Talk:Rick Santorum's views on homosexuality

Proposed merger of Campaign for "santorum" neologism into Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
 * There is plainly no consensus for the proposed merge. T. Canens (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of one's views on former Senator Santorum it's clear that the Campaign for "santorum" neologism ie the attempt by Dan Savage to "redefine" Santorum's surname, is entirely related to Santorum's comments on LGBT issues and should be a subtopic of Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality rather than a stand-alone article. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of one's views on former Senator Santorum it's clear that the Campaign for "santorum" neologism ie the attempt by Dan Savage to "redefine" Santorum's surname, is entirely related to Santorum's comments on LGBT issues and should be a subtopic of this article. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You might try checking the archives to see previous discussions rejecting this option (at a minimum they should be linked here). I've reverted the tags you added to the articles (you added them prior to starting a discussion); as long as there's a discussion, it might be reasonable to put the tags back in -- but I really think you're wasting your time.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The tags are required for a discussion to occur and there are a number of new people editing the articles who might want to engage in a discussion. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The previous discussion was last June (link) - enough time has passed to re-open it particularly given the influx of new people editing the articles. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support as nominator. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Support No need for an independent article. There isn't much in the current article that can't be summed up in about 3 or 4 paragraphs.  Be— —Critical  22:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - trim the bloat and merge away.  You really can  23:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds nice & tidy, but where exactly is the bloat in that article? Apart from this discussion (which I suspect will be closed soon), you might consider proposing some and seeing how other editors respond.  regards, Middle 8 (talk) 10:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - Not clear why there is two articles when they are intimately connected. Arzel (talk) 06:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - as a second choice to a merge with Dan Savage...where it rightfully belongs JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Also agree that it belongs in Dan Savage, but this is acceptable. A second article is simply not necessary; the campaign article can easily be merged here. NYyankees51 (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Two articles are not necessary. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Prima facie, it seems to me that two articles are not necessary.--Agnostosgnostos 00:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agnostosgnostos (talk • contribs)
 * 6) Support: these articles have exploded unnecessarily. Merging will restore some semblance of proportion. – Lionel (talk) 11:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Clear Merge Having separate articles on precisely the same subject is blatantly partisan. And, as it happens, I'm as anti-Rick Santorum and anti-almost everything he stands for as it gets!-The Gnome (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - the silliness over the other article has lasted long enough. It's time to cut the Gordian knot, and recognise that it doesn't actually need a separate article at all. The 'Santorum' neologism and its associated controversy is logically a subtopic of this article, and can be perfectly well covered as a subsection of it. This isn't a matter of BLP so much as simply a matter of redundancy. Robofish (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Support merging the campaign article into this one. The "Savage campaign" is a part of the controversy regarding homosexuality. Unfortunately, this appears to be one of those times when mob-rule seems to trump policy. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  15:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Support per my policy based reasons in the "campaign" talk page archives. (various wp:not, wp:undue, wp:coatrack, wp:noharm, blp etc.) — Ched : ?  20:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Support I'm opposed to censorship but we don't need two articles, I don't see how they are independently notable. 169.231.55.56 (talk) 08:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) 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)
 * 2) Oppose: Campaign for "santorum" neologism has survived 5 AfDs, a deletion review, and several merge proposals. The current proposal is a complete waste of time.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose and Speedy close. I don't know why we suddenly have all this (coordinated?) merging proposals, but it is clear from this discussion (which is still in progress), that there is no consensus for this.-- В и к и  T  21:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I didn't know about the other proposal so no, there's no co-ordination. I also suspect your view of Santorum (the man, not the byproduct) and mine are quite similar. I just think a) that article is obviously a subtopic of this article and b) objectively, a stand-alone article is unnecessary. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ...it is clear from this discussion (which is still in progress), that there is no consensus for this.
 * For the record, it should also be clear that any attempt by the originator of that discussion to append (IMHO, quite correctly) a legitimate tag on the article in question was persistently removed. This suppressed "discussion" will now, no doubt, be appended to the tally of "discussions", some of whom met the same scornful fate, as a demonstration of standing "consensus" on this subject. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. The topics actually have very little overlap.  One is about words, jokes, Dan Savage; the other is about the underlying political and privacy issues and actual political groups.  And we've been around this merry-go-round before. Wnt (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose: The topics are distinct enough to warrant separate articles. Propose that this RfC be closed. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose: The word "santorum" has at this point entered the English language, and certainly merits its own article. XeroxKleenex (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you point to any instances where the word is used without Rick Santorum the person being part of the context? Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 03:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The claim that "The word "santorum" has at this point entered the English language" - is an absolute falsehood. No one looks down after anal sex and sees a frothy shit anal discharge and says, oh look at that santorum coming out of your anus.  You really can  03:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Answering the last two - yes, there are some cases (I think they have been presented in prior discussions, and I wouldn't be so sure people don't say it in the sexual context. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That "santorum" has "entered the english language" as a purposeful "coinage" is indisputable. What is also indisputable (at least per the only, thus far anyway, authoritative source presented..."Partridge") is that "santorum" has not achieved "neologism" status. Translation: It is almost non-existent in the vernacular (save for a few rather obscure cites) independent of reference to Savage's "campaign" itself. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with the comments made above by Vale of Glamorgan,  You really can , and JakeInJoisey. Wikipedia editors should be embarassed when they claim that the expression santorum has entered everyday use in the English language independently of Rick Santorum's anti-homosexual position and statements, i.e. of the Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality. Precisely the opposite is true. -The Gnome (talk) 10:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: procedurally as opening up something that was recently decided, and substantively for reasons discussed at length before. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Nomoskedasticity. I've omitted the # before my comment because the numbering was messed up by the interposition of "Support" arguments in the "Oppose" section, and my Oppose, the eighth, displayed as "2".  Anyone who knows how to correct this is welcome to number this comment. JamesMLane t c 05:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, for the twenty-fourth time, this shameful WP:FORUMSHOP/WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED. It has achieved independent notability and continues to receive coverage for its effects on Santorum's 2012 campaign. If any merge is to take place, it should be the 2003 statements being merged to the neologism campaign. Are there any new developments that have prompted this new proposal when all previous proposals have failed? Or are you just hoping that everyone will be so worn down by the endless deletion and merge proposals that this time they will throw up their hands and let you do what you like with it? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. At the moment, Campaign for "santorum" neologism is longer (25,959 bytes) than the current version of Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality (21,635 bytes).  When the supposed sub-sub-topic article is longer than the proposed mother article, a merger is probably impractical.  Because both topics are controversial, they have been repeatedly scrutinized by a lot of editors; I doubt that either could get much shorter.  While it's appropriate for this article to have a subsection with a link to the neologism article, replacing that subsection with the entire content of the neologism article would obviously be unwieldy.  It would also create an undue weight problem with the merged article (to the extent that the neologism topic is a subset of this one) and introduce off-topic material (to the extent that it is not; see User:Wnt above).  Bottom line: all that would result from merging is an article that would perfectly fulfill the criteria for spinning off another article. --Middle 8 (talk) 10:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Small-s santorum, and the culture-wide joke being perpetrated against a second-tier presidential candidate, is an entirely different thing from the comments that candidate made and the ordinary, predictable backlash to them.  That santorum is one part of the backlash against Santorum does not stop it from being a unique and separately-notable thing in its own right. As correlation does not imply causation, causation does not imply subsumation: by the logic employed by merge supporters, the War in Afghanistan could be merged into September 11 attacks. That's an extreme example, but it's different only in degree, not kind.   ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  16:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: "Difference in degree" is precisely how notability manifests itself. The santorum neologism is a subset of the controversy about homosexuality involving Santorum. The former subject is clearly not independently notable, since elaboration on it can always be substituted with elaboration on the latter. Not the case in the Afghanistan War/WTC attacks example, which are two separately significantly notable, non-interchangeable subjects. -The Gnome (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your comments on notability are well taken, but as I wrote in response to a "Neutral" proposal below, the neologism campaign is more notable than anything else on this page. I'm honestly neutral as to whether this page should even exist outside of the Rick Santorum page, but the campaign is the only real reason anyone bothered to track down and put in any of the other responses to the "man on dog" thing. It is undeniably separately notable - just google his last name. ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  15:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You suggest googling for santorum but google hits are irrelevant in this issue, since the prevalence of santorum in web-search terms is the result of an explicitly stated, intentional, promotional work, expedited by opponents of Santorum's views on homosexuality. But Wikipedia rules state clearly that a topic is NOT notable if it "has gained significant independent coverage or recognition" through "promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity!" Forget about google searches. Where are the "peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, [and] reputable media sources" which show that this artificial neologism is notable independently of Santorum's positions on homosexuality and is independently used in the English language? Nowhere. -The Gnome (talk) 08:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I said that not to use search engine hits as evidence of notability, but rather to point out that the more notable content, the thing that needs more explanation in an article, is less "Look what Santorum said, and what pundits and politicians said in response" than it is "Wow, why is Rick Santorum's name being dragged through the muck with such unprecedented success and longevity that the modern equivalent of the Yellow Pages can't in good conscience save it?" I don't see a need for two articles either, but this is not the one that more needs keeping. The bold text in your quote above leads to this paragraph: Self-promotion, paid material, autobiography, and product placement are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter. (emphasis added) The "Campaign" article more than meets that standard (see here for details). ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  16:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Then, we agree. "I don't see a need for two articles either", as you wrote. The issue, therefore, becomes about which article to merge into which. That should be a different discussion. But first let's agree to Merge. Having two articles for almost exactly the same issue is clearly against Wikipedia's rules. (Also, very silly.) -The Gnome (talk) 05:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, you provided a link to the Campaign for "santorum" neologism. Yet, you cannot see how that campaign meets Wikipedia's criteria for stripping an item of its claim for independent notability?? Such a campaign is precisely "[an] incentive, [a] promotion" and "[an] influence by people connected to the topic"! "Santorum's name is dragged through the muck", as you wrote, are a result of precisely such a campaign. The neologism is used exclusively in connection to Santorum's controversial position on homosexuality and not independently in any way, i.e. it has not entered everyday use. The neologism's fame is a clearly artificially created notoriety and, therefore, is not independently notable per Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 05:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Because appearances of the redefinition of his name in the media are explicitly not paid for, nor written up by people with a particular agenda. If the SEO issue were the only thing going, all this entire mess would warrant would be mention on the Dan Savage and Rick Santorum pages, plus an entry under Google bomb. But that is not the case.  The existence of substantial amounts of non-editorializing media coverage of this phenomenon means that it is separately notable for reasons going beyond the specific goals of the campaigners.  ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  15:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You claim that "appearances of the redefinition of his name in the media are explicitly not paid for, nor written up by people with a particular agenda". Forget payments, etc. Wikipedia rules do not care for paid or unpaid campaigns. The very birth of the term was due to a campaign started by Dan Savage. And the term has been disseminated through explicitly stated efforts and promotions initiated by people with the agenda of linking Santorum's name to the new term. This is in their own words! And this is exactly what Wikipedia rules do not consider as valid criteria for notability.
 * You also claim that "The existence of substantial amounts of non-editorializing media coverage of this phenomenon means that it is separately notable for reasons going beyond the specific goals of the campaigners". Again, quite the contrary is happening! There is no single mention of the term (with its new, acquired meaning) anywhere in the media or elsewhere, without a reference to Santorum's smears on homosexuality! And I continue to challenge anyone from those who are blithely voting to keep separate articles to prove me wrong. There is nothing out there. In so many words, a claim for independent notability cannot reasonably be raised. -The Gnome (talk) 12:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no single mention of the term... without a reference to Santorum's smears on homosexuality - see above please: causation is not subsumation. When B is as notable as or more notable than A, B gets its own article, even if A directly resulted in B. The sources for B will almost if not always mention A, even if only in passing, but this does not render B unworthy of its own article. Half of your argument for the neologism's lack of notability appears to rest on the mistaken assumption that coverage of B, if it even mentions A, isn't really about B at all but is really about A, no matter how small the A coverage is in proportion to B coverage. This cannot be true.
 * The other half of your argument rests on the mistaken assumption that if something gets coverage in the media based on an intentional campaign, then that renders it non-notable by default. In an ideal communist world (that's not derogatory, I'm quite in favor) this would be true. But in the real world it's ludicrous. If it were true, not only would we have no articles about Mr. Clean, Ronald McDonald, or the Pillsbury Doughboy - we also wouldn't have articles about Jill Stein, Herman Cain, or Jack Fellure - all of whom are notable precisely "through explicitly stated efforts and promotions initiated by people with the agenda" of making them popular, and not because of any other serious accomplishment or event. And yet somehow the media has deemed them to be worthy of independent coverage. That's just what notability is. The key words in WP:SPIP are "without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter" (emphasis original). There is no such incentive, promotion, or influence here; therefore the "published non-trivial works" constitute neutral sources, and the notability of the campaign is unimpeachable.  ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  20:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no point in continuing this, since we'll only be repeating outselves. Our respective positions have been made quite clear. However, I will point out that you are approaching this issue with anything but a neutral point of view, as evidenced by your own words, above, in voting to Oppose: "...a second-tier presidential candidate...the ordinary, predictable backlash to [Santorum's comments]...". This quite clearly is affecting your stance. Unfortunately, such polemical approach is not unique in this RfC. -The Gnome (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with your assessment that we're running in circles, and would be happy to let this die. But before you accuse me of being unable to argue neutrally on this, I might take a look at the timeline: I wrote the words you quote on January 17, as visible in my signature. This was before virtually anything of importance had rolled Santorum's way besides finishing a very close second in Iowa.  To that date, he had not been covered very prominently in various debate aftermaths, or predicted to be a contender on the level of Romney, Gingrich, Perry, Cain, or even Paul. In the intervening time, Santorum has been retroactively declared winner of one state's caucuses, finished in the top four in three state primaries, and won two states' caucuses and another primary. If you were predicting similar successes in the middle of last month, then I salute your foresight. The upshot of this is that it's easy to score cheap points off characterizations that have become obviously false during the regular passage of time, without actually rendering the argument any less valid.  ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  06:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You characterized the campaign to establish the term santorum as well as the whole reaction of the homosexual activist community as "ordinary" and "predictable." And you did this in your justification for the stance you took. This shows a blatantly non-neutral point of view and, as such, robs your vote (in fact, your whole position on this issue) of its legitimacy. This is Wikipedia - not a political forum. Nonetheless, a simple issue of independent notability is sadly being decided along partisan lines, instead of encyclopaedic principles. -The Gnome (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see your talk page. ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  00:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Roscelese and others. Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. A site-wide RfC with input from hundreds of editors just a few short months ago conclusively decided that consensus was that the subject was notable enough for an independent article. There is no reason at all to believe that this consensus has changed so abruptly the subject has suddenly become non-notable, despite more than 40 sources to the contrary. The continuation of what feels like a settled issue feels tendentious and is a waste of everyone's time.  elektrik SHOOS  (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's really not true if I remember right: rather, the consensus was that we shouldn't delete it... the way the merge was proposed, the article content would have been essentially deleted. Be— —Critical  03:24, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As I quote from the second sentence of the closing admin's comments: "The topic is clearly notable and worthy of an article." Additional concerns were expressed regarding content, naming and a whole host of other issues, but that is not the discussion here.  elektrik SHOOS  (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Plenty to keep it Separate. Seems many Pro-Santorum people keep trying to merge and/or delete anything that shows him in any negative light. WP:SNOW--Sallynice (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, per ☯.Zen, Wnt, The Anome, and others. KLP (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, on technical grounds. Despite what most of you are probably picturing in your pedestrian mind, anal sex and homosexuality are not mutually inclusive, and anal sex and heterosexuality are not mutually exclusive. To state otherwise is incorrect as well as offensive. The term refers to a sexual act that can take place between any two people, not a sexual orientation. This term is NOT directly related to homosexuality, period. 74.102.164.44 (talk) 08:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) *Comment: Wikipedia is not a place where competing ideas wage battle. And, as an encyclopaedia, it is supposed (and meant) to be often offensive to some people because different people have different personal values - but offensiveness of content is not a Wikipedia criterion! Your vote to oppose the merger seems to have been formulated as an enlightening message to "most of [us]" Wikipedia editors who have "pedestrian minds". I happen to share your opinions about human sexuality and I also happen to oppose Rick Santorum and almost everything he stands for. But Wikipedia is not where that battle will be fought: In Wikipedia, as clearly stated in its rules, independent notability, rather than, say, Truth, rules! And there is no reasonable way the santorum neologism can be termed notable independently of Santorum's positions on human homosexuality. -The Gnome (talk) 07:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose This article has existed for nine years and has grown continually throughout that time. Of course it is for an independently notable subject.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   01:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose These are two seperate topics and there appears to be insufficient overlap. The neologism article has already had sufficient support to stand alone, so this proposal is redundant.  Pass a Method   talk  22:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose coupled with oh this shit again: the controversy and the campaign are independently notable. consensus has been reached on this time and again. also, it's odd to me that there is no 'mergeto' tag on the campaign article. -badmachine 13:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge tag was removed about a week ago with this edit. Discussion on the campaign talk page chewed this proposal up, spat it out, and moved on almost immediately. Unless some vast and brilliant new pro-merge argument is marshalled, I suggest the proposal be closed with no consensus to merge. This doesn't need to happen right now, I'm not pushing to circumvent the process, but there's no reasonable way this will happen.  ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  15:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Both topics are clearly notable enough for their own articles. With the amount of info involved it would be unnecessarily large to merge the thing here and still adequately cover the topic. It's also disturbing seeing the same people who want to try to delete the article completely wikilawyer and forum shop and keep this up despite knowing that they do not have consensus. Much of the effort seems to be politically motivated and a clear violation of NPOV rules. DreamGuy (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I support the motion to Merge, and my position, as shown above, is based strictly on Wikipedia rules and policies. On the other hand, the justification from the Oppose side is mostly based on google hits, which is an unacceptable criterion. (See above.) You have every right to dismiss Wikipedia's rules and label the practice of invoking them as "wikilawyering." But you would also be in the wrong. By the way, this is the first time, I become aware of this issue and get involved in it. Another proof that generalizations ("...seeing the same people who want to try to delete the article...") are generally silly.-The Gnome (talk) 08:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. It is wiki tradition to provide summaries to a main page and a link to an indepth article. The dispute between Savage and Santorum stands alone. This is a tactic similar to swift boating which also has its own article. Gsonnenf (talk) 12:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak Oppose - This is a tough call. There is clearly a lot of overlap between the two articles; but one article is focused on the neologism, and the other on   the broader controversy surrounding his views.   I'm not sure what title would be used for the merged article; and if they were merged: would the neologism section be oversized, and thus violate the UNDUE policy?   Another factor is:  since Santorum is campaigning now, there are bound to be more sources becoming available for this Controversy article, so it would be a bit premature to merge, because the article/topic/sources may be growing and evolving.   --Noleander (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose merging that article into this one, but would support merging this article into that one. I think it is more accurate to say that the 2003 comments are somewhat notable because they form the backdrop to the ongoing "Google problem", rather than to describe the Google problem as being an aspect of some ongoing controversy. Looking at this article's sources, there are many from 2003 representing a flash of news coverage that are thin gruel to base an article on, it having a short duration of coverage and (other than the campaign) no obvious lasting effects. There are a few recent sources for Santorum's DADT views; that portion of the article feels very much like a WP:COATRACK that could be deleted. The remaining post-2003 sources, which establish persistence and lasting effects, focus on the campaign and Google problem, referring to the 2003 comments only to provide the context of their origin. The Interview section could easily be merged into the parallel section in the campaign article. That leaves only the Public reaction and criticism and Defense of the remarks sections, which could be merged to the campaign article as part of the background. It's also worth noting that, reviewing Savage's columns on this issue, he is fairly consistent in describing his motivation for the campaign as being a critique of Santorum's views that is not limited to the subject homosexuality.--Trystan (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with your proposal, as a measure of containing the damage done to Wikipedia's integrity by the existence of two separate articles on the exact same issue. Let's Merge first and take it from there. The heading/title of the new, merged article is of secondary importance. -The Gnome (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. This article is as much about the tactic of google bombing in a specific dispute as it is about Santorum's opposition to gay rights. It could arguably make more sense to combine it into the Google bomb article rather than the Santorum article. If either the  Republican nominee or the President in 2013 is anyone other than Rick Santorum, it seems that in the long term Google bombing will have more notability than Mr. Santorum. Asking for this article to be merged implies that Santorum's notability will decline over time. Nosimplehiway (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Leave it alone, it's a separate topic. Let's say I'm reading Campaign for "santorum" neologism, and I want to find out exactly why Dan Savage is so angry with Santorum. Well, I click on over to Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality, and can read up on it. Personally, I'd prefer it if Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality were named something slightly more neutral like "Rick Santorum and homosexuality". Think of the naming of something like George W. Bush and the Iraq War. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Of course not, for reasons I stated in the numerous past and concurrent RfCs. Protonk (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) 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)
 * On those lines, I can see merging this article into a "Positions" article or into Rick Santorum. I cannot see merging this article into the "Campaign" article (since the other responses are only tangentially related to the "campaign"), or the "Campaign" article into this one (since the "campaign" is notable in itself and frankly way more so than the other backlash to Santorum's remarks described herein). ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  15:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Even among political positions, Rick Santorum's position on homosexuality is especially noteworthy. As this article demonstrates, his position on homosexuality would overwelm an article dedicated to all of his positions. Just compare it to the political positions section on his eponymous article. KLP (talk) 12:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Rick's Santorum's position on homosexuality is anything but "especially noteworthy". As a trivial search on the web would show, his positions do not differ from most Family values/ Moral Majority/Christian Right candidates. It was the choice of words in that infamous interview and the subsequent artificial neologism, created by Dan Savage, that made Santorum himself more noteworthy in that respect. But we cannot seriously argue that Santorum's position is something exceptional as far as the American Right's views of homosexuality are concerned! -The Gnome (talk) 08:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I meant that his position on homosexuality was noteworthy with respect to his other positions insofar as his explanations of them haven't caused as much offense. Also, his position on homosexuality has become something of an event, at least more so than his other positions. Compared to those Westboro Baptist Church types, yeah, Rick obviously maintains a rather bland stance. KLP (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Counter proposal: Merge this into the Rick Santorum article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the most sensible idea; unfortunately, people are letting their political sentiments get in the way of the encyclopedia. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:KETTLE. DreamGuy (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking objectively at the article, it's clear that this does not deserve its own article. If this was about any other topic than a conservative offending the homosexual lobby, there never would have been a second article. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As a card-carrying liberal and also an enthusiastic supporter of Wikipedia, I must say that this RfC is an eye opener! I've spent a great deal of my time defending the work in Wikipedia against charges of "liberal bias" and "hidden, leftists agendas" but, now, it seems that, unfortunately, there is some truth in those charges. The expression santorum is something artificially created, for a specific polemical purpose and whose notoriety is due to an extensive campaign for that purpose. As it happens, I denounce and disagree the entire Rick Santorum position on homosexuality (as if one can have a position on the sexual preferences of humans!) but this whole issue is absurd, in encyclopaedic terms. I also often use, with gusto, the term, in referring to the Senator's ignorance. But I have never heard, read, or heard about anyone using the expression santorum in any context except in relation to Santorum's ignorant and offensive statements on homosexuality. Nowhere and never have we heard or will we hear anyone describing post-coital rectal fluid as "santorum". The term may have become infamous/notable - but it has not become independently notable and it has not entered everyday use. "And that's not even close", as they say.-The Gnome (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Close
Someone close it, please -- 30 days, plenty of time, enough already. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * endorse -badmachine 14:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Referred to Dispute Resolution
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Santorum vs santorum". Thank you. --The Gnome (talk) 08:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Dead and gone -- recognized for the forum-shopping it so obviously was. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The reference to the Dispute Resolution process was made in good faith. After being randomly selected to take part in the RfC, this is the first time I involved myself in the issue. Labeling the actions of a Wikipedia user as "forum shopping" without any evidence whatsoever to that effect is uncalled for and also in breach of Wiki rules for civility and avoidance of personal attacks. Please restrain yourself and help restore some of the missing calm. Thanks. -The Gnome (talk) 10:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

DADT & speeches
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)
 * Prove that this artcle is about 2003, before editing away sourced material again. Speciate (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean prove that it's about the 2003 controversy? Look at the lead. This cannot be a coatrack for all of Santorum's comments about homosexuality and same-sex marriage. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

The title of this article is not "2003 Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  16:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * "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)

DR
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)
 * 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)

Edit request
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)

Please link the words "Santorum's presidential campaign" in the intro text to Rick Santorum presidential campaign, 2012. --NetRolller 3D  22:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. --Chris (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Rename Proposed
I am proposing that we rename this article. The name 'Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality' is excessively verbose and possibly indicates disapproval of Santorum's views, thus violating WP:NPOV. By using the word 'controversy', it implies a political scandal when in fact this is simply broad public disapproval of Santorum's views on homosexuality. I suggest a title like 'Santorum's views on homosexuality' or 'Santorum and homosexuality'.Debbie W. 05:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A splendid thought which, IMHO, warrants a much more broad consideration and application. This can (and, IMHO, probably will) be seen as a step towards a de-politicization of this specific article and will, in all liklihood, be greeted with a standard litany of catcalls from POV quarters steadfast in opposition to WP neutrality in matters perceived to be ripe for political exploitation. I'm already envisioning a system-wide substitution of "Issues" for the POV warrior's favorite port of call, "Controversy".  In this specific case, "Santorum's views on homosexuality - Issues" is a breath of NPOV fresh air that is quite, quite remarkable.  Well considered and thanks for the thought. JakeInJoisey (talk) 09:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * this would broaden the scope of the article beyond the 2003 incident. are his other views on homosex notable? they seem rather ordinary for a politician of his ilk. -badmachine 10:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This article already contains a section mentioning comments that Santorum made in 2012. I prefer a unified article that discusses Santorum's views and comments on homosexuality, irrespective of date, than limiting this article to a single 2003 event. Because Santorum has been far more outspoken on homosexuality than most other politicians, such an article would be valid.  I think a general article about Santorum's views on homosexuality would be more notable than an article about comments he made in 2003.
 * By focusing on a single incident and call it a 'controversy', there is an implication of disapproval. On the other hand, if we call it 'Santorum's views on homosexuality', and include both supporters and opponents of his comments, it's becomes a balanced article. Wikipedia has articles named 'political views of (fill in the blank)' which are linked to the main article on a given politician.  I know of no other case where a politician's views are labelled as a controversy. I concur with Jake that the words like 'controversy' or 'scandal' should generally be avoided in article titles unless there is broad concensus that a controversy or scandal has occurred (e.g., Watergate).Debbie W. 12:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Are we headed towards an article that tells readers Santorum's views and comments on this topic (particularly the ones he made in 2003) have not resulted in controversy? Is that impression consistent with what is in reliable sources on this topic? I'd end with "just asking" -- except that I expect to be berated by a POV warrior for having posted a "catcall". What a steaming pile of "abf"... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the article should still cite the criticism that Santorum has received because of his views on homosexuality. However, it should not have the word 'controversy' in the title, and it should not focus on a single incident from 2003.  It should include any statements on time that he has made on homosexuality, and any criticism or support that he has received regarding this issue.Debbie W. 17:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. One thing that would interest me is what titles we use for similar articles.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Broader Article & Neutral Title
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Jordan interview
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)

Lead
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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 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/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 II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
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)