Jump to content

Talk:Campaign for the neologism "santorum"/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Deletion

Page is purely slander and violates various Wikipedia standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.55.80.148 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 22 January 2008

Please sign your posts - unsigned posts are not taken seriously. Also, although the subject of this page is disgusting, it is informational and factual, and therefore meets Wikipedia standards; please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santorum. -- Nicholas SL Smith 16:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed 100% This isn't well-known enough outside of "deviant" homosexual circles to classify as encyclopedic content. Even if a comedian uses the word, it's a one-shot deal and not a part of common jargon outside the gay activist community. 209.55.80.148 (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santorum for a close look at the dialog that took place about whether to keep or delete this article. Kingturtle (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
LOL nobody has pointed out that this person posted to agree with themself. 71.111.43.178 (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's pathetic that this is page is on Wikipedia. This article lowers the credibility of Wikipedia to that of urbandictionary.com. Does every neologism need a Wikipedia page? I had never heard of this use of the surname prior to seeing this Wikipedia page. I know practically nothing about Rick Santorum but it's clear that this page is here to defame him.Ewick12 (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait, you didn't know about this -- and now you do? You learned something via Wikipedia?? Geez, you're right -- there's something dreadfully wrong here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
The encyclopedic value of the "something" learned from this article would be vastly exceeded by an article about Santorum's ear wax, or how the mucus in his left nostril differs from that in the right nostril. If there were a few published sources on those subjects, they still wouldn't be appropriate for stand-alone Wikipedia articles, especially if there were already a stand-alone article about Santorum's anatomy. I'm not supporting him for president, but I also don't support this extremely crappy article. We already have the article Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality, not to mention Savage Love#Neologisms. Maybe we ought to get it over with, and put a link to this article at the top of every Wikipedia page, next to "My talk My preferences My watchlist My contributions Log out", since the whole focus here is propaganda, right? Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I think it's disingenuous to claim this doesn't qualify to be a stand-alone article. It's been very widely reported in mainstream media; the website Spreading Santorum is still among the first Google hits returned on a search for Rick Santorum or Santorum; Joe.My.God, a multiple award-winning blog with millions of readers, consistently refers to RS as "Frothy Mix"; the nickname was prompted by a call from a notable person; etc, etc, etc. The man, the retaliatory nature of the nickname, or the matter it describes may be distasteful to some readers, but those things are not reasons for removing articles from Wikipedia. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
It should be merged into one of the several existing articles that already cover it, not deleted. Or maybe it could be merged into a new article titled "Neologisms created by Dan Savage". The main reason that hasn't already been done is because some people like manipulating google hits.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

If you want to see this deleted, the appropriate venue to assess community consensus on that point is AfD. However, since such a discussion was held only a few months ago, I find it unlikely that there will be consensus to overturn it. --joe deckertalk to me 17:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Additional sources for research

Some additional sources at links above. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Note

Will begin to undertake some research in additional secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Expanding an article about a vile attack on a living person - it's twice the size now and refs have gone from 33 to 95 - has got to be against the spirit of least of our BLP policy. My proposal, and my intention, stated right now, is to return this article to the content it had on May 9th. →StaniStani  03:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I would advise against doing a unilateral revert without first getting consensus. --NeilN talk to me 04:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
That's why I posted here. What's your opinion? Support reversion to May 9, or not? →StaniStani  04:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
No, there are new sections like United States presidential election, 2012, Recognition and usage, and Media analysis which shouldn't simply be deleted. Judicious trimming might be in order. --NeilN talk to me 04:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
A two-sentence stub would follow the spirit of BLP protection, but I'm not proposing to spit against the wind here. →StaniStani  05:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
The BLP policy is not a blank check for deleting anything negative related to a living individual. Criticism, commentary, and even base mockery of a public figure like a Senator is protected free speech in the United States. While it would be ridiculous for anyone to try and make Wikipedia a platform for creating the kind of meme Savage did, it is perfectly prudent for Wikipedia to neutrally report on the overwhelming amount of coverage given to the topic. Steven Walling 05:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
By expanding the number of key terms, adding more bio information, and linking back more references, this article has enhanced the original attack. →StaniStani  05:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Not in the least. Without Wikipedia, all you have are Savage's site and supporters on one side, and supporters of Santorum on the other. With a comprehensive Wikipedia article that demands verifiability and neutrality, the facts about the situation are presented so that people can make up their own minds about it. Steven Walling 06:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
The article appears to be about a phenomenon rather than the person, and is rigidly fair - on reading it, it does not try to link the man with the term, it exposes Savage's motives and actions to criticism, presents all of the "realworld" recognition of the phenomenon and its impact in such a manner that someone can question whether the campaign was or is fair, and provides Santorum's considered reply to the phenomenon in full. There's no question that the phenomenon (whether it should be or not) is notable. Orderinchaos 07:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Steven Walling and Orderinchaos said it much better than I could; I'm just chiming in. Steven Walling's optimism about Wikipedia's mission, that it would allow readers to make up their own mind, is farther than I'm willing to go, but the facts about how the topic is presented in the article are assessed correctly by the two mentioned editors. If they weren't, perhaps the Kerry-section should be cut from Flip-flop (politics), and Cheese-eating surrender monkeys should be deleted altogether (a BLP violation against almost 66 million living people, some of whom are probably allergic to cheese). Drmies (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
France is not a person. To return to the topic: the original attack is Google-based. By adding more key search terms to the Wikipedia article, and adding more back-links in the refs, more people will find the definition linked to a living person. Hence my issue with the article being expanded. →StaniStani  17:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
But the French are people, many of them living. Honestly, while I can understand a certain hesitation about the article (after all, it's pretty gross and the term was of course a low blow), that expansion would increase google hits and thus make this a personal attack or so, I don't see that at all. But to each their own. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The fact that Wikipedia permits

The fact that Wikipedia permits a pseudo-article like this one which was artificially propagandized for the purpose of personal slander just proves the fact that Wikipedia itself is a bogus project that most legitimate academic institutions will not allow their students to use as source material. Very pathetic and a disgrace. The editors should be ashamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.23.183 (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

  • The fact that you would post such drivel is an offense to your 2nd grade teacher, Mr. 68.36.23.183! The fact is that the subject has been covered by every news source, including Fox news many times. Blame Fox, not wikipedia.--Milowent • talkblp-r 05:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Slander is defined as "a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report". In no way has Savage's coining said anything about Rick Santorum which is untrue. He does not allege Santorum has any personal experience with santorum, though in his explanation for coining the term he does attribute various hateful, dishonourable, and deeply offensive remarks to Santorum... all correctly.
So, in short it's not slander. --Saforrest (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Define "pseudo-article," and indicate how this article meets that definition. Once you are clear with your complaints, they can be addressed properly. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Move to close this thread, so to speak. Drmies (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
One thing to remember is that this article really isn't about Rick Santorum, as he's primarily a passive participant in this story. It's really about Mr. Savage. Care should be taken, and I think it has so far, to make sure that the article accurately reflects Savage's actions, motivation, thoughts, intentions, and goals since he is the primary driver in this episode. One thing to watch for and add to the article is how the general US public perceives this campaign by Savage. Do most support it, disapprove, or don't care? Cla68 (talk) 12:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I am so confused

This is such a blatant BLP violation that i'm rather shocked that there are actually users defending it. At the very least, this should be at "Santorum (term)", in order to discuss the term in the context of its use in relation to the Senator. But to primarily discuss it in the sense of a gross sexual word and then to apply it copiously to a Senator, I don't care what sources you're using, this is one of the worst BLP violations that i've ever seen. SilverserenC 20:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Prior discussions for the title of the location of this article took place in 2006 (Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Santorum (sexual neologism)), and 2007 (Talk:Santorum_(sexual_neologism)/Archive_1#Protologism_or_neologism.3F). In addition, multiple WP:RS sources refer to it as a "sexual neologism". -- Cirt (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Two things. First off, I don't believe that a group of three users should be able to usurp a poll prior to that that decided to not name it sexual neologism or sexual slang. Secondly, quoting links from four years ago kinda emphasis my point. The Santorum page itself still links to this one as a neologism, not a sexual one. And, yes, while the sources refer to it as a sexual neologism, that's something that should be expressed in the article and not the title, because the article is discussing its use as a term in a political campaign and not its common use as a sexual neologism when referring to something sexual in their lives or in fetishes. This word, while decided to be defined as something sexual, is being used politically, not sexually. SilverserenC 20:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Just FYI, there was a BLP/N discussion [1] earlier this year that discussed potential renamings. --joe deckertalk to me 20:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing in that discussion about renaming it to (term), there is only a proposal to rename it to something a bit ridiculous. So, that's completely not a support for the current name as it is disagreement with the proposed new name. SilverserenC 20:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
It has been moved multiple times in the past, and has been stable at this title location for several years now. -- Cirt (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There are several suggested renamings in that thread and the subsections that follow it, and I provided the reference as background data, not to take sides. In fact, you'll see if you dig through there that I have a different issue with the current name, but I've kinda thrown up my hands at the naming wars on this article. I saw someone note a 2006 and 2007 discussion, and I simply wished to add that there had been at least one more. That is all. --joe deckertalk to me 20:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
It has been characterized as a "sexual neologism" by sourcing including writers for The Washington Post [2], the Los Angeles Times [3], and even in an interview with responses by Rick Santorum in Roll Call [4]. -- Cirt (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
First of all, WP:CCC, so please lay off the stable arguments. And, I repeat, because it is called a sexual neologism, then it should be called such within the article, but you are using it in the article as a political term and it's use in elections, not its use as a sexual term in real life. If the article was about its use in the world as a sexual term, then this title would be appropriate, but, as far as I can see, it is only being used in a political campaign, which makes such a title inappropriate, because it is being used as a term. SilverserenC 20:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
The article is about both. -- Cirt (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Except the article is primarily focused on the political end of the discussion and is only cursorily about the sexual element. There is no reason why the article should be at a more neutral name such as (term) or (neologism), like the Santorum disambiguation page has it at. Having it at its current title without the article being primarily about the sexual side of the term just makes it a BLP jab. SilverserenC 21:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I would have no objections to a move to Santorum (neologism) - however prior discussions seem to support it at this location, for rationale that it is not simply a neologism, but also a form of sexual slang, at the same time. -- Cirt (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I would just hope that IFF the article were to be moved, again, it would then NOT be moved again in the future, multiple times, and could perhaps remain stable in a static title location. -- Cirt (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that move as well. "Sexual neologism" is a bit verbose for a parenthetical disambiguation, even if it's literally more accurate. Steven Walling 21:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 Done. Moved it to Santorum (neologism). Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Please fix the talk page archives. There are now "/Archive 1" pages under multiple names from previous moves. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Should be all fixed now. ;) If not, please let me know the links of which pages to fix. -- Cirt (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Moving this to a slightly different name is appropriate, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to stub this article to reduce or eliminate BLP violations

Consensus is pretty clear that it isnt a BLP issue. Try next step in WP:DR The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:30, 24 May 2011 (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.

Expanding the article, renaming it, and all the other manipulations amount to just this:

You are solving the wrong problem! -- Dilbert

The existence of this article enhances Savage's original Google-bomb of the Senator. Expanding it adds more text for Google to index. Adding more information in the body of the article about the Google-bomb, reactions to it, the victim's response - all add key terms for Google's crawler to add to the PageRank score. Tripling the references make more backlinks in Google.

Well, a clear consensus exists to assist in this Google-bomb. None of you addressed that. Note that I stated my case, and it remains unrefuted. I will not pursue it further. My opposition is on record. If it remains on record, I'm satisfied to walk away from this article. For those of you who might be thinking of RevDel'ing this discussion, I remind you that that is against policy. →StaniStani  05:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
If I'm following you correctly, you're protesting that there's something going on here along the lines of the observer paradox -- i.e., the very existence of an article that follows the usual Wikipedia quality guidelines would still have negative consequences, because of Wikipedia's exteremly high Google page rankings? I can sort of see the point to that, but I'm not convinced that it should matter -- and it certainly doesn't mean that people who just want to put together a standard-issue Wikipedia page are somehow acting maliciously. Wikipedia can't control how it the outside world perceives it, and I frankly don't think it should try to take that into account, because it would always change, and that way lies madness. --Jfruh (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
This expansion of the article achieved its purpose: to make the Wikipedia article about the attack on the Senator a higher Google result than the article about the Senator, and to reinforce the high ranking of the attack itself. Other people are discussing this effect now. →StaniStani  17:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
When you say "achieved its purpose," you appear to be implying that people are editing this article for the express purpose of gaming Google search results. I can't speak for everyone, but I don't think that's the case. People just want this to be a good and decently cited article. You should assume good faith. --Jfruh (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
What's amazing though, is that if you search the term in google news, you get an overwhelmingly strong amount of good reporting on 'his' issues, and his biography comes up #3 on the google search. His good press work over the past month is actually changing the importance of the word as a internet thing. Stani, quite simply, Cirt did nothing wrong. In fact, if anything, he made it very explicit that it's a term that derived from an attempt to satarize Santorum's position. WP:I don't like it doesn't mean that we are complicit with any kind of attack, it just means that you don't think the term should be associated with the politician, which is a completely fair assessment of these events. Sadads (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe the expansion of the article has increased the visibility of this article via Google search, it was already above the article on the Senator. The high ranking of searches about the term has been the case since the term was coined, which predates the general popularity of Wikipedia. The high ranking probably derives from the fact that the term gets more press coverage than the Senator.--Milowent • talkblp-r 17:53, 24 May 2011 (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.

Section on actual santorum

I don't want to wade into a sensitive topic, but I was just wondering why there isn't/if there shouldn't be a section of this article actually dealing with "santorum" - i.e. the mix of lubricant and fecal matter - since most of the article is about the media response to the word itself, Wikipedia is Not Censored, and there is certainly material to discuss the phenomenon in health terms - like a 2006 article by Dr. Charles Moser in Sexuality, Reproduction and Menopause ? -Kez (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

That is an excellent idea. I am not able to access that article, but perhaps if you could help provide access to it, and also suggest perhaps a few other similar sources, I could incorporate them into such a section. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Sure, I mean Moser's discussion of santorum isn't exactly extensive, it's just a sentence, but I'll quote its section here:
"Anal Stimulation of the anus/rectum is called ass play. Butt plugs (objects used for anal insertions) are held in the rectum by the anal musculature and can be used during sex or worn for longer periods of time. Anal beads are devices for anal insertion consisting of a series of beads connected by a string or molded plastic which are inserted into the rectum and pushed in and pulled out the anus. The mix of fecal matter and lubricant, a common result of ass play, is santorum.
"Patients may prepare for ass play by douching (a series of enemas). Various substances (wine, other alcoholic spirits, coffee, and illicit substances) can be added to the enema solution, resulting in a very rapid and powerful drug effect."
I guess the "Recognition and use" covers some of the the other sources I'm aware of, but that section still seems concerned with the word itself, so perhaps a subsection of that section would be most appropriate? -Kez (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 Done, added it diff. Perhaps if you could suggest a few more sources that discuss the term in that context, we can then address formatting and structuring. -- Cirt (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Note that this usage is nothing more than a definition in an article prefaced with "Some physicians may be unaware of their patients’ sexual activities or may feel ill at ease discussing them. Provided with a basic knowledge of these activities and their associated slang terms, a physician can better communicate with the patient..." (emphasis mine). Although it appears in a medical journal and is intended for doctors, it should not be construed to be a medical or authoritative use of the term. Is yet another citation really necessary in an article that seems to have already become a concern in some areas? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Are more citations ever a bad thing on Wikipedia? The content is clearly notable, and is clearly being discussed in a comprehensive manner, letting our readership access as many opinions as possible should always be our first priority, Sadads (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
That is not an opinion, it is a recognition that the slang term santorum exists, which is not in dispute. Larding the article with any available reference, no matter how tenuous the connection to the topic, is not helpful to the reader and not what an encyclopedia generally does. In this case I am concerned that the long-winded "Professor and Chair of the Department of Sexual Medicine Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco, California, physician Charles Moser" makes it seem like this is a medical or authoritative use of the term, which it is not. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Quoted definition of santorum

I think Wikipedia:Revision_deletion#Criteria_for_redaction

Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little/no encyclopedic or project value and/or violates our Biographies of living people policy. This includes slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material of little or no encyclopedic value, but not mere factual statements, and not "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations.

Applies to the quoted definition of "santorum". The quoted definition can be replaced by "an obscene neologism associated with anal sex" without loosing any meaning necessary to the encyclopedic purpose of the article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Question: Shall we also propose to remove the description of the advertisement from the article on the U.S. Supreme Court case, Hustler Magazine v. Falwell? -- Cirt (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea; never looked at it or thought about it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The American Dialect Society selected santorum as the Most Outrageous Word of the Year for 2004.
  • The 2006 edition of The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English cited santorum as an example of "deliberate coining".
  • The santorum phenomenon, its history and development was the subject of a paper presented at the 2008 annual meeting of the National Communication Association.
These are not trashy, tabloid organizations. Wikipedia should not refrain from covering topics which are embarrassing/offensive to BLPs. It should do its utmost to cover the topic in a fair and neutral manner. --NeilN talk to me 21:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Wait, we're being asked to redact the definition of the term that is the topic of this article? That doesn't sound like a terribly encyclopedic approach to me. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Precisely. The exact definition is outrageous and distasteful. Which is why, like it or not, it received widespread coverage. --NeilN talk to me 21:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. This term is one of the most successful political smears since Swift boating, and may well have a similar impact on Santorum's political chances of becoming president. As such, it deserves full encyclopedic coverage, and that includes quoting the definition, the shocking nature of which is a great part of the source of its power. -- The Anome (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the article is overblown. A redirect to a paragraph in the Santorum biography would be more in line with BLP policy. --JN466 21:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
That might be a reasonable outcome of an AfD. On the other hand, we've already done 3 AfDs for this article -- I doubt a 4th would produce a different outcome from the 3rd. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Aside from references, I make Swift Vets and POWs for Truth six screenfuls on my browser window, and this article five. Given the likely political significance, and general wide level of coverage, that's not disproportionate for an article on a (so to speak) smear. -- The Anome (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
On the contrary, the origins of the neologism, its effects, and Santorum's response do not belong in the biography as they would take up much more than a paragraph. --NeilN talk to me 22:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The last AfD was in December 2010. Since then, the article has grown from 1486 words to 4796 words, and currently takes the two (!) top spots in a Google web search for Santorum's surname. In addition, we have Santorum controversy, covering much the same ground. --JN466 22:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
You're seriously suggesting that the one paragraph in that article "covers the same ground" as this one? --NeilN talk to me 22:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Jayen466, you're welcome to file a new AfD, but I wouldn't expect any change from the results of the previous three. You might want to note that the coverage of this term in this article itself is now the subject of articles in multiple reliable independent sources, which appears to provide support for the assertion that this is a standalone topic. -- The Anome (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The reason it's covered in reliable sources is that it itself has in practical terms become part of the campaign. That's an interesting philosophical point; our purpose is to provide neutral coverage, rather than becoming an actor in favour of one side or another. --JN466 22:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
In spite of the term's association with the anti-Santorum campaign, I still believe that this article maintains WP:NPOV, and does not itself endorse that campaign. If there are any NPOV violations that need fixing, please bring them here. You might want to read WP:IDONTLIKEIT, however. -- The Anome (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Are you saying that having an article itself is not neutral? If so, I would point you towards Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories which documents what were clearly politically motivated attacks on Obama. Yet it is neutral in its coverage. --NeilN talk to me 22:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Or, indeed, the coverage of any number of other political smears, both historical and present-day, or our coverage of the many and varied offensive racial and other epithets. -- The Anome (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
In following the discussion here, I am sort of intrigued by the repeated reference to this whole kerfuffle as a "smear" against Rick Santorum. A smear campaign as I understand it involves attempting to undermine someone by spreading damaging information, whether true or false, about them. I don't think anybody's attempted to do that in this instance; there's been no attempt to, for instance, claim that santorum is named after Santorum becuase Santorum enagages anal sex. Dan Savage has always been pretty up front that it's an attempt to link Santorum's name to something unpleasant because of Santorum's political views, but he hasn't ever tried to imply that Rick Santorum has anything to do with the frothy mix etc. in practice.
This seems important to me because much of the debate here is about BLP violations, which are in place protect living individuals from people believing certain damaging facts about the subjects of the article. But there's nothing about santorum that has anything to do with Rick Santorum, other than the fact that Dan Savage coined the term because of his opposition to Santorum's political views. Does that distinction seem clear?
(For the record, I honestly think that the actual use of the word "santorum" as a common noun outside a political context is pretty limited, and that this article could be profitably merged with "Santorum controversy," since such a thing exists. But I think it's taken on enough of a life of its own that it shouldn't be folded back into Rick Santorum's article.) --Jfruh (talk) 23:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll repeat this again...the person at the center of this article's topic isn't Mr. Santorum, it's Mr. Savage. Mr. Savage is the individual behind this whole thing. Santorum is a passive participant, perhaps even a victim as described in some of the sources. So, this article isn't a BLP violation on Santorum as long as it accurately represents what he originally said, which Mr. Savage apparently took exception to, and how Mr. Santorum has responded to Mr. Savage's campaign. Cla68 (talk) 01:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I can see that the article is important as an example of successful google bombing and creation of an association of Santorum's name with a dirty word. However I have not seen in the responses here any reason why the precise definition needs to be here. It is available in many other places; it is degrading. I think it does fall within our deletion policy. In addition, I'm not sure the neologism itself is notable other than with reference to Savage's campaign. I think the entire article needs to be re-written with focus on creation of the neologism as a political act. Details about what the invented term means are nearly irrelevant other than it relates to anal sex. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The neologism itself is notable, please see this comment posted above earlier, by NeilN (talk · contribs), which outlines that. -- Cirt (talk) 14:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Exactly, Wikipedia:Revision_deletion#Criteria_for_redaction would clearly apply to "the most outrageous word" unless the word itself was notable. It is the successful linking of the invented word to Santorum which is notable, not the precise definition, which is barely more significant that a random pattern of light and shadow cast by fluttering leaves. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
You're cherry picking the first half of the sentence: "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little/no encyclopedic or project value...". Images of Muhammad are offensive to many Muslims. Yet we keep them as they have encyclopedic value. Just telling the reader that santorum is "an obscene neologism associated with anal sex" does not properly portray its vulgarity and shock value and why it was chosen the most outrageous word. --NeilN talk to me 17:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm still mystified by the notion that an encyclopedia article on this topic would exclude the definition. This strikes me as the antithesis of "encyclopedic". So I've offered a direct response to the claim that it shouldn't be here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Amen to that. I mean, the article is fairly well balanced right now in that it first defines the neologism (which is the topic of the article mind you) then explains it's creation as a google bomb campaign and subsequent reactions. I don't know how you could better treat the subject, without either consciously excluding clearly relevant information, or writing about something other then the topic of the article, Sadads (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I think Fred has a point here that the article could be renamed as "Savage's anti-Santorum campaign" or something like that, as the artificial creation of this neologism by Savage would be part of that. Cla68 (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Bing

This neologism is often referred to as an example of a successful "Google bombing".

As a matter of interest, Bing is even more effective than Google at finding this neologism from a bare search for the word "santorum", with (at least from my own trial search) Santorum's own "exploratory" campaign website relegated to tenth place, and only a bare Freebase entry for Santorum-the-person between number three and four positions. See http://www.bing.com/search?q=santorum -- The Anome (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if any secondary sources have commented on the differences in results between the various search engines. -- Cirt (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
That was my interest too -- describing this as a "Google bomb" underestimates its reach. I haven't yet seen any reliable sources that mention this, but the effect is very noticeable. The effect on Yahoo! Search, on the other hand, is less prominent. See http://search.yahoo.com/?q=santorum -- The Anome (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Fascinating, please do keep us posted if you find secondary sources evaluating this phenomenon across additional search engine websites aside from simply Google. -- Cirt (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The Anome, I was indeed able to find multiple secondary sources confirming this, and I have added them to the article. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Google rating of this article

As reported in the press, this article is now the top result for a Google search for "Santorum". It's actually overtaken Dan Savage's own googlebomb site in the last few days. Previously, it used to be in 5th or 6th place, IIRC.

The three templates that were added earlier this month have something to do with this. Google bases its page rankings on the number of in-bound links. The political neologism and sexual slang templates add more than 100 in-bound links each.

To be perfectly honest, the term's inclusion in the "political neologism" template seems a little contrived. It looks out of place among terms such as

  • "Adopt a Highway • Afrocentrism • "And" theory of conservatism • Big government • Chairman • Checkbook diplomacy • Children's interests • Collaborationism • Conviction politics • Cordon sanitaire • Cricket test • Democide • Dhimmitude • Eco-terrorism • Epistemocracy • Eurocentrism • Eurorealism"

All three templates are new, and were created by Cirt between May 10 and May 15 [5][6][7]. (For reference, the first reports that Santorum might run for president appeared in early May.) --JN466 15:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This article shows up third when I do a Google search for "santorum." Google's search results aren't the same for everyone. Henrymrx (t·c) 15:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
And it doesn't show up in the first couple hundred results when using SSL Google. Interesting. --NeilN talk to me 01:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
for google SSL, it is now place 2, with place 1 being Spreading Santorum and place 3 the senator's article -- 84.173.178.190 (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree that this is contrived, and to be fair, we don't know at all that those templates caused an increase in ranking- the ways of google are rather subtle, and the fact that Santorum was reported to run for president would have been entirely expected to raise the number of external people linking to the article, as well as, quite rightly, making Cirt want to make the article better. Correlation is not causation. The only way we would know for sure is if we removed the template and waited to see what effect, and then add it back and see again what happened, but that would take many weeks. Google may well be lowering the ranking because of the template, they often treat that kind of thing as link-spam and reduce the ranking.Rememberway (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Internal links are not used to calculate PageRank. Please don't propose that as some reason to undo another users work. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Oh, you are so, so wrong. If internal links weren't used by google, half the of the wikipedia would have no google rank at all, they're quite often only linked internally, and further I've seen ranking change as I modify the internal links (over some weeks.)Rememberway (talk) 05:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see Template talk:Sexual slang

Please see Template talk:Sexual slang, Fred Bauder (talk · contribs) has advocated for removal of this article from the template. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Also please see Template talk:Political neologisms

Also please see Template talk:Political neologisms, there is a proposal to remove this term from that template. -- Cirt (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

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.
Consensus was ~2:1 against this proposal. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

How about retitling this article to Dan Savage Google bomb campaign against Rick Santorum, and making it a subarticle of Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality, with a {{main}} link in that article.

I think that's essentially what this article is -- a very detailed account of Dan Savage's campaign. It's not an article on a word. --JN466 00:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose. That is a very POV title. The neologism is notable. This article is about the neologism. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
    • This article is about the event, the coinage and its ramifications, not about the substance, santorum, and should be named accordingly. Santorum can be written when there are enough reliable sources covering the health implications, impact on sexual practice, uses, control, etc. of santorum. Should be moved to Coinage of the term santorum.
  • Note: This is not simply a "google bomb", remember that it began as a successful attempt to create a neologism. Get the chronology straight. -- Cirt (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
    • At any rate, it is an article on a political campaign. Linguistically, the term lacks notability; it's listed in one dictionary of slang, plus one book on neologisms, and your examples of use in literature cite four primary sources. Retitling would work, I think, and remove most of the concerns people have about this article. The article itself multiple times quotes sources referring to it as a "campaign". --JN466 00:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
      • There were three attempts to delete the article at AFD. All three failed. There were "proposals" at this page to stub it. Those failed. This is yet another type of WP:Forum shopping "proposal" on this issue. -- Cirt (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Savage has made it very clear, as reflected in this article which Cirt has done a good job on, that the whole thing is a result of "hard work" on his part to get this neologism to the top of Google's rankings. So, the real story here appears to be Savage's campaign against Santorum, and the sources appear to support that. Cla68 (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose and a trout to Jayen466 for POV pushing by completely ignoring this. --NeilN talk to me 00:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - this would be a worthwhile compromise. →StaniStani  01:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is just more whitewashing. This is the simple common name title demanded by policy. The proposal is made up, descriptive, and would not be found in any source material. I will note again that I hate having to watchlist this article simply to come by every week and oppose the latest whitewashing attempt driven by US political agendas. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Oppose per years of consensus against similar proposals.--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's not primarily a google bombing, so article name is inappropriate.Rememberway (talk) 05:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all the comments above, that would be far worse POV pushing. This is becoming a little ridiculous, again and again, a small number of users are advocating for changes because of an WP:I don't like it opinion either towards the neologism or the way in which it treats Santorum. I think we need to remember: again and again, the topic has been proved to comply with WP:Notability over the course of several years, so arguments against notability of the "neologism" are going to get a vast response of oppose and then be closed, and are almost WP:SNOW cases. I am not aware of any other way to create a major shift in focus of the article, so unless we can get another set of justifications for the changes, I believe this argument, and frankly as far as I can tell POV pushing in favor of Santorum without regards for his own admitted inability to control the viral spread of the neologism, has exhausted itself along that route. If you haven't noticed, his PR people have been doing a fairly good job at bringing other news stories to the front of google news searches. Also, if continues to make good news, I would imagine that this article would find itself below his own biography on Wikipedia (currently #3 or 4 on Wikipedia Google) and his campaign website will become far more frequently chosen on searches because of people sympathy with him. The searches are not in our control, and saying WP:I don't like it to the searches is not a reason to change content on Wikipedia, Sadads (talk) 08:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I understand the urge that some editors have to do something, anything to protect living individuals from Wikipedia articles, but this is becoming little better than forum shopping at this point. Show me a Wikipedia article about a word that is not titled with the name of that word, and then this will be something closer to a valid proposal. Gamaliel (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose for every reason listed above, especially those outlined by Sadads. Henrymrx (t·c) 16:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is beginning to have the feel of campaigning by process. The Google bombing isn't actually the issue the article is about - its entry into popular culture is. Orderinchaos 18:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Please stop obsessing about this article's Google ranking. Wikipedia articles, as a rule, rank highly in search engine results; and this article, with its neutral, dispassionate, and impeccably sourced treatment of the subject, is especially deserving of such treatment. The term santorum, if you would read the article, is used without reference to the Senator or its origins in such a diverse range of sources as erotic novels, sociological books, and medical journals. The term has long transcended both the Santorum controversy and Dan Savage, and can no longer be contained in either of their respective articles. Quigley (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. What Quigley said. And Sadads. I don't see the point of this ongoing questioning--what is this, the Spanish Inquisition? But the arguments brought to bear here are about as powerful as the soft cushions. The article is sourced, the topic is notable, there is no BLP violation since it is not a BLP and it is not about LPs. BTW, if the charge is that the very existence of this article gives rise to undue political influence, then renaming it to something somewhat silly is a roundabout way to exert political influence as well, just in the opposite direction. And the more we hear of these proposals, the more it seems that not policies, not guidelines, not standards of good article writing are at stake here, but that taste (political, sexual, whatever) is the bone of contention. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per Cla68. per WP:NOTNEWS. per WP:BLP. per WP:ATTACK. and finally per my view that this simply is not, and can not be, considered anything remotely "encyclopedic". With all due respect to Clrt and all other editors who desire such content here, this is simply a "tool" to empower one individual's vile attempt to smear another person. — Ched :  ?  23:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
    All three of your policy/guideline pointers which you are trying to generally apply are easily refuted. This is not a recent or breaking news event - it has been discussed and analyzed for years. WP:BLP is not a magic eraser that can be waved about. You have not stated how this article violates WP:NPOV, WP:V, or WP:NOR. Previously I asked if the quality of any of the sources was an issue - I didn't receive a response. Finally, WP:ATTACK states "When material is spunout of a biography of a public figure by consensus because that section of the article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it is not necessarily an attack page, even if the content in question reflects negatively upon its subject.". Rather than putting forth generalizations, pointing out specific problematic article content would be much more helpful. --NeilN talk to me 23:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to post NeilN. I'm not really interested in delving into a protracted debate here, so no I won't be pointing to individual sentences or references. I'm looking at the article in it's totality. Yes, I am well aware that the article has been around for quite some time, and that consensus is to keep it. My view however is that while we can look at the individual statements, we often fail to see the intent; a "can't see the forest for the trees" if you will. That Savage would do what he did speaks more for his own character, than it does for his victim, but I digress. Imagine if you will that we would pull out a comment or neologism from say Rush Limbaugh or even Michael Savage that was disparaging toward the current US President, or say Barney Frank. I seriously doubt that such an article would last 24 hours here to be perfectly frank. (ok, pun intended there). The point is this - to those who say that the article is not an attack on a BLP I would simply offer that perhaps they step back and look at the "concept" of this article. An article that explains why a person's last name is also one person's term for anal discharge. I'll admit that there's a whole lot of "lipstick" that's been put on this sow, but it's still a sow none-the-less; and in my opinion, no amount of lipstick, (or volume of references) can change that. While I doubt you could ever convince me to the contrary in regards to my views on this article, it does appear that you have the numbers on your side, so it likely doesn't matter much. Cheers and best, — Ched :  ?  00:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. I wasn't going to bother responding to this, because consensus that it should exist seems so clear. But of course if everyone thinks that way, consensus will never change. So I'm adding my voice to those who say this should be redirected; the content can be radically tightened and merged into Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality, because this neologism business is an extension of that. As it stands, we have a 5,000-word article that is almost a quote farm, and which is, essentially, about nothing. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 23:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Tighten up and then let's see. I also wasn't going to comment (here because I'm editing a template), but it did trouble me that the article lacked conciseness and a usual focus. In contentious topics, that's often a sign that past editors have tried to pile everything into it they can find - not a good approach for an encyclopedia. Essentially my inclination is per SlimVirgin who nails it well. But on checking the article I think there may well be more than can go into that article. It could be a legitimate spin-out. The trouble is it's so overdone right now that it's hard to tell. It badly needs cleaning up, de-quote-farming, and tightening. Articles should characterize their topic, not replicate everything ever said about it. Then see what's left. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
One thought - a better encyclopedic article would probably be the campaign rather than the neologism. If we had a more neutral title for the campaign than that proposed above, then we could put the neologism in its wider context - a word coined and widely taken up as a result of Dan Savage's stated intention to create a word or meaning that would be associated negatively as a form of mockery or rebuke to Santorum for his comments. While the neologism is notable, often a notable issue sits better as part of a broader article covering its context. Any suggestions for a better title to describe the dispute or campaign? FT2 (Talk | email) 12:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
IMHO, so much of this just seems to be a WP:CFORK of Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality that it's tough to imagine a title that isn't POV. It really does seem to be one man's campaign against another. — Ched :  ?  14:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I object to this word's being pigeonholed into a "campaign". Certainly, Savage played an early role in its introduction, but it has since taken a life of its own, independently of politics. There is no evidence that the American Dialect Society chose to recognize the word to spite the Senator, or that the safe sex books that used the word were participating in a political campaign, or that the punk rock or blues songwriters and fiction writers that adopted the word had anything to do with Rick Santorum. The term "santorum" describes a concept that is a very real part of many peoples' sex lives, which they didn't have a widely recognized word for until now. Though both Dan Savage and Rick Santorum have an interest in promoting the idea that its popularity has to do with politics, the diversity of sources that use it and recognize its use as legitimate show that the term has matured past any political "campaign". Quigley (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I have to agree. This is isn't just about Savage. Saying that it's a campaign between two people just isn't accurate. A quick check at urbandictionary.com's three pages worth of entries [8] will show that it isn't just one person spreading this word around. This has been going on for EIGHT YEARS. It may be a campaign that one person started, but lots of people have jumped on the bandwagon. If it was one person's campaign, Savage could make it go away. While I doubt that he wants to, he couldn't make this word go away if he did. Regardless of how this got started, it has a life of its own now. Henrymrx (t·c) 15:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Why not Scurrilous personal attack by degenerate gay activist Dan Savage against noble American Rick Santorum? The article is about the neologism, and that's the appropriate title. Information about the term's origin is properly contained in the article. I consider it unfortunate that people who are upset by the existence of the term therefore argue that Wikipedia shouldn't contain information about this particular fact about the world. It's almost as bad to try to use the title to minimize and belittle the subject. JamesMLane t c 15:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The usual rule on article titles is to use the common title and to prefer a short title. Given that the article is written neutrally and is not a WP:BLP violation, I see no reason to depart from the usual rule. If Senator Santorum has a Google problem, then surely it is Google's choice whether to solve it for him. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, although a better solution would be a move to Wikipedia attack on Rick Santorum or maybe just a merge into Wikipedia malfeasance. Obviously this article should not exist. Everyone understands this, including the people defending the article -- they just hate Santorum more than they love Wikipedia, is all. It's a "neologism", but does anyone actually use it? Of course not. Nobody uses this term in conversation and it is not a properly extant word in the English language. It's entirely a phenomena of editors twittering and tsk-ing over how Dan "Carl Romanelli should be dragged behind a pickup truck until there's nothing left but the rope" Savage has been so deliciously naughty again. Not a pretty sight, but enjoy your article, kids. Didn't think it was possible to give Rick Santorum the moral high ground, but you've pulled it off. Herostratus (talk) 04:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    Wow, what a stunning display of assuming bad faith. For the record, I'm not an American, don't know know who Santorum is beyond the fact he's a politician and don't really care about his politics/views. Might want to get off your high horse. --NeilN talk to me 04:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    I have to repeat the resounding Wow! And point out that though I am an American (and registered as a Republican, hoping for a more libertarian-leaning candidate to make their way onto a ballet near me in the future), I have since retreated from caring about politicians, because I have become disenchanted with the entire system. I had no idea who Santorum was until I read his biography before commenting on this article. I was even asked, to do a GA review, but turned it down partially because of it's relationship to politics. Such assumptions of bad faith are extremely inappropriate and have nothing to do with the conversation going on here of the Notability of the topic not the utility of the neologism. Please stay focused on Wikipedia, not your own political beliefs and/or high horse, whatever influenced your comment above, Sadads (talk) 09:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    Well, you both have a good point. Yes, in addition to polemicists, there are always editors who -- how to put this -- lack the subtlety of mind to understand what the Wikipedia is what we are supposed to be doing here and who are not so much deliberately ignoring WP:BLP as simply unable to understand it. In these cases a gentle nudge to venues more suited to their capacities (coloring books come to mind) might be the appropriate solution. I stand corrected. Herostratus (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as per all of the above opposes. Eight years of usage and its effect on Santorum's (the politician, not the froth) political future make this notable. And accusing Wikipedia of creating this phenomenon is simply absurd.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 08:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. This article has long since crossed the line between neutrally reporting on a campaign and participating in one and to the extent which the rules allow participating in a campaign to be considered "neutral", that's a loophole in the rules. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article is on the intentional coining of a new word and the current title reflects the article's content. Voyager640 (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per almost every other "oppose" !vote above. —Scheinwerfermann T·C07:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support (although not too fond of the proposed new title). Please someone tell me what on earth the sections "United States Senate election in Pennsylvania, 2006" and "United States presidential election, 2012" have to do with the term "Santorum"? Nothing. The article itself states, "In a May 2011 interview with The Huffington Post Savage responded to the statement that the phenomenon was 'actually wreaking havoc with [Santorum's] potential run for the presidency' by stating, 'Well, thank you. That was the plan. And did you see, he [is] now turning it into a feather in his cap. "Oh, the gays are after me and have hurt my feelings." He is definitely running for president though. Not that he'll win, or even that he thinks he'll win. Obama's going to wipe the floor with this Republican field. Santorum's campaign, just like the rest of them, is for four more years of Fox News commentator.'" Savage has made it clear that this was meant as a smear campaign against Santorum. The entire article, in fact, is about the effects of the word's usage and spread across the Internet. AKA, Savage's campaign. So, the article should be titled to reflect this. (Disclaimer: I don't agree with many of Santorum's views, including the one on homosexuality, but I also despise how Savage tries to fight hate with a smear campaign.) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 13:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
    Hey Fetchocmms, I largely agree with your assessment if in fact the majority of the news sources were treating the neologism as a product of the campaign. However, since Santorum's nomination for presidency, and pretty much since the initial bout of press coverage, the focus has been on the association of the neologism with him, not on how the word became associated, even to the point of leaving out Savage's connection to the word in some cases. I think, now, the word has taken on a life of it's own, and it's use in independent literature in small amounts further reinforces the inherent uniqueness of the term, not the campaign that placed it there, Sadads (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - as per all of what Fetchcomms says. I am also against what I see as the undue reporting of this using Wikipedia in the style of actively promoting the phrase and support a minor merge to the BLP article and a deletion of all this attacking type promotional hype of an alleged neologism that is actually only a localized partisan activist insult. Off2riorob (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
    Exactly how is Wikipedia "actively promoting the phrase"? Please point out the promotional language in the article. If it appears near the top of Google's search results, isn't Google "actively promoting the phrase"? --NeilN talk to me 15:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
    If you look past User:Off2riorob's dogwhistle doublespeak, you'll see that he's just pushing the old "Culture War" false dichotomy to construct a narrative where objective presentation of facts he doesn't agree with is a partisan promotional attack. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 07:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Precise target can be hashed out later, but the truth of the matter is that there really is no such thing as a sexual neologism called a "Santorum". I loathe Santorum's politics, but this is an artificial creation of a journalist to attack a public figure. The article is focused on the creation of and the controversy over this thing, it is not about the fake word itself. Tarc (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
    Um... I don't know how you can say the word doesn't exist or is "fake" or not mean what "some people" have claimed what it means... all words are purely product of human artifice and have no innate value. That it has only taken off in one community, doesn't mean that it is "fake" especially if others have accepted it's coinage such as various novelists and the American Dialect Society. I understand where you are coming from on the idea that the word is a political attack, but there is no way you can say that santorum is not a valid neologism in some communities. The process of creating the word is the whole point of the article, else it would not be an encyclopedia entry which digs deeper then the surface meaning of the title, it would be a dictionary entry. The neologism is a simple means to identify, per simplified naming from our naming conventions, and explores the controversy, because it ultimately surrounded the word itself, and the word is what is being commented on ever since in the news. The controversy is less important then Santorum's association with the word "santorum" in the way commentators treat it, Sadads (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
    Um I can say it because it is, y'know, true. A gay journalist who has a (quite justifiable, IMO) beef with an anti-gay politician ups and creates a word to denigrate that politician, and manages to get it google-bombed into notoriety. It is noted in the lead of the article as an example of deliberate coining. That "some communities" have started using it as a result of the deliberate coining is irrelevant. This is agenda-driven editing, plain and simple. Tarc (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
    So you don't actually think the word is fake, its just coined because of bad beef. So the word is now notorious and thus notable in and of itself? Why are you supporting a name change? I don't get your position, Sadads (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
    Facepalm Facepalm Obviously. Tarc (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
    Haha, great icon! Definitely going to reuse that one. I really don't get why you would stand by a name change on Wikipedia, when you think the word has gained noteriaty (a reason why something would be notable). I think this is the very essence of the problem with the discussion on this page, everyone is acknowledging that the word is notorious, but some people are claiming that it's notoriety (or subject to being infamous in certain circles) does not mean that it by itself is notable. I understand why the name could be objectionable on a moral ground, but we would be circumventing our own policies on notability and POV forking this content away from the the center of the discussion of the words notoriety in reliable sources: the word. That can't be considered POV editing, the content of the article can be seen as POV, but the name in this case, not so much. Sadads (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
"[T]here really is no such thing as a sexual neologism called a 'Santorum'" Only half correct: the neologism is in lower case, not upper. And do you really mean to dismiss the provided references which do, in fact, refer to this word as a neologism? To the point of actually naming a neologism of the year? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:25, 1 June 2011 (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.

Need for images?

The images in the article do nothing to improve the reader's comprehension of the topic at hand. The very same images are included in the biographies of Savage and Santorum, if the reader is interested enough to click through to those articles. Since this is largely related to a word, the images seem purely decorative. I would have simply removed them, but given the current scrutiny on this article it seems best to discuss first. Would anyone object to their removal? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The images are free use, and directly relevant to the article in the subsections in which they are discussed. There is no reason to force the reader to click to another page. Compare the number of images used at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. -- Cirt (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - the development of the word relies on the two people pictured, and they are both discussed to a great extent. Since one of our policies for high quality articles is that they be adequetly and appropriately illustrated, would you have any suggestions Delicious carbuncle as to what should illustrate the article? Would an image of santorum be approrpriate?Sadads (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
    • This article seems to be about the neologism, not the substance it refers to, so an image of santorum would not be appropriate. I fully expect, however, that one will be added eventually. As the topic is based on abstract things (coinage of a word, spread on the internet), it is difficult to say what would be an appropriate image. If no images are appropriate, I see no harm in not having an image. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Can we agree that the neologism is the product of a public dialogue/campaign between the two pictured individuals? If so would it be proper to illustrate the process with representations of the two individuals who were primary actors? This seems hardly different then adding author pictures to articles that include discussion of the creation of books, like Jonathan_Strange_&_Mr_Norrell#Composition_and_publication, or of actors on the red carpet in relationship to their role in films. I think removing the images would be contrary to common practice in literary articles on Wikipedia, and would strike me as biased against this particular article, Sadads (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
        • This article isn't about a book and it most certainly is not a dialogue between two people. This is a simple suggestion with clear rationale which I believe reflects normal practice. Rather than arguing here, I will wait for others to weigh in. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
          • I am not really seeing a cogent rationale that describes why use of images in the same manner of the Featured Article cited above by Sadads would not be appropriate. -- Cirt (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
            • That featured article uses the image of the author, not the author's targets (it's a fiction book--no real life targets). Treating it like that article means we could use the image of Savage, but not the image of Santorum (who is a victim of the campaign). Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
              • However, the creation of the neologism or the media coverage would not exist without both of the men being involved in the neologism. The process of creating the word required both of the pictured individuals acting, not just one as is the case with a novel. This would be like writing an article about a non-fictional book about a person and not including a picture of the person being treated, Sadads (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Fair use images of the two key figures discussed in the article is a no-brainer. Under this kind of overly stringent criteria, most of the images on Wikipedia could be considered "decorative". How much nitpicking do we have to do with this article? Consensus is that this is a fair, NPOV look at a notable issue. Time for everyone to move on. Gamaliel (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Since this is developing into a question-for-consensus, I would oppose removing the images. Both Santorum and Savage are directly related to the topic of this article, so it is reasonable that their images would be included as part of the article.TechBear | Talk | Contributions 19:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: fair use images relevant to the subject topic (and there are only two).--Milowent • talkblp-r 01:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Might I warn against any of you wandering down to the local pharmacy and perfoming Original Research? The article (despite the nice 'rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic' vibe you have going on here) really doesn't need a picture of the actual by-product that y'all seem determined to link to the victim. →StaniStani  01:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Original research is discouraged, but original images are, by contrast, encouraged. Please stop making bad assumptions about others' intentions. The frothy mix is legitimately discussed as a sexual issue totally apart from the term's origins; you would learn this if you read the article. For people looking to the frothy mix, rather than to bowdlerize the good Senator's history, an illustration (it needn't be a photo) could only help. Quigley (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions from User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

Per suggestions from Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) diff, I added some info critical of the santorum phenomenon, both to the body/text of the article, and to the lede/intro diff. This was reverted by Quigley (talk · contribs) diff. As an attempt at compromise between the two — I have added it back into the body/text of the article, but left it out removed from the lede/intro diff. Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

What is the purpose exactly, of smearing Savage as "a very liberal advice columnist in the alternative media who does not hide his hatred for Mr. Santorum"? Or calling his activities an "activist" act of "revenge"? The facts hidden in this nauseating anti-Savage rhetoric (Savage is a living person too, lest we forget) are already covered in the article in a neutral way (and if POV authorities are quoted, they're on the term, not on any person). I don't know how much leeway Hullaballoo Wolfowitz gave you in his directions, but to use those attack words, even in quotes—on a living person—only scores political points for Santorum. If the campaigners against this article had any credible pretense to being motivated by upholding BLP, it is now lost. Quigley (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
A valid point, I would like to hear what Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) has to say, as my edits were acting directly upon his recommendations of what to add to this article. -- Cirt (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think Quigley's point is valid; I find it hard to even see it as resonable. The article already includes descriptions of Rick Santorum that seem no less derogatory ("morally wrong," "unfit for a leadership position in the United States Senate," and the single quotation from Savage that addresses Santorum personally makes it clear that those third-party comments are reasonable characterizations of Savage's opinion.
I think the framing of the article subject as simply a "neologism" is a fundamental error. It's closer in nature to an internet meme or a "political meme", and the motivations of those promoting its circulation are not simply valid concerns for an encyclopedia article, they are necessary concerns. No one would reasonably question reporting the commercial motives for a meme propagated to promote a product. Writing this article without some focus on Savage's motives would be like writing the "birther" article with mentioning the well-reported suspicions of underlying elements of racism. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
One of the reasons that I thought the suggestions by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz were a good idea, and indeed, I implemented them myself directly into the article, is that I believe it makes sense to present multiple different viewpoints as given in secondary sources. Actually, one of the sources recommended by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was already given prominent coverage in the lede/intro of the article, prior to his suggestion to add more from it. -- Cirt (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
The article contains no equivalent on Santorum for the direct and personal attack on Savage that was suggested. "Morally wrong" and unfit for leadership was Howard Dean's description of Santorum's antigay remarks: "attacking people because of who they are". It was not a description of Santorum's person, as the the attack on Savage was. The suggested additions are not only unhelpful but also unnecessary: there is already an extensive section that neutrally explains Savage's motivations for the coining, both the rational and the visceral, in the "contest" section of the article. Furthermore, the politics reached its peak at the coining: 2003. The sexual term has since dwarfed the political controversy, which happened almost a decade ago. Now, the comparison to the birther conspiracy is irresponsible if taken too far. It has parallels in that by documenting and expanding both articles, we are not inherently taking a side. But the comparison stops there: whereas the birthers may have bigoted motives, Savage was reacting to bigotry by Santorum. It is a moot point, since Savage does not control the term anymore, as it is more sexual slang than political slang. Quigley (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope we can at least agree on a compromise between Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Quigley — namely, to keep the suggested additions in the body/text of the article, but leave them out of the prominent placement of the lede/intro for now. -- Cirt (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I can agree to a consistent application of the rules: if BLP strictly applies, then existence of the columnists' personal attacks on Savage anywhere on the article is unacceptable and uncompromisable. If BLP does not strictly apply, then we should work out parallel language for Santorum. Quigley (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with Quigley's interpretation of BLP. BLP does not prohibit us from reporting facts about living persons, including facts about opinions, including facts about uncomplimentary opinions. The opinions we report don't have to be well founded. They need only be significant and relevant to the subject of the article. Sometimes, an unfounded attack is significant enough to have its own article (such as John Kerry military service controversy).
The article at hand isn't about attacks on Savage. Therefore, a generalized attack on Savage would not be relevant. It is relevant, however, to report a significant comment about the subject of the column (this coinage), even if that comment takes the form of an attack on Savage. (One qualification is that we don't need to quote every example of a derogatory opinion. Fair reporting of each POV will suffice.)
This instance is on the borderline. From the link I gather that Vasillaros is a regular columnist for the second-largest newspaper in the second-largest city in Santorum's state. If that's so, then I'd say he's a prominent spokesperson. In this instance, his column isn't about Santorum or santorum, but about the nasty words you can find through Google. His slam at Savage and at the "santorum" saga is just an aside in that context. The quotation would more clearly merit inclusion if it were more closely related to the subject of the column, and hence something representing more consideration than just a nasty aside. Overall, though, given that Vasillaros is a columnist in Pennsylvania, I lean toward inclusion.
The Mother Jones characterization of the whole thing is clearly significant, but it's biased to use only the selective quotation in the diff given at the top of this thread. The magazine actually said that Savage acted "[i]n revenge for some nasty homophobic comments Santorum made...." The "revenge" term, by itself, ascribes to Savage a motive that many readers would consider ignoble. It should be put in context by the inclusion of the next seven words, which for many readers would change their evaluation.
Neither of these quotations is important enough to include in the introductory section. JamesMLane t c 03:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Alright, well, seems okay for the body/text, but we appear to be forming a consensus not to have those particular quotes in the lede/intro. -- Cirt (talk) 03:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Trim background?

The background section seems a bit long, especially in the context of the subject. I'm proposing removing the second and later paragraphs, which are basically, "reactions and responses to Santorum's comments." Those reactions and responses don't really have anything directly to do with the term "santorum." The section links off to Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality which seems an better place for that information. Oddly, these paragraphs seem better fleshed out than that article, so perhaps they should be migrated and integrated there. — Alan De Smet | Talk 05:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I have implemented part of this suggestion, and greatly reduced the size of that section, diff. However, I think at this point the remainder can be retained, in its greatly reduced format from previous. Of course, if you wish to use the prior text and sources to improve the other related articles, that would be great as well. :) -- Cirt (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Update: Trimmed down the sect size even more, diff. Hopefully that is satisfactory, in a comparison with the prior version. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 07:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Changes by User Off2riorob

Consensus from the Community expressed above, at Talk:Santorum_(neologism)#Proposal, does not support these changes. Please, do not make such changes to the focus of the lede/intro of this article, when consensus at Talk:Santorum_(neologism)#Proposal opposes this. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

That is a very limited consensus, with only a few experienced contributors. Clearly this article has multiple issues and in the near future we are going to require a wider discussion regarding it. Off2riorob (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I see at least 23 editors that have commented there. That is not a "very limited consensus". That is more than comment at most article talk page content WP:RFCs. It is a solid consensus against these changes. -- Cirt (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I realize you will defend this bloated attack piece with all your skills (that is actually what I find most disturbing) but you have to realize or at least have noticed that many experienced editors disagree with your massive expansion of it and at some point it will require wider input and a community RFC. Off2riorob (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Many experienced editors have also expressed their disagreement with the proposed change, and it has been the topic of wider discussions e.g. at BLPN as you might recall. No doubt these discussions will continue; perhaps they will even be characterized by good faith. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Good faith is not closing your eyes to what you can clearly see. Off2riorob (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
The article has already been through three AFDs, and a "proposal to stub" the article. All of those efforts to disappear this article have failed. Clearly the community is not in support of doing that. -- Cirt (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Campaign_for_the_neologism_%22santorum%22/Archive_2&oldid=1136588947"