Talk:Rick Santorum/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington criticism

What are people's thoughts on the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington criticism in the 'Legislation and issues' section? I think it should be removed because CREW is described by everybody as a liberal/Democratic group that almost always targets Republicans, and as such is questionable as a source for a WP:BLP. CREW criticizing a conservative is not really notable. Additionally, Santorum receives a lot of criticism, but this is the first time I've heard him called "corrupt". –CWenger (^ • @) 18:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that "corrupt" implies "violation of law" (bribery is against the law) which requires a far stronger source than a possibly partisan group can furnish. Collect (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Why no mention of his "Google problem" in the lede?

Probably the most noteworthy thing about this man is his "Google problem" (http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2011/06/america-right-huckabee-libertarian-evangelical-cruise/) . This should be mentioned in the lede - not doing so is biased against fact.189.233.95.90 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC).

I doubt that. He is a prominent conservative, former U.S. senator, and presidential candidate. His "Google problem" is pretty low on the notability list in my book. –CWenger (^ • @) 19:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It's borderline IMO. The lead section needs to be expanded anyway to summarize the whole article (see John McCain, a similar politician/pres. candidate). If it is expanded, some mention of the Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality may be warranted. But it is, indeed, very low on the notability list. —Designate (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

As long as it is somewhere in the article then there is no problem. Mention is made of his political positions in the lead. Reactions to his positions is handled in detail lower down. Speciate (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Outside the USA, Senators are not very noteworthy. Santorum + "google problem" gets 71,500 results. "Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott" and santorum gets 14,500 results. Currently the lede says "In March 2007, Santorum joined the law firm Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC. He was to primarily practice law in the firm’s Pittsburgh and Washington, D.C. offices, where he was to provide business and strategic counseling services to the firm's clients. In addition to his work with the firm," and nothing about his google problem. This seems wrong to me.189.233.95.90 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC).

It is also important in the lede, as it is widely cited in the media as a significant reason for his lack of electoral support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.233.95.90 (talk) 10:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Some reliable sources - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/06/opinion/main20069538.shtml

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/14/don-lemon-rick-santorum-gay-friends_n_876545.html http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/jon-stewart-makes-rick-santorum-187219 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/rick-santorum-google-problem-on-the-daily-show-13571274 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/20/wikipedia_and_santorum/ http://www.webpronews.com/rick-santorum-trending-on-google-thanks-to-jon-stewart-nsfw-2011-05 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.233.95.90 (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

In the lede -"He is known for his stances on the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Social Security, intelligent design, homosexuality, and the Terri Schiavo case."

This needs expanding- possibly at the expense of details of his legal practice, which does not seem notable enough for the lede. At the moment this sentence tells very little. It should at least say which he supports!93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. I do not know which he supports or not. Jnorton7558 (talk) 04:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Lawyer in lede

He is currently described as "Richard John "Rick" Santorum (born May 10, 1958) is a former United States Senator from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Santorum is a member of the Republican Party and was the chairman of the Senate Republican Conference." This should read "Richard John "Rick" Santorum (born May 10, 1958) is a lawyer and former United States Senator from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Santorum is a member of the Republican Party and was the chairman of the Senate Republican Conference." 93.96.148.42 (talk)

Done Jnorton7558 (talk) 04:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Redirect under discussion

Editors here may be interested in this discussion which proposes to change Santorum to redirect to the dab page instead of here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

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 repealled or substantially modified? Of course Santorum is going so whatever his intentions, it doesn't matter I guess but it still should be clear — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nil Einne (talk • contribs) 13:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Santorum asks Google to remove the infamous definition of "santorum" from the internet, Google says no

• Santorum asks Google to clean up search results for his name — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.39.124.207 (talk) 10:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This issue seems much more significant than as it is presented in the article. It's been the top Google result for Santorum since 2004 and it's the top result for Bing as well. I realize WP:NOTNEWS plays a role here but this has been an ongoing issue since 2004. Right now it is buried in an only slightly unrelated section. I think it deserves its own subheading, as perhaps "Search engine result controversy" or something similar. Thoughts? SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 16:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the request to Google is currently covered in this article, per WP:Summary style. The section is huge, and I may trim some of the excess.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Website in infobox

We ought to put his website ricksantorum.com (NOT santorum.com) at the end of the infobox, per Herman Cain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, et cetera.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Against homosexuality?

The article says: "Santorum has said he is personally against abortion and has expressed disapproval of homosexuality, issues that he believes should be decided by elected officials rather than the Supreme Court."

I'm assuming the author meant that Santorum disapproves of gay marriage, rather than homosexuality, per se. Correct? Or does he want elected officials deciding people's sexual orientation for them?M. Frederick (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the section should changed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schrandit (talk • contribs) 15:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Santorum has made numerous other disparaging comments about LGBT people (homosexuals)outside of same sex marriage discussions. --DCX (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Santorum is the best candidate for 2012 too. All the more reason to ask why the heck his official website has to contain all this gay stuff about anal sex and froth on it now. I want my whole family (including my two kids!) to be able to look at his website SAFELY and find out what he stands for policy-wise. Not very classy, Mr. Santorum. I'm seriously disappointed. Mardiste (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, you just made my day. :D

Rebbing (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what are you referring to as his official website? Ucanlookitup (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I have nothing against gay and lesbian people whatsoever. I just don't think Mr. Santorum's website should include all that graphic detail. It should have more about what he stands for politically and why he should be the nominee for the GOP. Mardiste (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

"Santorum, who answered the question, did not thank the soldier for his service, and called the repeal of DADT "social experimentation" and "tragic." why the "did not thank the soldier" insertion? seems irrelevent and biased — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.236.125 (talk) 00:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not irrelevent. The thanking of soldiers for their contributions has become a political requirement of both the right and left. It is very notable in it's absence. So noteable that Santorum was forced to back pedal in later interviews. In fairness, he thanked the soldier after the fact. (http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/09/23/Santorum_Didnt_Hear_Boos_But_Thanks_Gay_Soldier). Both the original omission and later recapitulation should be mentioned. Ucanlookitup (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It should be removed. WP is supposed to be written in a "show, don't tell" style of writing. We state what a subject does, not what they don't do. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 01:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

We also note controversies. This is one. Ucanlookitup (talk) 01:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of Dan Savage insult

To those in favor of keeping the mention of the Dan Savage insult of Santorum, are you OK with adding to the BLPs of certain liberals the monikers assigned to them by individuals like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin? Drrll (talk) 03:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If those monikers escape the orbits of those folks and gain wider usage, why not? "Slick Willie" is mentioned in Bill Clinton's article. Gamaliel (talk) 04:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I know that some of Limbaugh's monikers have appeared in reliable sources, including news sources. What criteria do you suggest be met as far as "wider usage"? Don't you think that explicitly laying out the definition of "santorum" within his BLP is a little over the top, especially since the term is wikilinked within the paragraph? Drrll (talk) 06:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

On BLPN I noted there were 207 news stories about this. That's a pretty good criteria. And if the guy's name is now a word, it's not over the top to define it. The reader will expect a definition. This isn't a family newspaper, so we should define it. Gamaliel (talk) 07:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll second Gamaliel, Wikipedia uses reliable sources to determine what's notable, and hundreds of reliable sources have discussed both Santorum's "Google problem" as well as "Slick Willie". Omission of the topic would be a significant disservice to readers. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Of the 207 results from Lexis-Nexis on "santorum" & "dan savage", many are non-reliable sources, sources that discuss Savage and Santorum without mentioning the coined term (the two of them do have a history with each other), as well as opinion pieces within reliable sources. You think that explicitly defining the term in a BLP fits in with the language of WP:BLP?:

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment...The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material.

Drrll (talk) 11:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Defining a term seems a pretty basic and fundamental piece of information that the reader would expect and defining something that's already being widely cited and discussed does not violate privacy, titillate, or create further harm. We have pictures of hardcore porn and Muhammad on Wikipedia, there's no need for us to be coy about uncomfortable words because we personally find them distasteful, and this distaste is not enough to invoke BLP to remove this material. Gamaliel (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I continue to be against inclusion. - Haymaker (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If a reader wants to know the specific definition, it's easy enough for them to use the wikilink in the same paragraph for the term. There are hardcore porn images and images of Muhammed on Wikipedia, yes, but they appear in articles that one would expect have such images. The consensus on WP:BLPN now appears to be strongly against including the specific definition. I plan on removing it again if the consensus there doesn't change. Drrll (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe you have accurately summarized the discussion on BLPN nor do I believe there is consensus there. Opinions appear to be split on the matter. I think you may have missed some of the more recent comments. Gamaliel (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's how I see it breaking down at the WP:BLPN as of now as far as inclusion of the definition here:

• Favors inclusion: Gamaliel (although you don't mention your support for inclusion of it there), Merrill Stubing
• Appears to favor inclusion: Will Beback
• Unstated/unclear: Mike Christie, Dezidor
• Opposes inclusion: Joe Decker, Anythingyouwant, SchmuckyTheCat (endorses Joe Decker's comments as neutral), Jonathanwallace, Drrll, Haymaker

Agree with that summary? Drrll (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd quibble with placing someone here or there, but they can clarify their positions if it comes to a !vote. At this point, I'd say this represents a roughly even split, not a consensus one way or the other. Also there are editors here who have not chimed in there and vice versa. Gamaliel (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Throw me in the "Opposes inclusion" camp. - Haymaker (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I will. Please register your opinion at WP:BLPN in the Rick Santorum entry. Thanks. Drrll (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that this has become much bigger than just a moniker coined by Dan Savage. The current coverage seems appropriate, but it definitely needs its own subheading as perhaps "Search engine result controversy" or something along those lines because right now it is buried in his statements about homosexuality. Again, that's where it originated, but it is now quite obviously much bigger than that. I think WP:NOTNEWS is a consideration but not a big one since this has been an ongoing issue for years. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 17:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The "Santorum" definition is an unfortunate detail of the internet age. However, despite our opinions on the subject, whether or not we find it offensive, it has received a great deal of attention from the public, the media and from Sen. Santorum himself. The definition has entered the Anglo-American lexicon and being that Wikipedia is comprehensive WP:COMPREHENSIVE and uncensored WP:CENSORED it should be a part of the Rick Santorum biography here on Wikipedia just as it has become a part of his legacy; for better or for worse. A. Poinçot (talk) 05:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree but since its controversial, apparently the default is to keep it out of the article unless there's enough consensus to keep it in. Apparently WP:BLP is enough of a reason to keep it out, or at least keep it buried. I am having the same issue at the talk page for Campaign for "santorum" neologism; I proposed adding the definition to the first paragraph of the lead but it seems I'm in the minority. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 07:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

A lot of history is controversial. Having the definition in the article is not taking a particular stance on the subject, it is simply documenting the event/issue and the subject matter in its entirety as it relates to a well known individual. Besides, if Wikipedia stayed away from controversial subject mater we wouldn't have a graphic article on ejaculation or pegging or any number of other "controversial" Wikipedia entries. A. Poinçot (talk) 07:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

My name is on the list above as "unstated/unclear": to clarify, I oppose inclusion of the definition. I think the link is sufficient. I also think the stated opinions on the talk page are sufficient to be counted as a consensus against inclusion. I think the status quo should be that it is not included and given the nature of the content a consensus to change should be formed here before adding it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

@Mike Christie - I agree with you and your positions on many levels but despite a consensus that the definition is distasteful, Wikipedia has its policies regarding comprehensive documentation WP:COMPREHENSIVE and censorship WP:CENSORED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by APoincot (talk • contribs) 01:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Alas for you -- WP:CENSORED is not applicable where a BLP is concerned and WP:BLP considerations are made. The discussions at BLP/N reached a clear conclusion, and those discussion, as far as I can tell, represented an editorial consensus. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Concur with Collect. Kelly ^hi! 02:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I am a proponent of free speech. From the information readily available the consensus is split and does not reach the threshold warranting censorship WP:CENSORED. However, after reconsidering the "Neutral Point of View" policy WP:NPOV I believe that inclusion of the definition, as inflammatory as it can be to some, is not in keeping with the good faith intention of Wikipedia's NPV policy. I concur, the definition should not be included in the main Sen. Santorum BLP. V/R, A. Poinçot (talk) 02:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The definition is written in the lede at Campaign for "santorum" neologism. Consensus was that it can be written there, so there shouldn't magically be a WP:BLP issue just for this article if there isn't one there. The definition has been written in numerous reliable sources over several years. It should be included. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 03:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused, why isn't there a Santorum article on wiki? As in, when I look up HULK I don't just get the incredible hulk, I get a number of similar definitions. I knew what santorum was before I knew WHO santorum was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.66.244 (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Rumours

In general are discouraged by any reading of WP:BLP and are generally required to be remover per that policy. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and should not fall to thse depths. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I edited it. The TMZ-type feel to the section has been removed. I have also put it under Catholicism instead of its previous section title, because it's not fair to place that more prominently than his actual faith. However, the idea that it is tabloid information is untrue - the sources come from Time magazine, and he and his campaign staff have repeatedly denied any affiliation.--Screwball23 talk 05:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Collect on this. There are several reasons why it would be a bad idea if we had to list every denied rumour on every bio page. There's a (probably apocryphal) story about Lyndon Johnson; he's said to have told his political team to accuse his opponent of fucking pigs. When they said no, and he asked why, they said it wasn't true; he responded "Yeah, but I want to see him deny it." I know it's not really a parallel, but I think we ought to err on the side of not mentioning factoids that are not generally thought to be true. I could see an exception if reliable biographical sources make a point of mentioning and dismissing the rumour, but if they don't, we shouldn't. The NY Times page on Santorum doesn't, for example. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right, it would be a bad idea to list every denied rumor about every opponent. I would strongly argue for removal of rumors that Rick Perry is gay, for instance, given the strong evidence against it and the fact that there is no proof other than tabloid news organizations and online enemies who want to damage him. However, this is a completely different story. I read this on Time magazine, among other places, and I provided the references with the material. I don't understand the rationale behind this "we need reliable biographical sources" from the New York Times, because Time magazine is very much a reliable source and there are many, many sources that show some engagement with the organization, the strongest being his attendance at a high-profile event in Rome in 2002. There is clear evidence that he is a sympathizer or booster for the organization, and all I am doing is stating the facts. I also am opposed to violent and disruptive deletions of the entire section, which have not been fair.--Screwball23 talk 18:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Alas - you venture into the depths of OR at best. Rumors do not belong without extrely strong sourcing in any BLP. And [[WP:BLP/N][] discussions agree. Kindly self-revert ASAP your edit war per those discussions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Too late, I've reverted it and commented at WP:BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

NP - Sarek noted that SB23 hit 5RR in 25 hours and reported it. I rather think the brightline was shattered most grievously. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Typo

Hey y'all. I understand why this page is protected, but I am a stickler for hyphens, and in the second sentence in the section "Third-ranking Republican (2001-2007)" (nice use of the hyphen there, incidentally) the expression "highly-partisan" occurs. I object to that hyphen on grounds that "highly" is an adverb, hence there can be no ambiguity in the hyphen-free expression "highly partisan," and the hyphen ought to be removed. I humbly request that someone with the requisite credentials remove it. Sincerely yours etc., the futonchild — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.162.97 (talk) 04:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. I have made the change. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 05:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 December 2011

In the first paragraph, in the sentence reading, "He is known for his stances against homosexuality..", please change "against" to "regarding" because using the word "against" turns the sentence into an opinion, rather than an unbiased statement.

Wikiman0001 (talk) 06:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The word "against" is not an opinionated word in and of itself. Please read the policy on WP:NPOV for more.--Screwball23 talk 07:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 December 2011

Please change "He is known for his stances against homosexuality" TO "He is known for his stances regarding same-sex marriage". The reason for this change is because Rick Santorum is not against homosexuality, nor a homosexual individual. Rather, he is known for his stance on same-sex marriage and his strong opinions regarding policies concerning marriage.

Wikiman0001 (talk) 07:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Santorum is opposed to homosexual acts per se. He doesn't just oppose same-sex marriage. You can read his words for yourself in this interview. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 08:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

And in that same interview he states that he is not against homosexuals. If we add one part, we should add both parts lest we mislead readers. Collect (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Opus Dei event and Kennedy/Bush

• Though not a member of Opus Dei, Santorum traveled in 2002 to Rome to appear at a centenary celebration of the birth of Josemaria Escriva, the order's founder. In interview with the National Catholic Reporter while in Rome, Santorum condemned John F. Kennedy for supporting a separation between church and state, and praised George W. Bush as "the first Catholic president of the United States".

An editor deleted this material with the summary, "rumor-mongering nonsense. We don't need innuendo of membership or non-membership in an organizartion".[1] the material in question is hardly "rumor-mongering nonsense". Rather it is a neutral report of a special trip Santorum took to celebrate the life and achievements of a religious leader. During that trip he made a controversial remark which was widely reported and discussed. No rumors or innuendos are involved, and the sources are reliable.   Will Beback  talk  22:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm generally in agreement on this, although I fail to see any criticism of 'separation between church and state'. The text of the NCR article contextualizes his criticism of Kennedy as being over his rejection of a "distinction between private religious conviction and public responsibility". Advocating that public figures should behave in a moral manner is far from a call for a Federal or state church, or even the modern corrupted meaning of the phrase. Nevard (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you want to edit the text per you suggestion? That'd be great.   Will Beback  talk  01:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Will Beback, thank you!!! you made my day! I remember I tried adding this material before and those same losers who have no logical backup for their deletions now actually succeeded in taking me away from editing this page. Thank you so much! I knew there were still honest people in this world!--Screwball23 talk 00:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• - crikey - this is very dubious content, what about an RFC - we should clearly keep it out while disputed. This external http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1184078-5,00.html - appears to be an eight page opinionated write by one Jordan Bonfante from 2006 - are there additional secondary similar opines? One of the most incredulous situations that I have found at wiki is such as this , six and a half year old trivia being demanded to be included as if it was hot off the press news. Youreallycan (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Time magazine isn't being used as a source. What is dubious about the actual content? It's just straightforward facts which have been well-reported in multiple sources.   Will Beback  talk  01:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

PS: I proposed this approach on the BLPN days ago and there was no objection.   Will Beback  talk  01:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, the information is not dubious, and the idea that trivia is being passed for fact is unfounded. The facts are that he did attend an Opus Dei event, gave a speech at the event, and has been asked - and repeatedly denied - being a member of the organization. The fact that he supports Catholic evangelization in the United States is sourced as well, and I see no reason why people kept editwarring to take that down as well. I want to report this because this is a clear example of administrators abusing the system. I want to know who to plead my case to, because I don't know how to navigate the forums and admin boards from here.--Screwball23 talk 01:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, lets discuss it here - as a starter - he says he is not a member of (bla bla - add group here) - so unless we have factual assertions that he is then we do not need to refute or deny it. - a unrequired denial - and jonny as a personal statement denies he has never been a member of the bla blas as has been rumored...by his partisan opponents... Youreallycan (talk) 01:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, so your objection is to the clause, "Though not a member of Opus Dei,..." Fine. We can keep the rest of the text without that.   Will Beback  talk  02:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That would be my main objection. Removal of that claim and refute would then leave me looking at weight and notability in regard to this being his life story - clearly as this is a six and a half year old breaking news there is some room without hurry for discussion as its clearly a disputed desired addition. Youreallycan (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I proposed this edit on the BLPN back on November 30, so there hasn't been any rush. If you have no further objection I'll restore the material minus the clause.   Will Beback  talk  02:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Done.  Will Beback  talk  00:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

This is bullshytt, in the Anathem sense, that is why it was removed. We have editors who have clearly read the Da Vinci Code one too many times, who think that drawing up scary comparisons between Santorum and Opus Dei will undercut his credibility and public standing. No one has yet shown how or why this factoid is relevant to Santorum's biography, and we also have one editor fresh of a 10week block doing the same edits that earned that week vaca in the first place. Try this; apply the same standard to Rick Santorum that we do to Barack Obama. Tarc (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I've never read the DaVinci Code. It's a simple fact that Santorum spoke at the event in Rome, reportedly due to his admiration for Escriva. There's no BLP violation in reporting this, which was widely reported at the time. I don't see any good reason why you've deleted it twice, once with a deceptive/incorrect edit summary.   Will Beback  talk  02:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see any undue weight problem here- especially considering some of the other stuff in the article. As for sub-Cussler grade novels, we have a List of Freemasons without worrying about the potential for some kooks to think worse of those on the list. Nevard (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• OK, that TIME article is better linked this way (well, in a template of course) to have the whole thing on one page. It is very interesting, and I don't see that it is an opinion piece (it's reporting, not opining). That it would be "opinionated", as is opined above, that's neither here nor there: anyone can call anything opinionated, but this is an article, not an editorial. However (and this is why I am involved with this), it simply does not prove the statement in this edit--that's plain to see: the TIME article simply does not verify that "Santorum wrote an editorial, "Fishers of Men" praising lay movements such as Opus Dei." Screwball, that's all there is to it. Now, I don't see any problem at all with the use of the article, but it simply cannot defend Screwball's recent edits. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Why is Tarc being allowed to call well-researched information bullshit? He obviously has no idea what he's talking about, and his only defense is that there are people who might think of Opus Dei as a potentially-damaging political affiliation. However, the facts are clear - he attended an Opus Dei event and is not a member. Period. User:Tarc should abide by the rules of wikipedia, which include WP:NOTCENSORED--Screwball23 talk 14:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I am calling it bullshit because it is bullshit. You're dredging up a years-old story to smear a person's bio, that's really all there is to this matter. And don't invoke "not censored", it doesn't have the slightest bit of applicability here. Tarc (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That is abuse - you cannot invoke or rebuke policies that you want or don't want. Wikipedia is not censored. You saying it does not apply doesn't have any weight here or elsewhere. Read WP:NOTCENSORED because it is wikipedia policy and it is applicable for your information. And you are disobeying among the most important of all policies - WP:Assume good faith. By saying that everyone who is including research to a page is only doing it for the purpose of "smearing", you are ignoring all other people's points of view and all new information because you believe it would violate your perception of the world. All that I am asking is that we put researched, factual information on a page. You are over-complicating and warring because you believe adding facts = political smearing. That my friend, is not right, and it is a blatant abuse of wikipedia. I ask that you discontinue your editwarring on this because you are too emotionally invested to allow a fair exchange of information right now.--Screwball23 talk 17:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

See WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA please. As for WP:NOTCENSORED - it does not say what you appear to think it says:

Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer). Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms.

Is not the case at hand. Collect (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Man, you are tripping up on your own words. Tarc just said he objects to the information, saying it is objectionable to him to the point he called it "bullshit". The WP:NOTCENSORED policy you just quoted is exactly what we are talking about. Just because he thinks it is objectionable doesn't mean that we have to honor his personal perceptions and censor facts that conflict with his personal views. If you had an argument to be made on behalf of Tarc, you definitely didn't bring up the right quote my friend. Cheers.--Screwball23 talk 17:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done - I see the page now and I am pleased that people finally turned around. I would ask Collect and Tarc to stop being bitter losers and apologize for having me blocked - because they could not accept a productive discussion. I don't expect either of them to have the balls to do the right thing, which is a simple "I'm sorry". The gratification I get from having the material up and accepted is good enough. Thank you to all who participated and helped stop censorship here on wikipedia.--Screwball23 talk 03:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Meh -- your persistent edit war attempts to link Santorum to Opus Dei contrary to WP:BLP failed miserably. Your personal attacks on me and Tarc also fail miserably. As for apologizing for an independent admin blocking you - that is about as ludicrous a statement as ever posted on any noticeboard in the history of Wikipedia! Cheers -- now let's see the absurdly overwieghted screed about his chidren's and the school board brought into compliance with WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Why was Kennedy removed from the text?[2] That was one of the main points reported in the sources.   Will Beback  talk  18:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The source says that Santorum spoke out against "a distinction between private religious conviction and public responsibility", but it was the source itself in its own words that noted this was the opposite of JFK's point of view. To take that and say "Santorum opposed JFK" is kinda synthy. Tarc (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

There are multiple sources. Which one are you talking about?   Will Beback  talk  01:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

@screwball...Lolwut? The passage as it currently stands is acceptable because it simply states that he attended the event, but that is in spite of you, not because of you. I objected to your "Santorum has been rumored to have connections to Opus Dei" gibberish you were edit-warring over because I do not feel that rumors belong in a BLP, regardless of the "its in a reliable source!" argument. Your block was well-deserved, and I'm sure it won't be the last. Tarc (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

You are a terrible liar. You and I both know that your only goal was to eliminate any discussion on this. When I was blocked, you never bothered to discuss this, did you? I thought so. So don't try to take yourself so serious like you were a key player in making a successful addition here - you weren't. If I didn't push to have it, we would have your censorship - which would mean nothing would be left from any of the references I provided. You also fought a terrible war against this,and you have fully convinced everyone that you don't understand wikipedia policy. You said WP:NOTCENSORED does not apply here, which is blatantly false - and your buddy Collect brainlessly backed you up on that - just because he hates me whenever I'm right. And you called the entire discussion "bullshit: and deleted it again and again, first saying it was NPOV and then UNDUE, and you attacked the references, and now, you still don't have the balls to own up to the fact that your shifty, unmoving arguments were wrong and this was indeed a newsworthy and well-researched bit of information on Santorum. --Screwball23 talk 02:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Care for a cup of tea, bro? I removed the entire passage of yours as it was unworkable and detrimental to a living person...y'know, that WP:BLP stuff. Perhaps there was a nugget of useful information concealed in your "is here or isn't he a secret Opus Dei member" propaganda, but the gist of BLP is that questionable material is to be removed while discussion is underway. Pay attention to the order there; 1)remove 2)discuss. Your method of 1)add 2)revert 3)revert 4)discuss 5)revert 6)revert is what led to your 1 week vacation. Now, completely without your input, other editors have re-added the section regarding Santorum's participation in the Opus De-connected event without the rumor-mongering that you initially tried. The word "censorship" is not applicable here, as I have no ideological motivations or axes to grind. I am here simply to see that BLP policy (p-o-l-i-c-y) is applied across the board, be it Obama, Santorum, Bachmann, or Boxer...all articles that I have been involved in in the past when politically-driven yahoos try to make these pages be platforms of criticism. Finally, as for Collect, as far as I recll the only place we've really crossed paths was at opposite sides of the WP:DICK debate over at meta. You aren't being tag-teamed by people in cahoots; rather, you are finding a veritable multi-ideological rainbow of opposition to your poor editing. Tarc (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I really find it odd when people assert folks are in cahoots when any reasonable person would find they agree sometimes, and disagree sometimes, as two individuals are wont to do. Ask Andy the Grump about this. Also Soxwon, Fifelfoo, Okip, THF and a few dozen others <g>. But Screwball's history shows a huge number of personal attacks on me (I follow DNFFT) including accusations that I "abuse" policies etc. [3] and [4] which show his recent attitude problems. Meanwhile, I think he might need a vacation. Collect (talk) 13:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

@Collect: Why was Kennedy removed from the text?[5] That was one of the main points reported in the sources.  Will Beback  talk  07:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Because the source does not support the claim made. That is the usual reason for removing something from a BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Which source? There are many sources for this. If there's no objection I'll restore it.   Will Beback  talk  20:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

"Allen" was used -- and it does not support the claim "Santorum condemned John F. Kennedy for distinguishing his religious convictions." Stiil. Collect (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Question

The lead says "He...has been a firm supporter of the U.S. invasion of Iraq". That's great, I'm assuming he's also a firm supporter of raising taxes to pay for the cost of his war? I don't see that in the lead. Surely, he can't support a war and not support paying for it. Please clarify this in the lead. Viriditas (talk) 06:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything about his political position on taxes in the article. Either I'm missing this most important position, or someone has taken great pains to avoid discussing it. How can we represent his position on spending money to fight a war but not his position on how he intends to raise this money? Viriditas (talk) 06:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

What is his position on the financial cost of the Iraq War he supported? Will he raise taxes to pay for it? Viriditas (talk) 10:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Classic example of WP:OR. Unless y find a reliable source making the claim as you state it, it simply can not be used in a WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like you don't know what OR is. This is not OR. This is an observation that a basic biography of a notable politician lacks any and all specifics on his positions regarding revenue. For example, the subject evidently supports government programs like war, yet there is nothing in the article explaining how these government programs will be funded. As a reader, one would expect to know about his political position in more detail. This article appears to lack essential, relevant information about the financing of large government programs favored by conservatives, who seem happy to wave the flag and hoist a yellow ribbon, but when the troops come home, seem unwilling to pay for the war they just fought or for the veteran's programs needed to reintegrate soldiers into civilian life. This raises more questions. What is the position of the candidate when it comes to the VA? This article is deficient when it comes to actual information about the candidate. Viriditas (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

No -- you are asserting that a claim that he favoured the war must be combined with claims that he opposes tax increases -- which is WP:SYNTH unless you find a source making that claim, and WP:OR specifically states:

This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources.

Next time - read WP:OR before averring something errant. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, a request to expand missing major article elements is not OR. How about doing some research and article expansion for the first time? Neither of those are OR. The article must discuss his political position on revenue and taxes, just as it must discuss the major government spending he supports. Viriditas (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

If I didn't see "Viriditas" tagged to the above entries, I'd swear this topic was something created by a throwaway WP:SPA. How can you possibly think that this article says X, we must find !X to balance it" is in any way a proper approach to editing political biographies. You're basically adopting the Grundle2600 Style of NPOV Editing here. Tarc (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

His position on revenue generation, including taxation, is entirely absent from this article, yet his position on things that require revenue is included. It isn't a violation of NPOV to request that an incomplete article be made complete, it's a prerequisite for every good and featured article criteria. Viriditas (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Question

The lead says "He...has been a firm supporter of the U.S. invasion of Iraq". That's great, I'm assuming he's also a firm supporter of raising taxes to pay for the cost of his war? I don't see that in the lead. Surely, he can't support a war and not support paying for it. Please clarify this in the lead. Viriditas (talk) 06:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything about his political position on taxes in the article. Either I'm missing this most important position, or someone has taken great pains to avoid discussing it. How can we represent his position on spending money to fight a war but not his position on how he intends to raise this money? Viriditas (talk) 06:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

What is his position on the financial cost of the Iraq War he supported? Will he raise taxes to pay for it? Viriditas (talk) 10:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Classic example of WP:OR. Unless y find a reliable source making the claim as you state it, it simply can not be used in a WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like you don't know what OR is. This is not OR. This is an observation that a basic biography of a notable politician lacks any and all specifics on his positions regarding revenue. For example, the subject evidently supports government programs like war, yet there is nothing in the article explaining how these government programs will be funded. As a reader, one would expect to know about his political position in more detail. This article appears to lack essential, relevant information about the financing of large government programs favored by conservatives, who seem happy to wave the flag and hoist a yellow ribbon, but when the troops come home, seem unwilling to pay for the war they just fought or for the veteran's programs needed to reintegrate soldiers into civilian life. This raises more questions. What is the position of the candidate when it comes to the VA? This article is deficient when it comes to actual information about the candidate. Viriditas (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

No -- you are asserting that a claim that he favoured the war must be combined with claims that he opposes tax increases -- which is WP:SYNTH unless you find a source making that claim, and WP:OR specifically states:

This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources.

Next time - read WP:OR before averring something errant. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, a request to expand missing major article elements is not OR. How about doing some research and article expansion for the first time? Neither of those are OR. The article must discuss his political position on revenue and taxes, just as it must discuss the major government spending he supports. Viriditas (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

If I didn't see "Viriditas" tagged to the above entries, I'd swear this topic was something created by a throwaway WP:SPA. How can you possibly think that this article says X, we must find !X to balance it" is in any way a proper approach to editing political biographies. You're basically adopting the Grundle2600 Style of NPOV Editing here. Tarc (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

His position on revenue generation, including taxation, is entirely absent from this article, yet his position on things that require revenue is included. It isn't a violation of NPOV to request that an incomplete article be made complete, it's a prerequisite for every good and featured article criteria. Viriditas (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

about Santorum's tax plan

I agree that we need to have more coverage of Santorum's tax plan. Two different RSs have this recent report from the Tax Policy Center's Howard Gleckman:

"His playbook: lower rates for individuals and corporations, substantially cut taxes on capital, and increase the personal exemption for dependent children. … The Tax Policy Center has not yet formally modeled the former Pennsylvania senator’s tax platform. However, because it cuts rates significantly but does not eliminate tax preferences—and even expands a few—it would very likely add trillions of dollars to the federal deficit. Looked at from that prism, it is not so different from the ideas raised by most of his GOP rivals." - Forbes, Money & Politics [6] and Christian Science Monitor [7]

His official website confirms the details from the report above with a "12-point plan" [8]. At the moment there are only a few scant mentions of his tax policy here and none at Rick Santorum presidential campaign, 2012. -El duderino (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Santorum

Santorum has a different definition besides just the candidate, Wikipedia should address so there was no confusion. Such as adding a line "Not to be confused with [santorum]" Boobymonster (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Even when the sub-article was under the title "Santorum (neologism)" I'm pretty sure there wasn't a hatnote. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

No. Gerald Ford page doesn't need to have a reference not to be confused with FordPbmaise (talk) 05:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on January 1 2012

The opening sentence on intelligent design is currently malformed. At the time of writing, it states:

"In 2001, Santorum tried unsuccessfully to insert into the No Child Left Behind bill language, which came to be known as the "Santorum Amendment" that sought to promote the teaching of intelligent design while questioning the academic standing of evolution in public schools."

The 'which came to be known as...' clause is unclosed, making the sentence incredibly hard to parse, and it's not that well constructed in any case. So as a minimal edit I'd suggest at least closing the clause, e.g.

"In 2001, Santorum tried unsuccessfully to insert into the No Child Left Behind bill language, which came to be known as the "Santorum Amendment", that sought to promote the teaching of intelligent design while questioning the academic standing of evolution in public schools."

Or ideally adjust to something like (including how it would flow into the rest of the existing text):

"In 2001 Santorum tried unsuccessfully to insert language into the No Child Left Behind bill that would promote the teaching of intelligent design while questioning the academic standing of evolution in public schools. This came to be known as the "Santorum Amendment" and was written with the assistance of the Discovery Institute. It..."

— 87.115.55.166 (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I think your suggestion is good but I tweaked it a bit further to produce: "In 2001, Santorum tried unsuccessfully to amend the No Child Left Behind bill by inserting language that sought to promote the teaching of intelligent design while questioning the academic standing of evolution in public schools.[47] This came to be known as the 'Santorum Amendment' and was written with the assistance of the Discovery Institute.[47][48] It...." I also broke up that long paragraph by starting a new paragraph when the discussion reached 2005. JamesMLane t c 06:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Children

• - Please include regarding his children that they are all his biological children

Please include regarding his children: "None of Rick Santorum's seven children are adopted." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachelannehayes (talk • contribs) 02:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The more common practice is to mention adoptions, if any. I don't recall ever seeing a bio that included a sentence of the type you suggest. Is there any reason to treat Santorum differently? JamesMLane t c 13:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Using ref as printed

The WaPo article cited for the "Santorum Amendment" specifically says:

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), a Christian who draws on Discovery Institute material, drafted language accompanying the law that said students should be exposed to "the full range of scientific views that exist."

It is reasonable to ascribe those words to Santorum as his statement, and this does not mean the claim is that the amendment used those words. Cheers - but I stand by what the WaPo article specifies about Santorum if that is the ref used. It is, in fact, improper to draw more inferences about Santorum from that cite than what the cite says in black and white. Collect (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that. The whole mess is explained in great detail by the National Center for Science Education in this paper. In brief:

1. Santorum introduced an amendment that mentioned "evolution".

2. The conference committee, reconciling the House and Senate versions, omitted the Santorum Amendment. Nevertheless, to appease the supporters of the amendment, the committee included language in its report similar to the Santorum Amendment, but with some changes.

3. Thus, Santorum introduced an amendment that had language very similar to the language in the conference report. WaPo source refers to this language as "accompanying" the bill because it wasn't the amendment itself. WaPo also doesn't get into the comparatively small differences between Santorum's language and the committee report, but the "full range" passage is one of those differences.

Our logical presentation is first to say what was actually in the amendment, and then to present Santorum's explanation. For the latter, Santorum's own statement in the Congressional Record is a better source than the WaPo glancing reference to the conference committee report, which was a compromise and probably not the best representation of his views. I don't see what the "full range" passage adds to an article about Santorum once we've quoted his own statement.

I'll add a link to the NCSE report, where people can see the full text of the Santorum Amendment plus the relevant passage from the conference committee report. JamesMLane t c 16:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I stuck to WHAT THE CITE SAID. Which is what Wikipedia says to do. Meanwhile, I suggest the NCSE report should be citable only as opinion, and all claims made based on it be attirbuted propoerly as opinion. Note WP:RS specifically says we use what the cite says, and not what we find in primary sources or other sources not given as references for the claims. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The question of "what was the text of the Santorum Amendment" is not a matter of opinion. It is fact, as to which there is no good-faith dispute. Compare [9] (bottom of page 3) with [10] (bottom of page S6147 to top of page S6148). The first is the NCSE report. The second is an excerpt from the Congressional Record, as presented on the website of the Discovery Institute. We have two sources for the exact text of the amendment, one from each side of the dispute, and the two texts are identical.

It's been said that journalism is the first draft of history. The WaPo article illustrates that. It says that Santorum drafted the language "accompanying" the bill. Well, most of that language is from his amendment, but there were differences. The WaPo reporter, trying to get a story out and give the readers the important information, would not stop and say something like "Santorum drafted the language that ended up in the conference committee report accompanying the bill, except for the passage in that report about the 'full range' of views, which was suggested by Joseph A. Blow, a Congressional staffer working for the conference committee." Even if that were the case, and the reporter knew it to be the case, it wouldn't go into the story -- and the omission would be proper, given the purpose of the story.

We should not attribute to Santorum, as a verbatim quotation in quotation marks, language that was not in his amendment. What I've written accurately summarizes the substance of the amendment and then attributes to Santorum what he actually did say, as per the Congressional Record. When it comes to representing Santorum's views, we can have much more confidence in his own words than in the report of a committee that was rejecting his amendment. I still don't see what we add to the reader's knowledge of Rick Santorum if we quote the "full range" passage. JamesMLane t c 21:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you stating that the quotation cited to Santorum by WaPo is a fake? Dear me -- on what grounds do you assert that the WaPo fraudulently ascribed words to him?

"Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), a Christian who draws on Discovery Institute material, drafted language accompanying the law that said students should be exposed to "the full range of scientific views that exist."

Looks pretty clear to me - but it is a fake? Thanks - but give me a basis for such a position. Collect (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

This is (of course) the right approach. We should not allow Santorum's own dissembling to become an authoritative account of what actually happened, in the full knowledge that his version is self-serving spin. With proper sourcing, we could note that this is what he said about his own efforts and then point out how his assertions were at variance with the facts. That might fall afoul of WP:UNDUE, however, so perhaps better to stick to a proper historical account which has entirely appropriate sourcing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

To Collect: No, I never said it was "fake". The "full range" passage is accurately quoted from the conference committee report. What I said was that we should state what the substance of the amendment was, and then give Santorum's opinion in favor of his position. On the former point, the amendment specifically mentioned evolution so we shouldn't suppress that information. On the latter point, Santorum deserves to be represented through his own words as stated in his own name in the Congressional Record. I'm glad to see that your edits haven't removed that quotation. So I ask, for the third time: If we quote Santorum's statement that students studying evolution should hear "competing scientific interpretations of evidence," what's gained by adding the language that educators should include "the full range of scientific views that exist" (the conference report language)? Even if we assume for the sake of the argument that Santorum personally drafted it, the passage makes essentially the same point. We don't need both, and it's more fair to Santorum to quote his own statement than to quote language from the report of a committee that decided not to include his amendment in the bill.

To Nomoskedasticity: This is the article about Rick Santorum, not the article about intelligent design or the article about the Santorum Amendment that sought to promote intelligent design. The kind of argument you're talking about doesn't need to be in Santorum's bio. That's what wikilinks are for. In this article, it's enough to note that anti-evolution groups were in favor and scientific organizations were opposed. The details of their arguments belong in the other articles. JamesMLane t c 08:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Why are you lecturing me? I already said that such an argument might be "undue" and I was agreeing with your approach. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see I misread your comment, and I apologize. I overreacted to your reference to "Santorum's own dissembling". JamesMLane t c 16:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)