Talk:Campaign for the neologism "santorum"/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

AfD Result Notice

This article was the subject of an AfD discussion closed on 19 August 2006. The result was Keep, rename to Santorum (sexual slang). Xoloz 15:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Dab target

Should the target of the dab be Santorum (disambiguation)? I understand the senator is more notable than the other meanings, but given that Santorum no longer comes here, it seems that the disambig page should be linked instead of the senator. Mike Christie (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the dablink. It's not needed because no one can end up here by accident while looking for the Senator. Powers ^T 21:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Lower case initial letter

This link was posted on the AfD, and although it's not really clear it gives current usage (it doesn't cite sources for the quotes, so it could just be readers submitting sentences they have created which use the term) it does give a lowercase initial letter. Mike Christie (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

External links need cleanup

The list of external links seems to be an indiscriminate dumping ground of links to this sexual slang term. I recommend paring it down to only those links that directly document Dan Savage's political action. I also recommend removing the link to santorum.com as it appears to be a nn website. 67.40.197.111 00:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Recommend merge/redirect to Savage Love

The present article is a minor variation of the Savage Love#Santorum section. The wiktionary link points to a deleted and protected page. This article should just be merged with Savage Love. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 17:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Negative, this has already been covered by the AfD. Santorummm 23:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, not. The AfD did did not achieve consensus, so it is of no relevance. This "article" should almost certainly be merged as suggested. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposing merge, with tags and all 'at. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with a merge - an entire culture and adoption of this term has formed and is entirely separate from readers of Savage Love. Merging the two would serve as a disservice to those searching for information on this subject, and to those reading information about Savage Love (which will become cluttered with information about this term). Nicholas SL Smith 06:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of image

Sorry, this article is not about the spreadingsantorum.com site. That image has no business being here. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 22:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the article? The site is directly related to the popularization, via google-bombing, of the term, as the article explains. JDoorjam Talk 01:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

However the article is not about the site. Read the fair use rationale again. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 03:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The image is relevant. If the people on the site complain, we can remove it. Something tells me they won't mind one bit though. Santorummm 23:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I highly question your neutrality on this matter, given your user name and contributions history. You are obviously one of the people using Wikipedia in your silly google bombing games. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 19:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a negatory. I picked this name because the Santorum (Sexual Slang) article was the first one I had ever edited. You must not realize that wikipedia puts rel="nofollow" tags on all links in wikipedia, so the google-bombing you are accusing me of would in fact not be applicable to wikipedia. Santorummm 20:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

No one was accusing you of Googlebombing. Please read the so-called article. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, User:Kaustuv was. "You are obviously one of the people using Wikipedia in your silly google bombing games". tomasz. 17:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No, please don't use the image from spreadingsantorum.com! Just makes us look unprofessional. Now you are more than welcome to upload a photo of some real santorum.  ;) JeffBurdges 15:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you JDoorjam for helping make the case against this article. As you help reinforce (after all, the article says it pretty plainly), the alleged "popularity" of this protologism is in fact due to Googlebombing. See WP:GOOGLE for why this directly militates against the idea that this term is notable. An aside to Santorummm: Aside from concurring with Kaustuv's WP:NPOV concerns, I have to comment that you seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding WP policy when it comes to images. Whether the violated copyright-holder is likely to complain or not is emphatically not the point. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"popularized"

Santorum is a slang term with the following definition popularized by Dan Savage in 2003.

I don't think this word is accurate, or at least there's nothing in the article to suggest it is. A lot of people may have heard of it, but the number actually using as sexual slang is as yet undetermined. --88.109.98.87 01:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that "popularity" in this context necessarily means an afinity for usage, but just a broad base of understanding, such as you describe--many people from all over the country are aware of this usage of the word.

However, I think that the word "popularized" is wrong for a different reason. The word wasn't an English word before this popularization...Mr. Savage is directly responsible for "coining" the word, a sexual byproduct. My understanding is that the word was coined by a caller into his show responding to a contest to come up with the best homosexual or deviant sexual act to associate with Santorum's name. So, while not coining it himself, he's directly responsible. <spetz>:68.44.192.170 18:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this necessary?

Does this article really belong on Wikipedia? It seems silly, trite, and totally offensive. In short, something you'd expect to find on urbandictionary.com, not on an encyclopedia like Wiki.

It also feels like an extention of the santorum.com site, which is obviously POV.

This article should be removed. It's garbage like this that makes Wiki lose credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.94.134.106 (talk • contribs) 11:36, September 29, 2006

Well, deletion was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santorum which you may want to look over. The consensus was that the topic is, against the odds, encyclopedic and worthy of coverage. "Silly" isn't necessarily a reason for deletion; "offensive" certainly isn't. Any user is welcome to bring up the prior decision for review; since anonymous users cannot create the new page required for such a discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santorum (sexual slang), in this case), I would be glad to help you start the page, even though I disagree with your opinion on the matter. Your other option, of course, is to make an account so that you can start your own deletion discussion page; in that case, please follow the steps outlined at Articles for deletion. -- nae'blis 19:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

130.94.134.106, Nae'blis is right that "silly" and "offensive" aren't valid reasons for deletion. But I, for one, would support your nomination for deletion. I am mystified why this article survived the first AfD, given that WP:NEO clearly states: "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." The fact that the American Dialect Society merely "selected 'santorum' as the Most Outrageous Word of the Year 2004" (as stated in the article) does not make the ADS a source that actually discusses the term in a way that could be covered in Wikipedia, and indeed, the article is mostly not about the term itself but about efforts to popularize it. And The Economist et al., referenced at the end of the article, clearly reference the term but don't discuss it as required by WP:NEO. Finally, arguments that this article should be kept because it is about the controversy, not the term, fail, because the controversy is already covered in Santorum controversy. Pan Dan 20:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd strongly recommend against a renomination so soon after the previous one, no matter how justified you may feel that to be. The trouble is that, absent either significant change to the article or a fairly substantial gap for reflection, many voters will look upon the nomination as premature or even trolling and will vote keep on purely procedural grounds. Something that has survived one AfD is still, in the right circumstances, a reasonable candidate for deletion - but something that has survived multiple becomes, in essence, undeletable. The (highly questionable) Gay Nigger Association of America article is now essentially undeletable, largely as a result of the repeated delete attempts. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I personally have heard this term used before. People know about it; the word is out there, and those who question whether or not it is used probably don't live in Pennsylvania. Neither is offensiveness is not a viable reason to move for deletion--much of what is real, is offensive. Greyscale 07:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobody's questioned that the term is used. But this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, which is why WP:NEO requires reliable sources about a term. Please see my above comment. Pan Dan 13:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone hearing it is also original research and is not allowed on Wikipedia. This term has also been thoroughly covered in the Santorum controversy. There is no good reason to keep this article.

Chiming in late, but I agree with Pan Dan. I have argued in the past that this article should be merged into Savage Love. Merging into Santorum controversy is also OK, but the coinage is more closely associated with Dan Savage than with Rick Santorum. I also agree with Finlay McWalter that this article has become undeletable. Interestingly, Wiktionary soundly rejected this term (see wikt:santorum), though wikt:Talk:santorum has some usage examples. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 02:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What would you think of tagging it to be merged? Pan Dan 16:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think either a merge or a deletion would be better to wait until after the forthcoming election. Firstly any change happening in this timeframe might be interpreted as a partisan action (and thus might garner reflexive opposition it wouldn't get at other times). And secondly it appears quite possible that Mr Santorum will not be reelected; if that were to be the case, I'd imagine that (in a couple of months) this article will feel like a stale "where's the beef" type political story that will happily be merged away to a few lines somewhere else. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that seems wise to me. Good suggestion. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 15:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Where's the beef? article exists, as I'd imagine this will as well. SchmuckyTheCat 17:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Finlay. Pan Dan 18:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Everyone seems to agree about deleting it, so why isn't it gone?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.139.24.133 (talk • contribs) 2006-11-08T05:08:44 (UTC)

Uh, because they don't? SchmuckyTheCat 06:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge this with the Santorum Controversity (good) or merge it with the Dan Savage article (better). Having a seperate article doesn't make any sense. Rick Santorum was also not re-elected, so it's even less important now than before.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.59.43.49 (talk • contribs) 2006-11-08T18:38:59 (UTC)

For what it counts, I feel this page should be deleted - Schrandit 15:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Anons: please sign your comments. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 10:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

All I know is that my little article on "Clenis" -- which, although concerned with a satirical/political/sexual slang term, was written in a professional format with no unnecessary illustrations -- disappeared a day or two after its original posting. No discussion. No comments about whether or not it was appropriate. It just disappeared. Given that, I have to say "no, this isn't necessary".PurpleChez 02:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that nobody has ever herd of whatever the heck you think that is, while this article discusses an international famous one. 68.190.89.38 13:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

PurpleChez is right - deletionists are out of control. This article is factual and verifiable. It should stay. The same may well have been true of his article, thankfully, we have been protected from ever reading it by deletionists. Trollderella 17:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil to other editors and refrain from name-calling. Uncle G 01:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Verifiable? Almost all the source citations are to "Dan Savage said this", "Dan Savage said that". If all the extraneous quotes were removed from this piece, hardly anything sourceable would remain. The article itself blatantly admits, in several places, that the actually salient facts that might establish this protologism's notability not only aren't verified/sourced, but can't be verified/sourced. This "article" is a very clever attempt at bending WP policies and guidelines to support a blatant vanity article for backpatting Dan Savage. (And for the record, I'm a fan; I find him utterly hilarious and at times inspirational; but I separate my fannish appreciation for X, Y and Z from my consideration of the encyclopedic nature, notabilty, and verifiability of free-standing articles about the accomplishments of X, Y and Z. As per various above and below topics, this desperately needs to merge with Savage's article. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Google search result

So the term used in this context has been Google bombed. Big deal. That's no argument for the inclusion of this article on Wiki. Jinxmchue 15:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact, it's a strong arument against it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Second AfD

For those of you who missed it, the second AfD for this article has been closed, with a result of not just "no consensus" but "hopeless, hopeless lack of consensus." Given the short time between the previous AfD and the incredibly varying and strong opinions on the matter I'd venture to say that any AfD in the next, say, 6 months will be about as pointless as this most recent one. Take this as you will. -- Y|yukichigai 05:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that someone felt the need to editorialize in the result of the AfD discussion proves that it was all an exercise in POV b.s. Those who supported keeping this article while supporting (or ignoring) the inclusion of other non-notable articles such as "Fitzmas" and supporting (or ignoring) the removal of the much more widely known and used "idiotarian" should be ashamed. But they won't be. Jinxmchue 05:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, let's assume good faith on the part of everyone involved. The AFD is over. -- Samuel Wantman 07:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I always assume good faith until given proof to the contrary. I've been given lots of proof to the contrary in regards to this neologism (and others). Jinxmchue 18:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

First requested move

santorum (sexual slang) → santorum (sexual slang activism) — The article is essentially about the political act of soliciting a definition for "santorum" and then popularizing that definition, via Googlebombing and so on. Since the AfD failed, let's debate this on the basis that the article does indeed deserve to be kept. Then what's it about? No evidence beyond anecdote was presented in the recent AfD to show that the term has real currency There were several anecdotal confirmations of its currency, but those can't form the basis of this article. What can form the basis of the article is the information about what Savage did, how the press picked it up, and whether or not it had an impact on the Senator's re-election. So the article ought to have a title reflecting that. This would require a slight change to the article's lead sentences, to indicate that the article is going to be about "the act of coining a word that means . . ." instead of saying that the article is about "a word that means . . . ." Mike Christie (talk) 19:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. (Taken from my comments in the second AfD). (a) The article should be clearly titled in a way that made it about the political action by Dan Savage, and not titled in a way that makes it appear the word has gained real currency, and (b) it should be made clear in the title that the content would be offensive to some. This latter criterion is important for the following reason. Suppose that we title this article "santorum (political act by Dan Savage)". Then on the dab page, someone might click on the article who might be very offended by the content. This is precisely the goal intended by Savage's campaign: to present Santorum's supporters with this offensive material as a jolt. We should present this information in such a way as neither to further nor unfairly hinder Savage's campaign. WP is not censored, so that's not the issue: the issue is that we should not mislead viewers with the title. The current title accurately meets criterion (b), but not (a). A title such as "santorum (political act by Dan Savage)" meets (a) but not (b). The only way of ensuring both would be some title such as "santorum (sexual slang term coined as political act)". Any other title that meets both goals would be fine with me. Mike Christie (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support comments

1. Neutral — I think the points raised by this proposal are valid, but I don't think the exact solution presented is quite on target, or for that matter very exact. I find most of the below oppose !votes to be utterly devoid of WP policy/guideline support. They all amount to "I like the article as it is", "I think the article as it is interesting/useful", "I think you're a jerk", "I assert with no proof that I know that the term is in actual currency", etc. They are not defensible from a WP policy standpoint at all. (Exception: Mike Christie's first of two points is quite valid; his second is not supported by any verified fact, though. I think Kolindigo also hits on the same valid issue at the end of his comment, but again isn't in a defensible position when it comes the rest of it.)— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose comments

1. Oppose -- The word does have currency. The gay community has quickly adopted the word partly for the political humor of it, but also because there is no other word and "santorum" filled the vacuum. See this discussion at wiktionary for links where the word is used. There is much more about the origin of the word than the use of it because it is a much more interesting subject. After all how much can you say about the frothy mixture. Adding the "activism" makes the title pretty confusing. I've never heard of a "sexual slang activist". That wasn't Savage's motivation. His was political. I'm sure people don't want to call this article "santorum (political activism)", which would be more to the point. I think sexual slang is what santorum is. I don't see a good reason to change it. -- Samuel Wantman 07:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Just FYI, Rod Smith, who posted the cites you link to, changed his mind about them, and says here, later on that page, that "it seems that most of the citations either merely mention the word or are likely not independent". Mike Christie (talk) 15:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose -- Nobody is going to type in "Santorum (sexual slang activism)" when searching for the term. I'm not sure what else would really be more appropriate, but your suggestion is a huge mouthful. As it is the term is technically appropriately named since it is sexual slang, albeit one from political origins. -- Y|yukichigai 07:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose It is a word in use. If the people that don't like it want to get upset about it they should edit something else. They aren't adding anything to this article by griping about WP process. SchmuckyTheCat 15:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose See no good reason to rename the article. I have heard this word in general use and, even if I hadn't, the rename still makes no sense to me. Kolindigo 17:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose The term is slang, and that's what people are most likely to search for. Articles are named for what things are, not how they came about. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment. I don't think "Santorum (sexual slang activism)" is a good destination for this article. It merely complicates the controversy surrounding this subject and obfuscates the location of the article. However, I also don't think that its current location of "Santorum (sexual slang)" is appropriate, either. It isn't true "sexual slang" (at least, the article hasn't managed to maintain that it is), and a more appropriate location might be "Santorum (pejorative)" or "Santorum (political slur)", because that is its true usage. Take, for example, Cleveland steamer, a widely known term of sexual slang. The term might be considered a pejorative against the city of Cleveland, but it is not the most obvious context of the term. On the other hand, "Santorum"'s most obvious context is as a pejorative used by Dan Savage to refer to the former Senator. Its primary context is political, not sexual, and if it really must have its own article, any qualifiers on the title should reflect the fact that its primary context is political. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 16:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. It is sexual slang. If you have a better word for the mixture of feces and anal lube, I'd love to hear it. Anyhow, by suggesting 'pejorative' you are introducing an opinion into the article. Slang is non-biased; 'pejorative' is biased.Citking 08:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment — "Pejorative" is this context is not at all biased, merely accurately descriptive. "Slang" is factually incorrect (from both linguistic and lay perspectives); there is no evidence that this protologism has any currency whatsoever. It was simply a Google-bombed "let's see who can be clever" contest. End of story. Next. PS: Whether you find the term salient or "useful" personally is of utterly less-than-zero consequence for WP purposes. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Concur strongly with Dachannien on all points. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Citations Needed

Stop reverting the page based on citations needed. The very definition needs a source.Citking 08:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. If people are removing {{Fact}} tags and the like, remember WP:3RR and see if they can be held back for a little while. Removing legit WP:V-related tags without justification is borderline vandalism. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Reassertion of merge proposal

This merge has been proposed before but not acted on. I suspect that the merge tags were editwarred off. Re-proposing the merge. So tagged already. Please note that more than 50% of the source citations at the Savage Love page, in total, are about this topic alone. Please note that focus of the article once it gets past the bio parts is on Savage's Internet political memetics experiments including this one and "ITMFA", etc. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and is not here to be a venue for wannabe-article after wannabe-article about Savage's latest off-the-cuff experiment of this sort. To the extent that any of them are notable at all, they belong in the Savage Love article, until multiple, independent, reliable sources confirm widespread currency. PS: See also this smoking gun. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Just as a note, proposed mergers are supposed to be discussed on the target's talk page (hence the links in the merge templates). This article cites 21 reliable sources confirming notability. That's more than some featured articles. It also provides significantly more content than does the summary provided on Savage Love (which is completely in accordance with guidelines). —bbatsell ¿? 18:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bbatsell. -- Samuel Wantman 20:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Patience dears. Some of us have to sleep some time. The target article now has a (longer and more detailed) merge justification. PS: The article does have 21 or so source citations but few of them do anything to confirm notability; rather they mostly are a bunch of self-references. Please read WP:N. Authors talking about their own work are not evidence of notability. See also above where the main researcher of these citations admits they do not establish notability. Most of the "content" of this article is borderline nonsequiturial rambling by the author of the subject and could be deleted with no harm to the actual point of the article. I've never seen an article try to desperately to hide the fact that it isn't actually saying anything important. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Protologism or neologism?

What are other editors' thoughts on which of these is more appropriate? I'm a bit mystified why two editors in a row felt it necessary to engage in attacks via edit summary; surely this is not such an important matter that a breach of WP:CIVIL is necessary to make one's point.

Our own policy document says the following:

Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities. Protologisms are neologisms that have not yet caught on widely. (Also, the word "protologisms" is itself a neologism and its use should be avoided.)

The last sentence was added one month ago (after the word was first added to the article), and hasn't been challenged.[1] See also the wiktionary entry for protologism.

In this case, it seems to me that the word protologism is warranted, to distinguish the word from a neologism, as it is not "used widely or within certain communities". (The article as constructed instead asserts the term's notability based on such things as its political impact, which is not the same thing.) If we have a consensus that neologism is the better word, though, that is acceptable to me.

In any case, I would prefer that editors argue here, with sobriety, based in policy, and place the attacks aside. --Dhartung | Talk 00:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say it is a proctologism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.20.12 (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you're way out of line here. I explained my rationale; I did not "attack you with my edit summary". Try to assume a little more good faith, eh?

Secondly, the cornerstone of what I wrote is taken directly (though mistakenly paraphrased) from WP:REDFLAG: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources." In order to justify making the change you'd have to find one (if not several) solid sources that clearly differentiate "santorum" as a protologism rather than a neologism. Basically, you'd have to prove a negative (that "santorum" isn't widely accepted or used) which is pretty much impossible, especially given that the article cites a number of prominent and/or mainstream sources which use or have used the term. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 01:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'm out of line to ask for cooler heads and more civility. You capitalized -- SHOUTED -- part of your edit summary, and said my assertion was false. Sheidlower is approximately the only professional source, and a respected one, and he says the word does not have currency. My assertion is, thus, backed up by a source (I'd have to look, though; I believe it was on his blog). As for the counterassertion, that it's a neologism, we don't have any sources backing that up at all. That is, not one single source actually says "santorum is a neologism". At best, what we have here is a word choice issue, not a WP:V issue. Since this is Wikipedia and our neologism policy requires perhaps greater evidence of currency than a dictionary, I think it's a reasonable point to which there can be more than one answer, and I'm sorry that I believe that, but I don't think I deserve to be yelled at over it. Thanks for bringing your opinion here, though, and I do recognize that you did not make a personal attack.--Dhartung | Talk 04:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I would have merely italicized my words, but you can't use formatting tags within an edit summary. (And last I checked, stars seem to bork the thing) So, yeah, I was just trying to add emphasis, not shout. My bad. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 10:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry I got my hackles up. --Dhartung | Talk 19:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The Sheidlower quote I think Dhartung is referring to was provided by me in one of the AfDs; I correspond with Sheidlower outside Wikipedia, and he commented in an email to me that he does not believe the word has currency. This is not a source we can cite, of course; I quoted it as indicative. Mike Christie (talk) 11:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I must have imagined actually seeing it outside that context then. My point in referring to it was that neither "protologism" nor "neologism" relies on a source. --Dhartung | Talk 19:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The more I think about the subject of this article, the closer I get to sharing User:Mike Christie's perspective as expressed in the last AfD and on this talk page since then. I think the debate over whether to call it a neologism or a protologism sort of proves Mike's point: it's neither. It's a political act by Dan Savage. But the great thing about Wikipedia's no original research policy is that we don't have to debate the issue using our notions of what ought to be called a protologism or a neologism or a poltical act or whatever. We can just look at what reliable sources say. And I think they back up Mike's position on this. As far as I can tell, none of the reliable, independent sources cited in this article describe this as a neologism. And there's really no reason to expect more reliable sources; they were exhaustively sought (largely by Dhartung but others looked too) in the course of the AfD. Even Wiktionary determined it lacks currency. And even the comprehensive Philadelphia Weekly write-up, which I criticized in the AfD for being too close to Savage, never uses the word "neologism." It says instead that Savage "waged a successful campaign to associate Santorum’s name with a sex act." This is very close to Mike's description of this as a "political act." So we really cannot support calling this either a neologism or a protologism. The remedy? Perhaps, rename the article to Santorum (sexual slang activism) as Mike suggested a while back, and rewrite the first sentence (which is original research as it stands) as "In 2003 sex-advice columnist Dan Savage waged a campaign to define "santorum" as a sexual act to mock then-U.S. Senator Rick Santorum following Santorum's controversial statements on homosexuality." Or something like that. Pan Dan 00:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

As has been discussed just a few sections up, changing the name of the article (at least to "Santorum (sexual slang activism)") is a horrible idea with no discernable support. Like I've said, regardless of the origins of the term it is still sexual slang. Now as to the issue of whether or not we can call it a neologism, take a look at the text from WP:OR, under the section What is not original research?: "Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source." Calling "santorum" a neologism is merely restating the facts that the source(s) present: that it is a recently coined term, not found in the dictionary, that is used widely in certain social circles. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 01:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

There may not be very much support for a rename to some such title as "Santorum (sexual slang activism)" (which I admit is a revoltingly clunky title), but there is at least some support for it -- my own proposal to do so, and Pan Dan's inclination, expressed above. I don't think there's enough support to make it worth suggesting again, though, unless others express support too.

I don't think that the difference between "neologism" and "protologism" is all that significant. Since I feel that there isn't any usable evidence of usage (as opposed to notability), I think either is slightly misleading: "protologism" is perhaps slightly more accurate, but "neologism" is more widely understood and so is a clearer explanation. Given the current consensus on the article I don't think it matters too much which is used.

With regard to Yukichigai's last point, that santorum is "used widely in certain social circles", I think this is quite possibly true -- I could certainly believe that some groups have adopted the term. However, I still haven't seen any evidence for this, and since I'm a neologism geek this is the one thing about this article that still bothers me. All the citations that have been pointed to in past discussions are either about the term (establishing notability but not usage) or are not in durable media. The non-durable media cites (as quoted in Wiktionary) were disregarded there as being suspect, because of the announced campaign to establish the usage of the term. I think that ought to cause us to require further evidence before accepting the status of the term as a neologism. Mike Christie (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Pan Dan is right, as far as I'm concerned -- this is a political act (or "political theater") which happens to be a proto/neologism. I don't think it invalidates the term, though. A work of art can be a political act, but it still remains a play or a painting. Renaming does not seem of interest and I guarantee would not solve the problem, so that's not an angle worth exploring.

I agree with Mike Christie that it isn't that significant; I simply thought this wording was more precise, but I'm not wedded to it if it's going to break consensus.

As for usage, just adding to what I've said before, I have never thought it significant whether the term were in actuality adopted by practitioners of anal sex, and to some extent I think this is a red herring. That partly explains why I'm more comfortable with "protologism". --Dhartung | Talk 04:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Renaming the article would diminish the POV spin that the term is somehow sexual slang when it is actually, from its invention by Savage to any present day use, a pejorative against Rick Santorum. Of the supposed teeming masses who use "santorum" on a regular basis, how many of them use it to refer to the lube-feces mix outside of the context of attempting to compare the person to the substance (a comparison which places it squarely outside the realm of slang and partially outside the realm of sex)? If the article were renamed Santorum (pejorative) it would be far more accurate, but since the topic here is neologisms, let me point out that every article on the topic (regardless of the verifiability of the source) deals with "santorum" as it relates to Dan Savage versus Rick Santorum, which easily discredits the word's status and indicates that it is a neologism. Might it become more widely used (and not in fond memory of the Senator) in the future? Perhaps. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and it is not the place for activists to march forth their anti-Rick-Santorum crusade by continuing to promote an obvious neologism as somehow being otherwise. (As far as neologism versus protologism goes, the word's use within a certain circle - Dan Savage's listeners - probably makes it a neologism rather than a protologism.) --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 11:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Almost all of your comment argues against claims that have not been made, and that I don't see in the article. --Dhartung | Talk 19:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should rename the article Santorum (word)? (Can we agree that this article is about the use of santorum as a word?) -- Samuel Wantman 00:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is the best rename -- see my comments on my suggested rename, above, for details, which I won't duplicate here, but essentially I think the title ought to both indicate that the article is about a sexual neologism, and also a political act. Mike Christie (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to propose two trial compromise positions. First, change the intro to say ...is a proposed neologism... which gets us an internal wikilink and addresses the non-currency issue right off. Second, change the name of the article to santorum (sexual neologism), which eliminates the problematic word slang which does imply currency in contrast to our article. I respect Mike Christie's point about it being a political act, but disambiguators should be as simple as possible and I don't think we should lead the reader by the nose in the article title. --Dhartung | Talk 09:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I like Dhartung's first suggestion--the description of santorum as a "proposed neologism." It's accurate and it's supported by the sources. As for the title, why not use the same description? Call it Santorum (proposed neologism). Pan Dan 16:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I'd support "(sexual neologism)" over "(proposed neologism)", because I think it's more important to reveal via the title that it relates to sex than that its status as a neologism is a matter of debate. Better would be "(sexual protologism)" but I don't think "protologism" is in wide enough use to allow this. Mike Christie (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mike's response to Pan Dan here. We're thinking of the googlers, for one thing. --Dhartung | Talk 21:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think "(sexual neologism)" is right on the money here. It accurately reflects both of the key aspects of the term: it's sexual in nature, but still a neologism. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 00:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As consensus appears to have been reached, I performed the move and added the word "proposed" to the lead. Thanks for everyone's input. -- Dhartung | Talk 03:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Tregoweth, would you care to explain why you moved, given consensus above? --Dhartung | Talk 22:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

San Torum High

Removed per no original research. A full-text Lex-Nex search of "another gay movie" santorum yields one result which says only that this was a "jab at conservative Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum." No sign this was about the neologism "santorum" and not the general controversy over Santorum's comments. Pan Dan 13:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thought that was eliminated ages ago -- must have slipped back in while I was busy with other things this winter! -- Dhartung | Talk 05:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Original research

Tagged some other snippets as possible OR. Discuss at will. Just to clarify on the sentence "Although the political effect of the coinage is unknown, and Savage himself admits "you can't really measure impact"[14], Casey won the election despite Santorum's incumbency with "the most dominant performance by a Democrat in a [Pennsylvania] Senate race since...1914." -- the OR problem (as I see it) is not with the whole sentence, just with the second half. There is no warrant to suggest that Savage's coinage might have had an impact on Santorum's defeat, if this suggestion has not been raised in reliable sources. Pan Dan 13:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't wedded to that quote, and if anything I thought the quote suggested he would have won regardless of Savage. But I've reworked things and added sources showing that some people do (rightly or wrongly) think it had an impact, including presumed supporter Kathryn Jean Lopez. In the process I removed any real attempt by the article to address the question of whether people are actually using the word, even though it seems like something people would like to know. It's pretty frustrating that Wikipedia doesn't have an approved way to say "no sources comment on this" or "no evidence exists". Creative ideas welcomed. -- Dhartung | Talk 05:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellently done. Thanks. BTW Wikipedians are allowed to say things like "no evidence exists" -- if sources have said so first. Pan Dan 14:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Page was recently moved to "Santorum (fluid)"; there's a fair amount of discussion above and what looks to me like consensus that the right name for the page is "Santorum (sexual neologism)". I think it should be moved back. Mike Christie (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable; and if it fades into the twilight as Santorum does, we can transwiki to Wiktionary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the move should be reverted. The word's creation and status as a neologism is far more notable than the actual definition. Neitherday 17:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Revert move. I also agree. It still has not been substantiated that the term is anything more than a political attack, or that the term is used in common parlance in a manner disconnected from the political overtones. The article's current title presupposes that the term has somehow progressed beyond the status of neologism, and places the focus of the article elsewhere from the true focus of the controversy. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There was no consensus for the first move at all. I'm going to go ahead and revert the move. This needs to be discussed first. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 03:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

After revert

Yukichigai, I've removed my move request from WP:RM; that was from "Santorum (fluid)" to "Santorum (sexual neologism)", or in other words the request was to revert the move to "fluid". It looks like you're the one who has switched the move template to request a move from "sexual neologism" to "fluid", indicating you support that move. If so, could you also list the move at WP:RM? Mike Christie (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Failed

Firstly, the background section is unsourced and links to an article which has no sources and is a BLP liability. Thus there is a BLP in this article. Secondly, a large chunk of the article is sourced to things like "The Onion" and also "Aleternative Weekly" newspapers, which by looking at the articles on the newspapers in question, are satirical newspapers and do not qualify as RS. Given the legal issuses that this article faces, this not adeqaute. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I object to this review. First off, it gives vague problems and no solutions. You do not identify how this article violates the BLP with any specific examples. Simply linking to another article which violates BLP is not a failing reason. Additionally, it references not a single hard and fast quick-fail criteria. There is no way that at least some of the problems here could not be fixed in a week. Last, the idea that published works such as The Stranger cannot be used as reliable sources for appropriate types of content is folly. They have editorial review and fact checking, so they pass the test of "questionable sources". If you would consider perhaps taking some more time with the review and explaining things in detail according to each of the criteria, I would appreciate it. Otherwise, I will be requesting a reassessment of this review. Thank you VanTucky ^Talk 04:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I will be back properly in a few hours, but that background section had no references and the material covered is highly controversial, just in that short section. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That has been fixed. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 16:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you're not understanding the quick-fail criteria Blnguyen. Only a complete lack of sourcing is a quick-fail reason. Sometimes many large and unsourced sections are considered a violation, but this is not one of those cases. One or two sections not having sources is not unfixable in a week's time. VanTucky ^Talk 20:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I object based on the same reasons that VanTucky objects - the review doesn't go into enough detail on what can be done to improve the article, and instead hides behind the weak shield of "BLP concerns." Please take more time on this review. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

While The Onion is a parody newspaper, The Stranger, like many other so-called alternative weeklies (e.g., The Village Voice) actually produces high-quality journalism. I've never heard it suggested that these are not reliable sources. --lquilter 05:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that this article may never receive "good article" status, because it is a POV piece that advocates a neologism. An article on the controversy between Savage and Santorum could become a good article (and we already have an article that approaches the topic from that direction), but this article is couched in the idea of "santorum" being an actual word. It thus runs afoul of WP:NPOV and WP:OR issues, not to mention the BLP issues already mentioned. Strangely enough, this is also why the article has been nominated for AfD status multiple times, with opinions being split on whether to delete the topic or not. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 17:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This article doesn't advocate for anything. It never once makes a judgement about the ethics of the term or Rick Santorum without attributing that to a reliable source. Simply dealing with an issue is not advocacy. VanTucky ^Talk 20:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It advocates for the progression of the term beyond its current status as a neologism. As I mentioned, if the article's topic were the conflict between Savage and Santorum, then it could achieve a NPOV while mentioning the term in that context. Instead, the article as written primarily catalogs instances of the term appearing in media in an effort to try to promote it beyond its current level of usage (and many of the references provided are also attempting to advocate the expansion of the term's usage). By situating the topic in an article about the term rather than about the conflict, you create the illusion of NPOV despite almost all of the article advocating the use of the term at the expense of a living person. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 20:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to take this to GAR and get a reassessment if you feel. For the record, GAC depends to a large part on the opinoin of the assessor, particularly so if the article/topic has some idosyncrasies about it. From my behaviour on-wiki, I have had a strong tendency to use textbooks, journal articles, and only highly serious places like BBC and broadsheets like NYT, Sydney Morning Herald and so forth. I have a strong aversion to using any tabloid papers whatsoever, and try to find broadsheet substitutes for any info I find in a tabloid. eg, I regard the Times of India and Rediff to not be a RS: eg, see User:Blnguyen/Times of India. I have also at times find myself decrying some sources as non-RS on FAs. As a result, perhaps my attitude towards an "offbeat newspaper" may have overpowered things and in any case, there are a lot of people having an opinion on this so GAR seems appropriate anyway. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Instead of going through GAR, I think we'd be just as well off if I renominated it; perhaps we'd get some additional feedback/new opinions. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 15:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It has been renominated. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems like the review request would have been better categorized under "Media". --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 05:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 16, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: A few issues here need to be addressed per the Manual of Style. The usage of word memorialize in the intro is unacceptable. Irony is not a desired quality in encyclopedic writing. Remember we're trying to state the obvious facts for the uneducated reader. Blockquotes are exclusively to be used for quotes of four lines or more in length, so all the currently block formatted quotations need to be undone. The Appearances in media section is dangerously close to a trivia section listing all the appearances. For a neologism however, making clear the prevalence of the term is important, so I would not advocate deleting the section outright. A reordering of the section and the addition of a proper transition into the section is necessary however. If you like, I can give you a jumpstart to show you what kind of work needs doing. Single sentence paragraphs, such as those in the aforementioned section, should never be present. These should be integrated into fuller paragraphs. Structurally, the Appearances in media section should be placed before Political impact. This is for chronological reasons, as not only did most the referenced media appearances occur before the political ones, it only makes sense that the media attention would precede the political impact in real time events. The chronology of the neologism goes roughly: creation-->activism-->media coverage-->impact.

2. Factually accurate?: The type of sourcing, despite what the previous reviewer suggested, is exemplary. There is not an excess of primary sources, and the secondary sources used are strong. The article also does a fairly good job of providing inline citations. However, the block quotes are not cited properly. Just like other quotations, an inline ref must occur exactly at the end of the quote. Thus, you need to include any refs for quotes within the blockquote formatting parameters.

3. Broad in coverage?: Remember to be broad, but concise. "Savage then proceeded to answer a letter..." is not exactly relevant.

4. Neutral point of view?: For the most part the article does an acceptable job of adhering to a neutral point of view. However, the Background needs either to be rewritten in its treatment of Santorum's comments, or the analysis needs to be attributed literally to a source (i.e. according to news sources such as the... etc.)

5. Article stability? Not the subject of any recent or on-going edit wars.

6. Images?: Lack of images is not a pass/fail criteria. But remember that if images are ever added there must be proper licenses including fair-use rationales where appropriate. Otherwise, the article may be subject to delisting.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note below showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — VanTucky ^Talk 02:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Commentary

Just for ease of reading, please make any notes on improvements below. Thanks a million, VanTucky ^Talk 02:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time to review this article. I've been meaning to work on these things, but I'm absolutely slammed this week with work, projects, etc. Is there anyone else that can take a stab at it? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 12:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Per the expiry of the hold period of a week and no completed improvements, I am unfortunately failing this article. If you feel this was in error, you may seek a reassessment of the decision. I encourage editors to renominated the article once these improvements have been completed. Thank you for your work so far, VanTucky ^Talk 20:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that decision. Hopefully the article will be (eventually) improved and renominated. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Image revisited

Exactly what does the recently restored image (the one lifted directly from spreadingsantorum.com) provide that a mere link to the website doesn't? How could a fair use rationale possibly be justified when the image isn't actually descriptive of anything beyond the article's text? --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 15:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Santorum splash.JPG

Image:Santorum splash.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"Huckabee" contest

I added material citing Savage's contest for a definition for "Huckabee", but another editor has removed it. It seems to me this material does not warrant a separate article, and is directly related to this definition (which, as agreed by consensus, is not about the intended meaning of the term -- a sexual fluid -- but about the term itself). Savage himself makes the connection in his statement. What do other editors think? --Dhartung | Talk 19:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that it is not yet sufficiently notable in its own right to be worth adding. It doesn't illuminate this article, or the usage of the term. It illustrates that Savage is interested in trying the tactic again, and on that basis I think it might be justifiable as an aside in the article on Savage Love. (Personally I think it would be marginal even there, but it's more suitable there than here.) If a term "huckabee" ends up warranting an article, then references to Santorum (sexual neologism) from that article (as the first example of the use of a neologism by Savage as a political act) and from this article to Huckabee (sexual neologism) (to demonstrate the repetition of the tactic) would be relevant links. Until then I don't think it gives the reader much value. Mike Christie (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be included as a footnote to this article. It's not notable in it's own right, but it most certainly does illuminate the continued effectiveness and popularity of this type of neologism creation by Savage. It aids this article's informativeness, and thus she be included. VanTucky 20:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the aforementioned material. It isn't ripe for inclusion, since it's really nothing more than the wishful thinking of some random letter-writer to Dan Savage's column. Even if it were, it betrays the supposed intention of this article to be a serious examination of a "real word" instead of a publicity stunt. Remember, the entire justification for not merging this article back into Savage Love in the first place was that the term was purportedly being used in the actual context of sexual, not political, discussions (see the article title for further evidence). --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 21:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the removal for the reasons you've listed. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe you are fairly characterizing the history of the article, Dachannien. We have long since agreed that it is not being used as a real "sex term" other than jocularly, and such was never the genuine intent of Savage. And the article title was a compromise. --Dhartung | Talk 10:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Though I support the removal of the added material, I'd agree that the article is really about the political intent of the act of coinage and the political consequences it had. If it were only a neologism I'd still support deleting the article. Dhartung, I wasn't aware that there was general agreement that the term isn't being 'used as a real "sex term" other than jocularly'; I thought some of those who argued for the retention of the article did so on the basis that it has real currency. Of course such arguments could be put forward disingenuously, to further the original political intent; but I don't think we ever really got consensus on that point of view, though I suspect personally that you're right in your characterization. Mike Christie (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

See the section Talk:Santorum (sexual neologism)#First requested move above, as well as both AfDs. The purported currency of the term was cited numerous times as a reason to keep the article rather than merge it with the article we already have that puts the term in its political context. It was also cited numerous times as justification for putting the article title in the context of a sexual slang term rather than a political pejorative when the AfDs resulted in "keep" and "no consensus". I'm merely asserting that you can't have it both ways, and the article itself should keep the same context as the article's title, that is, as a sexual slang term in common usage absent its political implications. As such, a reference to Huckabee (as well as to whatever else Dan Savage is doing in his column) is off-topic. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 16:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is part of the issue. You seem to be insisting that the agreed-on article title defines the scope of the article. But the title is only to help readers find the article. There was a compromise on "sexual neologism" because apparently "neologism" wasn't descriptive enough (a viewpoint I can see merit), and "sexual" was added so that a reader seeing it on e.g. Santorum (disambiguation) would need no further context to see what it was about. That doesn't mean that we were agreeing that it was a sexual term and certainly there are few, if any, sources that would support such a "thrust" for the article (pun intended, let's lighten up). I have always argued more or less that the term has notability irrespective of its use as sexual slang, and in fact I received pushback on some material that supported that approach, so I relaxed it. To my mind, one act of political activism is connected to another by the same person, and as stated, Savage himself makes the connection so this is by no means WP:OR. I do not believe this is "having it both ways" in any sense. It is merely the most appropriate related place for the material. Somehow, you fear getting off of a narrow little strip of scope, but if the sources bring us there (and they do), this is not harmful. --Dhartung | Talk 18:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that extending the article into the political realm brings it dangerously close to becoming an advocacy piece for the use of the term, by assigning notability to the term itself when the actual notable thing here is the controversy between Dan Savage and Rick Santorum. The justification for keeping this article as a separate entity from the articles about Dan Savage, Savage Love, Santorum controversy, etc. was that, purportedly, the term had currency outside of the political sphere and was primarily held in that regard. That was what was supposed to take this article from being purely about a neologism into something notable. If you're now saying that the term is primarily political, with the sexual meaning ascribed to the term being merely a means to an end (that being to find a clever way for gay rights advocates to bash Rick Santorum), then I would have to object to the article's separate existence in the first place as being a POV advocacy piece that carries no significant notability when separated from the Dan Savage/Rick Santorum controversy. Remember, we already have articles that are better suited for covering the disputes between those two people, and this article could easily be merged into one of those if it turns out that it really hasn't grown into anything more than a neologism for defamatory purposes. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 19:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're welcome to your opinion, but I believe you are confusing notability and importance. If anything, the word is better known than any other part of the controversy, the details of which (outside of their respective built-in audiences) most people would be hard-pressed to recall. Notability is shown by the sources, not by whether you believe this is a real sex term or a political act. We don't care which of those it is. We're just recording what secondary sources tell us. --Dhartung | Talk 06:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Santorum splash.JPG

Image:Santorum splash.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

no longer #1 google hit

As of April 27, 2009, the top hit on Google for the word "santorum" is this article. 76.210.76.10 (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Not on my internets. Skomorokh 00:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I get the article on Rick Santorum top, with the article on the sexual slang term second, indented. The googlebomb target site is third. I have safe search off, so that isn't affecting my results. Mike Christie (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it geographically dependent? I get googlebomb target first, then this article, then, indented the article on the politician. Skomorokh 00:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Do we have any info on Google algorithms buried in any relevant Wikipedia articles? I'm in central Long Island at the moment, if that helps. Mike Christie (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

"consensual (gay) sex"

I am reasonably sure that, in the actual interview, Santorum just said "consensual sex" and that the parenthetical "(gay)" was instered at some point in the editing process to "clarify" his remarks. (I both remember this from the coverage at the time and suspect it because people rarely use parentheses when they're talking aloud to others.) In the Santorum controversy article, it's quoted as just "consensual sex", but the citation is to the same CNN article quoted here, which includes the "(gay)" parenthetical. Anyone know of a citation to a rawer transcript of the interivew? --Jfruh (talk) 01:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't make much sense. It's absolutely clear that gay sex is what he meant, so the parenthetical was added by CNN for good reason and was not a misquotation. We are able to do the same thing for the same reason, and since CNN has done it before us it's not at all problematic to do that. Without the parenthetical we would have to cite a lot more of what he said to establish the context, in which presumably the word "gay" was redundant. That's not in the interest of encyclopedic brevity. If we don't do that and simply remove "(gay)", then we will have a bit of a BLP violation because we make the statement appear even more silly than it already was. (Yes, a correct literal quotation can be a misquotation if there is not enough context.) I wouldn't risk the entire article for such a minor detail. Hans Adler 05:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not actually clear to me at all that gay sex is what he meant. First of all, the core of the argument in Lawrence that ultimately prevailed -- and this case and argument was the subject of the interview with Santorum -- was not that there is a specific constitutional right to gay sex, but that consensual sex of all kinds is covered under the right to privacy, and that it would be wrong to specifically exclude gay sex from that right. You could argue against that view by saying that the right to privacy applies only to straight sex, but in this interview and elsewhere, Santorum has said that he doesn't believe that any such constitutional right to privacy exists. Secondly, his whole argument in the interview is that he isn't just condemning same-sex relations, but would like to keep one specific kind of heterosexual activity -- heterosexual relations within a monogamous marriage -- priviledeged. To prove his point that he's not singling out gays, he condemns other sexual activity -- like sodomy and adultery -- that isn't specifically homosexual in nature, and the implication seems to be that if there's a "right" to gay sex, there's a "right" to these activities too, as long as their private and consensual, and he thinks that's bad.

That's my interpretation, anyway, from the excerpts strung together here, but it would be easier to tell what's going on if there were a complete transcript of the interview, which is why I asked if anyone knew of one. Also, if Santorum himself at some later point said that he was specifically referring to gay sex in that statement, that would also be relevant. --Jfruh (talk) 14:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

transcript is here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-23-santorum-excerpt_x.htm Santorum doesn't say "gay", but he is responding directly to a question explicitly about homosexual acts - so I think adding [gay] seems reasonable (though I'd have used homosexual and put it in brackets rather than parentheses). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bastel (talk • contribs) 04:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"Neologism" or publicity stunt?

This article is not about an authentic neologism but about a publicity stunt and campaign to designed to lampoon a certain politician's views. This is not to say that, as an article about a publicity stunt, it should not be on Wikipedia. I would further suggest, however, that the resistance to the article being framed for what it is is that the article itself is part of the very same publicity stunt and campaign which it actually describes. Welcome to the twisted world of Wikipedia--proof that truth is nothing more than persistence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.118.143 (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You're 100% right about truth being nothing more than persistence--at least on Wikipedia.184.74.22.161 (talk) 03:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd support a renaming, although "publicity stunt" is loaded too. What would you say to something like "Santorum googlebombing controversy" or "Santorum neologism controversy"? In my view, the primary material in the article is covering the political implications of the word on the Senator, not the linguistics of the word. I realize that past renaming discussions have centered around the "" of the title, but in reality most folks are going to find this word from "Santorum (disambiguation)", I don't believe the title will significantly affect the visibility of the article in either direction. --j⚛e decker^{talk to me} 06:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Either name is sort of clunky, but calling it a publicity stunt implies a value judgement in a way that neologism does not, and thus is not neutral in my view. Steven Walling 06:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

This question has come up before, and the current title is a compromise between several different points of view -- see the archives for more details. One point I think is relevant is that so far there have been no reliable sources cited to support the point of view that the neologism is successful as a neologism. It's clearly a successful political act by Dan Savage, and several editors have remarked that it is in common usage, but no sources have been given to support that. Mike Christie (talk – library) 09:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard discussion

I have started a discussion at the BLP noticeboard about this article, Rick Santorum, and santorum that editors here may wish to join. Mike Christie (talk – library) 09:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

image

I have removed the image of the person as a blatant violation of BLP. Further discussion of this should go to the BLP noticeboard. Of course, the matter will be moot if the suggested merge there occurs, though I'm not sure it belongs in the controversy article either. DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Solinym, 24 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

This page incorrectly calls Colbert's statement a sarcastic one. The correct term, when one means the opposite of what one actually says, is ironic, as in "A Modest Proposal", which suggested solving Irish overpopluation by eating their children. Sarcasm generally refers to ironic statements that are mean-spirited and hurtful to the listener, as in "Oh, that's a wonderful idea, you must be a genius".

Solinym (talk) 06:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Sort of done. I just removed the word "sarcastically". -Atmoz (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

160.109.101.158 (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)T-Co == The term has legs ==

Santorum is the name of a thing that we didn't know was in need of a name. If you think about it, santorum elevated a lowly byproduct to the highest reaches of American culture. Culture is probably not the best word. Nevertheless, santorum is now a known known, and it may someday run freely even in the White House. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.109.101.158 (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's all hope for santorum in the white house before Santorum.  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.176.122.34 (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Translations

Is anyone interested in translating this article into other languages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.176.122.34 (talk) 01:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Renaming this article

There was a discussion at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard about renaming this article (i.e. moving it to a new name). The BLPN discussion is archived here. Two editors opposed renaming it (Merrill Stubing and Protonk). Several other editors indicated that they would be okay with renaming it (B, Joe Decker, Anythingyouwant, Mike Christie, Avenue, Binksternet, Drrll, and agr). The question remains what it would be renamed to.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

In my view, what makes the content in this article notable is the enduring political effect. The word and it's putative meaning aren't critical, in fact many articles about this brouhaha don't define the term, merely hint at it. As a result, I'd prefer phrasings that include terms that nod to that in some way rather than focusing on the word. Santorum (Google Bomb) is to the point and probably my preference, it is close to the existing wording but conveys more about how the term is important (its effect more than its meaning), however, some of our readers won't be familiar with the term "Google Bomb". Santorum neologism controversy (note the lack of parens, the noun there is "controversy") is wordy and awkward but possibly clearer in some ways. --joe decker^{talk to me} 17:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

In the BLPN discussion, it was suggested that having "Santorum" as the first word of this article title might help ensure that the ex-Senator's official website is not the top search result for his surname on the Google web search engine. Whether that's correct or not, it would seem easy for us to avoid having "Santorum" be the first word in this article's title (e.g. "Google bombing of Santorum", or "Naming of byproduct of anal sex after senator", or "Invention of the word santorum", et cetera).Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

So, to reword the question here as I hear it, the proposal rationale on the table is to chage our article title with the explicit goal of creating a particular Google search engine result with the desired result being a particular political outcome. If I understand that correctly, it sounds WP:POV, whether the outcome is "higher" or "lower" on the Google ranking. As I've said elsewhere, I also think it's a futile, so I'll focus my own suggestions on "having the article title reflect what's in the article" and other mundane principles like that.

"Googlebombing of Rick Santorum" is as near as I can tell a fine article title. I don't see a big policy reason to pick it vs. "Santorum (Google Bomb)", and in fact I think I kinda prefer the "Googlebombing of..." version on the basis of descriptiveness and focus on the verb. To my ear, the Naming/Invention" titles focus on the less important (less-talked about in RS) parts of the story, (e.g., does how many RS's actually mention anal sex?) So I totally support the first suggested title, moderately oppose the other two. -joe decker^{talk to me} 18:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"Googlebombing of Rick Santorum" sounds okay to me. It's a lot better than the present title, because no one uses this term as a neologism, and the intent was googlebombing rather than enhancing the English language. But per Google bomb, it looks like there should be a space between "Google" and "bombing".Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked into the one-word vs. two-word as verb usage, but I'll take your word at it, it's all good either way.  :) --joe decker^{talk to me} 19:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• I haven't followed all the discussions since the AfD, but renaming an article to try to go down in the google results seems like a questionable way for an encyclopedia to organize its information. Wikipedia wasn't even prominent in 2003 when the word was coined; its natural for wikipedia to be high in the google results of any search. If wikipedia's article was demoted in search results, people are going to be pushed more directly to Savage's website and urban dictionary, which do not attempt to follow a NPOV.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

As you say, the re-naming may do more harm to Santorum than help him. Additionally, none of us knows what Google's ranking formula is, and conceivably the re-naming could bring more attention to this Wikipedia article rather than less. The main reason for re-naming (to "Google bombing of Rick Santorum") is because no one uses this term as a neologism, and the intent was google bombing rather than enhancing the English language.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• I oppose a rename that is based on political or SEO motive. I do not see any suggestions that are better than the current title. The word was cited in the 2003-2005 timeframe by lexicographers as having some traction as an actual word. Commentators of Savage regularly report using the word as a word, and eight years after the coinage people report using the word without the knowledge of why it existed. Saying "no one uses this word as a neologism" is a bald assertion not supported by colloquial or other sources. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

It's generally regarded as a "Satirical attempt to name the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex after Senator Rick Santorum".[2][3] A "satirical attempt to name" is not the same as a serious attempted naming, much less a serious successful naming. The whole point of it was google bombing, not improving the language.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You want to google war with links proving your point? Then please note here the usage of santorum, small caps, no relation to Rick, and used as a contextual definition. [4]. And here is a use in printed fiction [5]. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I don't follow what you're saying. I am not attempting to have any "war". The second link I gave is to a reliable source (it's not google hits). What we're dealing with is a satirical attempt at a neologism, per reliable sources. The main goal was google bombing, and if you think the main goal was instead to expand and improve the English language then you're just being your user name. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Statement: "no one uses this term as a neologism"

Rebuttal: [6] [7]

Statement: "It's generally regarded as a "Satirical attempt" http://www.google.com/search?q=satirical+attempt+to+name+the+frothy+mix

Rebuttal: Those results return information about the web site not the word. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Any attempt to rename this for political ends is not going to happen. How many times do we have to go over this? This shit predates Wikipedia having any major influence on Google, so that's that. Thanks to Schmucky for settling the matter on usage with evidence. Can we move on now? Notable, done. Merrill Stubing (talk) 08:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's more usage, a sly reference to both the ex-senator and the substance named for him (complete context, emphasis added):

"Huckabee Rises

15 Mar 2011 11:55 am

The intensity of support for him only grows. Both he and Bachmann are ahead of Palin on what Gallup calls a "positive intensity" axis. That's the number of highly favorables minus the highly unfavorables. But when you look at simple enthusiasm - i.e. the highly favorables alone - Huckabee, Bachmann and Palin are all within a 4 percent band with a margin of error of 3 percent. Romney, by the way, follows Santorum's frothy wake." Source: The Daily Dish. 71.163.62.64 (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

There was a time, 72.163.62.64, that one would read that item and picture the Senator floundering in the wash of a speeding motor boat, but no more. That's the power of this word. It's become a cultural meme, not a mere insult to counter insulting remarks. Many of the the arguments above take a short view - "is it used in any known groups?", etc. In my opinion, it's an intellectual concept - not a word forged to give a name to an unnamed sexual byproduct, but to name an unnamed cultural byproduct of people who feel free to denigrate with impunity.

However, that link doesn't bring up the quote. I searched the Daily Beast under "Santorum +frothy" (quite a few hits, but not this one). I finally found it here: http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2011/03/huckabee-rises/174420/ . And the neologism isn't just the top "Santorum" search result on Google, but on some other search engines, too. Too bad there are no real do-over opportunities.

I think this is a good example showing how WP should allow article names to begin with lowercase letters (e.e. cummings is another) .^_^. Wordreader (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Stylistic questions

I've noticed some stylistic inconsistencies. Can someone with more WP experience than I explain or correct? Or point me to a place on WP where I could find stylistic conventions spelled out (WP search hates me - I can never find anything I want even after an hour of searching!).

1. "Political impact" section:

"Savage gleefully pointed to Kathryn Jean Lopez, conservative columnist and editor of the National Review Online, as an example of his success.[22][23]"

How did the WP author know to interpret Mr Savage's emotional state as "gleeful" when he was doing his pointing? Unless there's some citation pointing to Savage's description of himself as feeling gleeful, wouldn't it be more in line with the WP's policy of "Neutral Point of View" to simply say "Savage pointed to Kathryn Jean Lopez..."?

2. "Recognition in media" section:

The Daily Show's name is italicized while the Colbert Report's name is not. Which should it be?

3. "References" section:

A. Mother Jones is italicized while no other publications in the "References" section are. (Names of print media in the sections above this are italicized.) Which should it be?

B. Reference #31 - Jim Nintzel (April 20, 2006). "Trigger Happy: Rob Corddry stars in the 'Schindler's List' of paintball movies". [What follows is a statement, apparently from the cited article.] Shouldn't that statement have quotation marks like some others do? Without them, it seems almost as though the WP author is inserting an opinion. How should this be handled?

Thanks for the educational pointers, Wordreader (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

still #1 google hit

The SpreadingSantorum Web site is still the first result on Google SERPs. (Houston, Texas - September 2009)