Oppose

1. Oppose: there's no rationale provided to explain why this change is needed or desirable, and I think it's undesirable, not least for deletion of large amounts of useful content. That content offends a number of people, but that's not a reason for deletion. The sources demonstrate its usage, easily satisfying WP:N. The idea that by documenting this we are participating in a campaign somehow is barely comprehensible, let alone persuasive. The entire proposal runs counter to the notion of building an encyclopedia. On process: since the proposal essentially amounts to deletion of the article as an article, it ought to go through AfD -- and I surmise that the reason it hasn't been proposed this way is that there have been three previous AfDs. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose Per reasons given by Sadads, and also the argument given in my posts on WikiEN-l here and here. How Google ranks our article is not our concern. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose for the same reason given in the above requested move, and also for this rather more fundamental reason: This is an encyclopaedia with a neutral point of view. We cannot endorse a political criticism of Rick Santorum made through an offensive criticism, and nor can we take the view that such a criticism should be rejected. Nor can we endorse the view that this mode of politics is either legitimate or illiegitimate. The proposal invites us implicitly to say that it is illegitimate as a mode of politics and/or that the criticism is vitiated by its offensiveness. That amounts to endorsing a point of view and breaks one of the three core content policies. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose per my reasoning above in discussions. We have alot of sources and a lot of commentary from news sources on the word itself or focusing on the word, sometimes getting to the point of even dropping the idea of Savage having ever been involved in the creation of the word. Because the commentary, especially since the nomination of Santorum for the presidency, focuses on the word, the word should be the centre of our article, Sadads (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. oppose there is no reason for such a large amount of content from such a large number of very reliable sources over such a large span of time that has survived numerous AfD proposals and other attempts to remove it should be wiped away. The continued forum shopping regarding this article is approaching absurd AND disgusting.Active Banana (^bananaphone 13:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   In addition if this were such an obvious case of BLP violation, then someone would have had the balls to actually stand up and delete it per "removed immediately and without waiting for discussion".Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

6. Oppose. Article should remain Santorum (neologism). The word itself is the article topic; it got past Dan Savage pretty quickly and became a Google bomb. It's bigger than Dan Savage's original campaign. Binksternet (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Strong oppose As a general principle, fallout is not Wikipedia's concern. I note articles like this and this. The two sentences on the term in his biography underplay the notability of this term to his life, and this lack of coverage amounts to censorship. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 13:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose. Essentially agree with comments by Sadads diff, Active Banana diff, and Binksternet diff. There were three attempts to get this article deleted through WP:AFD — all three failed. There were multiple "proposals" to essentially disappear most of the content of this article, with plenty of notice given and discussions across multiple forums — those proposals failed to gain consensus. From a preponderance of prior discussions, recent and old, AFDs and "proposals", the community supports keeping this article, and not disappearing its content from Wikipedia. -- Cirt (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. oppose Prior consensus not to change. Article is reliably sourced and is of clear importance enough to have its own article. We're ot taking political sides: if someone elsewhere on the political spectrum had a word associated with them that got this much attention we'd have an article on that too. Having a shortened article is also a non-starter- once we've got an article, having a shorter article doesn't help in any way other than to remove sourced information (does one think that an article that is about an unpleasant coinage somehow becomes better if the article is shorter?). JoshuaZ (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Strong Oppose. I'm disappointed how many editors above seem to be citing the concerns of fallout for the Santorum presidential campaign rather than encyclopedic concerns about the article's notability. This has numerous reliable sources and is clearly notable in its own right. It may be an offensive campaign, but it exists and has been widely covered, and there seems to be little dispute over that. Suggesting that we should hide it deeper within Wikipedia to change Santorum's Google results does not strike me as a legitimate reason for a merge and deletion of content.Khazar (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I could, however, get behind a proposal to rename or reframe this article as some have proposed here, rather than essentially deleting it per SlimVirgin. Khazar (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

11. Strong Oppose. This "controversy" has been discussed to death on this page, at BLP/N [12], and in other places at other times. Those who take issue with this article, but cannot make a compelling policy-based argument for its deletion or rename, seem to be taking a policy shopping approach: If it can't be deleted, let's rename it without a redirect, which is virtually the same thing. Renaming the article as proposed would make it harder to find: the current title is the most correct short summary of its contents—see WP:PRECISE. It is a distasteful topic, but it is a notable one, and it has survived repeated attempts [13][14][15] to delete it. Finally, the proposal flies in the face of WP:TITLECHANGES: "In discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is 'right' in a moral or political sense." Heck, adopting this proposal would flout most of WP:TITLE. Given WP:NEO, I could get behind a proposal to refactor the article away from the neologism and toward the controversy, with an attendant rename to reflect the new direction, but I do not think that deleting the article entirely is appropriate. As the proposal on the table would be essentially indistinguishable from deletion, I still have to oppose it. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose I personally think the balance things are at now is about right - a solid, referenced article presenting both sides of what appears to be an unusual and notable story. The fact is our readers already know about it - they would be aware of perhaps a more crass version of the story and, I think, would be inclined to a measure of sympathy for the guy upon reading all the facts. As I said before, Wikipedia can't change history, only report on it - and I'm entirely in agreement with Macwhiz above. Orderinchaos 15:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose - quite unnecessary, and leaning too much to the supportive point of view on BLPs, rather than neutral. Is also, functionally, a proposal for deletion that is not on AFD - David Gerard (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose - as per several previous failed attempts at decontenting or deleting this article. This "deliberate coining" is definitely notable. Also, seePolicy Shopping.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose. How many times do I have to type oppose this month? It's nice that this discussion is finally centralized, but I think that it will simply move onto another forum after this. This is the worst case of forum shopping I've ever seen. Editors are unwilling to make the distinction between attacking Santorum and recording notable attacks on Santorum documented by 132 reliable sources. We are not attacking him, we are not perpetuating an attack, we are documenting an attack, and that's what we should be doing because that's our job, to document the world through reliable sources. It is not our job to protect Santorum from the world or the news media or Dan Savage. That's not what BLP is about and it would stretch BLP far out of its intended shape to make our job the world's slander and libel police. It's like the famous photograph of the dying girl and the vulture. We didn't starve the girl, we didn't put the vulture there. We just took the photograph. You might find the photograph distasteful, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT does not equal BLP. We already have articles documenting fabricated attacks on living individuals, so there's no reason to delete this one beyond irrelevant personal distaste. Gamaliel (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose: both on practical grounds and on procedural grounds. The "attempt to create" a neologism is past; the neologism has already entered sexual slang independently of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia's documentation of certain subjects, sexual or not, is not an endorsement of them. To the contrary, effectively deleting this article—without the safeguards of AfD—to ingratiate ourselves to a polarizing former politician is taking a side for that politician's antigay polemics. Neutral and complete coverage of notable topics, as this article represents, is Wikipedia's most primal purpose. Quigley (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose Merge The dead controversy which erupted when the Senator indicated that homosexuals were child rapists and dog molesters (an attack we participate and lend weight to by ignoring WP:FRINGE and BLP implications) is a different and less notable topic than this active attack. The article needs proper editing. But the coinage, the meaning, the length of the campaign, the dialect society note, the political implications, and responses to this campaign by the Senator are encyclopedic topics. The center of this article is a campaign, not a neologism. A better title would indicate that. --99.38.149.170 (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note to closing administrator this IP address has made only this single edit- This template must be substituted. Off2riorob (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

18. Oppose. Notability seems adequate for a stand-alone article. Current title consistent with WP naming conventions. The existence of a neutrally-worded, well-written article on a notable neologism implies neither endorsement nor condemnation of the neologism's usage on the part of Wikipedia. Rivertorch (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
19. Strong oppose. Given how recently similar proposals have been rejected by the community, this RFC is, itself, inappropriate. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose for the how manyteenth time this month? This is the most common disambiguated name, so it does not need to be renamed. Length is not an issue, we should document to any reasonable length as long as the sources support it. I am particularly tired of the forum shopping, canvassing and repeatedly asking essentially the same questions. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
21. Strong oppose - Oh, bloody... not again. How many times do we need to have this same conversation? Stop flogging this horse, it is dead. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 22:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose. The article is noteworthy.76.231.29.54 (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note to the closing administrator - this IP address has made only two edits to the wikipedia. This template must be substituted. - Off2riorob (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

23. Oppose. It's already out there, and I think this is an appropriate way of covering it. User:Blueporch, 5 June 2011. —Preceding undated comment added 01:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
24. Oppose. The current name is fundamentally accurate, while the proposed alternative is clunky and poorly-worded. The basic fact is that this is a real neologism at this point, not merely one event; what this proposal really amounts to is a backdoor AFD for an accurate article. Wikipedia has the responsibility to ensure that its articles are accurate, verifiable, noteworthy, and encyclopedic, but it is absolutely not encyclopedic to try and use Wikipedia to delete an extant neologism from existence simply because its existence is potentially offensive. --Aquillion (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
25. Oppose – Should Hooverville be merged into Herbert Hoover? Protecting a person's reputation from neologisms that are documented by experts outside of Wikipedia isn't our job. If merged, then POV-pushers would find it easier to minimize coverage of this term in favor of the other events on the Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality page by claiming that the neologism is given undue weight in comparison to that article's other sections. Merging will result in a tremendous lost of information. Most other points have been covered above, so per the other "oppose" !voters above. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
26. Oppose. What this amounts to is tht many Wikipedia editors find the subject distasteful. They would like to remove the article entirely, as witness the repeated AfD's. Failing that, they'll try to belittle it by retitling it. (Before anyone accuses me of not assuming good faith, I suggest you go and read the comments by some editors, as I've been doing for what seems like years now.) I could see putting the article back at Santorum (sexual slang), where it was for a while. The alternative Santorum (Googlebombing) doesn't quite cut it, because Googlebombing is part of what's going on but not all. I would be open to sensible suggestions. A title that doesn't use the term itself, however, is clearly not in keeping with the general rule that we use the most common name for something. Here, most people would think first of "Santorum", not "Savage", so the only question is the best way to disambiguate. JamesMLane t c 05:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
27. Oppose. The obsession of Wikipedia with BLP policy has grown from an odd lump into a dangerously malignant tumor. No one can seriously deny nowadays that Wikipedia is a hidebound bureaucracy, in which biographical articles - at least, those about wealthy or Western subjects - are reduced to Pollyanna versions that ignore things broadly published in the news. Now we are at the stage where every week the cancer looks for somewhere to spread - whether it's proposals to delete Commons pdfs or Wikisource texts or to extend BLP to neologisms or corporations. Every pillar of Wikipedia has been toppled by the all-devouring BLP, which even claims the right to defy consensus. All this goes on as if in complete ignorance of our long-held attitudes on any other sort of article, where we want to simply speak the truth. Few here ever seriously entertained tearing up good articles to avoid offending someone with an image of Muhammad or because we're worried about what some teenager might be up to after he reads about acetone peroxide. Yet here we are, watching a full-on panic about the effect of a Wikipedia article about a neologism that topped the Google searches for Santorum's name long before the article was started. We have to face the facts here - somehow, for some particular reason, Wikipedia as a community has been taken over by too many people trying to control and manipulate what the information does to the public, rather than to free the information, and it is in a downward spiral out of control - and I am no longer optimistic that it can recover. Every possible kind of censorship will be imposed sooner or later, until Wikipedia loses all credibility and falls apart. Everything that happened to Encyclopedia Dramatica will happen to Wikipedia, including, one hopes, its attempt at resurgence. We need to oppose ideas like this, but we have to be realistic - we're only slowing the course of the disease, giving the patient a little more time. What we need to start doing is to prepare to fork the project deliberately, establish a full-scale mirror with complete history and live editing, so that as little as possible is lost in the transition. I hope that there is more for the future of Wikipedia than just sociological analysis of why it all came crashing down. Wnt (talk) 07:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
28. Oppose, an article well-sourced reliably with no synthesis cannot be a "BLP violation". Santorum (neologism) is not an issue for wikipedia -- the issue to consider (outside wikipedia discussion) is why reliable sources are covering the phenomenon so fervently. We cannot change the reliable sources' reasons for reporting this, and as well, we cannot change what we "report" because we do not report; nothing originates here if the guidelines are followed and that seems to be the case for this article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 08:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
29. Oppose I see no policy-based reason to remove most of the content of the article (and yes, trimming it to one or two paragraphs or merging somewhere else would require most of the content to be deleted). It has been established that this is a notable piece of political campaigning. WP:BLP is not a licence to delete all negative information about a living person, especially when this information is objectively presented and well sourced. If Santorum was marginally notable then the situation would be substantially different, however he is unquestionably a public figure - a former US Senator and Representative and a candidate for the US Presidency. It is true that in many cases we should avoid documenting attacks on people in order to avoid perpetrating those attacks, but this principle is not universally applicable and if it was we would have to remove all negative information about living people. WP:BLP itself gives an example of a situation in which a defamatory allegation about a living person belongs in the person's article. The subject of this article is a neologism: Wiktionary defines the term as A word or phrase which has recently been coined; a new word or phrase and notes that neologisms are not used by a substantial proportion of the population, so by including "neologism" in the article we are already indicating that it is not a word in general use. If it was in general use the title would have to be something like Santorum (word or Santorum (anal sex). The current title of this article meets WP:TITLE and most of the proposed alternatives don't so I see no reason to move the article either. Hut 8.5 12:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
30. Kneejerk Oppose, WP:NOTCENSORED and stuff. --M4gnum0n (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
31. Oppose strongly, principally on WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED grounds. This neologism has had extensive 3rd party coverage, especially on the effect of the coining of the neologism on the senator's election chances. The title is apt - this is an article about a notable neologism. I don't think either a rename or any significant reduction in content is warranted here. To be honest, I don't think BLP really applies here - the word is not being used to suggest that the senator is homosexual (quite the contrary), nor (as far as I have read it) that he shares any characteristics with the substance described. WJBscribe (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
32. Strong oppose the article is about the term. The fact that the term was made to attack someone is irrelevant. We do what the sources say, anything else is original research. --Guerillero | My Talk 18:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
33. Strong Oppose As I have argued previously, it is not a BLP violation to describe extremely verifiable events about a public figure like a politician. We cannot sweep under the rug an event which dozens of reliable sources have covered for years. Without Wikipedia comprehensively treating this subject in a neutral, verifiable fashion, all that's left are the various arguments by those stridently for or against Savage's act. Removing, drastically reducing, deleting, or redirecting this all has the same effect: removing useful information from the attention of our readers who depend on us for fair treatment of controversies just like this one. I for one will not support that disservice to them. Steven Walling 19:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
34. Strong Oppose: I don't care whether you're a homophobe like senator santorum or a homo-lover(?) (Leviticus 20:13 rejecter?), the term is extremely notable. The proposed change is not going to help Sen. Santorum one iota, the other santorum pages which are attack pages will become all the top search results, and you will only harm sen. santorum further by trying to diminish easy access to our consensus product.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 00:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
35. Oppose. It's a topic and is sourced as such, as is George W. Bush military service controversy. That Santorum is again (considering?) running for office is beside the point. In regards to Jimbo Wales's argument, which brings up a valid point, it seems to me that the name has become the issue, so to speak--as it did in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, which makes little sense without the president's name in it. I'm somewhat saddened to say 'oppose' since some very valued editors present cogent arguments, but I can't help but think that this is a result of the way politics are done in the US, and the WP article reflects this. To say that the article itself was created and/or expanded, which I read in and between the lines in some comments (not yours, SlimVirgin--let me hasten to add that) to destroy the senator's long shot at the nomination or the presidency does not strike me as in the spirit of our project: it does not assume good faith. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
36. OPPOSE: oh, this again. notable subject, well sourced article, and has gone through all the hoops to stay titled just as it is. Badmachine (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
37. Oppose - despite its etymology, this word is as valid as any other, as the sources clearly demonstrate. It names an (unfortunate) sexual phenomena. I find support for making this solely about the politician baffling. -Kez (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
38. Oppose We shouldn't be worrying about politics when editing the wiki. Our responsibility is to document notable phenomena neutrally; if readers and other people choose to misinterpret what that means, that is their own fault. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
39. Oppose I will be very sad if Wikipedia censors this article basically out of squeamishness. This neologism may have been invented and initially promoted by Savage, but it has gone way beyond that and is no longer just about him. The other week Jon Stewart, on the Daily Show, in the middle of a report told viewers to "Go and Google 'Santorum'. I'll wait." Page views that week topped 70k. This is a notable phenomenon no matter what its origin - and no matter if it makes some Wikipedians uncomfortable. --MelanieN (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
40. Strong Oppose: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an SEO agency. The word has entered common usage and other wiki projects (like wiktionary) link to the article. Ptelder (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note to the closing admin: Ptelder has made very few edits, and before this none just one since August 2009. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note to the closing admin: The statement above concerning Ptelder's editing history is false.[16]--Noren (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    note to closing admin SV's statement is almost true. Between this edit and Aug 2009 the user has made exactly one edit. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

41. Strong Oppose: This article isn't Wikipedia's fault - it's the fault of a phenomenon in American culture. The word has gained a real place in sexual lingo. This is proven by the article's ability to survive numerous previous deletion / merge attempts. Santorum isn't hurt by this article's continued existence, because the creation of the word happened so long ago. Because of that, this article is barely an "attack" article. This article is encyclopedic and Wikipedic. Keep it. If you don't you're flirting with a dangerous kind of squeamishness. Oh, and SlimVirgin, I know you'll probably try to do {{spa}} on me. Don't bother. I've only made a few edits with this account, but I've been using, reading, and editing Wikipedia (amongst other wikis) for several years. I only just got involved enough to make a "legit" account because I heard about the travesty that you were perpetuating. Proverbtalvin (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note to the closing admin: Proverbtalvin has made very few edits, and none before today. --JN466 22:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

42. Oppose Per Proverbtalvin. (at least the remarks before the "Oh, Slim...".) I am not sure if I have the requisite number of edits to meet the suffrage requirements. Like Ptelder, I have a bit of a gap in my edit history between 2008-relatively recently. My cross-wiki contributions tell a different story though. Thenub314 (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
43. Oppose. Multiple independent sources have noted that this is looking likely to be a problem in the 2012 presidential campaign; it's no longer appropriate to treat it as a minor incident in 2003, as a merge would do, or entirely about Dan Savage, which renaming would do. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
44. Oppose. The article is well sourced and about the Neologism itself, which is no longer within the bounds of Savage's original efforts. In regards to BLP, this article is not reporting anything false about Senator Santorum.Naraht (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
45. Oppose: notability and verifiability are clear, with substantial mainstream press coverage. -- The Anome (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
46. Oppose - Though this kind of "manufactured" notability makes me uneasy, and though I'm sympathetic to a lot of the "google bombing" arguments from supporters, I'm going to have to oppose here. Manufactured notability is notability none the less, even if we think the notable subject is in poor taste. Additionally, I think I'd agree with Tom Morris's "How Google ranks our article is not our concern". NickCT (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
47. Oppose - While it is absolutely clear that Wikipedia should not itself be the forum used to create such a neologism or to promote obscure terms or political campaigns, once a linguistic campaign, political or otherwise, becomes as notable as this one indisputably has become (attracting continuing widespread commentary over 8+ years from multiple reputable sources), then a neutral Wikipedia article on the subject becomes appropriate, however unpalatable the subject. Wikipedia cannot be held back from neutrally describing widely reported cultural/political phenomena merely from fear of promulgating the subject matter (see e.g. Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy for a relevant parallel). Nor would I support a merge with the article on the 2003 incident, as this neologism campaign has clearly outlived that particular incident. I could support a move to Santorum neologism campaign or similar, separate from content changes. (Regarding shortening the article, I don't think it is appropriate to prescribe an article length by fiat, e.g. limiting it a priori to "one paragraph" or "one subsection". Rather, if there are specific items or sources that should be removed, those things should be discussed individually rather than deleting content en masse.) — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
48. Oppose - If Bush Derangement Syndrome, with a total of 19 references, gets its own page, this, with 125, ought to as well. If, instead, Wikipedia decides not to chronicle recent coinages, then what business do we have claiming to be a relevant, up-to-date online encyclopedia? Also, the "WP participation in a googlebombing" argument is a red herring - some majority or plurality of searchers are clearly curious as to how the word came about, else this article would be much further down the rankings. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 20:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    On another note, holding out for a "golden source" as some editors have advocated is a case study in going out to the docks once the ship has sailed. Santorum has no mention, for example, in the New York Times other than as the man's name; here are some other neologisms with sourced WP pages (at varying levels of needing work) but no usage in the alleged Paper of Record: camwhore, bluecasting, photowalking, jihobbyist, greenography (full disclosure: this one looks like a terrible advertisement, and it may need deletion itself - that's another issue though), neuroarthistory, Partido da Imprensa Golpista, accountable autonomy. Maybe they should all get deleted, merged, or redirected, for their own reasons - but their numbers suggest a counterweight to the theory that an NYT mention is necessary to demonstrate common usage. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

49. Oppose We didn't make this up, nor are we promoting it, as it is not an obscure neologism, it's a very well known one. The Google bombed site is already number 1 whether we move this article or not. We shouldn't make up contrived names when there's an obvious and common one available, merely to avoid offending some hypothetical reader's moral sensibilities. Gigs (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
50. Oppose per Roscelese and the spirit that Wikipedia is not censored. If this were 2003, a merger might be appropriate, but it's 2012 and the neologism hasn't faded away. Imzadi 1979 → 23:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
51. Oppose. I could see the point if this term was genuinely new and not eight years old and still kicking. I think this has reached the point where Savage couldn't make it go away even if he wanted to. The term has genuinely entered the language. The fact that some may not like the term or like the way it came to exist is irrelevant. It's here. It's queer. Get used to it. Henrymrx (t·c) 06:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
52. Oppose. Per all or most of the above, including but not limited to Wikipedia is not censored, notability and verifiability are clear, and we shouldn't be worrying about politics when editing the wiki. Our responsibility is to document notable phenomena neutrally. Heiro 07:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
53. Oppose. Jimbo raises a valid point in that efforts must be made regarding living people to respect the integrity and privacy of the individual, especially in cases involving negative or controversial content. That said, given that coverage has since expanded beyond Dan Savage's original promotion of the word, it seems silly to remove Rick Santorum's name from the name of an article which directly involves him as part of the controversy. I would be open to supporting a name such as Santorum neologism controversy, but a change to something which doesn't include the word "santorum" feels like self-censorship, and we're better than that. elektrikSHOOS 15:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
54. Oppose - per above. The term exists, and has taken on a life of its own far past Savage's initial campaign. A look at my userpage should reveal my obvious biases in this particular situation but they have nothing to do with my opinion on this matter as it relates to Wikipedia policy. Like it or not, the word is here to stay, the concept exists, and its notability is evidenced by mentions on The Daily Show amongst others. → ROUX ₪ 17:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
55. Oppose We did not create the term. And to believe that because we document the term we are responsible for spreading is a dangerous, slippery slope. The article can certainly be improved but whitewashing it because we disapprove of the existence of the (independently-notable and widely-documented) term is unacceptable and unbecoming of a neutral encyclopedia. I might feel differently if this were a particularly vulnerable subject that warranted extraordinary care and protection but he is an internationally-known public figure. I might also feel different if we were discussing a false accusation or assertion that readers might mistakenly believe but that is clearly not the case here. ElKevbo (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
56. Oppose We dont select winners and loser. The term has become widespread and its existence and cultural background are excellent encyclopedic topics. -- ۩ Mask 20:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
57. Per Cirt.—S Marshall T/C 21:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
58. Oppose Persistence is not consensus, even if one of the attempts eventually flies under the radar so that only the proponents comment. There are more people who know what santorum is, than there are who know who Santorum is. My spell-check recognizes santorum but not Santorum. It's a word, with a history notable enough for encyclopedic coverage. Supporters of Santorum should stop using WP to try to advance an agenda. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
59. Oppose However it was created, the term has taken on a life of its own. Goodwinsands (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
60. Oppose For BLP reasons we should stick to our normal standards on this one. Firstly, people have come to expect Wikipedia to cover contentious matters neutrally and fairly, if we decide to delete our article on something that doesn't make it go away any more than deleting Malaria would stop people dying of that disease; Deleting or "merge without redirect" if you prefer euphemisms would merely leave the coverage to more partisan sources. Secondly if we bend our processes to delete this article we risk having the Politician involved being accused of subverting Wikipedia to cover up something unpleasant, and no I'm not accusing those who support deletion of being in anyone's pocket - but I fear if they succeed that will be the off wiki reaction. ϢereSpielChequers 07:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment You appear to be opposing a proposal that is not being made. LondonStatto (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

61. Oppose, per user:ElKevbo, user:Roux, user:Henrymrx, user:Stevenj, user:Jayen466, user:Rivertorch, and others above who say that the word is used to legitimately describe something which can be the byproduct of anal sex without having any political meaning. Regardless of how this word came into use, it is now its own word for a concept which is necessarily discussed now and was not discussed 10 years ago. The acceptance of homosexuality and anal sex is recent. Ten years ago, there were not gay characters in the majority of American TV shows and movies as there are today. Anal sex was much less discussed. Straight people also are having more anal sex than at any other time in history. Society had a need for a word to describe aspects of anal sex, and as there was no word for this there was a ideological vacuum which needed to be filled. Jimbo is right in saying that this word was a "clever modern political attack tactic" but the available sources give strong counter evidence to his unreferenced assertion that "that this is not a word that has arisen naturally in the culture and actually used by anyone." The word is now an indispensable part of America sex education and is immediately used when people ask one of the most basic questions about human sexuality: "How does anal sex work?" Sources exist which use this word in sex education. To merge this article is to break Wikipedia policy for no BLP benefit with the side effect of promoting sex phobia and to necessarily demand the article's recreation as more time goes on and the word's usage spreads even more. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
62. Oppose for the same reason I opposed a renaming, opposed a merging, and any other of the attempted to take another bite of the apple. We have BLP standards but none of them speak to a need for a presidential candidate to be free from his past stupidity. Protonk (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
63. oppose this is amply notable and remarkably sourced. Removing sourced material from wikipedia is tantamount to vandalism. We do not pass judgement we observe and report HominidMachinae (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
64. Strong oppose - too often Wikipedians act as if we are a court of public opinion, as if an article's existence is a stamp of societal approval as opposed to our purpose, as a documentation of some aspect of humanity. Whether any of us think "Santorum" as a noun in this context is appropriate or not has no relevance here. As the numerous citations show, 'Santorum' has stuck in the popular culture as a neologism for what this article describes, and it is up for us to explain it to a public that knows exactly what it means. It is not up to us to offer a POV that we find it distasteful that this whole neologism has happened to a particular individual, and so we prefer to paper over it with a larger context. The neologism as it stands just is, like it or not. People use it and look for it specifically. Our business is documentation, not judgment on the issues of the day and how they evolve. The only way we keep to wp:ENC is to keep this article here, or else we are expressing opinions about our discomfort, and not whether a topic has wp:V, which is our standard, and this clearly meets it. --David Shankbone 05:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
65. Oppose' Article is appropriate and BLP concerns are unfounded. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
66. Oppose. BLP was written to protect lesser-known individuals, not well-known politicians. Suggesting both a rename and a merge in one go amounts to BLP-hyper-sensitivity. Rami R 17:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
67. Oppose. Wikipedia covers the world as it is, not the world as it ought to be if people didn't engage in politics. As things are there is a specific distinct social phenomenon, neologism, and political activism -- an encyclopedic subject -- centering around opposition to a prominent US Senator's (and now Presidential candidate's) anti-gay politics. That has taken on a life of its own and the term is used and its meaning invoked without necessarily being relevant to the life and times of the Senator or Dan Savage, the person who helped coin it. Just as the Streisand Effect took on a life of its own (one uses the term and deals with the subject without necessarily referring to Barbara Streisand) and therefore shouldn't be merged and redirected to the part of her article dealing with the original event, people talking about Santorum are talking about the larger issue of gay politics in America, and perhaps occasionally (within the community) about the actual literal meaning of the word. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing how you can easily say this has nothing to do with Mr. Santorum when it is his last name. The Streisand Effect isn't a grossly provocative word, it is describing something far less negative. Not on the same level. -- Avanu (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the argument. Distinct doesn't mean unrelated. It means that there are two identifiably different things. Streisand Effect is a good example there because it has a lot of parallels, a neologism arising from a public figure's unpopular actions that is now used to refer to other things. Of course it calls Streisand into mind, it's hard not to think of Barbara Streisand when someone mentions the Streisand Effect. But it's used when the subject is not Streisand at all but rather a comparable situation involving other people. I'm proposing that Santorum is used to reference things other than the Senator. That one is a more objectionable subject than the other (arguably, opinions might vary) is an orthogonal issue. So is a bigger issue that you don't raise, that one was deliberately created to malign the person whereas the other may or may not have been but does have that effect. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other

1. In Between. Agree article should be shortened to a few paragraphs. Disagree that there is any need to merge it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Rename but don't abridge. I've had to think hard about this issue, because, to an extent that is unusual on Wikipedia, both sides of the debate make very compelling arguments. Like some editors who support the proposal, I think there are problems here with recentism. More importantly, I think that Jimbo and others make a very important point about how the page might affect how the public views Wikipedia. It makes us look like just another website repeating the overheated trash of the moment. On the other hand, I also strongly agree with editors who oppose the proposal on the grounds that Santorum is a public figure who got into this (and got his family into this) voluntarily, that Wikipedia is not censored, and that there is more than enough reliable and independent sourcing for the page. So I'm coming down somewhere between "support" and "oppose". Like many opposers, I am strongly against removing the information in the page. Don't shorten it. But looking at Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality, that (or a similar title—there are less kludgy word choices than "regarding") is more encyclopedic than the title here, while remaining true to the concept of keeping the most likely search name up front. That other page is very thin, compared to this one, so it's a matter of perspective as to which would be merged into which. Effectively, I would merge the content of the other page into this page, while retaining most of the content of this page, and use that other title instead of the title here. The result would be an article about the controversy, treating the neologism as a very prominent part of that controversy. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I want to make a note here that my comment, directly above, was made before the comments were moved into three sections (support, oppose, and other) and numbered. The rationale in the edit summary for that move was to make things easier for the closing administrator. I'm fine with making things easier (if less fine with making it look like a vote). But I'm not fine with making it easier to disregard the comments that wound up in this section. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. Merge to the article in Wiktionary, where it belongs. See Wrong place section below. Flatterworld (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   It's more than just a word with a simple definition. There's history, contention, and drama behind it. A Wiktionary article won't do the subject justice. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   As I said, read the section below. And learn what etymology means, as that's one of the purposes of dictionaries. Real dictionaries that is, not children's dictionaries. Flatterworld (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't find any need to repeat how the opposition responded to your suggestion up here. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Merge to Rick Santorum and homosexuality, Rick Santorum homosexuality controversy, or some similar title. I more or less agree with Tryptofish above. I have serious questions regarding using only the last name of the individual in the title of the existing article, which is also, effectively, maybe a back-handed assertion of the neologism. There is a question as to how much weight we should give etymology in a lot of articles, and as I have recently seen there are a lot of etymological dictionaries, which could be used to assert that any number of words in them might be sufficiently notable for separate articles here as words. Personally, I don't know if that is necessarily a bad idea, but I very much think that this particular page is not the place or occasion where such a discussion should begin. John Carter (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. an editor has proposed an interesting alternative at the Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality talk page. "Talk:Santorum (neologism) is debating a merge into this article. That seems inappropriate, given the relative notability and coverage of the term "santorum" vs. this event from 2003. I'm proposing that we merge this article into Santorum (neologism), instead.24.177.120.138 talk 22:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)" -badmachine 21:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   by the way, i think this editor has raised a very interesting point... why is this article to be merged to the santorum controversy article instead of the other way round? it seems like the santorum controversy was instrumental in the creation of this neologism, which has one of the most interesting etymologies of any english word that i can think of. -badmachine 22:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I personally think that the correct place would be Rick Santorum and homosexuality, with maybe a redirect or other link to it, and a subheading clearly about the Santorum neologism. That to me anyway seems the most neutral approach. Like I said, there are, at least potentially, possible articles about words based on the etymological factors, but I very seriously doubt that at this point that is necessarily sufficient for a separate article. John Carter (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. TROUT ALL How many times are we going to have to walk over this festering sore of contention? Some people think that it's not appropriate for this article to exist for any reason, others think that it's perfectly fine just the way it is. I represent a 3rd (or 4th) viewpoint of "Stop trying to sollicit my viewpoint about this article". I think I've seen 6 or 7 notifications in various locations about people trying to move the article, people trying to rope a uninvolved admin in for a closure consensus, people trying to flood the consensus so that they can get their way. Judging by the reasoning, I'm thinking the move/rename is going to fail. I ask all primary contributors to this discussion (and administrators) to impose a 6 month moratorium on move/deletion discussions. Hasteur (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   second. :) -badmachine 01:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4. Comment - my preference is to keep the article title as is, but if we were to rename it, the title should be "Rick Santorum's Google problem", which is how the media refers to it. --David Shankbone 06:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Rename but don't abridge, per Tryptofish. I think the article title is misleading, and should be changed; the main subject here is the controversy and its consequences, not the word itself. The only reason my vote isn't a support is because I don't think we should be removing well-sourced material.. the media made this a topic, so it's a topic. Mlm42 (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

To emphasize the point on process -- by proposing not even to have a redirect from the current article to the merge destination, this proposal is in fact a deletion discussion. And yet we don't see an AfD. I wonder why that is. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly because the proposal is more complicated and more specific than the simple deletion of this article. But if you wish to set up an AFD, then presumably you are free to do so. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 11:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Please note that prior to the RFC tag being added to this discussion, the community was given notice of ongoing discussion at this talk page through links from eleven (11) WikiProject talkpages, multiple threads at WP:BLPN, a post to WP:AN, a template for deletion discussion, three (3) prior WP:AFD debates, and other Wikipedia pages as well. -- Cirt (talk) 06:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutrally worded notice of the RFC placed at WikiProject talkpages: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Google, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet culture, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages. If editors think of other related WikiProject talkpages to notify, feel free to use my matter-of-fact wording from the notices already given. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 06:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a fine mess.--MONGO 14:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of the comments above refer to the large number of sources in the article. Ninety percent of this article is simply justifying its own existence in terms of notability: "this commentator commented on the prank", "that commentator mentioned the word". When you strip away all this AFD-proofing, what's left of any encyclopedic value could be boiled down to a few lines. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ --Anthonyhcole's " what's left of any encyclopedic value could be boiled down to a few lines. " would you like to put up an sample of what that would look like for discussion? Active Banana (^bananaphone 14:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That will have to be done at some point, Active Banana. But it's late here and I'm tired. I'll have a go at boiling this down to its essentials when I'm back online – if someone hasn't beaten me to it.

Done at #Proposed rewrite. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Note also that some of the sourcing documenting purported usage is poor (incl. self-published novels, a book of alternative crossword puzzles, a "geek limerick contest" on a satirical geek website, etc.), and as discussed above, I am concerned that some of the sources may not have been represented accurately. For example, until earlier today the article stated,
    • The 2006 edition of The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English cited santorum as an example of "deliberate coining".
  • Upon looking at the source, it turns out the Partridge dictionary did not list the term at all, but discussed it briefly in its introduction:
    • "An example of deliberate coining is the word 'santorum', purported to mean 'a frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex'. In point of fact, the term is the child of a one-man campaign by syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage to place the term in wide usage. From its appearance in print and especially on the Internet, one would assume, incorrectly, that the term has gained wide usage."
  • The dictionary states in the introduction that it tries to avoid entries of "intentional coinings without widespread usage", and the term does not have an entry in the dictionary, nor can I find a mention of it in the 2007 and 2008 editions. This non-existent entry in Partridge was earlier put forward as a key argument demonstrating the term's linguistic importance. What is notable here is the campaign, not the word. If a separate article on this were retained at all, it ought to be titled correctly to make it clear that it is about a politically motivated campaign to create a neologism, and be rewritten succinctly, with its poor sources and quote farms removed.--JN466 14:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I disagree about renaming or merging the article, and I disagree on the need to drastically shorten the article, it does sound like this particular source quote is misleading and needs to be revised. However, while Partridge is informative, I'm not convinced it's definitive, and I wouldn't rely upon the inclusion or exclusion of a word in Partridge as sole evidence of notability. For that matter, has there never been another word that gained use because of the efforts of the one person that coined it? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The argument that "this article is overlong because it has too many citations to mere uses of the word" strikes me as particularly disingenuous given that this is an article about the word and its creation. Compare that argument to the method used by the Oxford English Dictionary, widely considered to be the definitive lexicon of the English language, for determining what words they include in their work: [17]. "The OED requires several independent examples of the word being used, and also evidence that the word has been in use for a reasonable amount of time." If one picks a definition in the full OED at random, one will readily see that much of the entry consists of quotations and references to uses of the word, establishing that it is a word in widespread use. What a Catch-22 we would set for ourselves: You can't have an article about a new word without proving that it is notable, but you cannot cite references that establish the notability of a word, or discuss the genesis of the word. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well said. Binksternet (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • First of all, we are not a dictionary. Dictionary compilers cite primary sources; we strive to base our articles on secondary sources. And some of the primary-source examples are very poor. A self-published free e-book, another self-published book, a Gonzo Crossword, and a geek limerick contest (they themselves call it that) entry that does not actually use the word, but names the person, Rick Santorum. The centre of gravity of almost all cited secondary sources is the campaign, not the word. --JN466 16:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I knew the "but it's a primary source!" argument would come up. Primary sources are acceptable in some cases, and I'd certainly argue that etymologies are a good case for their inclusion. Their usage is, or can be made, consistent with WP:PRIMARY in that they "make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." Tracking the usage of a new word—which is basically what etymology is—consists of citing places where the word was used. Citing a primary source to establish that the source used the word is pretty much unassailable on those grounds—although yes, obviously editors will have to take care to walk the line in doing so.
          While we may not be a dictionary, that's no reason why we shouldn't let the best practices of prestigious and respected dictionaries inform our decisions. As for the "centre of gravity" of the sources: the word was coined in response to the actions of a political figure. Of course many of the sources are going to be related to a political campaign, because that's what the man who inspired the word does for a living. If we set a criteria that articles related, but not directly about, politicians must not use sources that are ostensibly about their political campaigns, how many other articles must we eviscerate? It would be like saying that articles about doctors can't use sources that are mostly about medical research. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • The problems I see in this specific case are original research and due weight. Due weight is established by secondary sources -- in this case, linguists writing about how a word entered the language, and citing notable examples. Having such secondary sources gives us a basis for writing about it. That's not the case here. What happened here -- a Wikipedian scouring the web for primary sources that use the term, and then listing them in the article -- is something quite different. It is original research, and it has come up, among other things, with two self-published novels, a Gonzo Crossword and a geek limerick contest. And misrepresented one good reference, the Partridge Dictionary of Slang, which made precisely the opposite point -- that this was the child of a one-man campaign, not a widespread term, and therefore not suitable for inclusion in their book. There are no secondary sources justifying our giving weight to these examples. We should be guided by secondary sources, not original primary-source research. --JN466 16:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Macwhiz, I don't think anybody made the argument that "this article is overlong because it has too many citations to mere uses of the word". I made the point that a lot of the article consisted of mentions that some commentator or other had commented on the controversy or the word, which is different from instances of someone actually unselfconsciously using the word. Here are the examples I found, on one run through the article, of citations that add nothing to the article but "so-and-so mentioned the controversy":

• • • This is a significant portion of the article.
    • On the matter of instances of actual usage of the term, rather than references to the prank, there are a few cited in the article, and there shouldn't be any. A dictionary uses examples of usage to make the meaning clear. This article uses examples of usage to say "People are using the term. It's making its way into the language." That point can be made if a reliable source, that is credible and likely to be based on actual evidence of some kind other than some dude's opinion, says it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a deadline for this RFC. I don't know if there's a standard duration for such things, but it seems that at least a week is needed to get adequate community input, and anything longer than two weeks is probably not going to attract much new input. Any objection to setting a deadline of 19 June 2011 00:00 UTC (two weeks plus change) for comments? I also think an uninvolved and experienced editor should then be found to evaluate the results of the RFC and formally close it. Thoughts? alanyst 14:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The usual thing is to leave things open for one month if needed, but comment usually dries up before that. Two weeks sounds reasonable, though I think we should play it by ear because consensus may become clear before that. Then look for someone experienced and uninvolved to close it, an admin if the tools are needed. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The thing we're going to have to look out for is "support because of fallout." People seem to think that WP is supposed to be concerned with results. But we don't care if it ruins his life or political career (to be extreme) so long as we are adhering to our NPOV and sourcing policies. Looks like the article needs work, but I think that we should be more concerned with fighting censorship, which is probably the only reason this article gets only two sentences in his biography in spite of the probability that it's much more notable to him than that. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 16:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly do care if it ruins his life or political career. BLP is based around the principle of not hurting people or doing things to demean them. If we violate that principle while still adhering to our NPOV and sourcing policies, then the NPOV and sourcing policies are wrong. They have loopholes in them. "We're literally following the rules" is not a good excuse for a BLP violation--it just means the rules need to be fixed. Ken Arromdee (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's completely wrong to say that BLP is based around the principle of avoiding harm. BLP derives from core content policies of accuracy and sourcing, together with content neutrality. Lying behind it is the knowledge that if content does not match these policies, it may do harm; but content that fully meets them may also lower the reputation of a BLP subject. If it does, that's because of what's happened in the real world. We describe the real world. Some of the contributions here are getting dangerously close to saying we must deliberately distort the world we see and report because some people can't be trusted to be told the truth. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The use of the word "attack" in many of the supporting comments interests me. I perceive a few viewpoints on this article:

1. The Wikipedia article was created to attack Rick Santorum and equate his name with excrement.
2. The Wikipedia article does not attack Santorum directly, but it perpetuates an attack upon him and thus should be deleted.
3. The Wikipedia article does not attack Santorum; it documents the notable act of a third party that has been widely reported and is notable under Wikipedia's policies, in a way that doesn't violate any Wikipedia policies that would require its censorship or deletion. That act may be perceived as political satire or as an attack, depending chiefly upon one's political point of view and personal moral beliefs.

I don't understand the first viewpoint; if the article is "an attack" on Santorum, it has to be a deliberate act. WP:AGF aside, I don't think this is the case. The article does not seek to make the man's name synonymous with excrement; it describes the notable attempt of someone else to do so, which is an important distinction. The second viewpoint has somewhat more merit, but it amounts to WP:CENSOR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT in my opinion, because there's nothing in Wikipedia policy that has been successfully cited so far to justify the deletion. (That's my opinion, and the opinion of the last three attempts to delete the article.) The idea that Wikipedia can perpetuate an attack by reporting facts troubles me, because it's so egotistical. If Wikipedia were not the top Google listing for "santorum", are we sure that someone else's website describing the word in far less even-handed tones would not be? That all of the anal lubricant angst of the campaign is our fault for compiling what others have written? Is that a slippery slope we want to go down? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The central problem is that the article is fundamentally false. It asserts that the supposed neologism is notable in that Santorum's name is commonly/regularly used as a reference to human excrement. There turn out to be no valid references supporting this claim. There are a great many references supporting the claim that Dan Savage has created a prominent campaign to do this, and has successfully Googlebombed the term, but there are no reliable, independent secondary sources cited to support the claim that the use of the "neologism" itself is notable. The primary source citations of the term are grossly inadequate, no more than a half dozen sources over eight years, at least half in self-published material of little or no significance. Without genuine, reliable sourcing showing use of the term independent from discussions of Savage's campaign, the claim that the "neologism" is notable as a term fails, and the article in the form fails WP notability standards. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, renaming with a redirect might be appropriate Savage Santorum campaign or something. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 17:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, or Savange–Santorum campaign. We should get the opinion of everyone over at the Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/dash_drafting RfC! 24.177.120.138 (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think the chances are that those opposed to this proposal would be opposed to it if the originator of such a campaign had been someone like Rush Limbaugh and the campaign was against one of Limbaugh's political opponents? If Limbaugh starts a campaign to promote his regular reference to Barbara Streisand as "B. S." and urges his fans on to fan the flames should Wikipedia dutifully comply to help him out in his campaign by putting up a "B. S." article that references Streisand? Having a WP article on it and a Google-bombing campaign would undoubtedly lead to reliable sources covering the phenomenon. Drrll (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And so Wikipedia should have the article. Cut and dried case. What editors would actually do in that situation is a different story (; BE——Critical_{__Talk} 17:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drrll, your comment is somewhat disingenuous. In previous discussions to which you've been a party, I've mentioned the specific actual (not hypothetical) example of John Kerry military service controversy. Like this article, it reports on activities by opponents of a U.S. Senator. One big difference is that it reports on lies that were told about that Senator, whereas this article doesn't make any factual assertions about Rick Santorum that have been seriously disputed. (He actually made the comments that irked Savage.) Thus, our Kerry controversy article, unlike this article, is reporting on lies and thus bringing the lies to the attention of more people. Nevertheless, I, as someone who supported and voted for Kerry, have cited that article as an example of the correct application of Wikipedia policy. We report on the world as it is -- even on the people who tell lies about a decorated veteran, and even on the people who use vulgar sexual terms to mock an adversary. I'll also add that I'm extremely irritated at the frequency with which some Wikipedians make comments like yours, and insinuate (or flat-out assert) that any disagreement with them must come frm editors who disdain WP:NPOV or who are ignorant of WP:BLP or who don't care about the project or who have an anti-Santorum political agenda. JamesMLane t c 05:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JamesMLane, while my scenario is hypothetical, it is certainly plausible. It's already part-way there, since Limbaugh, like Savage, regularly associates a political opponent's name (Streisand) with shit. The Kerry article, while also involving attacks against a political opponent, does not associate Kerry's name itself with something as terrible as excrement. Yes, it is conjecture that I think that many editors (certainly not all, about which I should have been clearer) would have a different position if the ox-goring originated from a person they disdain, against a person they admire, rather than the other way around. Drrll (talk) 06:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're certainly correct that the Kerry article isn't a direct parallel to this one. The Kerry article reports on flat-out lies that were told about Kerry. In many countries he would have been able to win a defamation lawsuit about the statements quoted in our article. (American law provides a high degree of protection to people who make false statements about elected officials.) Thus, our article gives greater currency to lies about Kerry. By contrast, no one has pointed to any lies about Rick Santorum that would be squelched or even given less currency by the deletion/merger/renaming/whatevering of this article. Compared to the swiftboating of John Kerry, the use of Santorum's name in a nondefamatory way is minor. As for Streisand, if some Limbaugh nastiness about her gets the level of attention that's been given to "frothy mix", start the appropriate article. When the deletionists come howling for your head, or at least for deletion, please drop me a note on my talk page so I can prove my integrity by opposing deletion. JamesMLane t c 03:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflicts) The background information summarized in the introductory wording of this RfC seems a bit off. Specifically, the statement that Santorum "made some remarks about gay sex that many found offensive" [my emphasis] is misleading to those arriving here with no knowledge of the topic and potentially prejudicial to the outcome of the RfC. Despite later, ineffectual attempts to split hairs, Santorum, speaking publicly and as a public figure, made indefensible and patently offensive remarks disparaging to gay people. That is why many were offended by what he said, and that is why the forum shopping and far-fetched scrabbling to concoct a policy-based reason to decimate this article seems unfortunate. What this really seems to be about is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. In a sense, I don't like it either; I can imagine parallel situations involving much less culpable public figures with far lower profiles, and it's a bit creepy. But WP isn't censored—or it shouldn't be, anyway—and there's no reason to bend over backwards to sweep a notable topic under the rug. Rivertorch (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It also seems to be a little bit incomplete in failing to mention the three previous AfDs in which the community consensus had prevsiously been polled. Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And it also fails to mention that BACK IN FEBRUARY months before the expansion of the article in May at least 3 reliable sources had all already been discussing "Santorums google problem" Active Banana (^bananaphone 05:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does however from my experience of the anyone can comment project seem to be in such emotive involved situations that it is required to revisit the same issue multiple times to get the correct outcome. Off2riorob (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True it doesn't give enough background, but the main problem is it forces several different proposals into a single RfC. It's essentially deletion is disguise, where less radical proposals might gain more consensus (at this time). People don't like it, therefore say it violates BLP even though it's obviously well sourced. They have the point that the neologism doesn't deserve its own article, but the campaign does. Then they propose deletion in disguise instead of renaming to something that fits the content. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do support your proposal just to consider a rename also as a side issue to run concurrent. There are BLP issues resulting from the undue enlargement of the article. As you can see from the project wide discussion and the multiple objections from many experienced contributors. IMO the large expansion of this article when there was clear opposition to that was a disruptive action and that action by a single user is responsible for all of this disruption and divisiveness of the project. Off2riorob (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you think renaming and pruning out any BLP violations would get consensus, then maybe you should propose that. I tried an RfC on that though which people didn't much like :P. I don't now the details, but I don't see why it was being disruptive to do what he thought was right... WP eventually adjusts if things aren't right and you can't tell beforehand. For all Cirt (he's the one, right?) knows, his article will stay as-is. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption and divisiveness wikipedia wide was/is the outcome of the undue expansion of the article. As there were objections right from the start and it has been mentioned here that the expansion was a reaction to the opposition to the article I fail to see how anything other than project wide disruption could have been foreseen as the outcome. Off2riorob (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delicious carbuncle has about the same sentiments regarding pruning and renaming. I suppose a lot of people do, but consider this proposal too radical. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) since when should expanded coverage of the topic by reliable sources (as happened last month regarding the subject of this article) not result in more coverage within the article? Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In situations exactly like this. Off2riorob (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How convenient. It strikes me that, were it not for all of the policy shopping, forum shopping, and canvasing engaged in by the editors who didn't like the repeated consensus achieved on this page, the brouhaha wouldn't have become a "project-wide divisive disruption." 24.177.120.138 (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here you are again - you seem to be going around in a similar manner from article to article - WP:Youlikeit is just a reflection of yourself. When I see users like your contribution history it makes me want to get Jimmy's open environment by the throat and squeeze it very hard. Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to suggest you take a wikivacation, then, because that sort of attitude (and ad-hominem attack) is neither productive nor welcome here. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I suspect Rob is expressing a widely held view. Your constant insulting, snarky, sleazy commentary, like reducing the opposition to WP:I DON'T LIKE IT, pollutes the atmosphere here. Everybody else is capable of conducting this potentially divisive discussion with politeness and sensible argument. Cut the goading and try your hand at rational debate. This is a difficult issue, requiring subtle thought, and your attitude just doesn't belong here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making personal attacks. You're undercutting your own credibility as an editor, not mine. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its a bit rich complaining about a personal attacks whilst arguing for the retention of an article that is little more than a personal attack. John lilburne (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that opinion were universally held, this RfC wouldn't be this long. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how generally true the assertions above are that many editors want to move or reduce the article because it is distasteful, but in my case that is not my reason. It is distasteful, but so are many WP articles. I am ignoring them because they aren't malicious. (Not BLP violations.) Also, I only just heard of this today or yesterday, right here at WP, and was appalled that we are contributing to Savage's savaging. You can see here that WP is the unwitting dupe or possibly the willing accomplice of the activists: Using a network of cross links and by driving up “clicks,” the activists have succeeded in keeping their definition at the top of search returns. This is just a political trick because Santorum is considering a bid for the presidency; note that the site that comes up first on Google was last updated in 2004. This is old news Jon Stewart is kicking around. Yopienso (talk) 07:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article may have problems, but external fallout is not Wikipedia's concern: there are lots of subjects which we "promote" in this way which shouldn't be promoted. If Wikipedia were to be concerned with Google, it would entail a basic restructuring of the encyclopedia. Also, how exactly can this be about BLP? No one is making statements about Santorum. We're just reporting on a social phenomenon (read sources), which is what we do. Since Wikipedia is not making claims about Santorum, and at least some of the sources are good, is there any basic problem? Jimbo's reasoning was very flawed, but he says "What we need to do is address the harm that is being caused here, and by harm, I mean harm to Wikipedia." He doesn't say "harm to Santorum." Renaming to make sure the reader knows that the neologism is the product of an attack might be in order, but Wikipedia "promotes" any number of nasty things by being first in search results, and we should not consider restructuring the whole approach of the encyclopedia or making this an exception. As JoshuaZ said below, our articles are usually more neutral and thus, as in this case, we are probably making the attack less effective. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 14:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that "no one is making statements about Santorum" is just taking advantage of a rules loophole: we have many rules about statements, but the ones we have about other things are often expressed in generalities. The article harms Santorum without having to make statements about him. A campaign to associate him with shit doesn't make statements--the constant juxtaposition of his name and shit is harmful by itself regardless of whether the statements concerning him are accurate or even if they exist at all. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article title does not reflect the phenomenon

Sorry for creting new section, but it is very long to edit, it barelly goes through my broadband and my point is the accuracy of the name

Seeing through all the comments voting for oppose, it seems to me, that Many seems to argue from the point of opposing the censorship, but that many are somewhat missing some points. (IMHO). The problem I see with this article is not generally with it that it is overly offending and is so against BLP as many are so worried. The problem is that it creates the virtual reality beyond the actual reality. I do not write about the content of the article, the name of the article is my main issue.

I basically believe, that the phenomenon should not have this particlular title, I can basically see that this phenomenon happened and is more or less noteworthy. To merge it in the abovementioned article seems just fine, but I might even agree on this original article, - under the condition, that the title would be more preciselly descriptive in regards the phenomenon (That means to rename the article). Well, is the word combination Santorum_(neologism) really the right title for this phenomenon? I tried google out at least one instance where anyone would use the word really in it's new meaning. Some images (not that I would be delighted, if I would see one) for instance or anything in the talk of LGBTs etc would be fine as a proof..

What do I mean by this? Just that, the word itself is absolutelly not noteworthy et all (as in WP:NOTE) per se, it is not really used; and even if it would, the word itself would normally belong to the Wictionary, not to encyclopedia. This would be not encyclopedic content et all. What might make it noteworthy for encyclopedia, is the relationship between the new word with it's intended meaning with the personality of the said senator, his scandalous remarks and all the story around him and Savage. That makes it noteworthy (IMO). The fact of word being created is true and the publicity of the fact is true too. But the word itself has no importance per se (in itself), it is the phenomenon around the process which is notable. So why would be Wikipedia just the wehicle to promote coinage of the term beyond the reality? Wikipedia should not create virtual reality, it should reflect and mirror the reality as it exists. And this point is valid not only regarding the content of the article (- where here in the article, it is sourced, it reflects the reality more or less), but it is valid with the article title as much, if not more. One must deliberatelly balance the usage of the term -intended by someone to be coined, when he is using it here as article title, that he does not codyfie the in the reality above the reality. Already now, the google links show of, that Wikipedia creates it quite a bit. This is the point, where the article clashes with BLP (IMHO) and where it clashes only. But it is problem regardless the BLP. It brings the reality further, it creates its own version of reality. It is coining the term as if it would be reality, exactly as Savage intended (and that would be fine form Wikipedia wiewpoint, if he succeded), so Wikipedia seems like wehicle to bring the offence further, whithout backing, but Wikipedia is also lacking in duing good job as enyclopedia in generall (

In my opinion, redirect should not be deleted, but this article should not stay under this name. The name implies more then then there is. The subject of article which is notable is the phenomenon of creation the neologism as means of retaliation whithin political, sociological debate and ensuing debate. If there would be more then one phenomenon connected to the word "santorum", then let's name the article "santorum", there would be legitimate reason for bringing the more sotries under this one paperclip, under one name which is common for those stories. But as it is now, the name is not the most fitting, it implies something, which is not and by impliing it is becoming part of the real world quarell between the two. The Santorum and Savage.

• See also policy parts:Non-judgmental descriptive titles (and Wp:NPOV#Naming)

If you argue that santorum might be non neutral but common name (see wp:POVTITLE), it would be true, if really common, ironically I see it rather as non-neutral uncommon name. The common name or search combination for the phenomenon would rather be close to Santorum's 'Google Problem'. --Reo ⁺ 18:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the common name for the subject of this article, the word santorum. The part in parentheses is to disambiguate it from other names. The encyclopedic notability of the word, if not sufficiently attested by secondary sources reporting on the original coining, is confirmed by the American Dialect Society in 2004 designating it as the most outrageous word of the year.[18] Thus, the word is encyclopedically notable on its own and for what it means. It is an appropriate subject for an encyclopedia article given that we do not censor. To rename nigger to word for black people controversy is not neutral, despite what that word means. Santorum is the neutral (and correct, common, and concise) way to refer to this notable word. Gacurr (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gaccur, well, right, some of the notes you brought might be contributiong to the debate, but I already adressed them all above. So please, do not present them as if I did not. For example:To rename nigger to word for black people controversy is not neutral, despite what that word means - I do not do that, I would understand your concern, but I addressed it even before you did write it, see the last two paragraphs, see the links.

I did argue, that the story is about event, it is notable because of the event and this is reason why the title is wrong. That is why the title is not descriptive, because the subject of the article is not the word. it ithe event around it. See above please.

Your conclusion ADS.... thus.... notable ... is too strong. It is basically source of the existence of the word, but not for its usage or importance or notability. --Reo ⁺ 10:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Savage is the source of the existence of the word. The American Dialect Society recognizing it[19], in point of fact, gives the word an encyclopedic notability. The subject of the article is the word. Much like there is a lot of stuff going on in and around the life of a certain politician that goes on that politician's page, there is a lot of stuff going on in and around the life of this word. Like the former, where those things go under his name, in this case these things go under this name. As for nigger, you suggest in your last paragraph that santorum is non-neutral and want a new name that is a phrase to substitute for it. The example was meant to show that we keep words that might be perceived as inherently non-neutral as the title of articles about those words. It also shows we can have an article about a word with sections covering "etymology and history", "usages", "popular culture", "cultural controversy", and so on, without it being a problem. Gacurr (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

or to use a more direct analogy - if Wikipedia had been around in WWII, would Wikipedia have had an article quisling or would it have been Churchill's verbal attack on Quisling? Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In case there was any remaining doubt, ANI has already weighed in that Santorum is "an offensive slang term",^link as evidenced by the block demanding rename of User:Santorummm in 2006. Wnt (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I get that out of the linked ANI discussion. It looks to me like the name was challenged under WP:REALNAME, specifically, "Do not register a username that includes the name of an identifiable living person unless it is your real name." One editor made the assertion that it was "an offensive slang term"; the assertion was challenged in the next reply, and that's the only mention of "slang term" in the discussion. Nothing in that discussion appears to set any precedent for santorum being "an offensive slang term" by administrator mandate, or even consensus; you can't have a consensus from a minority of one. For that matter, is it even kosher to assert that administrators have the authority to declare a word "an offensive slang term" and therefore forbidden in any context? Even if it were "an offensive slang term" in some official capacity, that's no bar to it being an article title: see WP:CENSOR. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

STRIKE COMMENT, APPRECIATE YOUR FEEDBACK MAC. THANKS. -- Avanu (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is this appropriate commentary? Gacurr (talk) 04:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly the question I'm asking as well, Gacurr. -- Avanu (talk) 05:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As dispointing as it is, a few editors now have asked me how the above comment from 03:38, 8 June 2011 is not breaching WP:CIVIL or WP:ETIQUETTE. I hope it is obvious, but let me clarify. It sort of ruins the whole reason for doing it to have to explain, but rather than give people ammo to derail the conversation with AN/I's, I'll explain. My fellow editor, Macwhiz said "Nothing in that discussion appears to set any precedent for santorum being "an offensive slang term" by administrator mandate, or even consensus; you can't have a consensus from a minority of one." How someone actually finds there to be no consensus for this term to be offensive escapes me. Even its main promoter, Dan Savage, finds it offensive. So my question to Macwhiz is, how does it feel to have it applied personally to you. Sometimes we find that people are more willing to express sympathy for others when they 'walk a mile in their shoes'. This is the hope I have for the discussion here. We have a lot of editors saying this term is perfectly fine, doesn't violate BLP, doesn't violate NEO, etc. But yet if I try to use the same words on another editor here, as expected, I get several complaints in short order. Why is there a double standard? This is the thing I'm trying to get people to visualize. For some reason many of our editors can't. Thanks. And just to be clear, my ugly words above aren't meant as a personal attack on Macwhiz, I don't have any personal animosity toward him, but are to be seen as an aid in teaching us something about how ugly those words are. -- Avanu (talk) 06:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, in summary, you were being offensively uncivil to make a WP:POINT. That's inappropriate. You need to stop, now. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 06:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll show you the same thing I recently showed Heiro:

A commonly used shortcut to this page is WP:POINT. However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate it, which is the only type of behavior which should be considered "POINTY". It is worthwhile to study the above examples, to gain an understanding of this guideline's purpose.

You need to understand the difference between making a point and disruptive editing. The productive purpose being sought here is that Macwhiz and other editors make a connection between the article we're discussing and how repulsive the concepts are that the article discusses. Why don't you give Macwhiz a chance to weigh in before getting too high on the horse? -- Avanu (talk) 06:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT is about Wikipedia rules, not just making points in debate. To quote again, "When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, enforcing it consistently." In other words, WP:POINT isn't the point here. -- Avanu (talk) 06:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look, saying that "WP:POINT isn't the point" doesn't make it so. Frankly, I think Wikipedia could do with a lot more comparisons between some editors and fecal matter on Talk pages, but precedent and policy disagree with me, and you too. I'll leave it to the editors with registered accounts to explain why, in short words that you can understand. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 06:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, admins have too much power already, they're like judges. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avanu! That was unnecessary WP:DISRUPTPOINT on Wikipedia:Etiquette, especialty, writing under the paragraph, where ⌘macwhiz had comments on whether Santorum is or was considered offensive slang term - You came there to demonstrate how offensive it could be (out of context). How that is not POINT? You should avoid such a procedure even just by common sense and indeed also, because it is flagrant POINT.

You are killing the discussion here. --Reo ⁺ 07:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly those who find calling a fellow editor these sorts of things seem all too often willing to defend these same terms being applied to Rick Santorum. He's a public figure, so in the United States, he is less able to defend against that kind of thing, but hopefully we're not trying to fool ourselves here into believing these words aren't offensive. So the question is how willing are we to admit that and what will we do in that spirit to make sure we improve this article? -- Avanu (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avanu, you are the one calling a fellow editor "these sorts of things". Gacurr (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the explanation below my comments, it wasn't a personal attack, but trying to demonstrate the negativity of the words we're discussing. I don't think Discussion is being killed or disrupted, we have a LOT of editors who are trucking along with comments and input, but I don't want people to fool themselves by thinking this term is not offensive and negative. We have a responsibility to do our best on an article like the Santorum one, we affect real lives here, not like the article about Twinkies where no one gets hurt, we can potentially do incredible damage. We're not simply talking about one man's life anymore, but his children and anyone else who happens to have the same last name. The way we frame the article here at Wikipedia has a lot to do with how this is perceived in the world. People turn to Wikipedia for reliable information and look at Wikipedia as a reliable source itself. Simply playing fast and loose and without regard for how our actions work in the larger society is irresponsible and reckless. Again, its not a personal attack, just working to help others understand this more deeply. -- Avanu (talk) 08:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Context is important. I was not asserting that it was not offensive to call Rick Santorum santorum... although I would point out that only those who have never in their lives declared any politician to be a lying sack of shit should be throwing stones in this particular glass house. No, what I was saying is that the previous poster's assertion that ANI had established a precedent for santorum being an inherently offensive slang term had no basis in reality. In other words: ^{[failed verification]}.

This is a talk page; you can say what you want here... although obviously, if you go beyond some bounds of community behavior, you can expect some degree of ostracism. I'd be within my rights to complain about your uncivil behavior. If, however, the national media picked up on your outburst and thirteen years later was still talking about it, chances are there'd be a Macwhiz's talk page problem with Avanu controversy page on Wikipedia. If it were well cited, I wouldn't be objecting to it. I probably wouldn't like it, but... well, I think the British expression "it's a fair cop" says it best. I mean, we're worried that the santorum article is somehow affecting Google's PageRank. I wonder if the amount of activity on this linked page isn't having more effect. A Streisand effect. Anyway, there's a huge and obvious difference between the act of hurling an epithet at someone, and documenting how someone making a satirical political comment about a politician has been noted in almost every reliable daily news source there is over a span of more than a decade—just as there is a difference between how one might feel about using an epithet to describe someone, and correcting an attempt to bolster an argument by citing a reference that just doesn't support the argument. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 11:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On further reflection, it occurs to me that if one's argument is "comparing a living person to excrement is an unpardonable offense and therefore unsuitable for Wikipedia", attempting to advance that argument by comparing a living person to excrement on Wikipedia tends to invalidate that argument completely. If it's an Unforgivable Curse, then by using it to advance an argument, hyperbole or not, surely one would expect to be punished for the civil disobedience. On the other hand, if one then claims "but it's different, because I was doing it to make a point," one then implicitly admits that it is not an Unforgivable Curse, and that there are indeed cases where it is appropriate to use the curse—such as using it to make a point. (Is that not, after all, the reason behind most political satire?) For this reason, I'm disappointed that Avanu chose to elide, rather than strike out, his initial comments; it seems to me they illustrate an important logical catch in the argument. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Threshold for Notability?

One thing that bothers me in the support comments above is that it's not clear what threshold this article would need to clear to achieve notability; the implication of some (though not all) comments appears to be that Wikipedia will never allow this article regardless of the number of references in reliable mainstream sources. As another editor above pointed out, Krauthammer's neologism Bush Derangement Syndrome is a standalone article with far fewer cited references, and far less projected impact. Just yesterday, in contrast, CBS ran a piece arguing that the neologism campaign was the biggest factor in Santorum's presidential campaign being "widely considered a joke": [20]; the sentiment was echoed by less prominent sources as well.[21] [22] [23]

An honest question to Jimbo and other editors who seek to delete most or all of this content--what would you consider the threshold of news coverage before Wikipedia is allowed to substantively cover this subject? Or do you see us as never being allowed to deal with it in depth regardless of the media attention it receives? Khazar (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I missed on my first look that the CBS piece was a reprint of a Nation article and not a new piece. Apologies, and please disregard my comment above. Khazar (talk) 15:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the word actually in common use?

It seems to me that the fundamental question that needs to be resolved is whether or not the word is actually in common use - or whether it's just referred to as "a word invented by X that means Y". If the word is actually in common use, then the article is probably appropriate (just barely). If not, it must be merged/renamed as per the proposal. And if we're not sure, we should merge/rename under the general principle of Do No Harm. LondonStatto (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the long discussion I diged out, that it can be considered actually to be somewhat in use, but the use is quite marginal. Some primary (but not secondary) sources with the use of the word (quotations) are to be found here: Talk:Santorum_(neologism)/Archive_3#Examples_from_literature. So , well such an answer does not cut it on either side... It is in use... but is such degree of use significant? I would agree on the application of principle of Do No Harm as you say Reo ⁺ 00:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The matter of "common use" is not a standard for any Wikipedia article, so your question is irrelevant. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 00:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite relevant, as it goes to the heart of what the article should actually be about; the word (which is manufactured and not used in real-life), or the controversy of its creation and propagation. Savage invented it to google-bomb, that is all. Tarc (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Savage invented it and then it spread to the culture writ large. The fact that one man initiated something does not suddenly subtract all notability, otherwise I suspect many or even most of the topics covered here would need to redirect to a paragraph on the page of their originater. -- ۩ Mask 00:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did it spread to "the culture writ large"? This is what I am trying to determine. Evidence would be useful. LondonStatto (talk) 01:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only relevant question for deciding whether or not a topic has an article in the Wikipedia is, "Is the topic notable?" As it stands now, there are 125 citations which, as best as I can tell, meet the requirements for being reliable sources. I dare say that the question has been answered, irrefutably and in full. Whether or not the word is in "common use" is irrelevant. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 01:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have, I regret to say, spectacularly missed the point. Do those reliable sources use the word as a word, or do they just refer to Savage's invention of the word? The word being in common use would validate the article being about the word - if it's not, the article should be about the campaign. LondonStatto (talk) 01:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you seem to be deliberately missing the point. The topic is noteworty and there is an abundance of reliable sources attesting to the topic's noteworthiness. That is all a topic needs for inclusion in the Wikipedia. Whether a particular word is in common use is irrelevant. Is it your assertion that the article for Quisling should be renamed or removed solely on the grounds that it is not a word in common use? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 01:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice example - "Quisling" is, indeed, in "common use." 3 usages in the NYT in the past 12 months at a quick glance (more than 1000 overall in the NYT excluding the eponymous Vidkun), found in every major dictionary, and so forth. You prove the case, thank you very much. Collect (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not dispute that the topic of Savage's campaign is notable. What I dispute is that the neologism is notable. The one does not necessarily imply the other - only the neologism's being in common use makes the neologism notable in itself. LondonStatto (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Per WP:NEO: "to support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." No where does it say that a neologism must be in common use to be notable, and, in fact, any argument for the notability of a neologism based solely on its common usage would be OR. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blindly quoting a part of a policy without reference to the actual situation is completely unconvincing. Are the sources about the word or are they about the campaign? I strongly suspect the latter - in which case, the term has no notability of its own. LondonStatto (talk) 03:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further review, you have missed the point of the line you quote. That point is that use of the term is not sufficient for an article. That a term is discussed by reliable sources is, however, not sufficient for an article - especially when it is better covered elsewhere; in this case, what notability there is derives solely from the Savage campaign. LondonStatto (talk) 03:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any argument based on your "suspicion" about what the sources say is a non-starter. Why don't you go read the sources, answer your own question, and then try again. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 03:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because some of them are inaccessible to me. I could check 124 sources without a result and it would still not be proof. I have a very strong suspicion that the sources are all about the campaign because no-one has yet quoted a source that is not about the campaign - something that would be trivial if one exists. LondonStatto (talk) 04:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with ip24. Is it a neologism? Yes. Is it in widespread use? Irrelevant. Is it notable? Yes. That its notability is a product of Savage's campaign is irrelevant. Does it deserve a stand-alone article, and if so, what should it be named? Still deciding. But arguments against notability and whether it's a neologism fail. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You lost me. I agree that there's notability - just that the notability derives solely from the campaign. If the word deserves a standalone article, that would imply it had notability independent of the campaign. Thus if you are "still deciding" if the word merits a standalone article, then you are "still deciding" if the word has notability of its own. LondonStatto (talk) 04:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a neologism? Of course not, thats the whole point. As another ediotr pointed out, are folks really out there saying "wow, look at all that santorum coming out your ass man"? I don't know, but sources that say that the word is starting to be used widely or at all would be helpful. Anyways, carry on. --Threeafterthree (talk) 04:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we accept your opinion that santorum is not a neologism over the opinions of the American Dialectic Society, the editors of Neologism in the Lexical System of Modern English, the National Communication Association and other professional lexicographers who say that it is? Did you even bother to look at the many citations for this article? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 04:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the relevance of the forces behind a thing's notability to whether it reaches our notability standards, which it does handsomely, LondonStatto. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um -- the source you aver gives it as a word specifically opposes the idea that it is a word suitable for listing. Specifically it says:

From its appearance in print and especially on the Internet, one would assume, incorrectly, that the term has gained wide usage."

Partridge thus does not list the "word" as an entry! Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell if you're addressing me, Collect but, if you are, you've misunderstood me. I said, "Whether it's in widespread use has already been established by the most R RS we have, Partridge. It's not." That is, it's not in widespread use. But that doesn't mean it's not a neologism or oughtn't have an article. It is a neologism by any definition of "neologism." Whether or not it has an article depends on whether there have been books or papers written about it, (per WP:NEO), and the answer to that seems to be "not yet." --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apologies here - I rather think we are agreeing <g> The word is a "cacophemism" clearly. Collect (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe NEO is saying you need reliable secondary sources and using books and papers (about the term) simply as an example. Gacurr (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of what, Gacurr? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see "secondary sources such as books and papers about the term" as examples of the quality of sources required, distinguishing them from general media commentary. I read it as saying serious, rigorous sources. I might just wander over to NEO and check out a bit of the talk page history. Maybe the intent is made clearer there. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They picked two out of the long list of possible SS so that they could then contrast it: for example, books and papers about the term, not books and papers that use the term. The sentence would have become overlong if they listed all the various reliable secondary sources that are available. Gacurr (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of secondary sources (such as books and papers about the term), as contrasted with primary sources (such as books and papers that use the term). Gacurr (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It's fairly active there, so I've left a request for guidance at talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Please feel free to directly edit my request there to more accurately reflect your view, if I've got it wrong. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I posted "As an example of what?" before I noticed your 14:44 post. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you had just misplaced it. Feel free to place it between the two comments I made together. Gacurr (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make it any less dorky.

I'm beginning to see your interpretation as more likely. Let's see what happens at talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Damn shame if I'm wrong. I thought that was going to save us all a lot of haggling. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For at least the fourth time, I agree that the term reaches the notability standard. However, I maintain that the notability derives directly from the Savage campaign, and since it would be silly to have two articles on one thing, it would be best to be renamed/redirected as per SV's proposal (BLP1E is instructive here). LondonStatto (talk) 04:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Wrong. Any sane interpretation of Wikipedia policy holds that the word is a neologism, as it's been described consistently as such by reliable sources. Whether or not people use the term is irrelevant (although it's eerie how close you just got to quoting me last night.) 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can argue, 24. Do it without the ad hominems. Please redact the "sane" and this comment, and we can move on without drama. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read all the citations, since there are so many, but again, it seems like the majority of them are in reference to the creation or campaign, ect. The "controvesey" is most definitely notable, but my reading of wikipedia's definiton of neologism made me think of words that have been created and are on there way to common usage. After reading the other defintions of neologism, I am not so sure. Anyways, I understand that it really isn't about how widely the word is used, ect. Thanks, --Threeafterthree (talk) 05:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline to redact. I stand by my characterization of interpretations of Wikipedia policy holding that this word is not a neologism by virtue of it's common use or lack thereof as not sane. Quoting sanity, "a person is sane if they are rational," and you can draw your own conclusion about people who would make such an irrational interpretation of policy. Also, please don't make veiled threats of drama in an attempt to silence those that disagree with you; it's inappropriate, and does nothing productive to further the dialogue. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 05:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

interpretation of policy? Do you mean interpretation or definition of the word neologism rather than policy? Anyways, no biggie. --Threeafterthree (talk) 05:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)ps ip, I think Anthonyhcole is in agreement with you but was trying to ask you to be civil in you response, but I'll let him speak for himself...--Threeafterthree (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, it might be an issue of IQ, which is conceptually distinct from madness, so you may be hurting the feelings of those who are simply stupid by characterizing them as mad (there is a hierarchy), but, mainly, as you definitely know, addressing the man, rather than the argument, muddies things and enervates your otherwise potent arguments, diminishing your chances of persuasion, which is what we're trying to do here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Characterizing an interpretation as insane is distinct from characterizing a person as insane: only the latter is an ad hominem attack. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As the number of sources has been cited as an argument, note Dreadstar's comment above: "I only checked the first 30 references and found 7 sources that don’t even mention the purported topic of the article, the neologism: [5][6][7][8][9][10][11]". If you scroll up, he provides links to those sources. --JN466 10:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if this has already been pointed out, but in a recent piece Richard Kim, executive editor of The Nation, said that Santorum had "become the target of a Google bomb, led by gay columnist Dan Savage, that successfully redefined “santorum” as a substance most straight people probably didn’t know existed and most gay men never thought to name, especially not in honor of a Republican US Senator". Not a citation of the word's use, perhaps, but a point about the apparent utility of the word. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to close RfC

I move that we close this RfC (or at least give a clear timeframe, e.g. 2 more days, to close it). Like the multiple AfD requests before it, given the magnitude of the oppose responses it seems overwhelmingly unlikely ever to gain a clear consensus in support.

The upper bound on Wikipedia:Requests for comment is 30 days, but that seems like clear overkill here, and prevents other useful discussions from going forward, like the possibility of a clearer name for the article (separate from content changes).

— Steven G. Johnson (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It has only been open for four days, so closing it would be premature. Mention was made when it started of keeping it open for two weeks, depending on whether comments dry up before that. One of the benefits of RfCs is they allow the heat to go out of a situation, and allow people to think without so much emotion. Closing them after a few days defeats that part of the purpose. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC can stay open for thirty days. There is clearly a valuable discussion resulting out of it and although there may not be a consensus there could still be a close either way imo, more time is clearly required. Off2riorob (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Besides which: there's still hope! Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may not realize it at this precise moment but you've lost this one ;-> John lilburne (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Moved comment: @Stevenj. Thanks for considering and acting on closing your RfC so quickly, easily, and politely. Yes, per above."Mention was made when it started of keeping it open for two weeks, depending on whether comments dry up before that." Discussion is still very active so until at least it peters out nothing new should be added to confuse the already complicated issues.(olive (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks, I didn't see the comment about a 2 week time frame. Probably the right metric is not whether discussion dries up (this article will attract active discussion for the foreseeable future), but when voting dries up. Voting has already slowed from what I can see, but this can be revisited in a few days. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thirty days is fine too. Discussion and votes are interconnected. As long as people are talking they may also be making decisions and voting. Within reason, we don't need to rush this. And I can't see the use of half measures or of interim kinds of solutions which would likely mean the discussion will come up again... and again.(olive (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Sure, discussion and voting are related, but since we can look at voting directly there is no need to use discussion as a proxy to infer whether people are making decisions. And no matter what decision is made, discussion on this issue is going to continue for the foreseeable future, since people have been arguing about this for years now. Ending the discussion permanently is a fruitless goal, not achievable by any RfC. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, way too early. And just to be clear, Consensus isn't a headcount, the "magnitude" of numbers is meaningless, one editor can have consensus over a thousand if Policy and common sense is on that one editor's side. 30 days is fine. Dreadstar ☥ 18:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why there is an RfC in the first place is that there is a difference of opinion about which side policy is on. If the policy implications were undisputed, questions about this article would have been settled years ago. (If the vote count is truly "meaningless" and to be ignored anyway, then we might as well close the RfC.) — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When comments start to dry up, we can ask an uninvolved admin to decide when to close it, and what the consensus is. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're claiming that the magnitude of the votes "unlikely ever to gain a clear consensus in support", I'm just saying numbers are irrelevant in consensus; and this RFC cannot be closed just because the numbers look a certain way. Dreadstar ☥ 19:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Policy concerns may trump a consensus, but a single editor cannot achieve consensus over the objections of a thousand. You're correct, though, in stating that "consensus isn't a headcount"-- in determining the existence of a consensus, the closer will need to take into consideration the fact that this article has survived quite a number of previous attempts to rename, merge, and outright delete it. I would argue, actually, that even if the numbers supported the action proposed by this RfC, consensus would still be against it. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. No legitimate policy concerns have been raised which would justify the de facto deletion of the article as proposed in the RfC. Most of the support votes above are based on dislike, outside concerns such as Google results or "harm" (which is not our concern as mere reporters of social phenomena), or concerns which can be addressed by further editing or renaming the article (such as concerns about how widely the word is used or original research). The RfC discussions have made clear what actually needs to be done, and it's time to move on. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be averse to allowing a rename while the RfC is ongoing, if there is consensus for it; the RfC will then essentially be about the merge and redirect proposal only. --JN466 19:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But new editors here would not know that the concerns of many of the support voters had already been addressed. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has the article been renamed? No. Until then, there's no reason to even consider closing the RFC early; there are legitimate concerns around WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:V, which I think fully support deletion as the article currently stands. After a rename has been successfully accomplished, we can take a closer look at the article's contents to see if it meets all WP policies. But until then, at the earliest, the RFC needs to run its full course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreadstar (talk • contribs) 19:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

??? The present RfC is not about a "rename" only. It is about deletion of the article and replacing it with a summarized version in one subsection of another article. It is this en masse deletion of content that many editors are objecting to. The whole point of closing the RfC is so that we can have an RfC on renaming only (after which content changes can be discussed separately). As Critical points out, this may clarify the discussion since a number of editors (though not all) in the current RfC have concerns that seem centered on the article naming. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFC's aren't that limited, a rename is also a potential outcome of this particular RFC. There's no need to close this one out and start a new one. Yet. Dreadstar ☥ 19:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it would be difficult to infer a clear consensus for a rename only from the current RfC, because that is not the proposal that people were asked to comment on, and the discussion is so long and varied. Yes, several of us mentioned liking a rename possibility in our comments, but it is impossible to accurately gauge support for a rename from scattered comments mixed in with discussion primarily centering on deletion/merging. That is why a separate RfC would be much clearer, but we have to agree that this one is closed first. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what a good closer is supposed to do, accurately gauge each and every comment. If editors are talking rename, then that would be critical to what the closer decides. And there's plenty of rename comments above. Plenty of delete and merge comments too. This really needs an excellent, uninvolved closer. Dreadstar ☥ 20:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. The point of finding someone very experienced to close is that they will look at the comments, look at the numbers, decide when to close the RfC, interpret consensus, and suggest a way forward. We therefore really do need to find someone with experience of complex closures, and perhaps more than one person. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not going to support this, but only because of the rules and customs around RfCs requiring more time. However, if it would do any good, I would urge Slim to withdraw the question that's out there and break it into the separate proposals. I think that the current RfC presents at least three questions as a bundle, and that bundle is unpalatable to many, even though individual components of it may be acceptable. Because it's such a large discussion, it will be difficult to ever claim that there was truly consensus for any positive action from the outcome: there will always be folks who don't realize they didn't have to !vote for the whole thing, and they may feel confused and disenfranchised. The core questions—Should the article be deleted? Should it be renamed, and if so, with or without a redirect? Should the article be stubbed or drastically shortened?—may be somewhat interactive, but not interdependent, and I fear the existing RfC implies that they are interdependent. I think that, whatever the outcome of this RfC, the outcome of one that didn't bundle these questions would be different, possibly less contentious, and probably more palatable in the end. I'm also a bit worried that, if this RfC runs to its close, gets a no-consensus finding, and is then restated as individual questions, some may try to claim it's a second bite of the apple. (See the Trout proposal.) I think that would be unfortunate, and would waste a lot of consensus that has been hashed out below. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:IAR, this is a WP:SNOW keep case but by all means, continue the discussion and let everyone vent and try to reach an understanding. By SNOW I don't mean there's an overwhelming consensus to keep, but rather that there's a snowball's chance that deletion would be a stable outcome. There's a slight chance that an administrator would do the deed, but then all hell would break loose and melt the snowball. Either way, melted snowball. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at some of the sources and there are problems. Two of the references cited do not support the assertion "A web page defining the term as such, created by Savage, became a top search result for santorum in 2003, unseating the Senator's official website on many Web search engines at the time and including Google, Yahoo! Search and Bing in 2011." More seriously, the reference "Rick Santorum ha un problema con Google". Il Post (in Italian). www.ilpost.it. September 8, 2010. Retrieved May 11, 2011.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link) cites this article and so appears to be a violation of WP:CIRCULAR. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The limited reference to Wikipedia doesn't mean that the whole article is unusable. The part about donating $5m has nothing to do with Wikipedia, so I've restored it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you substantiate the claim the "the part about donating $5m has nothing to do with Wikipedia"? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. That article cited is from 8 September 2010
2. The Wikipedia page prior to the recent expansion diff, did not have that info in it.
3. That info was not obtained from this Wikipedia page.

Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC says "condensed to one or two paragraphs," and that seems to me to be something we should decide during the editing process. Isn't predetermining the outcome tantamount to deciding WEIGHT without a full consideration of the sources? Merging without a redirect ("the new title (but not the old one) redirected to that subsection") would break all links on the internet. So, it's basically deletion while saving two paragraphs max. Just the sources I know about would likely need more than two paragraphs to properly explain. So I can't help seeing this as functional censorship. Renaming, pruning, and then as a separate issue discussing merging to Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality with a real redirect seems more appropriate and less drastic. Since the issue is old, ongoing, and reported in multiple reliable sources, we may ultimately decide it deserves its own article. This RfC jumps the gun on a lot of issues. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo also presupposes that an article objectively describing the neologism is more deleterious to Wikipedia's reputation than what will effectively appear to be content censorship in the face of increasing media coverage. I think he's wrong on that one. The idea that the article is damaging to Rick Santorum may or may not be true, but in either case it's wholly irrelevant. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that I'm uncomfortable deleting large amounts of content from reliable sources (which a reduction to a single paragraph will clearly do) for the perceived protection of a public figure, especially one that's chosen to put himself in the public eye by running for president. Renaming the article is reasonable, I think; but Jimbo seems to be muddying the issue by talking about renaming while at the same time giving "strong support" to a proposal to delete almost all the content here. The removal of sourced content on Santorum's behalf looks worse to me for Wikipedia than allowing Wikipedia to report it. Khazar (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"It's sourced content" is not a mantra that can be invoked to justify including any material. BLP sometimes requires that sourced material be removed. Ken Arromdee (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In very limited circumstances, generally to protect privacy or the like. Nothing like that sort of situation is going on here. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a BLP issue. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a related problem: Jimmy (although by far not the only person here) seems to think that this article is contributing to some sort of attack on Santorum. Here's the problem with that: At present the current top hit for Googling "Santorum" is Savage's website. Then this link and the actual Wikipedia page for Rick Santorum. Of the remaining pages on the first page of Google hits, more than half of them are about this neologism and its connection to the Senator. The fraction of those is even higher for the second page of Google hits. So even if this article disappeared completely the entire problem for the Senator would still exist. So, even if one thinks that we should take into account the actions of third party websites, and we think that this subject is actually a substantial problem for the Senator, and think that that problem is in some way distinct from the problem created by any other Wikipedia page related to an individual being politically problematic, one still has the problem that removing or reducing this content will no impact on the problem in question. Indeed, having this neutral article discussing the phenomenon in question probably helps matters in that it makes the senator appear fairly well over the whole thing, and if does much at all, makes Dan Savage appear badly rather than Rick Santorum. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JoshuaZ, your argument is a sensible one, but is the number two Google result (our article) really neutral? It is interesting to compare the article now to the article as it was before Cirt started expanding it. Read over the article it was then. Note the sections entitled "Web activism" and "Political impact". Note especially the quotes from Savage himself in those sections. Now read the lede in the current article - one paragraph about the basics (including a very perplexing reference to Savage offering to take down his website if Santorum gave a significant sum of money to a charity that one can assume Santorum does not support); one paragraph which appears to be designed to suggest that Santorum is not bothered by the term; and a final paragraph which is a collection of usages of the word and not a summary paragraph at all. Where the earlier article reported Savage's actions in what might be seen as a negative light (large by quoting Savage himself), the current version is very pro-Savage. If you believe that a neutral article would have a full three paragraphs of "background" which is already covered in a separate article, you must have a very different view of neutrality than I. Ask yourself what the reader needs to know to understand the formation of this neologism. See the four sentence background in the earlier version. I have made the point elsewhere that this article is simply an extension Cirt's long-running anti-Scientology advocacy, as Savage is a vocal opponent of Scientology in his blog. Based on past experience, one would be wise to look closely before making any assumptions about neutrality. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The entire claim that this has anything to do with the fact that Savage has written some anti-scientology stuff is ridiculous. Lots of people don't like scientology, and Savage has simply written a small amount about that. That claim was discussed to death on ANI already and pretty close to no one found that claim plausible. Bringing it up yet again doesn't help matters. As to your claim about the lede, I agree that the comment about the charity offer would probably make sense to not be in the intro (it isn't important enough to be there). And the example uses are maybe not necessary. Those are both inherently stylistic issues stemming from what should or shouldn't be in the intro. They have close to zero to do with neutrality. They also aren't terribly relevant to the issue of the RfC which isn't about the intro length. Please stop focusing so much on Cirt. I know that you and he have past issues. That's not what is relevant. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua, I am not sure how we can judge neutrality except by looking at what is and is not included in the article and what is or is not given prominence. On that basis, I think your comments about the lede are misguided. You seem to have glossed over my other points to chide me about my comment regarding Cirt's editing. We can pretend that this article expanded itself by magic, but that simple fact is that a single editor brought it to the state that has garnered so much discussion. You are welcome to dismiss my contention that this is related to Scientology, but recall the Daryl Wine Bar, which had a similarly indirect connection. Let me draw your attention to User talk:Cirt#A concern wherein another editor suggests that Cirt's edits regarding Dan Savage may be overly promotional. I am not alone here in pointing a finger (even though it is both impolite and impolitic). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So to be clear, all you are arguing for is a return to the earlier introduction? If so, I don't have any particular objection to that. The fact that another editor (in a very large project) happens to agree with you is both besides the point (almost everyone on the ANI thread clearly didn't agree with your position) and not terribly relevant- Cirt frequently picks a specific topic and then writes a series of articles that are all related, sometimes only tangentially. This is a good thing. He's an extremely productive editor. Seriously, spend time focusing on your strong points, because this is just coming across as a paranoid vendetta. I'm not going to discuss the claims about Cirt further. They are unproductive. If you think that there's a problem start a user RfC. Otherwise we're done on that matter. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think I am suggesting that we go back to the introduction in the earlier version, you have misunderstood me. Since I don't want to misunderstand you, can you explain what you mean by "a paranoid vendetta"? Although I reject the implication, I think I understand the "vendetta" part, but the "paranoid" part makes no sense to me. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo notes that WP routinely writes about the event, rather than the person. True enough, but in the case of an article about a neologism derived from someone's name, it would be pretty hard to "omit the name of the person from the title". At its root, the article is about the neologism, and beating around the bush by renaming it Dan Savage's verbal attack on Rick Santorum is problematic for several reasons:

• It doesn't describe the topic of the article but rather what precipitated the topic of the article. (Perhaps we could redirect Battle of Ypres to Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand while we're at it.)
• It assumes that Savage has made only one verbal attack on Rick Santorum to date—unlikely—and will make no more in future. (If he does, we'll have to rename it Dan Savage's first verbal attack on Rick Santorum. Or perhaps Dan Savage's verbal attack on Rick Santorum that led to an unmentionable neologism.)
• It contravenes all five bulleted points at Wikipedia:Title#Deciding_on_an_article_title. In other words, it flies in the face of policy.

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.

One more point: Jimbo says that "santorum" isn't a neologism "in the usual sense...a word that has arisen naturally in the culture and [is] actually used by anyone". Our own (rather stubby) Neologism article describes a neologism as "a newly coined term, word or phrase, that may be in the process of entering common use, but has not yet been accepted into mainstream language. Neologisms are often directly attributable to a specific person." In other words, neologisms don't arise "naturally"—they're invented—and they're not necessarily "actually used" by many people yet. Reliable sources strongly suggest that "santorum" is a neologism, and a notable one. If we make our coverage of that verifiable information harder to find and less comprehensive, how is that helping our encyclopedia? And what kind of precedent is it setting concerning our willingness to help whitewash the reputation of any politician who makes ignorant, hateful remarks that come back to bite him later? Politics is ugly. We're not encouraging its ugliness here; we're simply reporting on it. Rivertorch (talk) 06:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rivertorch, the problem with what you quoted "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it" is that it leaves out a substantial portion of the BLP policy as well as this being about more than something being a part of an article, but this 'attack' is the *entire* article. The item being defined is not something that readily was looking for a definition i.e. "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex". The idea that this is used as a literal definition is laughable. Its real use is to serve as an ad hominem attack on Rick Santorum personally, and to attack those who are perceived to hold certain beliefs in common with Rick Santorum. It is not simply a definition or neologism, but a pre-existing word that is being used for a complex purpose. Wikipedia policies regarding Biographical material on Living Persons asks us not to serve as a source for titillation or gossip, and WP:Avoid_neologisms asks us not to become a vehicle for the causes of others, but both ask us to strive for a balance in coverage of encyclopedic material. -- Avanu (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now there you make a compelling argument for me. Not the BLP claim; I still haven't seen anyone illustrate how the article violates BLP specifically, rather than appealing to what it should or could mean (cf. truthiness). No, the WP:NEO argument is a good one. That policy has been around a while, and it's definitely on point. So now, I agree that this article as an article about a neologism is on very shaky ground. However, I'm not convinced that the article should go away. I'm still with the camp that thinks our position in the Google search ranking does Rick Santorum a favor: a fair article that details the controversy is a counterweight to Savage's number-one-ranking page for the term "santorum". So, can we refocus the article on the controversy, and come up with an accurate name for the result? The first thing that comes to mind, given the overwhelming prevalence of the term in the citations, is "Rick Santorum's Google problem with the term santorum", but I see a ton of problems with that title... // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't do him a favor. Just because an article fairly reports the facts doesn't mean it can't do unjustified harm to him. Helping to spread the meme does harm to him, even if only accurate statements or no statements at all are made about his involvement. The article harms him in a similar way to how an article having 200 lines of "Rick Santorum is a poopyhead" would harm him. Such an article would not be doing him a favor even if it had several long paragraphs about how he really isn't a poopyhead; articles cause harm in ways other than being factually inaccurate. 208.65.88.213 (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about Santorum neologism controversy? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would work for me... // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for finding WP:NEO, which is on point. Ideally, I would like to have Savage's name in the title (e.g. Dan Savage santorum neologism controversy), as it is his campaign, but we are definitely moving in the right direction. As it stands, the article violates WP:NEO, which is policy. --JN466 17:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well said Rivertorch. I agree with you: Jimbo is confusing alot of issues in his statement. It looks like hasn't actually explored all of the nuance of some of the arguments in support or in opposition of these changes. The fact that, now, the word has taken a life of it's own beyond the campaign would make it disingenuous and POV pushing to include Savage's name amongst the title. If anything, our treatment of the neologism in our article makes it easier to see how the neologism, though a neologism, is the product of something very complex that is not in the best interest of Santorum, and is not just a google bombing campaign but something that has been perpetuated by many people beyond Savage, including the current press, Sadads (talk) 08:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I am not even sure that he has actually read the article if he thinks it was a "verbal attack". Active Banana (^bananaphone 10:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikictionary:

1. Of, or relating to words.

It does not necessarily mean "spoken out loud".

Now will you please stop this canard? Ken Arromdee (talk) 05:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo is just another editor. His comments are welcome but they should only hold the weight their argumentation can carry. Protonk (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that Jimbo is not "just another editor". 24.177.120.138 (talk) 03:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but he does make a point of putting his extra power on a shelf and using his undeniable authority responsibly. For the purposes of discussion, his arguments are just those of another (highly respected) editor, not The Handed Down Commandment of The Wikigod. He has neither omniscience nor infallibility; just a really huge benefit of the doubt. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly hope you're correct, and that we're not just twiddling our thumbs waiting on an office action. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have given this some thought, and I have decided to take a break from editing and watching this article for a while, and I will respectfully defer to the consensus of the community with regard to ongoing discussions. I realize that the topic is a controversial one, and the secondary source coverage is only a few years old. Perhaps as time passes, additional sources will analyze the phenomenon from multiple viewpoints, maybe even including academic scholarship. I wish the best to all who continue to stay involved with editing and discussion of this topic. -- Cirt (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In May 2003, syndicated columnist Dan Savage, offended by then U.S. Senator Rick Santorum's comments on homosexuality, ran a competition among his readers to find the most appropriate meaning for the word "santorum," and created a website that featured the winning definition: a mixture of fecal matter and lubricant sometimes produced in anal sex. Due to the high number of other sites that link to it (see search engine optimization),^[1] since 2004 Savage's "definition" page has consistently been at or near the top of Google, Bing and Yahoo! search results for "Rick Santorum" and "santorum."^[2][3] In 2011 Santorum commented, "That'll take care of itself over time and if this campaign takes off and we decide to do this my guess is we'll have lots of other things that will transplant things like that. [...] I'm sure [the media] will be writing a lot of things and there'll be lots of links to other things that will far supersede some nasty people that are trying to be crude."^[4] In 2009 Santorum's campaign website had 5,000 inbound links, compared to 13,000 at Savage's "definition" website.^[5] Though it has received some media coverage and the American Dialect Society selected santorum as the Most Outrageous Word of the Year for 2004,^[6] Savage's neologism has failed to gain wide usage.^[7]

Thoughts? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My thought is that you're jumping the gun. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC, above, is proposing a radical reduction in the size of this content. I thought it would be useful to see what that might look like. I don't seriously expect a string of "love it!"s to follow :) I've just made a small change. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that that reads like a good lead paragraph, and I would like to know alot more. It would be very unfortunate to remove so much communicative information from the article when I still have questions after reading your new trim. If this is how you would treat most topics in our encyclopedia, I imagine all of our featured articles would be stubs too, thats very unfortunate Sadads (talk) 08:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you like it, Sadads. I genuinely think most of what I removed was pretty irrelevant. What are the main points you think are missing? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nuance of how the word could possibly have become so popular, which your paragraph hardly even alludes to, and a more careful analysis of how the word is actually effecting Santorum. I agree we could cut some of the sections in this article in half, because they have been structured as defensive structure against afds, but really, this case is fascinating in the way that news and other groups have commented on the effects and Savage's techniques to choose the word and spread it are an interesting case study in utilizing web media. Seriously, there are some very interesting things about how this word was developed, that lend a lot of light on how the word was a successful attack on Santorum which is fairly unique in recent politics for it's longevity in impact despite not being commonly used. A trim as you are suggesting is far too radical, but would be a great summary paragraph for related articles to link to this article as the main, Sadads (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"how the word could possibly have become so popular". Citation needed. You are aware, Sadads, aren't you, that the one good source that commented on the popularity of the word, the Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, states that "the term is the child of a one-man campaign by syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage to place the term in wide usage. From its appearance in print and especially on the Internet, one would assume, incorrectly, that the term has gained wide usage." --JN466 10:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that typing "santorum" into Google News and reviewing the vast number of articles that return—or, perhaps better yet, "santorum google problem"—would show that the word is being very widely discussed. One could say it's even popular, as in "(of political activity) of or carried on by the people as a whole rather than restricted to politicians or political parties" (New Oxford American Dictionary). Sure, it's not in "wide usage". As others have mentioned above, if it were in wide usage, it wouldn't be a neologism, it would be a word! Did the whole world just start using the word "sandwich" after the Earl of Sandwich slapped meat between slices of bread? One morning, did all of Britain wake up and decide that today, the act of using an electric vacuum cleaner would be called hoovering? Do you remember the day you got the bulletin that henceforth, you would instruct someone to search the Internet by using the verb google? The argument "The word isn't a word or even a neologism because one person coined it and the whole world doesn't use it, and therefore it is not notable" depends upon one completely ignoring the way in which words are inducted into the English language. The phenomenon is fairly well documented,[24][25] and the life of santorum appears to be following that arc. So far, the article seems to be doing a good job of covering the neologism's ascendance at the hands of Google and the press. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think what's being discussed in the press is Savage's Googlebombing campaign, and its effect on Santorum? I ask myself – if there weren't the Googlebombing aspect, would sources comment on the word? I don't think they would. The campaign is news; the word isn't. Applying linguistic criteria, the Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English didn't list it and explained why; and that dictionary is full of genuine neologisms. Perhaps the word will make it, but we don't have a crystal ball, and we shouldn't in my view be actively promoting it. --JN466 21:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I too like the paragraph, but I feel such a lengthy explanation, along with the crude definition, does not belong in a main BLP article, but in the Santorum controversy article, linked from the main BLP article. Drrll (talk) 09:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. It is getting a bit long for Rick Santorum. I've added something about search engine optimization. If that's inappropriate, revert. Sadads, I agree this is notable and interesting. But I also believe the article is egregiously long and believe we have to avoid doing harm while making the notable and interesting points available to the reader. I'd like to know how Savage got those 13,000 incoming links. Did he invite his readers to link to the page? I'll reread the stuff about impact on Santorum and his career, later. I'm going out now. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should be given as much prominence as the "Miserable failure" google bomb on GW Bush. Lets not forget that as a result of that Google censored their search results. Thus it has more impact on society than this fecal stain is ever likely to have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John lilburne (talk • contribs) 10:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, the impact of this thing should determine the degree of prominence we give it. Sounds reasonable. I'm not sure it's had any measurable impact, actually. I'll reread that section later. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While it is said above that "there was no meaningful political impact", compare the actual article text:

"Whilst Santorum was contemplating a campaign for the Republican nomination for President in 2012, the high Web search engine ranking of Savage's site in searches for his name was seen as a potential roadblock.^[ref] CEO of ReputationDefender Michael Fertik who specializes in helping individuals with such issues commented, "It's devastating. This is one of the more creative and salient Google issues I've ever seen."^[ref]"

That's the kind of stuff you'd be hiding under the whitewash. Wnt (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If so Then That's what the article should be about. However, such comments are CRYSTAL BALL GAZING, there is no evidence that it will affect his chances, or that he will even run, or that if he does run that it will have any impact. Please don't use armchair punditry as evidence of worth.John lilburne (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our main problem per some of the comments above, is that this article is purported to be about a word... but is about a political situation and campaigns. It would be much more viable as renamed to something about a campaign. That's where we ought to focus I believe, in order to leave this behind and get back to writing a good article. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The media has long gone beyond the coverage of the campaign though, and has been focusing more and more on the existence of the neologism, Sadads (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then all the justifications for keeping this based on political relevance are crap then. And as we've already seen the use of the word as a neologism is like wise crap, it hasn't caught on, and its existence is purely as a google bomb. John lilburne (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, if that's true it's still such a significant situation that we need the article Santorum (Google bomb). One way or the other, something here deserves space on WP. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We already have that over with the "Miserable failure" and "French military victories" and a host of other google bombs. At issue here is why this one is being singled out for special treatment. John lilburne (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Lost edit due to the attempt to rename] Probably because this was intended -and I think in fact became- more than a Google bomb, if I understand the term correctly. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source ([26]) cited in the article is not Dan Savage. True, Mother Jones, though widely respected, is not particularly neutral on political matters, and in the interests of fair and thorough coverage I might tweak the wording slightly now that I think about it. Wnt (talk) 23:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what I've read above, the information should be moved to the Wiktionary article. It's a made-up word, and that's all it is. There's a news component to its history (Savage) but basically the existing article is about its etymology. As such, it belongs in a dictionary rather than an encyclopedia - and certainly not in the Rick Santorum article. Flatterworld (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I trust we'll see a similar proposal shortly at Google (verb) and Spoonerism, among others? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence that people actually use this "word"? TFD (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I use it regularly. That's really not relevant, though. Are you asking for reliable sources asserting that the word is in use? 24.177.120.138 (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether "santorum" is used or not is irrelevant. The neologism is discussed in reliable sources.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A neologism that isn't used is not a neologism. Thus whatever sources are discussing it as a neologism are wrong in fact. John lilburne (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not based on what is right in fact, but on what is verified.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That allows us to have articles on tarot card readings, religion and other such subjects, but should not be extended into any old nonsense that happens to be sourced to some otherwise reputable source. If a journalist cannot distinguish what is a neologism, cannot fact check whether the thing they are describing is a neologism, then they cannot be a reliable source for the thing being a neologism. Otherwise we might just as well allow blog posts, comments on USENET and, recordings of people around the water-cooler, to make there way into the article. John lilburne (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No because those are not reliable sources.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of things are discussed by reliable sources, but that alone doesn't make them encyclopedic. What do you have against Wiktionary and etymology? Flatterworld (talk) 23:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're arguing against the WP:N of the article. Please review the core content policies and try again. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the word "truthiness", which Stephen Colbert cleverly coined as a way to show the inherent dishonesty in so many areas of today's society, the word "santorum" was crafted simply because Dan Savage didn't like what Rick Santorum had to say about Lawrence v. Texas in the overturning of Texas' sodomy law. If you ever watched the full video of the discussion (as I did), you would see that Santorum didn't seek to focus on the sodomy stuff nor to make a specific statement regarding homosexual behavior, but was asked by a reporter to give comments on it. A few comments that were barely different than thousands of others apparently somehow made Santorum not only worthy of attack, but worth attacking on the most base levels and comparison to fecal matter and lubricant.

Now we see that Wikipedia is serving the goal that Savage had in mind by giving credence to the idea that this is a real word used by people. How many of our "reliable" sources show this word in use? Is it used as a joke by political pundits? Or is it used to really convey meaning when discussing anal sex? BLP does not only mean reliable sources covered something (That is what WP:RS is for). It means that we take care not to turn Wikipedia into a gossip column or place to titillate. We give space to all viewpoints, and that starts with the Title we choose, and runs throughout the article. As written, this article only serves the malicious purposes intended by Dan Savage when he set out to attack a political opponent. -- Avanu (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are some fine opinions. Too bad they've got no bearing on how this article should be structured or titled, unless you can back them up with facts. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

!Facts aren't the problem. BLP concerns are. Wikipedia uses reliable sources, but the *way* we use those is important to the article. We have a ton of reliable sources, but I'm strictly talking about BLP here. -- Avanu (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, in part: I should have said "unless you can back them up with reliable sources." BTW, this isn't a BLP issue. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, BLP calling. That's the real issue and pretty much ONLY issue here. -- Avanu (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? When did "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes a byproduct of anal sex" become a living person? 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have no 'facts' to support this as being a 'neologism', you have misinformed journalists at best, who for all we know may have got it as being a neologism from this very article. What we do know for sure is that those that declare words to be neologisms have specifically said that this is not one. John lilburne (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{ec}I don't need facts to support this being a neologism, I've got reliable sources, e.g. CNN. Your characterization of the journalists who report on the neologism as "misinformed" is an opinion statement that has no bearing on the reliability of those sources. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IF any of you had followed the link I provided to the Wiktionary article, THEN you might have looked at the discussion there AND noticed that the second section is about instances of actual and claimed usage. Surely someone here is interested in actual facts. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Flatterworld (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, this is Wikipedia. We're interested in WP:V and WP:RS. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look kid, lots of people are making good points here. Verifiability and Reliable Sourcing are VERY important, but they are the beginning, not the end. We then look at BLP and whether the material is encyclopedic, etc. It is obviously verifiable and sourceable, but there is more to consider. -- Avanu (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look, kid, don't condescend to me. This isn't a BLP issue. This has been settled forever. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not, since a LOT of editors believe it *is* a BLP issue. -- Avanu (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows? -- Avanu (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't care whether we're serving external goals or not, as long as we're working under our rules. If the word is not a real neologism, then that just means it's the campaign that's noteworthy here, so rename and move on. I don't think it's a BLP issue either. We don't ignore a notable sourced subject because it's nasty to someone. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP requests a unbiased treatment of the subject. How does the presentation of this article currently fit that criteria? -- Avanu (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article a Biography of a Living Person? No. These are facts. You're just stirring the pot. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a BLP, it's about a word/campaign/whatever. BLP would apply if statements were made about Santorum rather than reporting on the affair, or bad sources used to spread derogatory statements about him. Are you saying we are giving a biased treatment of the sources, or using bad sources? Perhaps, but that's a tweak, not a basic problem. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why it is difficult to understand how a person's last name is biographical. The IP user above makes the mistake of not seeing the biographical content here as well as using the term "facts", which is to be avoided on Wikipedia. As others have repeatedly said, we deal in what Reliable Sources say, not "facts". To Becritical, this is biographical because it is at its heart an ad hominem attack on Senator Rick Santorum, essentially comparing him to the "frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex". While I agree that public figures are less protected by US law from attack because of free speech rights, that doesn't diminish policy concerns here at Wikipedia. -- Avanu (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To continue, since this is ad hominem, and essentially attacking the person rather than the issues, it should strike even the most casual reader that this is inappropriate to focus on it in the way this article does. Wikipedia is not here to carry the water for political sides or causes. We're here to provide encyclopedic information. -- Avanu (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one's denying this is an attack, but documenting an attack is not an attack. Now, maybe we need to merge it to the homosexual controversy article, rename it, whatever. But the RfC above was about totally destroying it, which doesn't seem right given the sources. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear about this stuff.

• This is not about a "Google bomb". Dan Savage is one of the great humorous - and sometimes serious - columnists of the age, and I distinctly remember reading about this not long after it came out. It was political commentary, it was election news, it had a life of its own back when people didn't trust search engines to find every single thing they might be interested in.
• This is a neologism. Some people do use this word in conversation, not literally, but figuratively, more or less as an alternate to "bullshit". Look up "bunch of santorum" -rick on Google, for example. No, those aren't reliable sources, but this isn't really a reliable-source kind of word. It still is a word now, however unconventional its manner of conception.
• This is about politics. Obviously. It's not just the word in the dictionary, but how the word was made and is used and affects political life. People don't want to admit there's a living person involved because BLP has become a black hole - yet coverage of WP:WELLKNOWN political figures is supposed to be free from censorship. Whereas in practice, I feel like this is coming up because of the possibility of some 2011 political role for Santorum. I feel like this is only one tiny part of a Wiki-wide campaign we're going to be seeing to censor and spitshine every article about a Republican. Wnt (talk) 00:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that this *isn't* a Google Bomb. People who think that weren't paying attention back in 2003. While technically neologism means a new word, I also agree that in spirit this is a neologism because the last name of the senator wasn't as commonly known. I also agree with you that this is political. Sadly, I must disagree that just because it is political it means that those who want to change its presentation here in Wikipedia are somehow politically motivated. Personally, I feel that 99% of the candidates who run for office have no business being in office at all. But as Alton Brown says, "that's another show". The object being described is pretty gross (for political effect). Santorum the man made a comment, and so rather than engage on a discussion of the issues, Dan Savage engaged in character attack. This isn't the sign of a civil and intellectual society. If this article were presented differently, it would be fine. But let's be honest, it is about a living person, it is about their biographical information (aka last name), and it is clearly an attack. The question becomes where do we draw the line with BLP on this issue, not whether it is BLP related. -- Avanu (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So as I understand what Wnt is claiming, it's that the etymology of each and every word belongs in an encyclopedia (Wikipedia), just because at some point in time it's been 'discussed by reliable sources'? Most people are aware that dictionaries provide more than just the current definition of a word. They're expected to include its etymology. So why are you so against putting that in Wiktionary? Surely you can clearly explain your position on that instead of goingoff on some tangent. The title of this section is Wrong place. That's what we're discussing: the proper place. Flatterworld (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Words with a political cargo go beyond mere etymology - as does this article. For example, nigger, chav, and wanker. Wnt (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gobsmacked. If you truly think those three words, with their long history of use in politics and elsewhere, are somehow equivalent to a word some shock jock made up as a specific attack on one politician...well, there's simply no rational discussion possible. You've made up your mind, I'll no longer try to confuse you with facts. (And based on your flippant comment about etymology, I doubt you've ever read any entries in the unabridged Oxford dictionary, either.) Flatterworld (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought words with a long history would make the issue clear. But to find you some shorter ones I just looked up 4chan and found lolcat, rickrolling, and pedobear; also LOL can be mentioned. Of course the "politics" of these words is less clear; yet as social memes, they carry some related implication of social viewpoint when used. Wnt (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As there has been a lot of back-and-forth discussion on this page during the last couple of days, it seems worth pointing out to new editors arriving here that several screen-worths up on this page there is an ongoing RfC: #Proposal_to_rename.2C_redirect.2C_and_merge_content. --JN466 23:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't really like the precedent, there's nothing to say that every article needs to be indexed by search engines. There's a technical limitation in place that requires every page in a content namespace be unconditionally indexed, mostly to avoid stealthy vandalism (such as removing "Abortion" or "Barack Obama" from search engine indices). The majority of the concerns here seem to be focused on how people are coming across this article (via Google bombing, etc.), not necessarily that the article exists. Yes, some people are going to scream about NPOV and NOTCENSORED and others are going to say that any kind of article is a BLP violation. Both sides have legitimate points in their favor, so a compromise might be best here. Keep the article, but kill it from search engines.

One possible implementation might be to use MediaWiki:Robots.txt. Another would be to talk to the Wikimedia system administrators about instituting a specific exemption. Using robots.txt seems to be the smarter choice from a technical point of view, though, for what it's worth. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly an interesting idea, I suppose it tempers BLP concerns to a degree. -- Avanu (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in mind, if we did this, the top hits on google would move up his regular bio one spot, right after dan savage's vicious hate site, which will remain No. 1. Quickly followed by urban dictionary, articles about his "anal sex" and "google problem," etc. Does that really help Sen. Santorum to bury the article which at least explains where this is all coming from?--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The idea isn't to help Sen. Santorum. We would be wrong to try to help him. The idea is to keep Wikipedia encyclopedic and respectable. Yopienso (talk) 04:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The idea is to keep Wikipedia encyclopedic and respectable."

Which presumes this isn't encyclopedic and respectable, which if true (by consensus), this article would have been deleted years ago. Consensus has repeatedly rejected that. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Consensus hasn't made this a settled issue yet. Time will tell if this is the polka craze or the polka dot. (which one lasted?) -- Avanu (talk) 06:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which presumes that the editor demographic that is deciding to keep the article is a match with the outside world. That those that are not part of WP don't see articles such as this as infantile, and unworthy of a serious publication. John lilburne (talk) 06:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You must be nearly the last person left on Earth who regards youth as inferior. Media, advertisers, publishers - who resents infantility? The best selling books are children's stories about wizards and asinine conspiracy theories about Obama's birth certificate. Certainly the HR officials in the fancy corporate offices have no trouble preferring the 23 year olds over the 50 year olds. You come and tell young Wikipedia editors that they should pretend to be old? What on Earth for? Yet there is no reason at all why the old cannot also appreciate the freedom to collaborate in documenting social phenomena such as this. If the purity of intent shown by articles like this is infantile, then by all means, let us be infantile. Wnt (talk) 08:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about wizards, or Obama's birth certificate, and whilst HR officials prefer 23 yo because they are cheap, they prefer interns they don't have to pay even more. But I appreciate your candour in wanting to produce and protect articles that follow the lowest common denominator into the gutter. John lilburne (talk) 08:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia can be no "better" than its sources, its editors, and the people who read it. And if we've forgotten that those people are good enough, that they can be trusted to edit our articles and certainly can be trusted to read them unabridged, then we are truly lost. Wnt (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Let's have an article, and then make it difficult for people to find it". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Deciding to make a page virtually invisible to most Internet users because of BLP/privacy concerns sets a disturbing precedent. Change the content; don't hide the page. elektrikSHOOS 01:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The word santorum /sænˈtorəm/ is a neologism coined by American advice columnist Dan Savage in response to controversial statements on homosexuality by..."

Personally, I think it was one of the best edits I've seen on this project, in terms of repairing harm to the encyclopedia's reputation. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the edit, and note that "consensus" for its implementation was sneakily gotten by User:Jayen466 by holding a poll on BLPN, where the biases of the editors are obvious. The purpose of this article is to be useful to its readers, including to those who come to it through Google, so it should present clearly and forthrightly the definition of santorum first, and its origins later, because its origins are backstory, and are not really useful for people who have seen the term used in sexual slang and want to know what it means. Quigley (talk) 06:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few changes to the lead now, in line with tempering the idea that this is actually a proper neologism, rather than a political tool. If anyone really uses this word exclusively to mean 'fecal matter and lube after anal sex', please find them. Its *very* clear that it is an ad hominem political attack and to suggest that it is in common use for any other reason flies in the face of logic. -- Avanu (talk) 06:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also (@Quigley) the idea that the use of the guy's name is just 'backstory' now is almost ridiculous to the point of being absurd. I could see your point if we were talking about the Vandals since that was 1,500 years ago. But this term was coined 8 years ago. The word "neologism" itself should give you a clue that 'backstory' is just as important now if not *more* important. -- Avanu (talk) 06:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anthonyhcole seems to be expressing ownership of the content in the lead now after having started a discussion with that section title. Just to be clear, simply because someone starts a thread mentioning something doesn't mean everyone needs to suddenly stop trying to improve it and just discuss. I don't know what changes Cirt made and what changes this IP user made. I was simply working on the article to make it more clear what it actually is about. The sentence "The word santorum /sænˈtorəm/ (distinguished from the name 'Santorum') is a political statement in the form of a neologism promoted by American advice columnist Dan Savage" makes it very clear BOTH that this is considered a neologism by many AS WELL AS being primarily a political tool. Anthonyhcole made the argument that this expands the lead too much, so I looked for something to move and found that the section I could move already existed below in the article under 'Recognition and usage'. Anthony, if you have an actual issue with the content, please explain that objection here, but since its more than clear that it is both a neologism and a political attack tool and additional cites show this, please leave it in unless you have a better suggestion to improve it, rather than just removing stuff. -- Avanu (talk) 07:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that the current first sentence appears to redefine santorum as the act that created it. Its creation was a political statement. The word itself is a neologism. Gacurr (talk) 07:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the creation of *and* use of *and* promotion of *and* the word itself are all political statements. Saying "in the form of a neologism" gives the definition that you are looking for in saying that it is a neologism. -- Avanu (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avanu, my main motivation for starting this section and reverting your subsequent edit to the first line was to get you and others to discuss the content rather than fight it out on the article page. Regarding the length of the lead, considering the state of the article, that's a minor issue and I'm happy to let it go. I agree with Gacurr's analysis. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my obvious question for you would be how is it *not* being used as a political tool now? Savage is quoted in the article itself -- according to the Philadelphia Weekly, the term "gained real traction" and "found its way into salacious dictionaries—and books published on actual paper," with Savage admitting that he "worked pretty hard" to get it out there.

This isn't just a simple neologism, but a crusade by an individual to defame another. The idea that it took on a life of its own, by itself seems flatly contradicted by its main promoter, Dan Savage. -- Avanu (talk) 08:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the first sentence/paragraph to be about the context is not unreasonable. It is pretty clear, based on the contest, that the nominal literal meaning of santorum is not as significant as with some words - the decision was made to coin the term before its definition was decided. Therefore the rationale of the word's coinage should come first. It looks like when the word is actually used, it is most often figurative anyway. Wnt (talk) 08:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The lead should, and does, address the context. But saying "santorum" is a political act is inaccurate. It is the product of a political act. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For Dan Savage, saying "santorum" is a political act. Spreading the word around is a political act. And him grinning with sadistic glee at the results is the *product* of a political act. The primary purpose of this word, this neologism, is to cause damage to Rick Santorum by serving as an ad hominem. To say that the political act was over once the word was created ignores reality. -- Avanu (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Properly, we should not make special exceptions for articles based on what external websites do. People need to stop looking at Google. Forget Google, forget everything but writing a good article. But since this article may be renamed to be about the campaign itself, it's not really important now is it? The way you are editing it recently makes it into an article about the campaign... which IMHO is appropriate, but entails a rename. But if it's going to be about the word, you need to put the definition first, see Hooverville etc. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 14:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Google shouldn't determine how we write an article. But in this case the response to it just happens to be appropriate anyway. When someone in the 30s mentioned a Hooverville, he was probably actually talking about an actual shanty town - it was the primary meaning of what he said. But when people now talk about "a bunch of santorum" on the Web, they're probably not actually talking about fecal matter lube etc. but rather expressing their disapproval of anti-gay Republicans, flavored with a special sauce. So I think in this case, based on both how the term was created and how it is used, it is acceptable to discuss its derivation in the first sentence and its meaning in the second. Wnt (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good argument, but that needs to be included in the article if it can be sourced don't you think? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice, but I doubt we'll find that kind of careful analysis in a reliable source. It is my belief that determining the order of sentences or sections in an article is one of a few legitimate uses of original research on Wikipedia. For example, I recently reordered some text in quercetin to put antiinflammatory roles first, in part because possibly antiinflammatory activity could underlie alleged anticancer activity and effects on obesity and diabetes. I had no source for that, either. But we have to order the sections somehow, and original research is better than doing it blindly. Wnt (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me (: BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the inflammatory and attacking nature of this term and the BLP concerns (not sourcing, but "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.") It seems some of the recent edits seem intent on marginalizing these concerns. -- Avanu (talk) 06:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For those who may not usually follow politics in the news, but are participating in The Great Santorum Froth-Up above: One point of debate regarding the relevance of this article has been whether or not Rick Santorum would run for the US presidency in 2012. That's no longer crystal-ball gazing: This morning, on Good Morning America, Rick announced his candidacy. [29] I'm not saying this necessarily changes things; just that it may factor into some peoples' decision-making process. (I'm using "Rick" to identify Rick Santorum, even though Wikipedia custom is to use his last name, just to avoid unnecessary confusion with the term santorum.) // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There never was any doubt: why else would this article suddenly become an issue after laying fallow for so many years? I would not be surprised to learn that the many new editors complaining about violations of BLP have IP addresses that match the ex-senator's campaign. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 20:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please either strike or verify your allegation. (I would not be surprised to learn that the many new editors complaining about violations of BLP have IP addresses that match the ex-senator's campaign.) You should not make such statements here unless you can document them. It is certainly not true of me, and it's the "Oppose" list that's sprinkled with editors who have been inactive or are SPAs. Thank you. Yopienso (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i see no allegation here. i wouldnt be surprised either. -badmachine 21:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's entirely obvious, but since you can't see it, I'll restate it. He's alleging that editors who have not previously edited this article or its talk page belong to Rick Santorum's campaign. Yopienso (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only assertion I made above was that the sudden interest in this article, and the many vigorous attempts in the last few weeks to censor this article, were due to Santorum's impending declaration as a candidate for President in 2012. Who has been involved in those attempts is supposition, nothing more.TechBear | Talk | Contributions 23:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that has changed is that the bollox that the website would affect whether he stands or not, can at least be seen as WRONG. We can also say that those RSs that were making those comments is equally likely to be WRONG on any other aspects regatding this topic too. The upshot is that for several days this article has contained nothing but SHITE as far that is concerned. We still have an article full of CRYSTAL BALL GAZING on all the other political aspects of the nonsense. John lilburne (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, when you say CRYSTAL BALL GAZING, are you referring to speculation about the prank's impact on Santorum's career? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly there is no way that any of the RS quoted can have any inkling into the impact on his career on way or another. To do that one would have to question those that vote for or against him whether the campaign had any effect on how they voted. To crystal ball gaze myself I'd say that the fact that he's annoyed the gays will play well with his constituency, but I doubt it will gain him any votes nor lose him many. Most people don't care who someone lives with or has sex with. All the commentary is just filling column inches, chattering away on TV and radio, pretending to be knowledgeable, pontificating one way or another. One would have thought that having witnessed previous political speculations people would have wised up, to the fact that it is nonsense through and through. John lilburne (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good call! Wouldn't want to confuse people into thinking Santorum_(neologism) was running for president. Politics in Washington are dirty enough as it is! Lara 21:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My, that's amazing! Who would ever have guessed that this drive to "improve" the article would be so tightly integrated with a political campaign? Purely coincidence, I suppose. But somehow I suspect Kremlinologists may find that watching Wikipedia over the coming months to see which articles are up for censorship is a better way to predict the primary campaign than any other tool in their arsenal. Wnt (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NEO, it is clear that we should change the title, as the vast majority of sources are about the political campaign, not the neologism. This is true quite irrespective of the outcome of the above RfC. --JN466 22:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely... with a redirect from this article title. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Above, I suggested Santorum neologism controversy. Thoughts? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to make a list of possible names for discussion. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

It's an improvement on what we have, but I feel Dan Savage santorum neologism controversy or Dan Savage santorum neologism campaign would be more appropriate. It is Savage's campaign, and I feel he should be in the title. --JN466 22:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing to ignore the results of the RfC? Really? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming is a different proposition from renaming, merging and redirecting. And of course the renaming won't happen without consensus. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we discuss some of the ramifications of the alternatives? For instance, renaming to Santorum neologism controversy, without touching any of Cirt's recent modifications to the page's search engine friendliness, would probably leave the page at or near the top of search engine results for "santorum." Whereas, starting the title with "Dan Savage" would probably remove it from the first ten or so results, at least. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If your goal in renaming is to manipulate search engine results, then my guess is that it will be a non-starter. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything we do here affects search engine results. I'm in favour of bringing these implications out into the open. If we ignore them it leaves us open to manipulation by those who don't ignore them. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the page would be removed from the top ten results. It might end up below or level pegging (i.e. above for some users/at some times, below for some users/at other times) with the article on the person, which would be appropriate. It is very clearly Dan Savage's campaign though, and it does not appear in the top ten search results for Dan Savage at present. (Not even the top hundred as far as I can make out.) It should. --JN466 23:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read WP:NEO before. It says don't make up an article by finding a bunch of sources that use a word and shoving them together to prove it exists. It says find a secondary source about the word. Well, we have sources about the word. This page is completely in compliance with the policy. And I don't see one thing in it about what the article is named! Wnt (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you went by the sources that are about the word, it would fail WP:N. What raises it above that threshold is the reporting the campaign as such has received, and that is what most of the article is about. --JN466 23:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I call santorum on that. The word is notable in its own right.[30] Gacurr (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Count the cited sources in the article that are about the word, and then count the ones that are about Dan Savage's actions, how he got the campaign going, and its results. Don't you think the latter far outweigh the former? I'm not sure the American Dialect Society selecting the word as the most outrageous neologism of 2004 alone would make it pass WP:N, as a neologism, per WP:NEO. We have about four or five sources covering it as a neologism (including the fairly comprehensive Partridge, which took the view that it wasn't ripe for an entry). --JN466 00:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To combine: Santorum neologism campaign. I would include Savage's name, but he's not the only one participating. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's his brainchild though, and all the sources we cite attribute it to him. The article mentions his name 65 times (plus another 29 mentions in the references). --JN466 00:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well Dan Savage santorum neologism campaign would be acceptable. It sounds clunky, but it's accurate. Savage santorum campaign would be way cool, but.... sigh..... BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Santorum neologism campaign is adequate, accurate, and correct per WP:TITLE. Adding Dan Savage's name adds unnecessary complexity: Is there more than one notable campaign to make a neologism out of Santorum's name? If there isn't, then no futher qualifier—such as whose campaign it might be—is necessary. Being unnecessary, WP:TITLE (and common sense) says leave it out. I'm good with Santorum neologism campaign and would support it if an RFC were called. Oh, and count me in the camp that feels it would be a good thing if the article remained near the top of Google's results for santorum, because I believe it defrays any damage that Savage's number-one-ranked site might cause... but ultimately, I don't believe Google rankings should have any bearing whatsoever on our proceedings. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do reliable sources refer to the subject of this article as "santorum neologism campaign" or would Wikipedia be coming up with that name? A search on Google with quotes yields no results. Gacurr (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. But note that a fair number do use the term "Santorum's Google problem" (Indeed, if not for the fact that touching anything related to this seems to generate massive controversy I'd just go ahead and make a redirect from that to here. It is a reasonable search term. ) JoshuaZ (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While "Santorum's Google problem" is by far the most common article title out there in the news world, it's an inelegant, imprecise euphemism. It makes it sound like this is the 1950s, and the senator got knocked up by the search engine. It's also got a vague air of POV push to it; Santorum has a problem with Google? The title presumes that Santorum has a problem in the first place—which, according to those who champion WP:CRYSTAL for this article, is an unwarranted assumption. Santorum neologism campaign or Santorum neologism controversy are more neutral, more descriptive, and better fit the WP:TITLE guidelines. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is an article about the word and also about Dan Savage not a legitimate source for the notability of the word? Looking back through the history of truthiness, the neologism got deleted five times until the American Dialect Society weighed in.[31] Does Steven Colbert being mentioned in articles about truthiness undo the notability of truthiness as a word? Gacurr (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that attempts to shoehorn Dan Savage into the name are misguided. We generally don't put author names into the names of articles about books, albums, videos, etc. So why do it with a word? Wnt (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because the real story here is not the word itself - which remains non-notable and not in general use by anyone. The real story here is the attack. The article should be about the attack, not the alleged "neologism". This is the same principle as we use with the standard response to BLP1E: to recognize what the real subject is. In most BLP1E cases, we find that the real subject is the event, not the person. Similarly here, the real subject is the event - a successful googlebomb - not the word itself. A move would be justified even if there were no BLP issues at stake. But there are serious BLP issues at stake here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Been trying to make the same points since I recently decided to focus on this article again after many years. I remember clearly what Senator Santorum said at the time, in context. I was interested in the outcome of Lawrence v. Texas and the expansion of the U.S. 'privacy' right. The reporter insisted on getting an answer for issues that Santorum didn't want to really give answers on, but eventually Santorum relented and answered. Dan Savage didn't like it, he portrayed it as the worst thing ever, the media in general predictably jumped on board to make it sound more controvesial, and led to the Dan Savage contest and apparently his ferverent crusade to bring down the image of one senator.-- Avanu (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]