:: I think Zen has made a valid point. You've taken pot shots at Wiktionary policy and other editors here in an attempt to discredit them (in violation of [[WP:CIVIL]]), but you haven't actually given any real rational arguments beyond "my way or the highway". Saying something like "this is not a word because it's used to make a point" is just obstructing proper discussion by dodging the question, it's a kind of [[Moving the goalposts]] fallacy. You can't blame others for ignoring your views if you don't want to discuss them. It makes it come across almost as POV-pushing. [[User:CodeCat|CodeCat]] ([[User talk:CodeCat|talk]]) 17:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
:: I think Zen has made a valid point. You've taken pot shots at Wiktionary policy and other editors here in an attempt to discredit them (in violation of [[WP:CIVIL]]), but you haven't actually given any real rational arguments beyond "my way or the highway". Saying something like "this is not a word because it's used to make a point" is just obstructing proper discussion by dodging the question, it's a kind of [[Moving the goalposts]] fallacy. You can't blame others for ignoring your views if you don't want to discuss them. It makes it come across almost as POV-pushing. [[User:CodeCat|CodeCat]] ([[User talk:CodeCat|talk]]) 17:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
:::It would probably be [[WP:OR|when there are reliable sources that have come to the conclusion so that Wikipedia editors are not making analysis]]. -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;;;">TRPoD <small>aka The Red Pen of Doom</small></span>]] 18:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
:::It would probably be [[WP:OR|when there are reliable sources that have come to the conclusion so that Wikipedia editors are not making analysis]]. -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;;;">TRPoD <small>aka The Red Pen of Doom</small></span>]] 18:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
:::Your "analysis" of the discussion thus far is quite divorced from reality. I ridicule Wikitionary because it has no little-to-no standards for inclusion, and note that if Robin tried to pull on e.wiki what he got away with at the wiktionary, the article would be deleted due to lack of [[WP:RS|reliable sourcing]] and zero [[WP:N|notability]]. Having an article at the wiktionary on "Lewinsky" or "santorum" does not go one iota towards establishing notability ''here''. Understood? [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 18:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Revision as of 18:15, 22 February 2013
Campaign for the neologism "santorum" was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GoogleWikipedia:WikiProject GoogleTemplate:WikiProject GoogleGoogle articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
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.
Should the infobox for the campaign website (shown on the right) be included in the article, or excluded from the article?
FurrySings (talk) 10:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No - This is patently ridiculous and should not even be subjected to yet another tiresome RfC. The article isn't about the website, so a website infobox has no place on this article. All this is is a attempt to get the "frothy mixture" faux definition to as high of a prominence as possible. Tarc (talk) 12:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No - Also, this shows (again) that the only reason for this article is to attack a living person. Thankfully, now that Santorum is out of the race this probably won't require much discussion. Arzel (talk) 13:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No - category mistake. The notable information in this article is less about the website specifically and more about the prominence of the new definition in search returns. In other words the website infobox does not in any way summarize the most important baseline info in the article the way it does for, say, Slashdot. The new definition isn't a "slogan" either. If a slogan does a similar job to a euphemism, inwardly directed, then the new definition does a similar job to a dysphemism, outwardly directed. This particular infobox is an ill-advised attempt to slot a star-shaped peg into a round hole. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 15:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No - This article is about the campaign, not the website, as has been previously established. Thus, adding an infobox about the website would confuse readers on the focus and scope of this page. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No - From my edit summary: Not about website but about campaign, link already present [at bottom of article] --NeilNtalk to me 17:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No - Unencyclopedic, offputting, info about a living person, etc. (And this is from someone who would love to see the "Spreading Santorum" campaign continue to experience great success.)Dr.queso = talk 05:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No - As a non-American who finds Santorum's politics repulsive I nevertheless regard the inclusion of the article as questionable to begin with since the alleged neologism isn't really in use as common word anywhere outside partisan US party-politics; that in itself raises the issue of whether Wikipedia has been subverted to add legitimacy to a smear campaign that is not encyclopaedic in any sense. As with so many other articles here, attempting to add credibility to a topic by including every possible factoid and neckbeard trivia item is plainly juvenile. We might as well fabricate some imagined reference/mention on the Simpsons or Jersey Shore. Peter S Strempel | Talk 10:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No - Unencyclopedic, quasi-advertising, quasi-POV push. Carrite (talk) 02:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Moving intro to article to Dan Savage article
I've moved the introduction to this article to the Dan Savage article where it belongs. Redirect article to Dan Savage. WP:BOLD Z554 (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't make a fool of yourself, Z554; there's consistently been consensus to keep this. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You could have said "Z554 - there's consistently been consensus to keep this" without being uncivil. "Consensus" at WP is a case of one group of POV editors having numerical superiority of the editors of the opposing POV. This article is an obvious libel, it is kept here to perpetuate the libel though a mention of the controversy is in the Dan Savage article, where it should be in the first place. Z554 (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the consensus is that it's not libellous, because that issue has already been discussed. Therefore, your actions constitute POV pushing as they do not represent the majority view. CodeCat (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this article is obviously not libel because we have not made false claims about anybody. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is a suggestion with merit, but it'll never happen; a perfect storm of inclusionists, liberal-leaners, and LGBT activists have expressed a vested interest in seeing this article remain in place as a continuation of Dan Savage's original campaign. Be thankful that we were at least able to steer the thrust of the article away from a "definition" of a faux word and towards Savage's antics, that's no small feat around here. Tarc (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion about the definition at the time was diverted mostly to the Wiktionary entry, but Wiktionary has stricter and more objective inclusion/deletion policies so it never got anywhere. CodeCat (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ha. That is pretty funny. I suppose by stricter you must mean, I saw it on some website. Thankfully there exist real dictionaries, but I suppose if people would like an alternate to the Urban Dictionary, they can go to Wiktionary for a good laugh. Arzel (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh yes, your old failed argument of wiktionary citations to Usenet groups and other unreliable sources. Still beating that drum, Robin? Comments from LGBT activists out in discussion threads on the internet do not make a word "real", it just makes them part of Savage's anti-Santorum agenda. Tarc (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc, please don't categorize people along putative "activist" lines. I just reverted yet another attempt to pretend this is actual slang, yet I'd fit neatly in your categorization above. — Coren(talk) 02:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Coren, we both know that Robin Lionheart and Insomesia are making these edits/arguments for the same exact reason; the only difference here is that your words to the latter were delivered in a gentler and less dickish manner than I choose to employ. Potayto, Potahto. Tarc (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, Tarc, that was me refuting your failed argument, once again. Furthermore, meaningful usage in erotic literature, poetry, and music actually does make a word “real”. And even if you were right to assume everyone who used a particular word did so with a political agenda, how much less of a word would it be? Answer: not one iota. Frex, the word feminazi has an overt political agenda, but we nevertheless have a definition for it. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't make it not a word, it makes it not genuine sexual slang. The same way bandersnatch isn't a genuine zoological term. — Coren(talk) 17:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Meaningful usage in erotic literature does make it genuine sexual slang, too. Even if it were imaginary like a bandersnatch, that would not matter. The "dirty Sanchez" would remain genuine sexual slang, even if no one ever actually performed it (though I don't doubt some coprophilic couple somewhere has). ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My take on this one is that Tarc and others similarly disposed can't have it both ways. This article was moved from "santorum (neologism)" to "Campaign for 'santorum" neologism" on the grounds that there wasn't actually a neologism. If the argument now is that the article is about a campaign not a word (so, don't do anything to treat it as a word), then given evidence that there's usage of a word we would have to move the article back to "santorum (neologism)" if one believes that it's unacceptable to indicate a word here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You two can keep on bleating that tune, but it won't make a falsehood any more true. Any usage in gay fiction or conversation or anywhere else is of a garden variety "let's make a point" nature, it isn't being used because a person actually thinks that "santorum" means what Savage concocted it to mean, any more than someone discussing oral sex literally believes "a Lewinsky" is legitimately synonymous for oral sex. At most, the faux-"santorum" is analogous to xkcd and the malamanteau situation from a year or so ago. Tarc (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm -- that seems insufficiently specific: surely a Lewinsky has to be performed in the office of a person exercising a certain degree of power. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the 2011 quote from Rush Limbaugh saying that HPV and throat cancer are "spread by Lewinskys" suggests otherwise. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lulz, are you really basing your argument on the entry that you very pointily created mere minutes ago? The wiktionary has virtually no standards for notability or sourcing, it is a ridiculous playground on par with the idiocy and general shallowness of the Wikipedia Commons. En.Wikipedia, thankfully, has something called "standards"; this equally fake neologism was deleted awhile ago. Tarc (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not a dictionary concept. Attestation is. Language is not just used by notable sources, and Wiktionary documents slang words used by everyday people too. (Frex, February 21's Word of the Day, jump the shark.) ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, as your fabricated submission over there still stands unchallenged. The Wiktionary Playground rules don't carry any weight over there, thankfully. Tarc (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any usage in gay fiction or conversation or anywhere else is of a garden variety "let's make a point" nature, it isn't being used because a person actually thinks that "santorum" means what Savage concocted it to mean
And this is the crux of it right here. It is conceivable that this is still as true today as it was in 2003. It is also conceivable that it is no longer true. For Tarc/Coren/anyone else who wants to jump in: What are the conditions under which you would say it's no longer true, that is, what would a citation or set of citations have to look like for you to say, "Welp, looks like this has now become a real word."? I think defining a falsifiable set of criteria would go a long way toward putting this to rest. The current arguments against including the slang template might look to some editors like begging the question. I don't say that's what you're doing here (I agree that there doesn't seem to be much evidence that it's caught on in per se usage as opposed to winking-every-time, though it does seem to be on its way there, slowly), but there certainly has been a healthy dose of that in past discussions. So where does the campaign have to wind up for Wikipedia to return to describing the neologism as factually an existing word? Once that's defined, I think both sides of this contention will be happier. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 17:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably never. Tarc (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Zen has made a valid point. You've taken pot shots at Wiktionary policy and other editors here in an attempt to discredit them (in violation of WP:CIVIL), but you haven't actually given any real rational arguments beyond "my way or the highway". Saying something like "this is not a word because it's used to make a point" is just obstructing proper discussion by dodging the question, it's a kind of Moving the goalposts fallacy. You can't blame others for ignoring your views if you don't want to discuss them. It makes it come across almost as POV-pushing. CodeCat (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your "analysis" of the discussion thus far is quite divorced from reality. I ridicule Wikitionary because it has no little-to-no standards for inclusion, and note that if Robin tried to pull on e.wiki what he got away with at the wiktionary, the article would be deleted due to lack of reliable sourcing and zero notability. Having an article at the wiktionary on "Lewinsky" or "santorum" does not go one iota towards establishing notability here. Understood? Tarc (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
