Talk:Rick Santorum/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Early Life

"an assertive nature, particularly on important political issues" is referenced by Number 24. but the footnote makes no mention of political issues only sports.

Th orginal quote is this:

"Besides basketball, Santorum was the manager of the baseball team. Everybody called him 'Rooster' because of a strand of hair on the back of his head which stood up, and because of his competitive, in-your-face attitude. 'He would debate anything and everything with you, mostly sports,' says Goettler. 'He was like a rooster. He never backed down.'"

Should this be edited in the spirit of fairness? Perhaps voters looking for information might be reading this only to see something that makes Santorum seem like a savant of politics when in fact, he, as a child, was probably interested in sports.

Brandonj818 (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

AIPAC

What is the relationship between the Jewish Lobby (AIPAC) and Rick Santorum? By the way this is by no way anti-semitic as everyone should be well aware that Palestinians, Ethiopians and Syrians are semites too. An interesting article by aljazeera discusses the AIPAC involvment in the US elections (http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryus2012/2012/03/20123774029910326.html)- Israel's version of dollar imperialism? Can somebody update this article with regard to this tremendously important aspect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.204.42 (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

What?! Gross NPOV Violation!

"...then brought the body [of the subject's deceased infant son] home the following day and introduced it to their children as 'your brother Gabriel.'"

What is this? An unabashed editorial critical of the subject’s anti-abortion position? “It” instead of “him”? The sarcastic (or questioning) quotes around “your brother Gabriel”? This is one of the most egregious violations of NPOV I’ve ever encountered on Wikipedia.

The child was born alive and survived for two hours afterwards. Since when is a corpse of a person denuded of his or her gender identification? Would the writer of this passage refer to his just late mother or father as an “it”? “Move ‘it’ [the body] to the funeral parlor.”? Since when is a sibling no longer such upon death? The child was male and thus the subject’s children’s brother.

Did the writer of this passage intend it the way it sounds? Regardless, it must be changed to reflect NPOV. One may argue about the status of a fetus, but not a baby born alive who survived for a countable period of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryBuff14 (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It was intentional. I tried to fix it (see above) but was overruled. Feel free to change it to proper terminology. Arzel (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Easy does it. This article has enough frisson already. There is no need to add more. Please propose what you think is better wording. Jehochman ^Talk 23:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, sorry.

Since this is an encyclopedia which presents a summary of a subject and not a full biography of a person, I don’t see the need for this episode to even be included beyond mentioning that the subject’s wife and himself had a prematurely born son who died shortly after birth in addition to their living children.

If others want to retain it, then for starters change “it” to “him,” as virtually no one refers to the body of a recently late loved one as an “it.” I can’t believe anyone would contest that. Secondly, although introducing the deceased infant as “your brother Gabriel” (in quotation marks) might be defensible as a direct quote by the subject and/or his wife, it is ambiguous to the point of possibly constituting a double entendre. I would suggest “introduced to their remaining children their deceased brother” without quotes. Even if it was intended as a direct quote, this tale was told in retrospect and the exact wording used would seem to be suspect. User:HistoryBuff14|HistoryBuff14]] (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• It should say "him". End of story.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• calling a corpse "him" is just plain weird. a corpse is an object, and attaching personification to it is something for blogs or opinion pieces. frankly, im surprised that wikipedia wont even call a corpse a corpse. -badmachine 07:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

So you believe the term “a dead person” is a contradiction in terms? The myriad articles written on deceased subjects should all be rewritten to change referential pronouns to “it” rather than gender identified pronouns? “It and its its crossed the Delaware River in a surprise attack on…”

Come on. Everyone here knows what this is about. It makes people who have no moral objection to abortion uncomfortable affording personhood upon a child younger than myriad fetuses aborted each year. I’m not arguing this from a political or moral perspective, simply a factual one. The child was born alive (and was not a survivor of an attempted abortion). Had anyone killed him after birth then he or she would have been legally guilty of murder. If you personally would have no objection to a funeral director referring to your just late mother, for example, as an “it,’ then you are a member of a very small minority. HistoryBuff14 (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was a matter of Mrs. Santorum taking a medication that she knew would result in the death of the baby. 87.114.220.213 (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I’m not an expert on Catholic teaching regarding this tragic case and such is irrelevant. For anyone interested, the entire account is available online via a NY Times article. What is relevant here is that the child was born alive and died of natural causes two hours later. He was legally a human being and therefore merits the personal pronouns of “he” and “him.” It is well-established convention that deceased people retain those pronouns as evidenced by countless Wiki articles. A refusal to change the offending “it” serves to discredit the objectivity of this publication. I call for a consensus that at the very least “it” be changed to “him.” Please answer with aye or nay.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• nay. none of those article subjects had their corpses introduced to living people. -badmachine 21:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Views about Islam

I have found this source in the german article of Rick Santorum, i think it could be important to know [1]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.101.21.135 (talk) 03:04, 15 February 2012‎ (UTC)

False claims related to pornography

"The candidate claims that "a wealth of research" shows porn "causes profound brain changes." Experts say he's wrong ... “Santorum is simply trying to wrap his religious ideology in scientific garments. But the emperor has no clothes.”"

• Santorum’s bad porn science. 91.39.94.175 (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Allegations of racism

On March 27, he referred to Obama as "the anti-war government nig-uh" and then becomes very flustered and nonsensical for the next two sentences. His campaign team hasn't delivered any nonsense like "blah people," nor are they trying to claim that the video is a fake. This is very notable, and its complete omission seems to violate NPOV policies. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Needs a source, but should certainly be in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.59.104 (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Quite stupid of him but he really said it out loud, half way kinda. RS talking about it and youtube link to hear it yourself and make up your mind.TMCk (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is a good source. The Guardian is a major news outlet in the UK, very respectable. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/mar/30/rick-santorum-slip-n-word — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.222.2 (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added a comment with a link to this story.Gsbsmith (talk) 04:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Tabloids and primary sources speculating on what it might have sounded like he sorta said. WP:BLP kiddies; this isn't going in the article, any more than "Obama thinks the US has 57 states" would go into the Obama article. Smarten up and stop using this page as a part of the political campaign season. Tarc (talk) 04:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

A more neutral editor might repeat the last point back to you, Tarc, who seems to be protecting these candidate pages as part of a pet cause. The Guardian is not a tabloid. The context of racism in the Republican party is real and should be mentioned. And you can't just sloppily invoke BLP whenever you don't like something.. El duderino (talk) 04:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Right now I don't think it belongs into the article until we see this play out a bit more. Wikipedia isn't a news source, it is an encyclopedia. That being said if all that happens is a few youtube videos and one or two articles then it shouldn't be in, however if it has the fallout that Nappy Headed Hoes had then it defiantly deserves mention. Let's give this a day or two to establish what we are looking at, after all the info will still be there tomorowCoffeepusher (talk) 05:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

My dear duderino, I wouldn't vote for Santorum with a gun to my head, I oppose virtually every ideological position the man has staked out during his career. Despite that, I do what I can do ensure that the article is not used as a campaign platform for political opponents. So please, don't lecture others on neutrality when you plainly do not practice it yourself. Tarc (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

How cliche of a notorius POV-pusher to accuse more-balanced editors of hypocrisy. El duderino (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

My only POV is anti-agenda-driven editing. Tarc (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Tarc, would you please explain why, in addition to deleting my well-sourced (The Guardian) entry about the controversy surrounding Santorum's recent slip-up, you decided to make the version I proposed inaccessible? Actually, I only learned about Santorum's racist comments when I noticed that in a previous reversion, you chose to hide the edition of the article that mentioned it. Googling around, I found the video, and thought it contained relevant information for the article. Your behaviour smacks of censorship, and seems to be both politically motivated and an abuse of your (apparent) status as an administrator. Does anyone know of some process that can be used to report this kind of abuse? Gsbsmith (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Your addition was crap, it was removed because crap des not belong articles, esp BLPs. The Guardian is a lowbrow rag that never misses an opportunity to take the trashiest, sensationalist angle on an event, and even they began their report with "I don't think Santorum meant to use a racial slur against Obama..." This is a non story about a politician who uttered one part of one word that sorta sounded like it began with "n" and a smattering of unreliable sources assume it meant "nigger". Rumours, guesses, and lazily-lobbed racial innuendo has no place in a person's biography. Tarc (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian is a what now? The problem with that source was that it's an op-ed in The Guardian, not that The Guardian is itself unreliable. One loses a lot of credibility when one goes about branding high-quality mainstream journalism as too biased to use (fig. 1 [2]). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As I said, the Guardian tends towards the sensational, much as the NY Daily News or the Post does. All 3 pass our WP:RS threshold in the technical sense, but one should take care when they address the flashy or hot-button news-of-the-moment. Knee-jerk "I saw it in Source X, which automatically justifies inclusion in Article Y" is a common error made by inexperienced editors. Though at times, experienced ones get snared as well. Tarc (talk) 04:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Please, do not readd the contentiuos bit of info into the article until you have a. consensus and b. reliable sources. At the moment, you have neither. Should the allegations be added back, I'll fully protect the article in keeping with WP:BLP. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Definition of neologism

It appears that a user removed the definition of the "santorum" neologism without consensus a few days ago, citing a seemingly unrelated WP rule in doing so. I reverted this change, as it appeared to be without consensus. Subsequently, the change has been reverted twice. In effort to avoid edit-warring and to not violate the 3RR (and its spirit), I suggest we actually come up with a consensus now, and then make a change or not depending on the result of said discussion. In my opinion, the definition is completely reasonable in the article, as it is quite significant to Santorum's so-called "Google problem" and therefore his campaign and his article here. I'm interested to hear other opinions, of course. However, I do think we should leave it as it was prior to the original removal, at least for now. Thanks, guys. Jwkpiano1 (talk) 04:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

This was discussed extensively just recently. The concensus was that the full defintion not be included in this article. There is no need to repeat the slur against a living person on their BLP. Arzel (talk) 07:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The statement you just made is POV. Do you disagree that it is relevant to this article? Why don't we just go ahead and remove it from everywhere on the site because it's a 'slur' against them? We don't, because that's not how WP works. We present all relevant information from all sides, despite what one particular editor may think is 'offensive'. I'm not seeing how removing this so that it is only in the other article is in any way better. Jwkpiano1 (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Please do not use Wikipedia for righting wrongs. We do not insert made-up crap from a campaign into a BLP and then discuss whether it should be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 07:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I know very well what Wikipedia is for, thank you. It had been there for how long before this supposed consensus occurred? 'made-up crap' is POV. That is not for us to determine. It is notable and significant to this article, and it doesn't meet the criteria for removal per BLP. Jwkpiano1 (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that there was consensus for excluding the full definition from the article. Could you please give the link in the archives in which consensus was established, as defined in WP:WHATISCONSENSUS?

Could you summarize the argument for not including it? An argument based on Wikipedia guidelines rather than your personal opinion that it doesn't fit in?

I think it belongs in the article under WP:WEIGHT because it has been repeatedly discussed by WP:RSs, which is the standard for whether it goes in or not. That's the only standard here, isn't it?

Not to include it because it offends your personal sense of taste would be WP:CENSORSHIP. --Nbauman (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The neologism is an acknowledged attack on this person. To include mention of this notable attack in the article is one thing. To meticulously describe the attack and repeat its detailed definition in all its scatological glory in the article of the very target of the attack is a clear violation of WP:BLP. It is not as if the definition is not readily available elsewhere on Wikipedia. Anyone interested in the detailed scatology can easily click and go to the controversy article. We don't have to mechanically reproduce and spread this definition all over Wikipedia as if wikilinks had not been invented. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

If it's such a clear violation of WP:BLP, then surely you can highlight the specific provision in the policy that is being violated. I'm interested to know. Absolutely, I agree that people can find this elsewhere on the site. However, hiding something this notable and relevant behind a link reeks of censorship. I find it difficult to accept that Mr. Santorum's article discusses in detail his hateful attacks on other people, but a response from a person against whom he directed such hate can't be included in the article. This is clearly POV, in my opinion. Jwkpiano1 (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I read WP:BLP and I didn't see anything that supports your claim that it violates WP:BLP. It doesn't meet the definition of an attack page. It doesn't violate any other rule as far as I can see. Could you cite the section of WP:BLP that you believe applies?

I suggest that you read WP:WHATISCONSENSUS. Consensus is not a majority vote. It's not even a vote. If one editor could cite Wikipedia guidelines that required something to be included in an article, and ten editors said it personally offended them and they just didn't like it, the consensus would be to include it.

So far we seem to have a consensus for including it. I think we should put it back in, and go to Dispute Resolution, probably WP:DRR/DRN. Could everybody summarize their positions for the Dispute Resolution procedure so that outsiders can easily understand you? --Nbauman (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Try getting the consensus at WP:BLP/N changed - that policy overrides any other consensus in such matters. I doubt you will succeedd, by the way. Collect (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Collect. I do not see any consensus here for including it. But given the BLP concerns this should not be included until BLPN forms a consensus that it can be included. So you should take it to BLPN. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus in WP:BLP/N. All I could find was several discussions, none of them with any conclusions. Could you link to the consensus you're referring to? --Nbauman (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a re-reading of what I actually wrote could help. But to clarify, I never mentioned any pre-existing consensus at BLPN. In fact I was clear about going to BLPN to form consensus. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

According to WP:WEIGHT, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint."

So the only issue is whether this description has been published in WP:RSs enough to make it a significant viewpoint. If many WP:RSs refer to it, it goes in. Many major publications didn't mention it because they have a policy of censorship. Wikipedia is not censored, so we would only follow the uncensored publications.

As far as I know, that's the only Wikipedia policy that applies here. Are there any other Wikipedia policies that apply? If so, please link to them and quote the relevant part. --Nbauman (talk) 02:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The primary policy which applies in this case is BLP. Collect told you so and many other editors have mentioned it abundantly in this and previous discussions. That you choose not to mention it once in your comments is an ample measure of the divide which exists between our opinions. As such I invite you once again to go to BLPN for a more comprehensive review since I have lost hope that we can reach an agreement on this talkpage. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

1. WP:BLP does not tell us to avoid this text. I am familiar with WP:BLP. In my reading of WP:BLP, I don't see anything that prevents the use of this phrasing. I asked you to cite the text of WP:BLP that prevents the use of this phrasing, and you have not done so. Therefore, I conclude that there is nothing in WP:BLP to support your argument. A vague uncited reference to WP:BLP is not a justified reason in Wikipedia for removing that text.

2. There is no consensus about this on WP:BLP/N. Similarly, you claim that there is a consensus on WP:BLP/N. I've read through the many pages of WP:BLP/N and couldn't find anything that supports your claim of consensus, or anything on the issue of keeping in the phrasing. There is discussion of other issues, such as whether to merge the neologism with the main article or keep it as a second article. I asked you to cite the text of WP:BLP/N that supports your argument, or demonstrates consensus on anything, and you have not done so. A vague uncited reference to WP:BLP/N is not a justified reason in Wikipedia for removing that text.

3. Therefore, you can't support your claims about WP:BLP and WP:BLP/N with citations. You can't support your claims that WP:BLP prohibits the text, and you can't support your claims that we have consensus (on anything).

4. You do not have a consensus. Consensus is formed by arguments based on Wikipedia policies, not statements of "I don't like it." Consensus WP:WHATISCONSENSUS requires us to "read and understand each person's arguments". It requires you to respond to our arguments. Merely repeating that WP:BLP requires it, without explaining where or why WP:BLP requires it, carries no weight towards consensus. Wikipedia policy WP:TALKDONTREVERT is that "The arguments 'I just don't like it' and 'I just like it' usually carry no weight whatsoever." Your arguments come down to, "I just don't like it."

5. We have a consensus to keep the text in. Several of us have given arguments for including it, the most important of which is WP:CENSOR. You have not responded to those arguments. You have given reasons, and we've given objections. You haven't responded to those objections.

6. If there is no consensus, we keep it in. Even if we didn't have consensus, you are violating WP policies by reverting it. Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" "This page in a nutshell: If the only thing you have to say about a contribution to the encyclopedia is that it lacks consensus, it's best not to revert it."

7. WP:CENSOR is a good reason for leaving it in.

Before we go to Dispute resolution, I ask you once again to cite the part of WP:BLP that prevents us from using this text. I ask you once again to cite the place in WP:BLP/N that reached consensus on this text.

For the record, I point out that you have not done so despite repeated requests. --Nbauman (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I have repeatedly corrected you on this point but you keep repeating this falsehood. You said: 2. ...Similarly, you claim that there is a consensus on WP:BLP/N. Can you provide a diff or quote the text where I claimed there is consensus at BLPN? Before I reply to your other points, let's clear this up. I expect you to acknowledge that you made an error. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 14:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

When I say "you", I'm referring to all the people who oppose keeping the text in. Collect said, "Try getting the consensus at WP:BLP/N changed - that policy overrides any other consensus in such matters." I wanted to know what he was referring to. He didn't tell me. --Nbauman (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you for the clarification. Now let's address the issue of BLP compliance. I am sure you realise that this definition is highly defamatory for this person. According to the BLP policy, use of unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or controversial material is not allowed. In this case the sources may be reliable, so the "poorly sourced" condition of BLP may not be satisfied. But there is also WP:UNDUE, in that undue emphasis is given in highlighting the minute details of the definition in the BLP. It is not as if this person is defined by this scatology so much that the reader's understanding of him will be impaired if we do not include this definition in all of its details. I think that repeating every minute detail of this definition is giving the scatological details undue weight and it is therefore non-compliant with NPOV. I know that you disagree with me, so again, let's take it to BLPN. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree the definition should be omitted here. WP:UNDUE is a compelling and valid rationale here, but paramount for me is that it is contrary to the aims of Wikipedia to promulgate victimization. WP:BLP explains that "...including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced.... Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." —Eustress ^talk 02:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

This is bordering on a perennial request that may need some sort of notification at the top of this page. The faux definition of a concocted word is not relevant to Rick Santorum's biography; an encyclopedia is not TMZ, a place that revels in the titillating. The article discusses the campaign itself and leaves the details to that sub-article, nothing more is needed here. Tarc (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

This clearly belongs in the text... the international press was full with it. Looking just a one single nation, here in Germany nearly all major newspaper reported about it. Trying to keep this out of the article is highly POV and significantly reduced the informational value of the article.91.39.94.175 (talk) 11:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

One question that I haven't seen asked is whether his "Google Problem" still exists. He's got so much other stuff that overrides that now, and obviously it is an "in joke" among those who know, but its a bit like Lolcats or Star Wars Kid. It *might* have been a problem when Santorum wasn't doing much else, but since his presidential campaign, it has fallen back in terms of prominence. -- Avanu (talk) 04:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

merge campaign article into parent

now that Santorum's campaign is over, Rick Santorum presidential campaign, 2012 should be merged here, imo -badmachine 18:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Why? Did it somehow become less notable now that he is no longer running? Tarc (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

This implies that the seperate article was little more than a POV Fork the entire time it existed. Arzel (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

If this is a serious discussion - I Oppose as it clearly was a notable campaign that would struggle to be covered in enough detail in his biography - If its snowing - we should close asap - because the article is an heightened traffic and it won't benefit our readers and shouldn't have to sit with a pointless merge template at the top of it . - Youreallycan 19:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• note - I have removed the merge template - no policy reason was given for the desire. - Youreallycan 19:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

smacks of recentism. i reckon it will get merged in time. :) -badmachine 20:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

"Smacks of recentism" ! - Well ...

• - Jon_Huntsman_presidential_campaign,_2012,
• - Herman Cain presidential campaign, 2012,
• - Michele Bachmann presidential campaign, 2012 and ....
• - Tim Pawlenty presidential campaign, 2012

don't appear to have been nominated for merges and some have been dropped out quite a while and some/all of their campaigns were far less notable than this one, - don't get me started on the pointedness of nominating this one immediately he suspended his campaign. Youreallycan 20:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose 1. Many older campaign articles never get "merged" - merging this one is not per any precedent on Wikipedia. 2. It is a long way from May to November. Collect (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

We've still got 2008 presidential campaign articles on candidates who didn't get their party's prez nomination. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral — Let History settle for a moment. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Suspend does not mean quit. It means suspend. See http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/03/what-does-suspending-mean/ -- Avanu (talk) 05:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Presidential campaigns are generally notable, and there's far too much information to merge back into the bio. AniMate 05:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: Santorum's campaign is no less notable in the Wikipedia sense on April 10 than it was on April 9. No presidential campaign that actually won a primary state—let alone 11—can be considered non-notable. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 11:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Notability is not temporary. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

News coverage of WP article

Interesting article on WP's coverage of the candidates. Presumably should go in the "this article was discussed in the news" template, but I can't view their module so I wouldn't know what to say (or whether/which other candidates it involves). Someone want to take a crack at it? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The module seems not to exist on that page. Try accessing the article here. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 07:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Multiple citations are lacking

• Note There are multiple claims in the article that are not backed up by ANY sources, much less reliable ones. I have tagged the article as its lacks sources, and also does not cite sources but titles in many references. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Off Topic: Request for Comment on Mitt Romney

I figure since Santorum has officially suspended his campaign that wiki editors that have followed the Santorum article can be good neutral voices on the discussion page of the Mitt Romney article, Mitt Romney was technically registered as a Democrat for a brief time. I suspect that at least one of the editors that refuses to compromise to any edit is biased in favor of Romney. Any feedback would be appreciated! K♪monkey@('_')@ _Talk⇉✌ 20:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Author ?

The article now opens describing him as author, attorney, and politician. I do not think he is an author, and his role as a political consultant should be mentioned too.93.96.148.42 (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 May 2012

Please change sentence Four of the Santorums' children appeared with their parents on Piers Morgan Tonight in January 2012, and said they were all glad to have seen Gabriel, and they hold a place in their hearts for their brother.

to The four eldest children appeared with their parents on Piers Morgan Tonight show January 20, 2012. Elizabeth, who was five, at the time of Gabriel's birth/death, said she was glad to have seen him, and that he holds a place in her heart.

Laynel55 (talk) 10:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done Could use a better source tho. Only found CNN's youtube channel in a quick search.TMCk (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Elimination of separate 'Controversies' section

This article seems to have had a separate "Controversies" section for a while now. This is a poor practice that is considered a violation of WP:NPOV and multiple other guidelines. In particular, back in 2007 a special effort was undertaken to rid all 2008 presidential candidates' biographical articles of such treatment — see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections/Archive 1#Status of "controversies" pages for the history of that effort. The same thing was done for all the 2012 contenders, but I guess this article got missed. Controversial matters should be discussed in chronology with everything else, where the proper context and weighting and balance and understanding can be maintained. Accordingly I have merged the two subsections in question into the subsections dealing with his Senate career, the time at which these things happened. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; criticism/controversy ghettoes are to be avoided. (Both supporters and opponents of Santorum can agree on that: for supporters, merging in the criticism makes it look smaller and less stark, and for opponents, this prevents it from being easily written off.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Creationist category

As there are no cites in the article making the claim that Santorum is a "Christian creationist" such a categotrisation is bartred by WP:BLP as an absolute. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Source provided. Please be mindful of 3RR as you're at the limit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The NCSE source says nothing about Santorum's personal views. I am removing the categorization again. StAnselm (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedian mediation required please

Recently, I have edited the material and adjusted some extraneous and repetitive information to the notes section, as is consistent with Elvis Presley or Bill Clinton. Additionally, I added some sources and information, and trimmed some of the repetitive details. An editor has disagreed with editing this page and has reverted valuable work. A discussion clearly is necessary to productively handle this revision. Any third parties are welcome. Thank you!--R2016 (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Public image

Just putting in my two cents as this seems to be the subject of a dispute here right now. I agree with the removal[3] of the section; Leno jokes are not "public image." I note some politicians and public figures have such sections, and some do not; there is no Public image section on the Joe Biden article, but the Sarah Palin article not only has such a section, there is an entire article for the Public image of Sarah Palin. Note the difference between the section there and the removed section here. On the main article for Palin, the section begins with Gallup poll information about the public's knowledge of her; her subsequent popularity and unpopularity in different segments of the electorate, the the effect her performance in the infamous Giffard interview affected the public's perception of her. No spanx comments - I'm thinking here of the sweater vest content, which might be worth putting in the article, especially since he sold them, but which was untied in any way to rises or drops in Santorum's public image or popularity. Yes, once one gets to the Public image of Sarah Palin article, which is a large article, there is a section on Appearance - which is tied directly to the $150,000 worth of clothes bought for her by the RNC and how that affected her public image. Now, I don't edit that article, and I'm not saying everything there is worth article space either. I am saying we might want to start from scratch, or nearly so, and see if we can't do a better job on the Public image section. Puppy is done - sorry for the long post - and looking forward to hearing feedback. KillerChihuahua 15:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

How does that make any sense? In Sarah Palin's case, parodies of her image on SNL with Tina Fey directly are associated with her image. How can you then say that one line about Leno's jokes, which I have references for, is not acceptable in this article? One line? It's not like I am advocating that we repeat any of Leno's jokes here or make this a top 10 list making fun of him. I don't know the exact statistics, but Leno's ratings reach millions of viewers, so a sustained comedy bit for weeks and months during his 2012 campaign could merit some impact on his public image is all I am saying here. If Leno was so irrelevant, why did Santorum accept an opportunity to come on the show and give Leno a sweater vest -- which is too trivial to put up here, but I just want to express the point. And the Sarah Palin section is a moot point; remember, I am just beginning the section now, and if someone wants to add Gallup polling on his image, that is not contradictory in any way to what I am doing. I have started the section explaining his image as a conservative, and I think we could add his popularity ratings and his ratings from conservative groups like the ACU no problem. Now, getting to the sweater vest. The sweater vest is indisputable. He wore it, he sold them, and he sold over $300,000 of them during the campaign. I know Jimmy Carter loved cardigans, but I have yet to hear of him popularizing them among his supporters. The fact that Santorum commented on the sweater vest and indicated that it was an endearing part of his image following a speech with Huckabee is 100% relevant information. It is not offensive or controversial, unlike the fact that Palin's attire cost the RNC $150,000 - here, Santorum and his supporters popularized and directly sold the apparel.

I have no issue working with editors who are open-minded, but deleting and deleting again is not helping. Please let me know what the problem is, but right now, I see nothing wrong. Thankyou--R2016 (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why you're responding to me with that; I have removed nothing from the article; I am letting you know what the problem is. KillerChihuahua 22:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP says that biographies should be conservatively written. In the case at hand, the fluff about jokes and sweater vests does not, IMO, improve the biography - which means you will need to gain WP:CONSENSUS for inclusion thereof. Collect (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Please read my response above a little more closely because 1) I am not making up fluff here and 2) I am keeping it conservative in size. In the case of Sarah Palin, there is an entire page dedicated to the SNL parodies. All I have here is one line - which again, represents months of an ongoing series of jokes Leno was making. That is not undue in scope or size, and is more than justified. I see Rick Perry's son poked fun of Santorum's sweater vests during the presidential primaries, absolutely making it a public topic of discussion. Now, I agree to keep it conservatively written, so a twitter mention by Rick Perry's son is too trivial for the page, but I have no doubt that even you will recognize the sweater vest as part of Santorum's image, right? The fact that Santorum sold the sweaters is very significant. Check online, you can see that they were sold on his campaign website. Just as we have information here explaining why the santorum neologism is among the top results for his name, we definitely have the need to explain why sweaters with Santorum's name appear on the Internet. Who knows, maybe in the future they will be collectables... Also, take into account the fact that Santorum was interviewed about the sweater vest and references back up the information on them. Now, I think what I've done is more than adequate. I still have not heard your position on this, and I feel it is more than fair that you state your case about what you would like here. What exactly is it that you want?--R2016 (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we have any duty to sweater collectors or of political memorabilia, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I don't see that it affected his "Public image" in any way that has been sourced. I don't mind one line about it appearing somewhere, but just as I think Jon Stewart of the Daily Show having a Muppet of Michael Steele, or Colbert using a ham with glasses to represent Karl Rove - schticks which went on for several years, not months - do not belong in their respective articles; I don't think Leno's routine on Santorum belongs in his article. Comics mock where they can, and politicians are fair game, no doubt - but that tells us nothing about the subject of this article. That Leno is watched by many belongs in his article; that his routine affected Santorum's popularity must be sourced, it cannot be conjecture upon your part as you say above "could merit some impact on his public image" - "could" is not good enough, I'm sorry. If we have a section on public image, it should be about his public image, not about humorists' routines which are not sourced as affecting the image of the subject in any way. KillerChihuahua 22:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

And noting that some articles are in bad shape does not mean we should follow their examples. In fact, it is a strong argument to protect this BLP. Collect (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Full or semi?? I don't get it... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Not using the Wiki-jargon here - just that we need editors to try getting BLPs into "fact territory" more, and "image territory" less, if anything. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know. If there has been extensive coverage of Santorum in relation to his image, then our article should note it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. But we should not conflate trivia with public image, nor comic's standup routines which had no verified effect on the politician's popularity. I think that might be what Collect meant by "fluff." KillerChihuahua 22:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Kai Ma blogger on Time

Her commentary on Dan Savage is not a reliable source for making a fact claim that Santorum "compared" homosexuality to bestialuity -- the best source, as noted a few times now, is Santorum's own words rather that Savage's opinion thereof. And since the references was specifically wrt same sex marriage, Ma's commentary clearly falls far short of the mark to be a source here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

New direction, heading EchoLight Studios

Rick Santorum becomes the CEO of EchoLight Studios to make family-valued movies. http://www.echolight.com/news/ "Santorum announced his new venture Saturday, June 22." — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

There needs to be a new Wikipedia page on EchoLight Studios since there is not currently one. I went on the website http://EchoLight.com/contact/ and mentioned that they might want to assist with their new WP page. Since it is the 4th of July today, we'll probably hear back tomorrow. Meanwhile, I could use some assistance to think about it. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I've haven't heard any word from EchoLight Studios; maybe later; maybe not. Not a lot of activity on this page now. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Go to the website of EchoLight Studios to see they have two movies coming to theaters and eight featured videos: http://EchoLight.com/films/ — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Treatment of merged and renamed schools on Wikipedia

One example of many: List of Carnegie Mellon University people does not distinguish which school each person attended. When schools merge, the remaining school is what the person is now an alumnus of. Jackson College is now listed as part of Tufts, etc. Collect (talk) 13:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Alexander Hamilton went to King's College - and the bio states "now part of Columbia University", etc. for as many cases as you need to accept that Penn State itself regards Santorum as an alumnus. Which shoild be dispositive. Collect (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Penn State Law vs. Dickinson

What's up? He attended Dickinson Law School. Why is this turning into a point of contention? "Penn State Law" didn't exist when he went to law school. Why would we want to suggest that he attended an institution that didn't then exist? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. It is misleading. This was already discussed and edited administratively back in February, 2012. (see here). CrazyPaco (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

And to address the reversion by Collect, who cited invalid WP:OSE reasoning in his edit description, in his given example "Carnegie Tech" should be used as an institutional name in instances referring to the school prior to the 1967 Mellon Institute merger. Not that CMU is a comparable or legitimate example, because Mellon Institute was not a college or university so it was not a merger of two separate degree granting institutions like in this case. CMU was an absorption by Carnegie Tech of a industrial institute and its relevant assets and it represents little more than a name change for degree granting and instructive purposes while, in contrast, the Dickson School of Law was a completely independent degree granting institution entirely separate and unrelated to its current parent university. Regardless, Wikipedia is to reflect precise and explicit information that "is free of vague generalities and half-truths that may arise from an imperfect grasp of the subject." CrazyPaco (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't imagine how anyone could regard "Penn State University" as misleading or non-NPOV, since that's where Santorum went to law school. On the other hand, there is an argument that "Dickson School of Law" could be regarded as both misleading and non-neutral. So it's pretty clear the former description should be used. Steeletrap (talk) 03:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC) [EDIT] I didn't realize that Dickinson had been an independent institution when Santorum attended. This complicates things a bit, and I'm much more hesitant to offer a POV (I can appreciate both sides of this). Steeletrap (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Frothy controversy

To User:Johnuniq: I looked in the archives for this page, and I did not see that any consensus emerged on inclusion/non-inclusion in this article of the definition of the neologism that dare not speak its name. It seems rather that an exhausted apathy set in with this 'compromise' in place. Out of respect for the exhaustion, if not the apathy, I won't seek to disturb the status quo. I hope that at some point it will be recognized that discussing the invention of this word, but requiring readers to click to another article to find out what the word means, is inherently silly. David.thompson.esq (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Religious legislation

I removed the following from the subsection "Religious freedom and ideological diversity";

In 2003, Santorum and fellow Republicans heard from Hillel, the Anti-Defamation League, and the Zionist Organization of America about combating anti-Semitism in American colleges. Santorum drafted language on "ideological diversity," which Race & Class magazine suggested was tantamount to "policing thought". Inside Higher Ed suggested that he was pandering to David Horowitz and had no deep-seated position on the legislation.

I can't tell from the text what it is talking about, and two of the three citations are wrong or expired. If anyone knows what this is about, please restore with corrected citations. Thanks!David.thompson.esq (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment: endnotes in this article

This article's lettered endnotes seem to be mostly extraneous/trivial information, and many lack a neutral point of view. They were all added starting Jan. 8, 2013 by the same user (User:R2106), who edited this article about 20 times during that month and never edited anything on Wikipedia before or since (which may explain the POV issues and the unusual use of endnotes). I propose that whatever is in these notes that is valuable should be integrated in the article, and the rest (which would be most of it IMHO) jettisoned. This article is already long and has a lot of subsections. If there is no objection within the next few days I'll start consolidating/pruning. David.thompson.esq (talk) 06:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Military service?

Resolved

Which branch of the military did Santorum serve in, and for how long? Timothy Horrigan (talk) 00:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

You do not seem to have a WP:POINT. Please see your talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Legislative proposals: passage?

I'd like to track down the end results of each of the legislative proposals, whether they passed or not. Does anyone know whether the fuel tax thing passed? I can't tell from researching it... David.thompson.esq (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)