Jump to content

Talk:Campaign for the neologism "santorum"/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Bill Maher uses

On March 25, 2012, comedian Bill Maher posted in Facebook: "Little Ricky wins Louisiana! Mitt Romney getting nervous! He can smell santorum behind him! http://www.facebook.com/Maher This seems a clear and public usage with a double meaning. I'm just wondering if that is any kind of landmark for circulation as a real word, rather than a meta-usage. --Hugh7 (talk) 09:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

A liberal like Maher using the slur is hardly notable. Maher is known for attacking conservative figures. Arzel (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
In addition, the fact that he's clearly using it as a double entendre, for the purposes of comedy, doesn't really mean much. It'd be much better to see it in a scholarly/non-political context as a judge of it having entered common usage. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 04:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The standard I would use is rather whether he used it on the air - the fact that Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have both made multiple references to it is something that has been stable in the article for quite some time. A Facebook post isn't notable for this context, so I agree with leaving it out. But Maher's political views or comedic intent have no bearing whatsoever on whether or not to include it. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 16:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
According to Arzel's logic, it would only be notable if it were used by conservatives. I think that line of thinking can be safely ignored. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
You ignored my logic. Not all liberals are little more than childish insulters, but perhaps by your logic you believe that they are. Arzel (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
It was a Facebook post, and I'm certain it wasn't the first time he made the joke. How could that possibly be relevant?50.81.250.163 (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
It might be relevant if evidence comes out that Santorum is running for president to change the google search results. AvocadosTheorem (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Reputation.com

Theoldsparkle, you reverted my edit, changing the current name of Reputation.com back to its previous name. You say, in your edit summary, "If it's really necessary, a parenthetical "(now Reputation.com)" or "(then Reputation Defender)" could be added to clarify.) Since the version you reverted is, literally, no longer correct, could you please take up your own sensible suggestion and revert yourself, adding a parenthetical to the effect that the company used to be called something else? Thanks in advance. IronDuke 00:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

  1. Since you are explicitly directing this comment at me individually, I have no idea why you posted it here and not on my Talk page.
  2. It's perfectly fine to say, "In 2010, John Doe of Company X said blah-blah-blah," when we have a source that supports that in 2010, John Doe was representing Company X and he said blah-blah-blah. The current status of John Doe, or of Company X, has absolutely nothing to do with the context in which they are being referred to here. We are not holding up John Doe as an example of a prominent person who currently supports the blah-blah-blah viewpoint; we are simply offering his assessment of the situation at the time of his quote. (Although I have noticed that it is incorrect to refer to Company X in the present tense, which, if that's what you were referring to, you did a terrible job in explaining. I will make that amendment.)
  3. It was incorrect to say, as you wrote, "In 2010, John Doe of Company Y said blah-blah-blah" because Company Y did not exist in 2010.
  4. I was going to make the edit you requested anyway but now I've talked myself out of it, because by that precedent, that sentence would have to be updated constantly in perpetuity every time the guy's status changes, or the company's status changes, and it's just silly and pointless. I won't revert a change of the type I described in my edit summary, but I'm not going to make it myself. Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. IronDuke 02:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Cocktail

While Wikipedia has freestanding articles on cocktails (e.g. Cosmopolitan (cocktail), Manhattan (cocktail)), this is a single establishment's recipe, so I think it belongs in here rather than in a separate article.

  • Briquelet, Kate (6 March 2012). "Fourth Avenue watering hole serves Santorum". The Brooklyn Paper. News Corporation. Archived from the original on 13 March 2012.
  • Patterson, Troy (12 March 2012). "Try the Santorum". Slate. The Washington Post Company.

I'd add it myself, but the "Santorum neologism" subject seems like a minefield to me. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

That... is fantastic. I've even been to that bar (only place on the East Coast I've ever ordered the Bear Republic Racer 5 IPA and they weren't out of it - my local watering holes carry it, but never when I'm around, it seems). I'm not sure it warrants coverage here, though. Without at least one more national-news-scale reference, the cocktail doesn't rise above WP:UNDUE for enough editors to form consensus to include. This is one page in which, unfortunately, there will never, ever be an "In popular culture" section (its being largely driven by popular culture notwithstanding). ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 14:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, it won't put us over the line, but here's another mention:
/ edg ☺ ☭ 14:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Though I wouldn't want us to go overboard in describing the drink, I think it could deserve a very brief mention here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

AFAICT, the "cocktail" has nothing to do with the "campaign" entirely. Nor does the "cocktail" appear to meet Wikipedia notability requirements as a separate topic. Sorry. Collect (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

While you're correct it doesn't warrant its own article, I don't see how you arrive at the rest of your conclusion. Since two of the ingredients are Bailey's and chocolate flakes, and since the co-owner of the bar specifically says it is playing off of the redefinition (and since it's served by the bartender with a recitation of that very definition), there's no question whatsoever that they are related. Therefore I can only assume you missed something in the supporting references. If, once you've reviewed them, you still think this would be WP:UNDUE, that's a fair argument. But this article is not called The redefinition of "santorum" by Dan Savage and nobody else in the world. Under the extremely stringent criteria you appear to be using for what constitutes "having something to do with the campaign," we would have to erase the entire Reception and political impact section. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 18:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
What we would end up with is commercial exploitation by non-notable bars seeking to trade off the notoriety of a term. Should we assist blatant commercialization of Wikipedia? And what about other bars which make their own creations - ought we promote them all? AFAICT, the "cocktail" is fully non-notable, and I suggest therefore inapt in this article. Collect (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Who said anything about naming the bar? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Why not? It demonstrates that the campaign has had some effect, and shows the neologism in use. http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2012/03/13/eating-and-drinking-santorum would be another source. It adds Santorum Frothy Chocolate Cream Pie.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
The Brooklyn Paper and Slate are pretty good, and probably Metro. It's kind of a tossup (or looks like one). Be——Critical 04:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
No relevance to an article that is about Dan Savage's campaign, per Collect. People apparently still needs reminders that this article is not actually about a non-existent word. Tarc (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
You must be struggling with the excessively erudite language in those newspaper articles. Or something. The connection to Dan Savage's campaign is blindingly obvious. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Not as much as you're struggling with your Savage-issued talking points, as you have consistently failed to get your anti-Santorum agenda to gain traction in this project. Tarc (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't have an anti-Santorum agenda (I don't even live in the US). As for the drink: '“People really like it even though it’s named after something gross–both the person and the Dan Savage meaning,” said John Rauschenberg, co-owner of Pacific Standard.' -- no relevance to Dan Savage's campaign?? Perhaps not the most important point to argue over -- but if we're going to argue over it, let's do so with a modicum of literacy. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why those arguing against including the cocktail info have chosen to open with the weakest possible argument to make their point. This is a clear-cut and undeniable example of how the campaign is not one solitary gay nut against the world, but an increasingly successful propagation of the new word. It's a "non-existent word"????? Look at it, it's right there! People are using it, you can see right here (hint: click the external links in this section of the talk page). But wait, it's "totally unrelated to Savage's campaign." How stupid of me. Even if the bullshit doublespeak article retitling had any consensus at the time and everyone on all sides didn't still hate it now, that still wouldn't be a good reason to artificially reject perfectly relevant information from the article. Look, there are strong good-faith arguments against including this in the article. For example, Collect's point about advertisement holds water (you'll notice it shut me right up). But pretending that people actually using the neologism "santorum" is somehow irrelevant to the Campaign for "santorum" neologism stretches all possible credulity. This argument should be rejected out of hand, as its only conceivable source is a transparent, virulent bias against this article and everything in it, all encyclopedic considerations ignored. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 14:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The article is about one journalist's agenda to embarrass a politician by manipulating google searches. I fully realize that you and others wish to expand it to every activist's name-drop of the non-existent word, and that is probably what would have happened if this article were still in the sorry-assed shape that it was when Cirt created it. But the article has evolved to something coherent and neutral since then, and quite frankly it is about time for some here to follow suit. Every time Rick Santorum gets a bump in the national coverage on the campaign trail seems to correspond with a drive here to get more unsavory and barely-tangential material into the article. Tarc (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Credit where it's due -- you have moved from "no relevance" to "barely tangential". As for "unsavory" -- yes, I gather it's closer to a White Russian than to a margarita. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
The use of this phrase "non-existent word" to deny any attempt to document the word's existence is at best a grave error. Again, I can imagine that inclusion of the cocktail is not in the best interest of the article; but if that is the case, your blanket characterizations are counterproductive. They neither advance your case coherently, nor do they make it easy for editors on the talk page to come to a reasoned consensus. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
It is not "one journalist", but a campaign by thousands of people - read the article, over 15,000 sites link to the definition - a bit hard for "one journalist" to manage. Here is another source - http://www.thefrisky.com/2012-04-11/care-for-a-nice-frothy-glass-of-santorum/ and annother that says “It’s the most popular cocktail on the menu, so we’re keeping it,” manager Jeremy Hunt told The Local yesterday. What’s a “Santorum”? Only a frothy mix of Bailey’s Irish Cream, vodka and chocolate. http://fort-greene.thelocal.nytimes.com/2012/04/11/the-day-with-santorum-out-what-of-the-santorum/ 93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible new consensus

I added the section header above (Possible new consensus) so we can separate this proposed consensus from the rest of the discussions. Von Restorff (talk) 07:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Article is about the campaign, not the dispute between Savage and Santorum. As such, Santorum's views should be moved much further down in the article with the main point being the Campaign for a neologism and Rick Santorum's views are barely notable. A picture of of the candidate is not relevant to the campaign in any way and is defamatory and a roundabout way to link the neologism. All Rick Santorum views should be moved to the bottom of te article after the Campaign for the neologism is discussed and there is no need for pictures of either Savage or Santorum in this article. --DHeyward (talk) 05:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

A picture should be used to illustrate text so I agree with removing the picture if Rick Santorum's views are removed too. I propose to make the current version of the article the new consensus version. Von Restorff (talk) 07:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Please don't do that: it removes material that is at the core of the article. Please see WP:POINT. Pictures are nice, but not essential, and I (reluctantly) accept the community consensus behind the removal of the Santorum portrait, even if I don't think it's relevant in this particular case. -- The Anome (talk) 09:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Are you replying to DHeyward or to me? Von Restorff (talk) 11:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually it doesn't remove anything core to the article. The campaign for a neologism stands on it's own and there is a link to the comments that Santroum made. But his comments are not particularly relevant that they need repeating in every article that relates to the person. It's already been debated whether to merge his views with this article and that debate ended. Therefore, those two things are separate. It's the same reason that Sanotrm's biographical information isn't here. One interview did not create the campaign, but it triggered it. Mentioning the interview and linking back to the views article while keeping the focus on the campaign should be the purpose of this article. This article isn't about his views so a large (the largest?) section of the article shouldn't be his views. --DHeyward (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support the version that pointed reader to Satorum's view on homsexuality rahter than repeat that entire section here. The first and largest section of this article should be the campaign. --DHeyward (talk)
  • ""Oppose"" Unwaranted attacks on a reasonable version product of a lot of debate and consensus reaching is unjustified, and un-explained, except by the desire of some that this topic should not be covered here.213.87.140.151 (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Info Box

While this seems like a good idea, there were no links to the relevant discussions, and I am unsure what it means, other than that an editor has decided to make it. It seems to contain errors - see above, and the definition "about a campaign started by Dan Savage to humiliate Rick Santorum by establishing his surname as a sexual innuendo." doesn't appear anywhere in the article, and seems POV to me- "about a campaign started by Dan Savage to punish Rick Santorum for anti-gay speech by establishing his surname as a sexual innuendo" seems better to me, for example.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Your version states in Wikipedia's voice that the speech was "anti-gay" which is a real BLP issue. Collect (talk) 11:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Why? Numerous sources support it. As stated above (by me) there is no source for the other definition, and I have seen no evidence of consensus for the other definition. What is this idea that BLP stops wikipedia including sourced material if it concerns a contraversial politician? Why is "about a campaign started by Dan Savage to humiliate Rick" not a BLP issue? It is hardly complimentary to Savage, and he is a living person.213.87.140.151 (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
It is considered complimentary by Dan Savage because he believes strongly in gay rights and by starting this campaign, he feels that he is striking back against people like Rick Santorum who have disagreed with him. Dan Savage wouldn't consider it an attack to be associated with this campaign, however, clearly Rick Santorum would. It isn't rocket surgery here. -- Avanu (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Who cares what you think the politician or columnist thinks - the question here is what is supported by reliable sources, and what is legal.213.87.130.201 (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Article title revisited

Let's revisit the article title. It has been suggested that we resubmit for RFC the title suggestion Santorum's Google problem along with the current name. I also suggest we disuss a third new possibilty maybe Santorum internet search issue. Using Savage's name is ruled out per consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I rather like your new suggested title, it is neutral and actually something new. I think people will say it causes the article to be too narrow though. Be——Critical 17:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Huh. If you're talking about Santorum internet search issue, I like that one too. It is neutral, doesn't pin the "blame" on one search engine, doesn't name the eeeevil instigator thus poisoning its own well, doesn't imply the word is a successful neologism, and above all doesn't continue this absurd business of calling a massively distributed, freely participated-in series of internet searches and clicks a "campaign." I don't think it would "cause the article to be too narrow," since basically everything in it now would still be pertinent under that title (one or two sentences clipped from the background and context, at most). I foresee objections from some elements still trying to pin Savage's name or the "dastardly attack" theme into the title and article, but we can cross that bridge when we get to it (if we're there already, fine: even replacing the word "issue" in this proposal with the word "attack" would be an improvement over status quo, though Savage's interview admitting it's an attack would have to be placed front and center, right after the "frothy mix" definition, in order to justify that otherwise extremely POV use in the title. I'm not sure that's worth it, but I'm one dude). ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 18:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
The use of Savage's name has consensus "against" in the title just in itself. At least the new name is a fresh consensus and Was a true attempt to find something neutral and encyclopedic. I think an RFC for the title suggestion, Santorum's Google problem along with Santorum internet search issue and the current name is a go?--Amadscientist (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Cool. Be——Critical 19:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I've mostly stayed out of this. Personally I thought Santorum (slang) (now a redirect) was the most descriptive, direct, and neutral title one could want. Or Santorum (neologism) to be more precise. The current title is a kludge. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Amatulic. The current title is unnecessarily long and wordy, and seems to avoid the subject of the article. I feel "Santorum (neologism)" was an acceptable title, and is preferable to the current one and any of the currently offered alternatives. Morrowulf (talk) 08:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
"Santorum (neologism)" AvocadosTheorem (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Those two suggestions are absolutely unacceptable, as the article is about Savage's campaign against Santorum, not about a word that does not exist. This has bene discussed to death. Tarc (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
At present, this article concerns how santorum — a word that does exist now — was coined, and a notable campaign promoting it. Changing the title like Amatulić suggests might broaden our focus to include matters not directly connected with the campaign, like the word’s usage in literature, or the cocktail it inspired. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Tarc, that's some pretty ridiculous framing. There is one section in the article with the subtitle "Campaign by Dan Savage". The article is about the history of the word as used in this manner, which does include Savage, but also the responses of various figures to the word, and the history of the word beyond Savage. Morrowulf (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
It is not framing, it is a reality, and it is a reality that this article will be held to. This has been discussed over and over...and over and over and over...already, you are free to make use of the talk page archives and catch up. The original article was in fairly bad and very WP:BLP-violating shape until a rewrite largely by SlimVirgin last year, a rewrite upheld by consensus. The word is not legitimately used in anything other than Savage's intentional campaign; the few "sources" that have been provided in the past are from literature written by like-minded individuals. Let's make this clear; this is not a word that is an actual part of the English language. There is no "history". Attempting to make it so makes you a part of the Savage campaign itself, and THAT is something we will not be condoning on the Wikipedia, advocacy of a cause masquerading as an encyclopedia article. By the way, citing the wiktionary entry counts for exactly jack squat as far as proving usage or existence. We don't cite other wiki projects or content from user-submitted websites to establish notability. Ever. Tarc (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Wiktionary chronicles many independent instances of the word being meaningfully used in literature, poetry, and music, especially in erotica. Let’s face facts: santorum’s brief history evidences that it has, like it or not, become established slang, “an actual part of the English language” like “dirty Sanchez”. We do not “attempt to make it so”; it is already so. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, other wikis do not pass our reliable source standards. A gaggle of like-minded activists intentionally name-dropping a non-existent word into conversation does not make it notable here. Fortunately, en.wiki has a higher sense of standards than the wikitionary does. And leagues above the cesspool of the Commons, while we're here discussing standards. Tarc (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Tarc is on a campaign to make it disappear, or to convince people that it has disappeared. Perhaps if it gets coverage in reliable sources, we'll end up with a Wikipedia article about Tarc's campaign. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd say that it is far likelier that the LGBT community's anti-Santorum agenda will be article-worthy before I am. A group still stung over their Marcus Bachmann defeat, apparently. Tarc (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

"Santorum (neologism)" still seems to me to be the most in accordance with our Manual of Style. Barring that commonsense approach, "Santorum internet search issue" is pretty sound, and neutral. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

As noted before, the article is about the agenda, not the word. We've progressed from the point where this article was being used to vilify a living person; it is highly doubtful that the project will be returning to such a disgraceful past. Tarc (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
It's about the word. What make the word notable is the coverage about it and its origin. The word is even appearing here and there as an everyday word in some publications. See this sex-advice book for example: http://books.google.com/books?id=EamkToorhTUC&pg=PA65&hl=en&sa=X&ei=60V2T-D_OIaliQLl6uCnDg#v=onepage&q&f=false page 65. It simply advises that santorum is an unhealthy substance to introduce into a vagina. No campaign is mentioned. No explanation of the origin of the term. It just uses it as ... a word. Once such a word becomes mainstream, the campaign that started it is simply notable background information, similar to any other word's etymology. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Tarc, you're in a distinct minority in your contra-factual insistence that this article is about the "agenda" (whatever you mean by that tainted word). The neologism has escaped into the language, and nowadays the campaign is just its origin story. (I should note in passing that the campaign was not a monopoly of the LGBT community, although obviously they took the lead in the effort.) --Orange Mike | Talk 01:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Do you normally argue that up is down and 2+2==4? Right now, the article title and overall focus of the text is on the anti-Santorum campaign, not the word. You're arguing against this. That kinda puts you in the minority, especially as you lack the ability to change the title. Go ahead and try another move request if you think you got the numbers, though as it has IIRC only a few months since the last attempt, I wouldn't be surprised if an RM was closed early on grounds of tendentiousness. It's your move. Choose it wisely. Tarc (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Please spare us the taunting battleground remarks [1] like "come at me, bro" when you are in a disagreement. It's not witty banter like you seem to think. El duderino (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Then people shouldn't tell me I am "in a minority" when that is a demonstrable falsehood. The article is about the campaign. The article title is about the campaign. There is little chance a requested move to the old name, or variations thereof, would succeed given that more people support the current title than the old one. Ergo, my position is the majority. Tarc (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Tarc is right, this article was determined by consensus to be about the campaign for this name to become a neologism. The success of that campaign is still pending. This is not a neologism/word that generally is used in its most strict menaing. It is almost always used in an inside joke type fashion to disparage Rick Santorum personally. Wikipedia has a responsibility as a neutral observer to not lend credence to political campaigns but to stand on the side and report things. If we declare this to be a neologism outright, rather than focusing on the campaign to create it, we lend credence to it. I would say that this word, while actually a neologism, is a very narrowly used word for the supposed meaning it has and is much more generally used to just sum up a general disagreement with anti-homosexual people, specifically Santorum, more generally Republicans. It is not really used by people to describe what it refers to, except by a small group of people. If anything, this is jargon. The current title is fine, it describes the word adaquately without requiring Wikipedia to take a position in the debate. -- Avanu (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Santorum (neologism) is a short, concise, perfectly adequate title. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
If it weren't for that pesky little detail...namely, that "Santorum (neologism)" isn't what the article is about...you'd be right. Tarc (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
An opinion you've made very clear already. Restating it repeatedly doesn't turn it into a fact nor help the consensus process. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
When editors misrepresent the facts of the matter at hand, a response is warranted. Tarc (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Picture of Savage

There has been a picture of Savage in the article for over a year. A previous Rfc in which many editors agreed to keep both it and the picture of Santorum was held in 2011. Since I started a debate on re-including a picture of Santorum, the picture of Savage has been removed, without any discussion. This leaves the article looking rather boring, with no illustrations. Given that the picture has been there for so long, and has been removed without discussion or consensus, I think it should be reinstated, prior to any debate about it's appropriateness, breach of BLP policy, or general unpleasantness.213.87.129.12 (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

"The article looks boring" is not a useful argument in this matter. That said: since Savage eagerly admits to being the father of this campaign and is quite happy to be associated with it, I see no reason to remove Savage's picture. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Why is "the article looks boring" not a useful argument? More relevant pictures = more interesting looking articles = better encyclopedia!178.176.121.101 (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Because first of all, its more than obvious. We all realize that photos (even video) add color and interest. So you telling us is like saying "the sky is blue" when everyone else in the room is talking about the poisonous chlorine cloud difting into our midst. Yeah, its true, its nice to see on a picnic, but it is utterly irrelevant to the matter at hand. Why do you think the article ALSO doesn't include a photo of the material it supposedly describes? -- Avanu (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, incidentally, the Dan Savage photo was removed by someone to 'make a point'. I didn't object at the time because honestly it simply doesn't really hurt the article to have Dan Savage's photo removed, and I think it is fine with or without it, and I didn't want to get sidetracked by it. I see no BLP issues with Dan Savage having his photo here. I'm certain he's very pleased with his actions and would be happy to see that he is being associated with the article. It is unquestionable that Rick Santorum does not feel the same way. -- Avanu (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I do not understand what you mean by a "poisonous chlorine cloud difting into our midst". Nor do I understand what you mean by saying that adding color and interest to this article is irrelevant. Surely the better the article is, the happier everyone will be! Pictures of santorum have been added in the past, but have been removed- maybe because they were not very pretty?93.96.148.42 (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Try reading the rest of that sentence, Mr. IP ... "...irrelevant to the matter at hand" BTW, I think having the pic of Savage is fine. He is not likely to be offended by association with this. -- Avanu (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Similar incidents

Apparently Mitt Romney is the victim of a copycat incident, "to romney" defined as "to defecate in terror"[2]. There's also a campaign for defining "gingrich"[3]. Should this be included? --NetRolller 3D 23:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

No. You also be interested to know that their is one defining Obama as well. [4] Arzel (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The most recent Google hits for media sourcing on "spreadingromney" all date from mid-February of this year. I can find (admittedly, after only five minutes devoted to searching) no hits whatsoever for "spreadingobama" or "spreadinggingrich" other than the sites themselves and forum/blog posts. As far as notability, the most that is supported from this would be one sentence reading something like

The widely-noted rise of spreading santorum to the top of search results for "santorum" inspired the creation of similar websites against Mitt Romney (cite), Barack Obama (cite), and Newt Gingrich (cite).

And I'm not sure about including Obama and Gingrich, as per aforementioned lack of sources. Nothing, or substantially nothing, more than this could pass WP:N or WP:UNDUE, barring a great deal more being written about the spread of "spreading" (as one commenter notes there, "It's getting kind of forced."). See also the very brief discussions had on this topic in Archives 10 and 11 of this talk page. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 15:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
We may be observing a new phenomenon in the coining of words and phrases. AvocadosTheorem (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
If a day comes when every candidate has a “Google problem”, it won’t be much of a problem any more. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 13:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Pictures of Santorum

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This article has only one illustration - that of Dan Savage. I think it would improve the article to add image = Rick Santorum by Gage Skidmore 2.jpg.93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done I've added it to the para about Santorum's comments, to match the para about Savage's response, which was similarly illustrated with the existing photo of Savage. Note that since this image is under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license, this eliminates any need for a non-free-use justification, as would have been the case with Santorum's official photo. -- The Anome (talk) 08:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I have removed it. Please familiarize yourself with the "Ongoing debate" infobox at the top of this talk page, specifically, the ""Agreed upon points in debate" of the" section. Images of Santorum were not deemed relevant to this topic. Tarc (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing my attention to that list, which I must admit I hadn't even noticed -- sorry about that. -- The Anome (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
The info box does not say "Images of Santorum were not deemed relevant to this topic", it says that they breech Biography of Living Person Guidelines. I do not understand how the info box works - there is no link to the relevant discussion - and I do not understand how Biography of Living Person Guidelines affect putting a picture of Santorum next to his comments. How doe one reopen a debate that has been put into the info box? It is the first time I have seen such a box. It is also very hard to see, unless pointed out.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Biography of Living Person Guidelines only mentions images as follows- "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject was not expecting to be photographed. Images of living persons that have been generated by Wikipedians and others may be used only if they have been released under a copyright licence that is compatible with Wikipedia:Image use policy."93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Have asked the editor who added it to the info box to explain - [5]93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Pictures that associate politicians with attacks on them should be used on a attack blog, not an encyclopedia. There is no need to debate the issue over and over. Johnuniq (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
That may be your opinion, however I have looked through the talk archives, and the only discussion i can find is in favour of keeping images of Savage and Santorum - [6]. I think it perfectly reasonable to include Santorum's image next to his words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
In line with discussion [7] have reinstated image, and changed info box to "Photographs of Sen Santorum and Dan Savage should be incorporated in this treatment." If you disagree with this assessment of consensus, please provide a reference to the archived discussion you are referring to. Thank you!93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Mr. IP, do not assume that consensus is a static and unchanging thing, but you need a strong justification in order to include Santorum's pic there. Wikipedia is not for gossip or titillating stories. We need to provide a neutral tone and there's no reason whatsoever for you to include that image outside of a VERY strong consensus to do so. Please don't add it again without going through process or I'll need to take your additions to the Administrator's Noticeboard for review. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I included a reference to the only consensus I could find on the matter. Please provide a link to the consensus you refer to. I do not understand the relevance of "gossip or titillating stories" to the inclusion of an image of a politican next to his controversial remarks 93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The consensus you think you point to was one guy asking very tenatively if he could remove ALL images in the article, and people said NO. What you want to do now is not the same thing. You want to add a very specific image. 2 editors now have told you that this is not in line with our Biographies of Living Persons policy, and as such, you must develop a consensus around adding that image. It isn't adding a pic of Rick Santorum next to his own remarks. It is adding a picture of Rick Santorum next to Dan Savage's remarks and his campaign to smear Santorum in a very symbolic sense. Lots of people have been debating this article for months, you're not the first one to hit on such things, get a consensus. (Also, please carefully read the WP:CONSENSUS policy) -- Avanu (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I have failed to find any past discussion of this issue, other than the one linked to above - which was strongly in favour of keeping the images of Savage and Santorum, but against images of "santorum". It would appear that subsequently one image was removed without discussion. If you look at the article before your last edit you will clearly see that The Anome added a pic of Rick Santorum next to his own remarks to match the picture of Dan Savage next to his. Biographies of Living Persons policy says nothing about using images in this context.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Having looked at the page at the time of the discussion mentioned above (May 2011), I see that the image was included next to Santorum's 2011 comments. Given that the image is from 2011, this would seem more appropriate. The article at the moment has only one photo and looks boring.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the "old" consensus was not to include a photo. This can of course change. If the consensus is to include a photo, then disduss that here and readd later. --Mollskman (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Where is this consensus you speak of? Can I have a difflink please? Von Restorff (talk) 03:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
You are just as capable of looking in the archives as any of us are. When you come to edit an article that is likely to be a hot-button issue/topic, i'd be advisable to brush up on its history first. Tarc (talk) 04:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
You just edited the article so you must have read all 11 archives. So tell me, where is the consensus to remove the pictures? Von Restorff (talk) 04:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The picture is not needed and not relevant to the article. Arzel (talk) 04:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
@Von Restorff - what you are doing now by re-adding the image after 2 editors have removed it and asked for consensus is called edit warring and potentially tendentious editing. Please revert yourself and remove the image for now. I'm not going to re-add it and get into the edit war as well. This advice goes for the IP editor as well. You are supposed to attempt for consensus first at this article Talk page and that has somewhat been circumvented by the IP editor going to the BLP noticeboard. That's called forum shopping. It isn't a good practice. I'd rather this get solved by mutual discussion and agreement than escalation. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to add a picture should start another RfC -- that's the only way to get it settled (and we love them so much here). Edit-warring on this article in either direction will only annoy people -- it will quickly lead to full protection again. If you want to put a picture of RS here, start an RfC. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand. I have been unable to find any discussion about photographs other than that linked to above in which most editors were in favour of pictures of Santorum and Savage. Since there were many more editors engaged in that debate than this, and BLP was not even mentioned, I do not understand why BLP is being invoked. When "BLP" is used as a reason for censorship it seems reasonable to ask on the BLP noticeboard if this is normal. As I see it, the consensus here is fairly balanced between those who want to get rid of photographs and text, and those who want to keep both. If there has been a RFC on this issue, please link to it -if not, please explain why the consensus linked to above should be contradicted by just citing BLP.213.87.140.151 (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Why is it edit warring for 3 editors to add a picture once, and not edit warring for 3 editors to remove the image? Claiming that BLP trumps consensus is strange, since surely consensus needs to be reached on how BLP affects what can be included in the article. I feel that those who revert edits claiming to be acting in the interests of a BLP policy that supercedes consensus are not best suited to this project.213.87.140.151 (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
BLP violations trump editors' wishes to push a POV. You want a photo? Take and upload one, the next time you observe the substance in question. That could be informative. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
@213.87.140.151, Biographical articles on Wikipedia are easy targets for lawsuits or defamation of people. Wikipedia isn't here to be a platform for attacking people. That is why Biographical articles about Living People are treated with such care. If an editor raises a legitimate complaint, it is the duty of editors who disagree to make the case that it isn't BLP related or isn't a problematic edit. Someone much earlier mentioned the Obama's Birth Certificate article, and said Obama has a photo there. That isn't really completely accurate. There is a video there, and Obama is seen defending himself against the claims. It is also placed very far down within the article, NOT at the top. Bias can occur by the choice of photo, like in the Trayvon Martin case, or by the placement of an image in the article, and even the size of the photo we include can have some effect of bias. The point is, BLP concerns are taken very seriously, and are not intended to allow people to censor Wikipedia, but intended to help protect people's reputations from smears done via Wikipedia. -- Avanu (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand Baseball Bugs's assertion that a picture of Rick Santorum is “probably libelous”. Gage’s photo seems neither false nor disparaging. So what about it do you find “libelous”, Bugs? What's wrong with illustrating a paragraph about someone’s statements with a picture of who we’re talking about? ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Robin, take a look at False light and Personality rights. Although it may not be obvious to everyone, it is a matter of perception for some, and I am still waiting some reasoning and justification from editors who agree with adding this choice of image, ESPECIALLY with the placement at the top. All I've seen so far is "well, I don't see a problem with it, so let's add it." -- Avanu (talk) 04:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The thing is, there's already a link to Sanctorum, which has a photo - which stands to reason as the article is actually about him. Putting his picture here is as defamatory as would be putting a picture of Richard Gere on the gerbil page or putting a pic of Katie Couric on a page about manure. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
First, read what Avanu says immediately above and you might get a clue about it. The thing is, it's bad enough that wikipedia lowers itself to publishing this kind of garbage. But posting his picture here is a blatant BLP violation. Just because some character decided to name his own bodily fluid after a public figure doesn't actually connect that public figure to it. The link to the former Senator is quite sufficient if somebody wants to see his mug. Posting it in this article is pushing beyond reasonableness and into dangerous waters. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Seems to me, the ex‐candidate’s name here damages his reputation more than his photo. But to remove his name would be “beyond reasonableness”. You cannot justify your unreasonable and senseless objection that this photo is somehow “libelous”.
However, I do agree that linking to Rick Santorum suffices for this article. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 05:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
This article is about remarks about sexuality made on TV by Santorum, and the subsequent campaign, led by Dan Savage to redefine santorum, the sucess of that campaign, and Santorum and others' reaction to that campaign. Using a foto of Santorum in this context is neither libelous, nor a BLP violation. I have no understanding of how removing his photo helps protect people's reputations from smears done via Wikipedia, but I do not think that stating BLP issues trump consensus, that this article should not exist in any case, or writing that "Just because some character decided to name his own bodily fluid after a public figure doesn't actually connect that public figure to it." is right. It seems to be to be a misuse of BLP policy by politically motivated editors, and I have seen no argument here that convinces me otherwise.

I would also like to point out, that no body has produced any previous consensus on this issue, to contradict that linked to above.213.87.141.105 (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The article only exists here in the first place because of "politcally motivated editors", who want to lend this garbage artificial notability by keeping it here and by pushing the BLP envelope as far as they can. P.S. Santorum's public life is pretty much done now. This article not only has no encyclopedic worth, it has no notability either. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Ohferchrissakes... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

RfC: pic?

There is a clear consensus against including any image about Rick Santorum in this article. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 08:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

See also the current debate @ http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Campaign_for_.22santorum.22_neologism 213.87.130.54 (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

  • Comment - I would say that the RfC is too vague in the way it presents the question. Placement and specific images might reflect differently within the article. A picture of Rick Santorum with a goofy face? Holding a wedge of cheese? Looking sad? With his finger in the air? A blanket approval of any and all images is not really going to give us a carefully considered consensus, and this article, given its contentious history needs good solid consensus to be built each time. -- Avanu (talk) 04:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • RfC Comment. I came here from the RfC notice. I've read the previous talk, and I've read the thread at BLPN. I'm a big believer in the BLP policy. And I really don't want to get involved in this argument. But I've got to observe something. I simply am not convinced that including the photo violates either the letter or the spirit of BLP. There's a legitimately debatable case to be made that Wikipedia violates the spirit of BLP simply by having this article. But, once one gets past the title of the page, one is already in a place where the person is linked to the subject matter. Adding a photo doesn't take us any further down that road. It's not like we are talking about a photo that presents him in an unflattering way. It would just be a photo of him, and he is a big part of the subject matter of the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes

  • It is perfectly encyclopedic to include in an article an image of something or someone discussed in the article. This article would be improved if images of Savage and Santorum were included. Mainstream news media covering the story often include images of Santorum and Savage:CBS News, NPR, TheAtlantic Wire, MTV.com, Likewise, an article in a mainstream news source about someone promoting one of the "Barack Obama citizenship controversies" is likely to include images of Obama Daily Mail. There is nothing libelous about an official portrait. It does not somehow state that the claim is true or that the neologism is in wide use. It may be helpful to a reader in identifying the persons discussed. It does not make any statement or put the subject in any false or disparaging light. It is just an image.Edison (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Edison: first, agreed, it IS enclopedic to include germane imagery in an article. Also, agreed in "There is nothing libelous about an official portrait." On its own, that is a perfectly true statement. Please take a look at the example below. It is just an image, right?

U.S. congressman under fire for campaign expenses turns to high-powered law firm

TRENTON — Under fire for campaign expenses ranging from a lavish wedding trip to Scotland to a daughter’s high school graduation party, U.S. Rep. Rob Andrews has turned to a high-powered law firm known for representing members of Congress facing serious trouble.

Rick Santorum leads in Philadelphia Race
Obviously a lot of readers might think that the Congressman with the legal problems is Rick Santorum, although it doesn't say that. -- Avanu (talk) 04:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
And if an image of Rick Santorum is included in this article, they might think that he is the politician with a Google problem referred to in the article- which would be wrong because.......213.87.130.201 (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Because it is Wikipedia's job to present facts, not reinforce them. Google indexes Wikipedia as well as many other sites. This article becomes a part of the very issue it is presenting. Why does Rick Santorum's smiling face need to be front and center in this article? Santorum didn't create the campaign to redefine his name in a vulgar way, he doesn't endorse it, and has asked to remove it from Google. So in what way do you think he wants a picture of himself here, and more importantly, why is it needed and why does it need to be prominently placed at or near the top? -- Avanu (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
You’ve composed a good example of a photo’s placement inadvertently giving a defamatory false impression. However, no similar falsehoods arise with this photo’s actual context, which looked like:

Santorum's comments on homosexuality

Rick Santorum

In an interview with the Associated Press on 7 April 2003, Santorum said there is a relationship between the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal and liberalism and relativism. He argued that moral relativism involves accepting any adult consensual behavior in the privacy of people's homes, even if the behavior might otherwise be considered deviant. Santorum believes this attitude leads to an unhealthy culture.

This image was germane and properly placed. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Robin, if that was ALL there was to it, then you would be right, but it is not the entire story. The table you made above is given in a neutral tone and is presenting simply a source-based retelling of something Rick Santorum said. This article in general is about a strident personal attack on Rick Santorum which involves redefining the man's last name to be a vulgar description of excrement. It simply isn't the same thing. -- Avanu (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
    • You're wrong. Placing his image in the article is gratuitous and unnecessary. What's needed is a picture of that Savage guy, along with a picture of his own bodily fluids that he keeps talking about. The fact he called that goop a living person's name has nothing to do with that living person. If he had called it "Obama", would you insist that a photo of Obama be in the article? I very much doubt it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes. This nondisparaging photo of Santorum was both appropriate and consistent with photos annotating public statements by public figures in other articles. When editors invoke BLP in clearly inapplicable cases like this, and irresponsibly toss around phony charges of illegality like “libelous”, it gets difficult to AGF. These CRYBLPs are wholly without merit. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 01:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Robin, you are correct that the photo is nondisparaging. But the WP:BLP Image section does not say that the photo itself must somehow be disparaging. In fact, that isn't the point at all. It is a very nice photo of Santorum looking like he's happy about whatever it is. The policy reads "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light." 'Out of context' and the way it 'presents' the living person. First and foremost, why would the image need to be at the very top of this article? Second, why THIS specific image? Is there something about it that is relevant particularly to the article? Third, if we do have an article, how does it relate to this and does it potentially present Rick Santorum as somehow agreeing with the article? I am fairly certain that Rick Santorum would prefer this article not even be on Wikipedia, but we have it because it is a reasonably noteworthy topic, but that does not give us carte blanche to present any notion of approval of it on Rick Santorum's part. See my example above if you need more substantiation on what False Light is. -- Avanu (talk) 04:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Why do you ask “First and foremost, why would the image need to be at the very top”, when this image was in a subsection under “Santorum's comments on homosexuality”, not at the very top? ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 23:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The full policy, to put in context, - "Biography of Living Person Guidelines only mentions images as follows- "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject was not expecting to be photographed. Images of living persons that have been generated by Wikipedians and others may be used only if they have been released under a copyright licence that is compatible with Wikipedia:Image use policy"
Yes. Including an image of both major protagonists makes the article more interesting to look at. Avanu - BLP:Image section certainly says that the image itself should not be disparaging- please read full BLP:Image policy as reproduced above. It is unclear whether BLP has any application to this debate at all. Whether the image of Santorum should be at the top of the article, next to his first comments, or at the bottom next to his later comments is a seperate issue from whether his image should be included. With the greatest respect, whether Santorum is pleased or not, is not our concern. Most sources dealing with this issue include an image of Santorum - surely this is germane.213.87.130.201 (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I did read the BLP:Images policy and it says "to present a person in a false or disparaging light". It does not say that the image itself has to be disparaging. It could be a very happy photo with a big grin, and right next to a headline about 37 orphans getting murdered, it would become a disparaging presentation. -- Avanu (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Good thing we didn’t do anything remotely like that, then. The “headline” that this photo was next to was “Santorum's comments on homosexuality”. No dead orphans; nothing more horrible than Santorum’s own opinions. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • No valid reason has been given for removal. Von Restorff (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't know why you're having a hard time understanding this. We have a very large box at the top of this page noting contentious areas of this topic, and where consensus has been reached about how to handle them. This includes the subject of Rick Santorum's image being used on this article, the status quo of which is "no". You are welcome to begin a new discussion on the matter, as we are all doing right now, but in the meantime it is extremely bad form and rather disruptive for you to edit war the image into the article right now. Please stop doing that and allow for this discussion to play out. Tarc (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes. If the article were about someone shooting Santorum, I presume we would include a picture of Santorum, and nobody would suggest that it implied he planned the shooting. Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Now, now, let's apply some logic here. First of all, people said that this article was about a word, 'santorum', a frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter. But apparently this word doesn't exist. But there does exist a campaign to create such a word in order to associate it with an American politician called Rick Santorum. The "BLP!" crowd cannot have it both ways: either the article is about the word, in which case, obviously, it has nothing to do with Senator Santorum, or it is about a campaign by Savage to err savage Santorum with santorum. In which case, obviously, it's about Santorum. The article cannot be both about Rick Santorum when it is convenient and also not about Rick Santorum when it ceases to be convenient. Pick your poison. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, but only in sections about him (e.g., Santorum's comments on homosexuality). --PnakoticInquisitortalk 02:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • yes, agreeing with PnakoticInquisitor --Blood sliver (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • yes Santorum earned his notoriety the hard way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AvocadosTheorem (talk • contribs) 17:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes. Whatever anyone's view of Rick Santorum or of the attempt to apply this neologism to him, this article involves Rick Santorum. He is one of the two principle characters in this story, so a picture of him is relevant and appropriate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

No

  • Per WP:MUG: "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light." The use of an image of Rick Santorum on an article which, though involving him, isn't directly about him, is exactly what this sentence refers to. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The full policy, to put in context, - "Biography of Living Person Guidelines only mentions images as follows- "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject was not expecting to be photographed. Images of living persons that have been generated by Wikipedians and others may be used only if they have been released under a copyright licence that is compatible with Wikipedia:Image use policy"
  • I have never seen a justifiable reason for inclusion; the reason for doing so seems to just be a guilt-by-association attempt. This article is about Savage's anti-Santorum campaign, not Santorum himself. If a reader comes here to read this article, and then wishes to know more about Santorum, hey, he clicks on that handy blue link where he can then see a picture. I wonder what the reaction here would be if we put Barack Obama's official portrait at the top of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Tarc (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The article includes extensive quotes from Santorum both prior to, and in reaction to the campaign. I see no connexion with Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.213.87.130.201 (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
The photo of Obama which “Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories” has now, of Obama’s childhood in Hawaii, greatly improves that article. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 01:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
It helps to read what editors actually write, i.e. "official portrait". Tarc (talk)
I did, but officialness was irrelevant. I also read where you wrote “at the top of”, which was not analogous to the placement in a subsection being disputed here. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
And also, I see nothing of value added to that article by the family image. I have had that page off watchlist for awhile now and did not realize that was there. Tarc (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Robin, you might also notice that the photo of Obama's childhood in Hawaii is *more* in context than just slapping up a picture just 'because'. -- Avanu (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
it is also about the anti-gay remarks Santorum made, and his reactions to Savage's joke.213.87.130.201 (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
please translate "false-light association".213.87.130.201 (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Article is not about the politician, it is about the campaign for the neologism. Hence the picture is gratuitous and false. And to the extent the mixture of poo and lube described by the proposed neologism is not something most people would want to be regarded as, it is also disparaging. Rlendog (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
If this article is about a campaign targeting Rick Santorum, then a picture of Rick Santorum would be neither “gratuitous” nor “false”. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
What “risks”? ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • No obviously. I'll try to explain it again: The fact that Savage attacked Santorum is understandable, and the attack gets an article because it is notable. However it is a misuse of Wikipedia to amplify the attack by unduly going on about Santorum in an article about the attack. To do so is to take sides: we (the editors) think the made-up attack is quite normal and reasonable, so we'll pretend this is just like an article on a politician, and insert pictures so readers won't have to click the link. Savage and followers need to use their own websites to continue the attack. Johnuniq (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • No, per just above, "a misuse of Wikipedia to amplify the attack." Tom Harrison Talk 23:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • No per Johnuniq. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • No per Orange Mike. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • No: Santorum's picture has little relevancy to the topic at hand, and would serve no purpose other than to inflame the matter further. He is a well known public figure, and there is a link to his page at the start of the article. Ultimately, the neologism refers to a concrete noun, not a proper noun.--Misha Atreides (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC) 18:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • No per those above being the more convincing of the discussion. — Ched :  ?  15:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • No per above comments, particularly those of Elektrik Shoos, Tarc, Rlendog, Orange Mike & Johnuniq.--JayJasper (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
  • No, per several of the above comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • No, unless the image of Santorum we use was actually taken when he was giving the "man on dog" interview. That would capture a specific moment of news that is directly pertinent to this article, since that interview was the catalyst for the whole thing. Any other image of Santorum doesn't pass muster here, however, since the article is about the cultural phenomenon and not the man himself. That's a narrow distinction, but it is a distinction. Including a general picture of Santorum isn't per se "participating in the attack," contrary to what some editors have said; it would merely be irrelevant. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 02:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC: Infobox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a clear consensus against including File:Spreadingsantorum banner.jpg in the article. WP:SNOW close. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 08:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Spreading Santorum
Type of site
Campaign website
OwnerDan Savage
URLSpreading Santorum
CommercialNo
Launched2003
Current statusActive


Should the infobox for the campaign website (shown on the right) be included in the article, or excluded from the article? FurrySings (talk) 10:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

  • No - This is patently ridiculous and should not even be subjected to yet another tiresome RfC. The article isn't about the website, so a website infobox has no place on this article. All this is is a attempt to get the "frothy mixture" faux definition to as high of a prominence as possible. Tarc (talk) 12:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • No - Also, this shows (again) that the only reason for this article is to attack a living person. Thankfully, now that Santorum is out of the race this probably won't require much discussion. Arzel (talk) 13:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • No - This article is about the campaign, not the website, as has been previously established. Thus, adding an infobox about the website would confuse readers on the focus and scope of this page. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • No - Unencyclopedic, offputting, info about a living person, etc. (And this is from someone who would love to see the "Spreading Santorum" campaign continue to experience great success.)Dr.queso = talk 05:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • No - As a non-American who finds Santorum's politics repulsive I nevertheless regard the inclusion of the article as questionable to begin with since the alleged neologism isn't really in use as common word anywhere outside partisan US party-politics; that in itself raises the issue of whether Wikipedia has been subverted to add legitimacy to a smear campaign that is not encyclopaedic in any sense. As with so many other articles here, attempting to add credibility to a topic by including every possible factoid and neckbeard trivia item is plainly juvenile. We might as well fabricate some imagined reference/mention on the Simpsons or Jersey Shore. Peter S Strempel | Talk 10:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moving intro to article to Dan Savage article

I've moved the introduction to this article to the Dan Savage article where it belongs. Redirect article to Dan Savage. WP:BOLD Z554 (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You have been reverted. I suggest you start a WP:Requested move discussion. Binksternet (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Don't make a fool of yourself, Z554; there's consistently been consensus to keep this. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
You could have said "Z554 - there's consistently been consensus to keep this" without being uncivil. "Consensus" at WP is a case of one group of POV editors having numerical superiority of the editors of the opposing POV. This article is an obvious libel, it is kept here to perpetuate the libel though a mention of the controversy is in the Dan Savage article, where it should be in the first place. Z554 (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Except that the consensus is that it's not libellous, because that issue has already been discussed. Therefore, your actions constitute POV pushing as they do not represent the majority view. CodeCat (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually, this article is obviously not libel because we have not made false claims about anybody. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
The article is defamatory, then. If it's consensus that counts, will you agree when there's a consensus on the Holocaust article that it was all a hoax? Or if there's enough editors to agree there really is a Man in the Moon? Z554 (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
What about the article is defamatory? It's only detailing facts. Is a newspaper guilty of defamation if it publishes an article about a politician who made defamatory remarks? I don't see how this is different. CodeCat (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It is a fabrication with intent to defame. That is not the point here. It belongs in the Dan Savage article. Z554 (talk) 02:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

even if all it were is "fabrication with intent to defame" , when reliable sources cover "the attempt" to the extent that our coverage of the reliable source's coverage would create and WP:UNDUE emphasis on a particular aspect of the original article; then the appropriate thing to do is to spin out the the coverage into a stand alone daughter article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • It is a suggestion with merit, but it'll never happen; a perfect storm of inclusionists, liberal-leaners, and LGBT activists have expressed a vested interest in seeing this article remain in place as a continuation of Dan Savage's original campaign. Be thankful that we were at least able to steer the thrust of the article away from a "definition" of a faux word and towards Savage's antics, that's no small feat around here. Tarc (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
    • The discussion about the definition at the time was diverted mostly to the Wiktionary entry, but Wiktionary has stricter and more objective inclusion/deletion policies so it never got anywhere. CodeCat (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Ha. That is pretty funny. I suppose by stricter you must mean, I saw it on some website. Thankfully there exist real dictionaries, but I suppose if people would like an alternate to the Urban Dictionary, they can go to Wiktionary for a good laugh. Arzel (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Not a “faux word”, but a slang term with attestable, actual usage now. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Ahh yes, your old failed argument of wiktionary citations to Usenet groups and other unreliable sources. Still beating that drum, Robin? Comments from LGBT activists out in discussion threads on the internet do not make a word "real", it just makes them part of Savage's anti-Santorum agenda. Tarc (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
        • Tarc, please don't categorize people along putative "activist" lines. I just reverted yet another attempt to pretend this is actual slang, yet I'd fit neatly in your categorization above. — Coren (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
        • No, Tarc, that was me refuting your failed argument, once again. Furthermore, meaningful usage in erotic literature, poetry, and music actually does make a word “real”. And even if you were right to assume everyone who used a particular word did so with a political agenda, how much less of a word would it be? Answer: not one iota. Frex, the word feminazi has an overt political agenda, but we nevertheless have a definition for it. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
          • It doesn't make it not a word, it makes it not genuine sexual slang. The same way bandersnatch isn't a genuine zoological term. — Coren (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
            • Meaningful usage in erotic literature does make it genuine sexual slang, too. Even if it were imaginary like a bandersnatch, that would not matter. The "dirty Sanchez" would remain genuine sexual slang, even if no one ever actually performed it (though I don't doubt some coprophilic couple somewhere has). ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
          • My take on this one is that Tarc and others similarly disposed can't have it both ways. This article was moved from "santorum (neologism)" to "Campaign for 'santorum" neologism" on the grounds that there wasn't actually a neologism. If the argument now is that the article is about a campaign not a word (so, don't do anything to treat it as a word), then given evidence that there's usage of a word we would have to move the article back to "santorum (neologism)" if one believes that it's unacceptable to indicate a word here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
            • You two can keep on bleating that tune, but it won't make a falsehood any more true. Any usage in gay fiction or conversation or anywhere else is of a garden variety "let's make a point" nature, it isn't being used because a person actually thinks that "santorum" means what Savage concocted it to mean, any more than someone discussing oral sex literally believes "a Lewinsky" is legitimately synonymous for oral sex. At most, the faux-"santorum" is analogous to xkcd and the malamanteau situation from a year or so ago. Tarc (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Any usage in gay fiction or conversation or anywhere else is of a garden variety "let's make a point" nature, it isn't being used because a person actually thinks that "santorum" means what Savage concocted it to mean

And this is the crux of it right here. It is conceivable that this is still as true today as it was in 2003. It is also conceivable that it is no longer true. For Tarc/Coren/anyone else who wants to jump in: What are the conditions under which you would say it's no longer true, that is, what would a citation or set of citations have to look like for you to say, "Welp, looks like this has now become a real word."? I think defining a falsifiable set of criteria would go a long way toward putting this to rest. The current arguments against including the slang template might look to some editors like begging the question. I don't say that's what you're doing here (I agree that there doesn't seem to be much evidence that it's caught on in per se usage as opposed to winking-every-time, though it does seem to be on its way there, slowly), but there certainly has been a healthy dose of that in past discussions. So where does the campaign have to wind up for Wikipedia to return to describing the neologism as factually an existing word? Once that's defined, I think both sides of this contention will be happier. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 17:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Probably never. Tarc (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I think Zen has made a valid point. You've taken pot shots at Wiktionary policy and other editors here in an attempt to discredit them (in violation of WP:CIVIL), but you haven't actually given any real rational arguments beyond "my way or the highway". Saying something like "this is not a word because it's used to make a point" is just obstructing proper discussion by dodging the question, it's a kind of Moving the goalposts fallacy. You can't blame others for ignoring your views if you don't want to discuss them. It makes it come across almost as POV-pushing. CodeCat (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
It would probably be when there are reliable sources that have come to the conclusion so that Wikipedia editors are not making analysis. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, I doubt that that would actually solve the argument. It would likely just lead to yet more goalpost-moving with some editors claiming that sources that disagree with their POV are not reliable enough. Tarc's attempts to discredit Wiktionary's reliability is already an example of that (regardless of whether Wiktionary is a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes). CodeCat (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Your "analysis" of the discussion thus far is quite divorced from reality. I ridicule Wikitionary because it has no little-to-no standards for inclusion, and note that if Robin tried to pull on e.wiki what he got away with at the wiktionary, the article would be deleted due to lack of reliable sourcing and zero notability. Having an article at the wiktionary on "Lewinsky" or "santorum" does not go one iota towards establishing notability here. Understood? Tarc (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm fascinated by the dismissal of gay fiction. Such an interesting notion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I certainly never said it did. All I was trying to do is broker a resolution so Robin could walk away saying, Fine, not now and maybe not ever, but if so, then because x; and you could walk away saying, Fine, we've held the line against insanity and politicking, and while a future may arrive in which x & therefore we'll have to include this shit as a word, at least that day is not yet. The current state, in which "their side" thinks you're being unreasonably intransigent, and "your side" thinks they're letting their wishful thinking tarnish the encyclopedia, does nobody any good. Defining x cannot help but reduce the battleground whiff this page has on it. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 18:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Again, that is your own POV, because Wiktionary certainly does have standards, see wikt:WT:CFI. You argue that Wiktionary's CFI makes it unreliable, but that is really little more than arguing that Wiktionary is not reliable because it's not Wikipedia and doesn't follow the standards you expect from an encyclopedia. Robin has tried to explain this to you already. Reliable sourcing is not appropriate for a dictionary because there is no clear definition on what reliable means in the context of language usage. It tends to be rather prescriptive in nature: Am I a reliable English speaker, or do only educated linguists speak reliable English? Instead, Wiktionary's criterium is for sources to be "durably archived". Additionally, notability is vague and subjective. Why is it important for any of the hundreds of thousands of words in English to be "notable"? What does that even mean? I don't think "the" is a very notable word, it's boringly common, so should we exclude it and turn Wiktionary into a "dictionary of interesting words"?
I do understand that Wikipedia has different standards, and that it may not be appropriate for Wiktionary to be used as a source for a Wikipedia article. You know this, everyone else here knows this, so you're really arguing against a straw man. On the other hand, Wiktionary has collected quite a substantial amount of citations that show the word being used, and your argument against those has mostly been "those don't count". So I will restate Zen's question. What would count in your eyes? What objective criteria are there for making something a word, that "santorum" would have to fulfill? At least Wiktionary has criteria, you've yet to name any. CodeCat (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
You're making less sense now than before. We do not accept other wikis as reliable sources here. Period, full-stop, non-negotiable. My opinion that the wiktionary is a joke of a mediawiki site on-par with the cesspool of smut that is the Commons is just that; my opinion. That doesn't invalidate the barring of it's use for sources in this project though, so don't conflate one with the other. As for what the bar is for inclusion, that is not an answer for me to give, and it is rather intellectually dishonest of you to keep badgering me with an irrelevant question. That is for the activists interested parties to do, to find sources out there for whatever it is they wish to add to the article. Which btw has gone so far afield from the original gist of this section, initiated by "Z554" ~2 weeks ago, that I don't think you even know what you're arguing for anymore. Tarc (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
You're just reiterating what I already said. I know Wiktionary isn't a reliable source for Wikipedia and I am not arguing for or against that. However, Wiktionary itself has collected sources too, and those might be used on Wikipedia if they meet the criteria. So I'm not saying "Wiktionary says it's a word so we should do so on Wikipedia" but rather "let's look at the sources Wiktionary has collected to see if there is anything that holds merit for Wikipedia". I argue that if Wiktionary can find usage of the word, then it seems rather strange to ignore such a fact on Wikipedia (yes, it is a fact that people use the word). I don't see how it would be possible to say "this word is not used" when there are sources to demonstrate the contrary, unless you have some way of demonstrating that the word "santorum" does not actually appear in any of Wiktionary's sources. So the statement "this word is not used" is clearly false; what remains to be demonstrated is "this word is used widely enough for it to be of interest in a Wikipedia article". I personally think that Wiktionary's citations demonstrate that, but I realise that Wikipedia does not allow it to be used as a source, so we should start looking for others. I invite you to help out. CodeCat (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
No, "this word is not used" is a truthful statement which I stand behind strongly, but it seems you are misunderstanding a tad. A subset of people who like Dan Savage and dislike Rick Santorum, and purposefully use the word in a wink-wink-nudge-nudge way is not legitimate enough usage to gain entry into this encyclopedia as an actual word. Does the literal word "santorum" (in the fecal matter sense) come from people's lips? Yes, I do not argue against that. I do argue that it is insignificant and fringe and unworthy of this project. Take for example Barack Obama and the "controversy" surrounding his place of birth. Do people actually utter words to the effect of "he's a Kenyan" ? Yes, they do. It is a significant or notable enough opinion that it should be mentioned in Barack Obama itself? Of course not. An encyclopedia is a compendium of what we deem is important knowledge, it is not an amalgamation of every scrip and scrap of the human existence. We decide what to keep and what to ignore. A smattering of fringe authors who use the word wink-wink-nudge-nudgeingly in their prose is unimportant. Anonymous people using the word in a Usenet conversation is unimportant. Tarc (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
And, according to you, it's also unimportant if it's used in fiction, if the fiction is "gay" Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
That's not what I said or meant at all, but don't let the facts interrupt a good ol' righteous indignation. Tarc (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, the counterfactuals are not exactly parallel. We know that, regardless of paranoids, the president is actually eligible to be the president; since everything has been in order for years and years, that's not something that's really up for debate and it never was, Donald Trump notwithstanding. We also know that, as of now, not enough people use "santorum" in the earnest sense of actually meaning "frothy mixture" for us to include the word as an actual, documented piece of (template-inclusive) gay slang. But the latter could change. Unlike a Kenyan birth certificate, it is possible that new shit could come to light which would indicate that, in fact, people actually do use this word. It hasn't yet, I'm not claiming otherwise, and I'm not arguing the article should either. But when you say "this word is not used," you seem also to be implying "...and it never will be!" which is WP:CRYSTAL by any measure. If you take that away, I think everyone on this page could take solace from that and go do something else. Until then it looks like we're doomed to a boom-bust "This?" "No!" "That?" "No way!" cycle. So let me give a response I wrote to something you wrote a little above, in the hope that can help us move forward:
As for what the bar is for inclusion, that is not an answer for me to give, and it is rather intellectually dishonest of you to keep badgering me with an irrelevant question.
With respect, you can't argue that something doesn't clear the bar without having some idea where the bar is. It's not "badgering" to ask you what would clear this murky and hazily-defined bar when you are adamant that nothing so far has. If all you've got is Justice Stewart on "obscenity," that's not necessarily a refutation of your position, and it doesn't mean you're wrong; but if that's the case then just say so. We can start with the Godwin's Law of English Language Inclusion (the OED) and work backward from there, if that would be helpful. Let's figure this out. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 20:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
There's nothing to figure out, anyone here who is actually honest with themselves knows it is not a real word, but the byproduct (see what I did there?) of Savage's anti-religious campaign, a pure concoction to skew google search results for the name of a politician he, and many here (including myself) do not like. I'll ask again; what exactly are you even arguing for here? What is absent from the article now that you wish to include, or what is in the article now that you wish removed? If all we're doing here is just having a big pissing match over nothing of actual editorial consequence, should we just call it a day and find something better to work on, as Milo noted below? Tarc (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
See above (among edit conflicts): all I was looking for was to hammer down once and for all what it would take to put Santorum (neologism) back on the table, including the template, etc. so that people would stop trying to add it prematurely and other people would stop implying there's no state of nature in which that could ever possibly happen. If the danger of what looked like the start of an edit war in the page history is past, then none of that is necessary. Call it self-imposed and unwelcome dispute resolution if you like, I was just trying to be helpful. Just don't be surprised if this same exact question persists in not going away. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
"Santorum (neologism)" is never coming back on the table, I'm afraid. That battle was fought quite awhile ago when SlimVirgin took the original Cirt-penned cesspool of an article and steered the focus towards the campaign itself. Tarc (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Huh? "Savage's anti-religious campaign"? So to you, Tarc, anti-Santorum and pro-sexual-freedom = "anti-religious"? Perhaps that's why you have no criteria under which you would consider "santorum" a word — you closed-mindedly take "'santorum' is not a word" as an article of faith. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I have no criteria on when a circle can be called a square, either. Tarc (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
But soft on when an apple can be called an orange, apparently. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
And yet, if enough people start to use the word "square" to refer to a circular shape, then that is the fact of reality. Many words we used today had different meanings in the past, or did not even exist in the past. A town was once a fence, nice once meant "ignorant", and despot once meant "master of the house". Language changes, constantly, and it's unrealistic to assume that if it's not being used widely now, that it never will be. That is why I wonder why you say "this will never be a real word", because according to that point of view, if you had said the same about a word like "internet" a few decades ago, I doubt you would still agree with yourself today. In other words, it's futile to assume your views are inerrant, absolute and irrefutable. And that is why, if you continue to argue that this is not a word and will never be a word, it makes you come across to me (and probably others) as a dictionary-thumping prescriptivist (the linguistic analogue of a bible-thumping evangelical). CodeCat (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
While I am utterly engrossed by your whimsy prose, tales worthy of the Ghosts of both Christmas Past and Yet to Come, do you have anything to offer that would pique the interest of the Ghost of Christmas Present? i.e., anything to offer on editing the article at the moment? Tarc (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • 'Support Tarc's "probably never". Its been 10 years. The article is not going away, and its also not becoming "santorum (neologism)". Everyone currently alive should be spending their time on other articles.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Milo, from "this article is not going away", I expect you did not intend to register your support for the OP, Z554's (twice reverted) attempt to replace this article with a redirect to Dan Savage (which I oppose incidentally, just so yours isn't the only !vote on record). No one is proposing renaming the article to "Santorum (neologism)" right now, Zen's inquiry notwithstanding. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Yet another multilateral edit war.

Here we go again. Now instead of "slang" templates and attempts to cite serious usages, we're fighting over the addition of two (pertinent, to my eyes) categories. Given the facts that 1) the campaign is "a response to comments by then-U.S. Senator Rick Santorum that were anti-gay," and 2) "Savage offered to take the site down if Santorum donated US$5 million to Freedom to Marry, a group advocating legal recognition of same-sex marriages," I don't see what the objection is to adding these two categories. Only by intentionally ignoring Savage's entire motivation and a good half of all the media commentary (to say nothing of our own article) can it even be argued that this campaign is unrelated to homophobia or gay rights. We've been bold; we've reverted; now please discuss. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 17:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how Savage's attempt at extortion falls under same sex issues. I don't see how now (after pretty much obscurity for the past year) it suddenly is about GLBT issues. Me thinks that the campaign needs a little bit of a push and is trying to jump on the coattails of real issues. Arzel (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
You don't see what you don't want to see. And: "extortion"?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Point 2 of Zen's points just above is an extortion. It is pretty clear, demanding money in order to take down his smear site. Arzel (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Spin-doctoring Savage’s statement, “If Rick Santorum wants to make a $5 million donation to Freedom to Marry, I will take it down. Interest starts accruing now.”, as “extortion” falsely implies that his goal was money. Savage didn’t seriously expect that a staunch opponent of gay rights like Rick Santorum would ever actually even consider donating to Freedom to Marry. It was like predicating taking the site down on pigs flying. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 09:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Good luck ever trying that defense in a court. "Oh I didn't really think he would do it anyway, so it is not extortion" I would ask that you (as an Admin) remove your personal attack against Santorum. Arzel (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Were anyone foolish enough to try to convict Savage of extortion based on that utterance, it wouldn't be Savage needing luck. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
ℹ “These two categories” here means Category:LGBT rights in the United States and Category:Homophobia.
Though inspired by Rick Santorum’s remarks comparing homosexuality with bestiality, this campaign has to do with sexual freedom of any consenting adults, not just homosexuals. Rick supports illegalizing sodomy for hetero couples too. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 13:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
This campaign is left-wing hate, nothing else. Arzel (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
...hate, nothing else. - demonstrably false if you read the article, but ultimately irrelevant to the actual question here. Upon examination, it's clear that this page does not belong under Category:Homophobia, but rather under Category:Anti-homophobia. (Aside: The former should also be removed from Joe Jackson (manager) since category guidelines clearly indicate individuals are not to be placed in the category. That mandate does not apply to this article since it is not a person, or a group, or "media;" but rather that category is for things that are homophobic, which this is obviously not). Robin's argument against Category:LGBT rights in the United States is less clear to me: while I don't doubt that Rick Santorum would oppose non-vaginal intercourse even among straight married couples, it wasn't a woman giving a man a blowjob that he compared to polygamy and incest. His comments were targeted primarily at same sex couples, even if he broadly deplores all non-reproductive sex on general principles. The campaign is a response to those targeted comments, and so I would say it falls under Category:LGBT rights in the United States. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠, 15:55, 2013 April 10‎ (UTC) (signature added ex post facto)
Do reliable sources independent of the subject area (i.e. not Savage or his web forum/blog/whatever) describe the Santorum's comments in question as homophobic? Tarc (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Inter alia, one senator's opinion, specifically citing comments in question; editorial voice asserts "homophobia" and "homophobic" of Santorum; article quotes "Santorum's homophobic comments" in passing; "retaliation for being a homophobe" in v. short piece about Google; and "homophobic comments." ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 17:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
The category "Homophobia" specifically states it is not to be used for individuals, groups, or media articles. Misuse of a category is not really a great idea. Collect (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
It's not about individuals, groups, or media articles. It's about a campaign for a neologism. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I think that categorising this as "homophobia" doesn't make much sense. The campaign, the subject of this article, isn't an example of homophobia at all. It is a reaction to homophobia, which makes anti-homophobia part of its purpose. I don't think it was the campaign's only purpose, but it definitely was one of them. CodeCat (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Quite. I don't think this and List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-gay hate groups are categorical bedfellows. Category:Anti-homophobia is both more accurate and sufficient to pinpoint the subject area. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 14:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
The capitol hill stuff is junk, but the rest is sufficient sourcing-wise. IMO that is enough to justify the categorization. Tarc (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Per comments at WP:BLP/N, and per noticing that this article does directly reflect on living persons, media and groups, and thus clearly falls outside the purview of the Homophobua category entirely, and has precious little to do with any :rights" at all, the categories have been again removed per absoute WP:BLPCAT and other policies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't go forum shopping, Collect. And also per WP:BLPCAT, Santorum's public platform is “relevant to his public life or notability”. I think this article is a poor fit for Category:Homophobia for other reasons, however. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 09:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Belay that bosh -- it is not "forum shopping" to post on the correct noticeboard for an issue -- ever. In the case at hand, it is clear, in fact, that it was exactly the correct forum. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Where was it established that this article falls under WP:BLP in the first place? The header at the top of the talk page explicitly says the opposite. CodeCat (talk) 13:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
The header at the top of the page says the biographies of living persons policy may apply to living persons involved in the subject matter, and "poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see the biographies of living persons noticeboard." Collect did exactly the right thing. The important thing to achieve consensus on here is, are the sources describing the man as homophobic expert enough to take seriously. That is, are the sources any more fit to decide that very serious and controversial question than you, me, or some journalist. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Nomoskedasticity has kindly supplied the following at BLPN:
  • Harris, W. C. 2006. “‘In My Day It Used to Be Called a Limp Wrist’: Flip-Floppers, Nelly Boys, and Homophobic Rhetoric in the 2004 US Presidential Campaign.” The Journal of American Culture 29 (3) (September): 278–295 (link): "The latest inductee to the gay Vichy Hall of Fame is Robert L. Traynham, director of communications for vehemently homophobic Sen. Rick Santorum"
  • Sender, Katherine. 2004. Business, Not Politics: The Making of the Gay Market. Between Men--between Women. New York: Columbia University Press: "Urban Outfitters, whose owners, Richard and Margaret Hayne, had contributed $13,150 to notoriously homophobic Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum's campaign funds", p. 4
  • Mark Driscoll. "Reverse Postcoloniality." Social Text 22.1 (2004): 59-84 (link): "The wartime patriotically correct homophobic coding of alterity has relegitimized and unleashed right-wing virulence, as in Republican senator Rick Santorum's April 2003 Associated Press interview, where he wildly compared "homosexual acts" to "man on child""
Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Categorising a person as "homophobic" is a "contentious claim" per WP:BLP. The sources provided are insufficient under that policy for labeling anyone as "homophobic" and, more to the point, the category 'Homophobia" specifically states it is not to be used about individuals, media or groups. Collect (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Since it is the comments Santorum made that are characterized within our article as "anti-gay" or homophobic, not the man himself; and since the campaign is not a person, group, or medium/piece of media but rather something an otherwise totally unrelated bunch of people have done, those objections do not apply. We're not adding the category to Rick Santorum; nobody here is arguing for that (nor even for adding it to Rick Santorum's views on homosexuality), precisely per BLP concerns. But when the architect of the campaign says it is intended to combat homophobia, I fail to see how that plus the near-universal characterization of Santorum's comments as "homophobic" is insufficient to justify the category. Personally, I think the category Anti-homophobia is sufficient and we don't need to have both. In fact I'd argue we want Anti-homophobia and specifically avoid Homophobia, to avoid the appearance of either stupidity or (for want of a better word) schizophrenia. The reader should not be in a position to say "Ah, this is related to homophobia. But it's also related to anti-homophobia? Wait a minute..." I think they'd figure it out pretty quickly, but that reconciliation is not something an encyclopedia should require. But I don't think BLP is a strong rationale against cat:homophobia for this page. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 17:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Try pushing that position at BLP/N where folks who take BLP seriously reside <g>. Collect (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
As long as we're at the park and can agree to have a picnic instead of a food fight, I won't worry (too much) about the roads each of us took to get here. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 14:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

restoring sources removed in a procedural revert

Is there any opposition to restoring the sources which addressed the {fact} tag in the lead that were removed in this "procedural" revert [8] ?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks proper to me. I don't understand why it was removed. The article wasn't protected, and your edit was perfectly sensible. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes. The "source" uses Wikipedia as a source a number of times -- and one cardinal rule is that Wikipedia being used as a source in a source and as a source does not work (in fact, is forbidden). Thus the "source" does not meet WP:RS. The section is on "Google Search Sabotage" and not on Santorum - so as a source it also fails on that end. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
what absolute nonsense. of course a book that that explores the internet culture and uses Wikipedia as an example can be used as a source as long as the content that we are citing is not the actual Wikipedia content. and to suggest this "The section is on "Google Search Sabotage" and not on Santorum - so as a source it also fails on that end. " is just an utterly laughable comment that shows we have no need to assume good faith on your part in the discussion.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
It is a clear case of WP:Circular and cannot be used as a reliable source. The section you wish to use clearly references back to WP to support the statement you wish to make. Also, please do not attack other editors. Arzel (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Silverblatt's analysis seems okay to me. He surely didn't get the sentence we're referencing from here. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The ref is being cited for the fact that Savage's campaign is a response to "Santorum's... anti-gay comments" (which source states as simple fact, not merely Savage's opinion). It is highly unlikely that that statement in the source is drawn from Wikipedia; Note 18 is not available in the Google Books preview, but none of the available endnotes references Wikipedia, so the likelihood that this is the kind of recursive sourcing some editors are (rightly) warning against is really miniscule. Absent other complaints about the source, there's no reason to think it's illegitimate for this purpose. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 18:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Other that the fact it is opinion you mean? But I can get the book and check, which is what you guys should have done already. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Indeed you should. It's on page 259 of the third edition. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

'anti-gay'

I'd like to propose my change here as a workaround for the dispute regarding the application of the label 'anti-gay' in the lede to Santorum's remarks. Thoughts? alanyst 21:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that's very appropriate - describe his specific comments and allow the reader to judge their merits. polarscribe (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, that's a pretty elegant solution. I'm impressed. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
"grouped with" is a pretty poor solution - I would suggest that a precis should include Santorum's denial that he made any such "equation" of acts. Absent that - simply ascribe opinions to those holding such opinions. Collect (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't necessarily think "grouped with" is the same as "equated", but how about "juxtaposed"? alanyst 22:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Closer would be "Santorum opposed redefining marriage in any manner that would open the door to polygamy, bestiality, pedophilic marriages or the like, using language that included homosexual acts as well. Savage viewed these comments as 'anti-gay.'" Collect (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Why are you so adamant about saying that Savage viewed them that way? Isn't that a kind of WP:UNDUE because it's quite obvious (and no doubt easily sourced) that many others agreed with him? Your suggestion unduly gives the impression that Savage was wrong in viewing it that way (even if it doesn't say so), because it does not mention all the other responses. It makes it seem like he was all alone in his protests and that he had no support in it, which is clearly not the case. So I argue that by stating it that way, it's a BLP violation against Savage instead, which is no better. I think Alanyst's suggestion works better, it's more objective and has less undue implications. CodeCat (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I am "adamant" about following the policy WP:BLP which is not a negotiable policy. The precept that opinions should be labeled as opinions of those holding them is consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines - whether on articles about a Labour prime minister in Australia, Liberal MPs in the UK or any other persons who are under that policy no matter who they are. You are welcome to scour my BLP/N posts on a wide range of persons. Collect (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
BLP applies to the way we treat Savage as well in case you forgot that he is a human too. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Absent a preponderance of RS stating the comments were anti gay, it is not our business to state the comments were anti gay, unless you don't think that calling someone a homophobe is a BLP violation.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't think Santorum would mind... I guess it's funny because many people say Wikipedia has a left-wing bias, and here we are saying that it's insulting to call him a homophobe when many people like Santorum consider it a badge of honour. :) In any case, though, my complaint about Collect's suggestion does not imply that we should just say "his comments were anti-gay". What I am saying instead is that we shouldn't skew the issue the other way by saying that Savage (alone) considered them anti-gay, because that's a misrepresentation of the facts (error by omission). As I noted above, the implication that Savage alone considered them such could be considered incriminating against Savage (it makes him seem like a whining loner with nothing better to do than to pick a fight with Santorum). The fact that many others took Santorum's views similarly to the way Savage did is, furthermore, relevant to this article, because had Savage been alone in his reaction, this article wouldn't exist. That said, I don't see how Santorum's comments were intended to be anything but anti-gay... maybe if we find a source of Santorum himself saying so, this whole issue will be put to rest? (I don't think BLP can be used to remove public statements made by the person) CodeCat (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
We have the quote itself. Right here. We can't objectively call it "anti-gay," but we can objectively describe the contents of the sentence and allow readers to decide for themselves. polarscribe (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
It's certainly anti-gay-acts, he said so literally. So is it such a long shot to say that it's anti-gay? I don't see how you could oppose gay acts and think that you're not opposing homosexuality in any fashion. That's trying to have your cake and eat it. CodeCat (talk) 01:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
We, as in Wikipedia, can't say that. I certainly believe it to be true, but our policies, in this case, don't let us be accurate here. polarscribe (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Although here's another significant opinion describing Santorum's comments as homophobic: former Wyoming senator Alan Simpson, a Republican. [9] polarscribe (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree we should not say the comments were "anti-gay", although that is a reasonable interpretation. Actually quoting them should be sufficient. We should not however make it appear that Savage was in a minority in interpreting them that way. TFD (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

alternate proposal

At BLPN there is a suggestion to say: "comments that compared homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality". This is sensible: it conveys the nature of the of the comments; it avoids the idiocy of the current version which (as TFD says just above) implies that only Savage interpreted them as anti-gay. It's disappointing that editors like Collect have such a difficulty with the notion that they are anti-gay, but we can perhaps avoid that difficulty by going for polarscribe's suggestion as at BLPN. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

        • "Jews are not parasites." -- LGR. "LGR compared jews to parasites". -- Wikipedia. No. We should use the quote from Santorum and then any RS that is commenting on that quote. Though I'd be open to any phrasing that isn't stating or implying in Wikipedia's voice that Santorum is stating any equivilance.  little green rosetta(talk)
          central scrutinizer                      16:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
          • No. The word "comparing" does not imply equivalence. Making a comparison does not require that the things being compared are equivalent. Per Webster's definition of comparison: b : an examination of two or more items to establish similarities and dissimilarities.
          • The example you gave is not analogous. This would be an analogous sentence: "In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included Jews. That's not to pick on Jews. They're not, you know blacks, gays, whatever the case may be."
          • There is no non-tortured reading of that sentence which doesn't create a comparison of those things. polarscribe (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - He compared them [10], [11], wikt:compare. To justify "contrasted" or "juxtaposed," you'd need a quote where Santorum says something like "Well, unlike bestiality, gay sex doesn't have..." Santorum attempted to downplay the comparison, but comparing Concept A (even if favorably) to Concept B where B is disgusting or horrible is still linking them to an extent. I wouldn't get away, in polite company (or on the BLP noticeboard), with saying something like, "Well, that's not to pick on Don Imus. He's not, you know, David Duke or Preston Brooks." Nor should I. When you do this with people, it's guilt by association (weaker than saying "Well, A is just as bad as B," but undeniable). When you do it with sex acts, it's the same thing. Santorum is implying that consensual adult homosexual sex is on the same spectrum with child sexual abuse, if not at the same end of the spectrum. You need to torture the English language to suggest otherwise. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 16:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Exactly. There is no bias or opinion involved in a straightforward interpretation of an English-language sentence. The very meaning of Santorum's words create a comparison between the three things mentioned. There is no other legitimate reading of the sentence. polarscribe (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I think we should add "comments that denounced homosexual acts and drew comparisons between them, pedophilia and bestiality" because that seems more accurate, given the source. I am a bit surprised at the way that people are nitpicking at the wording. It's almost as if they want Santorum's statements to mean something else. We could pick apart pretty much any source on Wikipedia that way if we wanted to. CodeCat (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I prefer my "grouped with" wording to "compared", but it's still an improvement in neutrality so I'm in mild support. alanyst 17:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per LGR. If these words are the crux of what Savage was so upset about then they should be explicitly stated within the section. I really don't see the problem, as Collect stated above, in simply including the quote and stating that Savage started his campaign in response to that quote. Arzel (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Present the facts and let the reader draw their own conclusion. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per CodeCat.--В и к и T 17:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support; fair and succinct. I would also support alanyst's proposal or CodeCat's version. Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Any BLP violation of this sort remains a BLP violation unless the implication that Santorum made a comparison is dropped. As for personal comments directed at me - they are simply signs of emotional immaturity on the part of the person making them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is opinion not fact. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually no, it is spin based off of what he said. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Says you. What matters, though, is what the sources say. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh good lord. Even if there were no sources stating he "compared" them, we can't use English words anymore, no, that's POV, OR, and SYNTH. Instead we have to go all the way out of our way to avoid the merest implication that something obvious might be the case. What would you write? "...comments in which Santorum happened to mention homosexuality, bestiality, and pedophilia in the same sentence, though not necessarily intending to compare them?" This discussion is the height of navel-gazing angels-on-a-pin nitpicking masturbation. What do you call it when someone mentions several things in the same sentence, while alluding to the potential for the listener to discern similarities between them? I'd say "compare" but apparently we don't use words anymore, we use doublespeak. If using the English language isn't good enough for you, at least let the sources speak. Jesus. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 20:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: As neutral and true-to-the sources rendering as you're going to get, but would also support alanyst's proposal or CodeCat's version. The contention that Santorum's statements were not anti-gay is pretty darned far-fetched, as the guy has made this a prominent part of his political career, and it is one of the things he is best known for. These three rewordings are a neutral description and factual of the quote itself Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Every reasonable source says that Santorum compared homosexuality to bestiality. Shep Smith, the Fox News anchor, even said he "equated" them. Both Leviticus and the sodomy laws equated them -it is not a new concept. Now Santorum and the echo chamber are trying to spin his comments. In fairness we should mention Santorum's reply, but we cannot pretend it is reasonable. TFD (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion/consensus?

What exactly is the point of discussion if individual editors are going to jump in and do whatever they please? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Following a protection expiration is not terribly wise for all involved. Tarc (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Kai Ma

It is pretty clear that some time ago this discussion veered from actually being about article content. Closing per WP:TPG. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is an occasional blogger on Time's "newsfeed" and thus the opinions should be ascribed to Ma and not stated as "fact" in Wikipedia's voice. Ma does not appear to be a Time employee in any way at all, as far as I can tell, and thus an "opinion" contributor only. Collect (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

"Blogger" is a fanciful invention, Collect. But never mind -- you didn't like that source, so I've provided another, without a whiff of "blogger" or "op-ed". Straight news. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
The term is what is correct -- Kai is not a Time employee, Kai runs a Twitter feed and a blog site. Ergo - a blogger. Her affiliations as listed on Twitter do not include Time but include "Open City & Managing editor, @aaww | Also check out: http://readthemargins.com | http://culturestrike.net | http://ourchinatown.org Photos: http://instagram.com/janglebaby New York · http://opencitymag.com" I leave it to you to try asserting that any of these meets WP:RS for any claim at all in any BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: Nomo is repeatedly adding the blog to the BLP proper Rick Santorum - and asserting that a blogger's post is the same as an "article in Time" for making a factual claim where it is clear that using the actual quote is far less a problem at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
More reading comprehension failure. An inspection of the edit shows that I am *not* using the source that Collect thinks I'm using. You don't even know what you're reverting. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Your first use was the one to which I referred. Your second "source" is from Australia and says He also talked about same-sex marriage in these terms: "In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It [marriage] is not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing." By comparing homosexuality to bestiality in relation to marriage, Santorum incurred the wrath of gay activists including Dan Savage, who embarked on a concerted campaign to 'Google bomb' Santorum's name, affecting what results show up when searching for it online. Which is not how the hell you are attempting to use it. In fact it is an abuse of a source to elide the full cite into "in an interview stating his opposition to same-sex marriage, he compared homosexuality to bestiality" wghich is not what the source states. in an interview stating his opposition to same-sex marriage, he also mentioned pedophilia and bestiality is far closer to being an accurate representation of the source you give than is your POINTY wording which has been previously found wanting. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
You used the word "repeatedly". To coin a phrase: I do not think that word means what you think it means. In other words: bullshit -- you were blindly reverting, without looking at the edit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
What a really intellectual dis. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Demanding a citation for the word "compare" in describing and summarizing the nuts-and-bolts grammatical structure of the sentences Santorum uttered is like demanding that a film critic write the word "review" explicitly in every single movie review he or she writes. At some point you have to admit that, yeah, it's not OR or SYNTH to use the word "couch" where everyone agrees the topic of discussion is soft, stationary, laterally-oriented-multiple-person upright-backed indoor furniture. It is not good style to keep[1] giving[2] a citation[3] for every[4] single[5] word[6] in a simple,[7] neutrally written[8][9][10] sentence.[11] ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 03:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Really.
  2. ^ No, really.
  3. ^ I mean it...
  4. ^ Treading on thin ice now, buster
  5. ^ "Solitary" is sometimes used as a synonym for "single."
  6. ^ Finally a noun!
  7. ^ Hah.
  8. ^ Of course this phrase demands it.
  9. ^ The phrase "neutrally written" should not be taken to imply that anyone editing this page has a lick of neutrality.
  10. ^ We don't do tax advice either.
  11. ^ Phew!
I agree with you, Zen -- but many people won't simply because they'll grasp for any "policy-based" way to block what they dislike, and so the fact that there are good sources for "compare" probably means that better to go with the "sourced" route. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
As I am not a backer of the subject of the BLP but simply do my damndest to follow WP:BLP your snark has no value here other than to reinforce my praise for the intellectual value of your dis. Collect (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Search engine results

A quick Google just now yielded this very article as the first result, the WP article about the senator as the second, the Urban Dictionary definitions (first the neologism, then the senator), and the spreadingsantorum page fourth. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Uhm...thank you? Is there a point you are trying to make Orangemike that I am missing? Is this about the notability issue?
Nope, just a datum. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Okey dokey.--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
And some editors worried we were contributing to the campaign. Seems like we superseded it. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 04:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Entirely Inappropriate for Wikipedia

This article is: (1) Outdated (2) Infantile (3) Not encyclopedic (4) A personal promotion for Mr. Savage

It needs to be deleted. If not deleted entirely, the personal promotion for Mr. Savage, (i.e., his picture) needs to be removed. 74.103.182.239 (talk) 07:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

No. Just because you don't like it is not a legitimate reasoning to remove an image.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes. We realize Rick Santorum is a homophobic fool. We get it. This was interesting and humorous when they first published it, but now it is irrelevant, incoherent, and not encyclopedic in any way whatsoever. Why does Wikipedia have to sacrifice its integrity by publishing things like this just because Santorum makes a fool of himself? Not only should the picture go, the whole article should go. Also, why would this be nominated for "good articles"? It could have been a great article, but the problem was it was never very good. APatcher (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • No - once a subject becomes notable, it does not cease to be notable. There is no such thing as an "outdated" subject, be it an Attic Greek dialect or a long-forgotten pop star of the 1920s like Gilda Gray. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed. This was a highly visible, and extremely successful political campaign by Savage that derailed the career of one of American conservative politics' rising stars, achieving massive press coverage in the process, and arguably changed the U.S. political landscape regarding equal marriage. It was, and remains, notable. -- The Anome (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Puerile and Sophomoric and of no' current notoriety - it is not up to Wikipedia to maintain such "stuff" when there are legitimate encyclopedia articles not yet written. Collect (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
You're not being asked to maintain this article. Go write your "legitimate" articles if you wish. --NeilN talk to me 18:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
We were asked for our opinions here -- if you do not like my opinions than you know precisely what actions you can take. Clue: attacking the person with whom you disagree is not one of them. Collect (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
And we can comment on other opinions. If you don't like that, perhaps don't comment? And clue: that wasn't an attack. --NeilN talk to me 19:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is denying that it was puerile, sophomoric humor on Savage's part -- indeed, it was a quite literal political smear campaign. But it was a tremendously successful and significant political hatchet-job that changed the American political climate. No other major mainstream U.S. politician has dared to follow in Santorum's footsteps, and I believe the aftermath of Savage's campaign is a major reason why. In the meantime, the existence of this article is not holding up the creation of other articles about subjects you consider more worthy. -- The Anome (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Same reply as above. And add Lo alecha hamlacha ligmor as well. Collect (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
v'gam lo alecha. So why do you bother here? Anyway, WP:PUERILE and WP:SOPHOMORIC don't do much for you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Because we are enjoined not to totally ignore what ought to be done. In the case of Wikipedia it means to produce a neutral and accurate encyclopedia about notable topics. To the extent that we do not even try to make any effort to do so, we fail our duty. To the extent that we allow false witness to be borne about others, we bear false witness ourselves. Collect (talk) 01:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
No, that's not it -- the point is, why not do something where you can actually accomplish something. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Participating in discussions is "doing something" whether you personally agree with other opinions or not. The concept that people should be silent is something addressed many times in many places -- from Reinhold Niehuhr on. Collect (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
To be a smear campaign, it would have had to impute something untrue about the ex-senator. Because it did not, it was not a smear campaign. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Google placement in 2016 for searches on "Santorum"

Just for future reference, Dan Savage's "santorum" meme appears to still be going strong in 2016, twotwelve and a half years after Savage originally coined it. I've just done a Google search for "Santorum", and the for 10 results were as follows, in order:

  1. "Santorum for President" website
  2. Wikipedia's Campaign for "santorum" neologism article
  3. Urban Dictionary definition of this term, per Savage
  4. Wiktionary definition, ditto
  5. Mother Jones article about the "Google problem"
  6. blog.spreadingsantorum.com
  7. www.spreadingsantorum.com
  8. Santorum's Facebook page
  9. "Santorum" entry on Know Your Meme, discussing the term, per Savage
  10. Atlantic article discussing Santorum the politician

-- The Anome (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Make that twelve and a half years... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
You're right, I slipped a decade, now corrected above -- thanks! -- The Anome (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Funny, I just tried the same, because I was wondering. That's one long-running (t)rick(roll) ... ehm, santoruming, to coin a term. Yes, a neologistic campaign against a person shall now be known as "santoruming" them. (Although it might be more appropriate to say that Santorum has been "Savaged" ...) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I also googled "santorum" Feb 21st 2016 (after deleting my browser history and switching to English, I am from Austria) and got a slightly different order:
  1. Wikipedia's Campaign for "santorum" neologism article
  2. Wikipedia's Rick Santorum article
  3. "Santorum for President" website
  4. Wiktionary definition, per Savage
  5. Urban Dictionary definition of this term, per Savage
  6. Mother Jones article about the "Google problem"
  7. www.spreadingsantorum.com
  8. blog.spreadingsantorum.com
  9. CNN article: Santorum drops presidential campaign
  10. Santorum's Facebook page

The results slightly change if I google upper-case "Santorum", the top 2 stay the same. --212.186.181.3 (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Campaign for "santorum" neologism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Done Elizium23 (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Campaign for the neologism "santorum". Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

This article is over-cited and over-categorized.

As part of the whole wrangle over this subject (and possibly a successful attempt to raise the article to the top of Google ranking by a now departed and contentious editor), this article was stuffed with 55 citations and dozens of categories, some of which are not applicable.

I propose to cut some of the duplicate citations and reduce the number of categories.

Discuss.→StaniStani 07:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't mind cutting some of the categories. But I don't see a case for eliminating citations. Why not have a comprehensive set of sources? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
It's a sophisticated form of SEO, and many of the citations are making the exact same point. However, removing near-duplicate categories is progress.→StaniStani 11:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
We shouldn't worry about whether something is SEO. An abundance of citations is a good thing, per WP:V. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 28 December 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. See general agreement below to maintain the status quo and keep the quotation marks in the title. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  02:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Campaign for the neologism "santorum" → Campaign for the neologism santorum – Current title is inconsistent with all similar titles in Category:Political terminology. I'm not even going to try to ping participants in previous discussions. wumbolo ^^^ 15:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Campaign_for_the_neologism_%22santorum%22/Archive_12&oldid=1144886841"