Talk:Rick Santorum/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

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 Wikipedia'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.

Wikipedia 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)

Wikipedia 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)

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)

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)

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 ^Isotalo 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 ^Isotalo 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 ^Isotalo 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 ^Isotalo 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 ^Isotalo 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 Wikipedia 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 [1]); "After strong Iowa showing, Santorum still has Google problem" (Reuters story hosted on Yahoo! News [2]); "11 things you might not know about Santorum" in which #1 is "He has a Google problem" (National Journal [3] reprinted by MSNBC [4]). 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 ^Isotalo 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 ^Isotalo 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 ^Isotalo 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 Wikipedia is supposed to work.

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

Peter ^Isotalo 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 ^Isotalo 00:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

From the introduction of WP:BLP, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." The 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 [deleted] 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/wiki/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 Wikipedia, 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 [deleted]. 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 ^Isotalo 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 [deleted]. 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)

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 [5]

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. Wikipedia observes that the Philly Inquirer says it's so, whether it truly is or not 2) The New York Times says that "[Santorum's] support for the [K Street Project] 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 Wikipedia 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)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, dammit! When we mention a thing we tell the reader how to find it. Wnt (talk) 20:11, 9 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia should be adopting policies that take Wikipedia 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)

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 Wikipedia 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)

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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (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 ^Isotalo 01:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• 'No. It would be a true disservice to Wikipedia 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 ^Isotalo 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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; Wikipedia is amplifying that smear. The latter is unacceptable. Johnuniq (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • This is seriously misconceived: Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia to make it avoid controversial topics) clearly do not get pretty much any of Wikipedia'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)