Talk:Rick Santorum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rick Santorum is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress. You can help by editing this article.
This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject U.S. Congress articles.
Rick Santorum is part of WikiProject Pennsylvania, which is building a comprehensive and detailed guide to Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit the attached article, join or discuss the project.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
For older discussion, see archives: Archive 1


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

    • 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Picture from concession speech

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

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] Politicisation

The cornerstone of Santorum's current legislative agenda is the politicization of the Charity, Aid, Recover and Empowerment (CARE) Act.

The above along with the rest of the paragraph doesn't actually describe what it means by him wanting to politicise it. Later on, it's clear he doesn't like the act but what he wants to do with it is never made clear. Does it just mean he wants to make it a political topic in hope it will eventually be repelled or substanially modified? Of course Santorum is going so whatever his intentions, it doesn't matter I guess but it still should be clear Nil Einne

[edit] 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. Patstuarttalk|edits 02:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stupid

In the beggining of the early life etc. someone wrote:

"Rick Santorum is an extremely stupid person who was the king of pennsylvania for a while. if he had been re-elected, he would have eaten your soul"

Someone should fix this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.135.80.7 (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] "Knight of Malta?"

In the categories section of this page, it has Rick Santorum listed as a Knight of Malta. He was not, so I will delete this. Why someone would put that there is beyond me.--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)

[edit] 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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/i/c/Talk%7ERick_Santorum_5e26.html"