Talk:Rick Santorum/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Signature

Can anyone locate an online scan of something Santorum has signed? Would like to digitize his signature and get it in the infobox. —Eustress ^talk 18:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I added a signature that I was able to find on a 2005 letter Santorum had signed. The original was signed in blue, but I converted it to black for use here. Adjust further if necessary. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 11:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice work! —Eustress ^talk 14:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Pietro blue collar

"rick+santorum"+"blue+collar" is grounded (by >> GigaHits) search phrase. Between 1922-32, there were 9657 strikes involving 3,951,000 workers "Rick Santorum’s grandfather departed from Riva del Garda, Italy, and arrived in New York in 1923, being “lawfully admitted,” according to the official Certificate of Arrival of the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Naturalization, a copy of which is in the possession of WND. Pietro ultimately moved to Somerset County [1]" Pa. United Mine Workers membership plummeted from more than 50,000 miners to approximately 10,000 in 1923. To get insight into history read Battle of Blair Mountain just before Department of Labor lawfully admitted new range of workers. Quite a story, but least a Rick's grempa missing name schould be added to Rick bio. Man truth is what he will proudly confirm. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

edit warring

Youreallycan, please stop edit warring... - You also posted an unjustified warning on my talk page, and reverted my two warnings on your talk page.Badams5115 (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Please take this to WP:ANI if there is an issue. This is not the right place. —Eustress ^talk 01:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - So, it seems good - I was trying to improve the article - you warned me and didn't sign and repeatedly added a massive template to my talkpage - no need for that - the same as there is no need to spam my username in talkpage headers here. Youreallycan

Santorum grampa strikebreaker

Only lawer can twist his grampa strikebreaker history as a reason to vote for him. He use his grempa coal mine work to appeal to blue-collar voters. This article align with Santorum campaign and silence fact - no single sentence abot that subject. If you do not fix it I will say this website sucks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.181.120 (talk) 07:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 February 2012

Rick Santorum received his JD degree in 1986 from the Dickinson School of Law prior to that school's merger with Penn State which was initiated in 1997 and completed in 2000. (see here and NY Times here) It is inaccurate to list his JD as a degree from Penn State and should be accurately listed as Dickinson School of Law. This information should be corrected in the infobox.

That also means that the following statement in the "Early life and education" section is incorrect: "Santorum returned to his alma matter to study law in 1983, and in 1986, he earned a JD with honors from Penn State's Dickinson School of Law." That statement is incorrect because Santorum did not return "to his alma mater" since at the time the Dickinson School of Law was a separate, independent law school that was located over 90 miles away from his undergraduate campus and was not in any way associated with Penn State. The article should simply state that "Santorum received a JD with honors from the Dickinson School of Law in 1986."

This requested changes are supported by all references (e.g. here) as well as references that already exist within the article (Pennsylvania Manuel as well as Santorum's official biography here). Thank you. MaroonGray213 (talk) 09:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that these edits should happen. By the way, the reference supporting the JD claim in the "Early life & education section", currently #25, doesn't support that claim at all, as best I can tell (though perhaps a further click there would reveal something). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the current url link in reference 25 should be replaced with the direct link to the relevant page [2]. The page number is also wrong in that ref: it should be 8-11, not B-11. That reference also clearly states "Dickinson School of Law" so the current reference both needs to be repaired and does not support the existing statement as written. MaroonGray213 (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, it wasn't specifically pointed out, but the following statement in the lead will also need to be corrected: "He received his undergraduate and JD degrees from Pennsylvania State University, and he earned an MBA from the University of Pittsburgh." It should read "He completed his undergraduate degree at the Pennsylvania State University, earned an MBA from the University of Pittsburgh, and received his JD degree from the Dickinson School of Law." or similar.

So there are three instances that need to be corrected: the infobox, in the lead, and in the "Early life and education". MaroonGray213 (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Tra (Talk) 22:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Subject popularity and reader search targets

Roughly 1/2 of searchers for "santorum" wanted the dab page ( http://stats.grok.se/en/201202/santorum vs http://stats.grok.se/en/201202/santorum%20%28disambiguation%29 and the dab page is only linked from the hatnote) Although the dab page's content is current;y volatile, at least 2/3 of those going to the dab page wanted the neologism ( http://stats.grok.se/en/201202/santorum%20%28disambiguation%29 vs http://stats.grok.se/en/201202/santorum%20%28neologism%29 the neologism is - mostly - the only link through to the campaign page). Roughly 1 in 30 readers of the politician's article get here via the santorum redirect ( http://stats.grok.se/en/201202/santorum vs http://stats.grok.se/en/201202/Rick%20Santorum )

Over the last 90 days, roughly 1/4 of all politician/neologism page reads are for the neologism: http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Rick%20Santorum 2.8m vs http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Campaign%20for%20%22santorum%22%20neologism 0.9m

I think this analysis is right, please point out errors of logic. Josh Parris 12:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Please do the following:

Change "birth control" to "contraception" in the lead, so the term is consistent throughout the article.

I wonder if it would be appropriate to put in a stat on how much agreement he has:

"which held that the Constitution guaranteed that right and overturned a law prohibiting the sale and use of contraceptives to married couples. 8% of the public agrees with this position.<ref> [http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/18/republican-and-the-culture-wars-why-it-won-t-work-this-year.html Republicans and the Culture Wars: Why It Won't Work This Year] by Michelle Cottle for [[The Daily Beast]] Feb 18, 2012 </ref> B^e——C_ritical 20:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

My, my, I see this is actually the subject of lameness [3]. LOL. Well anyway, WHATever :P B^e——C_ritical 20:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

Fourth paragraph of initial summary in the article states "presidential candidate" which is inaccurate. The subject is a cadidate for the Republican Presidential Nomination. Should the subject win that contest, then they would be a candidate for President. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.155.146 (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Full protection?

Uh - where is the justification or even announcement of a decision for full lockdown of this page for three days? I see that there has been some back and forth about the reproductive rights section, but am I missing some kind of warning here or even a statement that it has been locked? From what I can see this may have been an overreaction, and I'd like to know the rationale. Tvoz/talk 00:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It was fully protected after a user repeatedly inserted vulgar comments. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking about the edits by User:Youreallycan? Since when do we full protect an active page like this against one editor's edits that an editor found inappropriate? If that is really the reason - and how would I know having been away from the page for a day or two and come back to it being protected - at most he should have been warned, and maybe given a temporary block. He's not a newbie vandal, he's a long-standing editor (under another name that he reveals on his page) who perhaps was out of control - but that is no reason for a 3-day full protection of this article, and it's particularly egregious because there isn't even any explanation given here or warning or anything. I'd like to hear a better explanation, or an immediate return to semi-protection which is appropriate and I support for this BLP. Tvoz/talk 01:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I have been editing a page, political action committee, that has been getting terms applied owing to the Colbert tv show. Fans of Colbert apparently wants a to redefine super PAC along similar lines as this issue. I have found that on that page editors have jumped in and removed the comments before I even noticed. By far, there are enough editors watching this page to do the same here. It isn't as if someone hasn't heard of this before. Failure to being able to work on updates is hindering Wiki's reputation of being a good source to turn to. It may also provide another candidate an advantage as their information is more up to date. Please lift the ban.Pbmaise (talk) 03:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

522 watchers by last count.Pbmaise (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, there are some edits which could be made. B^e——C_ritical 01:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean exactly, BeC. But I'm going to request that this full protection be lifted immediately, since I see no coherent reason given for it having been imposed. If there are reasons, it should have been made clear here. This is not the way I've ever seen it done before, and this is not the time or the place for anyone to prevent long-standing good faith editors from directly working on the page. Tvoz/talk 02:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I see this page is still locked down. A quick check of Mitt, Newt, Paul, and Obama pages all reveal they are semi-protected. A lock down on this page can only mean one thing. A concession. But to whom? No matter which way you look at it, it is bad for Wikipedia. Bad since a lock down may deny the free speech that takes place upon the pages of Wikipedia and the denial of the voice upon the box at Speakers Corner. A denial of the right for people to get the latest information from a source where editors have the right to challenge information, add evidence that supports their own views, and above all is not effected by advertiser revenues. A muffle is a muffle and a slippery slope Wikipedia cannot and should not walk. Wiki means fast..and fast update information has ended. PLEASE..LOCK DOWN all candidate pages if you have justification here and claim impartiality. Which of course is exactly what I don't want you to do, however, I hope you can see that justification and realize that this lock must be removed.Pbmaise (talk) 07:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

If y'all want the situation changed, go talk to the admin who protected it. This article probably is not on his watchlist. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that, and I did, 3 hours ago. And posted a question about this in the AN thread where a discussion was underway about the editor that was referred to above by Roscelese. The protecting admin didn't indicate any specifics here, nor do I see any warnings that this was imminent - the whole thing is wrong. This admin says in general his actions are open for other admins to revert if they so wish, so I don't get why no one seems to be willing to step up. Fully protecting a page of a candidate in the upcoming primary should not be done without an explicit explanation of why it was the only option - I see nothing. Surely there are admins among the 500+ watchers of this page - will someone please speak to this? Tvoz/talk 08:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The rationale was: multiple editors edit-warring. I'm not sure that's a good description, but even if it were, it would be better to block any and all who were edit-warring. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hatnotes

Hatnotes are not needed to call out Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality and Campaign for "santorum" neologism in the Same-sex marriage and contraception section because they are already linked to in the body of the section. To use hatnotes in this instance would be redundant. —Eustress ^talk 00:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Arzel (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You invoked WP:HAT. I could find nothing in the policy to justify your deletion. I may have missed something. Please specify the part of the policy you are invoking. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, that was less helpful than I thought, but my clarification in the edit summary remains valid: the hatnotes are not needed here since the spin offs are linked to in the body. —Eustress ^talk 01:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I reverted you because it was a fallacious edit summary. If you invoke policy or guidelines in the future, you must do so accurately. This is not a trivial matter, and it undermines your credibility. And I disagree with your assertion that the hatnote is "not needed". The proper solution would have been to unwiki the phrase in the body, in my opinion. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I apologize, it was not my intention to be deceitful. Back on task, we agree that use of both hatnotes and in-body linkage is redundant. Why do you feel hatnotes should be used instead on in-body linkage? —Eustress ^talk 01:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Just be very careful with that in the future. Hatnotes save the reader time reading irrelevant material before they find what they are interested in, only to find out it's treated in another article. Many readers coming to this article are specifically interested in the controversies, and would appreciate knowing that there are full articles devoted to them before they begin reading the section. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

How do you know what many readers are most interested in? Arzel (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Why are you being pointlessly argumentative? That many readers come to Wikipedia as a result of controversies is not controversial. -- 70.109.45.74 (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

Section: Tenure Paragraph: 1 Current sentence: "In his re-election bid of 2006, he lost to Democrat Bob Casey Jr.[37] by a 41%-59% margin." Edit to read: "In his re-election bid of 2006, he lost to Democrat Bob Casey Jr.[37] by a 41%-59% margin. That was the worst defeat suffered by an incumbent senator since 1980." Rationale:

• This addition is highly relevant to the other material of this paragraph, it is also similar in tone and similar in content.
• The additional note gives an more meaning to the numbers "41%-59%" helping readers understand the data.
• Similar statements are made previously in the same paragraph, e.g., "he was considered an underdog" and "narrowly defeating incumbent Democrat Harris Wofford 49% to 47%".
• Without this addition, the tenure section fails to adequately describe the end of his tenure.
• This statement is currently included in section "2006 campaign". However, adding it here completes the narrative of his Senate rise and fall.

Sailor editor (talk) 10:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

And as this is clearly a POV proposal as far as some editors are concerned, and as there are plenty enough disputes already going on here, this edit request is exceedingly unlikely to pass muster. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a high-quality source? Jehochman ^Talk 13:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that this is a POV proposal. It is a fact that gives readers an idea of what the numbers mean. Example: "an adult blue whale might be around 30 meters in length and weigh in excess of 180 metric tons. That makes it the largest known animal ever to have lived on earth." Not a POV statement, one that gives context to the facts.

The relevant paragraph is rife with similar statements, e.g., "underdog", "narrowly defeating", "Republican takeover". However, this rich narrative gives zero narrative context to his defeat. This edit is necessary to complete and balance the paragraph.

Would someone please add it?

Thanks!

High quality source: Joe Lenski (August 27, 2010) "Senator Blanche Lincoln Headed for a Historic Defeat". Edison Research.

Sailor editor (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Path forward

I suggest anyone with very strong views regarding homosexuality, contraception, the teaching (or not teaching) of creationism and similar social issues cease editing this article. If any editor to this sort of article is incapable of following policies mandated by this website, then they need to step away or face sanctions...--MONGO 12:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep. I'm just waiting for the right moment to request arbitration. A handful of accounts will get banned, and then there will be discretionary sanctions made available to take care of future troublemakers. This is not the place to push an agenda. Jehochman ^Talk 12:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's hope it doesn't come to that...it would be preposterous to expect this article to be devoid of editors with a POV...but it shouldn't be used for pro or con propaganda.MONGO 14:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

There are legit differences of opinion on what represents propaganda. You think that even linking in the other article is unambiguously a violation. Usually a push to exclude one side of any debate is couched in highbrow NPOV terms. B^e——C_ritical 18:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This article merely needs to be a neutral treatise on the subject matter...however, considering what the subject matter is, neutral is a lofty goal.MONGO 19:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

yet another edit request (YAER)

"He says the war on Terror can be won and is optimistic about the U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan for the long-term."

This is not in Political Positions but in the section on his time in Senate re: Foreign Policy.

This should be at least something like:

"He has said that the War on Terror could be won and was optimistic about the U.S. occupation of Iraq and the outcome of NATO military force in Afghanistan in the long-term."

and should have a reference for at least one - preferably the last.

G. Robert Shiplett 14:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Pro-choice past

It has come to light that Santorum himself acknowledged that he was pro-choice. This certainly needs to go in the article. [4] -- 99.90.237.118 (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• This is not a real point, and the source is not a neutral source, but an extremely biased one. The only thing this actually shows is that at all points that he has sought public office, Santorum has done so while presenting himself as a po-life candidate. This is what matters, not his personal musings as a private citizen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait, words exactly from Santorum's mouth are not a neutral source? "I Was Basically Pro-Choice All My Life, Until I Ran For Congress" ?? This has been in every news source all day today, what others would you like? Business Insider NYT? How is a position that is antithema to what was known not worthy of being included? You do realize HuffPo is used as a source for other things on this article? -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

having an entire subsection dedicated for this topic gives that statement WP:UNDUE, so I have removed it. Either appropriately incorporate it into an already existing section or leave it out entirely.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

A section would be undue, but it's apparently believed by other fairly good sources [5] [6] [7]. B^e——C_ritical 04:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The entire section was added in the hopes that the rest of his views on the subject would be expanded by another editor. The section wasn't for this article alone... Thoughts? -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Currently that is covered in the Same sex section. Ill cite and add this new information to that section.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Ethanol

In a 2008 column, Santorum suggested a government mandate that all vehicles be able to use ethanol as a way of securing our energy independence. Worth adding? 70.99.104.234 (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that is notable enough for inclusion unless there are multiple sources reporting it as a primary focus of the article.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Knights of Malta

He is in Category: Knights of Malta. Is there a source for this categorization, and if so, maybe it'd be worth adding some information on how he became a member, were his ancestors also knights, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.99.104.234 (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Electoral History section

I'm curious if people would be interested in me compiling an "Electoral History" section for Rick Santorum. This section seems to be common in Wikipedia politician articles, but it's missing on this rather high-profile one. I'm talking about something like this: Byron_Dorgan#Electoral_history or this: Olympia_Snowe#Electoral_history. There doesn't seem to be a standard form for it across all pages -- I think the one on Olympia Snowe's page is nicer looking though an would probably use that as a template. MrChupon (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Alan Simpson

Alan Simpson, a former colleague of Santorum, is now alleging that Santorum once called him a "baby killer" after a Senate vote in 1995, and that he is "very very rigid". [8] [9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.99.104.234 (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Santorum and Satan

It would be worthwhile to add a mention of the speech on Aug. 29, 2008 at Ava Maria Un. in Florida, disclosed first by <http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/santorum-satan-systematically-destroying-america> and put on line by Drudge Report. When Santorum predicted that a holy war would develop in the country in the wake of electing the Democratic candidate, a holy war which has not happened. But Santorum's words were scary, invoking the threat of Satan unleashing on depraved US, like a good New Testament prophet. "Satan is attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity, and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that has so deeply rooted in the American tradition...This is a spiritual war. And the Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country – the United States of America. If you were Satan, who would you attack in this day and age?...He attacks all of us and he attacks all of our institutions...We look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it." ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I would need to see a WP:RS about this as well as enough context in the current discussions to attribute WP:WEIGHT. as of now it appears to be a non issue in the current discussions.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone should add this

Because it tells something about how he handles with foreign countries http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn-eejMcmuA http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-maddow-show/46520567#46520567 RoestVrijStaal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC).

These statements at a forum moderated by James Dobson about euthanasia in the Netherlands (5% of all Dutch people die by involuntary euthanasia; elderly people flee from the Netherlands to avoid being killed off in a hospital to save money) were received with jaw dropping disbelieve in the Netherlands and seem outrageous enough to warrant a section in he "controversies" section. The whole-cloth claims, in front of a sadly gullible crowd, that a country allows their elderly to be slaughtered for budgetary reasons surely outdo blaming the Catholic Church's sex abuse scandal on liberalism or living in the wrong state. This page at FactCheck.org is a good source for the paragraph. Afasmit (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think these comments, although certainly untrue, have sufficient weight to make it into the article. The Dutch government refused to comment on American electoral politics and the American press hasn't made a big deal out of it. I don't think it can be considered a serious controversy if no one seems that upset by it.Snumbers (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• If no one in the US is upset by this, that's a sad comment on the current state of the US. --Maarten1963 (talk) 15:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't his 2003 Comments on homosexuality be listed in 'controversies'?

The amount of criticism that the AP interview and Catholic Online article drew seems to be comparable, but the article currently doesnt list the former as a controversy. If anything, the AP interview looks more serious, as WP's statement on the CO article focuses on negative responses in the media of a limited geographical area (Boston). By comparison, Santorum's 2003 comments drew heat from elected officials on both sides of the aisle, press across the country and obviously Dan Savage's online campaign.

Perhaps the third paragraph of the 'same sex marriage' should be expanded a little and then moved to it's own section in 'controversies'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snumbers (talk • contribs) 00:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Parents of Eight Children?

The "they are the parents of eight children" bit in the opening paragraph seems a little weird and POV-ish, given that one is dead. I don't believe most people would write a present tense version of that sentence, which coincidentally fits neatly into the candidate's world view, and is a selling point to his base. Something on the order of "they have had eight children, seven surviving" might be more neutral.142.232.98.112 (talk) 04:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me about that, I remember it struck me as weird. I've edited it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Santorum being the father of eight is listed in the infobox, but it is parenthetically noted that one child is deceased, so there probably is no issue with keeping the infobox as such. But if it helps in any way for any further edits to the article, Santorum's own Twitter account has "Loving Dad of 7" in his description at the top. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 09:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 February 2012

Hi from Iowa. I believe that the language "...brought the corpse home" reflects poorly on Wikipedia's standards of what is offensive to a reader. While technically correct, few if any readers would accept these words to describe such an event in one's own family.

See below:

"In 1996, the Santorums' son Gabriel was born prematurely and died two hours after birth. Karen wrote that she and Rick brought the corpse home from the hospital and introduced him to their children as "your brother Gabriel", before a funeral and a burial."

Wikipedia will be better represented by a phrase like "brought the miscarried child home from the hospital," "brought him home," brought the deceased baby home" - among other choices.

At present, the phrase sounds at best clinical, indifferently political, and worst, mean. I will appreciate some attention to the language surrounding the personal nature of a miscarriage, and would ask that the sentence describing only the baby, the miscarried child, be edited. "Corpse" is a true, and cold, word. There are plenty of words which are equally true, yet only leave a reader better informed, instead of being chilled by the text of an article.

For the editors' background, I am a former speechwriter to a Democratic Governor. I have exactly no affection for the campaign of Mr. Santorum and his organization. Instead, I hope that the words that are used in articles like this are unimpeachable and that any description of a public figure's family use terms which any private family would recognize, instead of object to.

I certainly appreciate your attention to this detail, which is perhaps minor in the larger sense, but perhaps quite substantial for a reader recognizing the narrative of a lost child in the story here, well removed from the politics of any given day.

Thank you,

Pete McRoberts Des Moines, IA pete@mcroberts.com 67.224.69.107 (talk) 06:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Euphemisms would be the closest guideline, but does not address this specific issue. In this case it seems to paraphrase what she herself wrote in Letters to Gabriel, but not specifically covered in The New York Times magazine article. I would want to see the book before changing. Dru of Id (talk) 06:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm no friend of Santorum's, either, but I have to agree with Mr. McRoberts that the word "corpse" as used here is gruesome and undelicate. It's a bit dated, too, and has long been supplanted by "body", even in a clinical setting (I can't recall hearing the word "corpse" used in my hospital career, part of which I worked in the morgue). The language used in "Letters to Gabriel" is immaterial as we are not quoting. I've gone and replaced the word "corpse" with the less evocative and more commonly used "body". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I had not seen this exchange, but was reworking the text in any case - the lead was still awkward and I also found "corpse" a bit much; I changed "body" to 'dead infant", as I felt that is clearer and makes more sense in the context of "introducing" him to the other children as their brother - seems to me they felt they were introducing a dead child, not a body (which is just s nicer way of saying corpse). Tvoz/talk 08:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of changing it to "deceased child". It's a little more delicate than "dead infant". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think "infant" is more accurate, and I see no advantage to "deceased" - a few words above it says "died", and "dead" follows that properly. I'm not sure we should be looking for delicacy or euphemism here, just a straight-forward neutral presentation. Tvoz/talk 08:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine with me. Just as long as "corpse" is gone. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

how about cadaver? it is the most accurate. -badmachine 19:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't. A cadaver is a dead body that has been prepared for disection. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

odd that corpse redirects there. cadaver should redirect to corpse, since it is more broad. anyway i would like to replace "dead infant" to "body of the dead infant". if anyone objects, just revert the change please. personally, i still believe "corpse" is the most accurate, and these changes amount to adding weasel words. thanks. -badmachine 19:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

None of the redundant verbage is needed nor grammatically clear. The baby is adjectively identified as deceased, after which you need only to refer to the baby a proper noun. Continually referring to him as being dead is simply unneeded. Arzel (talk) 22:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

That's possible, but your wording made it seem as though the couple had perhaps brought Gabriel to their children alive, sometime in the two hours before his death, which is misleading. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

this is why i changed that to "corpse". i suggest we re-word it back to "corpse". -badmachine 01:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Why corpse unless you want to give the impression that what they did was morbid? Arzel (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Misleading? Come on, there is a clear timeline there. You could have at least made some attempt at working with me rather than saying what I did was misleading. Also, the word "burial" is not needed unless you seriously think people think that they dug up Gabriel and took him home and then buried him again afterwords. The section really does not need to be that difficult. Remove the sensationalistic aspect and the form becomes quite clear.

Johnny bought a new car which he wrecked two hours after purchase. Forelorn, he took it home and spent the night with it in his garage before disposing of it"

Or if you really want to make sure it is known that it was the car.

Johnny bought a new car which he wrecked two hours after purchase. Forelorn, he took the car home and spent the night with it in his garage before disposing of it"

Do you think anyone would think that he took the car home and and spent the night in the garage with it before it was wrecked? Arzel (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

burial as opposed to cremation. i dont think that is sensationalistic. wtf? -badmachine 01:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Knock it off, both of you. "Corpse" is evocative and morbid, and consensus is clearly against it. "Him" is problematic, too, as Roscalese has pointed out, because it can be interpreted as meaning the baby was still alive when they too it home. I'm reverting back to Tvoz's version, which for now has the msot consensus. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

what about "the body"? i added that instead of corpse. -badmachine 02:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

What about getting consensus BEFORE you make a change and edit war? "Body" is fine with me. Let's see what others think. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

i stand corrected. i still dont think including the fact that the corpse was buried is "sensationistic". burial versus cremation... that does not seem controversial to me. -badmachine 02:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Bad Machine, your reference to him as "it" is highly insensitive. How would you like to be refered to as an "it"? As for the burial, it is not needed. If the act was done before the funeral then it was also by extension done before the burial or cremation. Arzel (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

after i am dead, i wont mind being referred to as "it", especially since i will then be a corpse. -badmachine 08:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not relevant how either of you would want to be referred to when you are dead, so please stick to the point. I don't think that the current wording is clear enough regarding the facts, so I agree with Dominus Vobisdu that we need to indicate that they brought back the dead child, so that they could have their other children see him. The way it is now worded, they could have brought him back in that two-hour time period between his birth and death, as without clarifying, the word "introduce" might suggest that he was alive. This is not contentious or pov - they have been more than clear about what and why they did what they did, and anyway it is not our job to protect feelings here, as long as we are following our BLP and NPOV rules. We can discuss whether we want "dead infant" (my preference) or "deceased infant" or any other similar phrase (see above for why I think "body" is not the best) but I think we do need to be clearer for readers who aren't familiar with the story, or don't read it carefully. I'm putting it back where it was, but am of course open to discussion, if it is serious and not pushing an agenda. Tvoz/talk 23:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

'Infant' sounds very clinical to me, which doesn't help to convey that the parents wants to introduce him to their children as their brother. 'Dead baby' is used in one of the sources, and works better, but I think that 'deceased child' is neutral and adequately clarifies their intent.Snumbers (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

i was just answering Arzel's question. next time i will ignore that kind of question. -badmachine 02:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

@Snumbers: "Infant" isn't clinical or non-neutral - it's the common word used to describe a very young baby, in the first few months of life. Common terminology chronologically would be infant -> baby -> toddler -> child, so to me "child" here suggests one somewhat older than a newborn that only lived for 2 hours. Tvoz/talk 06:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that "infant" is the best term, and I don't think it's "very clinical" (I worked five years in a children's hospital). Yes, "child" does make it sound like the baby was older. "Deceased infant" would be fine with me. "Dead" is also fine, but sounds a little cold to me. But that's my opinion. I wouldn't revert it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I fixed it to conform to the sources. The first source clearly states that Gabriel died in the hospital and that Karen and Rick spent the night with him in the hospital and then brought him home the following day to show to their children. Not sure why it went written incorrectly for so long. It makes this discussion pretty much not relevant because it could not be more clear that they did not bring him home before he died. Arzel (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Calling a corpse "him" is a non-NPOV personalization in Wikipedia's voice of a dead body. It's fine to discuss the Santorum's personalization of the corpse, but it's not fine for Wikipedia to participate in that conception. Espeically when we are, in Wikipedia's voice, saying that they introduced him to their children. We need to be neutral and say that they introduced the body/corpse as a brother. My recent edit also made it a little clearer what they actually did, due to the fact that such behavior may be incomprehensible to a large number of people. B^e——C_ritical 18:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You should really temper you understanding of what a large number of people might think or believe. Just because you personally cannot comprehend it, does not mean the population at large is clueless as well. Arzel (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that "him" is not common usage. Strange as the Santorum's behavior may seem to some, it is well within the normal response range to such a traumatic experience (it was not pathological). The same thing happened to my folks, except the baby was full term. It was a traumatic experience for my them, expecially considering the (Catholic) hospital staff were extremely unsymapthetic and insupportative. Fortunately, the hospital chaplain happened to be on hand and baptized the baby before it died, so it got a full Catholic funeral. Though my parents didn't react the same way Santorum did, they did have some "weird" reactions, as anyone would under such circumstances. And my mom still some talks about her "angel in heaven", thirty six years later.

PS: YOU'RE supposed to be the good cop, remember? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Arzel for noting the discrepancy in how we had it and how Sokolove reported Karen's description of the chronology of the events surrounding the birth and death of their child and what happened afterward. I've further tweaked the text to more closely reflect what it is that she described - I think it is now clear, accurate, and neutral. "Deceased infant" is fine with me, as is "body" in the context we now have it. I agree with what was said upstream about having to be clear to readers, most of whom likely have no experience with events like this. Tvoz/talk 20:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Great. I think we have a matter-of-fact consensus version now. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

With one exception. "it" is not the proper pronoun to refer to a previously identified person who's gender is known. "it" is used for a previously defined "thing" or a child of unknown gender. Not sure why people have such a problem in saying "him" when it should not be a contentious issue. Arzel (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The antecedent of "it" is "body", which is commonly treated as neuter, whether the gender is known or not. Using "him" for "body" sounds strange. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks good now (: Careful, or Dominus will slam your fingers in a drawer. B^e——C_ritical 20:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

"dead infant" versus "corpse"

hello. on february 10, i changed "dead infant" to the more correct "corpse". recently, someone has re-added "dead infant". imo, this should be worded as either "corpse", or, if we are mincing words, "the body of the dead infant". does anyone else have input on this? -badmachine 19:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Lot's of input.Read the above section. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

i just noticed that section. :\ -badmachine 19:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit of Presidential Campaign 2012

On February 29th, 2012 an edit was placed regarding a statement made by Political Candidate Rick Santorum, while speaking at a public event in Michigan. The candidates words regarding the United States Declaration of Independence were cited verbatim, and no additional points of view were included. This edit was reverted on the basis of POV. No POV had been included, only facts and Mr. Santorum's direct quote. This information regards a public figure, seeking public office, speaking to a public rally of supporters regarding a Founding Document of the Nation, before the media. Quotation is accurate, context is accurate and POV is not included. The original edit should stand on it's merits. Content should not be removed flippantly to "clean a page", when reliable sources are cited and content is not inflammatory. Wiki is a fact based media, and as such, should welcome facts. Edits for the sake of "cleaning" are irresponsible and run contrary to the spirit and intent of Wikipedia. StraightTalkCitizen (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Title of subsection

Why don't we change "Opposition to LGBT rights and reproductive rights" to "Socially conservative positions"? That's a simple neutral solution. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Too broad -- the content of the section is captured better by the existing (more specific) header. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hold on! The section has always been "Social conservatism." Roscelese boldly changed it to the POV title a few days ago--and WAS REVERTED. It now reads "Traditional family" which describes the content. Someone is going to get blocked for violating WP:BRD--and it isn't going to be me! – Lionel ^(talk) 10:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that the section heading has "always" been anything. In the past few months since it was added it hasn't been stable at all. Let's just use this thread to find a consensus version that might become stable.   Will Beback  talk  21:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted it to "Opposition to LGBT and reproductive rights". Sorry, that adequately summarizes his positions, and I don't understand how it is POV. It states exactly what he believes (although he doesn't believe in the existence of said rights). --He to Hecuba (talk) 10:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not at all notable that he supports traditional families; practically everybody does. What matters is that he opposes SSM. "Traditional family" is just a politically-motivated euphemism for opposition to SSM. It therefore grossly violates WP:NPOV Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

"Socially conservative positions" is appropriately neutral but unspecific, which makes it less than helpful. This "traditional family" nonsense is right out. Lionelt, since I assume that you are not five years old, please act your age. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• "socially conservative positions" is too vague. Many social conservatives are nowhere near Rick Santorum on the spectrum.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I would consider myself a social conservative, yet I believe in contraception. Santorum's views are unusual to say the least. --He to Hecuba (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The title does not adequately reflect the content in the section. The section also discusses:

• contraception
• polygamy
• adultery

The title must accurately describe the content. Adding POV tag. – Lionel ^(talk) 22:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I've moved the tag down to the disputed section.

Perhaps the section should be split?   Will Beback  talk  23:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Not enough for multiple sections. The title just needs to be changed to be more accurate. Something like, oh I don't know, hmmm, let me think, (cue Jeopardy! theme music), I got it: Social conservatism!!!!!! – Lionel ^(talk) 23:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Apparently some people disagree with you. I suggest finding a compromise, either by changing the material around or finding a different heading.   Will Beback  talk  23:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The current title is unacceptable. It frames the issue of opposition to abortion in terms of "opposition to reproductive rights." This is a biased title. Why not frame it as "support for rights of the unborn." I'm sure many people would find this second title about as problematic as I find the current title. How about separating the section into two separate sections with rather neutral one- or two-word titles such as the ones that occur below. One could be called "Abortion." JBFrenchhorn (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

How about just changing the phrase "Opposition to" to "Position on" That would be more neutral than using the emotionally charged word "Opposition" It is hard to describe exactly what "Opposition to reproductive rights" means... Is he opposed to the fact that I plan on reproducing with my wife? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.40.132.28 (talk) 04:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

"Opposition to reproductive rights" is correct, because he opposes not only abortion, but contraception as well, and his position on that is notable and has been commented on in reliable sources as well. He specifically rejects the Griswold decision. Whether and what he intends to do about it as president is not exactly clear. As for adultery and polygamy, these are more trivial. Neither he nor the reliable sources ever mention his position on them outside of the context of defending his position on SSM. He certainly has no realistic intention of doing anything about adultery, so it's more of a personal position than a political one. As for polygamy, that is not an issue in the US outside a minuscule portion of the population. It's rather a "controversy" manufactured by SSM opponents as a scare tactic. Might as well add bestiality, which is, after all, what he's more famous for with his "man on dog" statement. Last of all, he is opposed to all LGBT rights, not just SSM. "Opposition to LGBT and reproductive rights" is therefore specific and coprehensive, and not POV. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

→Fellow editors, these options are all POV and not even parallel with the naming convention for the other subsections. I've modified the title to simply state what the section discusses without the judgment. I've also made the neologism section more concise, since spin off articles already exist that go into greater detail about the controversy and events. Regards —Eustress ^talk 05:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Eustress, what you did is similar to what I suggested and is definitely an improvement to the way it was before. But I think it can be made even more NPOV. Stating that the reproductive issues mentioned are "rights," is in itself POV since the word rights has a positive connotation and opposition to rights is seen as negative. Similarly, framing the issues as one of "rights of the unborn" would also be POV. How about something like "reproductive issues"? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 07:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

LGBT rights and the right to use contraception are considered "rights" by the United Nations, I think the current subsection title is neutral despite Santorum's views on these issues. --He to Hecuba (talk) 08:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I agree, see the article on rights. I've excluded it all together in my revision. Cheers —Eustress ^talk 08:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity changed "family planning" to "contraception" -- which on review, I think is superior to my iteration. Thanks. —Eustress ^talk 08:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

IMO, the right to a safe abortion constitutes a reproductive right. I'd rather keep the term in the section heading, because it is more descriptive of content. --He to Hecuba (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, please review rights. The word is POV-problematic. Best to avoid here. If not contraception, can you think of an alternative "rights"-free word? —Eustress ^talk 01:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

If we can't use "rights", maybe "family planning" would be a more comprehensive term, because Santorum's views on abortion should be discussed in the section. I personally don't see "rights" as having a particular POV in this context. -He to Hecuba (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

He isn't opposed to family planning. See Natural family planning. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Besides, I can't see how "rights" can be consdidered POV. They have been recognized as right by the Supreme Court in Griswold and Roe. Sounds NPOV to me. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree - a wider range of issues can be more appropriately covered, such as Santorum's support for natural family planning, under a title which does not explicitly mention contraception. --He to Hecuba (talk) 02:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

His support for natural family planning is not noteworthy or controversial. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

And it's received very little coverage, if any, outside of tangential mention in connection with his stance on contraception. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

If it's a verifiable fact, it deserves a mention. Seems relevant even if not controversial. --He to Hecuba (talk) 13:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Roe v. Wade may have decided abortion a "right" in the Supreme Court of 1973, but not in the courts of public opinion of 2012. I believe it is improper to label it a "right" when roughly half the country, give or take a few percentage points each survey, opposes the practice. I would support the section being titled as neutral as possible, such as "Same-sex marriage and abortion" or "Same-sex marriage and contraception" or even "Same-sex marriage and birth control." —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 09:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

""Same-sex marriage and birth control." sounds good to me in terms of neutrality. --He to Hecuba (talk) 13:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Admittedly the content about his opposition to abortion rights isn't currently sourced, but it could be sourced and developed, so as long as information on his feelings on abortion is to remain in the section, the heading should reflect that. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, "abortion" is "birth control" in the literal sense. --He to Hecuba (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Brazilians are Americans, but to refer to them as such in a section heading would be misleading to the reader. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It would indeed be misleading, but to include them in a section titled "American views on Nicholas Sarkozy" would be appropriate (if we're on sarko's article). --He to Hecuba (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree (extending the analogy, I would use "...in the Americas"). Why don't we find a section heading that either refers to both abortion and contraception in common parlance (I suggested "reproductive rights") or name both of the things? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Brazilians are only Americans by a very uncommon -- in both use and understanding -- definition of that word; there is no such parallel ambiguity for the meaning of "birth control". In fact, people opposed to abortion frequnetly refer (disparagingly) to abortion as a form of birth control. -- 70.109.45.74 (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

"roughly half the country, give or take a few percentage points each survey, opposes the practice" -- opposing the practice and opposing the right to the practice are not nearly the same thing ... in fact, the great majority of Americans support the latter while opposing the former, including many who consider themselves "pro-choice". The fact is that there is a right, in national and international law, to abortion and other forms of reproductive and family planning choice, and Santorum is opposed to those laws and thus to that right. -- 70.109.45.74 (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Santorum has positions on four issues in this area that are notable:

SSM, civil unions, DOMA

non-marriage related LGBT rights: DADT, ENDA, hate crimes, rejection of Bauer and Lawrence, etc.

Abortion/rejection of Roe

Artificial birth control/rejection of Griswold

I don't see a good reason to lump SSM/LGBT rights with abortion/artificial birth control. Seperating them would help resolve the problem with finding a comprehensive section title. His positions on polygamy, bestiality, adultery and natural family planning are trivial because:

1) he has never stated that he will take concrete action on them as president;

2) they are tangential to the issues listed above (neither he nor the reliable sources mention polygamy/bestiality/adultery except in the context of SSM, nor natural family planning except in the context of artifical birth control)

3) they are trivial and uncontroversial.

Propose therefore that the section be split into "Same-sex marriage and LGBT rights", and "Abortion and artificial birth control". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read this whole thread. I came here to see what WP said about his opposition to contraception because I read about it in an article. But the first thing that occurred to me was that these two subjects should not be together. B^e——C_ritical 20:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, "rights" seems to be considered the NPOV term for such things " Both of these are considered loaded terms in general media where terms such as "abortion rights" or "anti abortion" are preferred." Arguments based on "what most people think" as above are worthless. We need arguments based on reliable sources, such as this and this B^e——C_ritical 20:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with those above who said that the subsection should be split into two. However, I disagree with B^e——C_ritical's opinion that "rights" is not a loaded term. To call something a right is to suggest that it is one. Similarly, it would be inappropriate and POV to describe the abortion debate as an issue of "fetal rights" or "rights of the unborn." JBFrenchhorn (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It would not be inappropriate if such rights were established in the law. By your argument, "civil rights" is POV too. -- 70.109.45.74 (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

No, this is not the case. There is much more unity on the proposition that "civil rights" should be defined as rights. This is not the case with the issues we are discussing here. Referring to abortion as a "reproductive right" is biased and POV. The section should also be split, as several people suggested above. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC) Is there any objection to my splitting the section into two parts? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Mention of his "google problem" under controversies

Maybe i've missed it but i have seen no mention of his santorum redefinition issue. This has been mentioned by countless media sources and is a recognized issue that has to be noted by this article. It can be mentioned in a non polar and non political fashion. (Briwivell (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC))

I located the mention of the google problem but i still think that it should be moved to controversies. The media has addressed the google problem as a controversy so it should be displayed as such. (Briwivell (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC))

I think it works well where it is. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Whenever possible, we should avoid a controversy ghetto/criticism ghetto. Artificially moving potentially negative material to the bottom of the article creates a neutrality issue. We should try to integrate the other two parts into the main body as well. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

While a possible solution would be to re-integrate the other two controversies into the main body of the article, the fact is that neither of them really stands on their own as a political position, because they contain information about a particular incident in which those positions and the manner in which they were expressed have caused public debate. The distinction between what a politician believes and a time when that belief caused significant public debate is a sensible one.

Either away, the article as it stands does not support the goal of neutrality by failing to give due prominence the issue of his name as a neologism. Plenty of ink and screen-time have been used on this issue, and the candidate himself has had to address it in public.Snumbers (talk) 00:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. He is more likely to be remembered for it, than for his failed presidential campaign. It will be taught for years as an example of how not to manage your online presence, and as such deserves greater prominence.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)