Talk:Rick Santorum/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Citations and Polling Data

I disagree with the most revert to my changes. First, I added the citations missing tag because I note at least 3 items that need citations on the page.

I added the verify source tag because someone claimed someone else had made a statement without any data. This definitely needs the source verified.

Finally, I reverted the changes made regarding polling data by 128.255.44.165 because that area should offer an overview perspective rather than looking at just one poll, and because it the statement "internet poll" was confusing and misleading.

-Ultima Designs 20:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Unjustified use of {{citations missing}}

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

September 23 revert

This revert was poorly justified. Please explain why you reverted uses of standard citation templates to some ad hoc format. In addition, you reverted to a version rife with weasel words such as "CREW is considered left-leaning" (By whom? The author of the article?). I have reverted your revert, pending an explanation of why this revision is superior to this revision. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 23:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

A point of information on "left-leaning" - that is a direct quote from the cited newspaper article. Admittedly it is only one reporter's opinion, but I left it in the text (I didn't put it there; it was there before my edit) to avoid charges of censorship or POV. I personally don't have any objection to it being removed, if that is the consensus.

Also, for what it's worth, I believe that CREW fully meets the criteria of WP:RS, and would be interested in details from those who believe that it does not. The September 2006 report has hundreds of footnotes; this is not just a bunch of bloggers throwing together a white paper. John Broughton 03:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Lead Section too long

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

Objectivity?

It seems to me that the person who wrote this article was annoyed about Rick Santorum's views on homosexuality. Does anyone agree that this author is rather biased? I think it should be edited to take away this impression. Chavila 01:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The article should report Santorum's stated views. It should also report that many people are annoyed about those views, but it should not take sides as between Santorum and his critics. The section as it now stands doesn't seem to me to depart from that standard by being biased against Santorum. If anything, it's unbalanced in his favor, at least in terms of the space allocation. Can you identify a specific passage that seems to you to be biased? Better you, can you suggest any specific edits that you think would take away any bias while not depriving the reader of valid factual information? JamesMLane t c 16:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you might be referring to my edits. Stating the Senator Santorum abhors homosexuality is fact. No editorializing needed or intended. Am I "rather biased"? Yes, in many things, I hate fake Christmas trees, silk plants, margarine, liver, and most of winter. But I keep POV outside of articles. Does the Senator annoy me? Gosh, no, I love people who try to persuade Chrisitans that we are somehow under attack in the nation that has the greatest religous freedom in the world, ever. Maintaining a neutral point of view is not code language for spinning a history of bigotry as fairmindedness.CApitol3 21:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Dan Savage interview link

I have returned a link to the Dan Savage interview deleted by Flcelloguy. With the election less than a month away, and the interview being very much about election strategy, especially implication of Sen. Santorum's campaign funding Green Party candidates, I found it quite interesting, and not as the deletion edit summary describes: "does not contribute greatly to article." Let's err on the side of letting readers, and voters, decide. CApitol3 22:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Rick Santorum's active engagement of sexual minorities obviously comes with some consequence, and though Dan Savage may not be Katie Couric, he is nationally syndicated and a part of a group (homosexuals) that Santorum has chosen to make issue of. Once more, I ask we err here on allowing the readers to decide on the value of the link. CApitol3 22:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

(ec) The revertion of the external link was in no way motivated by POV; I have been committed to NPOV and am dedicated to aggressively removing inappropriate links on articles per the the external links policy. I saw this addition on my watchlist, looked at the site, and deemed it not appropriate, and thus removed it. I did not feel that this link was appropriate for several reasons. First, it does not add significantly to the article, a general rule of thumb for external links. Keep in mind that the article should be about Rick Santorum, not about the election. Though the election may be significant in the article, the general focus of the article should still be about the person. Second, the site seems to be more of a blog of an editorial columnist of the University of Pennsylvania's newspaper publication rather than an actual article or formal interview. Blogs, in general, are not reliable sources and should not be linked from articles unless mandated. (See WP:EL). Thirdly, I did not feel that the site and interview contained material significant to Rick Santorum. The interview discussed the election, not the person, and it was not solely dedicated to the person and offered few, if little, new material. Finally, the interview was also with what I thought seemed like a columnist with little or no national or state impact. There are indubitably countless interviews, opinion pages, and editorials about a statewide politician; what distinguishes this one from the rest? Thus, I felt like the link was not appropriate and removed it. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Sorry, I do not buy your argument. Don't worry, I am an adult, I will not restore the link, but I do not buy a word of this. Your construct that the article being about Rick Santorum not about the election, could as easily be interpreted to mean the article is about Rick Santorum, but, not politics, not his political office, not his policies, not his votes. This sort of "rocks|scissors|paper" editing by administrators though impressively polite in language turns me away from Wikipedia. I continue to see your action to be motivated by POV. Thanks! GearedBull (A note?)

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

I see Jpgordon has left a note on your talk page; I had requested him to take a look and offer a third opinion, as he had recently edited the page yesterday. Barring any further objections or replies, I'll go ahead and remove the link soon. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Flcelloguy, I do understand Wikipedia is not a blog, the link is not to a blog. I maintain that your statements about the relevance of Dan Savage are subjective, and from my own observation of the pattern of your edit history, possibly motivated by POV. Let me be first to acknowledge this is my own admittedly subjective experience of them. Should you find my arguments politically based, consider that I believe that your interpretation of NPOV on Wikipedia is. And on some level it really has to be for most people, especially in the forum of a political article. Please accept my apology for my strident stand here. We are not going to find agreement on this. Please do watever makes you most comfortable, or feels right. You have been doing this longer than me. I am sorry to have added discord in a world that is presently overwhelmed with it. I will follow Wikipedia policy here and walk away. I am exhausted by, and will not continue, this exchange. CApitol3 02:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Of course it's a blog! "The Spin" features commentary from Daily Pennsylvanian columnists. It says in the search box right on the page, "Search this blog". --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• In addition, could I request yet again that you stop implying that the removal of the link (which is still included right now) is motivated in any way by my POV? Disagreements are fine and inevitable, and it's perfectly okay to state that you believe either the inclusion or exclusion of the link would make the article POV (which, by the way, I don't think is the case here.) However, it is completely unacceptable to continue to insinuate that the only reason I removed the link was to push my POV. This has never been the case, and will never be the case. Please stop; we're here to discuss the issue of whether the link belongs or not. The only and sole reason I removed it after seeing it being added on my watchlist is that I believed it to be against our policies, specifically the one on external links, as I've explained multiple times above. Thank you. Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• • GearedBull, do you have any response to the link being a blog? I would like to hopefully find some consensus on this soon. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Flcelloguy, I don't think we will reach accord on this subject. It seems to be an article from the student newspaper of a fairly established university. I will not make another argument for the link's return. Jim CApitol3 03:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• It's an article from the blog of a student newspaper. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's agree to disagree. You see it as a blog. I do not. I'm completely fine with the deletion. The republic will survive. CApitol3 15:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, and it's still a blog. http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com/blogs/ says, "The Spin is the opinion blog of the Daily Pennsylvanian." I do think that should be definitive. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Precisely; it's clearly a blog as it calls itself a blog, and resembles a blog in every aspect: it's regularly updated with new posts, and the URL even has "blog". I see no reason why not to call it a blog. Is there any reason you do not think it a blog? Thanks. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• • GearedBull, is there any reason why you do not think the link is a blog, given the arguments above? Because the site is a blog and WP:EL places blogs in links to be normally avoided, I will remove the link barring any response why the site isn't a blog. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Lord of the Rings Analogy

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

No.

POV All Over the Place

The simple fact that senior Senator Arlen Specter's article (someone who has served since 1981) is trifling compared to this one is indicative of many a liberal Wikipedian taking hours upon hours to rake muck, to editorialize every quote, and to spin the gist before the November elections. A POV tag could so easily be slapped on this garbage article, but as we all know, it would get bullied off by a swarm of conscripted editors and their administrative commissars. (Sure drop an AGF, but it surely doesn't apply when the article is already a crock.) My point? You aren't fooling anyone. Haizum 13:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Haizum. I have felt the very same way, but from the other direction (please note above my link to the Dan Savage interview being removed). I suggest the reason senior Senator Arlen Specter's article does not wreak of controversy is because the man's agenda does not. He has not positioned himself as a major change agent. Senator Santorum has. It's no stretch to say Sen. Santorum has gone on the attack against homosexuals. A very fragile, brittle attitude of the extreme right is revealed by their sheer astonishment that a group they attack actually returns fire. Like my dad always said "you stick your hand in a hornets' nest, your gonna get stung. Biographies of living people here on Wiki are pretty much as controversial as the subject. CApitol3 14:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Haizum - You might want to reread WP:Civil and Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and consider whether the following words of yours are consistent with those policies: swarm of conscripted editors and their administrative commissars. John Broughton | Talk 02:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've considered it and I've decided that the slant in this article is intentional -- in fact, I already said that. Haizum 02:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Then either you haven't read them or you don't understand them. You are supposed to always be civil and supposed to always assume good faith. By definition, if you are claiming people are intentionally damaging an article, you aren't assuming good faith. If you really want people to listen to you, explain what's wrong without trying to claim people have a sinister motive. Nil Einne 13:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

New additions

Remove some weasel word comments both for and against Santorum. Also using quotes from his political rival as a documentation source seem less then ethical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_words —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.65.206.180 (talk • contribs)

Hmm - no, that isn't what you actually removed are quotes from the Boston Globe and a polling organisation. Guettarda 19:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the sanitization. CApitol3 20:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up a little

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

Votes

I reverted 216.65.206.180 (talk · contribs)'s deletion of a substantial amount of information from the article. In addition to deleting material, s/he added information about votes:

08/03/06

S.AMDT.4878 to S.843 - Combating Autism Act

08/01/06

S.3766 - A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a tax credit for donations to non-profit scholarship organizations and educational improvement organizations.

07/25/06

S.3726 - Railroad Retirement Technical Improvement Act of 2006

07/25/06

S.3720 - Farm and Ranch Land Protection Flexibility Act of 2006

07/13/06

S.3657 - A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow bonds guaranteed by the Federal home loan banks to be treated as tax exempt bonds.

07/11/06

S.AMDT.4575 to H.R.5 - The Homeland Security Appropriations Act

06/23/06

S.3564 - Border Security First Act of 2006

06/22/06

S.3558 - National Hepatitis B Act

06/21/06

S.3551 - Tylersville Fish Hatchery Conveyance Act

06/15/06

S.CON.RES.102 - Senator Santorum Condemns French Honoring of Convicted Murderer of Philadelphia Police Officer

IMO we don't need information on every vote he made in the last few months, and this isn't typical of articles about politicians. Thoughts? Guettarda 20:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

redirect

Is there some sort of confusion over the purpose of the {{redirect}} template? Powers ^T 14:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Whatever confusion there is, there is no reason to have a multiline comment screaming "ATTENTION! ATTENTION!" in the source. I have shortened the comment and would recommend removing it entirely. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 10:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it worked, didn't it? Powers ^T 14:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Lend a hand with the deck chairs

Fun to watch the studious attempts here to defend Santorum even post loss. Yep, he's entitled to the title until the end of this session. Ditto for a member from Ohio presently in jail. Santorum lost, he has a successor. And mention of his defeat here is constitutional (rememebr that!?), even wikifiable. CApitol3 03:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh! who will protect us from sex with dogs now :(

• I figure we'll need to do a lot of cleanup later this week on articles like this... --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Santorum seemed rather frothy in post-election interviews. Edison 18:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Poor Parnell! ... My dead king! 18.252.6.96 05:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Term

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

Picture from concession speech

http://willdo.philadelphiaweekly.com/archives/110806santorum.jpg --Xyzzyplugh 03:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes

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

2008

I deleted the section about running for president in 2008. Since he certainly hasnt indicated any interest, and since he lost his reelection campaign, it doesnt seem relevant

Jules1236 74.69.225.35 (talk · contribs)

Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball

Please consult this source before changing the "Succeeded by" sections of the article. This is the official position of wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, predicting what will happen in the future. As the Senator is still in office, the article should be left as it is. Thank you, Stealthound 08:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Saying that Santorum is succeeded by Casey does not violate this. This is not speculation, as the election has been conceded. To try to say Santorum is the incumbent is untrue.--Rosicrucian 16:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Santorum is the incumbent. When the Senate gets together later this month, it will be Santorum voting, not Casey. Therefore, Casey has not succeeded him yet. Something could happen either to Casey or Santorum in the interim, changing everything (viz., if Santorum left his seat before his term expires, the current governor could appoint a temporary successor, as one example). -- Sholom 17:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you and do not see what the problem is. A lot of editors have been changing the incumbents to the newly elected, not-yet-sworn-in officials. You have just agreed with me. Stealthound 18:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Currently it states Santorum is the incumbent with a footnote; I would be amenable to it changing to say Casey with a footnote explaining he has not yet taken office. Our priority is being as informative as possible, not sticking within the literal grammar of a template (which we can change to say "successor" if it's really an issue, though I'd prefer leaving it standardized). JDoorjam Talk 19:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Obscene?

I suggest that the inclusion of the feces etc description should be removed to comply with the Wikipedia List of Guidelines: Profanity, not because it's profane but because it's obscene. I submit that anyone who really wants to know the definition of "santorum" when used in this sexual way can click on the Santorum Controversy link or the link on the disambiguation.

Is there a consensus on this? I consider this an apolitical suggestion-- I simply worry that this encyclopedia entry contains a needlessly obscene description. NapoleonicStudent 10:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• It's probably been removed a hundred times. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Jpgordon is right. Please continue removing these references and thanks in advance for your dilligence. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 15:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Given that Santorum is a controversial figure and I see half a dozen acts of vandalism in the last week alone (although granted it was an election week), shouldn't this article be locked to new and anonymous users? NapoleonicStudent 19:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ehh, nah. Half a dozen acts of vandalism in a week isn't nearly major enough to fret about terribly. Protection should only be done in case of vandalism emergencies, which we haven't reached. JDoorjam Talk 20:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

traditionalist Catholic

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

Irrelevant issues?

Regarding the section "Declaration Regarding WMD in Iraq". The section is about the senator's declarations specifically, so the information regarding the very general facts of the situation are out of place. Not only that, but they strike a deliberate dischord with the facts recorded directly regarding what he said.
I dislike that frothy fuck as much as the next guy, so I'm not going to pretense complete objectivity. But I'll acknowledge that the entire section stands as a pretty strong negative towards his credit as a competant and well-intentioned senator--he is a controvercial figure in a controvercial time. So framing is the real problem for NPOV, and so the seemingly irrelevant information regarding the broader picture does serve some relevance.
So the question is, should this article be about Santorum or the controversy surrounding him? If the controversy, then the uncited crap following the story should be reworded and cited. spetz:68.44.192.170 19:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The section probably shouldn't even be there, and it looks like a sanitized, overly wordy compromise that places too much credence to a small event. Patstuart^talk|edits 02:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"Knight of Malta?"

In the categories section of this page, it has Rick Santorum listed as a Knight of Malta. In the article, it said nothing about it so I will assume that he was not, and delete this.--Freiberg, Let's talk!, contribs 00:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Except that, according to this newsletter (PDF) from the American Association of the Order of Malta (see page 8, or the Google cached version), he is. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 00:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Removal of "santorum" term

As has been discussed ad nauseum (see archives for illumination on the topic), this term has been shown not to have gained currency, other than links to it by those who chose to mock Rick Santorum. This is hardly encyclopedic. Just because a well-known person calls another well-known person a name in a political attack, and the call is taken up by bloggers, doesn't mean it needs to be put into an encyclopedia article. This appears to me to be a violation of Wikipedia:Coatrack. It is not appropriate to have linked to Rick Santorum's biography.

The following should be removed from the article:

In addition to the criticism of Santorum's views on homosexuality, there was an effort, led by American humorist and columnist Dan Savage, to coin "santorum" as a sexual slang word in English. [59] Since its initial appearance in 2003 in Savage's column Savage Love, this word has been used in its slang sense, but its currency and status as a neologism is unclear.

For those who want to find it, the separate article can be found by those who want to look it up in Santorum controversy.

DavidBailey (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Is DavidBailey the user who has been vigilantly deleting this material from the article non-stop for the past year? I commend him on the time commitment, which I imagine must be enormous . . . not to mention his Latin (by "ad nauseum" I think he means "ad nauseam") Mardiste (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be bizarre for Rick Santorum not to mention the term that was named after him. The term remains notable, so it remains relevant. Spotfixer (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Placing slurs into BLPs is not a good thing in general. Collect (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you actually know what a slur is. Spotfixer (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

All those objecting to this edit then must find it incumbent upon themselves to argue for the deletion of Santorum (sexual neologism). AnyPerson (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Why? - Schrandit (talk) 02:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If it's a slur to mention it in the Rick Santorum article, then it's obviously not an acceptable article. If it's an acceptable article, then it can't be a slur to mention it in the Rick Santorum article. AnyPerson (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Right. So long as the article for the term exists, the article for the person it's named after must link to it, else it would be an orphan. Spotfixer (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The slur wetback merits an article and yet it does not merit mention in the pages of those it describes. Why can't the slur about Mr. Santorum be the same way? - Schrandit (talk) 03:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Because the slur was created in order to denigrate one specific person. The article about that person should mention it. AnyPerson (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I'm headed off to disambiguate the obamanation article into the book and the term coined "in honor" of Barack Obama. Then I'm free to link to it from Barack Obama's article. As I understand this discussion, that's not only warranted but also quite necessary in order to have a thorough and fair encyclopedia. 68.104.176.42 (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The term wetback was created in order to denigrate one specific race. Does an article about that race need to mention it? - Schrandit (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This is comprehensively refuted below, but I'll add one more point: Theodore Roosevelt does indeed link to teddy bear, which makes sense because the latter are named for the former. This is precisely the relationship between the two religious Ricks and the Savage's coined terms. As all of your arguments have been trivially refuted, I suggest you either accept the presence of these terms or go file an RfC. Best of luck. Spotfixer (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

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

(unindent)

The term was named in honor of Rick, not about him. Nobody suggests that Rick is made of, emits, or is otherwise involved in santorum. (For that matter, nobody said Rick Warren practices saddlebacking or even directly endorses it). That's why your analogy is broken and therefore applies to neither Rick.

It also doesn't help that this is not a slur. Try using it in a sentence the way you would "wetback", presuming you'd use such a slur. Spotfixer (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Santorum now redirects to a disambiguation page. That "Santorum redirects here" templage should be removed.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the change that made it redirect to the dab; consensus has been for it to come here instead. Mike Christie (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me if I am mistaken but hasn't previous consensus held that the word "Santorum" should redirect here? - Schrandit (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. See Talk:Santorum. The change I made restored the consensus decision. Mike Christie (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope this is adding something new to the debate. The following article describes the popularity of the term in relation to Santorum's presence on the internet. The website dedicated to the santorum slur gets more hits than Santorum's own official site.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/08/rick-santorum-google-problem-dan-savage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.231.129.54 (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Rewording on Savage's coinage

A question about the recent re-wording -- there is a legitimate question as to whether the evidence cited for usage of "santorum" are bona fide evidence. I know this is controversial, so I thought I'd post here rather than edit, but I'd like to remove the assertion that the term has been used. Wiktionary has not found any reliable evidence of usage, for example. Mike Christie (talk) 01:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no question that the word has been used (I heard it on an episode of Veronica Mars!), the only question is how and how much it has been used, and the article makes that ambiguity clear by saying, "but its currency and status as a neologism is unclear." --Samuel Wantman 08:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we cite that episode? That would be very valuable. Mike Christie (talk) 09:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Any such citation should already have been added to Santorum (sexual slang). I am surprised it hasn't. I also don't see why the deleted words "occasionally" and "by writers in English" were deemed to violate NPOV. What POV do you think they were pushing, save perhaps a bias for clinical specificity? — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 10:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the use of the word has spread through the gay community around the world. I have no specific knowledge that it has or hasn't been used by speakers in any other language. I think it would be very difficult to determine that no writers of other languages had used the word, so I removed the phrase "by writers in English". The "occasionally" sounded to me like it was trying to downplay the success of Savage's efforts to get the word used with its new meaning, in other words, it sounded like it was implying "on rare occasions". As a member of the gay community, I suspect the opposite is true. It seems to be widely used for its new meaning because there was no other word and the new word was so politically juicy (so to speak). But, because of the nature of the new definition this is something that is very difficult to document. So rather than make any judgement about its currency, I thought it best to remove the "occasionally". As it reads now, it makes no assesment of how often it is used, which seems the most NPOV. -- Samuel Wantman 09:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, The Veronica Mars use is mentioned in the santorum article, as is a use from The Simpsons. --Samuel Wantman 09:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Is there a reason why the article does not spell out the slang definition of Santorum? I quickly scanned the talk pages and couldn't find a justification. Fireplace 01:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, WP:BLP. (In particular, WP:BLP#Critics.) The purported definition of the slang term is not essential to the notability of the subject (it has always been much more closely associated with Dan Savage than with Rick Santorum), and, by its very nature, any representation of the slang term amounts to denigration of the subject of this article. The term is presented in its proper context of a political protest in santorum. There have been other discussions in the past, but you will need to scan the history of various talk pages. (User:Mike Christie was a participant in most of them, so you might ask him to elaborate.) — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 16:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

As funny as it is, and perhaps few deserve to be mocked more than Santorum, there is a disambiguation for the word and the article on the sexual term gives an explanation to its origins (i.e. the political criticism of Santorum and Dan Savage). Belabouring the point in this article violates WP:BLP. Will the word live on? Will Rick Santorum always be tied to it (i.e. will his obituary mention it)? Who knows? WP:CRYSTAL applies here. Anything more is blatant POV. Freshacconci 14:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Animal rights legislation

I have never heard of the animal rights bill that is mentioned in a newly added paragraph, but the language used by the editor who added it was strongly NPOV -- "unconstitutional", "burdened" and so on. I've removed everything that seemed biased, but the rest still needs sourcing as it has no sources at the moment. Some of what I removed could be put back with sources; some probably can't -- e.g. the bit about deliberately misleading other congressmen is unlikely to be sourceable. Mike Christie (talk) 04:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Mike, I added that. The Pet Animal Welfare Statue of 2005 (PAWS) was a bill that attempted to ammend the Animal Welfare Act. Their goal was to reverse the recent Federal court ruling (Doris Day Animal League vs Venemen, Anne 2003) upholding the USDA's position that retail sellers were not to be regulated -- with "retail sellers" referring to small or hobby breeders. Commercial breeders are already regulated fully by the USDA. In Santorum's own words: "PAWS will strengthen the authority of the Secretary to obtain injunctions to shut down dealers who fail to comply with the law." Many small or hobby breeders would have been reclassified as "dealers" under PAWS -- and yes, Santorum's statement and the text of the bill would have served to eliminate due process to which every citizen is entitled and contradicts the 4th amendment. The text of Santorum's statement read before Congress on 27 July 2005 and rebuttal response is located at: [www.ncraoa.com/alerts.html/SantorumRebuttal_July_27] Cindy Cooke's article Is PAWS Justified?: Examining the Claims delves into the topic in depth and explains fully the controversy. [1]

I was very involved in publicizing and taking action in the effort to defeat the PAWS bill. I met personally with Senator Russ Feingold, twice, who told me the bill was being promoted in Washington as "the puppy mill bill" - which was NOT at all true. Once he became aware of what the bill was really about, he withdrew his support.

Try, as we would, none of the national media outlets would cover this issue. Our grassroots effort mobilized thousands of pet owners, breeders and hunters, nationwide, who contacted their elected officials. Many - Democrats and Republicans, alike, worked to defeat Santorum in his re-election bid by volunteering for Casey - and sending him donations.--Crickette 20:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi -- thanks for the additional information. I think Santorum's support of the bill is probably noteworthy, but since the standard for Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, things like "puppy mill bill" are going to need some sort of reliable source. The same goes for the rest of the stuff I deleted -- I have no opinion about its accuracy, but it really does need a source.

Given your extensive involvement, do you have access to written sources that would be regarded as reliable? You say there was no national media coverage; was there some lower-profile coverage that could be used? Mike Christie (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have a folder full of data on this topic. Since it's been several months since this was current, I will revisit websites for sourcing and get back to you. Thanks.

Re: sourcing... I am new to this and haven't yet figured out all of the formatting, but did include three sources on the "articles" list, the last three items. I will see what else I can provide.--Crickette 20:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes! I have plenty of sourcing...

[2] The Cat Fanciers' Association, Inc., CFA Legislative Alert. Aug 17, 2005

[3] Virginia Hunting Dog Owners' Association, PAWS The Most Significant Animal Rightist, Anti-Hunting Legislative Attack Ever Launched, Jun 4, 2005

[4] PAWS anaylsis by Jeffrey P. Helsdon, www.tacomalawfirm.com -- Excellent!

[5] Tougher PAWS: Proposed law for breeders aims to close puppy mills by Linda Wilson Fuoco, Post-Gazette, Pittsburgh PA, Aug 7, 2005, a mis-leading article suggesting the bill is aimed at "puppy mills" - includes some Santorum comments. Typical of the type of coverage "news" media gave... always one-sided and always painted the opposition to the bill as being "puppy mills", which was NOT at all true!

[6] HSUS Q & A page suggests the purpose of the bill was to regulate "puppy mills".

[7] North Carolina Responsible Animal Owners' Alliance (NCRAOA), No PAWS, PAWS 2005 FAQ, Senate bill 1139/House bill 2669 This piece is another excellent write-up.

The Bob Kane article [8] gives a first hand account of what Santorum's sham of a hearing on the bill was... no one who really represented the opposition was allowed to speak and those in attendance who opposed, were kept away from the news media!

So, yes, animal owners, small and hobby breeders do have a negative view of the ex-Senator Santorum.--Crickette 21:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify... the proponents claims that the bill would regulate "puppy mills", which was an innaccuracy in itself. These groups HSUS, DDAL - have a goal to do away with pet ownership. (I can provide quotes.) Most states and localities already have laws in place against animal abuse and neglect. Local authorities handle these cases whenever they come forth. The proponents of PAWS and other similar type legislation initivites try to use an emotional argument against "puppy mills" to get their agenda passed into law - and always paint the opposition as being "puppy mills". It is an uphill battle.

Please forgive me if I am not following protocol... I'm trying to learn... and am very passionate about animals.--Crickette 21:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Some of these sound fine; some you'll probably have to use with a bit of caution. For example, the dog owners' group and the cat fanciers wouldn't really be expected to try to give a balanced view of the topic, since their goal is to represent the interests of their members. (I don't mean anything pejorative by that, just that they represent an interest group.) So they can be cited for what they show about those groups' opinions, but it might be trickier to cite them for whether or not the law actually would have been a violation of due process. That would have to come from an independent analysis. One assumes that there were arguments made that it was not a violation of due process either, so that should really be cited too, if you have any of the sources for that side of the dispute. Does that make sense? I really don't know anything about this particular issue, I'm just trying to help you add the information in a verifiable and NPOV way. I hope this is helpful. Mike Christie (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the above before your most recent note. No problem, I think we can make this a useful section. It is a bit risky editing articles you're passionate about; see WP:NPOV for the official Wikipedia policy on that, but it can be done, and it sounds like you have lots of great information to contribute. Just keep in mind that we're obliged to represent Santorum's point of view too (whatever we may think of him personally). It's got to avoid being advocacy, in other words; it has to document the issue in a way that a proponent of either side would find hard to disagree with. Please ask again, here or on my talk page, if I can help more. Mike Christie (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Given all that's been written about Santorum, having three ext links to articles about this one particular bill seems inappropriate to me. Although I agree in general with Mike Christie's comments about documenting both sides of the issue, that level of detail doesn't belong in the Santorum article. It would be better to have a separate article on PAWS (with suitably NPOV recounting of proponents' and opponents positions, as well as reporting on the facts of its introduction, any hearings, votes, etc.), and then link to that article from this one. JamesMLane t c 05:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Declaration regarding WMD in Iraq

This section incorrectly reads: "The specific weapons [Santorum] referred to were chemical munitions dating back to the Iran-Iraq War that were buried in the early 1990s." In fact, these munitions were actually found in various different locations in small numbers. Some were "improperly destroyed" (presumably excavated from pits where the Iraqis had attempted to destroy them in 1991). Rusted shells were also found abandoned along rapidly shifting Iran-Iraq battlefield lines. Some unmarked munitions had been misplaced in conventional storage bunkers -- many were completely empty. These five-hundred or so munitions were described as "inert" and incapable of being reconditioned during a June 2006 U.S. House Armed Services Committee hearing. David Kay was particularly scornful of Santorum's claims. [9] smb 11:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Robert Traynham

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

If Santorum made public statements about the matter, it certainly is relevant to Santorum. Gamaliel (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Santorum made public statements about thousands of things, but not everything is noteworthy enough to go on his page. This is one of those things, and there is still no response about how this guy's personal life remains noteworthy enough to be included on a page about this ex-boss. Mr. Traynham is not a public figure, did nothing scandalous, didn't cause his boss's downfall and a brief look through the pages of other sitting and former Senators shows nothing about their former staffer's personal lives.

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "forbes%com" :
  • {{cite news|url=http://www.yorkdispatch.com/pennsylvania/ci_4404075|title=Casey Doubles Lead Over Santorum|author=Kimberly Hefling|publisher=[[York Dispatch]]|date=[[September 26]], [[2006]]}}
  • {{cite news|url=http://www.forbes.com/business/businesstech/feeds/ap/2006/09/25/ap3043325.html|title=Pa. Judge to Drop Candidate from Ballot|author=Martha Raffaele|publisher=[[Forbes]]|date=[[September 25]], [[2006]]}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Article length

At 85KB, this article is considerably longer than Wikipedia's style guidelines recommend, making it slow to load and edit for users with older Internet browsers. (Per Wikipedia:Article size, any article over 60KB should be split, unless it is on an extremely significant or wide-ranging topic, which is not the case for Rick Santorum.) It should either be cut down, or split up into multiple articles along the lines of Wikipedia:Summary style. I would suggest the former - there's a lot of trivial detail in this article related to his 2006 Senate race that just doesn't need to be here any more. If all that material is to be kept, it should be spun off from this article and merged into United States Senate election in Pennsylvania, 2006. Terraxos (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear. I'm all for editing, & wanna offer my help. But R.Santorum remains **Presidential** in political minds- as well as a controversial social figure. By the tone of numerous comments above, this article's still hot. Editing could be messy- a potential revert-war.

And the article should also respect the tag on the "Controversy" section that suggests to achieve NPOV that section should be considered extraneous and re-integrated with the main article. But- Would partisans let this happen? "Controversy" sections begin when partisans object to such material messing up glossy, POV articles.

Would anyone object to following the advice of these tags? Could anyone admit to objecting the tags? Maybe when the *USA* becomes a trifle less polarized with fast-buck politicians... when R.Santorum fades into a long law-practice &(Oh yeah-) the issue of neologisms gains the perspective of time- Maybe THEN I can feel comfortable working on the article objectively w/o interference from partisans. I feel yer so right tho'- & I say 'Thanks' to you for the well-observed suggestion of spinning-off to Pennsylvania Elections 2006. Our '2006 Election' section is 1/8 of the total length problem, and I forsee no criticism for doing just as you suggest there. Any more brilliant ideas for spin-offs? The article is rather well-written [mostly] so I am loathe to attempt to edit it; yet at this size I suggest it needs at_least 3 more such spin-offs. But where? Happy New Years, O Editors. 8-D Hilarleo (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problems removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Some of this material was copied from these URLs: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06286/729698-177.stm, http://www.postgazette.com/pg/06202/707588-177.stm, http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07103/777609-28.stm, http://www.yourpennhills.com/pennhillsprogress/article/santorum-campaign-no-county-tax-break http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07180/798038-85.stm and http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06300/733425-177.stm and introduced in these edits: [10] and [11]. Additional was introduced here, replicating these sources: http://www.slate.com/id/2277/ and http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06295/732138-192.stm.

Please note that citing a source is insufficient to allow extensive copying of material from sources per our non-free content guidelines. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard discussion

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

I'd say keep both separate, but obviously this article should have a disambiguation marker. There are some other Santorums in politics and people might not know the first name. And also people might accidentally click the senator when looking for the sexual slang term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.176.122.34 (talk) 02:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Lawmaking

Sen. Santorum hosted an episode of Today's Issues where he explains his views on lawmaking in contrast to Shariah law. In the March 24th episode [12] Santorum explains that it is the duty of Americans to change our laws to comport with God's law. Quote:

Jesus said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's" and that huge piece of wisdom has really set the course for western civilization where you have civil laws and have civil penalties - we exact justice in a civil fashion - and then we have higher laws, we have God's law. Now our civil laws are supposed to comport with God's laws but sometimes they don't, and so it is always the obligation of those, for example, the issue of abortion - the civil law does not comport with God's law, in my opinion and I think the opinion of many people in this country and it is our obligation to continue to try and change that law. We have to live under the civil law, we have to obey that law because it is the civil law but we need to continue to try to change it to make sure that these laws, the laws our country, comport.

Would you agree that this is an important enough political statement to warrant being on his Wikipedia page?--TheAlmightyGuru (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I fear that you are using OR to make a claim which is clearly not in the quote furnished. Collect (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Philadelphia Daily News, June 24, 2005.

I reverted an unexplained removal of content (including a reference). The removal left a paragraph that mentioned an opinion column but said nothing about the contents. My revert was again reverted with the comment that I should take it to the talk page, which I am happy to do. So, I see no reason to mention the opinion piece without context. Comments?Sjö (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The opinion had zero valid relevance to a BLP, in my opinion. There are thousands of columns with such opinions abot people - on all sides of every issue. Naked opinions are generally not used in BLPs unless they show specific relevance to the person and his biography. Cheers. Now let's see how relevant this specific opinion is to other editors. "I'd remind you this is the same Senate leader who recently likened Democrats fighting to save the filibuster to Nazis. Collect (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

As I see it, the paragraph is hardly notable, and as you say there are BLP issues. I won't mind if you remove the paragraph altogether. If the paragraph should remain, it makes sense that there is a reference, and a short summary of what was said. As I thought I made clear in my edit comment, the worst option is the version you restored where an opionion piece is mentioned, but the reader has no way of knowing what was said since there is no link. (By the way, "ultimata" is plural which is inappropriate since there never was even one.)Sjö (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Great - you gave two choices "this paragraph should be complete or not in the article at all" which I read as being in the plural. The intermediate position was the one I chose. I only had four years of Latin. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

List of political stances

The second paragraph is an editorial. The contributor who mentions homosexuality, intelligent design and Terry Schaivo - especially so early in the article - is making a subtle character attack. The article for citation #3 does not mention Terry Schaivo or homosexuality at all - the contributor simply threw them on his own authority. Since Santorum is running for President this article must be continually checked for opinion masquerading as fact - especially at the beginning.Ononuofk (talk) 00:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)209.212.5.67 (talk) 00:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

2012 cleanup

On May 26, a staffer close to the Santorum camp told CNN that Santorum will formally announce his candidacy on June 6, in the same town where his father worked in a coal mine. Santorum formally announced his run for the Republican presidential nomination on ABC's Good Morning America Monday, June 6, 2011.

As it stands, Santorum's father mined coal on ABC's Good Morning America... perhaps during the David Hartman era? This bit of promotional text needs revision, better sourcing, tense correction, and somebody to cleanup the shards of crystal ball. - Dravecky (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Intelligent design / creationism heading

A couple of editors are changing the 'Intelligent design' heading to creationism, the latest on the basis that it's a self-serving euphemism. The section itself describes the issue as "intelligent design", as does the main article on the 'Santorum amendment', as do reliable sources that discuss Santorum about the issue. Using "creationism" is unsourced POV within a BLP that belittle his position on the issue. Drrll (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

"Creationism" should be used as per the manual of style's preference for common English usage. "Intelligent design" is a euphemism designed to show creationism in a more favorable light. It's just another strain of creationism, no different than, say, Young Earth creationism. Our article on Intelligent design calls it creationism in the introduction. One of the key findings in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District was that, based on analysis of the positions and published writings of intelligent design was that it was essentially creationism and thus could not be taught in US science classes per the Establishment Clause. Gamaliel (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see your evidence that "creationism" is common English usage when "intelligent design" is discussed in reliable sources. The two terms, while certainly related, are hardly interchangeable, with "intelligent design" being a subset of creationism that differs significantly from Young Earth creationism or other forms of creationism. As far as the intelligent design article calling it creationism in the lead, that assertion is actually sourced to a non-reliable source from an old-school, Young Earth creationist (Henry M. Morris)! Drrll (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a BLP, I think it is OK to use the subject's language. At George W. Bush there is a "War on Terrorism" section. Intelligent design is pretty widely known these days anyway. –CWenger (^ • @) 02:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

His position in 2001 was pretty clearly Intelligent Design, not Creationism. Now we all know that anti-scientific crapola, whatever name is is called, is based on tremendous insecurity. "What if evolution is true? Then there is no God, and life is meaningless. This feeling hurts! I better make it go away by shoving my religion down the throats of other people's children." Nevertheless, ID was the last refuge of this feeling in public policy debates in 2001, and it was a viable policy idea at the time. Only later was ID was utterly destroyed in 2005 by Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, including the evidence of the Wedge Document and being definitively shown to be Creationism in disguise. Speciate (talk) 04:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Even in 2001 it was no secret that ID was creationism. Pennock's book, for example, was published in 1999, I think and the Wedge document was leaked in 1999. Not that anyone really thought that ID was not creationism...it was simply designed to skirt the line drawn by Edwards v. Aguillar. Guettarda (talk) 05:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

We're not trying to determine whether or not intelligent design is creationism. We're trying the determine what to call it in a BLP about a politician that supports the teaching of intelligent design. –CWenger (^ • @) 05:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Call it what he called it. It's not like he invented the term, like Tim Pawlenty just made up "Obamneycare" the other day. Intelligent Design has its own article, and is uncontroversial as a term; both sides use it without rancor. Calling it Creationism is unnecessary and faintly biased; it presumes to know what was in his head. The reader will not be fooled. Speciate (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

But he didn't call TTC ID. So we're not "calling it what he called it". We're picking our own header for the section. Now one can make arguments for calling the section "intelligent design", or "creationism" or "Discovery institute campaigns"...but "calling it what he called it" is only an option if we call the section "Intelligent design and teach the controversy" (although even that falls a little short). Guettarda (talk) 05:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I am well aware of that, CW. Not only did I read the entire thread, more importantly, I read the section being discussed. If you are concerned about "us[ing] the subject's language", why are you OK with calling Teach the Controversy "intelligent design". Just as ID was a campaign to bypass Edwards, TTC is a campaign to get around Kitzmiller. Calling TTC "intelligent design" is worse than calling ID "creationism" since that fact has been firmly established by a court ruling (and a large amount of peer-reviewed literature). Most people have stopped pretending that ID is not "creationism". But the standard DI line remains that TTC is not ID, that TTC is simply an analysis of evolution. So how is it unacceptable to call ID creationism, but acceptable to call TTC ID? It strikes me as utterly illogical. Guettarda (talk) 05:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not hard to find examples of Santorum using the term "intelligent design", e.g. [13], if that is the concern. –CWenger (^ • @) 05:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't ask that. I asked why you say that we should "use the subject's language", but then you completely contradict that, by calling TTC "intelligent design". Surely that's a simple enough question. Guettarda (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Using the subject's language is a good way to avoid bias in a BLP, particularly if it is a well-known term like "intelligent design". We could use "teach the controversy" instead but I'm not sure how familiar people are with that phrase. I was just showing that "intelligent design" is a viable option because the subject has used it extensively. –CWenger (^ • @) 16:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Ugh.

• Using the subject's language is a good way to avoid bias in a BLP particularly if it is a well-known term like "intelligent design"

  And yet, the section subsumes TTC under ID. Since the article doesn't do this, it's irrelevant. Had you read what I had written, you would have realised that.

• We could use "teach the controversy" instead but I'm not sure how familiar people are with that phrase

  No, we couldn't. Not if the plan was the "us[e] the subject's language", since TTC is supposedly not ID, just as IS is supposedly not creation science. Again, I already explained this.

• I was just showing that "intelligent design" is a viable option because the subject has used it extensively

  So now you're saying that "using the subject's language" is irrelevant? If that's the case, why not use creationism, since it is even more widely used?

So which is it? Are you saying that we should "us[e] the subject's language", or that we should ignore "the subject's language"? You are forcefully arguing both A and notA. Are you intentionally obtuse, or have you just not bothered to read what I have written? Guettarda (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand your complaint. My argument is that we should use the subject's language where it is commonly understood. Santorum has used both "intelligent design" ([[14]]) and "teach the controversy" ([15]), so we could use either or both. I support using "intelligent design" as it is more widely known. –CWenger (^ • @) 19:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, heavy use of "Teach the Controversy" postdates the Santorum Amendment. Speciate (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused about why we should "use the subject's language" in a section header. Quote him using his language in the article text? Sure. But I don't know why we should defer to the subject when naming a widely-discussed issue that he had relatively little involvement in. Gamaliel (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

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