Wikipedia

Talk:Rick Santorum/Archive 5

< Talk:Rick Santorum
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Will Beback in topic anti-gay stance
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 9

Italian relatives

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

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: [1]. 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)

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

Latest comment: 12 years ago56 comments16 people in discussion

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 Wikipedia "because of the google bomb incident" would presumably be interested in what Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 [[2]]. 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 Isotalo 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Isotalo 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)
For the record: With this edit User:Youreallycan improperly removed the link to Savage's site from the above comment by User:Nstrauss (and in a sneaky way, judging from the incomplete edit summary only referring to the archive maneuvering, itself also improper). El duderino (talk) 23:44, 14 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 Isotalo 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 "[n]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 "[t]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 Isotalo 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)
(unindent) I've read it. It's still a guideline referring to use of sources, not external links. There's a major difference between the two. In WP:ELBLP, the section specifically about usage of external links in biographies of living people there is a word of caution, but, and this is very important to note, it all boils down to whether it can be supported by reliable sources. Beyond that, you can only keep fighting this with strong opinions and the thread of edit wars.
Peter Isotalo 00:54, 15 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: [3]. 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 Wikipedia 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)

Why is his opposition to contraception under "Privacy"?

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

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)

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)
Some one has removed contraception from the header without discussion...88.166.32.210 (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Editing other peoples comments

Latest comment: 12 years ago48 comments12 people in discussion

I'd to remind everyone that WP:TPO prohibits the editing of other peoples comments except in very limited circumstances. An editor (or number of editors) have removed the phrase "The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex" from almost every comment on the page and replaced it with [deleted]. This is highly inappropriate and should not happen again. Unfortunately, due to the number of unsummerised edits, I could not determine who was responsible hence my creation of this section as a general note. Robinr22 (talk) 14:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the talk page of a WP:BLP. Material here must conform to that policy. The spamming of this page with dozens of frothy mixtures is a wanton violation of policy, of talk-page guidelines, of spamming guidelines and policies, and so on. I wish all of those pushing this insertion of the frothy mixture will find that the frothy mixtures are improper, and that their own frothy mixture insertions will be removed. Cheers. Have some frothy mixture from starbucks. Collect (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Collect, you are entitled to your personal opinion about the "frothy mixture" language, but opinions differ. Mine is that it is crystal-clear that there is no BLP violation in accurately quoting a phrase that has appeared in multiple media outlets in connection with this bio subject. Furthermore, some people have (improperly, IMO) objected to any Wikipedia material that would have the incidental side effect of assisting the "campaign", but use of the phrase here doesn't even do that, because it doesn't affect the Google rankings. I personally haven't had occasion to quote the full definition here, as far as I remember. Nevertheless, I and all other users have the right to do so. If you believe that a particular user's comments violate some governing standard, you should try reasoning with the user or seeking dispute resolution, rather than engaging in vigilante action. JamesMLane t c 14:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Collect, thanks for the reply, but it seems to be based on a misunderstanding of WP:BLP. Nowhere in that policy does it allow for the removal of information simply deemed embarrassing to the subject - if you disagree please cite the relevent section that does. Additionally, as discussed above, the phrase is used extensively elsewhere in WP, such as here: Campaign_for_"santorum"_neologism. If it doesn't breach it there, then it certainly cannot breach it here. There is also no consensus that I can see for the removal of this phrase from the talk page - if there is I'd be grateful if you could link to it. Absent either of these two qualifications, your repeated removal of the phrase is, as mentioned above, a breach of WP:TPO and you should stop.
The implication that I am spamming the phrase also implies bad faith on my part. Without the phrase my comment makes no sense so it is essential for comprehension of my point. This is exactly why we have WP:TPO and exactly the editing of other people comments is prohibited except in limited circumstances. As JamesMLane points out, if you think I shouldn't be using the phrase then you should discuss it with me rather than just editing my comments. Robinr22 (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
The massive amount of frothy mixture added to the talk page is also against talk page guidelines as well. And I noted te discussions on noticeboards, which you appear to have missed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Which talk page guidelines? And which discussions? On which noticeboard? Robinr22 (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
See WP:TALK Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article. for one. Removal criteria include Removing prohibited material such as libel, personal details, or violations of copyright, living persons or banning policies. for two. [4], etc. How many discussions do you desire? I commend the "search" function on this. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Usage of the definition once within a section to describe what is being discussed is fine, however this IP was saying that Santorum's name was defined as [slur] almost every single time they made a comment, multiple times within a same section. Most people know a duck when they see one, this was one of those situations. Arzel (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Collect, I have no desire to flog a dead horse here but my comment was in response to an RfC on whether the phrase should be included in the main article and used the phrase to illustrate a point - it's pretty obvious that it was not a general discussion of the topic. Nor could it possibly be construed as breaching BLP on the grounds of libel, personal details , copyright, living persons or banning policies. In terms of how many discussions I want that show a consensus that the phrase shouldn't be included on the talk page, one would be fine. There are plenty of discussion on whether it should be included in the main article but I can't see a single one that backs up what you claim. If there is one, again, please link to it. It's not very helpful to just say "Use the search function". Arzel - If editors were just spamming the phrase pointlessly I'd be more inclined to see where you are coming from but I can't see any evidence of that all. It's not up to you to decide on the language that other people can use, as long as that language doesn't breach WP policies, and in this case it plainly doesn't.Robinr22 (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I will revert any deletions from other people's posts that are performed by individuals acting on their own initiative. Any individual's view that something is a BLP violation is something that can be expressed by that individual, but deleting from others' posts requires more than your own individual view on the matter. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Who made you god? Arzel (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
But that's my point exactly: those deleting from others' comments are behaving that way. thanks for getting it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Nomos is right on this point. I don't think it's important or even an appropriate use of space to dump the full quoted phrase in the article; the current version is perhaps somewhat improved from my edit. But the full Savage definition is not a secret. It is pointlessly divisive to treat it as if it were. The archives of Wikipedia talk pages are a whole lot more obscure than the top hit on a Google search, and that's where all these threads will end up. Wnt (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Here's an improper (and sneaky) edit along those lines: [5] where User:Youreallycan, after removing an earlier thread which he (also improperly) deemed to be past due for archiving, removed the link to Savage's site from a comment above by User:Nstrauss. I've restored the link and made a follow-up remark there as well. El duderino (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I removed it again - please do not replace that attack site on this talk page - also sometimes it is good to do things a bit quietly. Youreallycan 23:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
It's not an attack site. It's a response to Santorum's anti-gay stance which is itself offensive. And whether or not you agree with that, it doesn't violate BLP issues as discussed earlier in this thread. El duderino (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Its a blogger attack site , attacking the living person that this article is about - please don't replace it. Youreallycan 00:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
(ec)I don't agree with Santorum's anti-gay stance either, but no rational person could come to the conclusion that it was not an attack site. The whole purpose of the site was to harm Santorum. WP:BLP applies everywhere, if you have a problem with that I suggest you take it to the appropriate area. Arzel (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Arzel, Youreallycan, BLP doesn't even support your view that we can't link to Savage's site in the article. See the thread above. Never mind censoring people on a talkpage. I know you keep repeating the idea that BLP somehow forbids linking to vulgar campaign sites like this, but every time you're asked for clarification, you come up blank or with something irrelevant. By now it's you two and Tarc forcing your personal opinions on just about everyone else who has participated in the discussion.
Peter Isotalo 00:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
BLP objects to the linking of attack sites. Youreallycan 00:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
It may be considered a political attack -- though somehow I don't think that's what you and Arzel are arguing -- that's still not enough to violate BLP. Incidentally, which specific BLP phrasing are you referring to? The neologism doesn't "harm" Santorum in any way other than satirizing his homophobic views and policies. The "frothy mix" may be personally distasteful to you and others but that is irrelevant here. The site is mentioned at the Campaign for "santorum" neologism article yet nowhere there is it characterized as an attack site. El duderino (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Its not linked to on that page either. Its not a wikipedia reliable source either - its an attack blogger site with no chance of ever being inserted to, or of benefit to a wikipedia article and as such has no place anywhere on this, or any other talkpage. Youreallycan 00:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
BLP objects to the use of attack sites as sources. We're not doing that since we have oodles of reliable sources that mention both the sites and the full definition. There simply is no generalized prohibition about linking to negative sites.
Peter Isotalo 01:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
BLP objects to the posting of attack sites against living people anywhere on the project. Youreallycan 01:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Youreallycan is correct. Posting links to attack sites is prohibited anywhere on Wikipedia. Use some other website for attacks—this is an encyclopedia, not an exercise in free speech. Johnuniq (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
After two weeks of discussion, no such statement based on BLP has surfaced. Wikipedia has no prohibition linking to this type of website. So please stop repeating an obviously false claim.
Peter Isotalo 12:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I really don't understand why WP:BLP keeps being brought up as reason to censor both the article and the talk page. It has a specific meaning and you can't ignore that meaning and pretend it means something else for the purposes of supporting your own personal viewpoint. For the sake of clarity, there is a neat summary at the top of the page of how it applies. The summary is this: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page. The operative section of that sentence is "unsourced or poorly sourced". If you are removing material that is properly sourced simply because you don't like it or you think it is a slur or relates to a campaign then you have totally misunderstood what BLP means and you should read it again. That said, the website www.spreadingsantorum.com is, in my opinion a primary source and I don't think it should be used as a reference on the main article. However, many secondary sources mention it, such as here and it is fine to use them as a reference. However, again, it is plainly wrong to remove the link from the talk page in the context referred to above. It was a question asking whether it should be linked to and, without the link, it is impossible for anyone to understand the question. This entire debate over the neologism just screams WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and the endless censoring of other peoples comments is just going to get people blocked. Debate by all means, but STOP editing other peoples comments. Robinr22 (talk) 06:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
There are only a couple of objections - the multiple posting of the frothy lube phrase, totally deliberately and unnecessarily, and the desire to link from the talkpage directly to the attack site - also totally unnecessarily. If these two things stop users will I am sure all get on better. Youreallycan 12:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, let's keep censoring each other's posts about the actual topic under discussion, but let's keep accusing each other of bad faith. I'm sure that will make everyone "get on better".
Peter Isotalo 13:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, clearly this is a divisive issue, there is no free speech here at wikipedia. Posts on the talkpage for the benefit of the article and it will all be good. Demanding to post a link from this talkpage to a blogger website that is created only to attack the subject of this BLP, for spurious reasons such as , so readers can investigate it and understand what we are talking about is just not on. Youreallycan 13:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
So, we're back to pretending that WP:BLP has some other meaning than its actual meaning purely to support your particular idea of what should be included on a talk page? What is the point of having simple straightforward consistent rules hammered out by consensus if you are just going to ignore them when it results in an outcome you don't like? Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion but it should be obvious to you by now that there is a consensus that your opinion is wrong. Given this you should accept the consensus and move on, whether you agree with it or not. Can we kill this discussion now and get back to the endless edit warring over the actual article? Robinr22 (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Since both you and Peter seam to not be able to WP:HEAR I will post this again, maybe neither of you will ignore it a second time. From WP:BLPSPS
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) 16:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I actually replied to this exact point twice already.[6][7] BLP says we have to support things like this with reliable sources We've established that there is no lack of sources describing the affair in detail, mentioning the site itself or linking to it, and in some cases even writing out the full definition.
And on top of that, the very appropriate compromise of linking to Wiktionary seems merely to have been shouted down as being too uncomfortable to some.
Peter Isotalo 17:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
In addition to Peter's point I'd also add that I've made it pretty clear that I think the Santorum website shouldn't be used as a source in the article as it is a primary source (not because you claim it is a "smear website" - that has nothing to do with anything) though, given there are plenty of secondary sources referencing it that would be fine to include, it's a bit of a moot point. My objection is that the question "should we link to this website?" is rendered nonsensical if you decide to unilaterally delete the details of the website in question. Given that this section is about the censoring of existing comments can we all agree that this is flatly wrong and get back to trying to improve the article? Robinr22 (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I should also point out the hilarity of you referencing WP:HEAR to try and dispute the existing consensus. This is the relevant section:
In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input. Often such editors continue to base future attacks and edits upon the rejected statement. Such an action is disruptive to Wikipedia. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point is accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted. Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with": The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you.
I challenge anyone to come up with a better description of what you are attempting to do then this. Robinr22 (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Apparently NONE of you can WP:HEAR I will state it again. 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." For those hard of reading it says NEVER. How much more clearly can this be stated? Arzel (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

In what manner is anyone suggesting we use spreadingsantorum.com as a source?
Peter Isotalo 18:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
So what is your reason for wanting to post a link to it it on this talkpage? Your post above is the fourteenth time the site name appears on this talkpage at this current time, did you not think thirteen was enough, that you just thought it needed to be added again? - a clear case of bombing if I ever saw one - we even have it as a section header. Talk about repeated unnecessary posting. Youreallycan 18:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
It's been under continual and intense debate for weeks. It's bound to be mentioned more than once or twice by those who frequent the discussion. You're hardly in a position to accuse others of repeating themselves too much.
My point was to underline that I believe the inclusion of a link to the full definition, either as a direct link, a mention of the name of the site or as a link to Wiktionary, are all viable alternatives. They enjoy support both in consensus and policy. But instead, we can't even get those in opposition to stop censoring other people's post. Isn't that getting uncomfortable close to WP:POINT or WP:GAME?
Peter Isotalo 19:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
You didn't answer my question - Your post above is the fourteenth time the site name appears on this talkpage at this current time, did you not think thirteen was enough, that you just thought it needed to be added again? - Shout it repeatedly from the rooftops - here is the website that attacks Rick Santorum. If you google his name, its the top result - wiki talkpage bombing it is a bit late. Its not a secret, something you all need to repeat and repeat here. - The neo page has often higher or as high viewing figures as this biography. We are avoiding linking to it because if you go there you can read foul and disgusting opinionated attacks on the subject of this article and we wouldn't want to link to some blogger site that does that would we. It's not a site that just reports about the subject, there are some demeaning and defamatory attacks against the subject on that blogger site. What would be the within policy benefit of providing readers with a direct external link to such as that? Youreallycan 19:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I was trying to be clear that's all. I'm not obsessed enough to count each individual mention on a Wikipedia talkpage, nor do I feel that it makes a scrap of difference when it comes to furthering the expression. If you want to accuse of me of "bombing", be my guest, but I'm telling you I'm just trying to discuss an actual article issue.
Peter Isotalo 17:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
DELETING COMMENTS - I have twice had my contribution to this section deleted by really with the explanation that I am an IP troll. I find this very ironic88.166.32.210 (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, your making a very good case against yourself tonight. I would have blocked you as disruptive already. Youreallycan 01:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I think (IP) editors deserve respect, not political attacks. As I said in my deleted post, in reply to really , writing spreadingsantorum.com without http:// is not a link.88.166.32.210 (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Troll (Internet) - Youreallycan 01:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
It is true that by policy self-published web sites shouldn't be used as sources for statements about people; but they certainly are sources about themselves, including sources for the fact that some notable opponent criticized, mocked, disbelieved a living person. And even if a site is unsuitable for use as a source, it should still be open for discussion on the talk page, because one main point of a talk page is to convert "I heard somewhere that..." into a cited source we can use. As for excessive spamming of the site, this is just the Streisand Effect on Wikipedia. The point is, it doesn't matter to anybody but a handful of contentious Wikipedia editors. Nobody else is reading old talk page archives. Heck, 9 times out of 10 the Wikipedia editors don't read old archive threads and discuss the same thing over and over without knowing it. Just stick to a simple, straightforward, sensible policy: don't edit other people's talk page comments. Wnt (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
You can discuss attack sites but there is no policy driven excuse to link to one. Youreallycan 01:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

NYT resource

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/us/politics/as-rick-santorum-secured-earmarks-2006-donations-flowed-in.html Donors Gave as Santorum Won Earmarks 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Importance of current activity in this biography

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There seems to be a current of opinion that this article should a) be tailored to match US political view points, and codes of expression. b) focus on promoting or countering his current campaign. and c) avoid covering any aspect of the man that he has not actively promoted in some way. I think the role of this article should be to describe the man, and his life - which has included notable posts, and weird conflict. I think those concerned with politicking should transfer their attentions to the campaign page, which needs a lot of work.93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Then go and tell the reliable secondary sources which we must reflect that they're covering the wrong stuff... Rubiscous (talk) 06:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Children's education

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

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)

If you'd like it to be considered for inclusion, please provide some reliable sources showing it has lasting notability. Just telling others to was reported in Businessweek isn't sufficient. Rodchen (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Santorum and HR 796 (FACE Act)

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article purporting that Santorum supported HR 796 is in error. The page it links to ( http://www.votesmart.org/bill/5480/21800/27054/abortion-clinic-access-bill ) shows that Santorum's "YEA" vote was to send the bill back to committee. Sending bills back to committee is often a strategy used to kill the bill by preventing an actual vote on its passage.

Please see the following two pages of the bill's history if you aren't convinced: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:HR00796:@@@S http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:SN00636:@@@S

While it is true that Santorum, in voting for various budgets, voted thereby to continue funding for Planned Parenthood, someone should find a different source than the article currently cited, since that article has factual errors.

--Freedomlives (talk) 08:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

anti-gay stance

Latest comment: 12 years ago13 comments7 people in discussion

His anti-gay stance is one of the things he's most notable for. He is possibly the most ant-gay presidential candidate and thats saying something. Shouldn't the lede reflect that? Something about his anti-gay position should surely be mentioned. Pass a Method talk 08:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It might be enough that the lead makes prominent reference to his "consistent, socially conservative positions". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
We could include something like "with strong opinions against homosexuality". Pass a Method talk 09:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
We already have material thereon about his opinions on homosexual acts. How much WEIGHT do you think is called for here? Collect (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm specifically speaking about the lede. It does not say anyhing about his very strong anti-gay position. Pass a Method talk 15:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The lede mentions his consistent social conservative positions which include many issues including GLBT. Why should one issue be given prominence over the others? Arzel (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
A google search for "gay santorum" gets 96,600,000 hits compared to 32,100,000 hits for "abortion santorum" and 35,300,000 for "immigration santorum". His anti-gay position IMO is the most prominent thing he's known for. Pass a Method talk 16:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
social conservatism is a euphemism that is largely confined to the USA, and is favoured by the right-wing there. As this is an international encyclopedia, it would be better to give a brief summary of his actual views in the lede, rather than use code words, in my opinion.88.166.32.210 (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Valid point. Wnt (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
In the lede we go into detail about his fiscal policies, for which he is not better known than his comments on homosexuality. Adding a few words, such as suggested by PassaMethod, would fix that problem.   Will Beback  talk  23:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I've added "especially his opposition to gay marriage" to the lead. The lead devotes considerable space to fiscal issues which are less prominent than the social issues.   Will Beback  talk  03:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Of all the proposals for Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality, one that I haven't seen is simply to get a good article going about all the Republican primary candidates, or perhaps better all presidential contenders including Obama, on this issue. Maybe the article could become a section of that. But I won't really propose changing the scope of that article directly because that article is so swarmed already with contenders. But if someone started a new article that covered all the candidates, it might eventually merge into it. Probably would turn out to be a very long and informative article. If we had that article, then I might feel more comfortable talking about how extreme Santorum's position is - right now, I'm not really sure that he's any more anti-gay than Romney or Perry (Ron Paul I'll believe tho ;). Wnt (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
That might be a good idea, though I don't see how it would directly affect this article. For myriad and sometimes illogical reasons, some politicians become known for certain issues, despite the fact that other politicians may hold similar views. We should aim for equity, but it comes down to the fact that if 100 sources talk about Santorum's views on a topic and only 2 talk about Cain's views on the same topic then our coverage should not make it appear that their views are equally notable or significant.   Will Beback  talk  23:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Lede

Latest comment: 12 years ago15 comments9 people in discussion


His profession is lawyer - why has this been removed from the lede?

The first line now reads "Richard John "Rick" Santorum (born May 10, 1958) is an American Republican Party politician." - before it said lawyer and politician - why has lawyer been removed? I see no discussion here. Also why American rather than US, which is shorter + more accurate.88.166.32.210 (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It is focused on the present campaign. It needs to be focused on a summary. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Why has it been "focused on the present campaign"? I see no discussion of this new "focus" here.88.166.32.210 (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
This is not the campaign article. It's an attempt at a comprehensive bio of the subject. Even for someone who's currently an active candidate, his or her previous occupation is significant enough for the lead section (see, for example, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, identified as a "businessman" and "history teacher" even though each is running full-time for President and they aren't now running any businesses or teaching any classes). I'm restoring the information. JamesMLane t c 01:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree that it should absolutely be in the lede, but at the moment he is described as a lawyer first, politician second. Now, personally he may feel that way, and he may have had a longer career as a lawyer than as a politician, but for the purposes of this site his notability comes from his political career. To describe him as a lawyer first gives undue prominence to a career that on its own would probably not be notable enough for an article. Rubiscous (talk) 08:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all, the reason was given when the change was made in this edit onJanuary 12. The edit summary states: "atty should not be at beginning, he is not noted for his work as an atty". 'Secondly, the fact that he is an attorney was never removed from the lead. It still said: "After losing his 2006 re-election bid, Santorum has worked as an attorney"

In addition, putting lawyer first as his occupation gives undue weight to it--the bulk of his career has been in politics not in practicing law. He has been a politician for more than 20 years- 16 years in elected office, plus 4 years in politics as a legislative aide and head of state senate committees-plus one year campaigning for president. In contrast, he spent only 4 years practicing law full time ending in 1990, and 4 years practicing law part time along with at least 2 other occupations after his 2006 defeat. But more importantly, he is not noted for his work as an attorney, therefore it should not be listed first.

Finally, not listing attorney first is consistent with common sense and common WP practice - eg. George W. Bush's article begins: "George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is an American politician" though he spent many, many years as a businessman and has an MBA. Bob Casey, Jr.'s begins "Robert Patrick "Bob" Casey, Jr. (born April 13, 1960) is the senior United States Senator from Pennsylvania and a member of the Democratic Party" though he is also a lawyer who practiced for several years. I'm sure one could dredge up examples to the contrary, but the bulk of the ones I have just surveyed do not put lawyer first.

Because the change was made based on a mistaken premise, i.e. that no reason was given, and that lawyer did not appear in the lead, and is contrary to principles of undue weight, common WP practice and notability, I am removing lawyer as the first designation of his profession. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Follow up: in response to IP 88.166's suggestion I have changed American to U.S. I also added a second mention of his work as a lawyer to the lead, though I removed it as the very first characterization of his profession, per the discussion above. current versionKeptSouth (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Not happy with discussion above. He is a qualified and licensed lawyer. This is as provable as his political attempts. A candidate for party candidate for elected office who was voted out of his last position years ago is a wannabe politician - he earned 1.3 million from consultancy and speeches last year. Consultant would be a good addition. 4 years practice defeats 2 weeks success in wiki importance.93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, 93.96.148.42, but your response is simply and completely contrary to the facts which are all discussed above. KeptSouth (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the approach KeptSouth describes; it's quite sufficient to have the lawyer bit come later in the lede. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
For consistency, I've removed "history teacher" from the first sentence of the Gingrich article.   Will Beback  talk  22:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rick_Santorum/Archive_5&oldid=1140214169"