Talk:Rick Santorum/Archive 2

message: I disagree with the most revert to my changes.  First, I added the citations missing tag because I note at least 3 items that need citations on the page.
I added the verify source tag because someone claimed someone else had made a statement without any data.  This definitely needs the source verified.
Finally, I reverted the changes made regarding polling data by 128.255.44.165 because that area should offer an overview perspective rather than looking at just one poll, and because it the statement "internet poll" was confusing and misleading.
-Ultima Designs 20:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations and Polling Data 

message: I have removed this unsightly box from the article. For an article with, currently, 51 footnotes and several external links this is a completely unwarranted template. It is, furthermore, unencyclopedic and unhelpful to the reader, and insulting to the editors of this article who have been unusually dilligent in furnishing citations and conforming to WP:CITE and WP:FOOT. As of this revision, there are three instances if  in the article. One is about remarks not made by Sen. Santorum, one about an asserted fact about a school, and the third about contributions to Santorum's campaign. These are all in principle verifiable from reliable sources (though currently unverified), so these three citations can be furnished without playing the cleanup template tagging game. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 10:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unjustified use of {{tl|citations missing}} 

message: The lead section should really be a summary of the most important things about Santorum.  I just edited it in order to move relatively unimportant details like his committee assignments and the Green Party ruling down to the body of the article. Maximusveritas 05:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead Section too long 

message: It seems to me that the person who wrote this article was annoyed about Rick Santorum's views on homosexuality. Does anyone agree that this author is rather biased? I think it should be edited to take away this impression. Chavila 01:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article should report Santorum's stated views.  It should also report that many people are annoyed about those views, but it should not take sides as between Santorum and his critics.  The section as it now stands doesn't seem to me to depart from that standard by being biased against Santorum.  If anything, it's unbalanced in his favor, at least in terms of the space allocation.  Can you identify a specific passage that seems to you to be biased?  Better you, can you suggest any specific edits that you think would take away any bias while not depriving the reader of valid factual information? JamesMLane t c 16:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objectivity? 

message: I have returned a link to the Dan Savage interview deleted by Flcelloguy. With the election less than a month away, and the interview being very much about election strategy, especially implication of Sen. Santorum's campaign funding Green Party candidates, I found it quite interesting, and not as the deletion edit summary describes: "does not contribute greatly to article." Let's err on the side of letting readers, and voters, decide. CApitol3 22:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) The revertion of the external link was in no way motivated by POV; I have been committed to NPOV and am dedicated to aggressively removing inappropriate links on articles per the the external links policy. I saw this addition on my watchlist, looked at the site, and deemed it not appropriate, and thus removed it. I did not feel that this link was appropriate for several reasons. First, it does not add significantly to the article, a general rule of thumb for external links. Keep in mind that the article should be about Rick Santorum, not about the election. Though the election may be significant in the article, the general focus of the article should still be about the person. Second, the site seems to be more of a blog of an editorial columnist of the University of Pennsylvania's newspaper publication rather than an actual article or formal interview. Blogs, in general, are not reliable sources and should not be linked from articles unless mandated. (See WP:EL). Thirdly, I did not feel that the site and interview contained material significant to Rick Santorum. The interview discussed the election, not the person, and it was not solely dedicated to the person and offered few, if little, new material. Finally, the interview was also with what I thought seemed like a columnist with little or no national or state impact. There are indubitably countless interviews, opinion pages, and editorials about a statewide politician; what distinguishes this one from the rest? Thus, I felt like the link was not appropriate and removed it. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: P.S. I don't understand what you mean by letting voters or readers decide. We should always err on the side of policy and the good of the encyclopedia, and I feel that the external link is not significant. THanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, first off, the link is still included, as I have not reverted your reversion. Can I also politely encourage you to follow civility more? Acts such as copying my signature and using "sweety" can often be interpreted as being patronising, and while I'm sure you didn't mean it to be like that, I would encourage you to not do so to avoid any misinterpretation. That being said, I adamently disagree with your conclusions. I have pointed out several times above why the link should not be included, according to policy. The link appears to be from a blog (i.e. page with regularly updated entries in blog format), which are discouraged from inclusion according to external links policy. The link also does not deal directly with the subject of the article, dealing only with the recent election. Though the election certainly is pertinent in the person's article, having an external link not used as a reference that deals only with the election and does not offer significant additions to the article is not beneficial. Also, the link also does not merit mention. I reiterate - there are countless interviews, opinion pages, and editorials regarding politicians. Why is this one significant? Finally, could I also ask you stop inferring that this debate centers around (my) POV? The only thing I am motivated by in this debate is to adhere strictly to Wikipedia policies about whether the link should be included or not. I have demonstrated my dedication to NPOV on Wikipedia, and do not appreciate you attempting to imply my actions are motivated from POV. Thanks. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see Jpgordon has left a note on your talk page; I had requested him to take a look and offer a third opinion, as he had recently edited the page yesterday. Barring any further objections or replies, I'll go ahead and remove the link soon. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of Dan Savage interview link 

message: Can someone add this to the article?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.229.252.115 (talk) 09:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lord of the Rings Analogy 

message: The simple fact that senior Senator Arlen Specter's article (someone who has served since 1981) is trifling compared to this one is indicative of many a liberal Wikipedian taking hours upon hours to rake muck, to editorialize every quote, and to spin the gist before the November elections. A POV tag could so easily be slapped on this garbage article, but as we all know, it would get bullied off by a swarm of conscripted editors and their administrative commissars. (Sure drop an AGF, but it surely doesn't apply when the article is already a crock.) My point? You aren't fooling anyone. Haizum 13:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Haizum. I have felt the very same way, but from the other direction (please note above my link to the Dan Savage interview being removed). I suggest the reason senior Senator Arlen Specter's article does not wreak of controversy is because the man's agenda does not. He has not positioned himself as a major change agent. Senator Santorum has. It's no stretch to say Sen. Santorum has gone on the attack against homosexuals. A very fragile, brittle attitude of the extreme right is revealed by their sheer astonishment that a group they attack actually returns fire. Like my dad always said "you stick your hand in a hornets' nest, your gonna get stung. Biographies of living people here on Wiki are pretty much as controversial as the subject. CApitol3 14:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haizum - You might want to reread WP:Civil and Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and consider whether the following words of yours are consistent with those policies:  swarm of conscripted editors and their administrative commissars.  John Broughton  |  Talk 02:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've considered it and I've decided that the slant in this article is intentional -- in fact, I already said that. Haizum 02:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then either you haven't read them or you don't understand them. You are supposed to always be civil and supposed to always assume good faith. By definition, if you are claiming people are intentionally damaging an article, you aren't assuming good faith. If you really want people to listen to you, explain what's wrong without trying to claim people have a sinister motive. Nil Einne 13:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV All Over the Place 

message: Remove some weasel word comments both for and against Santorum. Also using quotes from his political rival as a documentation source seem less then ethical. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_words
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.65.206.180 (talk • contribs) 
:Hmm - no, that isn't what you actually removed are quotes from the Boston Globe and a polling organisation.  Guettarda 19:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New additions 

message: Several pieces critical to Santorum were all over the place. Put them together over the contra heading. Added the voting record as its neutral and and clear fact based.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sheepdog tx (talk • contribs) 15:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaned up a little 

message: I reverted 's deletion of a substantial amount of information from the article.  In addition to deleting material, s/he added information about votes:
:08/03/06
:S.AMDT.4878 to S.843 - Combating Autism Act
:08/01/06
:S.3766 - A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a tax credit for donations to non-profit scholarship organizations and educational improvement organizations.
:07/25/06
:S.3726 - Railroad Retirement Technical Improvement Act of 2006
:07/25/06
:S.3720 - Farm and Ranch Land Protection Flexibility Act of 2006
:07/13/06
:S.3657 - A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow bonds guaranteed by the Federal home loan banks to be treated as tax exempt bonds.
:07/11/06
:S.AMDT.4575 to H.R.5 - The Homeland Security Appropriations Act
:06/23/06
:S.3564 - Border Security First Act of 2006
:06/22/06
:S.3558 - National Hepatitis B Act
:06/21/06
:S.3551 - Tylersville Fish Hatchery Conveyance Act
:06/15/06
:S.CON.RES.102 - Senator Santorum Condemns French Honoring of Convicted Murderer of Philadelphia Police Officer
IMO we don't need information on every vote he made in the last few months, and this isn't typical of articles about politicians.  Thoughts?  Guettarda 20:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Votes 

message: Is there some sort of confusion over the purpose of the  template?  Powers T 14:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever confusion there is, there is no reason to have a multiline comment screaming "ATTENTION! ATTENTION!" in the source. I have shortened the comment and would recommend removing it entirely. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 10:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it worked, didn't it?  Powers T 14:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  redirect 

message: Fun to watch the studious attempts here to defend Santorum even post loss. Yep, he's entitled to the title until the end of this session. Ditto for a member from Ohio presently in jail.  Santorum lost, he has a successor. And mention of his defeat here is constitutional (rememebr that!?), even wikifiable. CApitol3 03:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh!  who will protect us from sex with dogs now :(
*I figure we'll need to do a lot of cleanup later this week on articles like this... --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lend a hand with the deck chairs 

message: Ok, I will explain this because it seems that some people just don't understand what happens after an election. When an elected official i.e U.S Senator loses his/her reelection bid they are not immediately stripped of the position. First it takes time for the vote count to be certified and the winner and new Senator or official to get settled in. Once the new Senator or elected official is sworn in usually at the beginning of the next year. Then and only then are they the former Senator etc. So stop putting Rick Santorum was the junior Senator because he is still the junior Senator from Pennsylvania until Bob Casey is sworn in. Jayorz12 07:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Term 

message: http://willdo.philadelphiaweekly.com/archives/110806santorum.jpg  --Xyzzyplugh 03:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture from concession speech 

message: It is important to state the current state of events, not what will happen soon. As such, the Senator is still in office, and has not been succeeded yet. Stealthound 20:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infoboxes 

message: Please consult this source before changing the "Succeeded by" sections of the article. This is the official position of wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, predicting what will happen in the future. As the Senator is still in office, the article should be left as it is. Thank you, Stealthound 08:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying that Santorum is succeeded by Casey does not violate this. This is not speculation, as the election has been conceded. To try to say Santorum is the incumbent is untrue.--Rosicrucian 16:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  Santorum is the incumbent.  When the Senate gets together later this month, it will be Santorum voting, not Casey.  Therefore, Casey has not succeeded him yet.  Something could happen either to Casey or Santorum in the interim, changing everything (viz., if Santorum left his seat before his term expires, the current governor could appoint a temporary successor, as one example). -- Sholom 17:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you and do not see what the problem is. A lot of editors have been changing the incumbents to the newly elected, not-yet-sworn-in officials. You have just agreed with me. Stealthound 18:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently it states Santorum is the incumbent with a footnote; I would be amenable to it changing to say Casey with a footnote explaining he has not yet taken office.  Our priority is being as informative as possible, not sticking within the literal grammar of a template (which we can change to say "successor" if it's really an issue, though I'd prefer leaving it standardized). JDoorjam     Talk 19:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:NOT#CBALL|Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball]] 

message: I suggest that the inclusion of the feces etc description should be removed to comply with the Wikipedia List of Guidelines: Profanity, not because it's profane but because it's obscene. I submit that anyone who really wants to know the definition of "santorum" when used in this sexual way can click on the Santorum Controversy link or the link on the disambiguation.
Is there a consensus on this? I consider this an apolitical suggestion-- I simply worry that this encyclopedia entry contains a needlessly obscene description. NapoleonicStudent 10:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jpgordon is right. Please continue removing these references and thanks in advance for your dilligence. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 15:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that Santorum is a controversial figure and I see half a dozen acts of vandalism in the last week alone (although granted it was an election week), shouldn't this article be locked to new and anonymous users? NapoleonicStudent 19:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ehh, nah.  Half a dozen acts of vandalism in a week isn't nearly major enough to fret about terribly.  Protection should only be done in case of vandalism emergencies, which we haven't reached. JDoorjam     Talk 20:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obscene? 

message: Is there a single citation for Santorum being a traditionalist Catholic? I've yet to find a single source labeling him as such. I won't remove the categories but this seems iffy. Traditionalist Catholic is not synonymous for conservative Catholic.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by GBVrallyCI (talk • contribs) 15:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  traditionalist Catholic 

message: Regarding the section "Declaration Regarding WMD in Iraq".  The section is about the senator's declarations specifically, so the information regarding the very general facts of the situation are out of place.  Not only that, but they strike a deliberate dischord with the facts recorded directly regarding what he said.
I dislike that frothy fuck as much as the next guy, so I'm not going to pretense complete objectivity.  But I'll acknowledge that the entire section stands as a pretty strong negative towards his credit as a competant and well-intentioned senator--he is a controvercial figure in a controvercial time.  So framing is the real problem for NPOV, and so the seemingly irrelevant information regarding the broader picture does serve some relevance.
So the question is, should this article be about Santorum or the controversy surrounding him?  If the controversy, then the uncited crap following the story should be reworded and cited. spetz:68.44.192.170 19:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The section probably shouldn't even be there, and it looks like a sanitized, overly wordy compromise that places too much credence to a small event. Patstuarttalk|edits 02:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant issues? 

message: In the categories section of this page, it has Rick Santorum listed as a Knight of Malta.  In the article, it said nothing about it so I will assume that he was not, and delete this.--Freiberg, Let's talk!, contribs 00:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that, according to this newsletter (PDF) from the American Association of the Order of Malta (see page 8, or the Google cached version), he is. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 00:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: My sincere apologies.  I had just been vandal-fighting (this was clearly vandalism0, and I wasn't thinking right.  I also thought that if he was a Knight of Malta, it would have been listed in the article.  It won't happen again. --Freiberg, Let's talk!, contribs 23:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Knight of Malta?" 

message: As has been discussed ad nauseum (see archives for illumination on the topic), this term has been shown not to have gained currency, other than links to it by those who chose to mock Rick Santorum. This is hardly encyclopedic. Just because a well-known person calls another well-known person a name in a political attack, and the call is taken up by bloggers, doesn't mean it needs to be put into an encyclopedia article. This appears to me to be a violation of Wikipedia:Coatrack. It is not appropriate to have linked to Rick Santorum's biography.
The following should be removed from the article:
:In addition to the criticism of Santorum's views on homosexuality, there was an effort, led by American humorist and columnist Dan Savage, to coin "santorum" as a sexual slang word in English. [59] Since its initial appearance in 2003 in Savage's column Savage Love, this word has been used in its slang sense, but its currency and status as a neologism is unclear.
For those who want to find it, the separate article can be found by those who want to look it up in Santorum controversy.
DavidBailey (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be bizarre for Rick Santorum not to mention the term that was named after him.  The term remains notable, so it remains relevant. Spotfixer (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Placing slurs into BLPs is not a good thing in general. Collect (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you actually know what a slur is. Spotfixer (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Why? - Schrandit (talk) 02:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's a slur to mention it in the Rick Santorum article, then it's obviously not an acceptable article.  If it's an acceptable article, then it can't be a slur to mention it in the Rick Santorum article.  AnyPerson (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Right.  So long as the article for the term exists, the article for the person it's named after must link to it, else it would be an orphan. Spotfixer (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The slur wetback merits an article and yet it does not merit mention in the pages of those it describes.  Why can't the slur about Mr. Santorum be the same way? - Schrandit (talk) 03:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the slur was created in order to denigrate one specific person.  The article about that person should mention it.  AnyPerson (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I'm headed off to disambiguate the obamanation article into the book and the term coined "in honor" of Barack Obama.  Then I'm free to link to it from Barack Obama's article. As I understand this discussion, that's not only warranted but also quite necessary in order to have a thorough and fair encyclopedia. 68.104.176.42 (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

text: The term wetback was created in order to denigrate one specific race.  Does an article about that race need to mention it? - Schrandit (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is comprehensively refuted below, but I'll add one more point: Theodore Roosevelt does indeed link to teddy bear, which makes sense because the latter are named for the former.  This is precisely the relationship between the two religious Ricks and the Savage's coined terms.  As all of your arguments have been trivially refuted, I suggest you either accept the presence of these terms or go file an RfC.  Best of luck. Spotfixer (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Actually, yes, it probably should.  AnyPerson (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I've reverted the change that made it redirect to the dab; consensus has been for it to come here instead. Mike Christie (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgive me if I am mistaken but hasn't previous consensus held that the word "Santorum" should redirect here? - Schrandit (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's correct.  See Talk:Santorum.  The change I made restored the consensus decision. Mike Christie (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I was barely aware of Rick Santorum's existence until seeing a clip of the guy mention his "google problem", but I've heard the term "santorum" used many times. It should be mentioned in the first couple paragraphs that the term is based on his name. It has to be the most notable fact of his biography. 96.57.9.142 (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "santorum" term 

message: A question about the recent re-wording -- there is a legitimate question as to whether the evidence cited for usage of "santorum" are bona fide evidence.  I know this is controversial, so I thought I'd post here rather than edit, but I'd like to remove the assertion that the term has been used.  Wiktionary has not found any reliable evidence of usage, for example.  Mike Christie (talk) 01:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no question that the word has been used (I heard it on an episode of Veronica Mars!), the only question is how and how much it has been used, and the article makes that ambiguity clear by saying, "but its currency and status as a neologism is unclear." --Samuel Wantman 08:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we cite that episode?  That would be very valuable.  Mike Christie (talk) 09:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any such citation should already have been added to Santorum (sexual slang). I am surprised it hasn't. I also don't see why the deleted words "occasionally" and "by writers in English" were deemed to violate NPOV. What POV do you think they were pushing, save perhaps a bias for clinical specificity? — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 10:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that the use of the word has spread through the gay community around the world.  I have no specific knowledge that it has or hasn't been used by speakers in any other language.  I think it would be very difficult to determine that no writers of other languages had used the word, so I removed the phrase "by writers in English".  The "occasionally" sounded to me like it was trying to downplay the success of Savage's efforts to get the word used with its new meaning, in other words, it sounded like it was implying "on rare occasions".  As a member of the gay community, I suspect the opposite is true.  It seems to be widely used for its new meaning because there was no other word and the new word was so politically juicy (so to speak).  But, because of the nature of the new definition this is something that is very difficult to document.  So rather than make any judgement about its currency, I thought it best to remove the "occasionally".  As it reads now, it makes no assesment of how often it is used, which seems the most NPOV. -- Samuel Wantman 09:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW, The Veronica Mars use is mentioned in the santorum article, as is a use from The Simpsons. --Samuel Wantman 09:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you cite the use of the word santorum in non-English languages? Difficulty of finding such citations should not obviate the need for them, and indeed might indicate that the word isn't used by non-English speakers. Remember that WP operates on the principle of verifiability, not truth. I'll re-instate the note that it is an English word now, as all the citations so far are in English. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 16:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, WP:BLP. (In particular, WP:BLP#Critics.) The purported definition of the slang term is not essential to the notability of the subject (it has always been much more closely associated with Dan Savage than with Rick Santorum), and, by its very nature, any representation of the slang term amounts to denigration of the subject of this article. The term is presented in its proper context of a political protest in santorum. There have been other discussions in the past, but you will need to scan the history of various talk pages. (User:Mike Christie was a participant in most of them, so you might ask him to elaborate.) — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 16:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As funny as it is, and perhaps few deserve to be mocked more than Santorum, there is a disambiguation for the word and the article on the sexual term gives an explanation to its origins (i.e. the political criticism of Santorum and Dan Savage). Belabouring the point in this article violates WP:BLP. Will the word live on? Will Rick Santorum always be tied to it (i.e. will his obituary mention it)? Who knows? WP:CRYSTAL applies here. Anything more is blatant POV. Freshacconci 14:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Nevertheless, I just today looked for a wikipedia explanation of this term as I had heard it and wondered if there was any greater weight to it.  It's only now that I saw the Dan Savage/actual senator connotation.  My exposure to the term indicated neither of those elements.  Either a disambiguation page should be very specific, or the point deserves to be addressed on this page. 208.75.98.1 (talk) 02:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewording on Savage's coinage 

message: This section incorrectly reads: "The specific weapons [Santorum] referred to were chemical munitions dating back to the Iran-Iraq War that were buried in the early 1990s." In fact, these munitions were actually found in various different locations in small numbers. Some were "improperly destroyed" (presumably excavated from pits where the Iraqis had attempted to destroy them in 1991). Rusted shells were also found abandoned along rapidly shifting Iran-Iraq battlefield lines. Some unmarked munitions had been misplaced in conventional storage bunkers -- many were completely empty. These five-hundred or so munitions were described as "inert" and incapable of being reconditioned during a June 2006 U.S. House Armed Services Committee hearing. David Kay was particularly scornful of Santorum's claims.  smb 11:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Declaration regarding WMD in Iraq 

message: I think it is inappropriate to include personal information about a former Santorum staffer on the page.  I think the article's point can be made without this information.  Obviously, this guy no longer works for the Senator, so I don't see how what he does in private remains relevant, except as a way to embarrass the staffer by trying to paint him as a hypocrite.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.30.103 (talk) 03:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If Santorum made public statements about the matter, it certainly is relevant to Santorum. Gamaliel (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert Traynham 

message: In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) 
* "forbes%com" :
** 
** 
DumZiBoT (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 

message: One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Some of this material was copied from these URLs: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06286/729698-177.stm, http://www.postgazette.com/pg/06202/707588-177.stm, http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07103/777609-28.stm, http://www.yourpennhills.com/pennhillsprogress/article/santorum-campaign-no-county-tax-break http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07180/798038-85.stm and http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06300/733425-177.stm and introduced in these edits:  and . Additional was introduced here, replicating these sources: http://www.slate.com/id/2277/ and http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06295/732138-192.stm.
Please note that citing a source is insufficient to allow extensive copying of material from sources per our non-free content guidelines. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problems removed 

message: I have started a discussion at the BLP noticeboard about this article, santorum (sexual neologism), and santorum that editors here may wish to join. Mike Christie (talk – library) 10:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP noticeboard discussion 

message: Sen. Santorum hosted an episode of Today's Issues where he explains his views on lawmaking in contrast to Shariah law. In the March 24th episode  Santorum explains that it is the duty of Americans to change our laws to comport with God's law. Quote:
:Jesus said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's" and that huge piece of wisdom has really set the course for western civilization where you have civil laws and have civil penalties - we exact justice in a civil fashion - and then we have higher laws, we have God's law. Now our civil laws are supposed to comport with God's laws but sometimes they don't, and so it is always the obligation of those, for example, the issue of abortion - the civil law does not comport with God's law, in my opinion and I think the opinion of many people in this country and it is our obligation to continue to try and change that law. We have to live under the civil law, we have to obey that law because it is the civil law but we need to continue to try to change it to make sure that these laws, the laws our country, comport.
Would you agree that this is an important enough political statement to warrant being on his Wikipedia page?--TheAlmightyGuru (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I fear that you are using OR to make a claim which is clearly not in the quote furnished.   Collect (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawmaking 

message: I reverted an unexplained removal of content (including a reference). The removal left a paragraph that mentioned an opinion column but said nothing about the contents. My revert was again reverted with the comment that I should take it to the talk page, which I am happy to do. So, I see no reason to mention the opinion piece without context. Comments?Sjö (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The opinion had zero valid relevance to a BLP, in my opinion.  There are thousands of columns with such opinions abot people - on all sides of every issue.  Naked opinions are generally not used in BLPs unless they show specific relevance to the person and his biography.   Cheers.   Now let's see how relevant this specific opinion is to other editors.    "I'd remind you this is the same Senate leader who recently likened Democrats fighting to save the filibuster to Nazis. Collect (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As I see it, the paragraph is hardly notable, and as you say there are BLP issues. I won't mind if you remove the paragraph altogether. If the paragraph should remain, it makes sense that there is a reference, and a short summary of what was said. As I thought I made clear in my edit comment, the worst option is the version you restored where an opionion piece is mentioned, but the reader has no way of knowing what was said since there is no link. (By the way, "ultimata" is plural which is inappropriate since there never was even one.)Sjö (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Great - you gave two choices "this paragraph should be complete or not in the article at all" which I read as being in the plural.  The intermediate position was the one I chose.  I only had four years of Latin. Cheers.  Collect (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philadelphia Daily News, June 24, 2005. 

message: The second paragraph is an editorial. The contributor who mentions homosexuality, intelligent design and Terry Schaivo - especially so early in the article - is making a subtle character attack.
The article for citation #3 does not mention Terry Schaivo or homosexuality at all - the contributor simply threw them on his own authority.
Since Santorum is running for President this article must be continually checked for opinion masquerading as fact - especially at the beginning.Ononuofk (talk) 00:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of political stances 

message: On May 26, a staffer close to the Santorum camp told CNN that Santorum will formally announce his candidacy on June 6, in the same town where his father worked in a coal mine. Santorum formally announced his run for the Republican presidential nomination on ABC's Good Morning America Monday, June 6, 2011.
As it stands, Santorum's father mined coal on ABC's Good Morning America... perhaps during the David Hartman era? This bit of promotional text needs revision, better sourcing, tense correction, and somebody to cleanup the shards of crystal ball. - Dravecky (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  2012 cleanup 

message: A couple of editors are changing the 'Intelligent design' heading to creationism, the latest on the basis that it's a self-serving euphemism. The section itself describes the issue as "intelligent design", as does the main article on the 'Santorum amendment', as do reliable sources that discuss Santorum about the issue. Using "creationism" is unsourced POV within a BLP that belittle his position on the issue. Drrll (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see your evidence that "creationism" is common English usage when "intelligent design" is discussed in reliable sources. The two terms, while certainly related, are hardly interchangeable, with "intelligent design" being a subset of creationism that differs significantly from Young Earth creationism or other forms of creationism. As far as the intelligent design article calling it creationism in the lead, that assertion is actually sourced to a non-reliable source from an old-school, Young Earth creationist (Henry M. Morris)! Drrll (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a BLP, I think it is OK to use the subject's language. At George W. Bush there is a "War on Terrorism" section. Intelligent design is pretty widely known these days anyway. –CWenger (^ • @) 02:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: His position in 2001 was pretty clearly Intelligent Design, not Creationism. Now we all know that anti-scientific crapola, whatever name is is called, is based on tremendous insecurity. "What if evolution is true? Then there is no God, and life is meaningless. This feeling hurts! I better make it go away by shoving my religion down the throats of other people's children." Nevertheless, ID was the last refuge of this feeling in public policy debates in 2001, and it was a viable policy idea at the time. Only later was ID was utterly destroyed in 2005 by Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, including the evidence of the Wedge Document and being definitively shown to be Creationism in disguise. Speciate (talk) 04:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Even in 2001 it was no secret that ID was creationism. Pennock's book, for example, was published in 1999, I think and the Wedge document was leaked in 1999. Not that anyone really thought that ID was not creationism...it was simply designed to skirt the line drawn by Edwards v. Aguillar. Guettarda (talk) 05:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not trying to determine whether or not intelligent design is creationism. We're trying the determine what to call it in a BLP about a politician that supports the teaching of intelligent design. –CWenger (^ • @) 05:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Call it what he called it. It's not like he invented the term, like Tim Pawlenty just made up "Obamneycare" the other day. Intelligent Design has its own article, and is uncontroversial as a term; both sides use it without rancor. Calling it Creationism is unnecessary and faintly biased; it presumes to know what was in his head. The reader will not be fooled. Speciate (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But he didn't call TTC ID. So we're not "calling it what he called it". We're picking our own header for the section. Now one can make arguments for calling the section "intelligent design", or "creationism" or "Discovery institute campaigns"...but "calling it what he called it" is only an option if we call the section "Intelligent design and teach the controversy" (although even that falls a little short). Guettarda (talk) 05:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

text: I am well aware of that, CW. Not only did I read the entire thread, more importantly, I read the section being discussed. If you are concerned about "us[ing] the subject's language", why are you OK with calling Teach the Controversy "intelligent design". Just as ID was a campaign to bypass Edwards, TTC is a campaign to get around Kitzmiller. Calling TTC "intelligent design" is worse than calling ID "creationism" since that fact has been firmly established by a court ruling (and a large amount of peer-reviewed literature). Most people have stopped pretending that ID is not "creationism". But the standard DI line remains that TTC is not ID, that TTC is simply an analysis of evolution. So how is it unacceptable to call ID creationism, but acceptable to call TTC ID? It strikes me as utterly illogical. Guettarda (talk) 05:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not hard to find examples of Santorum using the term "intelligent design", e.g. , if that is the concern. –CWenger (^ • @) 05:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't ask that. I asked why you say that we should "use the subject's language", but then you completely contradict that, by calling TTC "intelligent design". Surely that's a simple enough question. Guettarda (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Using the subject's language is a good way to avoid bias in a BLP, particularly if it is a well-known term like "intelligent design". We could use "teach the controversy" instead but I'm not sure how familiar people are with that phrase. I was just showing that "intelligent design" is a viable option because the subject has used it extensively. –CWenger (^ • @) 16:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

text: I honestly don't understand your complaint. My argument is that we should use the subject's language where it is commonly understood. Santorum has used both "intelligent design" ([]) and "teach the controversy" (), so we could use either or both. I support using "intelligent design" as it is more widely known. –CWenger (^ • @) 19:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, heavy use of "Teach the Controversy" postdates the Santorum Amendment. Speciate (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

text:  If "Intelligent Design" is a subset of "Creationism", why not use "Intelligent Design Creationism" as the heading?189.233.95.90 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 10:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intelligent design / creationism heading