Talk:Santorum

This redirect was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on 28 July 2011. The result of the discussion was Keep as a redirect to current target..

Apologies

Apologies for reinstating the disambiguation page but as someone who heard about the sexual connotations of "Santorum" before ever hearing about the senator, I feel pretty strongly about this. Regardless of your politics, "Santorum" is now recognised in many places that neither know nor care about the Rickster. veghead 23:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The disambiguation page already exists at Santorum (disambiguation). I've reverted this back to a redirect to Rick Santorum as per existing consensus, and restored the hatnote on that article to direct readers to the disambiguation page. Powers ^T 02:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK sorry - I missed the disambiguation page. Could you point me to a reference to this "consensus" as I've been unable to find it. Thanks veghead 10:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santorum - latest AfD
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Santorum - straw poll
Talk:Santorum (disambiguation) - the long sordid history

Powers ^T 19:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair play - I stand corrected :) veghead 21:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing relative importance

As Santorum lost his senate bid, he's becoming less of a politically important figure. As the use of santorum as sexual slang increases (as evidenced by the last comment), the relative importance of the two change, thereby meriting reconsideration of the value of the disambiguation page. That something was resolved in the past does not mean that is a static and unchangeable decision any more than English is a static language.NickGorton 16:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What "last comment" do you mean? Regardless, it's true that the decision need not be static, though I would at least wait until Sen. Santorum is out of office before bothering with a new discussion. Powers ^T 14:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of anon edits have recently moved the target to the dab page; I've reverted a couple of times, since I think that at least a discussion is warranted prior to changing the existing consensus. For myself, I think the target should remain the senator, since I suspect both he will decline in notability no faster than the other possible targets. If anyone disagrees, let's talk. Mike Christie (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another revert today for the same reason as above. If we need to change the target, we can, but given the history of discussion I don't think this should be done unilaterally. As it stands I would still think the ex-senator is the natural target for the redirect. Mike Christie (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having never heard of the senator, I disagree.

If you can get consensus for your view, we can change it. Consensus has to come first though, given the history of this discussion. Mike Christie (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was maintain the status quo for now, considering that there is an article on Sen. Santorum's wife. —harej (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Santorum → Santorum (disambiguation) — The recent move reversed a consensus established through a couple of AfDs and much discussion, and I believe the move should be reversed pending the discussion to avoid a controversial move achieving a fait accompli. The "Santorum" page should redirect to Rick Santorum; the disambig page should not be the default. Some relevant discussions can be seen here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santorum - latest AfD; Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Santorum - straw poll; and Talk:Santorum (disambiguation). I don't think Russ acted in bad faith in making this move, but given the history, and especially given the fact that controversial moves should be discussed first, I think it would be better to reverse this prior to the discussion. Mike Christie (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The length and argumentativeness of the controversy in Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Santorum seem to indicate a verdict no concensus. I am tempted as a casting vote to let the plain name be the disambig page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is worth noting that the original move to use Santorum as a disambig rather than as a redirect to the Senator was done at the time that some editors were trying to increase the visibility of the slang term Santorum (sexual slang) as much as possible. I felt at the time that the move to the disambig page was possibly intended by some as a way of increasing the visibility of the slang term. (I can try to find diffs if that would be useful; the slang term was a political action that was intended to annoy the Senator, so it's in line with the intent of the term to promote it in this way.) In other words, there appeared to me to be a risk that some of the arguments were bad faith attempts to push an anti-Santorum political viewpoint. I think the courtesy that Xoloz mentions is still warranted; and I also feel that the status quo ante should be preserved if there is truly no consensus, otherwise there is an incentive to do a pre-emptive move in a controversial case. Mike Christie (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, Rick Santorum and his wife shouldn't even be on the dab page, per MOS:DABNAME. If there was a Santorum (surname) page, that could be linked from the dab, and he could be mentioned on it. If such a page isn't created, this would appear to be an unambiguous title--only one link would be applicable--which would in fact be an argument for bringing the neologism here (not a solution that I'm totally comfortable with). Dekimasuよ! 14:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a reasonable argument. I'd still somewhat prefer to revert to the previous state, but I suppose if things stay as they are MOS:DABNAME is a reasonable justification. Mike Christie (talk) 10:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If moved, please move this list of surname-holders to Santorum (surname). -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

BLP noticeboard discussion

I have started a discussion at the BLP noticeboard about this article, Rick Santorum, and santorum (sexual neologism) that editors here may wish to join. Mike Christie (talk – library) 10:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Layout of this page

Strictly by the MOS, neither the amendment nor controversy articles should be listed and the link to the former Senator should be a hatnote on the top of a renamed santorum article. But the mere existence of this page is a careful compromise while a political war erupts around santorum (neologism). So rather than undo the compromise, however temporary it may be, it's best to follow the MOS as best we can this this deliberate kludge of a disambiguation page. Applying IAR here would only spread the disaster unfolding slowly on the term's talk page. - Dravecky (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC) http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Santorum+joins+race+president/4899955/story.html[reply]

Hi Dravecky. I'm aware of the battle around the neologism article, and have read most of the background. I agree the controversy and amendment articles should be moved to See also, and would be happy to do the move – neither subject is ever likely to be referred to by the disambiguated term only. Santorum is, however, frequently referred to simply as Santorum, so it is reasonable for him to appear in the disambiguation list. It is also functional for readers to find the article they're most likely to be looking for at the top of the list. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without solid evidence as to which article readers are seeking when they enter simply "santorum" (as opposed to the former Senator's full name), one normally turns to Google ranking and, well... Any reader seeking the person will have their eye drawn past the list to the "Persons with the surname" header. - Dravecky (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. So, because Google returns Wikipedia's article on the neologism above the article on the politician, we would ordinarily conclude that more readers are searching Wikipedia for the neologism than the politician when they type in "santorum"? Have I got that right? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a point of information, one would think it far more accurate and sensible to compare the Wikipedia stats on the two actual articles. That would be word and person. Except for this recently manufactured 'controversy', far more people over time have been looking for the person. Flatterworld (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Flatterworld, that seems reasonable. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i will only point out that the two links are identical and thus useless for comparison. -badmachine 17:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note

For several reasons, among them WP:BLP, I've moved the disambiguation page to Santorum (disambiguation), and this page now directly redirects to Rick Santorum. I've had to leave this talk page here, because Talk:Santorum (disambiguation) already exists, and is much more heavily edited. I don't think a hist merge would work, that would gum it up even more. However,

Further comments about the disambiguation page should go on Talk:Santorum (disambiguation).

I'm pulling the WP:BLP card, here, too. Please do not redirect this page to the disambiguation page without consensus here first (unlike the normal WP:BRD process). --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since this disambiguation page was an admitted kludge, containing multiple otherwise improper entries to justify its existence, it can be deleted entirely and the sole bit of remaining disambiguation handled with a hatnote pointing to the neologism. - Dravecky (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, I suppose. In practice, in a serious encyclopedia that has anything close to a functioning BLP policy, I am not going to have a hatnote that says "For the mixture of lube and fecal matter, see..." (or even anything slightly more reasonable, like "for the sexual slang term" or similar) at the top of a BLP. I'm unhappy with the (indirect) prominence the hatnote I put up gives to the attack phrase as it is, but given the existence of the attack phrase article, I couldn't justify not linking at least to the dab page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How BLP justifies no longer having a term go to a disambiguation page I would like to hear. Gacurr (talk) 01:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is unreasonable to have a reader type in the name of a well known (in the US) politician, and have the first item on the list be an attack phrase based on his name. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an opinion, not universally shared, not apparently based in policy. Unilateral action in the face of so much compromise and discussion seems a bigger violation of the principles of collaboration and cooperation. - Dravecky (talk) 02:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am comfortable, and pretty confident, in my interpretation of BLP as it applies here. I'm sorry you view that as uncooperative; I don't think it is, but I regret you think so. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A reader is not typing in Rick Santorum. They are typing in santorum or Santorum. It is ambiguous whether this should go to the politician article or the sexual neologism article. Having a list present these options in no way violates the BLP policy, at least in no way that you have explained. Gacurr (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. This has absolutely nothing to do with BLP. Sending "Rick Santorum" to the dab page automatically would be inappropriate, but "santorum"... no. 74.102.164.44 (talk) 08:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded rationale

I'm operating on following basis:

We shouldn't delete the article on the attack phrase, because a couple (I think; there was at least one) AFD discussions were closed "keep", and because it is sourced so it doesn't violate the letter of the BLP policy, and because it is a notable meme and should probably have an article at some name.
If we're going to have an article on the attack phrase, it needs to be able to be found when you type that phrase into the search box.
In a serious encyclopedia that has anything close to a functioning BLP policy, we don't want an attack phrase to be the first thing people see when they type the last name of a living person into the search box. I am distressed that not everyone agrees with this basic fact, but it really can't be otherwise.
All the other articles at the disambiguation page are related to the politician. He is fundamentally the primary topic; the other topics are, by definition, secondary. When there is a clear primary topic, the redirect goes to that page, not the dab page.
When a name has a primary topic, the dab page always notes the primary topic first, and other possibilities below.
Per (2), we have to have a hatnote to the dab page in the politician's article, as uncomforatble as I am about that.
In a serious encyclopedia that has anything close to a functioning BLP policy, I am not going to have a hatnote that says "For the mixture of lube and fecal matter, see..." at the top of a BLP. Thus, the hatnote is to the dab page instead, even if the dab page is a kludge.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A less provocative hatnote might read '"Santorum" redirects here. For the sexual neologism coined by Dan Savage, see santorum (neologism).' As far as the forward goes, looking at the half-dozen immediate past US presidents, Reagan goes to RWR's article, Carter goes to a disambiguation page that mentions JEC in the lead, Bush goes to a disambiguation page that does not mention GHWB or GWB at all, Clinton goes to a hndis page where WJC (and HRC) aren't mentioned until the third grouping of names, and Ford goes right to Ford Motor Company. That's not so much a pattern as a wheel of chance when you type in a last name. Still, 4 out of the 6 (counting Bush twice) go to disambiguation pages, not right to the politician. - Dravecky (talk) 04:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That has to do with the fact that 4 of the 6 are names where we have a lot of articles for people with that name, and a primary topic isn't obvious. That isn't the case here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dravecky: Exactly. You don't put in the disambiguation page to keep the phrase from appearing at the top of the BLP, you just don't put the phrase at the top of the BLP in the first place. Your suggested hatnote doesn't mention lube or fecal matter at all, and we don't need to do put that in. Ken Arromdee (talk) 05:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A hatnote at the top of an article that says anything like that is still a problem, just not as serious a problem. --Floquenbeam (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Floquenbeam; I think the new situation accurately reflects BLP and gives the prominence to Savage's coinage that it deserves -- no more and no less. It was a successful political act by Savage and that's recognized by the hatnote; more would go beyond acknowledging notability and would function to continue the political attack. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Floquenbeam. Much of the effort exerted to claim greater importance for the phrase is, I think, thinly-veiled attempts top further the attack.RoteMemorization (talk) 12:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this page protected?

Why? I haven't gotten a response yet on the admin's talk page [1] B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 16:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. The edit summary claims an edit war was in progress when, in fact, no edits had been made in 10 days. - Dravecky (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate redirect.

This page should not be an automatic redirect to Rick Santorum. It should go to the dab page. 74.102.164.44 (talk) 08:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may do, depending on the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santorum (disambiguation) (2nd nomination). Josh Parris 06:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

in fact, it did, until about seven months ago, after this discussion. -badmachine 06:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]