Talk:Rick Santorum/Archive 6

Nickname
I have totally seen him referred to as "Ol' Frothy". Why is this not relevant? It provides an insight as to the public's perception of him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NukeSpoon (talk • contribs) 17:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I don't see any usage of it in mainstream media, only single individuals referring to him as such on social media and the like. It would really be helpful if you could provide a source for its usage.  Snowolf How can I help? 17:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Post Senate Career
The third paragraph under "Post Senate Career" is the exact same thing listed twice in regards to his income. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.192.103.123 (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

✅ Thanks for pointing this out.-KeptSouth (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Changed archiving time from 30 to 14 days
This discussion page is way too lengthy--it would print out at 71 pages according to my print preview. So, I have changed the archive time temporarily to every 14 days. KeptSouth (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Who would print this out?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.173.0.16 (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Tone and style
The article as written was fundamentally well written but at quite a few places showed it had been edited for impact on the reader rather than encyclopedic style. In the real world this may be a political candidate. Here it's one of several hundred thousand biographical articles and style should be encyclopedic, though to a very high standard.

I've made a few edits - for example we tend to write chronologically rather than reverse chronology (latter is more common in the PR world); a number of sentences can be more concise; some information was glossed out when checked against sources; the table of contents was obscured other than the top layer, restricting the ability of readers to know what the article contained and what it might not contain. Various edits made as cleanup. Probably needs more. Not bad though, overall. Would not surprise me if stuff was missing, given the apparent PR-originated style of some parts. FT2 (Talk 23:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement about homosexuality
Santorum's well-known statement on this ("In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality") appears strongly disagreed by historians.

This was a major controversy and position statement. That academic and other authorities disagree on his fundamental point is significant. NPOV requires inclusion of their views since since otherwise his assertion is left uncontested where in fact it is a strongly and authoritatively contested one.

But it must not be given undue weight, so it's redacted a lot to summarize briefly the mainstream.

FT2 (Talk 00:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if there's a source that connects the arguments to Santorum, explicitly making the point that his views are incorrect. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

TOC Limit
I have added a TOC limit which results in 12 items displayed instead of a whopping 39. At 39 items, it is more than one page long, inhibits navigation and discourages reading of the article. In its full-length glory, it is also not that helpful to the reader, as the section titles are often too specific or not really all that descriptive. Please compare this version with the current one, and discuss here if you disagree.

It is very clear to me that the new version accomplishes the purpose of assisting the reader in finding what he or she wants. Sections listed:

1 Early life, education, and legal career

2 Early political career

3 U.S. House of Representatives (1991-1994)

4 U.S. Senate (1995-2007)

5 Post-Senate career

6 Political positions

7 Controversies

8 Personal life

9 Writings

10 References

11 Further reading

12 External links

are more than sufficient to guide the reader, and do not overwhelm with detail and length. KeptSouth (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Truncated TOCs are not the norm. By comparison, the TOCs of Ron Paul, Rick Perry and Mitt Romney all have two levels, and Newt Gingrich has three. I don't think there's any need to compress this TOC more than those.   Will Beback    talk    09:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This seems like a Wikipedia style issue rather than one for this article. It's true that the TOCs are often a bit overwhelming.  They contain things like separate "references", "see also", and "external links" which make them even longer.  But I don't see a good reason for this particular article to diverge from the default condition for the site. Wnt (talk) 08:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Extreme bias
The whole article needs to be rewritten, as it is incredibly biased. Especially the parts dealing with homosexuality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.151.168 (talk) 07:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * To help us move forward with improving the article, would you spell out how the sections on homosexuality are biased? If you can suggest a specific improvement, that's even better, but just explaining the bias as you see it will be a start. JamesMLane t c 08:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The IP might be referring to the overemphasis on the homosexuality thing. But my question is, can we add this or would this be recentism and/or undue? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2091170/Rick-Santorum-Rape-victims-gift-baby-pregnant.html  Maybe add just a sentence or two?  Malke 2010 (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

God's gift of Rape claims
Can a reference in the pro-life section be added to included the quote that.

"... becoming pregnant by a rapist is a gift from God" - Rick Santorum, 2012

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2012/01/20/piers-rick-santorum-abortion-gift.cnn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.90.192 (talk) 10:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC) 46.64.90.192 (talk) 10:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments about black people on welfare
What is the objection? Tarc says it's "unfounded" -- does that mean that in your opinion the news reports about it are wrong? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Its not much of an encyclopedic issue is it. If Santorum has specific declared positions about Social Security they will likely be relevant but this titillation - I heard this and he seemed to say that is just trivia.   You  really  can  23:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've moved it to the campaign article. It obviously isn't an actual policy position, but it's definitely one of those statements made during a campaign which attract considerable attention.   Will Beback    talk    23:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thread about a user

 * This section has been split by User:Will BeBack, but to clarify, this comment was made in response to User:Will Beback and User:Nomoskedasticity reverting this users desired but disputed addition back into the BLP without discussion. - I have to also add, that I would not revert war in anything from the user that added it - User:Pass a Method - he has clear POV and competence issues and all his additions are being reverted by NPOV editors.    You  really  can  23:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem argument do nothing to help us resolve the issues with this text. If you want to discuss an individual editor please use a different forum.   Will Beback    talk    23:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Its not Ad hominem its a fact.   You  really  can  23:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no shame in admitting you don't know what it means... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As a user that claims on their usepage to be intellectual, your unwavering small minded, and constant attacks on me at every opportunity negate your claims completely.   You  really  can  23:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Youreallycan, you've made several peronal attacks now accross several pages. If you make any more i will report you. Pass a Method   talk  23:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your editing contributions mean you would need to watch out for any boomerangs if you did.   You  really  can  23:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way, i honestly have no POV here whatsoever. I dont feel strongly about any of these candidates (which is why i did not revert) and only edit for fun. So i dont know where you get your "POV" allegation from. Pass a Method   talk  23:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Youngest daughter's Trisomy 18
Wikipedia article reads "In 2008 at the age of 48, Karen gave birth to her eighth child Isabella, who was diagnosed with Trisomy 18 Edwards syndrome, a serious genetic disorder, often caused by the advanced age of the mother, with only a 10% chance of survival past the first year of life.[160][161][162]"

This syndrome is not "caused" by advanced maternal age. It is "caused by the presence of three – as opposed to two – copies of chromosome 18 in a fetus's or infant's cells." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_syndrome) The chances of a baby being born with Trisomy 18 increase as the mother's age increases.

This is an important distinction. The fragment "often caused by the advanced age of the mother" should be omitted.

I propose amending Santorum's article to read, "In 2008 at the age of 48, Karen gave birth to her eighth child Isabella, who was diagnosed with Trisomy 18 Edwards syndrome, a serious genetic disorder, with only a 10% chance of survival past the first year of life.[160][161][162]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.78.247.97 (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Heading
I renamed the heading because the second paragraph in that sub-section is completely about the google problem. Therefore the heading title should reflect the content per WP:HEADINGS. The following provisions apply, "The principal criteria are that a title be recognizable (as a name or description of the topic), sufficiently precise". Pass a Method  talk  20:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Google problem" is OR. Per BLP, it will be removed. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Next we'll have people insisting that one needs a reference in a section heading... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL Pass a Method   talk  21:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Took out the OR, and replaced with sourced title. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of references to "Google problem". But in fact I think your solution is better.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, i also think Ian's title is good. But "google problem" has many references too so is not original research. Pass a Method   talk  21:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

BLP and inclusion/exclusion of the neologism
Summary of policy-based arguments:
 * - BLP and [deleted]


 * the definition is central to the Google affair which has been considered notable and should therefore be spelled out
 * this is part of a concerted political attack on Santorum, and repeating it in this article would violate WP:BLP as harmful to the article topic
 * Wikiepdia is not censored so the offensiveness of the definition should not matter in deciding to include or not
 * writing out the full definition is not relevant since it results in undue coverage of the issue

A lot of discussion here on whether BLP allows inclusion of the redefinition of "santorum" as [deleted] to be included in the article. Help would be welcomed.93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Haven't had a look at what section of the BLP bears on this case, much less what section of the BLP you think bears on this case. That said, here's my initial thoughts about the "santorum neologism issue": since the "anal sex phrase" is already under another page, I can't see why it should be reproduced in this article. Yes, give a brief mention to the whole neologism issue and if necessary link it to that page, but as to the inclusion of the "anal sex" redefinition specifically, no I wouldn't include it the phrase.Festermunk (talk) 08:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Crying "OMG TEH CENSORSHIP" when one does not get his way is not an impressive opening tactic; it wasn't in the earlier section and it isn't here either. A consensus of editors has deemed a mention of the anti-santorum campaign is merited in this article.  That Savage didn't like something that Santortum stands for, and thus turned to his audience to make up something fake to refer to his last name, that is what is relevant.  The fake word's fake definition has nothing to do with Santorum himself. Tarc (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The earlier RfC, while indisputably forming the consensus that the information should stay, didn't seem to look at the issue of whether the sexual act should be defined. In my opinion, this is because there is no reason to doubt that it should be. I found it helpful to look at this by analogy - if Dan Savage had opted to define the the word "Santorum" to mean a pineapple rather than a sex act then the summary in the Rick S article would undoutably include the word "pineapple", rather than simply saying a fruit. I can't think of a single reason why you would leave the word out. So, extending that analogy to this situation, there would seem to be no reason not to define the act, other than the fact that "The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex" is more embarrassing than "pineapple". This is not a valid reason to exclude info, so the definition should go in. Additionally, the whole purposes of the redefinition of his name was to be embarassing and it's impossible to really understand that unless the actual definition itself is included.


 * Slightly off topic but it was only after searching the page for "Savage" that I found it tucked under US Senate→Tenure→Social Conservatism. If you weren't looking for it and didn't read the entire article then it would be very easy to miss altogether. Given that its impact was much wider spread than just his Senate tenure, it is still reported widely and is reportedly affecting the GOP nomination, I'd advocate that it needs much greater prominence or, at the very least, pointed to in the contents box. Robinr22 (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not embarrassing - at least not for Santorum, it is imo for D Savage. It's just a deliberately created vulgar attacking slur created by the politicians partisan opponent, which wikipedia is not repeating and propagating as per its WP:BLP policy. - Youreallycan (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please cite relevant passage from BLP - can see no reference there to repeating or propagating vulgar slurs.93.96.148.42 (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You have to read the whole policy and then take it on board - it doesn't specifically refer to disgusting slur but the implication for such cautious respectful reporting in regard to living people is throughout the policy. Youreallycan (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * BLP explicitly mentions caution once - "Tone- BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject, and in some circumstances what the subject has published about himself. BLPs should not have trivia sections." There is no mention of "respect" for living people, and I can see no implication that "respect" for a living person should outweigh "respect" for what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject.93.96.148.42 (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This is the second paragraph. Please read it carefully and closely.

"Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material."Arzel (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The definition is well-sourced, Wikipedia is far from the primary vehicle, and including the definition on this page makes no more harm to Rick Santorum than not including the definition. I know some Wikipedians have an inflated sense of Wikipedia's clout in the world but this is ridiculous. We're a tertiary source, including the definition falls in line with this. It is already widely available. Rubiscous (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. The word does not exist and there is no defined definition. 2.  How do you know if it harms Santorum or not?  3. This article has nothing to do with the attack on Santorum thus there is no reason to expand upon the smear campaign by Savage.  Arzel (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And how do you know it does harm? There's an awful lot of implying of harm being done here but nobody's being very explicit. The burden is on you to detail exactly how you think it might harm him. Rubiscous (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Rubiscous - So there is no problem then - its easy to read the vulgar slur at multiple locations without us repeating it, we are linking to plenty of weblinks that repeat it but we are not obliged to include and repeat attacking slurs in our articles. BLP encourages us not to do that. Youreallycan (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We should reflect the sources. Wide coverage is a reason to include, not the other way around. It's not Wikipedia's job to spread the campaign but nor is it Wikipedia's job to stem it. Rubiscous (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But is redefining his name a slur? It is not suggesting that he engages in anal sex himself, rather a jokey argument that he should tolerate buggery. I think that BLP would prohibit the former, but allows the latter.93.96.148.42 (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

We've been over this before such that if repetitiveness is to be avoided, new arguments should be brought to the table. re "The definition is central to the Google affair which has been considered notable and should therefore be spelled out", even if if the definition is "central", the "therefore" does not follow. If it did, the spelling out would be routine in the New York Times and respected media generally in articles about Rick Santorum. It's anything but routine, even in articles that are more focused on the "Google problem" than Rick Santorum generally.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no mention in the citation above of jokes. It is talks about being the "primary vehicle" for " titillating claims about people's lives", not joking about their names. It is a fact (detailed in reliable secondary sources from 4 countries linked to above) that there has been a longstanding, and successful joke campaign to redefine Santorum's name as [deleted]. I am unclear as to what more evidence could be required. With regards to harm, what harm would be caused by including this joke that has already been published in 4 countries national newspapers. Even if one accepted that this joke was a "titillating claim", which I understand to refer to alleged sexual misconduct,  about Santorum, the primary vehicle for spreading the claim is spreadingsantorum.com, and there are a myriad secondary sources. 93.96.148.42 (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Brian, that's true, it does seem to me that it's has more to do with the fact that they don't spell out obscenities of that kind as an editorial choice. Have you ever seen a newspaper like the New York Times ever include that kind of language, no matter the context?
 * Peter Isotalo 19:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Peter - to me the fact that national newspapers have published the definition despite their normal self-censorship is a strong argument for the inclusion of the full definition in the article.93.96.148.42 (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources are too conservative therefore we should be more liberal? I would think it obvious that this is directly contrary to WP:NPOV.  WP:NPOV is a "non-negotiable" "pillar" of Wikipedia.  WP:NOTCENSORED is not.  Wikipedia follows the mainstream, not because it's conservative but because we cannot substitute our own editorial judgment to deviate off to either the left wing or the right wing.  If someone wants to be a crusader for some social change agenda, that's fine, just don't try to use Wikipedia as the vehicle.  Do you realize what sort of precedent is set if you start rejecting the "national newspapers" because of their "self-censorship"?  How do you answer those who say the next correction we have to make is for the "liberal bias" of the "national newspapers"?  Either you remain faithful to the sources or you don't.  In my view, putting this in would be contrary to ASTONISH.  I don't understand the obsession with including it in this article when it is already in a more topical Wikipedia article and when there are legions of authoritative reporters and editors out there both pro- and anti-Rick Santorum who evidently feel they can inform their readers about Rick Santorum without this.  Dan Savage wants to redefine Rick Santorum to be about something other than the politician, but that's his agenda not a neutral one.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I might add that "self-censorship" is not entirely unknown in terms of Wikipedia policy either. Edit_warring makes mention of "adding offensive language."  Wikipedia has a general ban on "Usernames that refer to or allude to reproductive or excretory functions of the body".--Brian Dell (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason I wish to include this is for the same reason we generally have a high level of detail in our articles. And this strikes me as being a very, very vital detail. If raunchy. But it doesn't seem more odd to me than, say, quoting Santorum's reaction to it. It's mostly the idea that something obscene at the heart of an issue should be treated different than happens not to be obscene. The "pineapple" analogy by Robinr22 (see above) strikes me as a good illustration of this.
 * I believe you've provided among the best lines of argumentation so far, though. But I don't really agree with how you characterize my stance concerning how media writes about this. I perceive your argument in comparing with the Times as slightly off the mark since you're comparing a free online encyclopedia with that of a commercial newspaper. Neutrality or no, there are some major differences. And there are major publications out there that have written out the full term, like The Guardian. I don't know if you consider that relevant as it's not spelled out in most sources. However, saying we can't or shouldn't mention it here, merely once, and in a rather brief section, seems like setting an overly cautious editorial standard that I'm not quite comfortable with.
 * But then again, by now the issue has been so drawn out that it's hardly worth pushing for. I'd be happy if we merely mentioned "spreadingsantorum.com" or linked to the Wiktionary entry.
 * Peter Isotalo 18:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I firmly believe we should cover the neologism, but including the full quoted definition here seems unnecessary. Of more interest to readers of this article would be any tangible effects, or countermeasures Santorum takes to deal with the situation.  The whole point of WP:summary style is you don't have to have everything in the main article once you've started a specialized article. Wnt (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is only 13 words. How many would you suggest including? Which effects would you suggest including? Would this be suitable -http://gawker.com/5872978/every-funny-headline-involving-the-word-santorum - it says "Santorum is also, as users of Google and followers of Dan Savage know, a neologism for [deleted].  Here are headlines about the former that are much funnier when you imagine they are about the latter."93.96.148.42 (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to say that the current version is OK, because there's probably some interesting thing that's been taken out that I don't know about - but it definitely takes up a fairly large amount of space, and uses the space for the right quotes, namely, the statements that Santorum made that got Dan Savage on his ass (sorry, couldn't resist ;) rather than some definition by Dan Savage or one of his readers. The joke belongs to Savage - the controversy and aftermath belong to Santorum. Wnt (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

BLP certainly doesn't call for suppressing this information. A controversial politician has attracted some opposition, and Wikipedia reports on the statements and actions of the politician's detractors. So what? It happens every day of the week. A neutral, accurate, and properly sourced report of that sort is not a BLP violation, even if it "harms" the politician, even if a collateral effect of Wikipedia's coverage is to advance the detractors' goals by making their views more widely available, and even if the material thus made available is distasteful to the politician and to some Wikipedia editors. The repeated invocation of BLP here is completely mistaken (and, I note, is not applied by the same editors to other such public episodes involving other living persons).

The serious argument is the application of WP:SS. Under that guideline, information that's too detailed for the main article goes into a daughter article, with a summary in the main article. It would have been a violation of WP:SS to remove the summary from this article, and relegate the subject to a "See also", as some urged. We can also violate WP:SS in the other direction, however, by trying to pack all the properly encyclopedic information into the main article. Here, if we identify the Google problem, describe its origins in Santorum's anti-gay statements, say that the linked term is a "sexual innuendo" or similar, and provide a wikilink to the more detailed article that quotes the exact definition, why isn't that enough? JamesMLane t c 20:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it was a reaction to Santorum talking about "man on dog" sex. Words are important! It has been cited in full in a number of reliable sources - others advise googling it because of their self censorship. Either way, to many people, especially outside the USA,  Santorum is famous as the source for santorum, rather than as a minor US politician.93.96.148.42 (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Do people outside the U.S. really use the term with any frequency? For our various arguments any sources you have on this would be most welcome (even if they only belong in the neologism article). Wnt (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I live in the UK and Rick Santorum is almost unknown as is the sexual slur - perhaps the homosexual community are more informed about such as this matter that affect them. After the Ohio primary Rick Santorum and his rise in popularity and split result was well reported but I didn't see a thing about D Savage. Youreallycan (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I also live in the UK and am well aware of the Santorum thing -- and it's not just a gay thing (I'm not gay). Savage had an article in the Guardian last week -- a great many more people here know about it now.  I think you might be confused about Ohio already having had a primary. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Iowa then, excuse my missie. Savage is basically unknown in the UK - no one in the UK has ever said, "wow - your anus is leaking santorum " - Youreallycan (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Response to .93.96.148.42:
 * "Because it was a reaction to Santorum talking about 'man on dog' sex." Yes, that quotation of a statement made by the bio subject is illuminating about the bio subject and should be included verbatim, as it is.
 * "It has been cited in full in a number of reliable sources...." Absolutely, there's no question about the authenticity of the wording.  The whole point of WP:SS, however, is that some information, even if well-sourced and accurate and relevant to the subject of the article, should nevertheless be omitted from the article, as long as the information is available elsewhere on Wikipedia and is properly summarized.  Here, the reader is told that the purpose of the definition was to protest Santorum's views on gay rights, that the definition is sex-related, and that Santorum considers it a "vulgarity".  Once the reader has all that information, how much is added by giving the verbatim language?  I think something is added but you could say that about just about anything that gets relegated to a daughter article.  (If it didn't add something it wouldn't belong on Wikipedia at all.)  I don't see this particular text as being important enough for inclusion here, provided that the important points of the summary here and the separate existence of the full article are maintained against the relentless efforts to suppress the subject entirely. JamesMLane t c 23:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not a gay thing - more of a techie thing - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/20/wikipedia_and_santorum/ - for example. My objection to a "summary"of the definition being used is that this involves a degree of editorial choice that can be avoided by simply including the 13 word definition. Also I can not see any reason for excluding this "big joke" (Santorum's words) from the article. 93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Cade Metz is pretty much highly opinionated and uncitable here as is the register imo apart from the occasional non contentious techie thing. Youreallycan (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

What has happened to the BLP argument this was about? Either including the "big joke", as Santorum described the definition of his name as [deleted] violates BLP, or it doesn't. I understand that some people have views on this topic, but I think we should focus on the simple question- does BLP forbid repeating jokes when they are important to a subject's biorgraphy.93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to renew my proposal for a link from "an unflattering sexual definition" to the wiktionary page. In sum, I hate to state the obvious but it doesn't look like we're heading toward consensus on the bigger issue anytime soon. I'm hoping there's a little bit of common ground here: that IF we're going to make a reference a definition without actually stating it, then shouldn't we enable readers to read that definition without too much head-scratching? Seriously, is that too much to ask? --Nstrauss (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In response to those who see this proposal as continued censorship: Perhaps, but this change wouldn't cause any additional censorship, would it? My main concern is that readers who read about the mysterious "unflattering sexual definition" get quick access to what that definition is, thereby spending less time being confused. As is, the link to the Campaign for "santorum" neologism page is hardly obvious, and once you get there you have to read 2 paragraphs just to find the definition. Isn't my proposal an improvement?
 * In response to those who see this proposal as continued defamation / smearing: The unfortunate fact is that the reference to the neologism is in the article and will probably stay, due to the large number of mainstream news reports connecting Santorum the person with santorum the neologism. This proposal meets you halfway. Are you willing to compromise your position as well?
 * I would support this as my issue with the article is not with the lack of appearance of the definition within the article but with its inaccessibility for those who wish to view it. One should not have to read halfway down another fairly large article to learn what it is that this article is alluding to. A simple link to the Wiktionary entry is a good compromise. But rather than your "unflattering" etc suggestion (a bit POV) I would suggest that the following sentence be used: "In reaction to the remarks, columnist and gay rights activist Dan Savage launched a contest among his readers in May 2003 to name a sex act as "santorum" as a protest against his conservative views on sexuality." Rubiscous (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Unflattering" is, AFAICT, a very NPOV term for how the pseudo-neologism was intended. To claim otherwise flies in the face of essentially all the sources which pretty unanimously make that value judgement.  The purpose was to find something "unflattering" to associate a living person;s name with - and nothing else.  shows Instinct (magazine) calling it "unflattering" - and I suggest that particular source is scarcely "homophobic."  ABCNews also says "unflattering" at (googlenews spamfiltered but easily findable) meaning that the word "unflattering" is as mild a term as one could rationally ask for.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do we need to assign an adjective to it at all? Is it necessary? Rubiscous (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. It is citable. 2. It is NPOV per sources.  3. No adjectives are "necessary" -- if we wish to delete them all - but deletion of specific citable adjectives may violate NPOV is the aim is to in any way tilt the field - remove all, or remove none if that is the consensus.  Why don't you make an RfC on cited adjectives in this article?  Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It was my understanding that value judgements should always be attributed, not necessarily to an individual eg. rather than "the definition is unflattering", a more proper sentence would be "the definition is widely considered unflattering". Because it's still subjective, no matter how unanimous the sources seem. We shouldn't give undue weight to an opposing viewpoint if unsupported but still doesn't mean we should present the prevailing opinion as objective fact. Rubiscous (talk) 08:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit concerned that we are designing the article with only our most salacious readers' needs in mind. People will come here who aren't trying to find out more about frothy substances.  The wikitionary link is next to useless compared to the article we have here on site.  And we've linked to it.  I would argue that the compromise has already been made - we kept the neologism article, and we've kept an informative summary with links to it in this article.  Do we really need this wikt link?  The Interior  (Talk) 07:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The wiktionary definition is useful compared to the neologism article, in that it is concise. For those who wish easy access to the definition but have little interest in the in-depth comings and goings of the campaign. It allows accessibility for the reader without shoving the definition down the reader's throat. More importantly I can't see how anyone could argue that it's a BLP concern or adds undue weight when presented in this manner so should be a fair concession to those who have such concerns about the definition appearing in the article. Rubiscous (talk) 07:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is precisely my position. --Nstrauss (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

At the end of the discussion of the 2003 interview, the article says that Santorum "later" denied that he meant to equal gays with animals or child rapists; but there is no citation to where/when he said this. I urge anyone with editing power here to add a citation, or a [where?] note.134.29.178.254 (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * For those who claim mainstream media has not published the full definition, Fox News has published the full definition -- http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/09/google-and-others-embrace-vile-attack-on-santorum/ 88.166.32.210 (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think it would be helpful to see a list of mainstream sources that have repeated the definition. Regarding the words of BLP - it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives - I see no titillating claim about Rick Santorum's life, whether or not we include the definition. Nobody is claiming that Mr. Santorum, in his life, does anything relating to anal sex or its by-products. The claim is this: Due to Mr. Santorum's stance regarding homosexuality, and due to certain statements he has made about homosexuals, notable columnist and gay-rights activist Dan Savage embarked on a campaign to define the word "santorum" in a vulgar manner. This definition has become high-profile enough to be discussed as Mr. Santorum's "Google problem" and to be the topic of commentary by a wide variety of notable sources. I see no problem with including something just like that in the article, no BLP violation there. I think it would be relevant to include in a section discussing Mr. Santorum's views on homosexuality, and responses to those views.  Looking at the current state of the article, I see that something like the above (but more well-written) is precisely what we've got, and I support the current contents. There's no need to spell out the definition in this article, considering that we link at least twice to the article on Savage's campaign. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Rebooting compromise solution (linkage)
I'm noting that this issue has generated so much conflict that the actual proposals for solving the problem are being buried in discontent. Here's something of an attempt at getting the discussion back on track.

There is clearly no consensus for including the full definition in the article. A compromise solution of linking to the term has been proposed by several users and accepted even by many of those who have opposed including the full definition. My impression is that it enjoys something like consensus and that policy supports it. So here's what I propose: Wikipedia has always provided details like quotes and verbatim reports of various types of critique. If we aren't going to agree on including the actual definition, the least we could do is include a direct link to the definition that readers can access it at their leisure. And just so we won't be accused of trying to somehow trying to shock unsuspecting readers, there could be a clear characterizing with quotes from mainstream media. Here's a proposal (Wiktionary option):
 * a direct link to the SpreadingSantorum-website
 * the URL as plain text without a link
 * a link to the Wiktionary article "santorum"
 * The winning definition, which has been described as "lewd" and "unprintable in a family newspaper", was then promoted with a Google bombing campaign.

This solution appears to be fully compatible with WP:BLP as the coverage in sources is plentiful and notable. Even outlets highly favorable to Santorum, like Fox News link or even write out the full definition. So if we settled for merely linking to, it could hardly be construed as undue coverage. Peter Isotalo 18:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't support a direct link to the website from the main text of the article. We don't generally do external links inline like that, and I see no reason to make an exception here. A link to our own article on the controversy is plenty sufficient, IMO. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We also don't usually exclude cited, verifiable, criticism in such an explicit way as in this article. The above seems to be a valid, well thought out compromise.--Found5dollar (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't deny that it's well thought out, nor do I claim that it's "invalid", whatever that might mean. I just don't support one detail of it. Is that alright? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * GTBacchus, does that mean you oppose a Wiktionary link as well?
 * Peter Isotalo 16:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The Wiktionary link doesn't bother me as much. I don't think it's ideal, because we link to our own article on the campaign to establish the neologism, which is where I think readers should click for details. Unfortunately, the actual definition is buried a couple paragraphs deep in that article. I would support it being in the first sentence there, or featured in a definition-box, or something like that. Failing that, the Wiktionary link seems better than a link to spreadingsantorum.com. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I am against any link to the Wiktionary definition since our own rules regarding RS disallow the use of unpublished original research. Wiktionary itself states that they use original research in the defining of terms.

"Wiktionary is a secondary source for its subject matter (words and phrases) whereas Wikipedia is a tertiary source for its subject matter (topics). This means that while Wikipedia documents what other people say about topics, Wiktionary documents words and phrases itself without relying on the statements of other people. As a consequence, the requirements of verifiability are very different. Verification on Wikipedia asks 'can we find a credible source that says it is the case?' while on Wiktionary we ask 'can we find real-life examples where it is the case?'. This also means that whereas Wikipedia discourages original research and relies on the research of others, Wiktionary users themselves actively research terms and their meanings." Arzel (talk) 01:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, Wiktionary is not being proposed as a source. It's being proposed as an external link.
 * Peter Isotalo 09:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This proposal seem incredibly well balanced.There will be "all or nothing" people on both sides but i fell this proposal walks the compromise line amazingly well. All of the information is there but worded, linked, and cited in a way that is easy to retrieve the definition, but you don't see it on the page. Quick question, would "www.spreadignsantorum.com" be added in the external links section of the article with this proposal?--Found5dollar (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As someone who favors inclusion, I would consider that inappropriate. "External links" should be reserved for links directly related, and in a biography, that seems like it should be limited to websites maintained by or under the supervision of the article subject. It should be kinda like a "Further reading"-section, and this is definitely not "Further reading".
 * Peter Isotalo 16:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your clarification. I completely agree, just wanted to make sure i was understanding you correctly. If it isn't obvious, I support this compromise.--Found5dollar (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * i think you should include something since it is indeed covered in RS. but no too much - undue and silly. Soosim (talk) 07:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You Gotta Keep 'Em Separated There is no question that the WP:BLP guidelines are clearly biased towards maintaining the privacy and dignity of every subject of a biographical entry. At the same time, the notability of the alternative, polemical use of the term "santorum" (as a noun) cannot be disputed. The damage caused personally to Rick Santorum by having the alternative use of his name listed in Wikipedia cannot possibly be bigger than the damage from having it all over the internet and first in Google searches. Therefore, we should keep both articles, though separate, as they currently are: one for 'Rick Santorum' and one for the 'Campaign for "santorum" neologism'. And there is clearly no encyclopaedic need to include in the former anything from the latter. -The Gnome (talk) 06:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * keep them separate As per WP:FRINGE, "An idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea...Wikipedia is not and must not become the validating source for non-significant subjects...it is of vital importance that [editors] simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality."  Unscintillating (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE would suggest that it shouldn't be mentioned at all. Note particularly "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give "undue weight" to the Flat Earth belief."  While this isn't technically a "view," the same principle applies.  By all means, discuss it at Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality, but to mention it in the main article is to give it undue weight. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I really should point out that there is already a quite solid consensus for including this in the article. This thread is about inclusion of linkage to the offending definition which the whole affair revolves around. Peter Isotalo 22:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not seeing any consensus here - consensus is not a head court either, its a policy driven assessment of comments.   You  really  can  22:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus-determination isn't immediately restarted after you archive previous discussions. See Talk:Rick Santorum/Archive 4 for example. Peter Isotalo 09:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep them separate - There should be zero words in the bio on the Savage campaign, but there should absolutely be a See Also link for the Campaign For Neologism piece, which is integrally related to the biography subject. That strikes me as an even-handed way to play this. Carrite (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also: NO linkage to the Savage site from this page, which is an attack site in the context of the biographical subject. HOWEVER, there MUST be linkage to that site from the Campaign for Neologism page, since that site is integral to that particular subject. POV pushers from one side or the other are going to want to blur this line — either "tainting" the bio with Savagisms or "emasculating" the neologism page by stripping the URL for political ends. Mind NPOV. Carrite (talk) 04:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Include a mention - the article as I currently view seems to strike a right balance. The neologism was a premeditated political act-- it is part of the story of Rick Santorum the politician.   Keeping most of the information in the other articles seems acceptable as in the current version --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Relevance of wife's previous relationship?
Curious as to the relevance of the following details to a Rick Santorum entry: ''Before Karen Garver met her husband, she had been living with Tom Allen, a Pittsburgh obstetrician and abortion provider 40 years older than her. She began the relationship in 1982, when she was a 22-year-old nursing student at Duquesne University and Allen was 63. They broke up in 1988, because she wanted to have children and he did not.''

What does this have to do with her current husband's life? Is it at all notable?152.27.44.2 (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)kz


 * It is definitely WP:UNDUE. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in WP:UNDUE which applies here. Another policy may apply, but that one does not seem to be relevant. If I'm wrong, could you quote the passage you're thinking of?   Will Beback    talk    00:04, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It is definitely not relevant to the BLP here. It might possibly be relevant if his wife has an article.  Maybe.  "Relevance" is, in fact, a BLP requirement. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The matter is mentioned in this profile of Santorum from 2005: . It seems like they connect it to Santorum's changing political views.   Will Beback    talk    01:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually the source you give makes zero connection betwen Santorum's "changing political views"  and his wife having has a POSSLQ. It simply states that his wife had been co-habiting with an OBGYN, and mentiones that she had told the doc that Santorum was  "pro-choice and a humanist" when she moved out.  It does not say that that was Santorum's position, only that this was how she moved out of her POSSLQ's abode - by making that statement to the doc.  Only the OBGYN is the source for this statement, and absent stronger sourcing, it is a remarkably weak source for much of anything at all.  It does not have his wife reciting the anecdote.   The death of "Gabriel" is far more significant if you simply wish to show that Santorum's views changed, to be sure.  His wife having has a POSSLQ is rather irrelevant to much at all.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:UNDUE is defined as a fringe theory like Flat Earth. The facts of Karen Garver's relationship with Tom Allen are not in dispute. There have been several articles in WP:RS, which she did not challenge and refused to comment on. That's more than enough for WP:BLP.


 * Beyond that, the relationship is relevant for two reasons:


 * First, as this Slate article argues, in an ideal world, a woman's personal life should be her own business, but Karen Santorum has benefitted from the freedom that she and her husband wants to take away from everyone else. According to this article, Rick Santorum has argued that abortion should be subject to criminal penalties (though he may have taken different positions at different times). Slate makes a reasonable argument. And given the number of articles on Garver and Allen recently, it's not a fringe view.


 * Second, Karen Santorum has presented her own experience as an argument against abortion, and written a book about it. If someone writes a book about a controversy, it's reasonable to expect those on the other side of the controversy to do some fact checking. Now it turns out that her views on abortion were completely different when she was younger. Not only was she living with a doctor who performed abortions, she helped support women who were getting abortions, as the Newsweek article mentions. Some people might think her current argument is weaker and less convincing because of that. That's a reasonable argument.


 * She's his wife. She's supporting his anti-abortion positions with her book and otherwise. She brought herself and her reproductive history into the campaign. She's a nurse and a lawyer. She knew the consequences of disclosing her personal life.


 * So that's why it's notable and relevant to her husband's life. --Nbauman (talk) 06:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with the abortion-related arguments being included, but is it really necessary to mention the age difference? Speciate (talk) 08:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe the age difference should be mentioned because every WP:RS mentions it. It's a striking difference. It's WP:NOTABLE by Wikipedia critera. I can think of a few reasons, but my opinion doesn't matter, unless it would make you feel better.


 * I myself generally don't like disclosing personal details like this, but when politicians pass laws that affect other peoples' lives, as Santorum does, their own family's behavior becomes an issue.


 * I'm trying to find a good reason to delete it, and I can't think of one.


 * It looks like we've discussed it here, laid out the reasons for deleting it, and all those reasons have been rebutted. Time to put it back in. --Nbauman (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you should explicate some of this reasoning in the actual text. The way it was originally written made it sound like Karen Garver Santorum is merely an extension of Rick Santorum, so her prior experiences by default are relevant to him.  They're not.  If there are citations showing either of them invoking her personal life as part of his campaign, those need to be included.  As for the mention that the couple broke up because she wanted children and he didn't?  Again, a woman's personal history is NOT her husband's history.152.27.44.2 (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)kz


 * I can't explicate anything in a Wikipedia article. All I can do is add quotes or paraphrases from a WP:RS. What would you like added?


 * The reason for their amicable breakup was in the Newsweek story, which I included because I thought it was favorable to her.


 * Santorum and his wife are a partnership. A marriage is a partnership. She is an extension of him. That's what a partnership is. She's done things to support him, as a politician's wife usually does. She's supported him in his opposition to abortion. She opposes abortion. As the Newsweek story said, she benefited from the freedom that she and her husband wants to take away from everyone else. That's reason to put it in the article.


 * To put it another way, the reason to put it in the article is WP:WEIGHT. Many WP:RS have reported on it. That establishes WP:WEIGHT. I don't see any way out of that. --Nbauman (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really object to the inclusion of the history, if it can be written in a way that makes clear its relevance to Rick Santorum. That she benefited financially from the work of a doctor who provided abortions isn't obviously pertinent to discussion of her husband's political campaign or positions - not encyclopedia-entry-obvious, anyway.  There's actually very little discussion of his wife here, so if this history belongs, it just needs to be tightened up to fit into a portrait of Rick Santorum.  Personally, I'd still omit the bit about the break-up - it doesn't matter whether it's favorable to her or not if it doesn't clearly influence her relationship with the current husband.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.27.44.2 (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Karen's history of living with an abortion doctor can be written about in a way that makes it relevant to this bio, which is supposed to be highlights of Rick's life. Other political bios don't talk about the prior sexual relationships of spouses. KeptSouth (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As a WP:RS says, Karen Santorum has benefitted from the freedom that she and her husband wants to take away from everyone else. Other WP:RSs have reported the story. That makes it relevant to this bio. Why not? --Nbauman (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Although Karen doesn't currently have her own article, we should write Rick's as if she does. A lack of a Karen Santorum biography is not an excuse to include any info about her that doesn't directly and demonstrably affect Rick. All information that would be kept out of this article upon Karen establishing independent notabilty should be kept out now. Rubiscous (talk) 09:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * So you agree that the argument from a WP:RS -- that Karen Santorum has benefitted from the freedom that she and her husband wants to take away from everyone else -- makes it notable enough to include in the article. If we have a consensus, let's put it back. --Nbauman (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I object to this desired addition. Its irrelevant in this wikipedia biography who his wife was with prior to the subject.   You  really  can  18:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I note that no such consensus to add this material is present here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * A WP:RS argues that Karen Santorum has benefitted from the freedom that she and her husband want to take away from everyone else. I think that makes it relevant. Why isn't that relevant?


 * On consensus, according to WP:CONLIMITED, a consensus is determined by the quality of arguments, not by a head-counting vote. If I and other editors raise arguments, and nobody has a meaningful rebuttal, that's a consensus. "I just disagree" is not a meaningful rebuttal.


 * According to WP:CONLIMITED, "In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept." If there is no consensus, this content goes back in the article. According to WP:DRNC, it should never have been taken out. --Nbauman (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All sorts of people write partisan content but this is a wikipedia biography and we are not obliged to report anything we find in some daily beast article - or even in quality externals. Not only should it have been taken out it should never have been added, personally I would like to block or topic ban the user that added it - such partisan POV pushing biased additions demean any claims the project has of NPOV and BLP compliant articles.   You  really  can  22:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I was the user that first added it, as you can see from the page history.


 * This story was covered not only in the Daily Beast but also Newsweek, Slate and other publications. WP:WEIGHT says that each article should represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to their prominence.


 * I would like to know whether you agree that the story was covered in WP:RSs, and whether you agree that it should get representation in proportion to that prominence. --Nbauman (talk) 05:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Not important, while a few outlets on the left have been making a little noise about it, this article is about Rick Santorum, not his wife, and certainly not his wife before she met Santorum. You would have to show that this is somehow relevant to Rick Santorum.  FTR, Newsweek = The Daily Beast.  TDB bought Newsweek recently, with TDB being the internet part of Newsweek.  Arzel (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This story of Garver and Allen was reported in Newsweek/Daily Beast, the New York Daily News, the Toronto Star, Politico, Slate, ABC News, and the Daily Mail. (I'll even set aside the Huffington Post and The Advocate.)


 * Do you agree that those are WP:RSs? --Nbauman (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "This story of Garver and Allen was reported in..." - this is R Santorum's notable life story, not Garver and Allens.   You  really  can  20:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's take it one step at a time. I think we have consensus that those are WP:RS. Does anyone disagree? --Nbauman (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Its irrelevant if they are or not. The question is also a bit leading - its often not the publication but the specific article that requires investigation. You  really  can  00:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not irrelevant under WP:WEIGHT.
 * We have a WP:CONSENSUS. Many WP:RS have reported the story. No one here challenges that. --Nbauman (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not that it would change my position as regards this tangential coatracking but there is no consensus in this discussion.   You  really  can  10:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is irrelevant under WP:WEIGHT. The idea that Rick & Karen Santorum are one and the same and therefore significant events in Karen's premarital life, if reliably sourced, are automatically relevant to the biography of Rick Santorum is one of the most ridiculous fringe theories I've ever read. How do you explain all the times they've been pictured together? Rubiscous (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am discussing only the question of whether many WP:RSs have reported the story. No one challenges the fact that they include many WP:RSs, right? Do you challenge the fact that they are WP:RSs, according to the Wikipedia definition? You have not done so. If some of us believe that they are WP:RSs, and no one challenges that claim, or raises a meaningful objection, then there is WP:CONSENSUS that they are WP:RSs. If you disagree, explain why they're not WP:RSs. --Nbauman (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

- can you present the external RS for investigation? You really  can  21:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. I linked to to the Slate and Newsweek stories above. You can search Google News for the rest of them. I don't think anyone disagrees that Newsweek/Daily Beast, the New York Daily News, the Toronto Star, Politico, Slate, ABC News, and the Daily Mail are WP:RSs. --21:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not sure why you are debating RS when this is not an RS issue. It simply does not have anything to do with Rick Santorum.  If Karen ever has an article of her own, then it would go there.  Arzel (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, as a side issue that slate "article" is an op ed and a bit attacking - refers to the woman as a fornicator. The daily mail has also been rtejected here for anything contentious - the daily beast - well, enuf said. What did the BBC say about it? You  really  can  22:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Aside from that, why is Karen Santorum practically invisible here?
I see a problem here beyond whether Karen Santorum's prior relationship should be in the article: there is virtually nothing in this article about her, and there is no separate article about her. We know she was a law student, she had babies, she wrote something, and she is a Dame of Magistral Grace of the Knights of Malta. That is not at all consistent with our usual approach to biographies, particularly of people in the public eye, and especially so for spouses of Presidential candidates. The relevant section here makes her almost invisible. We don't even know what her profession is - is she a lawyer? a nurse? a homemaker? - or her age, or anything at all. That's not typical, it's not useful for our readers, and it suggests the possibility of whitewashing. We are not here to protect or attack Karen or Rick Santorum, we are here to write a comprehensive biography of him. Clearly she has a major role in his life and right now in his public persona. She is theoretically a potential First Lady, and the lack of information here is ridiculous. It remains to be seen if there is enough information available to warrant a separate article - at this point my guess is no - but her notability is obvious, and at the very least there needs to be some significant beefing up of this article to tell our readers more about her. Tvoz / talk 23:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It is indeed usual for people who are not really notable on their own not to have a lot of information about themselves shoehorned into other articles.  Note that notability is not inherited.  Precedent on Al Gore's son and the fact that he was found not sufficiently notable either for his own BLP nor for any extended comments in his dad's BLP shows how Wikipedia has viewed such arguments oin the past.  Cheers, I hope this answers your concerns. Collect (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "She is theoretically a potential First Lady, " - no she is not - she is the wife of a limited player in the republican primaries - a candidate that has according to the current  polls,  no chance of being chosen as the republican candidate.    You  really  can  00:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Collect, not really - there's a world of difference between the son of a famous person who has no notability on his own and is thrust into a position of media scrutiny that is not his choice, and a spouse of a presidential candidate who does interviews, has speaking engagements, and has developed a public profile of some note. I don't consider it "shoehorning" to have a few identifying details about Karen Santorum in this article, in fact given the emphasis that he puts on his family story, which he inserts into almost every public exchange, it is rather peculiar to come here and find almost nothing about her.  I don't expect that there is material sufficient for a separate article on her at present, as I said, but that is actually not how Wikipedia has viewed this in the past, from my pretty extensive experience editing BLPs of political figures and many others.  And as for whether or not she is "theoretically  a potential First Lady", of course that is exactly what she is.  Do I think she will become the First Lady?  Not at all likely.  But I do think we have readers who want to understand him more, and to understand him - in particular given his "family" stance, as I just explained - yes, they'd want to know a bit about her. This article can handle a few more sentences. Tvoz / talk 05:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy does not seem to agree with you. "Mary Quark" is "potentially" a First Lady.  That is insufficient for much at all.  If the person is notable enough for a separate BLP, then such information belongs in that BLP.  If she is not notable enough for a BLP, then she is not notable enough to stuff into this one, except where her information is directly and specifically relevant to this BLP.  Suggestion: Write her BLP and put the info into it.   Simple and proper solution.  As for asserting that you feel that we should editorially decide to add opinions about Santorum's "family stance" - that is not an argument to be found in any Wikipedia policy or guideline, and would require, as a minimum, strong sourcing and WP:CONSENSUS here, which it clearly lacks. Collect (talk) 13:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Come on, don't be disingenuous - if you don't see a difference between Callista/Ann/Karen and "Mary Quark", whoever that may be, in terms of their theoretical potentiality as First Lady, you're being ridiculous. As I'm quite sure you know, her husband is running for President. He is unlikely to get the nomination and even less likely to win, in my opinion, but that does not mean she is not a potential First Lady in the real world, and of interest to our readers of his biography. The fact is in my experience the nature of the discussions regarding family members has mostly been a question of whether separate articles should be merged into the main - which in many cases I think is the appropriate decision - not whether the main article should have some identifying information about the spouse and sometimes the children when appropriate.  There's such a conversation going on right now about Callista Gingrich, and I have seen many such discussions. They can go either way, but the result is not that the separate daughter article be deleted and there be no mention of salient information in the main article. I have no intention of writing a separate BLP for Karen Santorum, because I don't know of any reason to warrant it as I am now saying for the third time, but if you would read what I said rather than what you might think I meant, I am talking about basic information about her like what she does, when they were married, perhaps when she was born - basic stuff which you'll see in most if not all bios of politicians here, especially candidates for high office.  A spouse does not have to be independently notable to be usefully identified in the "main" person's bio.  Finally, you say As for asserting that you feel that we should editorially decide to add opinions about Santorum's "family stance" ... - where did I say that? Nothing in my comments above suggests that I "feel" anything at all about adding opinions about his stances, nor do I need a lecture on sourcing and consensus - I brought my concerns to the talk page as is appropriate, and your objections really don't speak to what I'm saying.  I am here asking regular editors of this article if they have more information about her that can be added to the personal life section here, as most other such articles have,  and/or to determine if there is some reason why they have not been added.  (Also note I am not commenting on the previous section's question regarding Karen's previous relationship as I haven't looked into it enough to know if it would be relevant here, and my concern has nothing to do with that matter, as I thought I made clear at the outset.)  Tvoz / talk 18:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe your words included
 * and to understand him - in particular given his "family" stance, as I just explained - yes, they'd want to know a bit about her.
 * Which I interpreted to mean that you felt his "'family' stance" was of some great import. Her existence is in the article, Material of biographical relevance to her and not to him ought not be in his BLP. If and when she has a BLP, then material about her belong in that article.  This was pretty well decided years ago re Al Gore, Jr. who has no significant biographical detail in his dad's BLP because Wikipedia decided that he was not separately notable, although he was in a large number of newspaper articles.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I already answered you on why there is a major difference between a son who had no choice in his public visibility and the spouse of a politician who takes an active role publicly, giving interviews, speaking publicly, etc. And, again, I am talking about basic information about her, not peripheral stories about her past relationship, unless that is shown to be relevant to his bio.  My point about his "family" stance is that he - not me, not us - made his family story a central part of his campaign - and it has received a lot of media coverage - so I believe readers are likely to come here to get information about them.  Other editors apparently saw this, and included a rather lengthy presentation of the story surrounding their stillborn child, for example.  Finally, the profession/training/employment of spouses is  commonly included in the main person's bio - I have no idea why you are resisting this. I am only asking for basic identifying information.  Cheers to you as well. Tvoz / talk 05:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Al Gore III appeared with his dad's campaign in 2000 at the age of 18.  He clearly had a choice in the matter.  So much for "no choice".  He has since had drug charges etc, yet is still "not notable" for Wikipedia. In short, he is ten times as "notable" as Mrs. Santorum is.  Get his article up first .  And the item which some were trying to add had nothing to do with "employment" and "training" but with the occupation of her former boyfriend.  Collect (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But I am not talking about her former boyfriend or his occupation. Just hers. We're told that his mother is Catherine (Dughi) Santorum (1918–), an administrative nurse - she has zero independent notability - far less than Karen Santorum or Al III for that matter - yet we are told what her occupation/training is. As is appropriate. She'll not likely get her own article unless her son is elected President, and then she'd join the ranks of the other Presidential mothers without independent notability who have their own articles. Yet you think it is against policy to say that Karen Santorum, certainly central to his bio as much or more than his mother,  is a lawyer or a nurse or whatever it is that she is, and that she works outside the home or inside the home?  Collect, I think you are thinking about the boyfriend and not hearing me when I say I am not. Cheers, again.  Tvoz / talk 16:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree his mom is not notable, and only the extent to which her training might have impacted on his upbringing would be of any value. In the case at hand, the fact she was a nurse arguably would have affected his upbringing, and has some BLP value.  I would submit that adding (say) "his mother was left-handed" would have no logical basis for relevance in his BLP, and would not make sense.  And "His mother once dated George Gnarph" is absolutely irrelevant.  Do you see the difference?  Collect (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

← Yes I do - but I'm not talking about adding someone Karen dated - I keep saying that and you keep raising it anyway! But you also are bringing up something interesting - if his mother's being a nurse might have affected his way of thinking, and if his wife is a nurse (is she? Wikipedia doesn't tell us!), might not that have had an effect on positions he has taken as well? I know, we need reliable sourcing for that. In any case, Collect, the fact is that Wikipedia is all over the place on this - there are politicians' spouses who are barely mentioned, and there are those with separate bios, and some with what I consider a fairly reasonable amount of identifying detail in the main bio. So I think, with respect,  that the Al Gore III issue is completely irrelevant except perhaps to whether or not we should include the allegations about Karen Santorum's previous relationship, which is not what I am talking about. It feels like this is why you're trying to make my innocuous request into a question of policy when it really is not. Tvoz / talk 20:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how to use whatever code makes all this stuff work, or I'd gladly help this article along AND finally just create a page for Mrs. Santorum since she's CLEARLY the more interesting half of their marriage. I came to this wikipedia article ONLY because Karen Santorum does not have her own page yet... and it's pertinent to note that this is by design when it comes to religious conservatives. Women are thought of in their culture to have only two qualities - which they share in common with livestock. It is certainly not wikipedia's job to hide all the untidy and inconvenient (yet highly interesting) facts about the MARRIAGE of a "pro-marriage" conservative... It's not wikipedia's fault or problem to solve that every aspect of Santorum's political career is fraught with opposition to his ideas about family, marriage and child rearing. The article as it is at the moment is OBVIOUSLY biased in terms of language rhetoric choices. Consider, for example, the use of lines like: "Santorum used earmarks and supported big government programs in education and transportation." I feel like I'm reading a teleprompter at the RNC... The word "big" is the operative/biased one there, in case you didn't know. And EVERY politician who has ever participated in legislating at all has "used earmarks". People who know these facts will look at an article like this and just want to give up on wikipedia altogether. I came here to find some information pertaining to KAREN Santorum and I found more of what I was looking for on the Talk Page ( although even that is like reading a facebook chat). You can't ADD "fairness and balance" without losing facts and relevance no matter how hard you try. A Wikipedia entry is thought to have integrity if it is Interesting, well cited and COMPLETE ( and NOT whether or not its helpful to his campaign) 98.203.19.162 (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Sorry my comments went off the page - don't know how to fix that - thus, I can't help edit wiki pages very well.

I can't help but concur that the citation "in Congress, Santorum used earmarks and supported big government programs in education and transportation" does not reflect a neutral point of view. I read the cited articles. They both seem to have the qualities of an opinion piece. Are there no articles anywhere citing a different point of view? No controversy there, really? I don't even vote for Republicans, but when I read this it made me cringe, because I don't like to read such opinionated verbiage in a place where I expect objectivity and neutrality. Devwatch (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Knowlwledge supresion
Some syndicated users remove information form articles and from discusion. The afinity to the group who play dume demo reflect close isomorphic transformation. See history and act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 11:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Grammar issue in section "Early life, education, and legal career", paragraph 2.
The first sentence of this paragraph reads:

Santorum was born in Winchester, Virginia, and grew up in Berkeley County, West Virginia and Butler County, Pennsylvania, Santorum Pennsylvania. Santorum attending the Butler Area public schools where he was nicknamed "Rooster" both for a cowlick strand of hair and his defiantly attended the confrontational nature.

I placed what I think would be more correct underneath the original. I'm not a regular contributor, just noticed this while reading the article this morning.

129.237.224.33 (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Jay Mueller, 2/8/2012
 * Thanks, Jay. Got it.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Feb 7th vote in MO
The Feb 7th vote in MO was not a nominating contest (it was nonbinding and carried no delegates). It's currently misidentified as such. I'm removing it. 173.35.225.153 (talk) 05:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Apparently I can't edit his page. Could somebody please edit so that MO is not misidentified as a nominating contest? Thanks. 173.35.225.153 (talk) 05:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Renamed as a "vote". The campaign article notes that no delegates were assigned.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Is he still a lawyer?
Currently the lede says "He was a lawyer before becoming the Representative for suburban Pittsburgh in 1991 and Senator for Pennsylvania from 1995, before losing his seat in 2006 and returning to law, public policy and the media." When someone is a qualified lawyer, and repeatedly practises law, they are normally considered to retain the profession of lawyer even when not practising. It involves considerable study, and registration. 93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The updated wording should now clarify the matter. —Eustress talk 16:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation page up for deletion
See Articles for deletion/Santorum (disambiguation) (2nd nomination). Josh Parris 06:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

talkpage comment
Hi - I removed your last talkpage comment - Please don't make such attacking comments about editors or the living subjects of our articles - thanks -   You really can  16:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

update - the IP was blocked for one week by Fae. -   You really can  16:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Santorum Religion
Wikipedia should not get involved in politics. However, by giving Rick Santorum a new religious classification "Roman Catholic-Christian" Wikipedia is doing exactly that, getting involved in politics. I know of no other Roman Catholic on Wikipedia who has such a classification. I have been Roman Catholic all of my life and have never heard the term "Roman Catholic-Christian. Nor is the term used for other politicians like Newt Gingrich or Ted Kennedy. Just for Rick Santorum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilib1 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw this and I didn't get it either - what has he commented about his religion, what citations do we have to support this? update - it been corrected to the standard Roman Catholic - Santorum from my search returns is considered a devout Catholic -   You really can  17:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This Zionist Organization of America is already in article, Exactly in section about Santorum religion ideological diversity (and hes vote record). Why the some Jew heaters trying to hide this obvius fact ending discusion about "Santorum Religion"? 24.15.127.148 (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe Jew-heating is illegal in 49 states and DC (not sure about South Carolina). On the other hand, perhaps some of the Jews who live in Maine wouldn't mind some extra heating.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

1981-1983
Anyone have links to reliable sources discussing what Santorum was doing during this period? The article is currently silent on the matter. —Eustress talk 02:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There was link in talk before for 79-81. Try to look under the carpet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.127.148 (talk) 13:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No games, please. Looking for links from reliable sources that discuss his activities between the years 1981 to 1983. If you have them, please list them below. —Eustress talk 16:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No games just the fact: anything with word Israel or Jew go under the carpet. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Selection of Photographs Biased ?
All the photographs seem to be official photos from his campaign. Are there not other pictures that could be used? Maybe with protestors?93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia needs photos which are released for use free of charge - which restricts the choices available. Most news photos do not meet the copyright criteria necessary. Collect (talk) 03:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Today in news is one picture (first to see) with smailing Santorum in Mexican hat. If someone put smiling Ricki in sombrero the article will be much nicers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 11:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There are several photos on wikicommons, such as http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Santorum_in_Independence.jpg that meet the criteria, and do not seem to have been posed or photoshopped. Would be good if one could be added.93.96.148.42 (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple images (one of him campaigning and another at a 2011 CPAC). I also removed the candid pic of him on the subway, which has no encyclopedic value and violates WP:PERTINENCE. Regards —Eustress talk 02:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not understand how a candid pic of the subject violates WP:PERTINENCE, nor why it is lacking in encyclopedic value.93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 February 2012
Please create a new link to a new page for Karen Garver Santorum

Levnich (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no article on her. There's a redirect that comes back to this page.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But perhaps there should be.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? Is she notable for anything besides being the wife of Rick Santorum? Notablility is not interited. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of K&L details

 * Support The article currently says that Santorum "practiced law for four years at the Pittsburgh law firm Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, now known as K&L Gates." Four years... they same amount of time he was a U.S. Rep (for which the article has an entire section). What did he do while at K&L? Well, we have a reliable source that says "he represented the World Wrestling Federation, arguing that professional wrestling should be exempt from federal anabolic steroid regulations because it was entertainment, not an actual sport."1 I believe it is completely within policy to include this information. In fact, it would be nice to know more about what he did there. I advise this info be incorporated into the article for good so we can strive towards a comprehensive article. —Eustress talk 23:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * He did his job - what he was told to do, defended his clients to the best of his ability. This article will never be a featured article - its under opinionated partisan attack and all additions are in support of that focus. Discussion has been opened at the BLPN -   You really can  23:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Discussion continued at WP:BLPN —Eustress talk 00:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter who's editing the article or what their opinions are. The information is duly sourced so the question on inclusion is whether it's a relevant and significant part of his life story, in other words of due weight.  I have no opinion on that, but once you cross that hurdle the next question is how you describe it.  Here we have to be careful about parroting the tone of news sources, as newspapers tend to describe legal matters in an unencyclopedic way.  We would never say that Lawyer X "looked forward to vigorously defending his client's innocence" because however many times that gets printed in the paper that's just legal claptrap.  Likewise, you have to take a lawyer's lobbying or litigation arguments on behalf of his client not as expressions of their own will or opinion, but as part of fulfilling their duty of loyalty to their client's interests.   Thus, it is not correct to say that Santorum "said" or "argued" X or Y without putting that in the context that he used that argument in the course of representation.  Youreallycan is right, the specific argument is normally not biographically significant, not unless the sources mention it as a particularly clever, brilliant, game changing, etc., argument, or conversely an appallingly inappropriate one.  - Wikidemon (talk) 04:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the basis is for saying that legal arguments are never of biographical relevance to the lawyers who make them. That'd be a bit like saying the contents of novels are never of biographical importance to writers, or the final scores are of no importance to biographies of athletes. But most of the sources I've seen which mentions the case also mention then legal argument. Since our coverage of it is so short I don't think there's any problem with mentioning it briefly too.   Will Beback    talk    04:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * include It is cross informative. Bully on steroids, International policy, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.127.148 (talk) 11:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC) "the deaths of the other children"
 * That !vpte is precisely the reason why the wording must make clear that it did his job.  And the "successfully lobbied for" wording is about as misinformative to the reader as is possible. Molly Ball specifically wrote
 * In his first career, as a lawyer, he represented the World Wrestling Federation, "arguing that pro wrestling was not a sport and should be exempt from federal steroid regulations," according to the City Paper profile. 
 * Which is rational language. Nor does the Inquirer story say that he was the one who "successfully lobbied" only that he guided the law firm in the legislative effort, and does not ascribe any "pro-steroi use" views to him.  In short - reading the actual cites, I see them as being misused here entirely.  I suggest that the Molly Ball wording is rational, and should be used. Collect (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That formulation is less clear than the alternate version, although I can't say whether it's more accurate or not without some digging. It doesn't really say what he did.  Among the issues: did he represent the WWF personally or did his firm represent the WWF, with him on the team?  What was his role in the team?  Was he engaged in advice, litigation, or lobbying?  If it was lobbying, then he did not really represent them as a lawyer.  Non-lawyers may lobby, and lobbying is not really the practice of law.  Who was that argument before, and in what way was making that argument part of the representation of WWF?  Was that the main substance of his representation, and in context?  The CityPaper, though nominally a reliable source, is a weak one, particularly on such a high profile subject. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The other cites are more clear that he "guided" the K&L team of lawyers (um -- ever hear of a single lawyer doing all the work?).  As he was there as a lawyer (he was a lawyer working for a law firm, not a lobbyist working for a lobbying firm), the term "lobby" is clearly what the article writer viewed the work as, but it was undoubtedly "legal work" else the Canons of Ethics were in tatters.  Jake Topper in an opinion piece states "As a young associate attorney for Kirkpatrick & Lockhart in Pittsburgh in the 1980s, Santorum lobbied in Harrisburg"  but such tabloids as the New York Times make no such claims.   Molly Ball does not use the word "lobbied" at all.  Fitzgerald  states " aggressive lobbying effort - begun in 1987 under the guidance of a young associate at the law firm of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart named Rick Santorum,"  making no connection at all to steroids.  Which implies that he told the lobyists what to do, but does not ascribe any actual lobbying to Santorum.  Thus the claim he did the lobbying rests on a single opinion column, while other sources specify that he was working as a lawyer.  Collect (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact I have heard of lawyers, even "young" (which may or may not mean junior) associates at large firms, being the lead and even sole worker on a particular client matter. If we were to get over the hurdle of whether this is noteworthy or not at all, the context does matter a lot as to whether he came up with this argument, whether it was in the context of lobbying or public relations versus arguments in a legal forum, and whether it was particularly clever, novel, groundbreaking, or noted at the time versus whether it was a dormant non-issue that resurfaced as a campaign issue / political attack / curious factoid in the news cycles years later when he was a politician.  In the latter case we would have to source that it's a real attack issue that actually affected Santorum and his political life, like say John Kerry and swiftboating, or George Bush and his supposed draft-dodging, as opposed to a tempest in the opposition blogoverse like, says, Obama not releasing his school transcripts.  And then we'd have to put it in context, where it might better fit in a child article about the campaign.   - Wikidemon (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The most detailed account seems to be the Philadelphia Inquirer article: "Conn. Senate race a real body slam - with ties to Pa." It's from 2010, long before the subject had declared his candidacy.   Will Beback    talk    07:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Relationship between Santorum and Washington
Please could you also add something about Rick Santorum's relationship with the Jewish Lobby in Washington? It would be profoundnly interesting for potential electors and world public to see why Rick is following some absurd policies (for example his views about Iran)through seeing who is financing him and supporting him. Best thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.204.42 (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nah. Not least because you haven't provided any sources, and you're not likely to get established editors here to join you in vaguely anti-Semitic speculation.  (Hint: if you want not to be perceived as anti-Semitic, try thinking in terms of the "Zionist" lobby, not the "Jewish" one -- there's a world of difference.)  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

New discussion on including "neologism"

 * Link to prior discussion in archive

At the September 11 attacks article, a consensus was reached to remove any mention of or link to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article; the article can be reached on its own but not through the 9/11 article. I believe that's what should happen here. I realize that the arguments have been repeated over and over, so I won't repeat them again here, but the "neologism" is WP:FRINGE. WP:BLP is a very serious and important policy, and we need to follow it. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The analogy is false. And the neologism is not "fringe".  There -- all set.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither WP:FRINGE nor WP:BLP have anything to do with this matter. Scrape, scrape, scrape that barrel. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a valid argument, nor is WP:BLP or WP:FRINGE in this instance.  He  iro  22:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Calling for equal treatment, however, IS a valid argument since it goes to WP:NPOV. Romney is in a similar position but is not being similarly treated by Wikipedia.  How is it that one politician's vulgar hecklers are more worthy of attention than his rival's?--Brian Dell (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Because unlike Romney's detractors, Santorum's have generated A LOT of non-ephemeral media coverage and serious public discourse over the last nine years, being discussed in many reliable sources. And because the Google bomb has taken on a life of its own and is notable on its own merits. In fact, you yourself made the point when you linked to an article describing how Romney's detractors are trying to imitate Santorum's, for the very reason that the Google bomb is so well known. We are not playground monitors. We report what the reliable sources have to say, and the reliable sources have had a lot to say about the Google bomb durings its long history. If Romney's Google bomb similarly takes on a life of its own in the future (and, who knows, it might), we can write an article about it then. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "We report what the reliable sources have to say... about" Google bombs in an article about Google bombs, which this isn't. Dan Savage did not invent the "Google bomb" and the particular one that he did played on a feedback loop in order to give it a "life of its own" that Wikipedia would not be feeding if it were neutral.  Why is there an article for Seamus (dog) if it is only Santorum's detractors who are "generat[ing]... serious public discourse" by deriding a particular element of the candidate's career?  Just how "serious" a contribution to the "public discourse" has been made by either Santorum's or Romney's neologism creator is very much a disputed value judgement.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, we report what the sources have to say about this very notable Google bomb in an article about this Google bomb, not in an article about Google bombs in general. There is very little doubt among reliable sources that Savage's Google bomb did generate abundant serious discourse about Santorum's statements and about the Gogle bombing tactic itself, both pro and con. Addressing your other concerns is a waste of time, because it has nothing to do with THIS article. If you have concerns about the articles on Romney, you are courteously directed to discuss them on the talk pages of the articles in question. Last of all, WP:NPOV has nothing at all to do with treating the candidtates in a election equally. That is not our role. We treat them as the reliable sources do, and the reliable sources do not treat the Santorum and Romney Google bombs equally. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Technically speaking, it is not a Google bomb. A Google bomb is when a search phrase is associated with a different word, such as "miserable failure" and "George Bush".  Google has an algorithm that defuses Google bombs.  They don't exist any longer. Jehochman Talk 18:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that spreadingsantorum shouldn't be mentioned here in the biography, not unless it gets a couple orders of magnitude more prominent. Although you could pose that as a BLP matter that would be an expansive view of BLP and there's no reason to trot that horse out where other policies and guidelines like WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, and relevancy to the subject matter are more directly on point. A serious lay reader does not need to read about spreadingsantorum in order to gain an encyclopedic understanding of Santorum, his life, times, and career, as there are only so many links and topics we can cover in a single article. This particular issue is pretty lightweight, pop culture-ish, and just plain out there. Readers ought to know that there is some controversy over his political statements about gays, a much more important and concrete issue. Should they choose to follow those connections they can find the articles in the larger circle of topics surrounding Santorum. As to how we would cover spreadingromney, spreadingobama, spreadingladygaga, and all the other inevitable satires and mashups, that is a question for a different page and I'd probably add them as a footnote in the spreadingsantorum article for now. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

In reply to Dominus, I note that many political targets are, quite properly, identified in the Google bomb article. There's even a page for Political_Google_bombs_in_the_2004_U.S._Presidential_election where the targeting of John Kerry and, especially famously, GWB is discussed. Yet there is no mention of being targeted at either the John Kerry and GWB BLPs. There thus appears to be an accepted practice such that it is appropriate to ask why a tactic generally initiated by liberal bloggers deserves unique attention when the target is Rick Santorum. In fact I do not object to mentioning it in Santorum's case given that the hate-on for Santorum seems to be uniquely intense but I do I object to the way a mention then leads to calls to slide to the very bottom of the slippery slope: it appears in the body of the article, we're told, therefore it may be spun out into its own article therefore there has to be a live link to the "bomb" itself on the spinout article's page therefore it gets even more hits and more attention therefore searches for the candidate's name may be deemed to be searches for the neologism therefore there has to be a disambiguation hatnote at the top of this BLP. Even Dan Savage couldn't get his attack site into the top results of a "Rick Santorum" Google search but thanks to Wikipedia, readers are just two clicks away if right at the very top of this "Rick Santorum" article there is a hatnote to a page containing the live link. This is encountered even if one searched for "Rick Santorum" as opposed to "Santorum." I point to Romney's case in order to alert minds to the possibility that this chain of logic can be broken at some common sense point short of having disambiguation hatnotes for politician BLPs across Wikipedia and suddenly there's cold feet about continuing the smear project beyond Santorum to his rival. Fact is WP:NPOV does not just mean parroting whatever POV a particular "reliable source" gives, contrary to your "[w]e treat them as the reliable sources do" simplification. We look at the totality of the reliable sources, upweighting the more authoritative RS and downweighting the more tabloid RS, and give the perspective of the median source which means being alert to giving WP:UNDUE weight to WP:FRINGE perspectives. The bottom line is that your contention that "[n]either WP:FRINGE nor WP:BLP have anything to do with this matter" is simply false. If it's WP:UNDUE in Romney's case it calls for an assessment as to whether it's undue in Santorum's case, not a scoffing "barrel scraping" dismissal of the question.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The "neologism" can't be included in the political positions section because it isn't a political position. People can find it at the main article about the controversy. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course it can. It's a notable reaction to his political position. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Reasoned argumments support exclusion. Analogy to Romney is relevant and compelling. – Lionel (talk) 05:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the Santorum neologism, like the Romney neologism, appears in only two reliable sources from one day ago, is that correct? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Earmarks
I think the passages about earmarks in the lead section should be removed. They're confusing because his change of position on earmarks isn't spelled out. In one paragraph we have a sentence about how he used earmarks, and in another paragraph we have a sentence about how he's now against earmarks. This is just not cohesive. The body of the article handles it much better (all in one place). In addition, earmarks are just not a notable enough part of his platform or biography to merit inclusion in the lead. All of the other candidates have come out against earmarks as well. Note that there's nothing about abortion in Romney's lead section. Thoughts? --Nstrauss (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed the second mention about how he's now against earmarks. His current political platform cannot be reduced to just anti-earmarks and anti-Iran.  However, I think the first mention should stay.  In 2009 he stated that "I’ve had a lot of earmarks [and] I’m proud of all the earmarks I’ve put in bills."  That's a remarkably frank statement and it distinguishes him.  A single mention is appropriate without playing it up by use of this "proud of" quote etc or by playing up contentious perceptions of a flip-flop.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Having the first mention stay but removing the second creates an incomplete and slanted picture, which makes it even worse. The fact that Santorum said he was proud of his earmarks doesn't make the issue sufficiently noteworthy to be included in the lead. I agree that that statement is noteworthy enough to go into the body of the article (which is why you should add it and source it). But honestly, nearly every senator has played the earmark game. Unless Santorum is especially famous for his earmarks, the passage should go. --Nstrauss (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd contend he is, indeed, relatively famous for his earmarks. "Nearly every Senator" may have played the earmark game but most Republicans did not request more than $1 billion in earmarks during two terms in office like Santorum did.  Senator Tom Coburn was on record supporting Senator John McCain's battle against earmarks.  Is there any such record for Santorum?--Brian Dell (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Santorum fought McCain on the issue but having checked what the Taxpayers for Common Sense has to say a spokesman described Santorum as "middle of the pack" on earmarks. I've accordingly pulled this in accordance with your recommendation however in my view it should be replaced with something indicating that this Senator was not one of the GOP's economic hawks while in Congress, eg the union-friendly votes.  I'd continue to object to stating an opposition to earmarks in the lede.  This year Santorum said "when taxes go from your state to Washington, D.C., you fight to make sure you get your fair share back" and that there is too much attention paid to the earmarks issue.  That may be opposition but not especially notable opposition.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Agreed, all very informative but not so notable to be in the lead section, on a par with his views on social issues. --Nstrauss (talk) 00:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But an important part of his story is that things he did that were "important to his state" are specifically things that go against his current conservative stances (such as earmarks, against right-to-work, etc),  so I think we need to be a bit clearer. He regularly makes the point that he did some things in his state's interest that are not necessarily consonant with his views, and I don't think what we have now makes that clear.   Tvoz / talk 04:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I totally agree, but that's for the body of the article, or better for his campaign page, rather than for the lead section of this article. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that and agree that perhaps we don't include earmarks per se, but I think saying that he did things that were important to his state but not what he believes in is the point - the only significance of the phrase "important to his state" is in opposition to his own beliefs. I'd like to think that senators always do things that are important for their states - and we would not say that in a lead, unless we were making a different point, as we were here. So I think we need to clarify why it is notable or what we mean by that he did things important to his state or take the line out of the lead altogether.  Tvoz / talk 18:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)