Nomoskedasticity (talk | contribs) |
→Alternate text for section: cn twice |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
{{quotation|1= |
{{quotation|1= |
||
<big>'''Euthanasia'''</big> |
<big>'''Euthanasia'''</big> |
||
Santorum is strongly against euthanasia. This became especially clear during an interview on American Heartland in which he claimed that in [[The Netherlands]] half of all euthanizations are involuntary. The reason for this, according to Santorum, is that Dutch hospitals euthanize elderly patients for financial reasons. Santorum also claimed that 10% of all deaths in The Netherlands were the result of these involuntary euthanizations. According to journalist [[Glenn Kessler (journalist)|Glenn Kessler]], writing for the ''The Washington Post'', these claims are bogus.<ref>{{cite web |publisher=''[[The Washington Post]]'' |first=Glenn |last=Kessler |authorlink=Glenn Kessler (journalist) |date=02/22/2012 |title=Euthanasia in the Netherlands: Rick Santorum's bogus statistics |quote=There appears to be not a shred of evidence to back up Santorum’s claims about euthanasia in the Netherlands. It is telling that his campaign did not even bother to defend his comments. |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/euthanasia-in-the-netherlands-rick-santorums-bogus-statistics/2012/02/21/gIQAJaRbSR_blog.html }}</ref>}} |
Santorum is strongly against euthanasia.{{cn}} This became especially clear during an interview on American Heartland in which he claimed that in [[The Netherlands]] half of all euthanizations are involuntary. The reason for this, according to Santorum, is that Dutch hospitals euthanize elderly patients for financial reasons. Santorum also claimed that 10% of all deaths in The Netherlands were the result of these involuntary euthanizations. According to journalist [[Glenn Kessler (journalist)|Glenn Kessler]], writing for the ''The Washington Post'', these claims are bogus.<ref>{{cite web |publisher=''[[The Washington Post]]'' |first=Glenn |last=Kessler |authorlink=Glenn Kessler (journalist) |date=02/22/2012 |title=Euthanasia in the Netherlands: Rick Santorum's bogus statistics |quote=There appears to be not a shred of evidence to back up Santorum’s claims about euthanasia in the Netherlands. It is telling that his campaign did not even bother to defend his comments. |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/euthanasia-in-the-netherlands-rick-santorums-bogus-statistics/2012/02/21/gIQAJaRbSR_blog.html }}</ref>}} |
||
A little more work produces this: |
A little more work produces this: |
||
{{quotation|1= |
{{quotation|1= |
||
<big>'''Euthanasia'''</big> |
<big>'''Euthanasia'''</big> |
||
Santorum is strongly against euthanasia. In 2012 Santorum claimed that half of all euthanizations in [[The Netherlands]] are involuntary, because hospitals are euthanizing elderly patients for financial reasons. Santorum also claimed that 10% of all deaths in The Netherlands are the result of these involuntary euthanizations. According to both ''Washington Post'' journalist [[Glenn Kessler (journalist)|Glenn Kessler]] and to [[FactCheck.org]], these claims are bogus.<ref>{{cite web |publisher=''[[The Washington Post]]'' |first=Glenn |last=Kessler |authorlink=Glenn Kessler (journalist) |date=02/22/2012 |title=Euthanasia in the Netherlands: Rick Santorum's bogus statistics |quote=There appears to be not a shred of evidence to back up Santorum’s claims about euthanasia in the Netherlands. It is telling that his campaign did not even bother to defend his comments. |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/euthanasia-in-the-netherlands-rick-santorums-bogus-statistics/2012/02/21/gIQAJaRbSR_blog.html }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/santorums-bogus-euthanasia-claims/ |title=Santorum’s Bogus Euthanasia Claims |date=February 22, 2012 |authors=Michael Morse and Eugene Kiely |publisher=[[FactCheck.org]] |quote=But the facts are clear: Santorum grossly misrepresented the practice of euthanasia in the Netherlands when making his case against it. |accessdate=June 13, 2014}}</ref> Santorum's comments caused a significant backlash in The Netherlands.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ibtimes.com/rick-santorums-involuntary-euthanasia-claim-outrages-dutch-video-413592 |title=Rick Santorum's 'Involuntary Euthanasia' Claim Outrages Dutch |first=Melanie |last=Jones |date=February 20, 2012 |publisher=''International Business Times'' |accessdate=June 13, 2014 }}</ref>}} |
Santorum is strongly against euthanasia.{{cn}} In 2012 Santorum claimed that half of all euthanizations in [[The Netherlands]] are involuntary, because hospitals are euthanizing elderly patients for financial reasons. Santorum also claimed that 10% of all deaths in The Netherlands are the result of these involuntary euthanizations. According to both ''Washington Post'' journalist [[Glenn Kessler (journalist)|Glenn Kessler]] and to [[FactCheck.org]], these claims are bogus.<ref>{{cite web |publisher=''[[The Washington Post]]'' |first=Glenn |last=Kessler |authorlink=Glenn Kessler (journalist) |date=02/22/2012 |title=Euthanasia in the Netherlands: Rick Santorum's bogus statistics |quote=There appears to be not a shred of evidence to back up Santorum’s claims about euthanasia in the Netherlands. It is telling that his campaign did not even bother to defend his comments. |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/euthanasia-in-the-netherlands-rick-santorums-bogus-statistics/2012/02/21/gIQAJaRbSR_blog.html }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/santorums-bogus-euthanasia-claims/ |title=Santorum’s Bogus Euthanasia Claims |date=February 22, 2012 |authors=Michael Morse and Eugene Kiely |publisher=[[FactCheck.org]] |quote=But the facts are clear: Santorum grossly misrepresented the practice of euthanasia in the Netherlands when making his case against it. |accessdate=June 13, 2014}}</ref> Santorum's comments caused a significant backlash in The Netherlands.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ibtimes.com/rick-santorums-involuntary-euthanasia-claim-outrages-dutch-video-413592 |title=Rick Santorum's 'Involuntary Euthanasia' Claim Outrages Dutch |first=Melanie |last=Jones |date=February 20, 2012 |publisher=''International Business Times'' |accessdate=June 13, 2014 }}</ref>}} |
||
Are there any objections to inclusion of this material? The article currently says nothing about Santorum's stance on euthanasia. [[User:Adrian J. Hunter|Adrian '''J.''' Hunter]]<sup>([[User talk:Adrian J. Hunter|talk]]•[[Special:contributions/Adrian J. Hunter|contribs]])</sup> 13:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC) |
Are there any objections to inclusion of this material? The article currently says nothing about Santorum's stance on euthanasia. [[User:Adrian J. Hunter|Adrian '''J.''' Hunter]]<sup>([[User talk:Adrian J. Hunter|talk]]•[[Special:contributions/Adrian J. Hunter|contribs]])</sup> 13:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC) |
||
Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
::* I don't see which "opinion columns" Collect is concerned about; the sources listed by Adrian, and by me above, are all news pieces rather than opinion columns. If there are equally high-quality news sources (again, ''not'' opinion pieces) defending Santorum's claim, then those could be mentioned as well, but as per the sources I've listed above the reception of Santorum's claims in high-quality reliable sources seems pretty uniform. |
::* I don't see which "opinion columns" Collect is concerned about; the sources listed by Adrian, and by me above, are all news pieces rather than opinion columns. If there are equally high-quality news sources (again, ''not'' opinion pieces) defending Santorum's claim, then those could be mentioned as well, but as per the sources I've listed above the reception of Santorum's claims in high-quality reliable sources seems pretty uniform. |
||
::No comment on the "Catholic" issue, but for the rest, I don't see the BLP or undue-weight issues in writing 4 solidly-sourced sentences on this topic. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 17:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC) |
::No comment on the "Catholic" issue, but for the rest, I don't see the BLP or undue-weight issues in writing 4 solidly-sourced sentences on this topic. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 17:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC) |
||
Note: The first sentence is ''not'' referenced. Cheers. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 20:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:56, 13 June 2014
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Religious legislation
I removed the following from the subsection "Religious freedom and ideological diversity";
- In 2003, Santorum and fellow Republicans heard from Hillel, the Anti-Defamation League, and the Zionist Organization of America about combating anti-Semitism in American colleges. Santorum drafted language on "ideological diversity," which Race & Class magazine suggested was tantamount to "policing thought". Inside Higher Ed suggested that he was pandering to David Horowitz and had no deep-seated position on the legislation.
I can't tell from the text what it is talking about, and two of the three citations are wrong or expired. If anyone knows what this is about, please restore with corrected citations. Thanks!David.thompson.esq (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Request for comment: endnotes in this article
This article's lettered endnotes seem to be mostly extraneous/trivial information, and many lack a neutral point of view. They were all added starting Jan. 8, 2013 by the same user (User:R2106), who edited this article about 20 times during that month and never edited anything on Wikipedia before or since (which may explain the POV issues and the unusual use of endnotes). I propose that whatever is in these notes that is valuable should be integrated in the article, and the rest (which would be most of it IMHO) jettisoned. This article is already long and has a lot of subsections. If there is no objection within the next few days I'll start consolidating/pruning. David.thompson.esq (talk) 06:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Military service?
Which branch of the military did Santorum serve in, and for how long? Timothy Horrigan (talk) 00:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- You do not seem to have a WP:POINT. Please see your talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Legislative proposals: passage?
I'd like to track down the end results of each of the legislative proposals, whether they passed or not. Does anyone know whether the fuel tax thing passed? I can't tell from researching it... David.thompson.esq (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Euthanasia
Santorum to believe the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. It is not especially notable that he does so, and trying to make a big argument about it is simply going to reach UNDUE very rapidly. Collect (talk) 10:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- This edit amounts to WP:SYNTH and is thus a BLP violation. Please do not repeat it. And please be mindful of 3RR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note that it now has separate and distinct sentences, and references that he is Catholic, and that the church opposes euthanasia, even though "Catholic" appears more than twenty times in the article. But it is reasonable for you to insist on citation overkill in a Captain Obvious situation. Oh hell -- you DELETED the citations! You are at 3RR by the way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Adding a cn request is not a revert… There was no citation for Santorum opposing euthanasia. It's disturbing that you don't see the WP:SYNTH problem here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Seems like a revert. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- You think adding a cn request is a revert? Then I suggest you report me now to AN3, because I'll persist in adding that tag where necessary even if I've already had 3 reverts on an article in one day. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Seems like a revert. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Adding a cn request is not a revert… There was no citation for Santorum opposing euthanasia. It's disturbing that you don't see the WP:SYNTH problem here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note that it now has separate and distinct sentences, and references that he is Catholic, and that the church opposes euthanasia, even though "Catholic" appears more than twenty times in the article. But it is reasonable for you to insist on citation overkill in a Captain Obvious situation. Oh hell -- you DELETED the citations! You are at 3RR by the way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
From the deleted ref: "Sean Reilly, a former aide to Santorum in the Senate and now a political consultant in Philadelphia, said that he has come to view his former boss in other than political terms. Rick Santorum is a Catholic missionary, he said. That's what he is. He's a Catholic missionary who happens to be in the Senate." Capitalismojo (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Also from that deleted ref: "Several times he used the phrase culture of life, which for religious conservatives generally encompasses opposition to abortion, embryonic stem-cell research and euthanasia (but not always opposition to the death penalty, which Santorum supports)." Capitalismojo (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Collect's synthesis was obvious: S is a Catholic (reference), Catholics generally oppose euthanasia (reference), therefore S opposes euthanasia (no reference). "Culture of life" when S hasn't said in his own words that that term includes opposition to euthanasia does not mean there is a reference for his opposition to euthanasia. It is ridiculous that this apparently needs explaining. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Classic synthesis. WP:SYNTH says "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." Source A (and B and C and D) says he's a catholic A, and source B says catholic doctrine opposes Euthanasia B, but doesn't say anything about Santorum, and certainly not why he opposes Euthanasia - perhaps he has a different reason than "my church told me to oppose this." Hipocrite (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- And SYNTH involves linked catenation -- where there are three separate statements, SYNTH is not applicable. Each statement stands on its own and is sourced. No conclusion is made about the catenation of the sentences, thus no SYNTH is involved, unless you wish to declare every section of every article to be SYNTH because two or more sources are used in the section <g>. I personally find it risible that someone would defend the UNDUE section predecessor to this edit, and find this clear and simply sourced section to be "SYNTH" but apparently your mileage varies a great deal from what the Wikipedia definition of SYNTH is.
- Virtually anything can be shoehorned into a broad reading of SYNTH, but the vast majority of it shouldn't be.[1] and Nothing is insinuated by the mere fact that these sentences are in the same paragraph.
- Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- The linked diff from Collect was certainly synthesis, and was rightly removed. I went further and removed the section under dispute, as it had no good source to support it. Binksternet (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Collect is further incorrect about what WP:SYNTH entails. In linking to a random essay, he ignores the policy itself, which states "Both parts of the sentence may be reliably sourced, but here they have been combined to imply that the [Santorum opposes Euthanasia because he's a Catholic]. If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research." I'm unsurprised that Collect misremembers policies to support his political whims. Hipocrite (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- And you get from "both parts of the (single) sentence" into extending it to three separate sentences how? Collect (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Collect, if you actually fail to see how this was WP:SYNTH, there might be difficulties for you in the future -- because if you add more material along these lines in the future I will propose at AN that you be topic-banned from BLPs. This is the second time in less than a month that you have been persistent in failing to conform to BLP (the other was that unsubstantiated allegation on BLPN that you refused to redact). Once again, the problem here is that there was no source for the assertion that Santorum opposes euthanasia. I think it's unlikely that you don't understand this and are simply being obstinate, but if I am wrong and you don't understand -- and then repeat the behaviour -- I'll take it as a sign of a larger problem. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- You object to the first sentence being "Santorum opposes euthanasia" and then in the next breath support "Santorum is strongly against euthanasia". Do you see precisely how strange this dichotomy is in your position? Cheers. `Collect (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Because the proposal came with a reference, unlike your edit. At Wikipedia, any material an editor wants to add must be supported by a reference. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- You object to the first sentence being "Santorum opposes euthanasia" and then in the next breath support "Santorum is strongly against euthanasia". Do you see precisely how strange this dichotomy is in your position? Cheers. `Collect (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Collect, if you actually fail to see how this was WP:SYNTH, there might be difficulties for you in the future -- because if you add more material along these lines in the future I will propose at AN that you be topic-banned from BLPs. This is the second time in less than a month that you have been persistent in failing to conform to BLP (the other was that unsubstantiated allegation on BLPN that you refused to redact). Once again, the problem here is that there was no source for the assertion that Santorum opposes euthanasia. I think it's unlikely that you don't understand this and are simply being obstinate, but if I am wrong and you don't understand -- and then repeat the behaviour -- I'll take it as a sign of a larger problem. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- And you get from "both parts of the (single) sentence" into extending it to three separate sentences how? Collect (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- And SYNTH involves linked catenation -- where there are three separate statements, SYNTH is not applicable. Each statement stands on its own and is sourced. No conclusion is made about the catenation of the sentences, thus no SYNTH is involved, unless you wish to declare every section of every article to be SYNTH because two or more sources are used in the section <g>. I personally find it risible that someone would defend the UNDUE section predecessor to this edit, and find this clear and simply sourced section to be "SYNTH" but apparently your mileage varies a great deal from what the Wikipedia definition of SYNTH is.
- Classic synthesis. WP:SYNTH says "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." Source A (and B and C and D) says he's a catholic A, and source B says catholic doctrine opposes Euthanasia B, but doesn't say anything about Santorum, and certainly not why he opposes Euthanasia - perhaps he has a different reason than "my church told me to oppose this." Hipocrite (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Alternate text for section
Before Collect deleted most of the new Euthanasia section, it looked like this:
Euthanasia Santorum is strongly against euthanasia.[citation needed] This became especially clear during an interview on American Heartland in which he claimed that in The Netherlands half of all euthanizations are involuntary. The reason for this, according to Santorum, is that Dutch hospitals euthanize elderly patients for financial reasons. Santorum also claimed that 10% of all deaths in The Netherlands were the result of these involuntary euthanizations. According to journalist Glenn Kessler, writing for the The Washington Post, these claims are bogus.[1]
A little more work produces this:
Euthanasia Santorum is strongly against euthanasia.[citation needed] In 2012 Santorum claimed that half of all euthanizations in The Netherlands are involuntary, because hospitals are euthanizing elderly patients for financial reasons. Santorum also claimed that 10% of all deaths in The Netherlands are the result of these involuntary euthanizations. According to both Washington Post journalist Glenn Kessler and to FactCheck.org, these claims are bogus.[2][3] Santorum's comments caused a significant backlash in The Netherlands.[4]
Are there any objections to inclusion of this material? The article currently says nothing about Santorum's stance on euthanasia. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. This gives UNDUE weight to a single speech by Santorum and an extensive rebuttal of points made in the single speech. It uses the word "claimed" which is a "word to avoid." It includes "according to Santorum" which is argumentation in Wikipedia's voice. The "backlash in the Netherlands" is opinion and not particularly relevant to a BLP. The extended use of opinion columns to make "points" in a BLP is problematic considering NPOV requirements, and the avoidance of any other sources making different claims. And the fact that Santorum believes in the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church is not all that amazing considering that it is well established in the article that he is, indeed, a Roman Catholic. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Adrian's proposed material looks reasonable to me. Taking Collect's concerns one by one:
- It's hard to credit the assertion that four sentences in a massive biography constitute undue weight—particularly since the incident in question was heavily covered by independent, reliable sources. (For context: we spend 4 sentences on a crap-sourced section on "Poverty").
- The word "claim" is generally to be avoided, but may be appropriate here in describing what was, after all, a false claim. (Note that the term is widely used in independent, reliable sources: Wall Street Journal, New York Times, NBC News, International Business Times, FactCheck.org, etc). That said, the word "claim", while justifiable here, is hardly essential and could be changed to "state" or some other such term if it will move the discussion along.
- The fact that a US politician's claims caused substantial and well-documented outrage in a foreign country seems to be reasonably relevant to that politician's biography.
- I don't see which "opinion columns" Collect is concerned about; the sources listed by Adrian, and by me above, are all news pieces rather than opinion columns. If there are equally high-quality news sources (again, not opinion pieces) defending Santorum's claim, then those could be mentioned as well, but as per the sources I've listed above the reception of Santorum's claims in high-quality reliable sources seems pretty uniform.
- No comment on the "Catholic" issue, but for the rest, I don't see the BLP or undue-weight issues in writing 4 solidly-sourced sentences on this topic. MastCell Talk 17:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Adrian's proposed material looks reasonable to me. Taking Collect's concerns one by one:
Note: The first sentence is not referenced. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- ^ Kessler, Glenn (02/22/2012). "Euthanasia in the Netherlands: Rick Santorum's bogus statistics". The Washington Post.
There appears to be not a shred of evidence to back up Santorum's claims about euthanasia in the Netherlands. It is telling that his campaign did not even bother to defend his comments.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help) - ^ Kessler, Glenn (02/22/2012). "Euthanasia in the Netherlands: Rick Santorum's bogus statistics". The Washington Post.
There appears to be not a shred of evidence to back up Santorum's claims about euthanasia in the Netherlands. It is telling that his campaign did not even bother to defend his comments.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help) - ^ "Santorum's Bogus Euthanasia Claims". FactCheck.org. February 22, 2012. Retrieved June 13, 2014.
But the facts are clear: Santorum grossly misrepresented the practice of euthanasia in the Netherlands when making his case against it.
{{cite web}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter|authors=
(help) - ^ Jones, Melanie (February 20, 2012). "Rick Santorum's 'Involuntary Euthanasia' Claim Outrages Dutch". International Business Times. Retrieved June 13, 2014.
{{cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help)