article goes too far towards underplaying. Mainstream media articles like this one in the Telegraph consider the matter notable. Currently it is not indexed in the article Contents under its own heading and it gets about a dozen lines; I'm fine with keeping this status quo, since I believe it currently plays observer as opposed to enabler of Savage's agenda.--Brian Dell (talk) 09:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• No: Although I think that Google Bomb is a juvenile and fairly pathetic way to attack a politician, in this case it is clearly one of the most well-known facts about Rick Santorum, especially from a non-U.S. perspective. Although some in the American media may choose to ignore the 'Google Problem', it is clearly mentioned in every piece about the man himself that I've read from other news sources. Misplaced Pages is not just American, nor is it concerned with the effect its pages might have, personally or politically, on their subjects. For that reason, it really should be clear on this page what exactly the controversy is over - just like one of the comments above, the only reason I came to this page was to learn more about Santorum's second defintion. Aquamonkey (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Yes it is notable, but not suitable for the biography article, as it is pure attack, and not a reasoned critique or criticism of his policies. A link to the other article is sufficient. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you underestimate Savage and others by claiming this isn't a reasoned criticism of his policies. Simply pointing out that someone is a homophobe is pretty run of the mill these days. Savage found a way to associate the idea that Santorum is the kind of anti-gay activist who is so hateful, shameless and vile in the comments he makes with an easy to remember mental picture. Whereas most reasoned critiques and mere insults are forgotten minutes later, this one stuck, and in a big way. And that's also exactly why it needs to be covered in this article. Hell, if anything there's too little weight given to it right now. We should pare down some of the other stuff that isn't as notable to give more space to what is undeniably the one major reason people around the world even knew who this guy was. Reducing it to a See also link is pure censorship, nothing less. DreamGuy (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Yes This is a great test for the community—we need to do the right thing for good people and for bad. The situation is clear: Santorum is obnoxious; Savage has performed a smear; Misplaced Pages is amplifying that smear. The latter is unacceptable. Johnuniq (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • This is seriously misconceived: Misplaced Pages is reflecting the documentation of the "smear" in a vast multitude of reliable sources, not "amplifying" it. The article is no different in this respect from any other issue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
• No, since the Google bombing does not spread or perpetuate libel or even confusion about Rick Santorum, WP:BLP-based arguments do not apply. If any of the Yes folks here want to trim the material down a little please put forward some suggestions. Speciate (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• No!!! Are we really dancing this dance again? I agree that this violates consensus and it is indeed forum shopping. But I will cast a vote of No nevertheless. The Google Bomb of Santorum is notable; suitable for inclusion and it will stay. If people say it is not notable, etc, they are clearly trying to downplay it, surely because they have a political agenda or sympathize with his ideas. Read the policy: BLP "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." I guess that the policy is VERY clear. Efiiamagus (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Not just No but Hell no. This is not only quite notable but arguably the most notable thing about a politician who otherwise is very similar to countless others. And, honestly now, regardless of any other contributions they may have made, the editors who want to censor this information from the article for clearly POV reasons (some related to politics, some to whitewashing Misplaced Pages to make it avoid controversial topics) clearly do not get pretty much any of Misplaced Pages's founding principles. If they are seriously trying to remove this information then I think it's fair to seriously recommend they go to some other site. Not that that will happen, of course, but come on, get serious! DreamGuy (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• No. "See also" is a slush pool for things you'd like to include in an article but didn't get around to yet. It's not the proper repository for things you can and have dealt with properly in the text. Note also that this neologism is not even that serious as far as negative controversies go! I mean, would you do the same for every politician with marital infidelity, corruption allegations, drunken driving, anything more seriously defaming than having some joker running around using your name for a gag? P.S. that decision with September 11th also sounds absolutley wrong - I know they're frustrating, but these bogus conspiracy ideas have made enough of a splash to deserve text coverage. Wnt (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Santorum

Santorum has a different definition besides just the candidate, Misplaced Pages should address so there was no confusion. Such as adding a line "Not to be confused with " Boobymonster (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Even when the sub-article was under the title "Santorum (neologism)" I'm pretty sure there wasn't a hatnote. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

No. Gerald Ford page doesn't need to have a reference not to be confused with FordPbmaise (talk) 05:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on January 1 2012

The opening sentence on intelligent design is currently malformed. At the time of writing, it states:

"In 2001, Santorum tried unsuccessfully to insert into the No Child Left Behind bill language, which came to be known as the "Santorum Amendment" that sought to promote the teaching of intelligent design while questioning the academic standing of evolution in public schools."

The 'which came to be known as...' clause is unclosed, making the sentence incredibly hard to parse, and it's not that well constructed in any case. So as a minimal edit I'd suggest at least closing the clause, e.g.

"In 2001, Santorum tried unsuccessfully to insert into the No Child Left Behind bill language, which came to be known as the "Santorum Amendment", that sought to promote the teaching of intelligent design while questioning the academic standing of evolution in public schools."

Or ideally adjust to something like (including how it would flow into the rest of the existing text):

"In 2001 Santorum tried unsuccessfully to insert language into the No Child Left Behind bill that would promote the teaching of intelligent design while questioning the academic standing of evolution in public schools. This came to be known as the "Santorum Amendment" and was written with the assistance of the Discovery Institute. It..."

— 87.115.55.166 (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I think your suggestion is good but I tweaked it a bit further to produce: "In 2001, Santorum tried unsuccessfully to amend the No Child Left Behind bill by inserting language that sought to promote the teaching of intelligent design while questioning the academic standing of evolution in public schools. This came to be known as the 'Santorum Amendment' and was written with the assistance of the Discovery Institute. It...." I also broke up that long paragraph by starting a new paragraph when the discussion reached 2005. JamesMLane t c 06:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Children

• - Please include regarding his children that they are all his biological children

Please include regarding his children: "None of Rick Santorum's seven children are adopted." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachelannehayes (talk • contribs) 02:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The more common practice is to mention adoptions, if any. I don't recall ever seeing a bio that included a sentence of the type you suggest. Is there any reason to treat Santorum differently? JamesMLane t c 13:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Children's education

Without reliable sources showing it has lasting notability, the whole section regarding his children's education should be removed. Rodchen (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The dispute was reported in the mainstream media. It became significant enough that Santorum asked to forgo a tax exemption just because of the ruckus. JamesMLane t c 13:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

So how is that different from his relations with the Queer community discussed above?92.231.85.213 (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That does not show lasting notability for an encyclopedia. It should be removed. Rodchen (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the dispute was only reported in the 'national' media by the Washington Post, which gave it a pass, and the Los Angeles Times. Both of these were back in 2005. It's really a non-starter issue and even if it had any relevance, it would be a paragraph. Far too much is being made of this. Santorum's work with Bono and the AIDS initiatives in Africa aren't really even mentioned, but this bit about tuition and residency, when in fact Santorum was a legal resident of Pennsylvania, is WP:UNDUE. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Bloomberg Businessweek called attention to the fact Santorum was charging the school district in Pennsylvania $100,000 in tuition costs for the online education of his children TODAY, so I do not agree that it is a non-issue. I would agree, however, that the matter should be a paragraph at most and I've accordingly cut much of this material.--Brian Dell (talk) 08:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Using ref as printed

The WaPo article cited for the "Santorum Amendment" specifically says:

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), a Christian who draws on Discovery Institute material, drafted language accompanying the law that said students should be exposed to "the full range of scientific views that exist."

It is reasonable to ascribe those words to Santorum as his statement, and this does not mean the claim is that the amendment used those words. Cheers - but I stand by what the WaPo article specifies about Santorum if that is the ref used. It is, in fact, improper to draw more inferences about Santorum from that cite than what the cite says in black and white. Collect (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that. The whole mess is explained in great detail by the National Center for Science Education in this paper. In brief:

1. Santorum introduced an amendment that mentioned "evolution".

2. The conference committee, reconciling the House and Senate versions, omitted the Santorum Amendment. Nevertheless, to appease the supporters of the amendment, the committee included language in its report similar to the Santorum Amendment, but with some changes.

3. Thus, Santorum introduced an amendment that had language very similar to the language in the conference report. WaPo source refers to this language as "accompanying" the bill because it wasn't the amendment itself. WaPo also doesn't get into the comparatively small differences between Santorum's language and the committee report, but the "full range" passage is one of those differences.

Our logical presentation is first to say what was actually in the amendment, and then to present Santorum's explanation. For the latter, Santorum's own statement in the Congressional Record is a better source than the WaPo glancing reference to the conference committee report, which was a compromise and probably not the best representation of his views. I don't see what the "full range" passage adds to an article about Santorum once we've quoted his own statement.

I'll add a link to the NCSE report, where people can see the full text of the Santorum Amendment plus the relevant passage from the conference committee report. JamesMLane t c 16:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I stuck to WHAT THE CITE SAID. Which is what Misplaced Pages says to do. Meanwhile, I suggest the NCSE report should be citable only as opinion, and all claims made based on it be attirbuted propoerly as opinion. Note WP:RS specifically says we use what the cite says, and not what we find in primary sources or other sources not given as references for the claims. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The question of "what was the text of the Santorum Amendment" is not a matter of opinion. It is fact, as to which there is no good-faith dispute. Compare (bottom of page 3) with (bottom of page S6147 to top of page S6148). The first is the NCSE report. The second is an excerpt from the Congressional Record, as presented on the website of the Discovery Institute. We have two sources for the exact text of the amendment, one from each side of the dispute, and the two texts are identical.

It's been said that journalism is the first draft of history. The WaPo article illustrates that. It says that Santorum drafted the language "accompanying" the bill. Well, most of that language is from his amendment, but there were differences. The WaPo reporter, trying to get a story out and give the readers the important information, would not stop and say something like "Santorum drafted the language that ended up in the conference committee report accompanying the bill, except for the passage in that report about the 'full range' of views, which was suggested by Joseph A. Blow, a Congressional staffer working for the conference committee." Even if that were the case, and the reporter knew it to be the case, it wouldn't go into the story -- and the omission would be proper, given the purpose of the story.

We should not attribute to Santorum, as a verbatim quotation in quotation marks, language that was not in his amendment. What I've written accurately summarizes the substance of the amendment and then attributes to Santorum what he actually did say, as per the Congressional Record. When it comes to representing Santorum's views, we can have much more confidence in his own words than in the report of a committee that was rejecting his amendment. I still don't see what we add to the reader's knowledge of Rick Santorum if we quote the "full range" passage. JamesMLane t c 21:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you stating that the quotation cited to Santorum by WaPo is a fake? Dear me -- on what grounds do you assert that the WaPo fraudulently ascribed words to him?

"Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), a Christian who draws on Discovery Institute material, drafted language accompanying the law that said students should be exposed to "the full range of scientific views that exist."

Looks pretty clear to me - but it is a fake? Thanks - but give me a basis for such a position. Collect (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

This is (of course) the right approach. We should not allow Santorum's own dissembling to become an authoritative account of what actually happened, in the full knowledge that his version is self-serving spin. With proper sourcing, we could note that this is what he said about his own efforts and then point out how his assertions were at variance with the facts. That might fall afoul of WP:UNDUE, however, so perhaps better to stick to a proper historical account which has entirely appropriate sourcing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

To Collect: No, I never said it was "fake". The "full range" passage is accurately quoted from the conference committee report. What I said was that we should state what the substance of the amendment was, and then give Santorum's opinion in favor of his position. On the former point, the amendment specifically mentioned evolution so we shouldn't suppress that information. On the latter point, Santorum deserves to be represented through his own words as stated in his own name in the Congressional Record. I'm glad to see that your edits haven't removed that quotation. So I ask, for the third time: If we quote Santorum's statement that students studying evolution should hear "competing scientific interpretations of evidence," what's gained by adding the language that educators should include "the full range of scientific views that exist" (the conference report language)? Even if we assume for the sake of the argument that Santorum personally drafted it, the passage makes essentially the same point. We don't need both, and it's more fair to Santorum to quote his own statement than to quote language from the report of a committee that decided not to include his amendment in the bill.

To Nomoskedasticity: This is the article about Rick Santorum, not the article about intelligent design or the article about the Santorum Amendment that sought to promote intelligent design. The kind of argument you're talking about doesn't need to be in Santorum's bio. That's what wikilinks are for. In this article, it's enough to note that anti-evolution groups were in favor and scientific organizations were opposed. The details of their arguments belong in the other articles. JamesMLane t c 08:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Why are you lecturing me? I already said that such an argument might be "undue" and I was agreeing with your approach. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see I misread your comment, and I apologize. I overreacted to your reference to "Santorum's own dissembling". JamesMLane t c 16:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality of this article

While I personally find it amusing how bad/crazy this article makes him look (I'm a Libertarian and he is getting dangerously close to Ron Paul in Iowa this evening) this issue really should be addressed. The horribly short sections on a few of his political beliefs make him look like a loon. I personally agree that he is lol, but nevertheless I don't think it meets Misplaced Pages's quality standards. Anyone else have an opinion on this? Mikist4 (talk) 02:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Is biased in his favour. Strongly! The most noteworthy thing about him is the google bomb. The short sections on his political beliefs, especially on sexuality, and evolution need to be much longer.92.231.85.213 (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The issue on political positions is not whether our article makes him look like a loon, but whether our article fairly and accurately summarizes his political positions. We should immediately fix any distortions. We should work to fix the many omissions. (One question there is how to integrate the "Political positions" information that's now included in the section on his tenure in Congress. It's relevant to his positions but also relevant to what he did while in office, so it doesn't fit our organization perfectly.)

If our article is accurate and some people, apprised of his positions, conclude that he's a loon, that's his problem, not ours. Other people will read the same material and see him as the last best hope to save the Republic. Let the chips fall where they may.

If there's any particular passage that you think is biased, please highlight it here. JamesMLane t c 04:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

A huge big section on the education of his children, trying to make a big issue of something very insignificant. That is one way the article is not neutral. If you are willing to make that change, we can continue working together at improving the article. Rodchen (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

He's a politician and that dispute was politically significant. People in public life are often the targets of attacks that their detractors think are perfectly valid and their supporters think are spurious. We don't take sides on that issue. We report matters of this sort that had an impact and received coverage in the mass media. We don't aim for neutrality by deciding which side is right; our version of neutrality is to report the important competing opinions (attributing them, not adopting them), along with the major facts on which each side relies. If you think that Santorum's side of the controversy hasn't been adequately presented, feel free to add information (cited and neutrally worded) that will correct any imbalance. JamesMLane t c 08:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The last time I checked this article (not recently) it had an entire section on 'Controversies', and made mention of his proposition to teach religion in science classes and his outspoken anti-gay views. I can't help but feel that this section would have remained were he not still running for president.

Misplaced Pages is not meant to serve as a platform for campaigning, and articles on politicians should not be cleaned up in such a way that serves to make them appear better/less controvercial. Santorum is well known for his conservative extremism, and this should not be excluded from the article.

96.241.18.219 (talk) 09:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes can we pleae have the anti Darwin and anti gay parts back? 89.150.118.199 (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

HELLO editors? either anti-Darwin, anti-gay views back in the article, or good reasons not to have them here on the talk page. 89.150.118.208 (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The topics of evolution and homosexuality are already mentioned in the article. Barack Obama's article does not have a "controversies" section and that's not because Obama has never been controversial but because Obama's article has had more editor attention and the "controversies" have been folded into the rest of the article as ought to be the case with a more readable, measured article.--Brian Dell (talk) 09:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This article is so far away from NPOV and has a distinctly anti-Santorum theme. It gives nothing of his positions but is almost exclusively about his "controversies." It is rife with "weasel" words. It is rife with phrases that are explicitly designed to place him on the fringe. For example, "Santorum rejects the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change". Really? I know of many "mainstream" scientists who are opposed to man-made climate change. This article needs a neutrality tag and it needs to be reworked to make it a neutral biography article and not propoganda to help those who differ from his ideology. 152.131.9.132 (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Santorum's page is not a place to rehash issues that have already found consensus on their main pages. If you take issue with wikipedia's consensus on climate change, bring it up on the climate change talk page. Johnathlon (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

LAWSUIT

I would like to add to the article the fact that a group is putting togther a lawsuit against Dan Savage and Google. Can anyone give me any information about the lawsuit and where in the article should it be inserted. Thank you. Paul123.123 (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages follows a "summary style", meaning that we don't try to pack all the information about a subject into one article. Some topics are spun off into a more detailed daughter article, with only a summary in the main article. A lawsuit of the type you mention could be considered for inclusion in the Campaign for "santorum" neologism article. Unless Santorum himself is involved in bringing the suit, however, it wouldn't be significant enough to include in the summary here. (Note that there's a discussion above, at #Request for comment, about the application of WP:SS to this article and Savage's campaign.) JamesMLane t c 17:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

ACLU lawsuit

This section doesn't have any relevance to Rick Santorum. The incident involved Santorum aides and the Delaware Police and the book store customers. Santorum was not there, was not involved in the lawsuit. I don't see any reason for this to be in his BLP. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

family comments

• - Elizabeth Santorum's "gay friends"

One of the mainstream media outlets has just reported that Elizabeth Santorum has made a public statement, saying that she has gay friends. Some journalists have asked around but can't find any proof of this. Does anyone have an idea about how this should be dealt with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.4.143 (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

If there is an article on Elizabeth Santorum, then it can be covered there. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

She made the comment in the context of the campaign, attempting to rebut the charge of homophobia against her father by invoking these gay friends who planned to vote for him. Therefore, it could be considered for inclusion in Rick Santorum presidential campaign, 2012. Favorable statements about a candidate by his or her family members are a dime a dozen, though, so you'd have to explain why this one is important enough to be included. JamesMLane t c 00:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Why the censorship?

Why exactly does the article say "an unflattering sexual definition" instead of "frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex". In any other context, I can't see that an article with a dedicated section on something, would decide to replace 79 very relevant characters with a sterile and euphemistic summary of 33 characters. As a reader who wants to find out what the actual definition is, you have to choose between one of two link options and then hope you're lucky to pick the one where it's actually mentioned in the lead. Towards the end, I might add,

Why isn't it in this article?

Peter 02:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Because it is a) not a real word and b) the fake definition of a fake word has nothing to do with Santorum's biography. You can get as frothy and as fecal as you like over at the Campaign for "santorum" neologism article. Tarc (talk) 03:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you're aware of the fact that this is not going away, so whether it's a "real word" or not is irrelevant. This is not a dictionary entry and we don't shy away from using verbatim quotes to explain why he was called "Rooster", criticism of his likening Democrats to Nazis, and an accusation of being a corrupt politician. The latter two are rather unflattering, btw.

The idea that it doesn't belong here has been established as a completely moot point and a full paragraph is spent on the issue. But for some reason we still actively censor the very quote that has lead to all this notoriety, mocking from political adversaries and open protestations from Santorum. And we even have a separate article on the campaign against Santorum based on that very quote. I don't see this amount of discretion forced on a quote that wasn't vulgar and sexual in nature.

So, again, why censor it out of the article?

Peter 17:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Those who cry OMG CENSORSHIP right off the bat usually present arguments that do not amount to very much, honestly. What the fabricated word is actually purported to mean has no relevance to Rick Santorum's biography. An argument can be made that Savage's google bomb attack is relevant, so that is why it warrants a paragraph with a pointer to the full article on the small-s "santorum" stuff. THAT is where your full and frothy definition resides. It is not "censored", it is just put where most appropriate. Tarc (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus for removing mention of the Google bomb, nor that it hinges on the "frothy" definition. Leave it be.

You're also avoiding the issue involving editorial matters. We have far more tangential quotes in this article that are also unflattering. I assume the situation is no different in other articles that criticize their article topics, whether they be politicians or not. So why the vulgar quote replaced with a euphemism? That it's irrelevant obviously doesn't fly. So if it's not censorship, then what's the reason?

Peter 18:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I have explained the reason twice now. The third time really isn't a charm, quaint colloquialisms aside. Tarc (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You've stated that you personally prefer that the quote be presented in full only in a sub-article. And you've been very sarcastic about that. But I don't believe you've made any relevant connection to policy. What guidelines specifically do you feel support your view on keeping the "frothy"-quote out of this article?

Peter 21:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the "frothy" language should be included in this article. Referring to "an unflattering sexual definition" is just plain confusing and only serves to obfuscate the facts. The casual reader will think, huh, what does that mean? Further, the neologism is newsworthy precisely because it's so vulgar. Readers should be entitled to evaluate it on their own without the article whitewashing the issue by simply calling the definition "unflattering." --Nstrauss (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

And yet you are unable to explain the connection or relevance to Santorum personally. Unless you are a regular Dan Savage listener/fan, this is a minor, minor aspect of Rick Santorum's life. Be thankful that it is getting a mention in this article at all; Barack Obama's bio mentions the birther controversy precisely zero times. Tarc (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Seriously. Moot point and whatnot. Policy supports it. It's not going away.

What is or isn't mentioned in Obama's article seems to me like WP:OTHERSTUFF. Do you have any policy-based arguments or not?

Peter 15:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The connection between the neologism and Santorum the person is obvious. The fact is that the neologism has gotten considerable press lately in connection with Santorum the person. If you object to that then you can write a letter to the editor of your newspaper. In any case, my point is that the passage as currently written is confusing and whitewashes the issue. It could be improved. Do you agree or disagree? --Nstrauss (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Santorum is a politician. There is no basis -- in logic, in Misplaced Pages policy, or in our treatment of other prominent politicians -- for Tarc's proposed distinction between information about Santorum personally (okay for the article) and information about political matters (not okay for the article). As for its being "a minor, minor aspect", you should note that quite a few mainstream media reports about Santorum in the aftermath of the Iowa result included reference to it. "US elections 2012: Rick Santorum the new star, but his 'Google problem' could yet scupper his campaign" (The Telegraph ); "After strong Iowa showing, Santorum still has Google problem" (Reuters story hosted on Yahoo! News ); "11 things you might not know about Santorum" in which #1 is "He has a Google problem" (National Journal reprinted by MSNBC ). JamesMLane t c 17:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

At the end of the day, we have people like you trying to give undue weight to a fringe criticism, nothing more; the only relevance to Santorum's bio is that a smear campaign was initiated by Dan Savage. To get all the nitty-gritty details of what the campaign is, we have a separate article for that. That is where the fanciful definition for a fake word goes. It does not belong here and will not go here. Tarc (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Tarc, the point is that it stops being a "fringe criticism" when it becomes widely reported and known. Is it a smear campaign? YES! But it has become an important, newsworthy smear campaign nonetheless. It could take down Santorum's campaign and ruin his reputation forever. Is that fair? NO! But please explain why readers should not be entitled to make that judgment for themselves. --Nstrauss (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The point that you aren't comprehending is that we do cover it in this article; it being "widely reported and known" is debatable, but it does exist, yes, that is why it is mentioned here. That does not give us free license to delve into every sordid crack and cranny of the affair. Bill Clinton once inserted a cigar into Monica Lewinsky's vagina y'know, but do we need to inform the reader of that level of detail in the main Bill Clinton article? No, we do not. Same principle applies there, an encyclopedia is not a tabloid; we are here to inform, not sensationalize and titillate our audience. Tarc (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I concur on the clinton analogy. Get graphic but clinical descriptions of what ACTUALLY HAPPENED, and led directly to impleachment into the clinton (cigar in vagina, semen stained dress, thong flashing in the oval office) article, and we could possibly consider adding a completely made up term that was designed with the only purpose of being offensive (freely admitted by savage). Gaijin42 (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

To answer nstauss's fundamental question : at least one policy which says that it shouldn't be in the article is WP:CON and here is one more opinion towards that consensus that the "whitewashed" version should remain, and not the explicit version. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it's 3-2 in favor of including the "frothy" language. I'm baffled as to how can describe that as a consensus going the other way. --Nstrauss (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This article is about the person Santorum, not about the internet campaign or the neologism. It gives us no information about the person to repeat the detailed meaning of the neologism, which we may recall was coined precisely to attack this person. It is therefore WP:UNDUE. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

At the very least as a compromise, somewhere in this sentence, "to coin a new word "santorum" with an unflattering sexual definition", there should be a link to the campaign for "santorum" neologism article. It's somewhat censoring to: a) not include the definition, b) not have a clear link for an interested reader to see the definition. I'd bet the link traffic is quite high on clicks leading to "google bomb," showing that there IS a user desire for that information. Danachandler (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The people in desire of that information (like yourself apparently) will already know all about it through Jon Stewert or Colbert or any of the numerous left-wing websites that love the whole issue. The fact that it comes up in google prominantly should be enough for them. This is a WP:BLP and is governed by other rules which outweigh the giggle factor. Arzel (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a whole section on the googlebomb in the article, with a link to the main googlebomb article. The "no" votes here are just saying that the explicit text should not be part of the biography article. (or at least that is my vote) Gaijin42 (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

In an effort to build consensus, how about linking "an unflattering sexual definition" to the wiktionary page? --Nstrauss (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't seem all that different from the link we already have to the campaign article. I admit that it makes it slightly easier to find, but we'll still be upholding a form of petty censorship.

Peter 07:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how that even made to wiktionary since it is not an defined word in the linguistic sense. It is little more than a made up derogatory word. I suggest you two go find something better to do rather than further this smear against a living person. Arzel (talk) 08:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Arzel, I have never laughed so hard at a wikipedia edit. Thank you! Reverted! LOL!!!Johnathlon (talk) 08:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Support a little editorial discretion on this one. I'd be sympathetic to censorship claims if we were downplaying a negative aspect of Santorum's actions, but this isn't the case here. No need to get explicit, the neologism article does a fine job with that. The Interior (Talk) 09:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Arzel, please don't edit other people's comments like that. It's very intrusive and quite disrespectful. Above all, it doesn't advance the discussion one bit.

Peter 16:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You are trying to emphasize a smear campaign against a living person and you call me disrespectful? Hypocrisy at its best. Arzel (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

As I noted over on the "campaign..." talk page, the wiktionary is worthless in regards to citing or supporting content here. The have no standards, no useful policy governing content, seeing how they let something retarded like a person's Usenet post be used to source the existence of something. Tarc (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the labelling of santorum as 'obscene', which is highly POV. Rubiscous (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It's about sex, it's profane, it has a sky high yuck-factor. I'm for writing out the full definition in the article, and even I don't have a problem with calling it obscene. And it's far better than the nonsensical "unflattering".

Peter 13:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Semi-arbitrary break

So we've had a round of discussion about the inclusion of the full "frothy"-definition. It's very obvious that it's a key ingredient in the whole affair and without, there would really be no Google problem to speak of. Policy does not seem support its exclusion as it doesn't support sweeping all mention of the affair into a "See also"-link or a separate sub-article. Everyone is free to suggest "discretion" and finding the definition repulsive, but this will in the end boil down to nothing but placating those who simply don't like it. And that's simply not the way Misplaced Pages is supposed to work.

I'm going to get bold here and reinsert the quote.

Peter 23:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

And it has once again been reverted. The concocted "definition" of a word that does not exist in the English language has no bearing or relevance on Rick Santorumn's biography. We can mention Dan Savage;s campaign itself, as the overall campaign has admittedly had an impact on Santorum. But the only reason to stick the literal "frothy" thing into this article is solely to propagate the Sanvage campaign itself. Be mindful of WP:BLP as we go forward on this. Tarc (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Peter, (and Rubiscous) please wait until you have consensus for this. I would argue that the BLP policy does support using discretion here. The way Misplaced Pages is supposed to work is discussion with an eye to consensus. The Interior (Talk) 00:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Wtf has blp to do with facts reported by news sources and commented on by the subject himself? 93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

My interest here is to provide a service for readers, even if the definition happens to be outright gross. The context of it makes it perfectly clear that Misplaced Pages is neutral about the campaign. I don't see anything in BLP that would allow for a summary of the whole Google affair, but which at the same time would keep out the very definition that it hinges on. If you feel differently, please explain why you feel that BLP supports your view.

Peter 00:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

From the introduction of WP:BLP, "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Misplaced Pages's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." The policy asks us to be "conservative" (small "c" ;)) in our editorial decisions. We are not denying the public this info, we in fact provide a wonderfully detailed article about the whole affair. What benefit does using the "frothy" bit here serve? The Interior (Talk) 00:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of editing in bad faith. I have no interest in propagating the Savage campaign. I think it's juvenile. I do however believe in WP:CENSOR, as the definition does not in any way imply that Rick Santorum himself partakes in such acts then it's not defamatory and does not violate BLP. Rubiscous (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

"Censorship" has nothing to do with this. Again, I will point to the Clinton analogy in the previous section and note that we're here to inform, not titillate. We discuss the ant-Santorum campaign briefly in this article, then point to the standalone "Campaign..." article for the details. What fake definition Dan Savage gave to his fake word is immaterial to Rick Santorum's bio; the notable fact is that he simply came up with something that the senator would find obscene and distasteful. That was the point of the affair, remember; the point was not to try to enter a word into the English language. Tarc (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That Santorum managed to irritate people to the extent that they have redefined his name as is a fact. It is not a long definition, neither is it particularly offensive. 40% of US men and 35% of US women between 25 and 44 had engaged in heterosexual anal sex according to http://en.wikipedia.org/Anal_sex#Prevalence , so the idea is hardly minority.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

To expand my comment above, it is not "Savage" alone who has googlebombed Santorum, but many people working together. 93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The Clinton analogy is a poor one. The allegations were directly against the article's subject, and no allegations of sexual misconduct are being made against Rick Santorum. A far better analogy to make would be Jerry Falwell, whose article doesn't pull any punches when describing "a parody of a Campari ad, featuring a fake interview with Falwell in which he admits that his "first time" was incest with his mother in an outhouse while drunk." Falwell is dead now so BLP obviously doesn't apply but the text has remained unchanged since before his death. Rubiscous (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately`, on Misplaced Pages, because of its volunteer nature, policies are not always uniformly applied. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That bit probably shouldn't be in the Falwell article either. Its existence does not preclude us applying BLP here. The Interior (Talk) 03:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/04/history-of-rick-santorum-iowa (a serious UK newspaper) includes the text " Sex advice columnist Dan Savage launched a readers' competition to find a new definition for "santorum" – and the winner was . Even now, the definition is among the first results for "Santorum" yielded on internet search engines." 93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

So what? The subject is already covered. What is the point of the expanded made up definition? All you seem to want to do is repeat the verbiage as many times as possible and since it is not in the article you seem to be intent on repeating it multiple times here. Arzel (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, Arzel. Rubiscous (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

And I'm fairly sure there was a discussion in the Guardian editorial office much like this one. They made their decision, most likely after talking about their relevant editorial policy. We'll make ours, and the relevant policy here is BLP. I've offered my interpretation. The Interior (Talk) 03:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, The Interior, I was merely trying to illustrate to Tarc exactly why WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS exists by showing that there's always a better analogy to be made. Not trying to make a point of my own, just utterly destroying his. Rubiscous (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Interior, citing an introduction to BLP does not amount to much in this case. There is no clause that says that central details should be stuffed in POV forks. And what The Guardian chose to do is neither here or there. They're a newspaper, we're an encyclopedia with the professed aim to be as neutral as possible. Information is not supposed to be gratuitously excluded merely because it's offensive. Not even if it has a "giggle factor", to quote Arzel. Yet this is exactly what is happening here.

Peter 03:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

If it is to be included, surely a reliable source is beneficial :) I would also like to point out that this is an international encyclopedia, and that other countries are not as prudeish as the USA. BLP has been discussed repeatedly here, but I am happy to repeat - that nothing in BLP prohibits mentioning that critics of Santorum have defined his name as . If I correctly understand your arguments opposing including this in the article, they revolve around opposition to anal sex per se. BLP makes no mention of anal sex that I can see. @Arzel - I find it strange to read a discussion where the words under debate are shied away from, and am grateful that you have only deleted my comments once :)93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

From BLP "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement." , and "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. " - none of which would appear to oppose inclusion of the 16 word definition, for which http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/04/history-of-rick-santorum-iowa is a a reliable, published source. 93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Canada's National Post also publishes the full definition @ http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/04/rick-santorum-still-haunted-by-google-problem-despite-strong-showing-in-iowa/ 93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Reuters also has the full definition - http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/04/idUS429187670520120104 .... 93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Organization of Issues

Should all of his political stances be under 'Political Positions'? Most of them are actually under the 'Tenure' section, which makes it harder for potential voters to easily identify that part of the article. Koothrappali (talk) 06:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I was quite surprised yesterday to find that Rick Santorum did not have a separate article about his political positions. Many of the other 2012 GOP candidates do: Political positions of Mitt Romney, Political positions of Newt Gingrich, Political positions of Rick Perry, Political positions of Ron Paul, and even Political positions of Herman Cain. Michele Bachmann has her title as a redirect; now Santorum does, too, which I created yesterday. I would think that the majority of the former senator's political positions can now begin to be placed there instead of in two separate sections of this more biographical article. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 08:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If someone is prepared to do that work, fine, but I'm concerned that the split off article will not be well maintained over time. Until national polling shows otherwise I'm inclined to suspect that Santorum's Iowa success is a flash in the pan. His political positions are only notable if he holds or is likely to hold a political office.--Brian Dell (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Under WP:SS, creation of a separate "Political positions" article is fine but it doesn't mean that the information should be removed from this article. This article should give important information about his positions; the daughter article can provide more detail, so as to avoid cluttering the main article.

Organization is a problem. The section on what he did while in office naturally contains much information about his political positions. I started the separate section here on his positions, most immediately because statements he'd made in the course of the campaign weren't reflected anywhere in the article. We can't put it all under "Tenure" because some of it was post-tenure. We can't put it all under "Political positions" because that gives the impression that these are just things he's said, and ignores what he did (bills sponsored, etc.) in furtherance of those views while in Congress. I began the "Positions" sections with a cross-referencing wikilink to the "Tenure" section, which is not a great solution, but repeating a lot of the information from "Tenure" (i.e., including it in both sections) would be even worse. JamesMLane t c 06:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

lost child

I didn't have time to research this in full, however, the internet is awash with a tale of Santorum and an aborted fetus...some sites say it was a miscarriage, others say it was an abortion to protect his wife..however. all sites seem to indicate Santorum showed fetus to his children . I'm thinking based on the search term in Google for Santorum Fetus now has over 250,000 pages that a full page to this subject as to what it is all about is warranted. Pbmaise (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This short piece by Rich Lowry has some information about what happened. It was not an abortion. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 07:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't delved into the issue very far, but any time you see Rich Lowry defending a Republican you should take his words with a huge block of salt. True enough, that article reads as an opinion piece. (E.g. "But Santorum truly is an excellent representative of his cause.") It also admits that it's based not on independent reporting but on "Santorum's accounts." I wouldn't trust this source with a 10-foot pole. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's a better source. --Nstrauss (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I only placed the link above because I had read the Lowry piece a few days before and thus knew where to quickly find it. I hadn't known of the Washington Post article, but if material about Santorum's lost child is to be placed into this article, I'd say it's the source to go with. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

2006 election

Page is uneditable so I thought I'd comment here. Since the lead in discusses his role as Senator it probably would be meaningful to mention there (as well as below) the result of the 2006 election where he had "the largest margin of defeat ever for an incumbent Republican Senator in Pennsylvania, and the largest margin of defeat for any incumbent senator since 1980". Further on, re the 2006 election the page states "the largest margin of any incumbent Republican senator ever" which makes no sense (to me). Paul D. Gillen (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC) pdgillen

That he left office because of an electoral defeat (as opposed to any of the other reasons people leave office) is probably worth noting in the lead. I checked a couple other electoral losers, and the leads for both Ted Strickland and George Allen (U.S. politician) note that the subject left his most recent office because his re-election bid failed. The bit about how the margin of defeat compared with the margins in other elections is interesting, and worth including in the body of the article, but doesn't seem important enough for the lead section. JamesMLane t c 23:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with James and edited accordingly. Noting the defeat in the lede makes the point sufficiently. Emphasizing the margin in the introduction creates undue weight concerns... not every detail can go into the lede. There are also context or interpretation issues regarding the margin. Some say the margin is almost a point of pride because when it became clear he would lose he stopped any attempts to pander for more votes and just spoke his mind, for example, warning darkly of Iran despite such talk was not polling well.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

K Street Project, sourcing

Sen. Rick Santorum (R., Pa.) is trying to do an extreme makeover, in broad daylight.

He's trying to paper over his central role in a now-infamous program to boost Republicans' clout among Washington lobbyists.

As the huge and seedy Jack Abramoff scandal unfolds in Congress, Santorum has discovered a newly urgent desire to restrict lobbying. Well and good, all willing hands welcome.

From

Appears to me to be "editorial opinion" and not a place to cite for claims of fact. In fact, I aver that the column is specifically an unsigned editorial. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

1) Contrary to your claim that this source is "cited as a claim of fact" it's attributed, ie. Misplaced Pages observes that the Philly Inquirer says it's so, whether it truly is or not 2) The New York Times says that " support for the was reported in several news accounts"; note that the NYT has identified "news accounts", not "editorials" 3) At issue is whether the source is reliable or not. Please cite from Misplaced Pages policy to support your contention that the source here is not reliable. Note that the newspaper here has investigative reporters on staff that have written on the point before and the paper should accordingly be considered something of an authority. 4) Finally, and most importantly, you did not just insist on deleting what was cited to this source. You rather insisted on additionally edit warring over material that was cited to the New York Times without making any effort to explain your objection.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You've reverted "support" or "supporter" of the K Street Project FOUR times in less than 20 hours, "Collect", despite the fact that the New York Times clearly says "support" ("...Mr. Santorum would later deny being part of the K Street Project, but his support for the effort..."). You've repeatedly deleted the citation to this NYT article without any explanation as to why you consider that source to be unreliable. The Washington Post says that Santorum "played a pivotal role in advancing the controversial K Street Project" while Reuters says that "... As a senator, Santorum went further, playing a key role in an effort by Republicans in Congress to dictate the hiring practices, and hence the political loyalties, of Washington's deep-pocketed lobbying firms and trade associations, which had previously been bipartisan. Dubbed "the K Street Project"..."--Brian Dell (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

"Connected" is the most you can claim from editorial columns with your SIX reverts in under 24 hours - and insertion of the appropriate subheadings is fully proper as well (not a revert as it does not affect any of your words, and folowing WP:BLP is required, in case that elided your notice. . BTW, the lobbying firms were never "bipartisan" except in someone's imagination. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC) BTW, you specifically asked me to profer the wording I would find supportable by the sources - you can hardly complain when I did so. Cheers again. Collect (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Just to take a step back to look at the facts, what is this "key role"/"pivotal role" the sources mentioned? They say he held an hour-long breakfast and talked about lobbying concerns and jobs once every two weeks. What I don't have a sense of is, how big a deal is that for a politician? Do most/some/only a few of them do that? Please note that I am certainly not arguing for any further exclusions, rather this reader could sure use some more context. Wnt (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

debate claims

• - Obama has removed all use of the term "radical Islam" from .gov websites

Or so Santorum claims in the debate tonight. Does the man not know how to use Google? Can I ref off the debate transcript on this? Hcobb (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Only if secondary sources take interest. Speciate (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

www.spreadingsantorum.com

• - Why no mention of www.spreadingsantorum.com in the article?

Www.spreadingsantorum.com is the site created in response to Santorum's comments on homosexuality. Why is it not mentioned or linked in this article? Reliable sources that include it include Canada's http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/04/rick-santorum-still-haunted-by-google-problem-despite-strong-showing-in-iowa/ , Germany's http://www.handelsblatt.com/technologie/it-tk/it-internet/us-hardliner-wird-opfer-einer-google-bombe/6026896.html , France's http://www.lefigaro.fr/hightech/2012/01/05/01007-20120105ARTFIG00706-une-google-bomb-mine-la-campagne-de-rick-santorum.php , Italy's http://www.ilpost.it/2011/12/30/mancava-solo-santorum/ , and India's http://www.telegraphindia.com/1120105/jsp/foreign/story_14965588.jsp .93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages is not a clickthrough advertising site, that's why. Also, "spreadingsantorum.com" is not an actual website, just a single paragraph and a redirect to Savage's blog. Tarc (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That is not what these reliable sources say - they describe it as a website - please provide your sources. I was not suggesting inclusion of a hyperlink, just the name of the website.93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The article currently reads "Since 2004, the website Savage set up for the campaign has regularly been the top search result for Santorum's surname". I suggest a change to "Since 2004, the website spreadingsantorum.com that Savage set up for the campaign has regularly been the top search result for Santorum's surname".93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

This biography is about Rick Santorum - and the focus is on him and his life - if you want to add stuff about D Savage you rather go edit his biography. Youreallycan (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the URL should be given as text, but there should be a citation immediately after the words "the website" just as a matter of common sense. This is Misplaced Pages, dammit! When we mention a thing we tell the reader how to find it. Wnt (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

BLP and inclusion/exclusion of the neologism

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Biographies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

• - BLP and

Summary of policy-based arguments:

• the definition is central to the Google affair which has been considered notable and should therefore be spelled out
• this is part of a concerted political attack on Santorum, and repeating it in this article would violate WP:BLP as harmful to the article topic
• Wikiepdia is not censored so the offensiveness of the definition should not matter in deciding to include or not
• writing out the full definition is not relevant since it results in undue coverage of the issue

A lot of discussion here on whether BLP allows inclusion of the redefinition of "santorum" as to be included in the article. Help would be welcomed.93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Haven't had a look at what section of the BLP bears on this case, much less what section of the BLP you think bears on this case. That said, here's my initial thoughts about the "santorum neologism issue": since the "anal sex phrase" is already under another page, I can't see why it should be reproduced in this article. Yes, give a brief mention to the whole neologism issue and if necessary link it to that page, but as to the inclusion of the "anal sex" redefinition specifically, no I wouldn't include it the phrase.Festermunk (talk) 08:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Crying "OMG TEH CENSORSHIP" when one does not get his way is not an impressive opening tactic; it wasn't in the earlier section and it isn't here either. A consensus of editors has deemed a mention of the anti-santorum campaign is merited in this article. That Savage didn't like something that Santortum stands for, and thus turned to his audience to make up something fake to refer to his last name, that is what is relevant. The fake word's fake definition has nothing to do with Santorum himself. Tarc (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The earlier RfC, while indisputably forming the consensus that the information should stay, didn't seem to look at the issue of whether the sexual act should be defined. In my opinion, this is because there is no reason to doubt that it should be. I found it helpful to look at this by analogy - if Dan Savage had opted to define the the word "Santorum" to mean a pineapple rather than a sex act then the summary in the Rick S article would undoutably include the word "pineapple", rather than simply saying a fruit. I can't think of a single reason why you would leave the word out. So, extending that analogy to this situation, there would seem to be no reason not to define the act, other than the fact that is more embarrassing than "pineapple". This is not a valid reason to exclude info, so the definition should go in. Additionally, the whole purposes of the redefinition of his name was to be embarassing and it's impossible to really understand that unless the actual definition itself is included.

Slightly off topic but it was only after searching the page for "Savage" that I found it tucked under US Senate→Tenure→Social Conservatism. If you weren't looking for it and didn't read the entire article then it would be very easy to miss altogether. Given that its impact was much wider spread than just his Senate tenure, it is still reported widely and is reportedly affecting the GOP nomination, I'd advocate that it needs much greater prominence or, at the very least, pointed to in the contents box. Robinr22 (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not embarrassing - at least not for Santorum, it is imo for D Savage. It's just a deliberately created vulgar attacking slur created by the politicians partisan opponent, which wikipedia is not repeating and propagating as per its WP:BLP policy. - Youreallycan (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Please cite relevant passage from BLP - can see no reference there to repeating or propagating vulgar slurs.93.96.148.42 (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You have to read the whole policy and then take it on board - it doesn't specifically refer to disgusting slur but the implication for such cautious respectful reporting in regard to living people is throughout the policy. Youreallycan (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

BLP explicitly mentions caution once - "Tone- BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject, and in some circumstances what the subject has published about himself. BLPs should not have trivia sections." There is no mention of "respect" for living people, and I can see no implication that "respect" for a living person should outweigh "respect" for what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject.93.96.148.42 (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the second paragraph. Please read it carefully and closely.

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

Arzel (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The definition is well-sourced, Misplaced Pages is far from the primary vehicle, and including the definition on this page makes no more harm to Rick Santorum than not including the definition. I know some Wikipedians have an inflated sense of Misplaced Pages's clout in the world but this is ridiculous. We're a tertiary source, including the definition falls in line with this. It is already widely available. Rubiscous (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

1. The word does not exist and there is no defined definition. 2. How do you know if it harms Santorum or not? 3. This article has nothing to do with the attack on Santorum thus there is no reason to expand upon the smear campaign by Savage. Arzel (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

And how do you know it does harm? There's an awful lot of implying of harm being done here but nobody's being very explicit. The burden is on you to detail exactly how you think it might harm him. Rubiscous (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

@Rubiscous - So there is no problem then - its easy to read the vulgar slur at multiple locations without us repeating it, we are linking to plenty of weblinks that repeat it but we are not obliged to include and repeat attacking slurs in our articles. BLP encourages us not to do that. Youreallycan (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

We should reflect the sources. Wide coverage is a reason to include, not the other way around. It's not Misplaced Pages's job to spread the campaign but nor is it Misplaced Pages's job to stem it. Rubiscous (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

But is redefining his name a slur? It is not suggesting that he engages in anal sex himself, rather a jokey argument that he should tolerate buggery. I think that BLP would prohibit the former, but allows the latter.93.96.148.42 (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

We've been over this before such that if repetitiveness is to be avoided, new arguments should be brought to the table. re "The definition is central to the Google affair which has been considered notable and should therefore be spelled out", even if if the definition is "central", the "therefore" does not follow. If it did, the spelling out would be routine in the New York Times and respected media generally in articles about Rick Santorum. It's anything but routine, even in articles that are more focused on the "Google problem" than Rick Santorum generally.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no mention in the citation above of jokes. It is talks about being the "primary vehicle" for " titillating claims about people's lives", not joking about their names. It is a fact (detailed in reliable secondary sources from 4 countries linked to above) that there has been a longstanding, and successful joke campaign to redefine Santorum's name as . I am unclear as to what more evidence could be required. With regards to harm, what harm would be caused by including this joke that has already been published in 4 countries national newspapers. Even if one accepted that this joke was a "titillating claim", which I understand to refer to alleged sexual misconduct, about Santorum, the primary vehicle for spreading the claim is spreadingsantorum.com, and there are a myriad secondary sources. 93.96.148.42 (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Brian, that's true, it does seem to me that it's has more to do with the fact that they don't spell out obscenities of that kind as an editorial choice. Have you ever seen a newspaper like the New York Times ever include that kind of language, no matter the context?

Peter 19:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Peter - to me the fact that national newspapers have published the definition despite their normal self-censorship is a strong argument for the inclusion of the full definition in the article.93.96.148.42 (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The sources are too conservative therefore we should be more liberal? I would think it obvious that this is directly contrary to WP:NPOV. WP:NPOV is a "non-negotiable" "pillar" of Misplaced Pages. WP:NOTCENSORED is not. Misplaced Pages follows the mainstream, not because it's conservative but because we cannot substitute our own editorial judgment to deviate off to either the left wing or the right wing. If someone wants to be a crusader for some social change agenda, that's fine, just don't try to use Misplaced Pages as the vehicle. Do you realize what sort of precedent is set if you start rejecting the "national newspapers" because of their "self-censorship"? How do you answer those who say the next correction we have to make is for the "liberal bias" of the "national newspapers"? Either you remain faithful to the sources or you don't. In my view, putting this in would be contrary to Misplaced Pages:ASTONISH. I don't understand the obsession with including it in this article when it is already in a more topical Misplaced Pages article and when there are legions of authoritative reporters and editors out there both pro- and anti-Rick Santorum who evidently feel they can inform their readers about Rick Santorum without this. Dan Savage wants to redefine Rick Santorum to be about something other than the politician, but that's his agenda not a neutral one.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I might add that "self-censorship" is not entirely unknown in terms of Misplaced Pages policy either. Misplaced Pages:Edit_warring#3RR_exemptions makes mention of "adding offensive language." Misplaced Pages has a general ban on "Usernames that refer to or allude to reproductive or excretory functions of the body".--Brian Dell (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The reason I wish to include this is for the same reason we generally have a high level of detail in our articles. And this strikes me as being a very, very vital detail. If raunchy. But it doesn't seem more odd to me than, say, quoting Santorum's reaction to it. It's mostly the idea that something obscene at the heart of an issue should be treated different than happens not to be obscene. The "pineapple" analogy by Robinr22 (see above) strikes me as a good illustration of this.

I believe you've provided among the best lines of argumentation so far, though. But I don't really agree with how you characterize my stance concerning how media writes about this. I perceive your argument in comparing with the Times as slightly off the mark since you're comparing a free online encyclopedia with that of a commercial newspaper. Neutrality or no, there are some major differences. And there are major publications out there that have written out the full term, like The Guardian. I don't know if you consider that relevant as it's not spelled out in most sources. However, saying we can't or shouldn't mention it here, merely once, and in a rather brief section, seems like setting an overly cautious editorial standard that I'm not quite comfortable with.

But then again, by now the issue has been so drawn out that it's hardly worth pushing for. I'd be happy if we merely mentioned "spreadingsantorum.com" or linked to the Wiktionary entry.

Peter 18:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I firmly believe we should cover the neologism, but including the full quoted definition here seems unnecessary. Of more interest to readers of this article would be any tangible effects, or countermeasures Santorum takes to deal with the situation. The whole point of WP:summary style is you don't have to have everything in the main article once you've started a specialized article. Wnt (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It is only 13 words. How many would you suggest including? Which effects would you suggest including? Would this be suitable -http://gawker.com/5872978/every-funny-headline-involving-the-word-santorum - it says "Santorum is also, as users of Google and followers of Dan Savage know, a neologism for . Here are headlines about the former that are much funnier when you imagine they are about the latter."93.96.148.42 (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to say that the current version is OK, because there's probably some interesting thing that's been taken out that I don't know about - but it definitely takes up a fairly large amount of space, and uses the space for the right quotes, namely, the statements that Santorum made that got Dan Savage on his ass (sorry, couldn't resist ;) rather than some definition by Dan Savage or one of his readers. The joke belongs to Savage - the controversy and aftermath belong to Santorum. Wnt (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

BLP certainly doesn't call for suppressing this information. A controversial politician has attracted some opposition, and Misplaced Pages reports on the statements and actions of the politician's detractors. So what? It happens every day of the week. A neutral, accurate, and properly sourced report of that sort is not a BLP violation, even if it "harms" the politician, even if a collateral effect of Misplaced Pages's coverage is to advance the detractors' goals by making their views more widely available, and even if the material thus made available is distasteful to the politician and to some Misplaced Pages editors. The repeated invocation of BLP here is completely mistaken (and, I note, is not applied by the same editors to other such public episodes involving other living persons).

The serious argument is the application of WP:SS. Under that guideline, information that's too detailed for the main article goes into a daughter article, with a summary in the main article. It would have been a violation of WP:SS to remove the summary from this article, and relegate the subject to a "See also", as some urged. We can also violate WP:SS in the other direction, however, by trying to pack all the properly encyclopedic information into the main article. Here, if we identify the Google problem, describe its origins in Santorum's anti-gay statements, say that the linked term is a "sexual innuendo" or similar, and provide a wikilink to the more detailed article that quotes the exact definition, why isn't that enough? JamesMLane t c 20:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Because it was a reaction to Santorum talking about "man on dog" sex. Words are important! It has been cited in full in a number of reliable sources - others advise googling it because of their self censorship. Either way, to many people, especially outside the USA, Santorum is famous as the source for santorum, rather than as a minor US politician.93.96.148.42 (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Do people outside the U.S. really use the term with any frequency? For our various arguments any sources you have on this would be most welcome (even if they only belong in the neologism article). Wnt (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I live in the UK and Rick Santorum is almost unknown as is the sexual slur - perhaps the homosexual community are more informed about such as this matter that affect them. After the Ohio primary Rick Santorum and his rise in popularity and split result was well reported but I didn't see a thing about D Savage. Youreallycan (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I also live in the UK and am well aware of the Santorum thing -- and it's not just a gay thing (I'm not gay). Savage had an article in the Guardian last week -- a great many more people here know about it now. I think you might be confused about Ohio already having had a primary. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Iowa then, excuse my missie. Savage is basically unknown in the UK - no one in the UK has ever said, "wow - your anus is leaking santorum " - Youreallycan (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Response to .93.96.148.42:

• "Because it was a reaction to Santorum talking about 'man on dog' sex." Yes, that quotation of a statement made by the bio subject is illuminating about the bio subject and should be included verbatim, as it is.
• "It has been cited in full in a number of reliable sources...." Absolutely, there's no question about the authenticity of the wording. The whole point of WP:SS, however, is that some information, even if well-sourced and accurate and relevant to the subject of the article, should nevertheless be omitted from the article, as long as the information is available elsewhere on Misplaced Pages and is properly summarized. Here, the reader is told that the purpose of the definition was to protest Santorum's views on gay rights, that the definition is sex-related, and that Santorum considers it a "vulgarity". Once the reader has all that information, how much is added by giving the verbatim language? I think something is added but you could say that about just about anything that gets relegated to a daughter article. (If it didn't add something it wouldn't belong on Misplaced Pages at all.) I don't see this particular text as being important enough for inclusion here, provided that the important points of the summary here and the separate existence of the full article are maintained against the relentless efforts to suppress the subject entirely. JamesMLane t c 23:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not a gay thing - more of a techie thing - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/20/wikipedia_and_santorum/ - for example. My objection to a "summary"of the definition being used is that this involves a degree of editorial choice that can be avoided by simply including the 13 word definition. Also I can not see any reason for excluding this "big joke" (Santorum's words) from the article. 93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Cade Metz is pretty much highly opinionated and uncitable here as is the register imo apart from the occasional non contentious techie thing. Youreallycan (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

What has happened to the BLP argument this was about? Either including the "big joke", as Santorum described the definition of his name as violates BLP, or it doesn't. I understand that some people have views on this topic, but I think we should focus on the simple question- does BLP forbid repeating jokes when they are important to a subject's biorgraphy.93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to renew my proposal for a link from "an unflattering sexual definition" to the wiktionary page.

• In response to those who see this proposal as continued censorship: Perhaps, but this change wouldn't cause any additional censorship, would it? My main concern is that readers who read about the mysterious "unflattering sexual definition" get quick access to what that definition is, thereby spending less time being confused. As is, the link to the Campaign for "santorum" neologism page is hardly obvious, and once you get there you have to read 2 paragraphs just to find the definition. Isn't my proposal an improvement?
• In response to those who see this proposal as continued defamation / smearing: The unfortunate fact is that the reference to the neologism is in the article and will probably stay, due to the large number of mainstream news reports connecting Santorum the person with santorum the neologism. This proposal meets you halfway. Are you willing to compromise your position as well?

In sum, I hate to state the obvious but it doesn't look like we're heading toward consensus on the bigger issue anytime soon. I'm hoping there's a little bit of common ground here: that IF we're going to make a reference a definition without actually stating it, then shouldn't we enable readers to read that definition without too much head-scratching? Seriously, is that too much to ask? --Nstrauss (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I would support this as my issue with the article is not with the lack of appearance of the definition within the article but with its inaccessibility for those who wish to view it. One should not have to read halfway down another fairly large article to learn what it is that this article is alluding to. A simple link to the Wiktionary entry is a good compromise. But rather than your "unflattering" etc suggestion (a bit POV) I would suggest that the following sentence be used: "In reaction to the remarks, columnist and gay rights activist Dan Savage launched a contest among his readers in May 2003 to name a sex act as "santorum" as a protest against his conservative views on sexuality." Rubiscous (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"Unflattering" is, AFAICT, a very NPOV term for how the pseudo-neologism was intended. To claim otherwise flies in the face of essentially all the sources which pretty unanimously make that value judgement. The purpose was to find something "unflattering" to associate a living person;s name with - and nothing else. shows Instinct (magazine) calling it "unflattering" - and I suggest that particular source is scarcely "homophobic." ABCNews also says "unflattering" at (googlenews spamfiltered but easily findable) meaning that the word "unflattering" is as mild a term as one could rationally ask for. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do we need to assign an adjective to it at all? Is it necessary? Rubiscous (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

1. It is citable. 2. It is NPOV per sources. 3. No adjectives are "necessary" -- if we wish to delete them all - but deletion of specific citable adjectives may violate NPOV is the aim is to in any way tilt the field - remove all, or remove none if that is the consensus. Why don't you make an RfC on cited adjectives in this article? Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It was my understanding that value judgements should always be attributed, not necessarily to an individual eg. rather than "the definition is unflattering", a more proper sentence would be "the definition is widely considered unflattering". Because it's still subjective, no matter how unanimous the sources seem. We shouldn't give undue weight to an opposing viewpoint if unsupported but still doesn't mean we should present the prevailing opinion as objective fact. Rubiscous (talk) 08:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned that we are designing the article with only our most salacious readers' needs in mind. People will come here who aren't trying to find out more about frothy substances. The wikitionary link is next to useless compared to the article we have here on site. And we've linked to it. I would argue that the compromise has already been made - we kept the neologism article, and we've kept an informative summary with links to it in this article. Do we really need this wikt link? The Interior (Talk) 07:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The wiktionary definition is useful compared to the neologism article, in that it is concise. For those who wish easy access to the definition but have little interest in the in-depth comings and goings of the campaign. It allows accessibility for the reader without shoving the definition down the reader's throat. More importantly I can't see how anyone could argue that it's a BLP concern or adds undue weight when presented in this manner so should be a fair concession to those who have such concerns about the definition appearing in the article. Rubiscous (talk) 07:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That is precisely my position. --Nstrauss (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

At the end of the discussion of the 2003 interview, the article says that Santorum "later" denied that he meant to equal gays with animals or child rapists; but there is no citation to where/when he said this. I urge anyone with editing power here to add a citation, or a note.134.29.178.254 (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

For those who claim mainstream media has not published the full definition, Fox News has published the full definition -- http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/09/google-and-others-embrace-vile-attack-on-santorum/ 88.166.32.210 (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Prices of houses?

Are the specific prices Santorum paid for houses relevant and of proper wieght in this BLP? I do not find such items generally placed in BLPs on Misplaced Pages. Collect (talk) 11:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I think that passage doesn't belong here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I think BLP policy is being abused here because while the policy is always in some conflict with WP:NPOV, it is particularly so when the BLP is of a politician and the point itself is a political issue. The homes are mentioned primarily because their location became a campaign issue, and the prices are related to the location controversy because they may be suggestive of residence (would a man who recently made $1.3 million in a year and a half routinely live in a house originally purchased for less than $100K when he also owns a house worth $2 million?) Also, rightly or wrongly it could be argued that purchasing another home closer to DC suggests continuing close connections to Washington, as opposed to taking up entirely Pennsylvania-focused work after leaving the Senate. "Washington insider" (or not) has been a notable political issue. If the prices are excluded simply because they suggest the subject has become relatively wealthy, is the rest of the subject's income information going to be deleted as well? If the source were a local courthouse filing there'd be more of an argument for exclusion, since that would suggest Misplaced Pages has gone on something approaching it's own digging mission. When the sources are national media, the national media is presumably providing this information for a public interest reason, such that Misplaced Pages should be adopting policies that take Misplaced Pages off on its own tangent relative to the major sources only with the strongest of reasons.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like an awful lot of WP:OR -- unless there are sources for it that you're holding in reserve for some reason. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The home information was not provided by WP:OR which is why it should stay. Bloomberg Businessweek was a source here, for example, not something a Wikipedian pulled out from a local courthouse in a bit of his or her own original research. I've suggested some reasons for inclusion. I'll grant they wouldn't stand up to an overwhelming reason for deletion. What's the reason for deletion? Article is too long? If it's unfair to identify a politician's assets can you provide us with a source and/or an argument for that contention?--Brian Dell (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The WP:OR comment relates to the political implications you describe. As for the basis for removing it: WP:UNDUE. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Visibility of "2003 interview and "Google bomb" "in the article.

At the moment this is not listed in the contents heading, being a subsection of Social Conservatism. Given the success of the Google bomb, I think it likely that many visitors to this page will be coming because of the google bomb incident, and that it should appear in the table of contents. Someone has described above having to search the article for Savage to find the information he was looking for, and I think Savage's name should be added to the title - perhaps "2003 interview and Savage's gay "Google bomb" might fit the bill.93.96.148.42 (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

People coming to Misplaced Pages "because of the google bomb incident" would presumably be interested in what Misplaced Pages has to say about the google bomb incident. This particular article is about an individual, and there is a Santorum (disambiguation) link at the very top for those interested in anything else.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The IP is right - the whole organization of this article needs to be fixed. I would say that 99 times out of 100, when you're down to using ";Title" type headings, it means you've done something wrong. In this case the Senate/legislative history, positions, and funny little incidents on the side should all be separated out from one another somehow. I'll see what I can do later on today. Wnt (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, I've taken a fair hack at the organization. these are my edits, except one by Bdell555 changing the K Street section. I didn't add anything or take anything out, except headers and tags. Everything is now legitimately within three levels, and we don't have a section featuring a link to a section above. Progress. ;) Wnt (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Much better, but I take issue with the change of header title from "2003 interview and "Google bomb" to "Homosexuality". This section deals explicitly with what Santorum called "a big joke" about his name. It is not just about homosexuality, it is about a specific situation and conflict, and deserves a more descriptive header. Above I suggested "2003 interview and Savage's gay "Google bomb" and I am disppointed that Wnt chose to change the title without discussing it here.93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not about homosexuality at all, as Rick would be quick to point out, he doesn't take issue with homosexuality just with homosexual acts (along with a range of other sexual acts he sees as unbiblical). However absurd you or I might find that, that's his position. Hate the sin love the sinner. And the definition attributed to the word santorum is a sexual act, which can be performed by heterosexuals, homosexuals and a whole range of paraphilias. The homosexual sexuality doesn't come into it at all, Homosexuality certainly should not be the header. Rubiscous (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This is contained within a policy view section. A section header called "Sexual Acts" is simply not appropriate since his views are more broad based regarding homosexuality. Homosexuality may not be a great header, but is far better than "Sexual Acts". Arzel (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"Homosexuality" is completely and utterly inappropriate for the reasons I described above. "Sexual Acts" is superior in that Rick Santorum takes issue with certain sexual acts, not with homosexuality itself. A better heading is needed but "Homosexuality" must not be it as it would mislead. Rubiscous (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if my header there disappointed. My original reason for changing it was that, for the organization I used, the section is about a political position of Santorum, i.e. regardng homosexuality (or homosexual acts, as has been pointed out). The neologism, the Google-bombing and all that then becomes part of the response, just as for many other sections there is information about how a statement is taken. Wnt (talk) 07:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the pertinent sentence is "...a critique of the specific legal position that the right to privacy prevents the government from regulating consensual acts among adults (such as bigamy, incest, etc.)." This is Rick's stated political position, the header if it is to refer to his political position should reflect this. The fallout was more due to the way in which he expressed his position rather than the position itself. Rubiscous (talk) 08:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The inclusion of the non RS wiktionary term is highly problematic. For one the entry is a vehicle for vandalism (as it currently is vandalised) and since the word does not exist as a defined word, wiktionary, by definition should not even have the word as a defined word. The full Savage smear is already included in the section. Lets keep the attacks in WP prime space and not let it spill over into the unsourced non-word non-dictionary wiktionary. Arzel (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Those are concerns for the Wiktionary entry, not for this article. This article, and all articles it links to, are also a "vehicle for vandalism". Whether it should have a Wiktionary entry or not is an issue to be taken up at Wiktionary, not here. Providing a link to a concise reading of the definition is the only way that the definition itself should be kept out of this article. An allusion to the definition and assuming the reader can take a wild guess that the definition lies halfway down the campaign article is insufficient. Rubiscous (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This concern is with THIS article; we're not linking to a website that sources itself to personal Usenet posts. Tarc (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Providing links to Wiki sister projects is standard practice on Misplaced Pages. The text in the definition there is correct. Got an issue with Wiktionary, take it up with Wiktionary. Rubiscous (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That is absurd logic. We don't use sources that we know are questionable, and your argument that since it is Wikionary RS doesn't apply is ridiculous. Arzel (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That was not my argument, please don't put words in my mouth. RS doesn't apply as it isn't a source. Nothing is being sourced from it, it's merely a link. Rubiscous (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Rubiscous. It is not a source, it is a link to a wiki sister project. I would agree that it shouldn't be used if it was a source, but in this case it enhances the article and the standing of wiki projects (in both cases i will admit the enhancements are rather minor).--Found5dollar (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Tarc, you have reverted Arzel's revert of my revert ]. I don't believe you intended to do this. Allowing this to stand just because it favours my position would be bad faith on my part, so I thought I'd be chivalrous and point out your error. Rubiscous (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I support a link to either the googlebomb page in wikipedia, or a link to wikitionary, with a generic "unflattering neologism" description only in this article, and not the full "frothy". I would support either a "see also/dab" link, or a small paragraph describing the googlebomb and savage in summary terms, with the "full article" links to either the googlebomb page, or wiktionary Gaijin42 (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Though I still believe it to be compatible with policy to include the full term, I'd be quite content with settling for a link to Wiktionary or mentioning "spreadingsantorum.com". Though far from all articles in the media mention the site, a lot seem to do so. I'll settle for just two examples that I think make a very good point: Fox News and Roll Call, the nonpartisan newspaper devoted to covering the United States Congress. And if those kind of publication can do it, I see no reason we can't.

Peter 20:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like we are close to consensus. The remaining objection at this point (by Arzel and Tarc) appears to be that Wiktionary is not an appropriate site to link to. Rubiscous, you said that it is standard practice. Could you (or someone else) please provide examples? Thanks, Nstrauss (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I also don't think we should be linking the santorum word in this article to the Wiktionary - there is also IMO no chance of ever getting a policy driven consensus inserting the sexual slur in this BLP. I oppose both, mostly for exactly the same reasons as Tarc. Youreallycan (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not proposing inserting any slur into this BLP. Rather, I am proposing adding a link so that readers can understand what the fuss is about. --Nstrauss (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I rarely come across direct links to to wiktionary in Misplaced Pages articles. It is just something that is not usually necessary, to define a common word for the reader. In this particular case, it is being done for POV-pushing and propaganda reasons, to try to do an end-around the opposition to having the "frothy" definition in the article. Add to that the fact that the wiktionary's standards for sourcing and inclusion of material is so remarkably pathetic, and we have a link that adds nothing of value to the article. Tarc (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Tarc, please assume good faith. I can't speak for others but I assure you that my motivations are not POV-pushing or propoganda. I edit for the benefit of the Misplaced Pages reader, nothing more, nothing less. In this specific instance the Wiktionary suggestion was a genuine attempt to bridge the gap between including and excluding the controversial text. I shouldn't have to point this out on an article's talk page. If you have any concerns about the behaviour of your fellow editors this isn't the place. It's unhelpful and downright uncivil. Rubiscous (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that Mr. Santorum and his campaign team are VERY concerned about the neologism and its impact, and that alone demonstrates why presenting a clear and concise summary of the subject is far from "POV-pushing and propaganda." --Nstrauss (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The Wiktionary link should not be included. I attempted to remove the BLP violation on the wiktionary page and was told that wiktionary does not have a blp policy (which I find highly odd). I fail to see the validity of linking to a wiktionary page that allows unsourced user submited degratory secondary definitions (a clear WP:BLP violation) for the none word. This is little more than an end-around BLP for no reason other than to emphasis the smear attack on a living person. Arzel (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll remind you as well, you are welcome criticise my methods here until the cows come home, but lay off with the baseless accusations about the reasons for editing of myself and others. Not the place. It reflects more upon you than it does upon us. Rubiscous (talk) 06:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Arzel's argument about sourcing of Wiktionary is ridiculous. There is no good-faith dispute about the exact text of Savage's "frothy mixture" definition. We all know what it is. Many readers won't know, however, and the link to the indisputably correct text on the Wiktionary page makes it easier for them to find. I wouldn't support the Wiktionary link except that some editors have succeeded in shoving the exact text well down into the daughter article, so that it's not nearly as easy to find there as it is on the Wiktionary page.

Of course, the truly definitive source for the definition that Savage pushing is the website on which he's pushing it. I'd be OK with omitting the Wiktionary link in favor of a link to SpreadingSantorum.com, but I'm guessing that the very idea would cause some editors to froth foam at the mouth.

Tarc writes, "I rarely come across direct links to to wiktionary in Misplaced Pages articles." Well, if you go to our Wiktionary article and click on "What links here", you'll find literally thousands of links to the Wiktionary article. (I don't know how many. I was clicking through 500 at a time and stopped after eight pages, 4,000 links.) Many of them, of course, are talk pages and user pages, but a fair number are mainspace articles. I looked at the first two on the list as it was displayed to me, Ankara and Accordion. Both of them do indeed have links to Wiktionary definitions of terms used in text.

Finally, I completely agree with Rubiscous about Arzel's endless and pointless iteration of his personal opinion that anyone and everyone who disagrees with him is motivated solely by political agenda-pushing. JamesMLane t c 08:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI Usenet is considered a reliable source in Wiktionary. So, if three or more morons use the same made-up definition in Usenet than that is all that is needed to define a word in Wiktionary, and this is considered a reliable source for WP. Unbelievable. Arzel (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

So what? I doubt many of those likes make BLP attacks on a living person like this one did (probably does again right now). Since Wiktionary doesn't seem to be bound by the policies of WP it does not seem prudent to use Wiktionary as a source for anything in WP, especially not situations like this which are nothing more than a continuation of smear attack against a living person. And give me a break about AGF. Unless you are living under a rock you know all about the Google bomb and smear attack by Savage against Santorum. To make the claim that this link is needed to explain what the attack was is simply ridiculous. I don't buy it, and I don't see many other buying it either, and this leaves very few other reasons for the insistance that this crap be emphasised. I don't even have to state that several here have an agenda when it is so patently obvious. Pattern: Conservative moves up into the national spotlight, and the left rushes to their WP page and makes them look as bad as possible, rinse and repeat. Arzel (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I will not give you a break about AGF. You seem to believe it matters whether others are acting in bad faith or not. They could be guilty as hell but still you are required to assume good faith on this talk page. Rubiscous (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we need to hear the exact same arguments and accusations repeated over and over. I would urge Rubiscuous to cool down, but I completely agree that this is turning really ugly and that the aggression is by now rather one-sided. And if you don't care about assuming good faith, then think long and hard about WP:No personal attacks and WP:Civility. As an occasional editor of Wiktionary, I also find the slamming of our sister project quite unacceptable. Ranting over and over about about how worthless a dictionary is because it doesn't have policies on biographies of living people is particularly nonsensical.

So where do we stand right now? Are Arzel and Tarc the only ones opposing the compromise about linking either to Wiktionary or Savage's original website?

Peter 19:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Amen Rubiscous on the "assume good faith" point. As a newbie, I've been following this talk page conversation for the past few days. I was shocked that Arzel had responded to my (pretty neutral) suggestion the way he did. I had not known about, but am glad that there is an informal policy against the kind of attack I felt (the AGF norm). My suggestion was very much in good faith. I'm not sure I'm going to keep following this controversy, but I hope objectivity somehow prevails and this page is modified so that people can find information that they rightful would want upon reading in the article about a simple definition.

I also suggest that Arzel (and Tarc) head over to Brad Pitt's wikipedia page and remove the reference to Brangelina. Just because the media seems to want to imply that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are joined at the hip, I don't think this nickname is relevant to his biography and I'm sure that he would object to it and other paparazzi attempts to define him or his relationship. Danachandler (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Arzel (and Tarc), you keep coming back to the argument that wiktionary is not a proper source. Are you seriously suggesting that its definition of "santorum" does not accurately reflect Dan Savage's smear? If that is the case then would you support linking to Savage's page? --Nstrauss (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem I have is with the #2 definition ("Shit: rubbish, worthless matter, nonsense, bull"), which does not exist outside of some anonymous individuals dropping it into a Usenet post. I have attempted to remove that entry once again but have little faith in the wiktionary honchos accepting that edit; that place is like a cross between the Wild West and a frathouse. But even if that were left out, I'd still object for the same reasons I object to placing the actual "frothy" definition in this article; it has nothing to do with Rick Santorum. If you could convince the wiktionary lurkers to leave #2 out, I'd agree that a link could be placed in the "Campaign" article, if it isn't there already. Tarc (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Would linking to spreadingsantorum.com alleviate your first concern? And regarding your second concern, how do you reconcile the 19 news articles and 115,000 websites that connect Rick Santorum to the full text of the "frothy" definition? --Nstrauss (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Nstrauss regarding spreadingsantorum.com, particularily given the extensive citation in sources.88.166.32.210 (talk) 00:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't really value the input of IP editors. Tarc (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

And I don't like broccoli. What's any of this got to do with the content of the article. You should assume good faith on the part of IP editors, the possibility of banned users and socks is not an excuse to assume any IP editor is a banned user or a sock. My apologies for trying to remove your WP:UNCIVIL comment but I was trying not to have to have this unproductive discussion with you once again. Rubiscous (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. All this has to do with Rick Santorum is a short blurb mentioning what Savage did and leaving it at that. The "word" doesn't matter. The "website" (a front for Savage's WordPress blog) doesn't matter. This isn't about sourcing; it is about WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. Tarc (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, coverage in reliable sources is one of the most important factors in WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. There has been press about the effect of the santorum campaign on Santorum - for example http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/can-rick-santorum-become-us-president-if-his-name-isnt-even-safe-for-kids-to-google/article2294581/ .88.166.32.210 (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

That sourcing is what warrants a mention of the affair on this page. That does not give free reign to go into it in willy-nilly detail. Tarc (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

But it does seem one to be one of the most important things about him to many people -To quote The Economist "As anyone who Googles his surname will discover (don’t let your children try), many gay Americans abhor him and will resort to any revolting prank to besmirch his name." If reliable sources go into detail, why shouldn't wikipedia? I do not understand what you mean by WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE.88.166.32.210 (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't follow you, Tarc. What part of WP:BLP would prevent us from linking directly to the term, either to the original site or Wiktionary? As already pointed out, the demands placed on coverage, neutrality and verifiability seem to be fulfilled by the current compromise. What aspect of BLP would you say outweighs all of that?

Peter 16:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The site can never be linked as it violates WP:BLPSPS and it is purely an attack website. It's primary purpose is to further the smear attack against Santorum. Arzel (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You're linking to a section called "Avoid self-published sources" which says "ever use self-published sources". We have plenty of reliable sources about this already, so that's not an issue. We even have ones spelling out the full "frothy"-term. So where do you get "he site can never be linked" from? If there's a general ban on never linking to negative sites, please refer to it, because this clearly isn't it.

Peter 22:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Read it again. "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject." I don't think Santorum created a website to smear himself. Just because some other RS's mention the smear website does not mean that it is ok to link to the smear website in an article about the subject being smeared. Use some common sense on this. Arzel (talk) 06:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I've changed "2003 interview" to "Homosexuality" for two reasons. First, the overall section is "Political views" but "2003 interview" is not a political view. The subsection should really contain a brief summary of his notable views on the topic without limiting it to a single interview. Second, as to the question of "homosexual acts" versus "homosexuality", we have to be careful to avoid original research. Secondary sources do not commonly say that Santorum has particular views about sexual acts. Rather they say he has views on homosexuality. We need to describe those views accurately, but that does not mean that Santorum's own phraseology is the last word. We can say that he has said he is only objecting to homosexual acts, not homosexuals, if we have a source for that specific assertion. But the heading should be clear. Since it is something he's famous for, readers should see something about his views on homosexuality in the table of contents. "2003 interview" is meaningless.   Will Beback  talk  08:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

While the (homo)sexuality subsection SHOULD contain a brief summary of his notable views on the topic it doesn't - though this may follow from changing the title, although "opposition to Gay Marriage" has somehow been added without discussion. On the other hand, for some reason "Google bomb" neologism campaign" doesn't appear in the contents list now....88.166.32.210 (talk) 03:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The subsection heading doesn't appear in the TOC because of this edit: . As for the homosexuality material, it might be better to use the intro to the Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality article. It's more comprehensive. The existing material is taken straight from the interview, a primary source. That's contrary to Misplaced Pages norms which say that article should be based on secondary sources.   Will Beback  talk  03:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you make it appear again? And maybe add that intro, if it is appropriate?88.166.32.210 (talk) 04:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Any objections?   Will Beback  talk  05:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the TOC limit template - I see no good reason for it, people don't want it, and so far as I know, keeping things out of the table of contents is an aberration limited to special circumstances. Wnt (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Link to Open Directory Project

Please add a link "Rick Santorum at the Open Directory Project" in the External links section. You'l find it at http://www.dmoz.org/Regional/North_America/United_States/Society_and_Culture/Politics/Candidates_and_Campaigns/President/Candidates/Santorum%2C_Rick/ The Misplaced Pages articles about other main Republican contenders already have such a link. Thank you. 62.78.214.216 (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done - It just looks like a search aggregation thingie and of no specific benefit. Youreallycan (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. WP:EL specifically suggests adding directories of links. (FYI - I added it before I'd seen Youreallycan's reply)   Will Beback  talk  02:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we have a link to "Works by or about Karen Garver Santorum". If Mrs. Santorum is a notable author then we should have an article on her. But linking to a list of her books seems irrelevant in this article.   Will Beback  talk  02:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much every single link in dmoz is already an EL on this page. Looks like it is redundant. Arzel (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It might be better to remove the minor links from the EL section if they're already n the DMOZ page. The EL section is pretty long.   Will Beback  talk  04:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Arzel (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Italian relatives

Apparently Santorum's relatives in Italy aren't on the same page as he is, politically speaking: The other boot drops: Santorum's grandfather was a commie. Considering Newt Gingrich attacked Obama for having an anti-colonialist father, the fact that Santorum's grandfather and uncles were communists does seem relevant. 173.165.239.237 (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Not here, if its only cited in a blog.88.166.32.210 (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If biographers considered Santorum to have been significantly influenced by a Red relative, then it would be significant. A blog that does not suggest any actual influence doesn't cut the mustard. Nevard (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not just a blog: . But I'm not convinced there's relevance for the article here, at least not on this basis alone. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is his opposition to contraception under "Privacy"?

When you look at the headers, I don't see why you would associate "privacy" with objection to contraception. Maybe the header could be changed to "Privacy and the bedroom", or a seperate section created to deal with his views on contraception, and sex.88.166.32.210 (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Because the US Supreme Court case that overturned a law making the use of contraception criminal, Griswold v. Connecticut, was based on the Court's finding of a right to privacy. Santorum disagrees with that decision. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand that as a technical excuse, but in the real world who would expect "privacy" to conceal contraception. The sources I have seen make it clear that Santorum is opposed to contraception per se, and believes states have the right to ban it if the want to, so the header could equally well be "States Rights" which would be more informative!88.166.32.210 (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

As an intermediate step, I've changed the heading to "Right to privacy", which makes it clearer that it concerns a constitutional principle rather than something like Internet cookies.   Will Beback  talk  02:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any difference - right to privacy covers internet cookies, and "Opposition to a right to privacy" would be more accurate. Since half the short section is on Contraception, why not "Opposition to right to privacy and contraception."? Is there a reason NOT to make the header as clear as possible?88.166.32.210 (talk) 02:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that there is some reason to combine this section with the section on homosexuality, as his legal and other opinions on these topic seem closely related Wnt (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

That's logical. However we should make sure that readers can find what they might be looking for. I've changed it to "Homosexuality, contraception, and the right to privacy".   Will Beback  talk  17:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

1. http://wonkette.com/443167/why-he-runs-rick-santorums-own-fetus-jar-story | fetus jar story
2. http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sa=X&ei=p4IGT5S7AoHmqgHfrZWqBA&ved=0CCEQvwUoAQ&q=santorum+fetus&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=2f0b188327e19041&biw=1600&bih=766 |google search term for Santorum and fetus

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Low-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Pennsylvania articles
• Mid-importance Pennsylvania articles
• B-Class U.S. Congress articles
• Mid-importance U.S. Congress articles
• Unknown-subject U.S. Congress articles
• B-Class Virginia articles
• Low-importance Virginia articles
• WikiProject Virginia articles
• B-Class Creationism articles
• Low-importance Creationism articles
• B-Class Intelligent design articles
• Low-importance Intelligent design articles
• Intelligent design articles
• WikiProject Creationism articles
• B-Class Journalism articles
• Mid-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• B-Class Pittsburgh articles
• Mid-importance Pittsburgh articles
• WikiProject Pittsburgh articles
• B-Class Conservatism articles
• Mid-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• B-Class law articles
• Low-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment