Talk:Rick Santorum/Archive 1

message: I removed the Dan Savage blurb because he's just not particularly encyclopedic when it comes to Rick Santorum.  Google for "Rick Santorum" gets 58,900.  There are only 815 for "Rick Santorum" and "Dan Savage" (but you can get 6,320 if you combine with "Bill Clinton", 4,760 for "Howard Dean", 4,380 for John Kerry, etc.).  The presidental candidates (as the leading liberal figures in the US right now) had far far more coverage and relevance in the scheme of things.  Dan Savage is only worth linking if you want to make a POV statement and promote the neologism via Wikipedia.  His commentary got far less coverage and play than statements by Human Rights Campaign and other gay advocacy groups.  Daniel Quinlan 19:37, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)
- nice use of statistics to make a point.  Here's an alternative use of alternative statistics to make the opposite point:
Dan Savage and the Urban Dictionary definition of "Santorum" both appear in the top 5 google hits for "Santorum."  So there.  Dan Savage's definition is known to pretty much every gay person in the country.  It is relevant.  As such, I've re-added it under the heading of the Homosexuality Comments controversy.  It was a part of that controversy.   It is also icky, as such, I refer to the relevant article for details, with a warning.  I think that's fair.  I also think that anyone who isn't editing this article from the senator's staff office would agree.  If anyone expands on what I've added, and does so in a way that is nasty or gross, I support reverting to my version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.103.173 (talk) 05:10, October 28, 2006
**(a) Please sign your posts with ~~~~. (b) What's your source for it being "known to pretty much every gay person in the country"? (c) I don't agree, and I utterly loathe Santorum and all he stands for, with every inch of my being, so you can take your comment about the "editing from the senator's staff office" and coat it with your own santorum. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dan Savage's campaign to create the word santorum is described at Savage Love. --Uncle Ed 20:32, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dan Savage 

message: I was wondering why this rubbish was in VfD (my mistake...). Man, this is an encyclopedia not a black-list-of-those-who-said-something-against-my-"""ideas"""! I am sure Rich Santorum has done more things than saying those phrases. By the way, why getting SO annoyed at the comparison between gay relations with incest? This reminds me a lot of Skinner's and Levi-Strauss' studies on sociology and anthropology... In the end everything sums up to an Oedipus Complex... doesn't it? Please remove this article as soon as possible, or give an honest description of his WORK. Pfortuny 17:34, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free to contribute "an honest description of his WORK." Dpbsmith 02:13, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: Because gay sex has nothing to do with incest, and linking the two is merely an attempt to besmirch gay people. HTH. Andy Mabbett 12:04, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: Also: my remark on "please feel free to contribute" was sincere. The present article is IMHO not balanced, but it's a little bit difficult for me to correct it, since my only awareness and knowledge of Mr. Santorum is as the issuer of a stupid and offensive remark attacking gays. This is literally the only thing I know about him. I would welcome the inclusion of some intellectually honest balancing material, but I cannot provide it.  That must be done by Mr. Santorum's supporters. Certainly I think balance should be achieved by adding material, not removing existing material. Dpbsmith 16:56, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: JAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA

message: It seems like an interesting site... politician's views on every topic sliced and diced and conveniently pigeonholed... and a little rating at the bottom, based on their voting record, and verbal summary. It says, for example, "Rick Santorum is a moderate conservative."  Gotta look closer because scanning over the actual data I'm darned if I see the moderate part, but, there you go... Ted Kennedy rates as a "hardcore liberal."
The question I have is: does anyone know enough about ontheissues.org to know whether they'd generally be regarded as impartial? Dpbsmith 17:10, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: It's run by a community activist and web designer in Cambridge, Mass -- Jesse Gordon (http://www.jessegordon.com) -- who's a sort of libertarian-liberal (and I can't explain it any better than that), and I think that the ratings at the site reflect that -- I don't really consider it impartial myself, but it's a good resource for lots of info... -- BCorr ¤ Брайен  00:40, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do people know about [http://www.ontheissues.org/ ontheissues.org] ? 

message: I trimmed this from the intro, right after the note about him being the third ranking Republican in the Senate...
:...though he aspires to number two. 
This is pretty uninformative, and even a little confusing. What is the title of the number two position, and is it worth mentioning that an obviously ambitious person seeks more power? I'm only explaining this because it was in the introduction. AdamRetchless 17:33, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aspires to number two (introduction) 

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

message: Gets its own section.  The edit by 216.45.235.226 is reverted.  Santorum has made no comment indicating "[he] continues to leave all options open." patsw 02:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this article, he is doing just that. I still think it's unlikely that he will run, but it is not correct to say that he definitely will not run. Maximusveritas 16:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 2008 U.S. presidential campaign

message: Just for reference, 'intelligent design' is considered a theory.  It's not just a claim.  It's been around as a theory much longer than evolution has.     Even wiki calls it the "Intelligent Design Theory".Stanselmdoc 13:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I fully admit that calling it a "theory" is correct, and justified. One of the definitions of theory goes as loose as to allow a "hunch" to be a theory. 134.161.245.101 15:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intelligent Design 

message: On Apil 14, 2005 Santorum introduced the National Weather Services Duties Act of 2005 to "better serve the public". This legislation will bar the National Weather Service from "competing" with private entities by making it unlawful for the agency to publish user-friendly weather data on its website because it might "compete" with the offerings of companies like AccuWeather that repackage taxpayer funded NWS data and resell it.
First, does someone have a source for this?  It would just be kinda nice to have a source for it, because it's certainly something unusual.  And second, does anyone not see the POV in the way this is written?  Are the terms "better serve the public" and "compete" quotes from the act?  If not, the quotation marks absolutely have to go.  If so, it creates a bigger warrant for the source.  And I don't think I'm understanding the description of AccuWeather correctly.  Is it saying that AccuWeather repackages NWS data (and would this invalidate the AccuWeather corporation)?  If not, I think it should be worded more clearly (maybe with some commas or something).  If so, I think it should be worded differently (perhaps without the cynical "taxpayer funded" comment) so that it has a more neutral view of AccuWeather.  After all, AccuWeather doesn't really deserve to be bashed on Rick Santorum's article. Stanselmdoc 15:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the links, removed the POV, and summarized the pro and con. patsw 18:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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

message: IreverentReverend in his edit summary wrote "Blogs not acceptable links"  Where is that stated as policy?  I see links to blogs all over the Wikipedia.  patsw 15:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On a controversial article such as this one, it is pretty much standard to only use reputable links as sources. "Blogspot" and the blog in question did not look presentable, neutral, or any of the other standards of quality a link is typically put through.IreverentReverend 14:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the guideline or policy that applies?  In particular, what is the requirement that a link be neutral?  My impression of what is "standard" does not match yours. Hence, my request for a guideline or policy that supports your editing choice before I revert. patsw 16:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

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

message: Is it really necessary to have a huge paragraph explaining a conservative argument against gay marriage in this article?  I'm talking about the 5th paragraph in the "Controversy:Remarks about homosexuality" section.
Unless Santorum has made the argument himself, it seems unnecessary and out of place.  I don't want to cut it out if there are any objection, but I don't see how this warrants more than a single sentence.  Maximusveritas 01:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone had access to the Santorum's own position and summarized it, that would belong here. patsw 04:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Most conservative views can't be expressed in a single sentence.  This is often in contrast to the opposing view, which need only state that something or someone is "racist" or "homophobic" or what have you and the argument is over.  Which is essentially what we have here.  A direct quote from his book may be desirable but may not summarize the author's worldview in a nutshell.  The article is misleading as it stands now in that it implies there is an explicit right to privacy in the Constitution and that Santorum is accordingly opposed to the U.S. Constitution.  How can anyone opposed to the Constitution deserve re-election as a Senator?  My view is simply that it does not reflect well on Wikipedia for its articles on politicians of one party to read like talking points memos for the competing party.  If the article wasn't such an attack job in the first place it would be unnecessary to provide a riposte.  In any case, I could provide sources and that still wouldn't satisfy jpgordan because he has an unspecified but very real blacklist of sources that are "ipso facto" unreliable.  Hence I'll just give up here.Bdell555 09:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  homosexuality - the other (conservative) perspective 

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

message: The article says "In September of 2004, Santorum stated his intention to run for United States Senate Republican Whip in 2006, but he lost by a one-vote margin."
How did he lose (past tense) an election to be held in 2006?
--Dickius 21:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost Whip Election in 2006? 

message: Gang of Seven content and description comes directly from Rep. John Boehner's House website (http://johnboehner.house.gov/bio.asp).  I disagree completely.
:That is one of the reasons it is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Please do not plagiarize. It is also opinionated, since it is the congressman's own words. My understanding is the "drug sales in the House post office" thing is based on an off-hand comment by Newt Gingrich which was never followed up. Rhobite 15:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What does that mean? If someone wants to discuss the house takeover that's fine, as long as they use their own words and cite a less opinionated source than a Republican congressman's website. Rhobite 17:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gang of Seven 

message: This was a controversial issue a few years ago, and don't expect that to have gone away.  With that said, as gross as Savage's campaign is, it's also notable to the Senator's article, as it's the #1 google hit for his last name, and the #2 google hit for the Senator's full name.  The American Dialect Society recognized the term, and santorum "Dan Savage" gets 26,500 hits.  Finally, to preempt arguments about ickiness, we don't censor Wikipedia for children.  In fleshing out the section, I tried to hit all the pertinent details while being as brief as was warranted.  Regards, JDoorjam     Talk 00:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue has gone away. Outside of Savage's readership and a handful of immature Internet users, this is not a well-known word. It has nothing to do with the senator Rick Santorum, and it's already properly covered in Savage's article. Please keep it out of this article. Rhobite 21:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, I went to prove you wrong and... couldn't.  Upon review, there really is no metric by which I can show that little-s santorum is notable enough to put in here (though most of what I said above still stands in regards to its being able to stand on its own elsewhere in the Wiki).  Savage is mentioned as a critic of Santorum's stances earlier in the article; that's probably sufficient.  In case this comes up again, the best argument against inclusion is the fact that googling " "Rick Santorum" homosexuality" gets about 20 times as many hits as " Rick Santorum" "Dan Savage" ", or even " "Dan Savage" santorum".  Cheers, JDoorjam     Talk 21:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It is significant but not to the subject of this article.  It's a word whose significance is limited to Dan Savage and google bombing. patsw 05:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Elaboration on Dan Savage's "santorum" campaign

message: Hi all.  I removed this link because it's poor form and reflects badly on wikipedia.  Is there some reason we would keep it?  I don't see the content this link brings to the article.   Monkeyman 21:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, that's way too general.  How, exactly is it poor form, and how does it reflect badly on Wikipedia? JDoorjam     Talk 21:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How does this link contribute to the article other than to take a cheap shot at him?  Monkeyman 22:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't take a cheap shot at him as much as it documents a notable cheap shot at him.  But if you'll scroll up one Talk page subject, you'll see that I've already conceded it's not notable enough to be here. Cheers, JDoorjam     Talk 22:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: spreadingsantorum

message: I'm in favor of placing a very brief and nonjudgmental explanatory note regarding the slang use of "santorum" somewhere at the end of Rick Santorum's entry. This recently appeared in one of Dan Savage's columns:
Dear Dan Savage: I was flattered to hear that you and your readers had picked up our reference to santorum in the Economist, but I just wanted to disagree with—or hope to disagree with—your reader who ventured that they were unusual in reading both Savage Love and the Economist. I hope very much they are not. Although nonreaders often think of us as a conservative magazine, we've actually always been socially highly liberal, whether on immigration, gay rights, or many other things, including favouring the legalisation of drugs. But you were right: It is not only gay activists who use the term santorum in that way. Maybe being edited in London explains why we got that wrong.
Bill Emmott, Editor
The Economist, London
I tend to think that the slang term is just barely notable/common enough that those who have encountered it and may have been confused by it ought to be able to find a very short explanation somewhere on this page, even if those readers have never heard of Dan Savage.
*Right, so you or someone put in an entire section about it. We've discussed this before and we'll keep it out. It's not even a "slang term". Figure out a way to make, as you say, a "very short explanation", and it might be ok. A pointer to Savage Love or something like that might be ok. But not 150 words. "See Savage Love for Dan Savage's use of the term 'santorum'" should suffice. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After seeing the discussion here, I'm deferring and deleting my addition re the neologism story.  I do think it merits at least a cross reference. --EECEE 18:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "santorum" mentioned in The Economist 

message: I added the below entry to the article to balance out a similar entry for Patty Murry D-WA:
::A September 2004 poll by the The Washingtonian reported, rather surprisingly given his educational and political credentials, that Santorum tied for first place with Democratic Senator Patty Murray of Washington for the title of No Rocket Scientist (also referred to as Dimmest Bulb) as voted on by top Capitol Hill staff (see []).
This started an edit war, that I decided to let drop, on Patty Murray.  Since it was removed and no longer appears on that page, I was going to drop it here as well.  Before removing, though, I wanted to get some input.  I find it odd that it remained on Santorum without a problem (for that matter it was edited and improved!).  --Geneb1955 23:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No Rocket Scientist

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

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

message: Why shouldn't the double meaning of the word "santorum" appear anywhere in his entry? I don't think it should be a major part of his entry, but it ought to at least be mentioned -- mainstream media outlets have alluded to it, so it's not like it's some secretive underground thing.
:Cite credible sources, and its mention in the article won't bother me. President Lethe 03:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems this is already discussed in multiple other places at this Talk page. Well, I've made my view known. President Lethe 03:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of "santorum" as sexual term

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

message: I put a weasel word warning up, to remind editors that we're trying to remove statements like "some believe" and "many say" and "widely believed" etc from articles.  They're generalizations and need to be more specific. This article includes MANY weasel words. 
Further....where are half the citations in this article?  It's one thing to have weasel words, but to not even cite the places the statements come from?  Come on...this article needs serious help. Stanselmdoc 19:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of rushing to slap a bunch of templates on the article, how about contributing some the cites yourself? Otherwise it's just looks like partisan nitpicking and trying to mitigate criticism, a conclusion some may leap to since it was largely criticisms that you applied the citation templates to. Use of the templates is a last resort, not a first. FeloniousMonk 20:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: I am not able to find the discussion about the need for that template on this talk page and it is one hell of an ugly template to start an article off with. I am removing the template. Please discuss the weaseling here instead of playing the tagging game. 67.40.197.111 00:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing npov templates without a good reason is generally inadvisable. You might have missed the discussion in this section. If you are an established Wikipedian, please log in when editing, as your contributions look suspiciously like sockpuppetry otherwise. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 16:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|weasel}} removal 

message: :These two sentences - 
He is widely believed to be one of the weakest incumbents in the Senate, due to the unpopularity of the President and of the emerging candidacy of the son of former Pennsylvania governor, Bob Casey. Some also believe that he may be too conservative for Pennsylvania, which is a swing state that has not voted for a Republican presidential candidate since 1988.
:should really be cited.  First, the sentences include weasel words (widely believed and some also) that could easily be changed. The sources I have found haven't mentioned anything about Santorum being "widely believed to be one of the weakest incumbents" (with the exception of an aids awareness site that is clearly POV).  I've found things that I could change the two sentences to, but I wouldn't want to make any changes without asking first. Stanselmdoc 21:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already added a cite for the second sentence:. The first sentence is a point raised in a number of articles I've read today, so finding a cite is not a problem. FeloniousMonk 21:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now added a cite for the first sentence: FeloniousMonk 21:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks good Stanselmdoc - thanks. Sorry about losing your grammatical edits eariler. FeloniousMonk 03:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about some source for this? 

message: it's something of a folklore around western pennsylvania that when his son gabriel was stillborn, he took the corpse home for his children to hold and kiss. i've found a few sources indicating that something along these lines occured. i didn't spot this in the article already, so how do you guys feel about a brief little mention of this, or at least the ensuing rumour? (edit- here's a google, but it's largely blogs)Joeyramoney 05:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that the "folklore" you're talking about was actually written about by the Santorums and is in fact already mentioned in the article under the "Biography" section.Stanselmdoc 13:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: eww, i didn't know it was that real. i thought it was a semi-myth. Joeyramoney 05:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the dead fetus incident 

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

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

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

message: Who else thinks Ricky is sexy, maybe we should get some nudes?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.201.115.69 (talk • contribs) 2006-11-09T02:26:33  (UTCUTC)
:Please observe decorum. Talk pages are not intended for chatting. This section will be refactored to the archives in 12 hours. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 10:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sexy

message: Substituted at 21:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment