Talk:Rick Santorum

LGBT issues
Asking on behalf of User:Exadajdjadjajdsz...

Would folks here please explain how the following content complies with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?

"Santorum's anti-LGBT history has brought intense criticism from LGBT rights advocates and supporters. Human Rights Campaign, a leading LGBT rights organization in the United States, published a report during Santorum's presidential campaign that vehemently berated him for his comments and statements that were interpreted as homophobic. During an event Santorum held in 2012 in Illinois, two men were escorted out of Santorum's rally after they publicly kissed each other to mock Santorum for his anti-LGBT views; the crowd booed the men before their exit. After Donald Trump won the 2016 election, Cornell University invited Santorum to speak in November of that year; his appearance was met with fervent protests by several students who censured him as a fascist and a bigot."

Thanks Jytdog (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Analyzing this:
 * The first source is self-published and the content generated from it is promotional for organization. The content also comments on the primary source, characterizing it, which is a form of WP:OR.
 * The second source is a blurb in HuffPo about a political stunt. The content is trivia and WP:UNDUE, really.
 * The third ref is the student newspaper from the college where the protest happened. Some truly independent source, not from the school, would provide a stronger argument that the content is DUE and not more trivia.
 * So this content is not great and actually bad in some places. Jytdog (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed,


 * The first source does characterize a primary source, and is promotional in nature.
 * The second source is absolutely trivia, mentioning a political stunt on Santorum's position on LGBT issues and is WP:UNDUE weight.
 * The third source is also trivia, giving WP:UNDUE by mentioning nebulous protesters opinions and violates Wikipedia's policy on neutrality. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. It is not reputable view that Santorum is a fascist, a bigot perhaps in some Anti-LGBT legislative respects. Exadajdjadjajdsz (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Please indent and sign your posts, as I explained to you here. I fixed your indenting above; a bot signed for you. Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Some of this is ultimately pretty newsy, so I wouldn't say that we need to give the specific details of protests. In general, however, Santorum's opposition to LGBT rights is a major part of his public persona, so we should not be removing all mention. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Follow-up to clarify: I'm also not sure that we need to note that he's been criticized by gay rights advocates; it almost goes without saying that a politician who opposes gay rights would be criticized by gay rights advocates. But the "his positions have been criticized by gay rights advocates" is sometimes used on Wikipedia as a substitute for "he opposes gay rights", so as long as we remain clear about the prominent position he's staked out, I don't know how necessary it is to identify individual/organizational critics. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, Roscelese, this is the distinction I've been trying to make but to no success according to the people who've written this article. It's already clear he's anti-LGBT rights, specifically pertaining to marriage, but the endless claims he is Anti-LGBT, by using critics,(some of whom go unnamed) sounds vague and unbecoming of a page that's suppose to be "neutral". Anti-LGBT seems to much like an umbrella term, Anti-LGBT rights sounds more neutral. There's no candidate that gets framed as Anti-Peace, or is continuously panned by anonymous Anti-war protesters. Instead the page should read something like "Santorum's views have fallen out of line with mainstream opinion in America, as public opinion has shifted in favor of Gay Rights", instead of "Santorum's views have drawn intense criticism from LGBT community, most viewing him as a Fascist and a Bigot".(Which is already a given). Exadajdjadjajdsz (talk) 07:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for your preferred wording? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There's lots of sources and polls that suggest that mainstream approval of Gay rights, (Including Marriage, adoption, civil unions, open military service) has solidified in the last 10 years. This would be consistent with the notion that Santorum's views have fallen out of line with a majority of Americans. However in the early 2000s public opinion on Gay rights was much different, so Santorum was more a victim of his times than an actual bigot or anti-LGBT . Remember Santorum last served in the senate in 2006, where public opinion had not fully changed yet, as matter of fact only 35% of the public was in support of Gay marriage at the time. Other notable politicians (across both parties) at the time had staked out many similar views, when it became no longer politically viable to be against LGBT rights, they changed their tune (Including, notably, President Obama). Historically politics pertaining to social issues has been notably about grass-roots mobilization, from Civil rights and Women's rights to Gay rights, this notion that contemporary politicians don't check the weather vane of the nation to see which way the political wind is blowing is inaccurate. Exadajdjadjajdsz (talk) 01:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * To avoid WP:SYNTH, can you specifically source Santorum's views falling out of line with mainstream opinion? We know that public opinion is shifting towards gay rights, but to be usable, a source would specifically have to note this for Santorum. But for WP:WEIGHT reasons I don't think this is likely to be better than noting that he has been criticized for his anti-LGBT views. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The statement that his views have fallen out of line with current public opinion, isn't a far fetched one. A lot of the controversial statements he made weren't as controversial at the time he made them.


 * For example arguing in the Senate floor about partial birth abortion in the 90s, or arguing about Sodomy laws in the early 2000s. I do not how useful it would be to get a source that states specifically that "Santorum's views have fallen out of line with current public opinion", I think it's analogous to stating, "the geocentric model of the solar system was based on a previous scientific understanding, that is now outdated". I would say it would be more accurate to say "He's been criticized for his views on LGBT rights", as oppose to saying "His anti-LGBT views". His worldview is more based on the notion that being LGBT is a lifestyle and thusly a choice as oppose to people being born as a certain orientation. People legislate on the basis of what they think is right for society as a whole, even if it's not based in science, or is effective. He is clearly an opponent of LGBT rights, (that's a given), but saying he is an opponent of LGBT people is somewhat dubious, mainly because most of the rights in question are positive rights, and not negative rights. I think the article spends to much time quoting his personal views which would be tantamount to trivia, rather than his actual legislative or policy positions. His position on sodomy and condoms for example, aren't explicitly anti-LGBT, but are based on archaic notions in codified religious texts pertaining to morality. Again, saying he is Anti-LGBT rights gives much concision to the page in question, as that covers anything from Gay adoption to Transgender reassignment surgery. Even pages about the 60's don't use the term Anti-Black, they use the terms against or for Civil Rights as in Kennedy was for civil rights, likewise in this case Santorum is against LGBT rights. Exadajdjadjajdsz (talk) 06:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Hatnote
How likely is it that people are typing in "Santorum" to read about the neologism campaign, to the point that we need a hatnote to direct readers away from this article? This might be adequately addressed by removing the hatnote and expanding the section header to "LGBT issues and 'santorum' neologism", conceivably. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, articles don't get here is the gossip headings. I think the hatnote should be removed as the drama died down a long time ago. FWIW, in the last 30 days, there were 25,748 page views for this article, and 3,987 for the neologism. Johnuniq (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Reverted / added back. Just because "the drama died down" doesn't mean people aren't still looking for that article. "Santorum" still redirects here, the campaign for the neologism is also "santorum", so the hatnote is still needed. Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Where did Rick go?
Gig up on CNN? Missing big time 2020. Wikipietime (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Per article “. In January 2017, he became a CNN senior political commentator”. When was he fired? Wikipietime (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * He was never fired from CNN. I've seen him several times during the past few days trying to talk some sense to Don Trumpeone about having lost the election, that no court will accept his whining about "fraud" as evidence, and that millions of Americans having voted against socialism in 2020 should be enough for Trump to be happy about, so according to Santorum, Donny should just let it go already and accept that Biden will be inaugurated in January. --2003:EF:1703:A500:DCFE:12AD:5D6D:AB1F (talk) 13:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Ooops.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/cnn-fires-rick-santorum-1173447/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:4C80:DF30:CDC1:D644:8A75:333 (talk) 05:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Why is it locked indefinitely?
I get that it was done with the intent of getting rid of a few disruptive editors, but I feel like permanently locking this page is overkill. 173.79.40.205 (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The restriction is not permanent. For the moment, confirmed or autoconfirmed status is required to edit the article.  Per the history log, that restriction expires at 05:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC). Fabrickator (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok cool, the logs were misleading. 173.79.40.205 (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)