Talk:Rick Santorum/Archive 1
Santorum is the author of the failed Santorum Amendment which relates to the teaching of evolution in U.S. public schools. Relates how? Encouraging it? Discouraging it? Kingturtle 19:48 18 May 2003 (UTC)
[1] I will incorporate this news item into this article tomorrow. unless anyone wants to beat me to it :) Kingturtle 09:21 19 May 2003 (UTC)
I despise Rick Santorum as much as anyone, but is anyone else concerned about having so much info about Savage's frothy mixture stuff in an aricle about a sitting U.S. senator? Opinions? Comments? -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 20:24, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- I trimmed it back - Dan Savage has the info. Martin 00:40, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- I removed it. I don't think Wikipedia needs to include every random attack made against politicians. I don't care how much certain Wikipedians disagree with Rick Santorum and his views of homosexuality. His article should have the same straightforward treatment given to other politicians with views more accepted at Wikipedia. Including attack piece terms such as this, as if they were commonly used, well-accepted, or particularly significant, does not serve to make Wikipedia a more credible source of neutral and useful information. If we did this for every attack, or every politician, it would make Wikipedia look like a cesspool. Both literally and figuratively, in this case. Daniel Quinlan 17:19, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
We do have criticism of other public figures in Wikipedia, however, I think I would say that, taken as a whole, the article was unbalanced by an excess of content regarding criticism of his stance on homosexuality. I therefore suggesting keeping the following content on the Talk page, and restoring it when the article becomes longer. Martin 18:30, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- In response to Santorum's comments, sex columnist Dan Savage promoted the use of the word "santorum" to refer to a byproduct of anal sex. See Dan Savage for more.
- I don't think it's appropriate to include the sentence "In response to Santorum's comments, sex columnist Dan Savage promoted the use of the word 'santorum' to refer to a byproduct of anal sex. See Dan Savage for more." Even if Santorum deserves it, richly. Even if it is factually accurate that Dan Savage made that statement, which I assume he did.
- I think NPOV might stretch as far as saying something like "Santorum's views have evoked strong criticism; some of his critics include (insert short list here) and Dan Savage." People can go to the Dan Savage page to see what he said.
- The content of Dan Savage's remark is clearly ad hominem. It's different from mentioning, say, the circumstances Newt Gingrich's divorce which don't reflect well on Gingrich but which are objectively factual.
- When and if some recognized dictionary includes the noun "santorum" sensu Dan Savage, I'd be happy to reconsider. Dpbsmith 23:45, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
There's a big difference between an ad hominem entry in an encylopedia, and an encyclopedic entry about an ad hominem attack. Andy Mabbett 23:52, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Yes, I see the difference, but my perception is that in this particular case the factuality is just a fig leaf, a way of justifying the inclusion of an attack on Santorum.
- I didn't put the sentence in, I'm not going to take it out, but I don't think it belongs there. Just my $0.02.
- Uh, and by the way, I don't care for Mr. Santorum. Not at all. Dpbsmith 02:25, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
This is very non-neutral handling of a transparent ad hominem attack on Rick Santorum. Does the Bill Clinton article include the most savage attacks from Rush Limbaugh? No, of course not. The attempted neologism has had just about zero pickup, aside from a few specific sites devoted to attacking Rick Santorum. It's beyond the pale that a few activist editors are campaigning to include such an low profile and non-encyclopedic attack in this article (or any article). So, I removed it again. If it's added again, I'll remove it again. And again. And again. I don't care if it's factual. That's not at issue. What is at issue is NPOV handling of this person, deciding what is significant information and what is not, and writing dispassionately rather than like a political hack. Daniel Quinlan 23:44, Nov 27, 2003 (UTC)