Talk:Rick Santorum's views on homosexuality

message: ====Support====
#Support as nominator. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: #Support as nominator. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: # Oppose: Both the original remarks and Savage's campaign are independently notable. Savage's reponse was far from being the only one, but it's the only one to have become a news story in its own right. -- The Anome (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: #To me, this article really shouldn't exist since every politician takes individual political stances that are controversial. I would hate to see articles such as Perry controversy regarding Bernanke or Paul controversy regarding the United Nations. Isn't it better to have an article such as Political positions of Mitt Romney? Put another way, the Campaign for "santorum" neologism article is not a proper merge target for Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality or vice versa. Similarly, Dan Savage is not a proper merge target for Campaign for "santorum" neologism. Only Political positions of Rick Santorum is a proper target, but presently it doesn't exist. Speciate (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral

message: Someone close it, please -- 30 days, plenty of time, enough already.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Close

message: The sections about the DADT comments and the campaign speeches violate WP:COATRACK. This article is about the 2003 comments. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The comments were made in the context of the presidential campaign so I've moved them to that article.   Will Beback  talk   05:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

text: The WP:COATRACK essay advises against including "irrelevant and biased material" in an article where a "nominal subject is used as an empty coat-rack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the 'coats'." This is a matter of judgment, but the content is closely relevant, has high-quality reliable sources, and is a small part of the article that augments rather than obscures, thus failing to be a coatrack on all counts. AV3000 (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely; I removed a clear COATRACK edit. Santorum's statements, opinions and the surrounding controversy, including being booed in New Hampshire, are all connected, and all fair game in this article. Speciate (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they are not fair game. This article is about the 2003 comments. It is not a dumping ground for every comment he's made about homosexuality that gays don't like. The only way we can include them is if the article is moved to Santorum controversies regarding homosexuality, which would clearly violate WP:BLP. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I can find secondary sources that tie all of these statements together, because, you see, the same man said them. You haven't got a leg to stand on. Speciate (talk) 04:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is ridiculous. This is like loading the Jeremiah Wright controversy article with every statement Obama has made about Christianity that conservatives object to. That would never fly, and neither should this. Also, the "clear COATRACK edit" you cite above is in fact a WP:SYNTH edit, not a coat. They are distinctly different. NYyankees51 (talk) 04:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: But if one were to find secondary sources about Jeremiah Wright that pre- or post-date the main controversy time period and make an explicit connection to it, those would be fine. The facts are simple; Rick Santorum has a problem with homersexuals, and it shows. (Also, he will never be 'lected to dogcatcher, sorry.) Speciate (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

text: So? This is not an attack page. There isn't an Obama controversy regarding abortion where people could dump all their criticisms of Obama's various statements on abortion. That would never fly. This cannot either. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If Obama likened pro-lifers to people who have sex with animals and later his rabid supporters booed pro-life active-duty American servicemen live on national television, it would fly a thousand miles and then some. No skin off my back whether this article includes anything in particular (I wouldn't even oppose its deletion, or merge into the "Campaign" article), but don't overstate the case. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 16:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If there was an article about Obama's Illinois state Senate comments opposing a bill to require medical care for babies who survive abortion, no one would let it become a page where the pro-life lobby could dump all their criticisms of every thing he's said on abortion. Of course, the article would never exist in the first place since it wouldn't be notable; this article isn't notable either, but because it's a conservative Christian offending the homosexual lobby, mob rule trumps policy. Regardless, the point remains that the two sections do not belong here, and they have appropriately been moved to the 2012 campaign article because they were in that context as Will Beback points out. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "This article is about the 2003 comments" Well then rename it... This is obviously about Santorum + controversy + homosexuality.  Anything fitting those three goes in here.  Also here is a source  possibly for something like this. Be——Critical 00:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  DADT & speeches 

message: Y'all know about dispute resolution, I'm sure. I'd suggest if you can't work things out here, you try somewhere like the dispute resolution noticeboard. Regards, Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 05:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly right. When an editor performs the same edit 6 times, is reverted by 6 different editors with explanatory comments and discussion, is advised by an administrator that the edit is incorrect, and discussion reaches an impasse (I, at least, have nothing new to add), it is indeed time for WP:DR; I suggest using WP:DRN rather than an WP:RFC. AV3000 (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  DR 

message: I'm a little confused by this: "Santorum defended his remarks, declaring that his comments were not intended to equate homosexuality with incest and adultery, but rather to challenge the specific legal position that the right to privacy prevents the government from regulating consensual acts among adults, a position he disputes, because he does not believe that there is a general constitutional right to privacy.[2]"  Nowhere in footnote [2] does it support the lattermost statment that santorum does not believe that there is a general constitutional right to privacy.  It appears that this statement comes from the USATODAY footnote [7] . 199.46.196.232 (talk) 13:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  --Chris (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: I modified this article to give it a broader scope, and to ensure that it's title followed NPOV guidelines.  The article already contained comments by Santorum regarding homosexuality, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and same-sex parenting which came after his 2003 interview, but the first paragrpah of the article implied that it was only about the 2003 interview.  The old article title 'Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality' seemed excessively verbose and biased.  While many people despise Santorum's views on homosexuality, I don't think that Wikipedia should refer to it as a controversy.  I don't see many other websites using the term 'Santorum controversy.'Debbie W. 07:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't Rick Santorum's views on this issue be placed somewhere like "Political positions of Rick Santorum" instead? Wouldn't that be the most neutral thing instead of highlighting one issue by giving it its own article? —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 07:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. He has long been, and is still, primarily known for his views on homosexuality, and in particular for his "man on dog" statement. His fixation on the topic distinguishes him from the other candidates. It's also the most notable of his political positions, having generated far more commentary from journalists and academics than any other facet of his beliefs or career. There are people out there who have heard something about Santorum and don't know whether he's Catholic, for example, or that he was once a US senator. There are very few who have heard anything about this candidate who haven't heard about his views on homosexuality. Aside from his candidacy, it's by far the most notable thing about him. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Santorum is known by many people specifically for his views of homosexuality, so I agree that this article should focus solely on Santorum views on homosexuality. Debbie W. 13:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broader Article & Neutral Title 

message: The entry says that Jordan produced a recording of her interview with Santorum, but the source cited does not say that. Can anyone track down evidence of a recording being made available? I've added info and citation for the AP release of a transcript of part of the interview. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jordan interview 

message: I think the lead of this article is absolutely appalling. It needs to be rewritten entirely. The lead cannot consist simply of statements such as, "Former Republican U.S. Senator and former U.S. Presidential candidate Rick Santorum, an opponent of LGBT rights in general, has said that he has 'a problem with homosexual acts' and does not believe the right to privacy under the United States Constitution covers sexual acts..." because by themselves they give readers no idea why any of this matters. After all, what it should it matter what the guy thinks of homosexuality? There needs to be context to explain why Santorum's views are controversial, what the significance of the controversy is, what supporters and opponents of his views think, etc. The lead as it stands simply provokes a "so what?" reaction. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Rick Santorum's views on homosexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060619135610/http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32268 to http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32268
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rick Santorum's views on homosexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080323095514/http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-george052703.asp to http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-george052703.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified