Talk:Campaign for the neologism "santorum"

Key points to consider:

• Should Savage's name be included in the title?
• Is this a Google bomb or merely a search engine optimization problem for Santorum?
• Is "Santorum" capitalized, quoted, possessive?

Renaming related sections:

#Back to the re-naming issue voting and commenting
#Renaming Related discussions

#Naming discussion

#Propriety

#Should "Dan Savage" be in the title?

#Neologism

#Santorum (neologism)

#Thoughts on renaming #Suggestion for next steps in renaming

Proposal to rename, redirect, and merge content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result of this discussion is Keep as a separate article, but.... The topic is clearly notable and worthy of an article. However, serious biography of living person concerns have been expressed. The discussion above is frothy, and contains many repeated arguments. We should not count votes; rather we should weigh the force of reason. My view of the community consensus is that we should not allow our encyclopedia, which is the world's encyclopedia, to promote a vicious personal attack. To prevent that harm, a number of editors have pointed out that a renaming would be helpful. The arguments above are not convincing that the article needs to be named "Santorum (neologism)". In fact, several editors have pointed out that the sources cited in the article seem to dispute whether this is a bona fide neologism, or something else. If the status is disputed, it is logical to choose among the less harmful and more descriptive titling options.

The consensus, backed up by many online news sources, is that this phenomenon is a "Google Problem" or if we want to be more technically correct, but less accessible to the reader, a Google Bomb. As a matter of community consensus and policy, the article is now renamed Santorum Google problem. The content of the article may need adjusting, but that's for you all to do, not me. Editors are encouraged to make productive changes. I am going to reduce protection to semi as it's about to expire in less than 24 hours. Please avoid edit warring, as I and others will be watching and may block edit warring editors, even if they do three or fewer reverts in 24 hours.

Consensus may change and discussion is always welcome. This renaming may be an interim step while discussions are ongoing. However, due to the potential harm to a living person (and their family), I find that this step should be taken without further delay. This action is therefore a BLP enforcement, as well as a discussion closure. Jehochman ^Talk 19:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: I've copied Jehochman's closure here from below. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

{{|tlp|rfctag|pol|bio|hist|lang|media|soc}}

Template:Rfcid Should this article be renamed (to something like Dan Savage campaign), condensed to one or two paragraphs, the contents merged into a new subsection of Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality, and the new title (but not the old one) redirected to that subsection? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The issue for anyone coming to this without background knowledge, this is the situation: in April 2003, a U.S. senator, Rick Santorum, made some remarks about gay sex that many found offensive; see Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality. In response, a columnist, Dan Savage, asked his readers to invent a definition of the word "santorum". The winning definition was: "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex". There was an effort to spread the use of the word. A single purpose account [1] created a Wikipedia article about it in August 2006, originally called Santorum, [2] now Santorum (neologism).

In April this year, it was reported that Santorum might be a presidential candidate in 2012. In May, this article was expanded fivefold to over 5,000 words, and added to three new templates, which were in turn added to scores of articles. That triggered this discussion as to whether it should continue as a stand-alone article, or should be renamed, shortened, and merged into Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 08:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments

(no threaded replies in this section)

Support

1. Support proposal. There was an attempt to equate a living person's name—and the name of his wife, children and other relatives—with anal discharge. That the attempt was made is well-sourced, and we should address it in the article about the controversy. But by creating a separate article about the word, we're contributing to the Google bomb issue, and taking a side editorially. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 09:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
2. Support. WP:Neologism says, "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." (I may be stretching the meaning here) There are no such serious academic sources in that massive list of references. The egregious overreferencing here is an effort to compensate for that fact with WP:OR. A lot of the article consists of mentions that some commentator had commented on the controversy (see #bloat). This event, the Google bombing and attempt to coin a new term from an enemy's name, can easily be covered in a paragraph or two of Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality, or Rick Santorum (see #Proposed rewrite). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC) Updated --13:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

   I doubt you think that the American Dialect Society is not a serious academic source. We mention them in the article. There was also a publication in their journal, American Speech, that covers their "Most Outrageous" word of 2004 finding. doi:10.1215/00031283-80-4-406 Jesanj (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

   What does that article you cite actually say about the word, in terms of its adoption, as opposed to it being part of the Savage prank? My online access to American Speech stops at vol. 79. Other sources have been seriously misrepresented in Santorum (neologism). Until a few days ago, this article said the Partridge Dictionary of Slang covered "santorum," deceptively implying it endorsed the word. When another editor got hold of a copy it turned out the Partridge editors expressly declared the term not notable, just an "attempt" at coinage, and declined to include it in the dictionary's alphabetical listing. American Speech may well have "covered" the word but what it says matters. Please post an extract of what it says about "santorum" in a new thread at the bottom of the page. 125 references looks impressive but look more closely than simply counting references. The prank is notable, the word is not. (No more threaded replies in this section, please. See above.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

3. Support The current position gives undue weight to a political campaign. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 11:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
4. Support I think we're giving far too much space to what is really a fairly obscure subject overall. It looks like too much recentism to me--not to mention possible issues with the campaigning/BLP etc. Qrsdogg (talk) 12:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
5. Support per my previous statements. If a separate article on this were retained at all (which isn't my preference), it ought to be titled correctly to make it clear that it is about a campaign to create a neologism, and be rewritten succinctly, with its poor sources and quote farms removed. --JN466 12:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
6. Support and limiting to existing paragragh at Public reaction and criticism section of the Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality article.--MONGO 12:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
7. Support due to the unique nature of the relationship between the mode of political attack used by Savage and the unwitting aid a huge article about this same subject with many spiderable links brings →StaniStani  13:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
8. Support - The journalist's attempt to manufacture a controversy against a politician he doesn't like is probably newsworthy enough to be worth a mention somewhere, sure. But, once again, the word itself does not exist as a legitimate sexual neologism...sources like the motherjones one above are about the entire episode, not treating the word itself as something notable... it does not warrant an article on the term itself, only a mention of the controversy around its creation. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
9. Support. This is the best way to avoid contributing to the political attack while still reporting on it. alanyst 14:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
10. Support as SlimVirgin said, we are taking sides politically with this article, joining forces with an avowed political opponent of Santorum's (Dan Savage). The material in this absurdly long article can be described with a few paragraphs. Drrll (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
11. Support. Wikipedia should not have an article asserting that Rick Santorum, or any other person, is synonymous with human excrement. There is negligible evidence to support the claim that this manufactured "neologism" has any significant use or notability except in association with the politically motivated campaign to publicize it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
12. Support unduly large article about a political attack. Wikipedia is not a google bomb assistant. Clear BLP issues as Slim says,attacking a living person and by default his whole family. Off2riorob (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

    If it's sourced, it's not a BLP issue. BLP doesn't say we can't have negative articles, or negative information. It says that that information has to be well sourced. and it looks like from the 125 sources, that it is indeed well sourced.--Crossmr (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

13. Support BLP violations and probable 'coatrack'.(olive (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC))
14. Support (placeholder) — Ched :  ?  16:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC). The bulk of my views are stated in previous threads, and many of my fellow editors have stated my personally held beliefs in a more eloquent way then I could hope to. While the malicious efforts of Savage may be somewhat notable, I don't believe this current effort is the proper way in recording the situation. I still view the entire concept (as it is displayed now), as a WP:ATTACK on a WP:BLP. There are also simply too many WP:NOT issues taking place here as well. While I hadn't thought of the "Coatrack" issue first, I agree entirely with that viewpoint as well. Many of the oppose editors do bring valid arguments to the table; however, I agree entirely with Slim Virgin's approach here. — Ched :  ?  07:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
15. Support; Wikipedia should not be a party to willful attempts to attack someone. That we are now so visible and "important" that we can now be used as a weapon should be discouraged. — Coren ^(talk) 17:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
16. Lukewarm Moral Support - It is unfortunate that the coinage of this word comes with so much political baggage and that discussion about the article appears to have often been coloured by personal beliefs. The deliberate association of someone's name with something that most people would find unpleasant and the spreading of that neologism seems to be a topic that has received a fair amount of discussion in reliable sources, it is also something that Wikipedia readers would expect to find covered here. I haven't checked the size lately, but at one point it was over 10,500 words and stuffed with misleading quotations and farcically poor sources. I support pruning the article down to size that is more in keeping with the sensitive nature of the subject and would not object to renaming to clarify that this article is about the coinage of the word, not the substance, but I suspect that any attempt to merge this into a related article will only further inflame political passions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
17. Support - This COATRACK needs to be chopped and burnt. John lilburne (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
18. Strong support - What I particularly appreciate about Slim Virgin's approach - and I think that many of the no votes are missing this element - is that she's not talking about censoring or removing the information but rather talking about balance and a proper encyclopedic presentation. First, it is a fairly straightforward application of the spirit of our usual solution to WP:BLP1E to write about the event rather than the person - we routinely omit the name of the person from the title of an article. This is particularly true when, as in this case, we are talking about the victim of a nasty slur. (Please set aside whatever feelings you may have about the Senator and his views, the point is that whether anyone may feel that he 'deserves' it, he is still the victim of a nasty slur and we have to be careful to take every possible measure to report on the event without promoting or furthering it.)

    What we need to do is address the harm that is being caused here, and by harm, I mean harm to Wikipedia. We all - quite rightly - work hard to be taken seriously by the world, and we do so by taking our responsibilities seriously. We have tools available to us to manage this situation so that we report faithfully to the world without furthering the attack. Measures to be taken include (a) renaming the article after the event, not the word (which is a person's name) - "Dan Savage's verbal attack on Rick Santorum" would be a good first cut - the point is that this is not a neologism in the usual sense - it's an attack (b) making sure that the 'snippet' that google uses is one which will immediately let the reader know that this is not a word that has arisen naturally in the culture and actually used by anyone, but rather a clever modern political attack tactic. Google's results can be studied to determine the best way to do this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

19. Support per Jimbo Wales SOXROX (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
20. Strongly support reducing this to as inconspicuous coverage as possible on the grounds that it breaks BLP and is grossly insulting and misrepresents a deliberate coinage designed to attack a living person. (Imo it should be deleted altogether, but that's not the question.) Gamaliel's assertion, "we are not perpetuating an attack, we are documenting an attack," is patently false. The article absolutely perpetuates the attack and does definitely not identify it as an attack on the Senator. The only appearance of the word "attack" is in a nasty quote from Savage: Savage commented, "I'm a little conflicted because he's trying to play the Sarah Palin victim card and saying [in weepy voice] 'Look how they attacked me. I'm just a poor defenseless US Senator who was trying to take this man's child from him, and make sure gay sex and straight masturbation remain illegal ... and they made fun of me. Including this page undermines all that WP aspires to be. Yopienso (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

    {E/C} While I'm fixing the bolding and italicizing, I'll back off just a tad and say I do see this should be included on a page about Savage or some such. We may as well show his viciousness. I'm not a deletionist, and since it happened, tell the world. Just don't glorify it or help Savage attack Santorum. And thank you, Jimbo Wales, for your input: I agree 100%. Yopienso (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

    Sorry for another add-on. To clarify and augment my reasons for strong support:

    1. WP:BLP 2. WP:NOTE 3. WP:NEO --Yopienso (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

21. Support per Jimbo. Cla68 (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
22. Support. Do I have to give my reasons again? This is a case where Wikipedia is not reporting the attack, Wikipedia is participating in the attack. It's an abuse of the rules based around the loophole that the article doesn't say that Santorum did any bad things, ignoring the fact that there are other ways to harm a living person than by claiming they did something. I would not only say to get rid of it in its current form, I would also say that we need to fix BLP so as to close this loophole. We may need to mention the event somewhere, since after all it has happened and been reported upon, but we need to do so in a way that's consistent with the concern for human dignity that underlies BLP. Ken Arromdee (talk) 23:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
23. Support for all the reasons that Jimbo Wales gave. Presenting "santorum" as a neologism that is actually used by speakers as the article defines it instead of presenting the word as what it is (a semi-clever attack by someone in the media on a despicable politician, and one that has been brought up again by someone else in the media) just looks silly and maybe even intentionally misleading. Moving a full account of this to the article on Rick Santorum would preserve the information within the context of his career and his statements. Jackal59 (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

    Note to the closing admin: Jackal59 has made only 16 edits to Wikipedia. NickCT (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

24. Support. The article isn't about a neologism, it's about a political incident, and one that caused a flurry of news reports a few years ago and now is only relevant in that we continue to make it show up in Google searches. No doubt it deserves to have some space on the encyclopedia, but no one is arguing its notability as a word, since the word hasn't come into common usage; it's notable as a political event and as such deserves space in Dan Savage's article, in Rick Santorum's article, and in the article on Rick Santorum and homosexuality. Isn't that enough? — chro • man • cer  11:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
25. Strong Support, per Jimbo's comments above, and my earlier comments on this. It’s just not a proper neologism, it is clearly not “in the process of entering common use,” like, for instance, ‘laser’. It’s merely an attack word, an insult thrown at a person (and as SlimVirgin points out, the person’s entire family) and it has only a very narrow use. There is no evidence of widespread and growing adoption of the word. The notability of the term is so limited, that a standalone article on it just becomes an attack page, containing WP:OR violations, and is a WP:BLP violation.

    Further, the article itself isn’t about the word; it’s about a much larger issue – the campaign waged by Savage against Santorum’s anti-homosexual stance, so the article is not named correctly. If it’s just about the term then it needs to be greatly shortened – and if that happens, it won’t be able to stand on its own merits and will be merged with other Santorum/Savage articles. If it’s about the campaign, then the title of the article is incorrect and needs a name that properly describes the content. Right now, the article is being used as a coatrack for an attack page on the person, Santorum.

    I only checked the first 30 references and found 7 sources that don’t even mention the purported topic of the article, the neologism: [3][4][5][6][7][8][9] Those sources violate WP:OR in this article, because they are not “directly related to the topic of the article”, which purportedly is the term. I'm sure there are more references in the 95 remaining sources I didn't check that violate OR, and probably in the other sources in in the first 30 that aren't immediately available online, as well.

    I think it bears repeating that what we’ve apparently done here is a forced elevation of what is basically an insult and internet prank to the level of an encyclopedic article; something which is normally limited to the purview of tabloid sensationalistic journalism. Either make it about the campaign and title it accordingly, or limit to just the 'term' and cull 95% of the article and merge it. I think SlimVirgin's proposal strikes exactly the right balance. Dreadstar ☥ 17:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

26. Support The term is not in general usage. Compare with actual words based on people's names: dunce, quisling. What is notable is that Dan Savage was able to create a campaign that pushed his pseudo-definition to the top of internet searches. We should not become part of the story. TFD (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
27. Strong Support (See my amendment bellow) (except redirect issue) per Jimbo Walles and others. The only thing, where I am not sure relates to the new title (but not the old one) redirected to that subsection? sentence, I do not fully copy it's intended meaning. If that supposed to mean, that Santorum_(neologism) should be just deleted (as implied by some coleagues here), then I do not agree with this (sub)point. If anyone would search on his own this word combination (which I highly doubt), then the link would have some relevance. If he would search for in reflection of the previous existence of the article, then I believe, that to break the links is unnecessary evil, anyone who is searching for, should be able to find it (although the content is moved). - Save the redirect.

    If there is doubt wheter Jimbo's argument were wrong, then I recomend just to play a little with google to find how widelly used the term is. You can find it actually only exclusivelly with the Dan Savage himself. I did never happen to find the word in the form of it's intended meaning. This is OR, I know, but quite helpfull just in establishing correct article name, not it's content. Wikipedia should not create a reality (by coining the term), it should merelly describe reality as is. (the title implies reality about the widespread usage of the term, and does not address the phenomenon itself in the article) --Reo ⁺ 13:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

    Reflecting uppon discussion bellow, together with my observation stated above - I do prefer just renaming the article, so it reflects on WP:BLP1E and WP:NEO. The event-centered article with event-centered title would be notable, sourced and just fine with BLP.Reo ⁺ 08:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

28. Support The creation of the term is obviously intended to slur politically. The article should be about how the word was created as a political slur and its place should reflect that. Will we allow the academic intentions of Wikipedia to be undermined every time someone makes up a new word. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
29. Support Were it not for the surname association, this hideous conceptualization would effectively disappear from the face of the earth. While my preference would be for deletion by editorial consensus (IMHO both a correct and WP-supportable editorial judgement), I support whatever WP measure(s) might be suggested by those more familiar with the Wiki process to mitigate any perceived WP support for this odious campaign and whatever disreputable fallout it might entail for this project. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

    First Choice: Delete...not a neologism

    Second Choice: Merge JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

30. Support It's not Wikipedia's purpose to be a tool for manipulating google search results. Really, there needs to be a rule about it. There's a rule for everything else. Let's be honest about this folks, this article was created with the specific purpose to slander Santorum because a few people disagree with his politics, not describe a supposed neologism. I don't understand why this is not deleted outright. There simply is nothing informative or necessary about having this article. Not only that, this is potential fodder for a lawsuit. Nodekeeper (talk) 11:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
31. Support I don't believe that the word is actually in significant use per its "definition". I also concur in particular with the comments of Jimbo and Dreadstar. LondonStatto (talk) 07:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
32. Support There is no reason to have two articles when one article, with a neutral title, will sufficiently cover the issue. Despite the googlebomb attempt, there is no widespread use of the neologism for its supposed definition, as what is describes doesn't need a single-word definition. Verbing a political candidate's name is seldom anything more than a politial ploy, and we can cover the issue without furthering the machinations of a campaign to smear a living person. Horologium (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
33. (edit conflict) Support Per Jimbo and Dreadstar. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 17:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
34. Support Cacophemism not in common usage. Zero references in the New York Times which I consider a mark that it is not a term in remotely common usage. Collect (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
35. Support The campaign is notable, but the term isn't—because it's not in common usage. The vast majority of references are using the term only in the context of the Googlebombing campaign. First Light (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
36. Support Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, much less a dictionary of intentionally slimy neologisms designed for googlebombing purposes. We don't need a dedicated article for Obummer or Obamateurism, and the same goes for this article. That said, I have every expectation that this article will remain as it is because NPOV is frequently a joke at Wikipedia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
37. Support I see this as a relatively simple content organization change. Half of the content here already exists in the target article anyway, so condensing the content currently here is hardly "disappearing" anything. Getting this content into the context of the larger event arc is good for the content of both articles as well, and what's good for the content is good for Wikipedia.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
38. Strong support per Jimbo. The BLP implications here are very concerning, we are not an arm of Mr. Savage's media conglomerate. - Haymaker (talk) 04:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
39. Support When the media runs a story on this issue, that particular publication is dead within a few days (comparatively few people will find and read the story a month or a year after its publication). At Wikipedia, the situation is different: an article here is a permanent record near the top of Internet searches, and anyone named Santorum will find this article. Yes, the event needs to be covered, but that should be done in such a way that does not make Wikipedia part of the attack—the encyclopedia should not be used as a Google bomb amplifier. Johnuniq (talk) 07:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
40. Strong support per Jimbo. Not a neologism. Not in common use. Lionel (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
41. This "neologism" is nothing more than an aspect of the senator's biography and in particular his political activity; and most probably (I'm not very familiar with US politics) a relatively minor aspect. Dedicating a long article to it makes this, ah, frothy matter appear much more important than it probably is, in violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP: "BLPs must be written conservatively ... Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints". A merger therefore appears appropriate for now. Should the word retain encyclopedic significance after the senator's political career is over, or in another context, it can then be made the subject of an article again.  Sandstein  18:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
42. Strong support per Dreadstar, Ched Davis and Jimbo. Just because something is on the internet doesn't make it notable.BarkingMoon (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
43. Support with particular agreement with Coren, Jimbo, Dreadstar & Sandstein.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
44. Support So some guy called Savage, who I've never heard of, hates some other guy I don't give a damn about. Savage pretends that the other guy's name means a by-product of sticking his quigley up someone's cirt and gets his friends to play along with it. Pathetic. This is real playground stuff, and you'd get suspended for it. The vast preponderance of uses of the word are merely about the campaign and this article is part of that campaign. Dingo1729 (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
45. Support. It's an incident, it has coverage, it happened. That said, it seems a blatant COATRACK and it seems like a WP:SOAPBOX for folks who want to drive Savage's issue home. -Sangrolu (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
46. Support - in main, per the reason given by SlimVirgin. While the existence of the attempt is obviously not in dispute, the word isn't a neologism and definitely not in common use. Ale_Jrb^talk 22:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
47. Support - fail to see a demonstration that this is in "widespread" usage. Nothing in the article itself shows it as in enough widespread and continuing usage to rate it being under the neologism title - compare to Soccer mom which IS in widespread usage., and which documents said usage with a lot less verbiage. Since most of this article is concerning the actual campaign to try and get this term into common usage, it better fits there. The BLP issues are just icing on the cake for moving it. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
48. Support – Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a means to exacerbate backpage name-calling, which is what is exactly happening here. You now have the media pointing everyone to this article because the high amount of Google Juice^TM this article attracts. Frankly, I don't see this as much as adherence to whatever policies we have as it is to whether or not we are exercising some common sense – the latter in which I have seen a sore lack of as of late. –MuZemike 05:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
49. Support – We don't do neologisms in general, and specifically ones that appear so badly to violate WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, and WP:ATTACK. I see little evidence that the neologism itself is notable, although the campaign/controversy itself is. Having this as a standalone article therefore would be a redundancy and risks content forking. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
50. Support Per every other person who has realized that there is no notable neologism here, and that by having this article, in its current state we are simply pawns in a political game perpetuating a nasty attack against another individual.Griswaldo (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
51. Support. That this is even a debate points out a fundamental problem with Wikipedia. Nobody anywhere uses this term in the course of their daily conversation. It is purely about engaging in an attack on the former Senator. If Wikipedia wanted to extricate itself from the controversy, we could use the NOINDEX tax to remove the page from Google I'm under no delusion, though, that Wikipedia has any ability to do the right thing with respect to attacking living persons. --B (talk) 02:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
52. Support: The fact that this article exists is inclusionism at its worst. While I'd personally rather not give any attention to Dan Savage's attack campaign at all, I accept that something such as this has attracted enough media attention for a mention of it somewhere on Wikipedia to be defended. Therefore, pithily summarize the incident in neutral fashion and include it elsewhere. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 09:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
53. Support The word itself is not notable. The spat might be notable. Creating this as an encyclopedia entry has less to do with informing readers than it does carrying the water for a particular viewpoint. The original intent of the words author was to do exactly what wikipedia has done. Dan Savage should be covered. Wikipedia does not need to be the foremost outlset for his wishes and desires. Covering his word creation is rather like covering each of his columns in a separate article and calling his view definitive on the subject of the column. I like Dan but each of his works is not notable unto itself. --DHeyward (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
54. Support per SlimVirgin, this is just shoddy wiki-activism and not encyclopedic in the least. V7-sport (talk) 22:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
55. Support This is simply ugly and vulgar, with no attempt at fairness or objectivity. It is this sort of juvenile, hateful nonsense that undermines Wikipedia's creibility. Don Williams (talk) 07:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
56. Support a merge to Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality as this is one response to it, or at worse rename this article to be about the sub-controversy "Savage memorialization of the Santorum controversy" John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
57. Strong support If WP:BLP has any meaning, Wikipedia needs to stop helping Dan Savage savage the ex-senator. CWC 15:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
58. Strong support As has already been pointed out, the article in its current state has Wikipedia participating in the attack, not simply reporting on the attack. Reading this article makes it clear that the topic is Santorum (the politician) and not some encyclopedic coverage of a sexual by-product. According, the topic should be merged and truncated as proposed.- Abatolola (talk) 18:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

    Note to the closing admin: Abatolola's first edit was made after this RFC was opened, 10 edits in total.--Noren (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

59. Strong Support - reducing this to as inconspicuous coverage as possible on the grounds that it breaks BLP and is grossly insulting and misrepresents a deliberate coinage designed to attack a living person. Mugginsx (talk) 11:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
60. Support - Support merger. But oppose "condensed to one or two paragraphs" because that limitation seems a bit arbitrary: if the material is well-sourced, it can be included in the merged article, although WP:Undue would limit the detail to a reasonable amount. Also, disagree with eliminating the "Santorum (neologism)" redirect, since the redirect may help readers during the Search process. --Noleander (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

1. 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)
2. 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)
3. 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)
4. 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)

   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)

5. 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)
6. 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)
7. 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)
8. 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)
9. 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)

   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)

10. Strong Oppose. This "controversy" has been discussed to death on this page, at BLP/N [10], 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 [11][12][13] 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) The closing rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gore Effect can equally be applied to this RfC. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
11. 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)
12. 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)
13. 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)
14. 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)
15. 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)
16. 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)

    Note to closing administrator this IP address has made only this single edit- Off2riorob (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

17. 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)
18. 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)
19. 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)
20. 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)
21. Oppose. The article is noteworthy.76.231.29.54 (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

    Note to the closing administrator - this IP address has made only two edits to the wikipedia. - Off2riorob (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

22. 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).
23. Oppose. The current name is fundamentally accurate, while the proposed alternatives are invariably 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 article that doesn't really meet any criteria for deletion. 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. I see nothing new or useful proposed here that hasn't already been extensively discussed before; the fact that he's running for President doesn't fundamentally alter any of the points made in the many times this article has been discussed in the past. --Aquillion (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
24. 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)
25. 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)
26. 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)
27. 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)
28. 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)
29. Kneejerk Oppose, WP:NOTCENSORED and stuff. --M4gnum0n (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
30. 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)
31. 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)
32. 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)
33. 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)
34. 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)
35. 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)
36. 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)
37. 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)
38. 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)
39. 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)

    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)

    Note to the closing admin: The statement above concerning Ptelder's editing history is false.[14]--Noren (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

    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)

40. 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)

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

41. 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)
42. 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)
43. 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)
44. Oppose: notability and verifiability are clear, with substantial mainstream press coverage. -- The Anome (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
45. 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)
46. 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)
47. 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)

    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)

    Moving toward consensus per below ArbCom preemption thread:

    First Choice: Keep as is

    Second Choice: Rename article (keep current title as redirect). I'd suggest Santorum culture-jam campaign, Santorum neologism campaign, or Rick Santorum and the Internet. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 15:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

48. 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)
49. 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)
50. 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)
51. 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)
52. 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)
53. 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)
54. 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)
55. 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)
56. Per Cirt.—S Marshall T/C 21:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
57. 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)
58. Oppose However it was created, the term has taken on a life of its own. Goodwinsands (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
59. 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)

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

    Nope. Merge without redirect is a fourth AFD attempt in all but name. ϢereSpielChequers 16:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

60. 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)
61. 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)
62. 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)
63. 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)
64. Oppose' Article is appropriate and BLP concerns are unfounded. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
65. 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)
66. 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)

    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)

    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)

67. Oppose It seems that the push to remove Santorum (neologism) is being driven by partisans of Rick Santorum. While Dan Savage's word-coining stunt was obnoxious, the word has taken on a life of its own. To merge the word's article into a political article about Rick Santorum is to take Mr Santorum's side in this contest of wills. Arguably the decent, humane side, but a side nonetheless. Maintaining the two terms as separate is probably the more appropriate path, for an encyclopedia that seeks to describe rather than to prescribe. NPOV. Ventifax (talk) 02:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
68. Oppose, the fact that Rick Santorum might find this embarrassing is not the point. The fact that it seems to have taken hold and been reported upon and used wisely under this name is the point. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC).
69. Oppose. The term now has a life of its own unrelated to its original author. The proposed new title is misleading as it implies that the word is only known as a part of Dan Savage's campaign. Ruslik_Zero 13:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
70. Oppose per WP:V and WP:VNT. It is not our remit to editorialize or white-wash notable topics discussed in verifiable third-party sources because we find them distasteful. TotientDragooned (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
71. Oppose It's notable. It's well sourced. I do think the Gore Effect AfD (especially the close) is relevant here. Yes this is "worse", but I really don't see a BLP problem that can't be solved by writing a well-balanced article (which this is at the moment). Hobit (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I've no objection to a reasonable rename however. Coining of 'santorum', Santorum neologism controversy, and Rick Santorum's Google problem both seeming like a solid choice. The article is about more than the neologism. Hobit (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
72. Oppose per this shirt. --Travis Thurston+ 00:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
73. '"Oppose"' because the neologism has entered general use (independent of the political situation). (I'm rarely here now, due to illness, but as a linguist this one bothered me enough to struggle through typing.) Clytie (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
74. Maximum oppose" and ban all political operatives who continue to push their agenda here. Merrill Stubing (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
75. Oppose. We are not in the business of relieving American politicians of their embarrasments; why does it matter whose ox is gored? We have articles on Dave the Chameleon, a direct attack on a living politician (actually in office), openly invented and sponsored by his political opponents; we have articles on chink and nigger, both attacks on millions of living persons; we title them thus, as what anglophones call the subjects. Is the proposed title what most people call the subject? The absence of a redirect is particularly troubling; readers who meet a santorum joke should be able to get to this page.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
76. Oppose. I started another article for a neologism/attack and "Most Outrageous Word of the Year" as judged by the American Dialect Society (2009): death panel. I considered naming the article Death panel lie or Death panel myth because I thought I may be legitimizing the attack with the short and simple title. But we're advised to be natural and concise, so I relaxed. Yes, in this case, the last name of someone has been redefined as the attack. But, it's also worth noting that the definition of santorum doesn't suggest that Rick Santorum would do any specific negative action. In contrast, over at death panel, Sarah Palin's definition suggested the President of the United States didn't care about the lives of the elderly or disabled. That's quite a vicious personal attack in my opinion! But I don't think the appropriate course of action is to merge and delete that article's content. In short, were here to document what reliable sources say, ugly or not. Jesanj (talk) 01:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
77. Oppose. This seems like a good article, and as much as the origin of the term makes me nervous on BLP grounds, I think there is significant encyclopedic value in covering it on its own. The part of the proposal to not redirect the current article name strikes me as particularly silly, considering the number of inbound links to it from the media. Rjm656s (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
78. Oppose. The proposal is to get rid of the article on the neologism santorum, under the subject name. Less than 6 months ago, the article, with the same name (but slightly longer disambiguation term), was put up for deletion. The result of the AfD was keep, as should be the case here.Gacurr (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

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)
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)

   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)

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

   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)

   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)

   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)

4. 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)
5. 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)

   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)

   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)

6. 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)

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

7. 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)
8. 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)
9. Rename/refactor The problem Wikipedia faces with this article stems from conflict between different policies, between WP:BLP and WP:NOTCENSORED, between WP:NPOV and WP:TITLES. The case is unusual because Wikipedia is made a participant in the ad hominem attack by virtue of the article itself. I think an imperfect solution is approach the title of the article and refactor it in such a way as to avoid defaming the political figure, yet covering the controversy in a neutral and uncensored fashion. To do this, we should WP:IGNORE conciseness in the article title. The other point to consider is that it appears there are two things going on: the neologism and the controversy. Something to consider is whether one is really separable from the other, by how much, and which has greater notability. Judging from this section below[15] it appears the notoriety of the neologism apart from the controversy is limited. To be clear I am not saying the neologism has no notability, only that its notability is relatively limited when compared with the controversy. Therefore, it is the controversy that should have an article, and the neologism itself should have a section within it. Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
10. Rename The subject is far more notable for Mr. Savage's campaign than it is for its supposed meaning. Thus the article should be primarily about the campaign, which in fact it is. Unfortunately, the title suggests otherwise. I suggest renaming the article to something like Coining of 'santorum'. The information contained in this article is both well-sourced and germane to that title, so it should not be merged withRick Santorum. Similarly, this is not a BLP issue unless we ourselves are giving undue weight to the attack on Mr. Santorum. In this case, I believe the title does so by legitimizing, and thus throwing Wikipedia's weight behind, the campaign. We should merely report on it, not support it. The rest of the article seems fine, but the title should be changed to reflect that the article is about the campaign, and not the supposed neologism. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Further expanding on my point, I'm fine with renaming the article to reflect the phenomenon, and perhaps rewriting so that it is fully related to the new title. I oppose merging or deletion, as the subject (the phenomenon of the deliberate coining and the extent of its use) is notable and well-sourced enough to warrant its own article. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

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

• 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)

@ --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)

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)

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

• • 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)
    • 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)
  • 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: [16]. "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)
    • Well said. Binksternet (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
      • 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)
        • 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)
          • 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)

• • • 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":

Citations of commentators referring to the prank

• • • • Pittsburgh Tribune-Review columnist Dimitri Vassilaros wrote critically about the term's formation...[16]
      • Philadelphia Daily News journalist Dan Gross described the usage of the term as, "Possibly the longest-lasting pop-culture reference to Santorum".[17]
      • Catey Sullivan of The Antioch Review likened the phenomenon surrounding the term to that of "subversive political activism" of advice columnist Ann Landers.[18] (twice: once in the lead, once in the body)
      • Rachel Kranz and Tim Cusick's 2005 book Library in a Book: Gay Rights provides a glossary of terms relevant to the gay rights movement, and in the entry on "Rick Santorum" notes: "His remarks particularly angered gay columnist Dan Savage, who began a campaign to associate Santorum's name with an unpleasant byproduct of anal sex."[65]
      • The paper, titled "Natality in the Private, Public, and Political Spheres: When Santorum Becomes santorum", dealt with the impact of new media on various spheres of influence.[74]
      • In his 2009 book And Then There's This: How Stories Live and Die in Viral Culture, author Bill Wasik identified the term as a form of sexual slang, noting, "his surname was turned into a sexual slang word, which a Google search for his last name today - long after he lost his reelection bid - still returns as the number-one result."[75]
      • In the 2010 book The Simpsons in the Classroom: Embiggening the Learning Experience with the Wisdom of Springfield, authors Karma Waltonen, Denise Du Vernay cite the santorum phenomenon in addition to "truthiness" as part of an exercise for students where they are encouraged to invent their own words and then experiment with them.[77]
      • Rick Santorum discussed the santorum phenomenon in a February 2011 interview with the publication Roll Call.[9]
      • In a May 12, 2011 interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, journalist Brian O'Neill observed that the phenomenon is referred to as "Santorum's Google problem".[11]
      • The Inquirer described the Savage coinage and other references to Santorum in The Sopranos and Veronica Mars as illustrating his name's evolution into "cultural shorthand ... for social conservatism."[81]
      • The regional gay newspaper Bay Windows said in August 2006 that Savage had "succeeded in turning [Santorum's name] into an oft-Googled slang term."[82]
      • The Human Rights Campaign included the full definition in a reprint of an item from Gay City News.[83]
      • 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."[61]
      • In February 2011, the political newspaper Roll Call wrote an article on his "Longtime Google Problem"[9]
      • In a 2004 article, The New York Times commented, "... recent Google bombs have sought to associate President Bush, Senator Clinton and Senator Rick Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican, with various unprintable phrases."[112]
      • The word appeared in discussion in college newspapers of Harvard University,[113] ... and the University of Michigan...[115]
      • Pittsburgh Tribune-Review columnist Dimitri Vassilaros wrote critically about the term's formation in a March 2006 article, and characterized it as "hate content" and "too vile to print in most newspapers".[16] Vassilaros wrote of Savage, "It was created by a very liberal advice columnist in the alternative media who does not hide his hatred for Mr. Santorum."[16]
      • Tucson Weekly movie reviewer Jim Nintzel wrote in a satirical piece in April 2006 that he introduced the word to comedian Rob Corddry of the satirical news program The Daily Show, noting that "Despite his high-ranking position as a member of the media elite, Corddry wasn't aware of this important linguistic development."[117]
      • The Daily Show referenced the term in its July 12, 2006,[118] December 11, 2006,[119] and May 9, 2011 episodes;[120]
      • Stephen Colbert of The Colbert Report called attention to the term in a February 21, 2011 broadcast,[121][122] and subsequently in an April 25, 2011 episode.[123]
      • Linkins commented critically regarding the nature of the activism by Savage, "as far as malicious internet pranks go, Savage's was a pretty effective one. What's not discussed is that its overall cultural importance peaked years ago".[5]
      • Steve Peoples of Roll Call wrote, "Dan Savage sought to mock Santorum’s comments on homosexuality."[9]
      • In a February 2011 article, Stephanie Mencimer of Mother Jones magazine characterized the activism by Savage in coining the word as an act of "revenge".[8]
      • Juli Weiner characterized the former Senator as "Google bomb victim Rick Santorum", in a March 2011 article for Vanity Fair.[124]
      • Salon journalist Tracy Clark-Flory wrote of Savage in March 2011, "Rest assured, he is still the same delightfully droll and impudent man who brought us the term 'santorum.'"[125]
      • On May 9, 2011, Jon Stewart of The Daily Show mentioned the term without defining it and then told the puzzled portion of his viewers to google it.[126] When guest Keira Knightley appeared for her interview, she admitted she had googled it backstage and now felt "like [her] innocence has been taken away."[127][128] Jon Stewart's mention of santorum on his May 9, 2011 program caused the word to be one of the most queried search terms on Google the following day.[129][130][131]
      • Michael Grunwald of TIME magazine commented, "you may have noticed that Santorum has a hilariously obscene Google problem, created by gay activists who objected to his anti-gay comments."[132]
      • Marcia Segelstein wrote critically of the phenomenon in a piece for the Christian news magazine World.[133]

• • • 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• (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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

(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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

I think that links on Wikipedia to other web pages aren't counted in search engine ranking calculations, so we're not being used to help with the prominence of the Savage page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.[17] 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)

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)

Dan Savage is the source of the existence of the word. The American Dialect Society recognizing it[18], 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

You're being uncivil to make the point that this article is uncivil. Sorry, that's pointy by definition, your misleading quote notwithstanding. Your best next move is a strikethrough. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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: .

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)

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)

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": [19]; the sentiment was echoed by less prominent sources as well.[20] [21] [22]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

That's another question, Threeafterthree. Whether it's in widespread use has already been established by the most R RS we have, Partridge. It's not. But that's irrelevant to the question of whether it's a neologism. By all the definitions I've read here and at Onelook it's a neologism. This topic has many elements - the term, the campaign, Spreading Santorm and probably others, we need a more nuanced argument about which of these should be the name.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• • Besides which: there's still hope! Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
    • You may not realize it at this precise moment but you've lost this one ;-> John lilburne (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• 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))

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)

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))

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

??? 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

This isn't by any standard a SNOW keep. Forty five editors have so far expressed concern, several referencing BLP, and support a merge and rename; and several in the oppose and "other" sections support a rename. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I would say SNOW would be a vast misrepresentation especially since the RfC wasn't even asking for deletion. To quote: "Should this article be renamed (to something like Dan Savage campaign), condensed to one or two paragraphs, the contents merged into a new subsection of Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality, and the new title (but not the old one) redirected to that subsection" -- Avanu (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Avanu, I think the concern is that the proposal is functionally identical to "Delete the existing article and Create a new one, with a subset of the content, under a new name" because of the caveat that the old title should not become a redirect. However, I don't think SNOW applies, because there's still room for the closer to find consensus for an intermediate result (possibly "Rename article to ___, with a redirect from the old name, and Reduce the citation-farming", is one not-outlandish result that comes to mind). // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Closure

The result of this discussion is Keep as a separate article, but.... The topic is clearly notable and worthy of an article. However, serious biography of living person concerns have been expressed. The discussion above is frothy, and contains many repeated arguments. We should not count votes; rather we should weigh the force of reason. My view of the community consensus is that we should not allow our encyclopedia, which is the world's encyclopedia, to promote a vicious personal attack. To prevent that harm, a number of editors have pointed out that a renaming would be helpful. The arguments above are not convincing that the article needs to be named "Santorum (neologism)". In fact, several editors have pointed out that the sources cited in the article seem to dispute whether this is a bona fide neologism, or something else. If the status is disputed, it is logical to choose among the less harmful and more descriptive titling options.

The consensus, backed up by many online news sources, is that this phenomenon is a "Google Problem" or if we want to be more technically correct, but less accessible to the reader, a Google Bomb. As a matter of community consensus and policy, the article is now renamed Santorum Google problem. The content of the article may need adjusting, but that's for you all to do, not me. Editors are encouraged to make productive changes. I am going to reduce protection to semi as it's about to expire in less than 24 hours. Please avoid edit warring, as I and others will be watching and may block edit warring editors, even if they do three or fewer reverts in 24 hours.

Consensus may change and discussion is always welcome. This renaming may be an interim step while discussions are ongoing. However, due to the potential harm to a living person (and their family), I find that this step should be taken without further delay. This action is therefore a BLP enforcement, as well as a discussion closure. Jehochman ^Talk 19:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Was this new name really the one with greatest support? Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Per my reading and weighing of reason and evidence, yes. But feel free to start a fresh discussion about the best name. After a few days I will check back and gladly re-move the article if a different consensus appears. Jehochman ^Talk 20:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

If anybody feels that the grammar or capitalization need to be adjusted, please ask any admin to do that. Santorum's "Google Problem" or Santorum Google Problem, or something like that is essentially equivalent and within the result of my closure. Jehochman ^Talk 19:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments and complaints about the closure

Please leave all complaints here, rather than on my talk page. Many thanks, Jehochman ^Talk 19:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for a wise decision. Yopienso (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• I have to say I am surprised. The proposal does not mention "Google problem" as a possible rename and, reviewing the !votes, only one editor makes this suggestion (and one other editor in the Other section) (both of these editors say ""Rick Santorum's Google problem"). On whether this is a neologism, our encyclopedia's own article is instructive: "A neologism (/niːˈɒlədʒɪzəm/; from the Greek νέο-, néo-, "new", and λόγος, lógos, "speech", "utterance") is 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, publication, period, or event." I do not see a consensus, in any way, to rename the article to Santorum's "Google Problem", or variation thereof. I am genuinely surprised with this result. Gacurr (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Is this a neologism or a political campaign? That seems to be the crux of the dispute. Both sides seem to agree that Rick Santorum has a "Google Problem", and those exact words are used in many of the sources cited. Determining consensus in a complex mess like this often requires reading between the lines. Jehochman ^Talk 20:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • It is not a neologism, it is a smear campaign revolving around a fake obscenity. It has no legitimate or wise-spread use as a word, that is the crux of the issue. The target title is a little awkward, but leagues better than what it was before so I am appreciative of a positive first step towards closure on this mess. Tarc (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • No way this is a neologism, any attempt to describe it as such is either an uninformed opinion or sheer disingenuousness. If this is “in the process of entering common use", then I'll be a monkey's uncle and Jupiter as well. Why not. Dreadstar ☥ 23:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• I don't find this resolution credible. It's not even clear that there was a consensus for a rename, much less for this particular name which had almost no discussion around it. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with the criticisms of this purported "closure". How can there be "consensus" for an alternative that was barely discussed? If it had been taken up seriously as a proposal, I would have commented against it. It's blatantly POV. This matter is a "problem" only from the perspective of Rick Santorum and people who might support his candidacy. My point of view would be better reflected by something like "Santorum (Google accomplishment)". Of course I don't think that either of these titles would be in keeping with NPOV. I had mentioned "Santorum (Googlebombing)" as a possibility -- it's at least neutral, although still not all that good because the matter goes beyond Googlebombing. Also, I don't accept the implication in the ES ("Don't revert without substantial community discussion and consensus") that one editor can make such a decision and thereby render it virtually immune to change. "Be bold" doesn't mean "Be imperious". JamesMLane t c 21:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

  Any title that suggests a form of "Santorum" as a word is a non-starter as far as I'm concerned. Tarc (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

  As this comment shows, this action has not settled the controversy; those who supported the RfC are not content, and will presumably continue to prefer a move. (It is not clear to me what relevant title would not suggest Santorum; but that's not my problem.) So much for the arguments from convenience.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• On the other hand, this seems to me an utterly arbitrary choice, imposing an unsourced POV on what the subject consists of; the most neutral description of the subject seems to me to be the coined lower-case word santorum (which presumably needs disambiguation). This should be reversed forthwith. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• The closing admin's job is to read consensus, and several people within the support and oppose sections did suggest a rename without a merge; and that suggestion was made elsewhere on the page at the same time. So I see this as a reasonable compromise, and the title is an accurate description of the issue and contents of the article. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

  "Several people" is not a consensus. A more reasonable closure, in my opinion, would be to close the RfC and recommend a new RfC to discuss possible renames of the article only. That way we could have had a focused and clear discussion about renames, separate from deletion/merging, and it would have been possible to to gauge whether there is a real consensus around any particular renaming possibility. The current result, in contrast, seems like an mere external imposition rather than any clear "result" of the RfC. When was Jehochman appointed as king? — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

  Quite so. It might also have been possible to build a consensus on a neutral rename, although it is clear that there would have been dissentients from any title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that Jehochman is in no way acting as a monarchical despot. This renaming may be an interim step while discussions are ongoing. However, due to the potential harm to a living person (and their family), I find that this step should be taken without further delay. This action is therefore a BLP enforcement, as well as a discussion closure. Jehochman has performed a necessary stop-gap measure in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Yopienso (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

No, as poionted out below, he has demanded consensus to overrule his unilateral closure. This is inappropriate conduict, and sshoulc be dealt with accordingly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Agree more or less with SV on this one. We now need to discuss what the title and focus of the article will be. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• No complaints. I don't necessarily agree but it was well considered, will have a good result, and is certainly within Jehochman's discretion, which we ought to respect. So maybe I do agree. We can fine-tune the name, and definitely fine-tune the article, it's just a temporary step that addresses the firmest objections to the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• Good close, fully support. Dreadstar ☥ 22:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Good close indeed. Thanks to Jehochman for grasping the nettle. --JN466 23:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• I don't think this close respects the consensus above at all. I know arguing as much is fruitless, however. Protonk (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• I think there was no real consensus on the deletion (though it was leaning keep and we keep NC deletions anyways) but there was reasonable support for a rename. I'm not sure this is the rename we should have, but as the closer states, that is still up for the community to decide. This was my ideal outcome (other than the exact name) and I think a non-unreasonable reading of the situation. Hobit (talk) 02:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Hobit, you write that, "as the closer states, that is still up for the community to decide." Alas, what the closer actually stated was, "Don't revert without substantial community discussion and consensus." Thus, it's for the community to decide only in the very limited sense that, of many contending opinions, the closer has elevated his own to the status of a default, which, he insists, must be the outcome unless there is consensus (well, actually, it would even need "substantial" consensus) against him. If there is no clear consensus, then his view is, for unexplained reasons, the privileged one. At least, that's how I read Jehochman's ES on the purported closing. I'd be delighted if your interpretation were the correct one, but if it were, Jehochman could have simply started a sub-thread seeking consensus on his preferred name. JamesMLane t c 07:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• The new name is bullshit for two reasons: 1. It's POV. To declare it a problem describes it as inherently undesirable. 2. The campaign was not confined to Google or the Internet. From the beginning of Savage's request to readers until many years later, the issue appeared offline in print and on television. This move is a disgrace to Wikipedia's neutrality and basis in fact. The BLP policy does not mean we swing the encyclopedia to have a default negative attitude to any issue which may reflect poorly on someone, especially when it's a public figure like a politician. Steven Walling 04:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Numerous media sources from the US right, left, and center have discussed the "Google problem" of Santorum's campaign. Santorum himself has discussed it as an obstacle. IMHO, it's a fair stop-gap title. Khazar (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Good close, the name is probably only temporary till we have a better one. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 07:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• Good close. Thank you Jehochman: this article is about the fact that Savage got "Santorum is a piece of shit and lube" to float to the top of search engine results for "santorum." Though, I think we're still groping for the title that best captures that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• I have mixed feelings on the outcome, but in the end I'll say I have to applaud Jehochman for making an effort to apply a stop-gap measure that may lessen some tensions and allow editors to move forward. — Ched :  ?  08:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• Good close. I thank Jehochman. The title stands a good chance of being changed some more, and it's best if that now happens following thoughtful discussion and vetting. Getting away from the poorly-sourced "neologism" title is a good thing. What is particularly important is that this decision decreases the likelihood that ArbCom will have to open a drama-laden folly of trying to dictate a content dispute solution to the community. Better to keep the drama, I mean discussion, here in the community where it belongs. What Jehochman did was grown-up and commendable. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• Good close, and thanks to Jehochman. Khazar (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Website image

Should an image of the spreadingsantorum.com website be included in the article? My addition was reverted stating "Utter WP:NFCC fail, the reader does not need to see a brown stain on a website to understand the subject matter." What if the image was made available under a free license...could it be added then?Smallman12q (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it would contribute anything to understanding the issue at hand. As the article stands at this instant, as an article about the neologism, an image illustrating the article would have to be an image of santorum, and I doubt anyone in their right mind thinks there would be consensus to include that in the article at this point. Nor do I think that would contribute to understanding the issue at hand, either. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Possibly two side-by-side images of Rick Santorum and Dan Savage would be appropriate at the top of the page? (Going by the principle that the article is mostly about the promotional campaign for the neologism and the political conflict it represents.) — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 01:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that a picture of the senator is really relevant here. The campaign isn't based on what he looks like, and this isn't his biography. And there's not any real need to further link him to the neologism. By contrast, the website picture is somewhat useful: it may be just a brown stain, but it conveys Dan Savage's idea of the approximate "recipe" for santorum - how much lube, how much fecal matter, the approximate viscosity. I think the website screenshot high at the top, the photo of Dan Savage later, nothing of Rick Santorum. Unless you get a photo of someone hurling some of the stuff at him. 8> Wnt (talk) 02:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Support. Seems appropriate to me that an article about santorum would have a picture of santorum. The one from the web-site is probably acceptable, at least until someone submits a photo. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 06:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No image necessary or desirable; it would be needlessly inflammatory. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Support. If the word deserves an article, I see no reason to exclude a descriptive picture of the substance. I'm having trouble visualising exectly what it looks like. Should it be in a petri dish, a sample jar or, well, you know, in its natural found environment, though? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Given WP:NOTCENSORED and given the sometimes ridiculous arguments for the main article, there's no reason to exclude a picture of the substance (provided it was available under a free license). The problem with including the picture is that the picture helps the article participate in the attack even more than it already does. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

oppose Fair use criteria are pretty strict. I'm not at all convinced that we can justify this as sufficiently relevant. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This question demonstrates part of the problem with the article at present. "Supposedly" it describes a pretty gross substance, yet we can't even get a consensus of people to include a screenshot of a website promoting this definition. If this article were about the event (aka the promotion), then the screenshot would go into the article no problem. If this article were *really* about a gross substance, we would easily have consensus for putting an image of the fecal material in question. I am definitely opposed to a prominently placed photo of Rick Santorum in this article as that would even MORE violate BLP by intentionally associating him with this term. As many many editors have said, let's just rename this thing and move on, we've wasted more than enough ink on it and it seems pretty clear that there is general support for a rename. -- Avanu (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - WP:NFCC #8. A picture of a brown stain from a website does not assist in the reader's understanding of what this page is about. Text is quite sufficient. Tarc (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Please re-add the Website image

[[:File:Spreadingsantorum.png|thumb|right|Dan Savage's Spreading Santorum website defines and illustrates santorum in a splash screen]]

Discussion at #Website image above supports restoring this image to the article. I intended to do it when protection expired on the 12th, but since it didn't, here I am. (I'll comment out the above display, or someone else can do it, as soon as this request is processed. For the next few hours? I think this falls under Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria_exemptions#Exemptions as a "page used to manage non-free content".) Wnt (talk) 05:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's a true reading of that section. It seems to rely on bolded !votes rather than summarizing the views expressed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

From the above discussion it looks like Smallman12q, myself, 24.177, Anthonyhcole, and Ken Arromdee support the image. Nomoskedasticity and Macwhiz oppose. GJohnson doesn't address it. Avanu doesn't seem to address it except to dismiss the article as a whole, so I don't think he counts either. That's 5 to 2 in support of retaining the image that topped this page before the big push to make the world safe for Rick Santorum's candidacy announcement began. I call that consensus. Wnt (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I oppose it as well, as I initially removed it from the article. Seeing a picture of a brown stain is no doubt titillating for some here, but it adds nothing to the reader's understanding of this worthless article, thus failing WP:NFCC. We can always go to FfD (Files for Deletion) to hash that out for certain if people feel it necessary, though. Tarc (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Yuck. The image does illustrate far better than words alone the visceral yuck of the website santorum.com. If we can find third party reliable sourced commentary on that image and its relation to the subject that would pass NFCC, although it seems more relevant to a discussion of Savage and his campaign than to the neologism itself. The image illustrates Savage's efforts, not the neologism. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It is discussed at sites like http://www.calltodecision.com/ftln.htm and http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/category/gay-activism/ - obviously partisan, but third party. Wnt (talk) 04:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't support adding the image. I oppose it. I did point out that Wikipedia rules say we should add the image, but the rules are broken. I would invoke WP:IAR, because using the image perpetuates the harm. Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I am declining this request due to lack of consensus at this time. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Renaming

Key points to consider:

• Should Savage's name be included in the title?
• Is this a Google bomb or merely a search engine optimization problem for Santorum?
• Is "Santorum" capitalized, quoted, possessive?

Renaming related sections:

#Back to the re-naming issue voting and commenting
#Renaming Related discussions

#Naming discussion

#Propriety

#Should "Dan Savage" be in the title?

#Neologism

#Santorum (neologism)

#Thoughts on renaming #Suggestion for next steps in renaming

The RfC above proposes renaming this article. So far, these have been proposed. I've linked to the earlier discussions around them. My preference is Campaign for "santorum" neologism. Steven G. Johnson's argument is sound. Or 'Spreading santorum' campaign, Rio's improvement on my Spreading Santorum SlimVirgin's Dan Savage santorum campaign Succinct, findable. Thoughts? Please correct my mistakes and add suggestions. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Dan Savage santorum campaign SlimVirgin
• Dan Savage campaign SlimVirgin
• Dan Savage's verbal attack on Rick Santorum Jimbo Wales
• Santorum (sexual slang) JamesMLane
• Santorum neologism campaign Steven G Johnson
• Santorum neologism controversy elektrikSHOOS
• Rick Santorum and homosexuality John Carter
• Rick Santorum homosexuality controversy John Carter
• Savage Santorum campaign Be——Critical
• Dan Savage santorum neologism controversy JN466
• Dan Savage santorum neologism campaign JN466
• Spreading Santorum Anthonyhcole
• Rick Santorum's Google problem BE——Critical
• Rick Santorum's "Google problem" macwhiz

I don't support this one; details in previous discussion, but briefly: it's got a euphemism, it unfairly besmirches Google, and it obfusicates the content of the article it titles. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• 'Spreading santorum' campaign Reo
• Campaign for "santorum" neologism Steven G. Johnson
• Dan Savage campaign for "santorum" neologism JN466
• Savage–Santorum affair SlimVirgin
• Savage–Santorum controversy Slim Virgin
• Santorum (neologism)

Naming discussion

Key points to consider:

• Should Savage's name be included in the title?
• Is this a Google bomb or merely a search engine optimization problem for Santorum?
• Is "Santorum" capitalized, quoted, possessive?

Renaming related sections:

#Back to the re-naming issue voting and commenting
#Renaming Related discussions

#Naming discussion

#Propriety

#Should "Dan Savage" be in the title?

#Neologism

#Santorum (neologism)

#Thoughts on renaming #Suggestion for next steps in renaming

Much like in the Background sub-section of the article, under Coining (maybe change this to Etymology?), we link to a main article on the Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality, I would not be opposed to creating a new article to deal with the subject of the campaign. Campaign for "santorum" neologism, "Spreading santorum" campaign, and Spreading Santorum all seem like reasonable titles for this, though the last one may become too focussed on the website. Given the vast array of possibilities I can say I have not yet made up my mind, but will be pondering the choices. Thank you for compiling the list. Gacurr (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I suppose the advantage of having both Savage and Santorum's names in the title is it will help search engines find it? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The text of the article is included in the search engine's database. So unless we left out mentioning either the politician or the writer from the article, it would still be found. Gacurr (talk)

Actually, I was thinking about ranking. In the early days, if the search term was in the page title it boosted the page's ranking. Don't know about now. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Search engine ranking is not an editorial consideration on Wikipedia so far as I know. Gacurr (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It is for me. Most of the Wikipedia articles I visit as a reader, I get to via search engines. I'm thinking, if I want to learn about that thing Dan Savage did to Rick Santorum's name, I'd be likely to begin by just searching for savage and santorum. And I'd expect, all else being equal, an article with both names in the title would rank higher than one without. It would help with finding the article when you're searching within Wikipedia, I think. --Anthonyhcole (talk)

A search on Dan Savage and Rick Santorum brings up this article no problem on Google. Wikipedia's internal search is also finding the article without any problem. Gacurr (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hm. While it's good to draw all these disparate thoughts together, I'm concerned it marginalizes the discussions that have already taken place. For instance, I don't now support Rick Santorum's "Google problem" for reasons I'm not copy-and-pasting. :) Perhaps we could borrow a bit of wikiquette from the RfC process and modify it, inviting each (serious) "suggester" tied to the above links to add a brief indented statement for or against the term tied to their name, with all discussion of those points to be down here and not threaded into the list?

My current favorite is still Campaign for santorum neologism. Google will pick up Savage's name from the body of the article just fine, and adding it to the title seems like it's either unnecessary disambiguation, or... oh, what term to use? Not quite weasel-wording, not quite wishy-washy... like it's stuck there defensively somehow?

One thing the copyeditor in me would be very picky about: per WP:TITLE, santorum should be italicized in the title if used as the neologism. If you're using redlinks to illustrate names, you'd have to do, e.g., [[Campaign for santorum neologism|Campaign for ''santorum'' neologism]] to get that to show up... but I'll believe runs of '' are intended to become italic in titles to save typing! // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Being about a politician, the word 'campaign' seems like it might be less than clear. -- Avanu (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. macwhiz, a lot of what you suggested was running through my mind as I was collating that. I'd like the authors to write a paragraph advocating for their title. And I'd like it to be modifiable over time, without strikethroughs so the rationale can improve. What do you think? I'm going to bed now :) (I'm starting to lean toward Embiggening Truthiness). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see why any rename is even worth discussing. This article is about a neologism, "santorum". Wikipedia guidelines are very clear that articles should be named clearly and concisely for the topic being presented. How is Santorum (neologism) inappropriate? Should we first come to a consensus as to whether the article should be renamed before we start discussing what to rename it to? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 21:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, what won me over on that point was that santorum as a word in and of itself just isn't that notable. It really isn't in documented widespread use. However, the campaign to get it into widespread use is absolutely notable, and frankly, it's the interesting part of the story. When you strip away the iffier citations, you wind up with more about the campaign to make it a word and the fallout that resulted than you do about the sexual byproduct it now defines. However, I definitely think there should be a redirect from the current name, if for no other reason than for the list of major media outlets that have linked to the current name, as seen at the top of this page. Look, if someone googles "santorum", what's going to give them a more neutral, less attack-y idea why their buddy told them to look it up? Savage's site, or ours? Reducing our PageRank for "santorum" isn't going to do Santorum any favors. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I absolutely agree and, as explained in my comment above, do not support re-naming this article. Devising a spin-off article for the purpose of a more detailed treatment of a subject related to the word is an acceptable proposition and I can support doing that in relation to the Spreading Santorum website and any campaign type activities for the word that are well-sourced. Gacurr (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Dan Savage santorum campaign gets my vote. It succinctly says what the article is about. --JN466 22:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

That title is arguably ambiguous, as Dan Savage has campaigned politically in his columns and elsewhere against Santorum on numerous occasions, with the "santorum" neologism only being the most famous line of attack. At the very least, you should put "santorum" in quotes or italics (as English punctuation dictates when you refer to a word as such), but it is clearer to say Dan Savage "santorum" neologism campaign to unambiguously make the point that the campaign refers to the neologism specifically. But "Dan Savage" is unnecessary, nor should the title take Santorum's "It's one guy" PoV versus the obvious (and sourced) fact that many supporters of the campaign share the blame/credit for the redefinition's current prominence. Campaign for "santorum" neologism seems sufficient unambiguously describe the subject matter. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to quotes or italics, but the lower-case spelling of santorum in itself avoids any ambiguity. The phrase "Savage's santorum campaign" is used in the Snidow paper, thus spelt. The campaign arose from Savage's column and website. He is, time and again, the person interviewed about it. Any campaign worth the name will have supporters other than the originator -- otherwise it isn't a campaign. --JN466 03:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Santorum neologism campaign or Campaign for "santorum" neologism, but Dan Savage santorum campaign is also acceptable in spite of seeming to indicate that no one else picked it up and that it was invented by Savage, which it wasn't. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Wiki should lead with the better known definition (relating to anal sex), then to the person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.116.143 (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support Dan Savage Santorum Campaign. This article is currently not about the word santorum and it's use in the world, because there is no common use of the word, since it was made up for a specific use in a campaign to smear someone. The campaign itself is clearly notable from the sources provided, but the title of the article should be something in regard to the campaign and not a non-notable neologism. Silverseren^C 23:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

That title is ambiguous, because Dan Savage has criticized Santorum on numerous occasions; the "santorum" neologism campaign is only one avenue of his criticism. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support Campaign for "santorum" neologism, which concisely explains what this article is about (since the article as is is mainly about the promotion/politics and not about sexual usages per se) and explains why it is notable (since the sources almost all focus on the political and promotion aspects of it). Note also that numerous prominent sources refer to it as a "campaign", e.g. [23][24][25][26], so we aren't inventing our own term for the subject. I oppose the push to include "Savage" in the title, which seems to be (a) unnecessary, (b) a defensive/tendentious attempt to minimize the subject (ala Santorum's "It's one guy"), and (c) does not reflect all the sources on the subject — while Savage indisputably instigated the campaign and maintains the website, many of the sources point out the obvious fact that the prominence of the neologism is due not to Savage's efforts alone, but to the support of thousands of other online authors [27] (or "gay activists" [28]), and indeed googling "santorum frothy" will turn up many people who have adopted Savage's line of attack on Santorum. However, all that being said, there was some discussion previously that perhaps we should allow the current RfC to close before opening a new RfC on renaming. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• By the way the 'real' definition supported by sources isn't *necessarily* the one about fecal material. Let me quote this student paper that we have linked as [67] in the article:

A search of “santorum” and “Dan Savage” garnered 17 articles, one of which was a New York Times guest column by Savage himself on April 25, 2003. Other articles called the term disgusting, but recognized that it had become shorthand for social conservativism. Others reported on Bob Casey’s (a Senate candidate and challenger for Santorum’s seat) return of Dan Savage’s campaign donations due to the columnists role in minting the “raunchy definition” (Budoff, 2006 for instance).

-- Avanu (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I think people may be heading too far down this path. It does not does not at all appear to me that the RfC to change name / merge has anything close to a consensus, which would leave the article here as is. With the necessity of conducting a further official discussion after it is closed. Right now anything other than brainstorming and straw polls to see if there are some basic common grounds seems to be very pre-mature. Active Banana (^bananaphone 14:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Propriety

Key points to consider:

• Should Savage's name be included in the title?
• Is this a Google bomb or merely a search engine optimization problem for Santorum?
• Is "Santorum" capitalized, quoted, possessive?

Renaming related sections:

#Back to the re-naming issue voting and commenting
#Renaming Related discussions

#Naming discussion

#Propriety

#Should "Dan Savage" be in the title?

#Neologism

#Santorum (neologism)

#Thoughts on renaming #Suggestion for next steps in renaming

• Comment: I have yet to see a consensus that this article is in need of renaming, so any discussion of what it should be renamed is premature (and, I suspect, agenda-driven). I think this discussion is being conducted under false pretenses. It appears to be a "crypto-RfC." I would like to know whether this discussion is going to be used to justify a page-move in spite of the emerging consensus at the real RfC found near the top of this page. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it would be moved without another RfC, which is why I wanted to close the current one whose conclusion is obvious. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Labeling things in negative terms like "agenda driven" doesn't make it a conspiracy. A rename has broad support, it solves the issues that many people have with the article, it addresses the real issues, and the way it is being approached leaves open a lot of options. On the other hand, you could always find another way to work things out if you find this process so reprehensible. -- Avanu (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't call this a conspiracy, but this isn't a "process", and I don't think that a rename has the broad support you claim. This is a case of self-selecting discussion participants. The one option not left open in this approach is "no change," and I think that's extremely telling. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, super telling.... -- Avanu (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The simple fact that there are a lot of suggestions from a host of people should indicate that there is a significant contingent of people who disagree with your assessment, 24. This also has been discussed (extensively) on AN/I, and I suspect that the discussion there did more to bring in fresh eyes than anything else. I arrived here as a result the related discussion involving some of your behavior at WP:WQA, which directly related to the discussion here. Horologium (talk) 01:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

"A lot" is subjective and meaningless. The suggestions of "a lot" of people don't imply a consensus if there are more people who support the status quo, and we have no way of knowing whether that is the case, given the biased phrasing of the question/poll/whatever this is. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 07:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• I too am a little confused. In none of the many attempts to have the article merged, deleted, renamed or otherwise bowlderized for the sake of a former republican senator have we found anything resembling consensus to alter the basic form of the article. So I'm curious why we are now picking from a host of names among which the original is only one (and placed last). Protonk (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Nothing saying it can't be first. So I moved it to the top of the list. -- Avanu (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's not denigrate the comments of the many editors who have stated concerns with the Wikipedia compliancy of this article to anything else than their perceived problems with the article.

RfCs should run their course, seems to me. RfCs are requests for discussion as the name says, not votes, or only votes, so, as long as there is discussion within a designated time frame, the RfC should remain open. Consensus is declared by a neutral 'closer', and given the importance of discussion (that 's RfComment not RfVotes :O) may be based both on the discussions and the votes. The advantage to allowing the RfC to run its course is that no one later on can say, "well sure but the RfC was cut off before I /we could comment or vote." The end decision will be more definitive if due processes are adhered to.(olive (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC))

Indeed, and nothing says that all other conversations and negotiations must stop because there's an RfC pending. For me, the pending RfC is a bridge too far, but I'm willing to discuss the parts of it that aren't too much; maybe we wind up with an independent consensus, maybe we wind up knowing what the next RfC will be when this one closes... but I don't see anyone suggesting action while the RfC is pending. Besides, the article name discussion is probably the most productive, consensus-generating part of this wall 'o text. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Except you cannot arrive at an independent consensus if you're excluding the viewpoint of the majority of users to have expressed their opinion at the current RfC. In other words, the only consensus this discussion can hope to achieve is the consensus for a new article title among editors who agree that this article's title should be changed. But that's a useless consensus: you need to first establish a consensus that this article's title needs to be changed, and then, should such a consensus emerge, you still need to consider the opinions of those who didn't agree with the previous consensus in deciding on a new title. I'm not saying that you shouldn't discuss this-- by all means, feel free. I'm just saying that any consensus achieved herein is moot. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 07:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree too. 24 I agree with your line of rationale and while I see the renaming of the article being to be the best opt I do not see this naming debate to be nothing more than just brainstorming for those particpating. New arguments and concerns are identified here... The formal process has to go step by step as you say. All arguments fromally adressed there. No reason to worry --Reo ⁺ 09:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not excluding anyone's viewpoint. However, if you look at the "Oppose" and "Other" comments, by my count it's 52-61 in favor of keeping things as they are versus being open to rename, and that's a lot tighter than the !vote for the RfC as a whole. It's possible that some of those "oppose" !voters could be persuaded to accept a title change if a reasonable alternative were offered that was based on policy and fairness. Plus, don't forget, consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale, so if we can't find our way clear of, say, WP:NEO, the !vote may be moot itself. Reo's got the idea of it: consider this a working group that will offer up an RfC if and when it's ripe to do so, and we're trying to refine what we would propose in that RfC. Hey, this thread is giving me a much better idea of where everyone is coming at this article from. Understanding everyone's views is important to any consensus, so there's value even if it winds up moot. Better to try and find a compromise no one is too unhappy to accept, than to wind up at ARBCOM... // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing up WP:LIMITED. It's important to keep in mind that the outcome of this RfC, or a separate RfC to rename, might me moot as well, given the three previous AfD discussions about this page, and the previous years of debate that retained the status-quo. Frankly, unless there's an overwhelming consensus to rename, I don't see it happening. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

@Protonk, one of the main things that has come out of the process here on the talk page is that a lot of editors think the current RfC suggestion is too drastic, but would support a rename. Thus the discussion. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

IP24, Saying we can't discuss a proposed change, that you don't approve of, until consensus has formed in favour of that change is at best odd. Calling those who wish to discuss the change "agenda-driven" is insulting; as is "false pretenses."

I deliberately left the no change option out of the list because "Should this be named after the event rather than the neologism?" is one question and "If so, what new name?" is another. Each question will attract different arguments. If we conflate the two, the discussion becomes atomised and unproductive. If others agree I'd like to delete the no change option from the list, as well as Avanu's amusing suggestions, and return this to a discussion about what to rename to, if we rename. I apologise if it looked like I was taking the renaming for granted, it is by no means a forgone conclusion. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm in favor of you changing what you think is best. By the way, despite the slight humor or literary tone of my suggestions, they were not all necessarily intended to be disregarded. -- Avanu (talk) 07:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Then, to the end of reducing the confusion, you should limit your talk page contributions to those things that are intended to not be disregarded. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 07:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

IP24, please stop. -- Avanu (talk) 08:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

What, disagreeing with you? No. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 08:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

No. Being a smart-ass. Anthonyhcole seems to be making a legitimate attempt to improve the article and in a cooperative spirit, I agreed with him that my page names were humorous, and was open to removal of some, at his discretion. You follow this up with a wisecrack, when really I was just being conciliatory and polite. Generally that is what I strive for, but at times I've been less than great. So, again, please just try and be nice, and I promise your fellow editors will appreciate the effort, and I will likewise try. -- Avanu (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll make you a deal: you agree to stop being tendentious, I'll agree to stop being a smart-ass. Yah? 24.177.120.138 (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not a legitimate way of making decisions. The opinions of those who don't agree that this article needs to be renamed should still be considered in any discussion of what to rename this article to, but, lacking a consensus that this article should be renamed, those editors are not going to participate. This is way premature, and, I feel comfortable going so far as to say, useless. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 07:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. No final decisions will be made here. It is insulting to characterise our endeavour to clarify the issues around renaming as "useless." Try to keep those thoughts to yourself. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, you had every right to ask for these clarifications. I should have been clearer from the outset. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Furthermore, we had this same conversation not 7 days ago. look here. Protonk (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Should "Dan Savage" be in the title?

Key points to consider:

• Should Savage's name be included in the title?
• Is this a Google bomb or merely a search engine optimization problem for Santorum?
• Is "Santorum" capitalized, quoted, possessive?

Renaming related sections:

#Back to the re-naming issue voting and commenting
#Renaming Related discussions

#Naming discussion

#Propriety

#Should "Dan Savage" be in the title?

#Neologism

#Santorum (neologism)

#Thoughts on renaming #Suggestion for next steps in renaming

It's been argued that including "Dan Savage" or "Savage" in the title gives too much prominence to Savage (the thing has a life of its own now), and implies Savage invented the term (a reader did) or that he boosted its Google rank (13,000 linkers did). Sorry if I missed some arguments. What are the arguments in favour of including Savage in the title? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Spreadingsantorum.com is Savage's website. Savage refers to it as "my campaign". [29][30]. The Snidow paper refers to "Savage's santorum campaign". [31] To this day, reliable sources explaining "Santorum's Google problem" attribute it to Savage's campaign. [32][33]. It's one of the things Dan Savage is most notable for. --JN466 12:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

What is wrong with not including "Savage" in the title? Wikipedia policy is to use the most concise unambiguous name. Campaign for "santorum" neologism is certainly unambiguous and gives an accurate impression of what the article is about. Dan Savage campaign for "santorum" neologism gives more information (putting aside disputes over the extent to which this can be solely associated with Savage), but so does Dan Savage campaign for "santorum" neologism that started in 2003 with a contest suggested in Savage's column in response to remarks on homosexuality by Rick Santorum ... but we wouldn't use such a long title, because the additional information is in the article and hence it is not necessary in the title.

"Savage" is obviously not necessary in the title to eliminate ambiguity (there are no other campaigns for "santorum" neologisms). Nor have I heard any clear argument that Campaign for "santorum" neologism is somehow misleading (how?) without Savage's name. So why is "Savage" necessary in the title, as opposed to leaving it to the article body to explain Savage's involvement?

Compare this to the argument for including the word "campaign" in the title. If we eliminate "campaign for" and simply use "santorum" neologism or Santorum (neologism), the argument (which itself has not achieved consensus yet) is that this is misleading: it implies that what is notable is the word per se, rather than the campaign to promote it and its political impact. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

No serious argument can be made that the neologism would exist if not for Savage. Although the idea of the campaign and the actual definition of the word both seem to have come from Savage's readers, Savage put the idea of the campaign into action, used his syndicated column to draw attention to it, used his readership to come up with the definition, created the spreadingsantorum.com website, and generally ensured that the neologism became more widely known. Not that that means Savage must be in the title, but it is certainly reasonable for it to be included. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with both Steven G. Johnson and Delicious carbuncle. I prefer the simpler title Campaign for "santorum" neologism both because simpler is better IMHO and to avoid arguments. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 14:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

As carbuncle wrote: Not that that means Savage must be in the title. That is my point. Savage's involvement is absolutely essential information to include in the article text, indeed in the lede. But so, for that matter, are Santorum's remarks on homosexuality that sparked the issue. For this information to go into the title, however, you have to argue that it is necessary to make the title unambiguous or necessary to avoid some misleading implication. Where is that argument? — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The campaign is inextricably linked with Dan Savage. His name was mentioned 94 times in our article last time I counted. It's described as "one-man campaign" (Partridge), "Dan Savage's internet media campaign", and Dan Savage's "Internet war" with Santorum in our sources. It would be misleading, or at least leave out a central component of this topic as presented in our sources, not to make that clear in the title. --JN466 14:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

there appears to be plenty of coverage without any mention of Savage [[34] Active Banana (^bananaphone 14:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't dig too far, but once you eliminate the blogs (including the many hits to Towleroad, which is a gay blog which has gleefully participated in Savage's campaign), there isn't so much coverage, and the reliable sources either don't mention the neologism (such as 9 & 10 News), or quote Savage without naming him but explicitly linking to a previous article about him (such as the blog from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette), or only have the mention of the epithet in the comments (such as The Huffington Post or The Los Angeles Times or KOLO). The neologism would not exist had it not been for Savage, and his name should appear in the title, since he is the one orchestrating the operation. Horologium (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, you get lots of passing mentions of Santorum's "Google problem" in recent articles on his candidacy (as well as a few unrelated mentions of Google). Doesn't change the nature of this campaign, and how sources that address it in detail describe it. --JN466 14:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

(tongue-in-cheek) Is the concern that we'll need to disambiguate from Wikipedia campaign for santorum neologism at this rate? I understand the concerns about Savage, but WP:TITLE gives really good guidance, right near the top: precision and conciseness. The title without "Savage" is "only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously" and "shorter rather than longer". Is there justification under WP:TITLE for adding "Savage" to the title? If there is, it's not obvious to me. Heck, one might still make a good argument that WP:TITLE outweighs WP:NEO and so the title should remain unchanged, but I haven't seen such a good argument yet. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:TITLE, "article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources; when this offers multiple possibilities, Wikipedia chooses among them by considering five principles: the ideal article title will resemble titles for similar articles, precisely identify the subject, be short, be natural, and recognizable." Dan Savage santorum campaign meets that. It's called Dan Savage's campaign in reliable sources. Why disappear his name from the title? It would be just as wrong to call it Dan Savage sexual neologism campaign, leaving out Santorum's name. I could live with Campaign for santorum neologism, but I don't think we're doing the article and the reader looking for it any favour by omitting Savage's name. --JN466 15:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is about Dan Savage's campaign, so his name should be in the title in my view. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is about Dan Savage's campaign in response to Rick Santorum's remarks on homosexuality, which are also "inextricably linked" to the subject according to all the sources. So should the title be Dan Savage campaign for "santorum" neologism in response to Rick Santorum's remarks on homosexuality? Also inextricably linked to the subject are the search-engine rankings, which are mentioned in nearly every article on the subject, so clearly the title should be Dan Savage campaign for "santorum" neologism in response to Rick Santorum's remarks on homosexuality, which has resulted in an unpleasant sexual definition of "santorum" being ranked highly in search engines. In short, I don't buy this "inextricably linked" argument. The title should be as long as necessary to unambiguously describe the content and not be misleading, but no longer — all other information can go into the article itself. The most important information can go into the lede. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Lots of people have made stupid remarks regarding homosexuality (including other potential presidential candidates), but only this one has been turned into a neologism; it's not the remarks, it's the reaction of Savage that is notable. The fact that Santorum has an unusual last name probably plays a role in it as well; generic last names won't have the same impact. Horologium (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

But it's not Savage per se that makes it notable. As you say, it's the "reaction": the campaign for a neologism, its success in high search-engine rankings, and the political impact on a major US politician and US politics. There's no question that Savage's involvement is an essential part of the story that should be in the article. The question is, why does the title need to be lengthened to include his name, as opposing to leaving it to the article? How does Campaign for "santorum" neologism mislead or introduce ambiguity? — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• No, the subject of the article is not Dan Savage. A person's having been an essential part of the creation of a thing does not mean we should tack their name to the thing. It's Yellow Submarine (song), not Ringo Star's Yellow Submarine; Bo (dog), not Obama Presidential Dog, and so on. Further, if the motivation here is that the article, coatrack, attack article, etc., adding Savage's name to an article for launching the initiative would not cure the BLP violation, it would turn one violation into two. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• I find it amusing that some editors are suddenly mindful of WP:BLP when Savage's name comes into play, but not so much in regards to BLP for Santorum himself. (and by amusing I mean extremely hypocritical) Tarc (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Whatever you were seeing, people suddenly mindful of BLP in sympathy with Savage, is completely absent from the discussion as far as I can tell. What sparked your comment? Binksternet (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• I vote for :Scurrilous personal attack by degenerate gay activist Dan Savage against noble American Rick Santorum. Credit where credit is due Protonk (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

So, the article is about the campaign, it's Dan Savage's campaign against Santorum, so should be characterised as that. That makes sense to me. Presently, this article tops Rick Santorum when I google "Santorum." Would beginning the title with "Dan Savage" be likely to drop it below Rick Santorum? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It might well drop below Rick Santorum, but we won't know until we try. It might not – in which case I'd say it's none of our concern; I'd live with that. What is almost certain is that having a title beginning with Dan Savage would make the article show up when you google "Dan Savage", which at present it does not. Again, I think that's fine; Savage stands by his campaign and is proud of it. I think it is legitimate for surfers googling him to find this article, whether it helps the campaign or not. --JN466 16:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering about the implications. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This thread may be dead now, but it's linked in the helpful issues-description infobox (thank you to whoever added that in various spots). While Savage is the originator of the campaign, and still its most visible proponent, it has now grown beyond being his plaything. If he stood up tomorrow morning and called off the whole thing, asked his readers to stop spreading santorum, I'm not convinced the thing would die off. Someone would keep the flaming bag alive, and in that eventuality the proper name for the article could well wind up being closer to Rick Santorum versus the Internet (or rather, The Internet vs. Rick Santorum). I'm not arguing for this name (despite my RfC comment), but add the reasoning to the pile of arguments against including Savage in the title. That pile already brims high from such items as "no need to disambig from the other pranks/attacks on Santorum" and "we don't call it Ronald Reagan's 'Morning in America' Campaign." ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 03:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Since this ended up being the linked section instead of this page's hundred other threads, I hope no one will mind if I restate a comment from below (which Zenswashbuckler was already kind enough to quote). I don't believe we need Dan Savage's name in the title for the same reason we don't need Albert Einstein's name on Special relativity, Shakespeare's name on Hamlet, Ronald Reagan's name on Morning in America, George Bush's name on Read my lips: no new taxes, Bill Clinton's name on Monica Lewinsky scandal, William Henry Harrison's name on Tippecanoe and Tyler too, Hitler's name on Lebensraum, Los del Rio's name on Macarena (song), or the Republican Party's name on Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: it's not needed for disambiguation. Jayen's right that Savage's name is "inextricably linked to this campaign," but wrong, I think, that Wikipedia policy demands (or even allows) an author/creator's name in front of the item to which she/he is inextricably linked. (Almost all coverage of the Gettysburg Address mention both Lincoln and the Civil War, for example, yet it would be silly to rename the article Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address during the US Civil War.) For now I think the simplest title is best. Khazar (talk) 06:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Neologism

Key points to consider:

• Should Savage's name be included in the title?
• Is this a Google bomb or merely a search engine optimization problem for Santorum?
• Is "Santorum" capitalized, quoted, possessive?

Renaming related sections:

#Back to the re-naming issue voting and commenting
#Renaming Related discussions

#Naming discussion

#Propriety

#Should "Dan Savage" be in the title?

#Neologism

#Santorum (neologism)

#Thoughts on renaming #Suggestion for next steps in renaming

If we're going to move this, please don't use the word neologism in the title. The rule for titles is to use the common name, and nobody associated with this story uses the word neologism. I never see that word outside of Wikipedia articles. It's forced jargon. —Designate (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

"Neologism" is important to remove any ambiguity: the article is not about the usage of "Santorum" to refer to Rick Santorum, but rather the neologism (or the campaign for the neologism and its impact). And unlike other titles like "Spreading santorum campaign", explicitly saying "neologism" in the title does not presume that the reader already knows that the campaign is about a neologism — lack of ambiguity should not require that the reader already know the content of the article. Nor is "neologism" jargon — it is quite a standard and common English word. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Lower case and quotes or italics will distinguish it from Santorum. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Technically yes, but it does readers a disservice to rely upon subtle typographical cues to make a distinction that is absolutely crucial to the article. Far better to be explicit. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Then you're not looking. I saw CNN use the word "neologism", like, a dozen times in a segment about the Rick's "google problem". 24.177.120.138 (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

But this isn't a neologism in the sense of a new word that's in the process of being accepted. It isn't used except by people trying to spread it as an attack. It was a failed attempt to create a meme associating a living person's name with anal discharge. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Unless you're a reliable source, your opinions on the success of the "campaign" don't matter. CNN, on the other hand, is reliable, and they've called it a neologism. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a neologism by every definition I've seen, but not a widely adopted one. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It may be reasonable to alter the descriptor in the title to be more precise. Some sources call it a neologism for want of a better category. Maybe it's closer to sexual slang, or perhaps there's a more precise technical term for it that would satisfy WP:TITLE. It's important to add a descriptor because the article is about the term as a historical political / social event, not about the thing the term stands for. The coining of the term did not do what a neologism usually does, which is to reflect a new awareness or thinking about what the term stands for. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a neologism. The title should remain Santorum (neologism). Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a neologism but that's not the main topic of the article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, Smurf (neologism) should be redirected here since you could say "I smurfed smurf all over the smurf". But seriously, the real story here is that the word doesn't even really mean what Dan Savage wanted it to. To be perfectly honest, Ssantorum has 3 definitions now (at least). 1. Surname to many people 2. Shorthand for 'social conservative' 3. gross fecal mess The real encyclopedic story is where the word is now and how it got here, not #3 alone. -- Avanu (talk) 02:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Santorum (neologism)

i dont see any valid reason that this article shouldn't have the name it had for about five years or so. this article survived more than one afd as santorum (neologism), and plenty of people opposed this move (or both moves). now that the article has been moved to campaign for "santorum" neologism, presumably santorum (neologism) is back on the table? -badmachine 11:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Santorum is Cyberbullying

A version of what I posted earlier at the discussion on User talk:Jimbo Wales#Santorum (neologism):
Dan Savage is responsible for the It Gets Better Project, aimed at gay kids who are bullied, including in cyberspace, by those who think they're wrong/different/whatever. That project got a lot of deserved support. Now Savage is bragging about the success of his efforts to cyber-bully Rick Santorum because he's wrong/different/whatever. Hello? Bullying is wrong. Period. If you don't agree with Santorum's views, and many (I would hope most) of us do not, surely there is a better, more rational, more adult, more respectful way to point out that he's wrong. At Wikipedia we're expected to Assume Good Faith and not resort to nasty attacks. So why should we be party to an activity seeking to glorify the opposite through cheap and sleazy SEO tricks? The category the article belongs to is [[Category:Cyber-bullying]], and the article name should reflect that. I would also suggest the article do a 'compare and contrast' of the two Savage projects.

I suggest reading Dan Savage's 24 September 2009 column, third section. It's not (yet) referenced in this article, but imo it certainly makes a compelling case for showing Savage's determination to continue and increase the cyber-bullying in connection with the 2012 campaign. And back in 2009! (I just found the article through googling - I was trying to find Savage's more recent statement: "When we told him about the nascent campaign to fix Santorum's search results, Savage said, 'We'll just have to redouble our Google bombing efforts.'") Following is a clip, bolding mine:

So I'm looking for a few folks who want to torment Rick Santorum by following every twist and turn of his sure-to-be-disastrous run for the White House on SpreadingSantorum.com. (I may dip in every once in a while and post myself.) It would be labor of love—read: a nonpaying gig—but you'll have the satisfaction of knowing that you're driving Rick Santorum and his supporters absolutely batshit (batshittier?).

-- Flatterworld (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I personally don't support this if it is a serious suggestion, and if it is just a joke, well, I guess its supposed to reflect some kind of deserved reward, but honestly I would just prefer we all be able to have a sensible article about this whole affair and move on to other topics. -- Avanu (talk) 00:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry entirely misread what was being said above. Tired I guess. -- Avanu (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

See paradox of tolerance. We need not all find it obvious that Karl Popper was simply and obviously "wrong"; whether Santorum is significant enough to warrant intolerance of the intoletant is not a question a Wikipoll should deal with. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Once again, I thought I was being clear and obvious yet apparently I wasn't. We are talking about renaming the article. The article isn't about a 'neologism' (astroturfed or not), it's about a cyberbullying attempt. To be accurately descriptive, the article name should reflect that. The cyberbullying is the primary focus, the word is simply the vehicle to achieve it. The only 'intolerance' involved is to point out that Dan Savage is showing intolerance, same as what he's accusing Rick Santorum of doing. Savage upped the ante by enlisting the help of his readers and supporters in what he called a 'Google bomb', claiming Rick Santorum 'deserves it'. Judge, jury, executioner. If we're going to have an article about this, and I have no issue with that, let's call a spade a spade rather than pretending this is some 'neologism', an actual word which is in actual use. At this point, it's not. Perhaps years from now it will be, perhaps not. We don't do fortunetelling here, we wrtie articles about what we know at this point in time. At this point in time, it's a cyberbullying attempt. (btw - dictionaries wait until they're certain a word is actually a widely-used word before they claim it to be one, and for good reason - to avoid this sort of 'non-word'.)Flatterworld (talk) 06:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Given the concern over BLP issues here, I'm a bit disappointed (but not surprised) that people are going to ignore BLP issues when it comes to Dan Savage. So let's be clear: Claiming someone is a "Cyberbully" is both OR and a BLP issue. Claiming it repeatedly on multiple pages is not helpful. If you want to claim that that Savages actions are "cyberbullying" that should be reflected in the article, then find sources that call it that. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Are you trying to exemplify WP:KETTLE? If so you have succeeded like a real champion. Aiding the real life attempt of a columnist to equate a politician;s name with excrement is not a BLP concern of yours, but someone saying that the campaign to do so equates to cyberbullying on a talk page all of a sudden is? I've seen it all.Griswaldo (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, aiding such is a concern. At the same time, I'd like to balance that concern with the fact that we have a lot of reliable sources talking about the claim itself. That doesn't mean one doesn't care about the concern. However, and this is a very big however, there's an extremely large difference between something which is well-sourced and something that is not. Making actual accusations about a BLP is a whole other kettle of fish than neutrally reporting on what reliable sources have said. And being concerned about the coinage while loudly and on multiple pages declaring that Savage is engaging in "Cyberbullying" is the height of hypocrisy. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, WP:KETTLE.Griswaldo (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I quoted Savage himself, even included bolding, so to claim it's OR and BLP is ludicrous. Flatterworld (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

No, your assertion is a textbook example of WP:SYNTHESIS. You say "Savage said this, and that", and cite it. Then you assert "'This and that' is cyberbullying", with no reference to back it up. Finally, you synthesize the two by claiming "therefore Savage is cyberbullying". It's not a valid argument for content inclusion in Wikipedia. If you can find a reliable secondary source that states, flat out, "Savage is conducting cyberbullying", you might have a case, but you haven't posted one. I personally doubt that you will find one, because there is a difference between zealous partisan reporting (which is what the Savage quote you posted describes, and please note I say this without making any value judgement on reporting of that kind) and cyberbullying. Fox News routinely engages in zealous partisan reporting, but no one is credibly asserting that Fox News is a cyberbully. It's entirely possible that you could make a claim that Savage engaged in cyberbullying with other evidence, but asking his readers to report fully on the campaign just isn't good evidence for that assertion. It's not bullying to merely imply that a person's political campaign is likely to be so self-damaging as to bring angst to the politician, which is what Savage seems to be doing in this quote. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Based on your reply, it appears you couldn't be bothered to follow the link to Savage's 2009 column, which I provided. If you have the time to post such a 'reply', then surely you could have found the time to first read what he wrote IN FULL. I provided a CLIP. That's all - a CLIP. If you had questions about what he was referring to, you should have read what he wrote IN FULL. If you want a definition of the word 'cyberbullying', you can try a dictionary and/or Wikipedia's article on cyberbullying. It is NOT a requirement that I define every word for you, nor is it original research to use a word you don't happen to like being used in connection with Savage. Your partisanship is getting way out of line here, and your attempts at 'wikilawyering' are absurd. Flatterworld (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I have read the article, which doesn't contain the term cyberbullying anywhere. You propose to categorize the article as cyberbullying, but you would reach that through original research and synthesis, rather than citing a proper source. Rather than discuss the merits of the proposal, you have now turned to accusations of partisanship and wikilawyering. That's not precisely civil behavior. I am open to the idea if you can find a source, but this sort of response can only make me less so. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Clearly we're not going to make any progress here. First you demanded a definition, now you're insisting that's not enough, all the while claiming you're 'open' to the idea. I have seen NO evidence of that in ANY of your comments on this topic, and my patience is at an end. IF you had googled the word, THEN you would have found, at a government site, "Creating websites, videos or social media profiles that embarrass, humiliate, or make fun of others." Savage created a website. It was intended to embarrass, humiliate, AND make fun of Rick Santorum. Are you really going to argue that's not true? After Savage himsself has declared, loudly and clearly, that that was exactly his intention? Flatterworld (talk) 04:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll repeat here some of what I just commented on the ad case page. You have ask yourself, what if was your name on the top of the Santorum (neologism)‎ page? What if your child had to go to school to face laughter at the great joke your family's name has become. Are we letting it slid because it is just one politician, one name, one family and so many other people will enjoy the article? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This argument is a bad one. By that argument we can't have material about any word with negative connotations that some people have as a last name (to use examples from people I know, Weiner, and Cox would be obvious ones). Trying to make this be about the children is an appeal to emotion that has no grounding in logic, precedent or policy. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not an argument. It is a consideration. It should be kept in mind. The creation of the word was emotional attack; logic, precedent and policy had nothing to do with it. To apply logic, recognize precedence and form policy we need to see this for what it is. It is an attack; we should avoid participating in it. It is unnecessary to put this article where it can do harm, so lets put the essential information where it does less. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not an emotional but an ethical argument, similar to Primum non nocere. It is also about Wikipedia being used by activists to harass a BLP. For comparison, look at all the accounts that showed up to edit the Tea Party movement articles and caused all sorts of problems, but then disappeared shortly before and after the elections. We've had long, drawn out discussions about how to handle this, and the only thing people can agree on is the time of day. The best way forward is to change the user sign-up process, and encourage people to declare their COI from the beginning. That way, we can build on a trusted relationship and acknowledge editorial expertise, while at the same time, giving the user the choice to remain above board rather than to draw it out of them in repeated, continued conflicts and dispute. In my experience, most people want to do the right thing, and it doesn't matter if they are with Bash Back! or Young Republicans, they would declare their COI if Wikipedia requested it from them. Viriditas (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent idea. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

So, we expect that people who don't reveal their COI voluntarily in a talk space will answer honestly a question about COI when they sign up? Perhaps we should demand an oath, to ensure that new editors remain loyal to the Pillars. If that fails, we can create a Wikipedia Un-Civl Activities Commission to investigate the offenders. (Seriously... doesn't this just amount to assuming bad faith from the first moment?) // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You have missed the point. The first thing we have to do is create a culture of encouraging people to reveal their COI when they sign-up. Currently, we have a culture of "do whatever you want" instead of, "reveal your COI and we will respect your expertise". One of the major complaints we hear about Wikipedia culture, is its disdain for experts. This solution addresses that problem. When I say we will "respect your expertise", I'm saying that more effort needs to be made to get self-acknowledged experts and people with an admitted COI involved in the process. We can surely benefit from an expert on politics providing, let's say, a non-binding review of a political article. When you can get people involved in a way that they find enjoyable and draws on their potential and experience, asking them to reveal their COI becomes an asset. Viriditas (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't see it the way you meant, and I apologize for that. Having a better idea of people's expertise would be a positive thing. I still worry that it would be prone to being gamed (no lobbyist is going to put "paid lobbyist" down), and that less-enlightened editors might try to turn it into some kind of litmus test. But I definitely agree that Wikipedia's ultimate success depends on drawing people into the things they're interested in. There's much to draw on there from self-determination theory—Richard Ryan, co-founder of that school of psychological thought, was one of my professors at the University of Rochester. Intrinsic motivation works best: people do better when they do something they (think they) want to do. That's Wikipedia editing in a nutshell. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a forum. This isn't the appropriate place to hold the discussion you are trying to have. Additionally, your suggestion that your own speculations, opinions, and comparisons be added to the article goes against Wikipedia's policy on original research -- you need to cite people making the argument you want; you can't simply make that argument yourself and insert it into the article. If you want to argue over the topic or present your own arguments, there are many forums to do so elsewhere on the internet; Wikipedia is not one of them. --Aquillion (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • We are discussing if the title is correct and if the article should stand alone or be merge. To do that we must discuss what it is. From WP:BLP lead section: ". . . and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." and also says "This policy applies to BLPs, . . . and to material about living persons on other pages." There are lots of opinions flying around on this page. It is not original research to look at the issue and say what we think it is on the talk page. If we were discussing if an article was patent nonsense would you require us to cite arguments that it is patent nonsense? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

For comparison's sake, Death panel was an attack suggesting Barack Obama didn't have much concern for the lives of the elderly or disabled. It was also selected as the American Dialect Society's most outrageous word of the year. I don't think that by documenting it, though, we're participating in it. Jesanj (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"Death panel" is a good example of recentism—lipstick on a pig. Historically, it merits a condensed, four paragraph mention in political positions of Sarah Palin, but nothing more. We really should not have that article. Unless the word is chosen as the Word of the Year, it really isn't that notable. The American Dialect Society chose tweet as Word of the Year for 2009, not death panel. They also chose Dracula sneeze as the most creative. I've read the death panel article and its summary in the political positions of Sarah Palin parent article, and I don't see how a separate article is needed. Viriditas (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

No, online advocacy and cyberbullying are the not the same thing. Cyberbullying implies some things like stalking and harassing, and also that the victim is helpless and usually innocent or undeserving. I don't think it gets applied regularly to public figures who are the targets of negative campaigns, or to online advocacy campaigns generally. Moreover, cyberbully is a pejorative label and therefore something to avoid per WP:LABEL. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You haven't read many sources about cyberbullying, have you? But your 'reasoning' does evoke memories of old rape trials: "she wasn't some innocent virgin", "she asked for it", "what can you expect if you enter a public place like a bar alone"? Ready to bring burkhas to the US, Wikidemon? Because your 'logic' isn't any different, it's insulting and demeaning of everyone who believes in democracy, public service, and the right of individuals to not be unfairly harrassed for their beliefs, whatever they might be. Savage has every right and one could argue responsibility) to inform his readers of Santorum's views, and the likely result if he were to be elected. Savage is acting like a capital-E ejit if he and you) believe that extends to this sort of nastiness. I would like qualified people to run for public office. There have been fewer and fewer over time, and the usual reason is, "Why should I subject myself, my family, my friends and relations to the nasty attacks some people now consider "fair game" - when the topic is (purportedly) legislation? I have NO idea why you're making excuses for uncivil behavior, particularly as a volunteer for Wikipedia. Flatterworld (talk) 02:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You're normally fairly rational and levelheaded about things, so please think twice then think again before getting personal like that and pulling the reducto ad rape card. My point holds. One whose "beliefs" include denying civil rights for a class of people and equating their sexual relations to bestiality has arguably removed themselves from the realm of civil discourse as it is. Whether such a politician deserves to be vilified or not, the invectives thrown at them in public discourse are not cyberbullying in any commonly used sense of the word. You're free to lobby for your own new word definitions if you wish, but Wikipedia follows the sources, it does not lead them. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Your point does NOT hold. Savage and the rest of us have every right and responsibility to condemn Santorum's views. That is no justification for cyberattacking him through the petty and offensive equivalent of playground name-calling. Creating a special website and encouraging everyone to view that website (whether they were looking for anything remotely resembling it or not), and ridiculing the person as opposed to the person's views is indeed an example of cyberbullying. And we at Wikipedia would be remiss if we didn't point that out. No one who signs up for public office is signing up for that. Nor should they, no matter what their views. No one anywhere 'deserves' that. (And jftr, Santorum stated that he was NOT equating homosexual relations to bestiality, but stating that was what the BILL, as written, did. I still don't agree with his views, but neither do I agree with a witch hunt or lynch mob based on truthiness. (As for 'following the sources', please reflect that that entails more than robotically repeating whatever anyone happens to say. And perhaps the definition of cherry-picking.) Good night, and good luck. Flatterworld (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's put it this way. If you punch a smaller kid in the nose when he's trying to get to school, that's bullying. If you punch a fanatic in the nose who's running at you with a machete, not so much. Wnt (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice strawman. Dreadstar ☥ 03:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Wnt, you may well see him as a machete-wielding fanatic, but I see him as some guy mumbling to himself and waving his arms on the subway, going on about the end of the world, or some young child insisting the Tooth Fairy exists because his mommy said so. No, I'm not tempted to punch either one. No, I'm not worried either is going to be elected President next year. (You might remind yourself that Santorum's own constituency kicked him out.) No, I don't believe most people in the US agree with either one of them. They both deserve some compassion, same as everyone. Would I stoop to bullying them? Throw a name-callling tantrum? Of course not. The actual beliefs are the issue worthy of discussion, not some deluded individual. Gandhi was right on many things, MLK was right on many things, Savage has been right on many things - but not this one. This isn't a case of 'self-defense' or 'pre-emptive attack' (I'm not sure which one your example is intended to evoke), this is bullying. It's a personal attack. That's what bullying is - it's not dependent on whether or not the victim can or will defend himself, (although that has much to do with the 'success', or lack thereof, of the bullying). An attempted crime is wrong, whether or not it's is, or was even likely to be, successful. Look. This has gone on since 2003. It's one thing to understand why Savage reacted the way he did, it's quite another to condone it and let Wikipedia be a part of it. You may believe all's fair in love, war and politics - but I don't. This Lee Atwater-Karl Rove school of 'campaigning' needs to end. Flatterworld (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Somebody must be responsible for enacting all those anti-gay laws, banning gay marriage, prohibiting equal rights and discrimination protection based on sexual orientation. A U.S. Senator decrying the voiding of a law that makes gay sex illegal because it's comparable to legalizing bestiality and child sex abuse is not an uninvolved bystander expressing their viewpoint. They're a participant. Votes on gay issues will come before the senate. Editorial indignation over the issue isn't really relevant to constructing the encyclopedia, and may be misplaced. The article already mentions a few third party reactions. Many people obviously support what Savage did, and many who don't support Savage would not consider Santorum the victim in the affair. Some obviously think Savage is off base, or an agent of everything wrong with the nation. For his part Santorum claims to be brushing it off. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and that's why some of us are arguing the issues instead of wasting time on a juvenile attempt to ridicule someone's name. Santorum hasn't been a Senator since January 2007. All he CAN do is talk, because he hasn't been a participant' for over 4 years - he was fired from the job, presumably for being such a wingnut. Wnt claimed some sort of imminent threat, and that's why I disagree. Still, the point is how to name the article, and how to describe Savage's actions, the reactions to them, and so forth. 'Misplaced editorial indignation' sounds like you're claiming the end justifies the means and anyone who supports gay rights should automatically cheer at wahteer Savage says or does, no matter what. "My Savage right or wrong?" Not true. The laws are being changed and will continue to be changed, but not because some former Senator was made an object of ridicule on a personal level as opposed to ridiculing the absurd laws. For some reason, you either can't or won't acknowledge the difference between issue advocacy and a personal attack. Flatterworld (talk) 08:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

"Santorum" is certainly bullying, but due to media coverage such as on The Colbert Report it has permeated culture to a much greater extent, and it is notable nonetheless. A such, many people use the term in a non-politically charged manner. In other words, it has become part of the vernacular. It is no longer merely a campaign.Mnealon (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Back to the re-naming issue

Key points to consider:

• Should Savage's name be included in the title?
• Is this a Google bomb or merely a search engine optimization problem for Santorum?
• Is "Santorum" capitalized, quoted, possessive?

Renaming related sections:

#Back to the re-naming issue voting and commenting
#Renaming Related discussions

#Naming discussion

#Propriety

#Should "Dan Savage" be in the title?

#Neologism

#Santorum (neologism)

#Thoughts on renaming #Suggestion for next steps in renaming

Previous specially pertinent discussion is here. Previously suggested names re-posted below. I think the nearest to consensus was Campaign for santorum neologism. However, we might also want to consider the current title or Rick Santorum's Google problem which is from the sources. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

1. Dan Savage santorum campaign SlimVirgin

   First choice, if quotes are added.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

   First choice, if "santorum" is in italics or quotes. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

2. Dan Savage campaign SlimVirgin

   not descriptive. Savage has been involved with a lot of campaigns. 146.151.96.113 (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

3. Dan Savage's verbal attack on Rick Santorum Jimbo Wales

   Hecka POV. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

   First choice. We're an encyclopedia, tell it like it is. — Ched :  ?  21:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

   We're a neutral encyclopedia. Do you have evidence of consensus that that's how it is? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

   Ummmm ... well, I've read the sources. I wasn't aware that anyone wasn't in agreement that Savage chose to do this on his on accord. Can you point to a link that supports the supposition that Savage didn't attack Santorum? — Ched :  ?  22:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

   Perhaps Scurrilous personal attack by degenerate gay activist Dan Savage against noble American Rick Santorum? Protonk (talk) 23:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

   Facepalm ... figured that was coming (again) :-) — Ched :  ?  03:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

   I assume this will be accompanied by a matching proposal to rename Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality as Rick Santorum's verbal attack on gays, right? ... No? Huh. Khazar (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

   Dislike this option, because "verbal" makes it sound like Savage stood up and yelled at Santorum.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

4. Santorum (sexual slang) JamesMLane

   Okay on this as well as original title, but recognize the argument by many that per sources the term has not spread widely enough to be considered slang or a neologism. Further, the main notability is not the word as a description of a phenomenon, but the word and surrounding campaign as a social / political happening. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

5. Santorum neologism campaign Steven G Johnson
6. Santorum neologism controversy elektrikSHOOS
7. Rick Santorum and homosexuality John Carter
8. Rick Santorum homosexuality controversy John Carter

   don't we already have an article about that? 146.151.96.113 (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

9. Savage Santorum campaign Be——Critical

   What, are they on the ticket together? No good. Speciate (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

   Not a bad idea, actually. I hear the G. Gordon Liddy/Timothy Leary debates made some cash and played to sold-out audiences. Viriditas (talk) 06:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

   This sounds like a setup for a sitcom. elektrikSHOOS 22:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

10. Dan Savage santorum neologism controversy JN466
11. Dan Savage santorum neologism campaign JN466
12. Spreading Santorum Anthonyhcole

    Second choice – Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

    First choice. It identifies the exact name of the effort to link Rick to the slick. It calls it what it is, an effort. It doesn't confine it to Google. Speciate (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

    First choice. This is the topic, even though the campaign preceded the website. Viriditas (talk) 05:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

    Second choice. It implies a slight shift of emphasis; but this means we are writing about the website, not forcing an opinion on what kind of thing the subject is into the title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

13. Rick Santorum's Google problem BE——Critical

    I hate hate hate this one! It's why I came here. It is not grammatically correct, and it is not Google's fault. The effort extends beyond Google and beyond the internet. Also, it assumes too much; that Rick Santorum has a problem, or that there is something wrong with people expressing their dislike for Rick Santorum's political positions in a creative way. Speciate (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

    oppose. Not just about Google. 146.151.96.113 (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

14. Rick Santorum's "Google problem" macwhiz

    I don't support this one; details in previous discussion, but briefly: it's got a euphemism, it unfairly besmirches Google, and it obfusicates the content of the article it titles. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

    Ditto. Speciate (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

    Second choice, both as new title and refocusing of article content. I agree with Macwhiz, but I think putting it in quotes distances it from google, if we are able to use quotes as part of an article title. Wouldn't that cause problems? - Wikidemon (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

    Distant third choice, as much as I have come to regret proposing it in the first place. At least this version makes clear which Santorum has the problem, has a possessive apostrophe, and has quotes to make clear that "Google problem" is the euphemism being used. (I still find the idea of using a euphemism in an article title really distasteful, though.) Still, it's better than the alternatives. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

    Second choice, because it's straight from the sources. However, it still gives notability to the campaign. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

    Second Choice. Thenub314 (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

15. Santorum Google problem per Jehochman's closure

    Second choice. Passable compromise, used in sources. --JN466 23:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

    Unfortunatelly that implies to me that Rick Santorum has some quarell with the Google company. That's reason, why I would not pick this one --Reo ⁺ 08:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

16. Rick Santorum Google problem or Santorum Google problem --David Shankbone 22:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

    I hate hate hate this one! It's why I came here. It is not grammatically correct, and it is not Google's fault. The effort extends beyond Google and beyond the internet. Also, it assumes too much; that Rick Santorum has a problem, or that there is something wrong with people expressing their dislike for Rick Santorum's political positions in a creative way. Speciate (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

17. 'Spreading santorum' campaign Reo

    • First choice - Wikidemon (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Second choice, again because it's concise and accurate. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Third choice. It's a straight description of the campaign. However, it also gives a lot extra notability to it. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    • First choice. "Spreading Santorum" was the name for the website, and I don't believe we should call it "Google problem", especially since it's meant to go beyond Google and be used as a neologism. We should use the title Savage used rather than creating an arbitrary name. – Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Third choice; Spreading Santorum would be simpler. Both imply a slight change in the emphasis of the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Second choice. Viriditas (talk) 06:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Second third (for #24) choice, even though I created it, I feel somehow uneasy iz may have unintended double meaning, the unintended insunuation by the 'spreading' verb --Reo ⁺ 08:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Second choice. The word "campaign" helps readers understand that an attack is involved. --Noleander (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Second choice. Neatly encompasses the origins of the campaign (the SS-website) while also implying that the campaign extends beyond a single website. Khazar (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    • First Choice. 01:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenub314 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

18. Campaign for "santorum" neologism Steven G. Johnson

    • First choice, as it's the most concise and unambiguous. Note that this option does not actually say santorum is a neologism; it says that there was a campaign to make it one. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    • First choice. Avoids a lot of potential POV issues, says what the article is about. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    • First choice Reo ⁺ 08:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    • First choice. Concise; and the word "campaign" helps readers understand that an attack is involved. --Noleander (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    • First choice. Concise, immediately clear, and implies the attack/astroturfing element in NPOV language. Khazar (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    • First choice. Concisely and neutrally implies that there is a campaign to promote its use while preserving the main subject of the article, i.e., the word itself. Also neatly implies that the word may or may not actually be a neologism, which is one of the core points fueling most of the discussion on this page. elektrikSHOOS 22:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
    • First choice. Puts the focus on the campaign, which is a key point; the quotes are a nice touch too. Neutral. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
    • First-and-a-half choice (would rather not renumber). This one is growing on me - neutral, correct, to-the-point, and succinctly informative to readers both familiar and unfamiliar with the subject as to what the article will be about. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

19. Dan Savage campaign for "santorum" neologism JN466

    Second choice. — Ched :  ?  22:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

    Dan Savage had the Idea, he started it he has the one web-site, but he is not the only force leading the attack. It's more like agenda of quite a community of people. In my opinion Dan Savage should be in the very beggining of the Lead sentence (that he initiated...), but not in the title. --Reo ⁺ 08:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

    Second choice.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

20. Savage–Santorum affair SlimVirgin

    Oh Please God No. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

21. Savage–Santorum controversy Slim Virgin

    Third choice. I'm not happy with anything but "Spreading Santorum" and "Spreading Santorum campaign", but I can live with this one. Viriditas (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

22. santorum (neologism) (with {{lowercase}}, as imposing the fewest possible assumptions: disambiguation is necessary as long as Santorum is primarily the ex-Senator. Septentrionalis.

    • First choice. Don't censor the subject, don't do favors for gay-haters. Sorry to be brutal about it, but my conscience is clear.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

    first choice, Merrill Stubing (talk) 03:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

    First choice. Protonk (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

23. The problem Rick Santorum is facing because every search engine in the world's top search results says santorum is an anal sex by-product. There's really nothing wikipedia can do to fix this problem or ameliorate it.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 22:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

    Hoping no one minds, I've numbered these for ease of discussion Hobit (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

24. Santorum (googlebomb)? That term is used in the sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

    Second choice. I really prefer Santorum google bomb. Currently Miserable failure redirects to Political Google bombs in the 2004 U.S. Presidential election, which shows that 'google bomb' or Google bomb has precedent. Speciate (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

    First choice. Short and to the point. --JN466 23:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

    Distant fourth choice, but it is basically inexact. The one thing, where I got persuaded by Gacurrs arguments is the difference between Google-bomb and SEO. The mechanism is reverse to that of Googlebomb (the effect here is as humiliating). I admit, for general public it doesn't matter, for most people this would just tell the story the way they may understand. But it is not accurate. --Reo ⁺ 08:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

25. SEO Campaign for "santorum" neologism (alternated #16) Reo

    • I think this is viable version, if not too complicated. I will think of it as second choice for now, maybe I change it for first later. --Reo ⁺ 18:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

26. Santorum (cyberattack) Flatterworld
27. Santorum (cyberbullying) Flatterworld

    No, the "cyberbulling" definition doesn't stretch in this direction.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

28. Santorum (SEO attack) Flatterworld

    • Hmmm well, maybe this one as acceptable some fourth one. --Reo ⁺ 08:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

29. Dan Savage's "spreading santorum" campaign against Rick Santorum's anti-gay stance
30. Santorum Google ranking problem Reo ⁺ - just cretive, someone take some idea to take it further? 13:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
31. Dan Savage Google-bomb Attack on Rick Santorum Savage's name belongs on the marquee. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
32. Campaign to attack Santorum's name Reo ⁺ / 13:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
33. Campaign to create 'santorum' neologism; Campaign to associate Santorum to neologism Reo ⁺ - 13:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Key points to consider:

• Should Savage's name be included in the title?
• Is this a Google bomb or merely a search engine optimization problem for Santorum?
• Is "Santorum" capitalized, quoted, possessive?

Renaming related sections:

#Back to the re-naming issue voting and commenting
#Renaming Related discussions

#Naming discussion

#Propriety

#Should "Dan Savage" be in the title?

#Neologism

#Santorum (neologism)

#Thoughts on renaming #Suggestion for next steps in renaming

I disfavor any version that includes the Savage name in the lede, as Santorum is the locus of the issue, not Savage. Tossing his campaign back on him is not a neutral thing to do. Also, what does the MOS say about capitalizing google? Our sources are all over the map on this capitalization issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I will have to think about this a bit about which possible option is best. I am inclined to agree with Wikidemon, I do not like the options that include Savage. As far as variations on the theme of the current title go, I am not to concerned as to whether or not we include "Rick", or quotes around [Gg]oogle [Pp]roblem. I do miss the 's, "Santorum's" would be better. Thenub314 (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... "Santorum Google problem" makes it sound like Google needs to tell their employees to stop having anal intercourse in the server room, or something. It needs that possessive... // Grammar Nazi ⌘macwhiz (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Good one :) - Wikidemon (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to avoid the possessive, but I agree it sounds a little off. "Santorum Google issue"? --David Shankbone 22:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if some sort of ranked-preference !vote would be the best way to find a consensus that we're all sure is a consensus? I understand the closer's reasoning, but I'm not sure I agree with it... and I've already made clear my feelings that each word in "Santorum's Google Problem" has problems of its own. Also wondering if it's worth it to call a formal RfC on it, just to give it a framework... I actually hope we don't need to do that. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Savage is the person that started the attack and created the whole story, why you don't you like having him in the title is beyond me. Dan Savage's Santorum creation - or perhaps - Dan Savage's creation of Santorum - Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Same reason we don't call it "George Bush's Willie Horton campaign". The notability is the event itself, and calling out the people behind it to shine the spotlight back on them is an exercise in blame. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Or Dave the Chameleon; which does not mention the Labour Party. The best title for a political slogan is the slogan; the best title for an insult is the insult. Again, compare nigger. The only reason even to disambiguate is that we cannot distinguish from Santorum, which primarily means the senator. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• I like 16 the best, it seems to be what the article is about. I don't object to getting Savage in there per se, but I'd say only 17 isn't misleading in some way of those proposed. Hobit (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• I would prefer to see the article merged, but if it must exist, I support Jehochman's rename to Santorum Google problem. I would also prefer a title with Savage's name in it, because it's about his campaign, but I accept the closure as a reasonable compromise. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

(re to Wikidemon) Hmmmm ... yea ... I think we have an essay on that. Have to agree with Off2riorob here: Savage started the campaign/attack with this word/term(?), I'd think if anyone's name should be in the title .. it would he his. — Ched :  ?  21:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That's true in the world - what goes around comes around and all that. And that's true on Wikipedia with BOOMERANG / PLAXICO But what we don't do is use Wikipedia to give off-Wikipedia loudmouths their comeuppance. Again, there's a POV problem. Also per COMMONNAME, it isn't known to the public as Dan Savage's smear. Many or most of the sources mention Savage by name and as part of the history, but they don't use his name as part of the term. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

(out of sequence post to respond directly) I agree to an extent, and yet since we already cover this entire matter in at least 4 other articles, I just can't support another recreation of the entire affair. I also wonder if anyone has given thought to the old Hollywood feeling; "Even bad publicity is better than no publicity". I hardly agree with Santorum's views on gay rights, but the fact of the matter is this attempt at an article revolves around "Savage's" efforts, and not about "Santorum's" views. (which are covered elsewhere). THAT is why I believe if anyone's name is going to be in the title, it should be "Savage's". What the "public knows" isn't as relevant as being accurate. They come here to learn, so if they don't know, our articles are supposed to be educational, accurate, factual, and NPOV. — Ched :  ?  22:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikidemon, I don't think it's right to speak of "come-uppance", as though we were spilling a dirty secret that Savage would rather no one knew about. Dan Savage is very open about his campaign. He's proud of it. He views it as the right thing to do, to attract attention to bigotry and intolerance, and many people in fact feel his action was justified. When he received the Webbie award the other day, he wore this shirt. It's his campaign. --JN466 17:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• I suppose we could always just go with "Savage smears santorum" ... just a thought. — Ched :  ?  22:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • ;-> but we're not here to be clever. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oh my ... I SOOOO have a reply in mind for that ... but I know better, so I'll withhold my immediate thoughts. 0:-) — Ched :  ?  22:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, a lot of people are -er- quite the opposite, on both sides. My principal concern is to see whether WP:TITLE shows a neutral way through; I do think it does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'm still struggling with the concept that we have to rename the article. We have had multiple discussions (even a bonafide RfC, as well as some AfDs, and some merger discussions) and the conclusion has always been that the article be kept and not renamed. I agree that the consensus about the article is shaky--the RfC above seems to be 55/45 for keeping the article as-is. However the numbers (nor the arguments, IMO) have not favored altering the articles for the reasons given above. So how is it we have skipped passed the decision to rename the article and on to the discussion of what it shall be named? How is this anything other than another bite at the apple? Protonk (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Seems the above RfC has closed with a someone odd conclusions. Protonk (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Well we definitely can't use the current title. "Santorum Google problem" seems to be just three of the main key words around here, but not an attempt at a permanent name. At least it should be "Santorum's Google problem" but more properly "Rick Santorum's Google problem." Or it should be "The problem with Google because of Santorum." Whatever, we have to rename it in some way. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• • • Above I mentioned that I was doing first aid. I encourage a discussion to refine the name so that it is precise, neutral, and grammatically correct. I see the initial renaming as a step in the right direction, not an end of the discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 01:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• How many googlebombs has Savage done? Perhaps this is just Don Savage Googlebomb or Don Savage Googlebomb on Santorum. I see a lot of sources saying this is Santorum's google problem, so this is a good start. Where to go from here? (And, btw, very good job on this, Jehochman!) Dreadstar ☥ 01:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• This rename mystifies me. I don't see either consensus or BLP supporting "Santorum Google problem" over "Santorum (neologism)". I don't see what this accomplishes for anyone, unless it's going to be used as an excuse to ditch information about the effect of Savage's print column, or as people mention, other search engines. If anything, the change increases the BLP troubles, because before the article was about a word someone made up, but now - perhaps - it is about Rick Santorum's Google problem! I mean, wouldn't "Rick Santorum's Google problem" be a logical extension of the change you've made? The word per se can't be a Google problem, can it? It's just a word. If you are insistent on making some tiny change to the name as a cosmetic measure, why not say "Santorum (internet meme)", "Santorum (neologism campaign)", "Santorum (internet meme by Dan Savage), "Santorum (neologism campaign by Dan Savage)" (the best wording I can think of right now), even "Santorum (cyberbullying)" though I dislike that last. Wnt (talk) 01:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't see a need for this article at all, no matter what it's named - the existing blurbs in the other articles on these subjects are quite sufficient.[35][36] But if we're going to keep it and name it, then it needs to be far more accurate than calling it neologism when it clearly isn't. And S's google problem is definitely something that sourceable. Dreadstar ☥ 01:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Doesn't meet Internet meme thresholds either. Dreadstar ☥ 01:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• I think Savage's name needs to be in the title, since the article is really about him and his efforts. Santorum has really been a passive participant with no real involvement besides the use of his name. Cla68 (talk) 05:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• I don't believe we need Dan Savage's name in the title for the same reason we don't need Albert Einstein's name in the title of Special relativity, Shakespeare's name on Hamlet, Ronald Reagan's name on Morning in America, Abraham Lincoln's name on Gettysburg Address, or Los del Rio's name on Macarena (song): it's not needed for disambiguation (unless Santorum is the victim of multiple neologism campaigns that I'm unaware of). Listing the originator's name here would break Wikipedia precedent for no reason save to make a political point. The simplest title is best. Khazar (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Jehochman didn't intend it as the end result as he said. I think he literally strung together some key words. I pointed out above that we can't keep the current title, because Slimvirgin wanted to keep it as is. So we really don't need to discuss the current title: it was never intended to stay. Cla68, you may be right in what you and others say, but the reason for not having either name as a name is that it sidesteps these issues. When we say Campaign for "santorum" neologism we are actually leaving out all names and focusing only on the campaign. At least, we're leaving out names as much as possible. We will be the second result on google almost no matter what we do. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 06:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Rubbish - s/he said it was based on 'consensus'. So we're now to have a name du jour? 'Santorum Google problem' was supposed to be some sort of improvement? Meanwhile, I noticed the conspicuous absence of any options resembling 'Santorum (cyberbullying attack)' which imo has the distinct advantage of being both accurate and descriptive. Instead, we get a supposed 'consensus' that it wasn't an attack by Savage, but a 'problem' for Santorum. Which (apparently) sprang out of nowhere with no one else involved? Really? Sounds like blame the victim to me. Somehow we're all supposed to 'forget' and blithely ignore everything Savage himself said about the website's purpose? Of course I find that ludicrous and mind-boggling - and I am not alone. There are now 921,000 results for googling wikipedia santorum. 412,000 results on blogs alone. Looks like this will end up being yet another Wikipedia 'argument' that's fought in the media instead of within Wikipedia. "Too clever by half" springs to mind. So does "own goal". There will, of course, be some good which comes from this. Small children will point and laugh at how adults, loudly declaring their anti-bullying credentials, cover their eyes and ears (while mouthing wild excuses for the bully) when an adult does the same. Pass the popcorn - I've seen this movie before. Flatterworld (talk) 06:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Please calm down. Here is the quote: "Above I mentioned that I was doing first aid. I encourage a discussion to refine the name so that it is precise, neutral, and grammatically correct. I see the initial renaming as a step in the right direction, not an end of the discussion. Jehochman Talk 01:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)" And the name "Santorum Google problem" is from the sources. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 07:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

And you might try changing your attitude. IF you were trying to be an honest broker, THEN you would have added 'Santorum (cyber-bullying attempt)' - especially after I pointed out it was missing on the list you decided (unilaterally) to create. You didn't, but decided to lecture me on what - my demeanor? Reactions to your apparently deliberate exclusion from the discussion? What do you expect me to do - apologize for your continuing bad faith actions? (btw - first aid does NOT normally consist of kicking the injured into the ditch.) You've already decided all it needs is to be 'refined' - as opposed to drastically changed. That's a pretty odd statement to make in the middle of a suppossedly open, inclusive discussion, imo. Flatterworld (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I almost wonder if it wasn't an intentional stroke of brilliance. The choice of title was good enough to keep anyone from screaming oul" loudly enough to demand an appeal without thinking about it, but at the same time it's not satisfactory enough to keep us from discussing a better choice—and so far, do it with refreshingly little rancor. If that was the intent, King Solomon would be proud. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

More likely the attempt is to keep kicking this can down the road until the campaign is over and it doesn't matter any more. I've seen plenty of precedent on Wikipedia for that before. Be_Critical requests 'giving the system time to do its work' on Jimbo's Talk page. How much time has this been going on already? "How about 'forever'? Is forever good for you?" Why do you think it went to ArbCon? Flatterworld (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Is it possible for this discussion to be come more of a fragmented clustetrfuck than it already is? A sub-section here, people leaving nested comments after each 1-23 (and counting) entry before this, the cyber-bullying tangent, the whining about poor, poor Google's image. Not even sure where to go here and not get lost in the noise. I will say though that any renaming suggestion that includes "santorum neologism/slang" as a part of the title should be taken off the table, since that is the problematic form that we just moved from. Tarc (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "We" didn't do anything of the sort. Jehochman did it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    • And he did it with a very good reason. It is a shame that you cannot set aside your personal beliefs in favor of upholding basic BLP policy. Tarc (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• • Are you actually claiming that cyberbullying is a tangent in relation to Savage's campaign? As in the sense of totally irelevant, not worth discussing, this is really about something totally different, just move along, nothing to see here? Am I supposed to be intimidated by your claim? Flatterworld (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Flatterworld, your point is well taken, but as long as there are no RS (let alone a preponderance of RS) calling Dan Savage's campaign "cyberbullying", it's not a realistic option for the title. Let's focus on the ones that sources have actually used. --JN466 18:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
      • That's not how articles are necesarily named in Wikipedia. The point is to be accurate, clear and useful. That can be a balance, which is a major reason for redirects. If someone is known as Connie Mack, we use that as the name and Cornelius Harvey McGillicuddy IV as a redirect. I have no problem if someone wants to create a whole list of redirects for this, but what we are discussing here is the most accurate, clear and useful official article name. The 'reliable sources' in this case are mostly the news media who (understandably) find the situation funny. They have lots of names for Sarah Palin as well, but that doesn't mean we should take a poll and name the Wikipedia article whatever happens to be most popular at the time. Flatterworld (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Cyberbullying is a pejorative term, and thus takes a clear side in the dispute, labelling what Savage did as reprehensible. While a few bloggers have made that case, especially against the backdrop of Savage's anti-bullying campaign, it's not how the sources available to us are describing it. We can find a more neutral title (and seem to be well on our way). --JN466 22:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Oh, quit whining, I was just picking one of the million topic titles to note how fragmented and tangential this mess has become. Tarc (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Perhaps you should have stopped at 'fragmented'? Flatterworld (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Google is not the only search engine in the world

• Yes, i haven't been following the unbearable amount of discussion about this article, but noting the provisional name change to Santorum Google problem, I would note that santorum the sexual term is the top result in every search engine. I'm sure Microsoft would not be happy with the new name. Nor Yahoo. Not to mention hugely popular non-English-centered search engines like Baidu. All of which, since a time even before Wikipedia was prominent, featured santorum the sexual term as their top results.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 22:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, tough titty says the kitty, as the saying goes. "Google" has become synonymous with internet searching, much as "Xerox" became a verb meaning "to photocopy" back in the day. I think there was an absurd attempt recently to craft a BLP-like protection for corporations, but that idea was thankfully smothered with a pillow. (boy, I'm full of colorful verbiage today, it must be summertime). Tarc (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, I am pretty sure Google would have a problem with us using it like that. see Genericized trademark and Google calls in the 'language police' (BBC June 2003)- they lose their trademark rights if they don't police against use like that.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 22:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I worked at Xerox for a while. During orientation, you had the usual: How to record your time, don't commit sexual harassment, here's how to access your 401(k)... and Thou shalt not use Xerox as a verb. Really, that commandment was as big a unit as the unit on sexual harassment. I'm not saying it isn't a bit late for that, but inside the company they sure take it seriously. You'd get a reprimand if you said you were going to go xerox something, or use a xerox machine. You could go use a Xerox brand xerographic copier. We may laugh, but yeah, these companies take it seriously, to avoid losing the legal protection of that little Xerox™ or Google™ trademark symbol. Google has a writeup on it: [37] // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Nor, I suspect, would Google be happy to have its search ranking be called a problem. A website about a term is supposed to be shown at the top of results. Gacurr (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Tough itty bitty snitty kitty titty. That's what the sources call it. If we call it something different, it's not because Google doesn't like it. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

A search on santorum "google problem" returns 16 results in Google's news archive. It does not seem to be all that commonly used in reliable sources. Gacurr (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Funny, but google searches don't determine what we call an article here at the Wikipedia. But as this certainly isn't your first account here, I'm sure you don't need a Wiki-rule/guideline refresher. Tarc (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is supposed to. Gacurr (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Consensus did. Dreadstar ☥ 00:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Only two editors mention this title, specifically "Rick Santorum's Google problem", in the 148 !votes of the RfC. The RfC does not provide evidence of consensus for the present title. Gacurr (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You need to re-read Wikipedia:Consensus, just because "only two editors mentioned" the title doesn't mean WP:CON isn't satisfied. Numbers are only meaningful in a very limited way. Dreadstar ☥ 01:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's very meaningful here to note that, because of the way the RfC was framed, there were many possible alternatives that weren't the focus and that therefore received virtually no attention from editors. One cannot plausibly claim a consensus existed for (or against) one of those alternatives. JamesMLane t c 01:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, RFC's are not that restrictive and this rename was definitely a potential outcome of this particular RFC, as I previously stated above. [38][39]. So yes, it's perfectly plausible to 'claim' consensus. Moving forward from here is the key. Dreadstar ☥ 01:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

If you could show us the consensus for the present title in the RfC, I think the matter could be put to rest. Gacurr (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

If you could move forward, as I suggested above, that would be the best course of action. Consensus for a rename was perfectly clear in the RFC, and this rename fits all Policy requirements. Continued agitation over this will be problematic. Dreadstar ☥ 01:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Dreadstar, you're correct that this particular name was a potential outcome. There were others. I consider the word "problem" to be POV -- was there a consensus that I'm wrong and that it's OK to call something a problem? We don't know, do we, because the community wasn't asked to address that question, or any question relating to this suggested title. If you're upset about "[c]ontinued agitation", I suggest you bring your complaint to the people who want this information expunged from Wikipedia or at least obscured. They've brought multiple AfD's, started multiple threads on the article talk page, called for merger, called for renaming, started a discussion on the admins' noticeboard.... In light of all this, I see no moral authority to a demand that I suddenly shut up just because the current status is one that happens to be pleasing to you. JamesMLane t c 06:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand, I'm not necessarily advocating keeping the current name permanently, just that the change is per consensus, and the next step would be finding a better name - if there is one - and rewriting the article. Continued griping over the current name isn't helping anything; so moving forward is what I'm recommending, not going backwards to the original name. And no worries, I'm neither upset nor happy...just middle of the road today.  :) Dreadstar ☥ 15:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe the BLP gods determined that "Santorum's Yahoo problem" was too blue. Protonk (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • How about "Santorum Veronica problem" ? Hubba hubba! Tarc (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

If anyone starts a rename discussion to Santorum Google problem (other search machines are available) I think I might well shoot them. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

LOL BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That points the way to Santorum search engine problem. Or longer: Rick Santorum's website is lower than Spreading Santorum's website in search engine results problem. Gacurr (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Follow the sources, per Policy. Additionally, I see Googlebomb but not Yahoobomb or whateverbomb. Dreadstar ☥ 00:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have more of a problem with "problem", which is POV. What about something like Santorum (search engine campaign) or Santorum (search engine issue)? JamesMLane t c 01:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I could support those. I prefer campaign, myself. I could also see Spreading Santorum (search engine campaign). // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• I just commented in the section above, but I'll repeat anyway: we should not use a name that makes it unclear whether "Santorum" refers to the politician or to the word or to the substance. We must use a title that makes it clear we mean the word "santorum". Wnt (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• I would go for something like Dan Savage santorum neologism controversy but what do I know :)...--Threeafterthree (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• "Santorum's google problem" doesn't really characterize the whole campaign--and search engines other than Google have very little to do with that. Dan Savage is not just trying to manipulate search results (I don't think the original "coining" of the term mentioned Google at all), but trying to create an association between the senator and his "definition" more widely. I vote for Spreading Santorum, and, well, anything that doesn't talk about search engines. If the article really is going to be narrowly tailored around the "google problem" aspect of the controversy I think that would break NOTNEWS; news articles can be about "Santorum has a google problem" but encyclopedia articles have to cover the whole topic. 146.151.96.113 (talk) 02:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think we need to be advertising a website like that. This article is now purported to be about the notable campaign, the core of which is a googlebomb and is indeed supposed to be a "problem" for somebody. The topic is already described here, here and here. What's so special about this article? That's what needs to be defined, and then named accordingly. Dreadstar ☥ 02:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not unusual that the title of an article is not a perfect fit for the article contents. Usually we make the title a little over-specific, and the article contents describe that subject plus some broader implications. Not every encyclopedic subject has a single precise name, particularly where the subject relates to social constructions and language. Take another difficult subject, Native American name controversy. That article is basically about whether to call the indigenous groups in the Continental United States "Native Americans", "American Indians", "Indigenous people", or whatever, including issues of history, identity, etc. That article could be improved to be sure. But I don't think anyone doubts that it's an important encyclopedic subject. Yet there's no 2-5 word title that sums it all up. For this article, the crux of the subject is the sequence of events and resulting cultural phenomenon by which Santorum's name was applied to a vulgar subject by those who oppose his political agenda, thereby causing him grief. There is no easy or exact way to say it, but arguably the search engine thing is somewhere near the core of the issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't use the word "problem," and also that we shouldn't be advertising Savage's site, as we would be with Spreading santorum. And the IP is probably right that the google problem isn't the totality of what we would cover. There are several acceptable titles... we just need somehow to generate one which people can compromise on. Given the tone here, I don't think that's going to be a problem. Dreadstar, you're arguing about an issue that to me is third down the list: first, rename. Then, rewrite. Then, see if we have a standalone article. If we have something that can reasonably be merged, then we merge. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 06:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, under the current circumstances, rewrite/rename is first, then see where we stand. I was just consolidating that with what I'm seeing in other articles and summarizing what my overall view is. Dreadstar ☥ 15:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's absurd to say that "Spreading santorum" is advertising Savage's site. You want to see ads, just look at the video game names that come up on the Main Page every third day! A name like that would be just a description of a literary work. I don't actually support that name because the article shouldn't be about the website, it should be about the word and the campaign that made it a word. But to dismiss it that way is a basic error. Wnt (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

And I say it's absurd and disingenuous to claim it's a word; and yes, it would indeed be advertising if we named it after the website - video games be waxed. Is the website notable? Is the purported word notable? What's notable? The campaign? Savage? Santorum (person)? I think notability is clear, it's all about Savage and Santorum (person) and the resulting attack/insult googlebomb is just an add-on...and not notable enough for its own article. Dreadstar ☥ 19:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion for evaluating title options

I was thinking about whether or not there might be a rule of thumb we could use to help evaluate options for titling this page. It occurred to me that WP:BEGINNING might help—the Manual of Style guideline on the first sentence of an article. One thing the first line should do is use the term and "give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist."

Right now, we have "The Santorum Google problem is the result of a Google bombing campaign by American advice columnist Dan Savage in response to controversial statements regarding the US Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas made by then Republican U.S. Senator Rick Santorum from Pennsylvania."

Okay, so what happens if someone does a web search and that sentence is the only snippet they have to evaluate whether or not to click the link? Someone who doesn't already know about the "Santorum Google problem" is not going to be helped out by that sentence. It says how the problem came about, but not what it is. Frankly, I'm not positive how I could write a clear, concise sentence beginning "The Santorum Google problem is...", meet the WP:BEGINNING rules, and be English I'd be proud to own.

So, this is the rule-of-thumb I'd like to suggest:

Perhaps this could help separate some of the wheat from the chaff. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh... and it seems to me like that first sentence would therefore pretty much have to use the term santorum somehow, because that's what Santorum's "Google problem" is, after all. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice point. Maybe you'd like to suggest an opening sentence that sums up what this article is about. That sentence may, in turn, help suggest an appropriate title. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Very well put. Once we rename, we need to rewrite in a way which does not take into consideration outside implications. We are not violating BLP by clearly defining the issue in the first sentence. It may well be that we'll pare this article down to a mergeable length, but we have to start off just writing a good article, the same as we'd write any other. Your suggestion here is a good start on both the rename and the rewrite. By this standard,

Title: "Dan Savage's campaign to make Senator Rick Santorum's last name a word for anal discharge." Which shortens to Campaign to make "santorum" a neologism

First sentence: "The Campaign for "santorum" neologism is a campaign started by American advice columnist Dan Savage to make Republican U.S. Senator Rick Santorum's last name into a word meaning "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex"

The above might be taken as an argument to make the title "Rick Santorum's Google problem." It shows that we're really making things up by using that title.

Title: Rick Santorum's Google problem

First sentence: Rick Santorum's Google problem is the result of a campaign started by American advice columnist Dan Savage to make Republican U.S. Senator Rick Santorum's last name into a word meaning "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex." This definition garners very high search engine rankings for any search of the Senator's name.

Mmmmmmmmmmmm.......... needs editing. But it works better than the first one. 'Spreading santorum' campaign probably works better:

First sentence: The spreading santorum' campaign is a campaign started by American advice columnist Dan Savage to make Republican U.S. Senator Rick Santorum's last name into a word meaning "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex." This definition garners very high search engine rankings for any search of the Senator's name. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 07:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me the notable and relevant part of this story is the fact that Savage got a page saying "Santorum is a mix of fecal matter and lube" to rise to the top of search engine results for "santorum." This is what confronts all who google the name, and this is the essence of Santorum's problem. Perhaps Dan Savage's "santorum" Google bomb is closest to this. The lead sentences would then be something like,

In 2003, offended by comments on homosexuality by then US senator Rick Santorum, syndicated columnist Dan Savage orchestrated a campaign to promote a page defining "santorum" as (definition) to the top of search engine results for that term. Dan Savage's "santorum" Google bomb has since received significant media coverage, and his embarrassing page has consistently ranked at or near the top of search engine results for "Santorum" and "Rick Santorum."

I understand some argue that it is SEO, and Google bombing is something different. But Google bombing is a neologism whose meaning is still forming, and certainly many of our sources use the term in this way. Alternatively, we could call it a Google prank, as some sources have. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I would go with something like 'The campaign for santorum neologism is the attempt to define santorum as "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex", started by United States sex-advice columnist Dan Savage through his syndicated column and website, as a commentary on United States politician Rick Santorum's controversial public stance regarding homosexuality.' as a first cut. I think it has the virtue of summing the thing up and giving the reader the option to bail out now while still having the core of the thing. Let's face it, a fair number of people will want to pull that ripcord early after taking Jon Stewart's dare to Google "santorum"... // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Another option I like a lot less: 'Rick Santorum's "Google problem" describes the results of a Google search for the term "santorum" in 2011, which would return as the highest-ranked result a website created by American sex-advice columnist Dan Savage defining the term as "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex" as commentary on American politician Rick Santorum's controversial public stance on homosexuality, rather than links relevant to Santorum himself or his political campaigns.' The problem here is that I can't figure out how to work in the fact that the Google-problem phrase is one coined by the press and used somewhat widely without making the sentence clunky. Plus, it comes off sounding like we're admitting to using an euphemism, and that still rubs me the wrong way. Encyclopedias don't use euphemisms. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The "Santorum Google problem" title is something pushed on this article without consensus, which even Jehochman admits is a lousy title. We've heard some much better proposals many times but only an admin will make a move, and probably only if it's to an even worse title than this. So let's just make redirects from our favorite names and pointedly ignore what the article is presently titled, and make the best introductory sentence we can without regard to it. Wnt (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I figured I'd try writing that one just to get a benchmark for "awkward". As I wrote it, it came to me that most of the "*campaign*" titles could be slotted into the first sentence, and most of the "*problem*" titles into the second one. I had to throw it down in wikitext, just to see how it would look.... didn't make me like it any more. I still think the first one makes a better lede, and I can see in my head how I could write an article proceeding from that open pretty easily. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to make the move given some form of consensus, or even partial consensus just to see if people can live with it as a compromise. We need a bit more consensus than we have though. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree a title should be clear. Crystal clear. "Problem", "campaign", "neologism", "controversy" - there are quite a few people here determined to sanitize the title (and article) and imply it was some innocent attempt to coin a new word, or to engage respectably in a political campaign by spreading "relevant information", or to blame the victim (as in, it's Santorum's problem, not that of Savage et al), or to imply there are two sides as to whether this was any sort of attack at all. As opposed to calling a spade a spade: this was an attack using cyberbullying as the weapon. Not all of you are arguing in good faith, and it's absurd for me to pretend you are. You want to be insulting, condescending, and dismissive of those pointing out facts? Your choice. Flatterworld (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You could argue the exact same point the opposite way, that calling the event a "problem" or "controversy" ignores the elephant in the room, Santorum's homophobic comments and opposition to human rights for gays, something akin to calling it Anita Bryant's perception issues or Jeffrey Dahmer's peculiar culinary choices. Santorum is hardly a victim to his fight with gay rights supporters, and as a U.S. politician is no stranger to wars of words with political opponents. There are obviously plenty of people on the other side, who do sympathize with and support in Savage's activism or who participate on the issue without respect to Savage's personal involvement. We get the point, you believe Santorum has been aggrieved here. Others by their statements think the same. Plenty of others hare no doubt think Santorum is the disgrace, not Savage. We all have our personal opinions, and it is not bad faith to hold them even as they influence the perceptions through which we judge the underlying facts behind Wiipedia articles. But it's not our place to settle scores, and few if any of the sources do either. We can just lay out the facts, without adding value judgments that allow opinions to find their way into articles. Santorum said X. Savage did Y. The public did Z. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Anita Bryant's views were covered in her article (hardly a surprise). Are you suggesting we follow that precedent and merge this article into the Dan Savage article? Karl Rove's political attacks are covered in his article - same precedent. Look. We don't have a separate article for every effort to disagree with Rick Santorum's views, or other politicians' views, so there must be something unique about this effort in order to justify it imo, this has become notorious enough to have its own article almost entirely because of its effect on SERPs. It's a first, I believe. Instead of simply "preaching to the choir", Savage's efforts now appear to anyone and everyone searching for either 'Santorum' or 'Rick Santorum'. Do you disagree with that? That's what makes it unique, but it doesn't necessarily follow that it should be the name of the article. You characterize this as a "war of words", but you're not using the term as most people would define it: a discussion or debate. This is an attack, by association, with a made-up word intended from the start to be known to everyone so when they thought of the person they would simultaneously think of this definition. It works because 'Santorum' is an unusual search term. Thee aren't thousands of people with that name, or organizations, or even similar non-proper nouns. You don't get my point. Your point seems to be confusing your opinion of somemone with their right (or non-right) to be attacked in this way. I believe in civility as in do unto others as you would have them do unto you. As soon as you start claiming this attack is peachy-keen because Santorum isn't a real person "like the rest of us", you heading down a slippery slope. Which should not exist in Wikipedia, imo. Wikipedia should stand for a flat and level world. Hence my username. Hence my interest in ensuring the title of this article is reality-based. Savage has stated, over and over again, what his purpose was in creating his Spreading Santorum website. You refuse to acknowledge that fact. That's a problem. Flatterworld (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Conservative politician assails gay rights. Gay columnist assails conservative politician. Hilarity historically unique search engine results and new sexual term ensue. We have plenty of articles about conflicts and feuds between different people and groups that are separate from the articles about the individuals. That's the neutral part of it. I would argue that calling it a "problem" held by Santorum and calling it an "attack" launched by Savage are equally lopsided because they add value judgments and tell the story from the perspective of one side or the other. That distracts from what it is, a chain of actions and events with a particular outcome. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Will you agree that Rick Santorum's statement was an attack using legal bullying as the weapon? Santorum used his voice and power; Savage used his voice and power back. The difference being, only one would have taxpayers paying to lock up the other. Wnt (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. Santorum would like to pass laws marginalizing various groups of people, and he states his views, but I'm unaware of anything he's done beyond that in the sense of trying to game the current legal system. "Lock up people"? We're talking about what Savage IS doing, you're talking about what Santorum would (presumably) like to do. There's a difference. We have free speech. He talks. People listen. They then decide to vote for someone else. That's how it works. Maybe some of you are so desperate to attack him because you think the US is in imminent danger of electing him President, so "all's fair in love and war"? Flatterworld (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Wnt's point, but I'll add the question that seems to me to be even more relevant: Flatterworld, is it your contention that everyone who's arguing in good faith must agree with you that "cyberbullying" is an objectively accurate description of the Savage campaign? For my part, I think it pretty clearly is not an accurate description. I think it's an opinion, and a poorly founded one at that. People can in good faith hold that opinion. The tougher question arises if a longtime Wikipedian wants the title or article text to assert that opinion as a fact. I'm inclined to say that this can still be good faith, although it's probably because some people are so blinded by their animosity toward Savage's actions that they've momentarily lost sight of NPOV. JamesMLane t c 19:17 June 2011 (UTC)

IF you read the link I provided earlier for the definition of cyberbullying ("Creating websites, videos or social media profiles that embarrass, humiliate, or make fun of others"), and IF you don't believe that describes what Savvage has done...well, I'd like to hear your explanation. If I described a horse and someone insisted it must be a tree, I'd say the same thing. imo someone may well be "blinded" here but it's not me. I was one of Savage's strongest supporters for his efforts against bullying, especially the It Gets Better Project. I still am. I had hopes he would make the connection with his own behavior and use an alternate way to discourage people from supporting Santorum. Using issues, not name-calling. I continue to live in hope. ;-) But if Savage is determined to continue his cyber-bulling attack, then I'll continue fighting it. Because cyber-bullying is wrong. Period. Flatterworld (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Even if we agreed, this would still be our WP:SYNTHESIS, until it became consensus that this applied.

Should satire and mockery of minors be restricted or banned entirely? Probably, and that is what the website you link to supports; minors are often not fully responsible numan beings, and over-react. But Rick Santorum is 53, and running for President of the United States. Does he have low self-esteem? Is he using drugs because of this? Is he skipping school? If so, God help him when he reads the Economist or AL-Jazeera, even before Inauguration Day.

This proposal would appear to be that we not recognize (and, since it's an ethical claim, that we individually go out and stop) satire, mockery, and political parody over the Internet. If it were parody of children, you'd have a case; are you claiming Santorum is a child? If not, this is a call for the restoration of scandalum magnatum. I think that deeply immoral, as well as illegal in most English-speaking countries, and I beseech you to desist. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merits of this, I just have to point out that these Santorums are certainly children, and seem to have fallen by the wayside in this "campaign", but I'm sure the children they go to school with would never use this article to make fun. Nah, just wouldn't happen would it? And if did, without WP:RS it's just be WP:OR and meaningless here, eh? That strikes me as a problem. Dreadstar ☥ 21:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Which is scandalum magnatum limited to good family men. How charming. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The claim that this is in any way even remotely related to scandalum magnatum is a charming absurdity; and I still don't see the concern for the children named Santroum in your comment, you seem to only focus on one sigular person. I assure you, this affects much more than that one person. This is an attack-article that helps perpetuate the attack, plain and simple. And yes, I believe it's cyber-bullying and hypocricy by the initiator of this attack - no RS for it, but that's obviously the case. Dreadstar ☥ 21:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

But think of the children? Oh, come now. Please do not adopt the slogan of every hypocrite since the promoters of Little St. Hugh of Lincoln: "if we don't suppress whatever I want to suppress, the little children will suffer". By this argument, we would delete nigger and all similar articles; go suggest that change of policy first. No, we have no duty to remove all evidence of notable attacks on public figures, and those with living children are no exceptions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me; yeah go ahead and cherry-pick my arguments and rebuttals in an attempt to undercut the legitimate points made; in the end, you're wrong and the concerns I and others raise are completely legitimate, while comparisons to nigger, Hitler's Balls and scandalum magnatum are out of whack. There's little to no chance the unsourced cyber-bullying synthesis will affect the title, but I have indeed suggested policy changes or a ruling to reflect the purpose and meaning of the project, because we certainly have a duty to do no harm and this stand-alone attack-article is harmful to the extreme. And yeah, don't think of the children, that's exactly the point I made. Nice. Dreadstar ☥ 22:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)thought exercise Before you jump into the forget about the children mode, I ask you to consider this for a moment. Consider that your last name is really "Anderson". Consider that you have a 12 year old in school where the class uses Wikipedia as a research tool. Consider that a sex-columnist equated your last name to some sort of anal discharge. And then consider how you would feel if your son/daughter came home crying about being tormented about an "encyclopedic" article .. it's Wikipedia, therefore... it must be fact. I'd ask that you consider this for a moment before you continue along the line of debate which you are currently engaged. Thank you for your time. — Ched :  ?  22:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Very well put, Ched; much better than my attempt...although I fear it won't make any difference in this particular case. Dreadstar ☥ 22:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Using the children as a criterion for inclusion amounts to censorship. An example on point is Dirty Sanchez. Wikipedia has kept this article since 2004, despite the problem it may present to those with the surname or those who find the subject matter objectionable. Gacurr (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a load of BS, Gacurr. Echoing others, just what other accounts do you edit from? Dreadstar ☥ 22:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that we may need to amend the rules in order to act with a higher level of decency and kindness in cases like this. Do you or anyone else have any suggestions as to how the rules should change? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Flatterworld, I appreciate your giving me an answer to my question, but your answer is, IMO, indefensible. You refer to "the" definition as if we're all bound by it. If it's a fair reading of that page to wrench the definition out of context and apply it to political disputes between adults (even adults who have children), then the definition is preposterous. If you disagree, I invite you to mosey on over to John Kerry military service controversy and urge that it be retitled Cyberbullying of John Kerry (after all, people created a website designed to embarrass Senator Kerry, with the added touch that, unlike Dan Savage, they included lies about their target). After you finish sticking up for a Democrat the way you're sticking up for a Republican, we can doubtless find plenty of other Wikipedia articles that describe political disputes and that can be given the same treatment. JamesMLane t c 21:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I see where the problem is. First, you obviously haven't checked my edit history if you think I've been partisan in my campaign against the Lee Atwater-Karl Rove school of 'campaigning' (which has, of course, been used mostly against Democrats). Of course the campaign against Kerry was filled with lies, but it was filled with lies about an actual topic (his military service) as opposed to making up a word which had nothing to do with Kerry. iow, it was a controversy, as people who served (and didn't serve) with Kerry said different things at different times. The point was to separate the facts from the lies from the spin from the misunderstandings. We're talking about the title of THIS article now, which means "how is it best described?" - which is why imo 'campaign', 'problem', 'controversy' et al are euphemisms. This isn't a campaign against Santorum's views on government and legislation, it's strictly a personal attack. That's all it is. There's no discussion to be had, or debate to engage in, no 'facts' to argue - just an IHATEYOU statement which Savage has encouraged people to take part in. All we're missing are the torches and pitchforks. That needs to be reflected in the title of the article, as well as in the body of the article. It's the most notable thing about this, along with the SEO techniques. Flatterworld (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, your response just reeks of POV. You pointed me to what you called "the" definition of cyberbullying. In response, I pointed out that applying that definition to political disputes among adults would produce absurd results. Your reply is to make up some criteria that aren't found in "the" definition. Your personal opinion is that a mocking of Santorum's views -- views he actually did express -- is "strictly a personal attack" and is despicable. Lying about the facts of someone's career may also upset you but clearly not as much. My opinion happens to be to the contrary, but of course both our opinions are irrelevant. Our exchange has very well highlighted my point: that the application of the term "cyberbullying" to the Spreading Santorum campaign is very far from an objective fact, is only an opinion, and is an opinion that has a great deal to be said against it. I have no objection to the inclusion of the "cyberbullying" whine (which is how I see it), provided that it's not stated as a fact but is merely in the context of reporting a significant opinion, properly attributed and cited. Wikipedia should not state as a fact that Savage engaged in cyberbullying, any more than it should state as a fact that this criticism of Savage is a meritless whine. JamesMLane t c 05:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to stop talking about the morals of the situation, if we're going to make headway here (under the current rules). Santorum made some horrible remarks, abusing power other humans gave him. Savage did the same thing. They're both pricks and deserve what they get... at least by the morals of various people here. But it really doesn't help us much in writing this article. However, we can try and pick a title which hits as few of these buttons as possible, and if we look for that kind of title we might agree that it narrows the list to only a few acceptable ones. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Except we're NOT talking about "the morals of the situation" as you describe them. As least I'm not. Flatterworld (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

"Google bomb"?

From the first line of the article I think we have a problem here:

The Santorum Google problem is the result of a Google bombing campaign by American advice columnist Dan Savage in response to controversial statements regarding the US Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas made by then Republican U.S. Senator Rick Santorum from Pennsylvania.[1][2] (my emphasis)

Ugh, I can't get the references to copy correctly. But they don't seem to support Savage's campaign being a "Google bomb".

The first one is this article from the Philadelphia Weekly: [40]. No mention of Savage conducting a "Google bomb" and in fact no mention of Google at all.

The second is Media literacy: keys to interpreting media messages by Art Silverblatt. [41] Viewable only in snippet view at google books; Santorum gets a few results, but "google bomb" gets no results (maybe if I could see more of the book I would see something more relevant).

Google is not really emphasized in the pre-2006 articles referenced here; whereas only the most recent article are about the Google problem.

The problem here is that it's not clear that Savage is first and formost trying to manipulate search results, per se (though I'm sure he finds that a welcome byproduct of his campaign), but rather trying to manipulate Rick Santorum's public image more broadly. A somewhat different situation than "miserable failure" and George Bush. 146.151.96.113 (talk) 03:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

okay, if you want to get picky the "Google problem" itself may be the result of Googlebombing. Though personally, I don't think an article about a "Google problem" makes much more sense than an article about Mitt Romney's health care reform problem or the like. 146.151.96.113 (talk) 03:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. I don't think this was originally a Google thing; I think it was an effort to make a new word, which was promoted wherever possible (including Google). Wnt (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it was an effort to make a new word in which case it has been a dismal failure. John lilburne (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Not at all! I think it has entered fairly widespread usage. Yes, it's something of a niche term, but, for example, around 400 times more common than porphyrogene according to the unreliable estimates from Google. (Though yes, some proportion of those are actually about the senator. ;) ) There's no doubt that porphyrogene is a word. Wnt (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Google bombing is a bad way to refer to this. Though there are some sources that mention it this way, and even a recent quote by Savage about redoubling such efforts, it actually is not an example of a Google bombing. The origin of the word is here. And a shorter definition here. Getting "miserable failure" to point to George W. Bush as the top search result is the archetypical example of a Google bombing. Getting "santorum" to point to the Spreading Santorum website is run-of-the-mill website promotion, even if very successful in this case. The target website is both about santorum the word and also about [Rick] Santorum, the politician. But, like LeVar Burton says, you don't have to take my word for it:

"[santorum] isn't a Google bomb, it's straight SEO. Here's the difference. With a Google bomb, you're causing someone else's site to rank. With SEO, you're promoting your own site. So spreadingsantorum.com is promoting themselves for [santorum], which is SEO."

Gacurr (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Good point, I like the clarification. --Reo ⁺ 17:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Observation on article traffic statistics

ust curious, so I checked out. Observation on article traffic statistics for Rick_Santorum and the neologism page (before renaming and after)

• Santorum_(neologism) 221 000 views for last 30 days as of 17th june. (trafick stoped after renaming ie till 16th)
  • Santorum_Google_problem 105 views for last 30 days as of 17th june. (trafick starts after renaming the 16th)

• The disamb: Santorum 12 189 views for last 30 days as of 17th june.

• Politician: Rick_Santorum 234 000 views for last 30 days as of 17th june.

Interesting

And if you go just few weeks back, few months ago... the trafic really was low Reo ⁺ 17:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It does show that people are interested in santorum (neologism) about as much as Rick Santorum, about a 5% difference. Go back to March of this year, prior to the so-called optimization of the article, and santorum (sexual neologism) leads Rick Santorum by about 25%. Gacurr (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Campaign_for_%22santorum%22_neologism it got 432 hits yesterday. Santorum got only 131; Santorum (neologism) got 1100 hits; Santorum_Google_problem got another 1100 hits, but that means it got them from Santorum (neologism). Because any hit to Santorum (neologism), which is redirect must lead to the hit of target.

• Rick_Santorum got 2300 hits

Taken together, it seems only very small amount of people is coming to this page (Campaign for 'santorum'...) directly or through Dab page in Wikipedia. Most people came here because of the Google ranking. When title changed to google problem, the trafic came down a little.

--Reo ⁺ 21:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Background should be trimmed

The background section gets into reactions from a bazillion people about Santorum's comments. This is the topic of a distinct article, named at the top of the section; it should only summarize that article. Nothing should be deleted without making sure that it is present in the other article, but we shouldn't keep all that stuff here. I think I'll have a hack at this myself. Wnt (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, here's the diff of what I did (plus someone reverting me in the lead, sigh): [42] and the content going to the other article (plus AnomieBot, by far my favorite of all Wikipedia bots ever made) [43]. Wnt (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

when is consensus not consensus?

to me, it seems like this was moved against consensus, or before any consensus was formed. does anyone else feel this way? -badmachine 18:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it was the wrong close. We had a much better name for the article; while perhaps no single name had consensus behind it, this definitely doesn't, and it adds a BLP problem we didn't have before, because it makes it unclear whether the title is referring to a senator or feces. Wnt (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

According to many claims here, it is both. I'd recommend, again, moving forward and finding consensus for a new article name and content. Dreadstar ☥ 19:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

If we only had an article title that made it clear that one is not the other... Some sort of disambiguation... Gacurr (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

oh, like [[santorum (neologism)]]. -badmachine 19:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

"When I disagree" is the classic Wikipedian answer to this question. Tarc (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe - but in this case even Jehochman didn't claim he had consensus support for his title, but called it "first aid". What kind of first aid, I don't know. I think we could use a Lotto number to pick one of the titles proposed in this article or in the section above, and 9 times out of 10 we'd get a better title. Wnt (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That kind of first aid is called "giving a fuck about WP:BLP". Try it out sometime. Tarc (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP trumps everything. Consensus, verifiability, neutrality, honesty, civility, and above all, common sense. But I just don't get how "Santorum (neologism)" violates BLP more than "Santorum Google problem". Wnt (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

What do the reliable sources call this incident? How do they charaterize it? How is Santorum listed in the Oxford English Dictionary? These are good questions to investigate. We have no need for additional rhetoric. Jehochman ^Talk 19:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Well said, Jehochman. Dreadstar ☥ 19:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Evidence shows that Savage readers were trying to get the term into the OED in 2003 and 2004.[44][45] (I should note this is more evidence it wasn't merely a Google bomb, but a true campaign to create a new word, though the sources may face criticism) With 22000 hits for santorum OED it's hard for me to find evidence one way or the other, so I think I'll put it to WP:LIBRARY, which I just found out about recently. Wnt (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Alas, the answer was no. Some people need to try harder! Wnt (talk) 06:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not easy to find neutral reliable third party sources that come down on an issue like this, they would rather report on the fray than analyze what's behind it. For what it's worth the Mother Jones piece that's quoted several times in the article (as part of the subject, not as a reliable source, as it is an opinion piece in a liberal publication) calls it Santorum's "Anal Sex Problem" and summarizes it as such: "In revenge for some nasty homophobic comments Santorum made back in 2003, Savage successfully used the web to turn Santorum's name into a sexual neologism". I think most sources cover it as an unfolding series of occurrences. Picking out one or more of the specific events, results, or people involved to stand for the entire subject is tricky. Different sources use different hooks to stand for it. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

POV-title tag

template:POV-title was added to the renamed article. imo, the tag should include a deeplink to whichever of the hundred discussions is relevant (and will, of course, be ignored). -badmachine 19:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Normally it's premature to add POV tags either while productive discussion continues, or as protest to failing to gain consensus for something. They're best at signalling a long term deadlock, in my opinion. In this case though I do think it's useful to let any uninvolved reader passing by know that the title here is in flux while we hash this out. I think the current state of this talk page as a whole is as good a starting point as any to figuring it all out. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The template doesn't seem to have a link argument; but this is why I think the title POV:

Santorum Google problem asserts that the nature of this subject is Rick Santorum's problem with Google searches. That's definitely a point of view on the meaning of the subject; but it's only one point of view, and not consensus even among us, let alone in reliable sources. Google would disagree, and so would many of us.

(So if somebody does find a way to link, they can do so here.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I support adding more templates, clearly the article has multiple issues. Templates are good for such disputed articles, they put people off reading them, the more the merrier. Possible rename title suggestion - Savage's frothy anal attack - Off2riorob (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Is that usage? Let's have a citation. ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, in the logic of the Savage-ites, all it takes is a few faux usages like that to transform an invented word into an everyday one, right? Tarc (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't know; I don't watch Savage. But aren't you one of the people who object to neologism, which says precisely that this isn't an everyday word yet? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Btw, the tag now derives from this edit, which actually added {{TitleDisputed}}, a redirected template. Would somebody who actually rhinks this title is POV please explain why? (I realize that people think it non-consensus, or imperfect, or incomplete; but those are different complaints.)Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Interim move

Per the discussion above, I've moved the article to the current title having all "first choice" votes. This is not intended to be a final resolution to the discussion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. This makes two assumptions (that it is a neologism; and there is a campaign), which seem fairly widely agreed, so it is much less objectionable; and santorum is lowercase, which should answer some more objections. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

With your your closure of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Santorum_(neologism)_(4th_nomination), I'm not certain you should be renaming the article. And no, it's not a neologism. Dreadstar ☥ 22:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That AfD closure doesn't make me involved, it was a straight admin action. And I went with the title that had the most first-choice votes at this time. Nothing else in the discussion even came close.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise you owned this. Pity the poor RFC closer above. Dreadstar ☥ 22:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that wasn't an intentional removal -- I edit conflicted about 3 times while trying to post the above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Neologism: A word or phrase which is new to the language; one which is newly coined. -OED (although some may prefer the "A nonsense word interpolated in an otherwise correct sentence by a person suffering from a neuropsychiatric disorder, esp. schizophrenia" or "The holding or adoption of novel (esp. rationalistic) views; rationalism" ;->). It was a neologism when Savage first said it; it still is - that is, it has not reached established usage, nor has it died. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm equally adept at finding sources; some of them say a neologism is "in the process of entering common use", which this purported neologism clearly isn't doing, as I stated earlier. Dreadstar ☥ 23:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's see them. Since the normal use of neologism (for instance, most of the OED quotations for that definition) is to complain that a word is useless and so not entering common usage at all, this seems {{dubious}}. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Since I'm not an article, I'll just point you here; feel free to fix that, if you like. My encyclopedia Britannica and others say a lot more about the meaning and etymology of the word, the assumption is that a neologism is a newly coined word that is in process of becoming more widely used and known, like laser and internet, not limited-scope attack words falsely elevated by googlebomb and Wikipedia. It just ain't. The real point of this is that if the word is indeed a neologism, then this article is not about the term, othewise it would be about a paragraph long and not contain the massive amount of WP:OR it currently contains. It's either about the campaign or the term, that's the question, and the current article's name comes no closer to addressing that issue than the original interim name. Dreadstar ☥ 23:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

No need for a false dichotomy. Let's have an article about the word and an article about the campaign. The Economist says: "And thank you to all those who wrote in to note that despite our description of Rick Santorum as an extreme social conservative, 'The results of a Google search seem to say otherwise'. Seems he just can’t shake that neologism." Gacurr (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This is better than the other title. Even the eponym would agree: "Former Sen. Rick Santorum ... said he is taking no active steps to fix his so-called “Google problem,” an issue that has plagued [his] online presence for years. 'I don’t see it as a problem at all,' [he] said..." [46] Gacurr (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm hardly surprised that a single-purpose account that has spent its 2-week existence focused on this issue is breaking out the pom-poms. Tarc (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

plz dont bite. this is as good a cause to take up as any other. -badmachine 01:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Sarek this was a pretty shitty jack move, to be honest. All this does is reintroduce the problem that Jehochman was trying to avoid in the first place while a better-worded title was hashed out. Tarc (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• Disagree with Sarek's move, support move back to Jehochman's article rename until a new name is hashed out. Dreadstar ☥ 15:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
• Sarek, I also object to this move. Jehochman closed the RfC. If you want to rename, start a requested move discussion, but please don't take unilateral action through protection. Would you please undo your move? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Start a process with no chance of successful completion to undo a decision based on one admin's opinion and two percent of the comments at an RfC? Yeah, right. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• The one thing that is missing in this title is the Google bomb aspect, which is key to the topic's notability. --JN466 23:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • And the name Savage, I see that mentioned several times in the comments above. And it is a campaign to make a neologism, or is the neologism part of the campaign? The current title is just as vague if not worse than what was there before. And I too call on Sarek to move it back. Dreadstar ☥ 23:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• I object to this move irrespective of any position I might have because it undercuts Jehochman's closure and the peaceful discussion indicating editors were willing to work peaceably to the next step in clearing up this issue. Please reverse your move out of respect for both Jehochaman and the editors trying to move on in a peaceful way.One admin closed this RfC.That's the way RfC's work, and one admin reversed that closure unilaterally.That's not how RfC are supposed to work. I wasn't sure I liked Jehochman's closure to begin with so stayed out of it, but this has been a huge mess, and I have to admit like what he did or not, the smoke was clearing finally. This throws discussion backwards rather than forward. (olive (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC))

• • This RFC last worked normally before Jehochman's action. But let us by all means undo both of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• I don't like process wonkery, but it's important to fall back on process when a dispute has reached this level. Jehochman's closure of the RfC should have been respected. If people disagree with it, WP:RM is the way ahead, once alternative names have been suggested. But for one lone actor to ignore the move protection and move the title again within 24 hours just wastes more time. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• I don't feel too worked up about preferring either title over the other, but as a matter of not setting off another flurry of back-and-forth edits, I would suggest going back to what Jehochman did, and regarding that as the interim edit. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• {E/c} Sarek, I think you overstepped on this policy- and common sense-wise, as per SV and others. On the other hand, although I object to the way you too boldly changed the title, I don't object to the title. Everybody take a deep breath now and think: Campaign for "santorum" neologism. Doesn't that describe the article without stepping on anyone's toes? Right off the bat, it's a campaign. Bravo! It is a campaign. Next, we see the word itself in quotes and not capitalized, specifying a common noun, not a surname. Now, grammarians, just what is the campaign? "Santorum" here modifies "neologism." "Neologism" is the object of the prepositional phrase that modifies "campaign." Ergo, the article is about a campaign that aims to create a neologism, "santorum." There are no personal attacks, no mentions of Savage or of Santorum, no "Google" or "Yahoo" or "Dog pile" and most importantly, no assertions of success or failure of said campaign. In other words, the word is not identified as a neologism; everything points to a campaign to make it one. I think this title fills the bill.

SV's and Tryptofish's recent comment are sensible; I would support Sarek's self-revert. Still, read my reasons for thinking the new title is OK. Yopienso (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• I know I voted for this title above. But I suggest that unless there are major objections to the title itself, this may be a step in the right direction. It was certainly bold, but let's let it stand as the current state of the debate and let those who object tell us their reasons. We don't need to be concerned too much that it will stick merely because it's the incumbent name... and if it does then it's a good enough name. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• (ignoring any procedure question over whether two bolds make a bong) I don't think the name is quite perfect. I can see where it's coming from but it focuses unnecessarily on the "campaign" (as opposed to the overall issue), it's not clear that the campaign is to establish santorum as a neologism as opposed to a campaign to promote something called a santorum neologism that already exists, and finally I don't think it's established the creation of the neologism is the major point of the campaign, the campaign was to disparage santorum or to galvanize gay rights supporters or something like that. Creating the neologism was the means, not the end. On the other hand it is a relatively neutral title. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• I also disagree with this move, and would prefer that SoV reverse his own action. One thing I would like to point out, the Jehochman move was done after a week or two of widely publicized RfC discussion; while this move was done after barely a days worth of discussion, which was not even a published RfC. Yep, I think SoV goofed on this one, but I assume it was with the best intent. — Ched :  ?  23:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• note It appears from his contribs that SoV is now off-line, so I suspect that he won't be reversing the move any time shortly. — Ched :  ?  00:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• The incorrect closure of the RfC, to a result supported by less than 1.5% of comments, is what should be undone. The original title santorum (neologism) should be restored until, and if, a new name can be settled on. Gacurr (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

And about the same amount of folks agree with you Gacurr, so there....--Threeafterthree (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree 1.5% if that helps. Happy Friday, everyone. Get some sun before you come back here, please! - Wikidemon (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Gacurr, you're obviously not a new editor. Have we met before? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• i propose multiple interim moves with as many arcane punctuation marks as we can fit in there. that way, we have to make [more and more redirects, thus contributing to the "problem". but seriously, does the title have to have the quote marks?? -badmachine 01:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
• I have no particular problem with this rename, even though I hope it doesn't become permanent, because the previous 'interim name' (Santorum Google problem) was unclear and subject to way too many bad jokes. We will end up with many redirects anyway, so I don't buy badmachine's argument on that point. I dislike euphemisms used in article title, same as I dislike Bowlderization of books. But, we seem to have a group here in which no consensus will be achieved unless we tap-dance around the subject and give it some fuzzywuzzy name. Perhaps the next thing on the group's list will be to rename World War II as a 'controversy' or a 'campaign' or a 'problem'? How about 'misunderstanding'? 'Tantrum'? We're going to need a new word for this sort of Wikipedian gameplaying, imo. Flatterworld (talk) 01:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
• Well, at the risk of repeating myself, the "campaign for santorum neologism" title doesn't quite cut it for me. It sounds like something language-oriented, like the Plain English campaign, whereas it's politically motivated, and SEO-related. That doesn't come across. Santorum Google problem kind of worked for me, at least as an interim solution. So would Santorum (Google bomb). --JN466 01:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The former sounds as if he's simply internet-challenged (the Google search page is SO difficult to navigate!), the latter as if Rick Satorum himself created the Google bomb. (Which is a general problem with euphemisms - they're unclear. On purpose.) Anyway, discussion of alternatives belongs in the earlier section. Flatterworld (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I would support "Santorum (Google bomb)." It is concise and reflects, to a degree, why the subject is important. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no intention of self-reverting, as there was no consensus for that particular rename. "Santorum's Dan Savage problem" might have made sense, but "Santorum's Google problem" could not stand unless there was consensus that it really was a problem that Google, out of all the search engines, had caused. (And, for that matter, that it was a problem at all, which the Senator seems to himself reject.) So, I reviewed the existing discussion, evaluated what the current leader was, and made an interim change to reflect the interim state of the discussion. If something else pulls ahead in a day or two, someone else can make another interim change, or we can wait till discussion settles and make a final change. This is not disrepecting Jehochman's RFC close -- reverting back to the original on the grounds that there was no consensus for the new title (and, looking at the discussion above, significant consensus against it) would have been.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

So it's clear. You have used your admin tool to move this protected article because you don't agree with the name. Why didn't you join the discussion and argue your case, like the rest of us? It wasn't a BLP violation. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yup, Sarek's move was a show of either poor judgement - as clearly indicated here

- or just purely Bias; either of which are not qualities welcome in an Admin. Dreadstar ☥ 19:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• I am happy with this move. The "interim" solution was clearly based on the opinion of one admin rather than a fair consensus. The current version is closer to satisfying those who find a declaration that "santorum" is a real neologism implausible or offensive, and yet it doesn't violate neutrality or verifiability by associating the term with negative opinions about the campaign or to one search engine. Focusing on the controversy rather than implying either point of view is correct is in line with the spirit of Wikipedia. Well done. Steven Walling 02:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
• For anyone outside Wikipedia (hint, the people we are writing for) this title makes no sense and is what I consider one of the worst I've ever seen. What exactly is a "campaign for "santorum' neologism"? We need to write for people who don't edit here, not for editors. This is a continuing problem with these types of bad decisions. I dare anyone to show this title to a non-editor. They simply won't have a clue what it means, as it reads like something a random word generator would create. Titles should have meaning to the average reader, not for Wikipedia editors. Viriditas (talk) 04:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • ...which is much the same problem I saw with Santorum Google problem, which is why I was eager to change it to something else. At least this version doesn't accuse Google of anything. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
    • You were over eager. We weren't accusing Google of anything and I don't think you can possibly believe that. I thought we had arrived at (not unanimity but) a general understanding that this article should be named after the Google bombing/search engine bombing/Google problem, and not the failed neologism. Jehocman's close recognised that, and your knee-jerk rename has remphasised the neologism and doesn't even mention the Google problem, the actual subject of the article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
      • No, the rename emphasized the "campaign" -- in other words, the google bomb.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
• I think we should go back to Jehochman's version. The issue here is timeframes; the coining of the neologism occurred in 2003, and the organised campaign effectively ended then. The 'google bomb' aspect then happened to some degree by accident; it became a 'problem' reported in newspapers in 2011 as a result of the former Senator's newly-announced candidacy for the Presidency of the United States. The article has therefore had to change focus: an off-beat attempt to embarrass a single Senator in 2003 became an interesting and obscure word in 2009, but is now an issue reportedly affecting the chances of a candidate for a highly important office. The latter issue is the more important. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree with Sam Blacketer; the Google problem is what is notable about the whole thing, and what outside, mainstream readers are likely to know and hear about. --JN466 16:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
• What is the purpose of an "interim" move? We aren't going anywhere. No reason to add to page logs and proliferate redirects. Protonk (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this title

There really isn't. Anyone who thinks these is, is fooling themselves on the altar of something. Merrill Stubing (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

There's no consensus for any other title. There's the most consensus for this title (Campaign for "santorum" neologism). As noted above. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind stating for the record which title you mean, because by the time this section is archived, it will probably be obsolete.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Campaign for "santorum" neologism". A tiny statistical advantage is not consensas. Merrill Stubing (talk) 03:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course there isn't a clear consensus for this title yet -- but there's a heck of a lot more than for the previous one, which was roundly decried above. That's why I came straight here after the move and said that this was only an interim move, and that discussion needed to continue. I don't personally think it's the best title, but it's what I was given to work with at that point in the discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You've missed the point. None of us was happy with Jehocman's title Many commenting above were unhappy with Jehocman's title, that's why discussion was ongoing. But Jehocman's close recognised the consensus to name the article after the actual topic, the Google bomb/search engine bomb/prank/campaign (whatever: the right name for the event is what we're discussing), rather than the word as a neologism. This title you have unilaterally imposed ignores that consensus and re-emphasises the failed neologism, which is an element of the topic, not the topic. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Anthony, it's not true no one was happy with Jehochman's title. Several of us were willing to accept it as a compromise; it's just that a few who weren't continued discussing here. Point is, no matter what the RfC closure was, no one should have changed it unilaterally, especially not (as you say) restoring "neologism" to the title, which is part of what caused the dispute in the first place. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

If Jehochman's title is restored, please put apostrophe "s" after "Santorum". The problem was Santorum's. As far as Savage was concerned, there was no problem at all.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I liked Jehochman's title better than what we have now, with or without the apostrophe. You can argue the grammar without the apostrophe as well: the Google problem, or Google bomb, relates to the search term "Santorum". And it is a Google bomb, because Savage got his readers to link to his site. --JN466 03:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Not a Google bombing. It is a successful website. Getting readers to link to your site is everyday website promotion. A site about a word, santorum, and a politician, Santorum, is a success when it shows up on top in the search results for the words the site is about. Gacurr (talk) 03:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

i respectfully disagree with Becritical. there is no consensus for any of the renaming suggestions. since there is no consensus for a new title, the old title should be retained, imo. -badmachine 11:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say that, I said it had the most, meaning it had more than the others. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 17:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Btw, I agree that there is no present consensus for any title. Is this one tolerable until we reach consensus? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You'll never solve this

I have read through only some of the above; I think you guys are trying to untie that famous knot. The problem is not the title of this article, the problem is that the name/word "Santorum" is in it, and any accurate title will contain it. The only way to get rid of that is deploying Alexander the Great's solution. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You have completely misunderstood the problem. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. But then explain it to me in two or three sentences; I seem to have missed it in these long discussions. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The last thing this situation needs is Jimbo or the Arbitration committee, or anybody flourishing their sabres, when the tedious process of argument and compromise is working. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

? You lost me. Where did I mention any of that? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems I have completely misunderstood you. :) I thought you were recommending solving this intractable problem with a bold stroke. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Somehow, yes, but not the one you were inferring: Looking at the section you started below, we are actually not so far apart. If one wants this article to be about the neologism, then the name will have to be in the title; the "bold stroke" is getting away from the name or the person and focusing on the incident — I realize now that the remark about "any accurate title" was confusing... should have written "any accurate title which focuses on the person". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

What is this article about?

This article is about a very funny and successful and notable search engine bomb. The article is about that, the sources are about that. It is not, nor should it be on both notability and relevance grounds, about the failed launching of a neologism. The notable, historic even, event here is the bombing. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You forgot to use the word Google in your last sentence. Anyway, we discussed whether this is a Google bombing or not above. It isn't. It is standard, albeit very successful, optimization of a website's ranking in search results. Gacurr (talk) 07:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The term 'santorum' versus 'omg' http://www.google.com/trends?q=omg%2C+santorum&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0

The term 'santorum' versus 'bling' http://www.google.com/trends?q=bling%2C+santorum&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=1

The term 'santorum' versus 'lolcat' http://www.google.com/trends?q=lolcat%2C+santorum

It is definitely a neologism, but there's no way to tell where the name of the Senator starts and the neologism begins because Google Trends only goes back to 2004. So really since even lolcat tends to kick its butt (and this is with the Senator being included in the results), I'd have to say as a neologism, its pretty weak.

-- Avanu (talk) 08:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Gacurr, many of our sources describe it as a bomb. It, "Google/search engine bomb," is a neologism and its meaning seems to include this prank. But that's beside my point. This article and its sources are about Savage's search engine prank, not about a failed attempt to launch a neologism.

Avanu, it's a neologism. A failed neologism. Where's the scholarly commentary? What dictionary is it in? For a while Partridge dictionary of slang was being touted as mentioning the word. Then, when an editor got hold of the book, it turned out the editors had rejected it as not notable, and declined to include it in its alphabetical listing. The neologism is not notable outside Savage's notable prank. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, Anthony. I think it is a good argument in favor of it losing its status as neologism (in Wikipedia). However, it has been covered in media as a neologism, and so that argues it back the other way. As many editors have said, this shouldn't be about the neologism angle anyway, it should be about the event. So not sure why we're debating this. -- Avanu (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I was agreeing with you, but you picked up on my very irritated state of mind which I carried over from elsewhere. :) Sorry 'bout that. I'm going to have a Milo and let this go for a while. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the present name is a marked improvement from "Santorum Google problem", or indeed from any title with Google in the name. It is awkward but not misleading. Wnt (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Bemused comment

When I previously searched for "santorum" on google.com to see what this was all about, http://www.spreadingsantorum.com came first, Santorum (neologism) came second, and Rick Santorum came third. This is still the case. You can verify here that all three pages have a Page rank of 5. This has not changed with the renaming, presumably because it takes some time for Google to adjust its index. What has changed, however, is that now Campaign for "santorum" neologism is the fourth hit, even though its current Page rank is "N/A". In other words, as a result of the renaming, the present article appears twice among the top four Google hits.

Obviously, the effect is going to disappear once Google has updated its index. At that point the article will have to be renamed again, then again, and so on, until the elections are over... Or we could try and see if by renaming the article more quickly we can create about four more top hits for the present article and push the senator's website off the first page of Google hits.

Incidentally, some of the things with a Page rank of 4, i.e. coming immediately after the top 4 hits (except for the news hits that are slipped in between), aren't really better, as they include http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=santorum and the Mother Jones article on Rick Santorum's Anal Sex Problem.

Oh, and does anyone have the faintest idea why Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality has a Page rank of 0? I didn't even know this is possible on this site. Even my sandbox has a Page rank of 3. Hans Adler 08:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Interim redirects for the interim name

jftr, I have fixed the single and double redirects (other than User, Talk, and other Wikipedia articles) to point to the current name. Perhaps some were due to a bot error, but I did notice User:badmachine someone had changed some after the bot had fixed them, as he apparently preferred they direct to the earlier 'Santorum (neologism)'. User:badmachine created quite a few new redirects. I left those (although imo they should be reviewed) EXCEPT for his creation of Santorum campaign. I changed that to redirect to the (much more likely) Rick Santorum presidential campaign, 2012, as I really doubt most people would be using the term to search for the 2003 Savage "neologism" contest, or anything connected with that. Quite honestly, I had other things planned for this morning other than cleaning up after his 'tantrum'. Talk pages are one thing, Wikipedia pages more often used by the public are another. Let's not make Wikipedia into a laughingstock. Flatterworld (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

jftr, my contribs speak for themselves. some are good, some are not. Flatterworld has 15x the edits that i have, so im positive he can out-wiki and out-wikilawyer me, this is no reason for him to attack me as he did above, and on other pages related to this subject. -badmachine 20:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't match the title

Read the article and it's sections, and try making sense of them with the new title:

• The "Recognition and usage of the term" section (it's a term? I thought it was a campaign?)
• The "Coining" section (you can coin a campaign?)
• The "Response" section: Philadelphia Weekly reported in 2006 that Santorum "was forced to acknowledge the word existed." (underline mine)
• There are 22 uses of the phrase "the term" in the article.

It follows, from the above, that the article is documenting a new linguistic mode of usage for an utterance which is also a surname. To remedy the issue under the current title, the article would need to be rewritten to describe Dan Savage's campaign itself. However, the linguistic usage of the term described within this article is independent of the surname itself, and is assuredly notable. This is true notwithstanding any misgivings that editors may have about the associations that its definition entails.

Some editors have argued that the word is not in wide usage, and thus should not be falsely construed as such. This is eminently reasonable, but it does not negate the fact that a notable linguistic mode of usage for "santorum" exists in the first place, which should be documented (and already is, as written). What we must communicate in the title is that the term is a proto-word, one which has not yet obtained permanent and respected status in the english language (and perhaps never will.) This happens to be the definition of a neologism (according to us, "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.")

Ironically, it is actually less damaging for Santorum the senator (with a capital "S") if there is an article about the subject of this new linguistic mode of usage (lower case "s"), to disambiguate its definition from him personally. At some point, those unfamiliar with the senator who use the term "santorum" in a conversation will query a search engine to find more information about the term, only to find an article about Santorum himself. This couldn't be closer to what Dan Savage would have intended: de facto defamation.

Due to these facts, I suggest a title that more acurately describes the nature of this linguistic mode of usage:

Campaign for "santorum" neologism → Santorum (nonce word) –

Quoting our own definition for nonce word:

A nonce word is a word used only "for the nonce"—to meet a need that is not expected to recur. [...] Nonce words frequently arise through the combination of an existing word with a familiar prefix or suffix, in order to meet a particular need (or as a joke). The result is a special kind of pseudoword: although it would not be found in any dictionary, it is instantly comprehensible (e.g., Bananaphone). If the need recurs (or the joke is widely enjoyed), nonce words easily enter regular use just because their meaning is obvious.

I feel that this title is a fair comprimise, because it doesn't attempt to give the term more credibility than it deserves. However, it still acknowledges that it is a linguistic term in usage, regardless of the spontaneous and whimsical nature of its realization.

I implore wikipedians not to sacrifice specificity at the hand of a misplaced desire to act as gatekeepers of the zeitgeist. We can not undo the history which has lead to the linguistic formation and usage of this proto-term. It is not our place to ignore or deny the existence of phenomena if they offend our sensibilities; it is, however, incumbent upon us to document them. 174.94.58.143 (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

'Nonce' has distinctly unwelcome overtones to British ears. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your cultural perspective, Sam. Some possible alternatives are Santorum (coined term) or Santorum (term). We could also go the route of Santorum (jargon) or perhaps even Santorum (sexual jargon). After all, the domain of this term's usage is generally sexual in nature. My primary concern is that this article is properly labelled as a linguistic phenomenon. However much we may disagree with how it was introduced, it still used as a term (whose usage this article discusses). 174.94.58.143 (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also, for those interested, there is a discussion of the origin of the term "nonce word" here, on the Oxford University Press's website. It was coined by James Murray in the 1880s, an editor of the Oxford English Dictionary. 174.94.58.143 (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

There is already a discussion on the title going on up above. I suggest that this RM be closed, and this title be added to the existing section. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please do it. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 17:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes plese. I got frustrated how that naming discussion got completelly overlooked in the recent flood of words. Please lets higlight it is somehow. Make RfC from it or something. To avoid ambuguity I mean #Back to the re-naming issue section --Reo ⁺ 19:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This sounds preposterous according to the definition above. No one would know what "santorum" means without hearing the definition; it's not like "bananaphone" which needs no definition. This is just more ideological wreckage strewn across the battlefield. Wnt (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Bananaphone was an example given, but nonce words needn't be compound words (e.g. Quark or Sniglet). As I understand it, the characterization is more about how the word was formed and how widely it is used, rather than whether it conforms to an self-descriptive structure. 174.94.58.143 (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I've just stumbled on another alternative that I'd be perfectly happy with: Santorum (stunt word). According to The Concise Oxford companion to the English language:

Stunt Word. An informal term for a word created and used to produce a special effect or attract attention, as if it were part of the performance of a stunt man or a conjuror.

Our article on stunt words is still just a stub, though. Others: Santorum (fad word), Santorum (slang). 174.94.58.143 (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Quibble. I think this is the right direction; but nonce word has a strong implication of "used once" - that's the etymology- and that's not the case. Support santorum (coined word).

  As for the overall section; this is professedly a temporary title. Rewriting to match it would be silly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• support. since the article must be renamed, this seems like a good option. -badmachine 23:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
• Is this really any different than the original title of Santorum (neologism)? Also, what is the point of having another move discussion, when the previous RfC was summarily ignored? Gigs (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Rewriting to match the title

I think that all tweaking of the title aside, there is general agreement that this article needs to be about the campaign by Savage and others. Thus, we could begin rewriting the article with that in mind, even while we see if there is a better title than the current one. So my questions are, what needs to change in the article? How does it need to be tweaked to be about a campaign? Are the sources good, well used? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 17:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this is the right approach. I think a good title discussion can be held after a rewrite to match the prevailing consensus that there is no actual neologism here, but rather an attempt to create one. The current title (at this instant) is Campaign for "santorum" neologism - that seems as good a working title as any, and I hope that we don't have too many changes over the next few days as we work to improve the article. My view is that the title ought to mention Mr. Savage's name, but not Mr. Santorum's - but that debate can wait until we see how the article looks in a few days time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I cannot agree; there is no consensus that there is no neologis here. That's a POV on what the essence of this article is, and what "neologism" means; it's not universal even on this talk page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me speak more carefully then. The claim that there is a neologism here does not have consensus, and the title should not push the idea that there is one.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not it is a neologism by some definition, what makes the word and the associated campaign notable is the coverage given to the impact on Rick Santorum. Whatever the title ends up being, I think it should reflect that fact. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It's true that santorum is a neologism to whatever extent. The general consensus is that a separate article about it is not justified under WP rules, but an article about the whole campaign may be. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

while i am in favor of the old title, i suggest the absence of quote marks in the title, e.g. [[Campaign for santorum neologism]] instead of [[Campaign for "santorum" neologism]]. -badmachine 21:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC) [edit: retracted the struck out part] -badmachine 00:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Then the neologism might be "Campaign for santorum" rather than "santorum." BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

good point. -badmachine 00:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is a neologism (an odd one, there are some other suggestions above about what to call it) that was coined as part of a campaign by advocates offended by Santorum's comments. There's no obvious consensus not to have an article, or that the entire thing should be phrased as somebody's advocacy campaign rather than the results of that campaign. Expunging the article of that material could be seen as "deletion by rewrite", an end run around the failed deletion attempts, and posing this as Savage's deal rather than Santorum's is, as people have noted, a POV exercise. If you take this all the way back, we have: (1) a Supreme court case on a gay (and straight, as the court ruled) civil rights issue, followed by (2) remarks by a politician that greatly offended some gay activists, followed by (3) "revenge" (per one source) in the form of a historically novel campaign to tarnish the politician's name, followed by (4) actual tarnishment of the politician's name and (5) a new term ostensibly about body fluids but really about anti-gay attitudes. I'm not necessarily saying we should have a separate article, or focus the entire material, on point #4, but those are all parts of the unfolding series of events - focusing it entirely on #3 seems just as lopsided. Where do you draw the circle or circles around that subject matter? - Wikidemon (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like an argument for merging the content here with Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality. However since that has failed before, I'd like to know if people think this article is properly sourced and written if it's about the campaign generally and its background, and save any merging issue till later. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, re the scope of the article, I think we can have a broader scope than the title would imply so since all those things you mention are background, we could have it under the current title. It's just a matter of whether we're using sources well. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, could be. It might be reasonable to deal with this as part of that controversy (issues #1 and #2 out of 5, above), though I don't know that everyone would support that. I mentioned above that titles cannot always encompass everything that's in the article, they just have to satisfy some concerns (see WP:TITLE)including being recognizable and letting the reader know precisely and concisely what the article is going to be about. Precise and fully encompassing are different things. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to the immutable law of unintended consequences and the ongoing efforts of certain forces trying to bury this article, the latest no-real-consensus name now causes this to pop up as the #2 entry when you search for "santorum campaign". So, there's that. - Dravecky (talk) 06:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, thanks to the immutable law of ITCOULDALWAYSBEWORSE, if I hadn't redirected Santorum campaign from this article to his presidential campaign article, it might have been #1. ;-) But yes, that's a definite problem and based on that, 'campaign' should not be part of the eventual name. Flatterworld (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

Suggested introductory edit...

In 2003 and in response to then United States Senator Rick Santorum's controversial statements regarding homosexuality, sex advice columnist Dan Savage initiated a web-based campaign to establish "santorum" as a vulgar neologism. During an April 2003 interview, Santorum asserted that consenting adults do not have a constitutional right to privacy with respect to sexual acts because, in his view, certain acts—specifically polygamy, adultery, and sodomy—undermine society and the family. Savage, a gay rights activist, subsequently asked the readers of his "Savage Love" column to coin a definition for "santorum," and announced the winner as "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex".

Comments? Improvements? JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• It reads quite well and it is essentially accurate (except one point, see later), but it is little confusing, it doesnt follow clearly how the subject of the article and title of the article are related. (as in example WP:BEGINNING#cite_note-1)
  • The other point is, that Savage launched campaign quite more broadly or at least was taken further by others not just on the internet, or even related to one web page. (and that is what the formulation implicates). The vulgar neologism got in to printed books, some (slang, fringe, urban) dictionaries, as it seemss from sources mentioned by someone above and in the text (What I say is that the the campaign is predominantly web based, but not entirelly web based).

Also to bring statement of Rick Santorum on the very begging gives pretty much highlight to him in the introduction instead of the campaign or Savage. He belongs there, but somehow it doesnt feel right for me, that he in the very begining of the article about that event.Reo ⁺ 13:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• This is greatly improved, thank you! BE——Critical_{__Talk} 14:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

@Reo On

What I say is that the the campaign is predominantly web based, but not entirelly web based.

Reo, "web-based" (which might be better than "website-based"...I'll amend it) does not imply that the campaign wasn't subsequently noted in other media venues (eg. print, news, talk radio, TV commentary etc etc) only that its genesis was Savage's "online" activism which, IMHO, prior introductory edits already appeared to be addressing (I was attempting to copy-edit, not alter). Perhaps other editors can comment on whether the introductory warrants expansion as to the relative breadth or success of the campaign itself.

You missunderstood me here or maybe I lacked in description,.. by not being just web-based I did not mind the reactions in media venues, those are just reactive and they are not part of 'campaign', what I meant is that 1) the campaign itself started in printed media, 2) continued by starting new web-site but 3)many activists followed it by diversity of means, not just in internet as part of the campaign to establish it (just those silly books as mentioned before incorporating the term in the silliest vulgar way and so.Reo ⁺ 08:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

He (Rick Santorum) belongs there, but somehow it doesnt feel right for me, that he in the very begining of the article about that event.

Reo, the phrases can certainly be re-ordered (and they were in one of my earlier edits) but I think the current text reads significantly better. Also, your concern about the sequence of "name" appearances in what is, after all, the first sentence of the article strikes me as being of little consequence. Perhaps others might comment? JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Re having Rick Santorum in the first sentence, ask yourself what you'd do if you didn't have any outside concerns influencing your decisions. Of course Santorum and Savage are the main players, you mention them right away. Everyone here should read this. It would clear up a lot of objections. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 16:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• I don't agree with "vulgar". Savage didn't use the vulgar/obscene phrases "shit" and "buttfucking"; he used the more clinical terms "fecal matter" and "anal sex". How much less vulgar could you be and still describe this phenomenon? Calling it a "sexual" or "sex-related" neologism will be quite enough to establish that it will be considered vulgar by the hyperprudes, without incorrectly asserting that it's undeniably vulgar. JamesMLane t c 17:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Changed it. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Changed it back per your edit summary on sourcing. I'm rather confident there are more but I would think even proponents should be willing to concede the "vulgarity" of the term. Perhaps not.

Be that as it may, can we please come to some consensus on this before further editing?JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

A phenomenon implies significance. There's no significance to this 'event', it's severely restricted and a non-event. Which is part of what makes the appellation 'neologism' entirely problematic. Dreadstar ☥ 19:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Not at all; a phenomenon is "A thing which appears, or which is perceived or observed"; an observable. This can be observed in sources independent of Savage; the article documents that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, cherry-pick from the online definitions you read, that's sure to impress the scholars who truly understand the etymology, history and usage of a word. By your narrow definition, everything is a phenomenon - which is quite contrary to the purpose of the word. In your selective case, the mundane becomes a phenomenon. Dreadstar ☥ 20:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. I should have realized that you are applying the logic of Humpty Dumpty, in which words mean what you want them to mean, the OED is some "on-line dictionary" or other, and φαίνω "seem, see" has nothing to do with the meaning of phenomenon. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice sarcastic strawman; but I see you get my meaning. Dreadstar ☥ 21:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Sir, I do not. You have now redefined both "phenomenon" and "neologism" to suit your turn. Enough, Sir; this is "such learning as a college will easily" deride. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

LOL! Your comment provoked quite a few laughs amongst my literary collegues, not a one at my expense...thank you very much.  :) Dreadstar ☥ 21:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

What about neologism is an issue here?

"A neologism (/niːˈɒlədʒɪzəm/; from the Greek νέο-, néo-, "new", and λόγος, lógos, "speech", "utterance") is 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, publication, period, or event."

Even the fully equivalent neolexia is a match. The Economist recognizes it. A 140-page scholarly thesis on neologism recognizes it. Roll Call recognizes it:

"Try it for yourself: Enter 'Rick Santorum' into Google. In a fraction of a second you’ll have hundreds of thousands of results. But two of the top four cite a graphic definition for a sexual neologism. In this case, the neologism is a reference to anal sex."

Where is the problem? Gacurr (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Gaccur you are here for whole - full time, you already saw all the arguments about neologism, why do you come to bring the same argument over and over even with similar structure of your sentence and comment. Could you please answer the arguments in /Archive_4#WP:NEO part first, debunk them? Just very short reminder - wp:Neo wp:BLP1E, what you do think, how do they fit in? This "neologism" choice you still promote is one big reverse wp:COATRACK. Reverse, because normally people try to hang wrong content on article with notability given. People fight over what will be connected to something given by title. This one is reverse COATRACK, where the content already provided is somehow notable, but it seems like if the folk tries to hang the "best" title for it. Different titles would give different results for SEO, so it does matter this time.

Gaccur I do not say You do it for this purpose, but piking neologism to the title does not give any sense, it pretends notability to the words, which does not exist. You saw the questions already. Where are the secondary sources to show, that the neologism has such an big usage, that it in it's own right became notable for encyclopedia? Show them and fit them with wp:Neo wp:BLP1E. Repeating again and again definition of neologism somehow tends me to repeat wp:Neo again and again. I hope I adressed your question where might be the problem. --Reo ⁺ 20:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a problem with the copy/paste crowd of online-only content, "in the process of entering common use" isn't well understood. Adding on the misunderstanding of Wikpedia policies such as WP:N, WP:V and WP:OR, we have a huge article with 99% of it's content completely unrelated to any possible neologism that exists. Speaks volumes about WP:BIAS, WP:COMPETENCE, WP:UNDUE and WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. Dreadstar ☥ 21:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• I am asking what the problem with neologism is, in response to another editor above saying that calling santorum a neologism is problematic. I am not arguing here for it to be the disambiguation term in the title. Is the entirety of the problem that some editors cannot see that santorum is notable, and thus, somehow, we cannot call it a neologism (which it is)? I do not see a BLP issue here. NEO concerns having an article, not calling a word a neologism. Gacurr (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

So the claim here is that Savage's own description of the point of his contest for the word is irrelevant? What next - he actually intended it as a way to honor his favorite Congressman? (end snark) It's fairly clear (to most of us) that Savage wanted the word to be a 'vulgarism'. That doesn't mean one can't write a non-vulgar definition for it. I think we're losing the plot, here. Flatterworld (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

How about saying directly what the campaign was trying to establish, instead of worrying about whether it is vulgar, a neologism, defamatory, or anything else? ...a campaign to establish the phrase, "a frothy mix of (etc)" as a new definition for the term 'santorum'. The specific definition is very important for the lede, and can't easily be replaced by descriptions, summaries, euphemisms, etc. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Because leading off with "a frothy mix of (etc)" is unencylopedic? Yeah, I think that's it. Unencyclopedic and unnecessary. Describe it later, add images if you must. Surely there's a sound file?  :) Dreadstar ☥ 00:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Quite the opposite, it's the heart of the matter. Saying exactly what we're talking about is encyclopedic. Trying to figure out just what part of a 12-word phrase we want to summarize with a 2-word euphemism because the phrase is offensive is unencyclopedic. "Vulgar" sounds like we're prudish, judgmental, and afraid to say it. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not the heart of the matter at all, to claim the vulgar (sourced!) phrasing is the heart of the issue is either a sign you don't really understand the nature of this issue or it's a disengenous attempt to derail this into something it's clearly not. Either way, bad news, and totally against WP:POLICY. Dreadstar ☥ 04:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to accuse me of not understanding or being disingenuous, the discussion is over and you haven't convinced me. Consensus being necessary here, you've just lost the argument. Sorry.Striking the WP:BLABLABLA violation as I missed the good natured humor - Wikidemon (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC) - Wikidemon (talk) 06:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

In noting your comments here, I didn't expect to convince you. I was merely making an observation; facts are facts. Dreadstar ☥ 06:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe the point here is to have such an adjective which points out, that the new definition is humiliating (call it vulgar, unflattering, defamatory ... each has different flavor to it) rather then being connected to sex. That it is being connected to sex is true, but not so important. Agree with Flatterworld, Savage wanted it, to be pretty 'unflattering' as association. This is right to point in the lead section out somehow.

Vulgar neologism? Humiliating? demeaning? degrading?

Vulgar ? Humiliating? demeaning? degrading asociation? --Reo ⁺ 20:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Find a source on what Savage wanted that has any chance of being based on evidence, and see what it says. We've had enough speculation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

While "sexual" is obvious and doesn't need a source, I couldn't find any proper sources for "vulgar." The one quoted doesn't seem to directly refer to Savage's definition, though I can't load the full text. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

While "sexual" is obvious and doesn't need a source, I couldn't find any proper sources for "vulgar."

Given the rather gruesome specifics of the "definition", "vulgar" strikes me as being more obvious and less in need of sourcing than "sexual". Be that as it may, there's no lack of references (is Santorum's own characterization non-RS?) to attributions of "vulgar" or "vulgarity" in a simple Google search though many (if not most or all) might be WP:RS problematic. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Vulgar isn't part of the definition given by Savage, sex is. The rest I agree with, and I thought Santorum's statement was not RS. But I don't really care about this lol. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Here are all of Savage's columns referencing 'santorum'. The first four include: "Minor quibbles aside, SARS, I love your suggestion. There's no better way to memorialize the Santorum scandal than by attaching his name to a sex act that would make his big, white teeth fall out of his big, empty head. And don't doubt for a moment that Savage Love readers have the power to do just that." Later, the nominations. And the next month: "Hey, everybody: We have a winner. Savage Love readers, by a wide margin, want Sen. Rick Santorum's name to stand for... THAT FROTHY MIXTURE OF LUBE AND FECAL MATTER THAT IS SOMETIMES THE BYPRODUCT OF ANAL SEX! It was a landslide for that frothy mixture; the runner-up, farting in the face of someone who's rimming you, came in a distant second. So congratulations to WUTSAP, who nominated that frothy mixture, and a big thank you to the thousands who voted." So...how about "as a neologism intended to shock and embarrass the politician as much as possible"? That was the point of the contest, was it not? And if you want something about the SEO effort, there's: "When you first linked Rick Santorum's name to [description of shitfoam deleted], I thought it would never stick. I was wrong. If you put "Santorum" into Google, the first three hits are to his Senate website, the next two are CNN, and the two after that are about that frothy mix. You might want to challenge all the computer geeks out there to make your santorum, not Senator Santorum's official website, the first thing that comes up on Google. (signed) Santorum on My Mind (reply) Good idea, SOMM. I hereby challenge computer geeks to move my definition of santorum to the top slot on Google." Links: 1, 2, 3, 4 [User:Flatterworld|Flatterworld]] (talk) 01:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Something like that may work, minus the "as much as possible". Shock" seems a little off, did Savage truly intend to surprise Santorum and even if so is that as significant as the effect of embarrassing and castigating him? A person in the public realm who announces they intend to X is not necessarily a reliable source for saying that is their purpose. "Anyway I think that getting to a sourced statement of the purpose of the campaign may be a good stand in, if for some reason people don't want to say specifically what the definition was. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking of 'shock' in the sense of 'surprise', as much as 'appall'. I don't really care about the specific word, we just want to be clear Savage didn't pick a definition at random (off the top of his head, so to speak), but ran a reader contest to come up with the word Santorum would least want to be associated with, perhaps? Flatterworld (talk) 01:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems clear the online campaign was "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass". It'll be interesting to see which words we choose. I think it's more instructive to say that's what the purpose was -- something we can source authoritatively -- than to describe how offensive it is, which is a matter of opinion and judgment. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Really? That's not what you said above, that "it's more instructive to say that's what the purpose was"; you clearly stated that the heart of the matter was the vulgar definition, frothy mix and all that. At least get your own story straight. Dreadstar ☥ 04:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The part you have right is that I'm approving of a suggestion other than the one I made above. The subject of the article is that Savage launched a campaign to establish "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex" as a coined definition for "santorum", out of an objection to Santorum's statements. Failing that, it is correct and informative to instead say that Savage launched a campaign to define Santorum's name "as a [sexual] neologism intended to [shock and] embarrass the politician as much as possible". Either of these describes what happened and avoids opinion, embellishment, or euphemism. Posing the subject of the article as Savage's campaign to create a vulgar neologism is not quite correct, misses the point, and promotes an opinion about the vulgarity of the term as fact. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the concept of saying one thing stongly and decisively, then changing it to another equally strong and decisive statement. Plus this gives the perfect opportunity to repeat that infamous mantra "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex", all together now... Dreadstar ☥ 06:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

That's nonresponsive. Listening to and perhaps being won over by alternate proposals like Flatterworld's is what article talk page consensus discussions are all about. You admit above that you're not discussing the matter with me but merely making "observations" in the form of verbal jabs, which I would not care to decipher. You can count my standing opposition to using "vulgar" or other subjective opinions to identify the subject. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the last was a feeble attempt to inject some humor into the thread. Fell flat. Apologies. Didn't mean to impugn your intelligence or integrity with my earlier comments. Frustrating venue, this one. Dreadstar ☥ 15:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. Sorry to be jumpy. Yes, there is surely humor to be found in adults quibbling over whether [would rather not repeat WP:YUCK violation] is "vulgar" or not. :) - Wikidemon (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Vulgar: 1. Lacking sophistication or good taste; unrefined: "the vulgar trappings of wealth". 2. Making explicit and offensive reference to sex or bodily functions; coarse and rude: "a vulgar joke" I have no particular problem with using the word 'vulgar', but Wikidemon does. Fortunately, there are many other words and phrases in the English language. I would say the important points are what Savage's intention was (including ridiculing the politician himself rather than his issue positions), when it started, in reaction to what (and we need some clarity on whether Santorum was stating what the legal system WAS and/or his belief it should continue in that line), his method (read contest), his encouragement of his readers to make it the first result on Google (as opposed to some off-the-cuff 'online campaign'), and that it's an ongoing, active campaign (eight years is a long time for such a campaign). Flatterworld (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I was thinking of the first definition above, which you've got to admit expresses an opinion. The second is a verifiable factual assertion, and clearly true in this case. I'd argue that because "vulgar" can be interpreted either way, as an expression of dislike or as a statement that something is scatological, makes it imprecise here. Plus it is at least slightly archaic. It's hard to imagine anybody younger than 40 using that word with a straight face in my part of the world. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I've changed "vulgar" to "sex-related". We quote Santorum's response, calling it a vulgarity, so we're reporting that notable opinion without adopting it as fact. We also quote the opinion of a Christian writer who calls it "disgusting". The term "sex-related" will instantly give the reader a general idea of the term's subject area. JakeInJoisey says that the accuracy of "vulgar" strikes him as obvious, presumably from the text of the "frothy mixture" definition itself. If so, because we quote that definition, the readers to whom it is obvious will know it without any spoonfeeding from us. JamesMLane t c 00:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

How did the AP interview BEGIN?

This is really more of a question regarding Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality, but a lot more people read this talk page, and it might affect how the lead here unfolds. A while back someone had it as being an interview about Catholic Church scandals, but apparently that too was just another question brought up incidentally.

Does anyone know how exactly did the interview of Santorum by the AP started? We have a reliable source, one of hundreds of copies, which gives "an unedited excerpt" of the interview. [47] But what were the circumstances that brought Santorum to be interviewed by the AP that particular day? What was the first question or issue that headlined the discussion? Wnt (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, here's the edited section, but I still can't find the full thing http://web.archive.org/web/20030602131319/http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/04/22/national1737EDT0668.DTL

Note, the reporter was the first to bring up the Catholic Church scandal, and the first to bring up homosexuality. Rather than focusing on the argument that Santorum was making, which is that before 2003, the US believed in a stronger right to regulate private behavior, later news pundits focused just on the homosexual part of the comments. After Lawrence v. Texas, the Court said the State no longer had the right to regulate private behavior unless there could be a specific harm shown to the individual. Like protecting children from incest, for example. Santorum's argument was that once the state lost this right, people would feel that any behavior in private would be acceptable, whereas before, the State could look at certain behaviors and attempt to regulate them.

Dan Savage's reply to all this was to say 'OK, you think our behavior is disgusting and by extension think we are disgusting. So let's show you something disgusting to remind you of how you make us feel when you say that.' And so the battle ensued. -- Avanu (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

State of the article

I just tried to copy edit the article to bring some structure to it so it can be read, and I couldn't do it. POV aside, it's a very poor article that really needs to be drastically reduced in size. Does anyone mind if I go in and do that? I'm asking first because I don't want to spend the time only for someone to revert.

It's currently 4,458 words, so I'd be aiming to reduce it to around 2,000–2,500. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone has got to do something. I looked at it and felt the same way. What if you just do small changes on each edit with a summary if controversial, so that each edit is easy to evaluate on its own? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I tried to do that, BE. I imposed a new structure on it so it was easier to see what belonged where. Then I tried making a small start by moving things into the new sections. But it just doesn't work. It's too much of a stream of consciousness, so I would basically have to start from scratch. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, well somebody has to do something... I don't know what to tell you about not wanting waste your time. You do a good job on articles like on Veganism. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome of all of this, right now we have an article in main space which is not in anyway, reader friendly, so I think it would be excellent if you want to tackle the article. I don't agree with the title or what it means or describes so my only concern is that the title will, or maybe has to, influence the article. The more immediate problem though, is a poorly written article, so concerns aside, I'd support your rewrite. And thanks for taking it on.(olive (talk) 04:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC))

SV in da house! Seriously, you're a great author & editor so there's a 100% chance it will be a better article after your efforts. You're more experienced than me at this, but I've found that when doing a major rewrite of controversial / heavily edited articles it's best to do it in 2 stages: (1) re-arrange everything into a more appropriate structure, without making any substantive changes. See if that sticks, then (2) go through one section at a time at a reasonable clip. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

WD, I tried first re-arranging, but the material is so mixed up, I couldn't do it. It would be easier and faster to rearrange and do some drastic cuts at the same time. Otherwise I'm spending time re-arranging material that's unreadable. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 04:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Please go ahead, every confidence that it will be a better article after you're done with it. --JN466 04:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll give it a shot. I'll try it on a subpage, because it may get worse before it gets better. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 04:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

SV, is there a reason you keep adding the Catholic Church sex abuse cases stuff to the intro summary? The detail does not seem at all important to the summary. It is not even discussed in the article. The statements that led to the coining of the sexual neologism were not about the Catholic Church abuse. It reads more like a red herring for anyone trying to find out about the santorum neologism campaign. Gacurr (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

He didn't suddenly start offering his views about sex for no reason. It's important to offer some context to explain how and why the comments were made in the first place. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 05:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

For version control, should we defer any major changes or decisions pending SV's proposal? - Wikidemon (talk) 06:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, given that you want this article not to exist at all, it's puzzling to see you imagining that you would create a version of the article that would be acceptable to the large numbers of editors here who are opposed to its deletion (either partial or total). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd be aiming to reduce it to around 2,000–2,500. Chucking out the entire section on politics would be a start. Not one word of it is based on anything other than the chucking of runes and the examining entrails. Besides it is one huge blob of recentism from start to finish. John lilburne (talk) 06:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I really don't understand this focus on word count. The point is to cover everything important, as succinctly and clearly as possible. I would not presume to claim I knew how many words that would take, and I don't see it as a proper goal or mission here. It's putting the cart before the horse. (And removing the 'political' section makes no sense at all, as it was the major point of Savage's campaign.) Flatterworld (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The 'political section' is almost entirely 'ufology', there is not one quote or reference in the section that has any basis in fact, other then that others have speculated about whether it will/has/had any effect on anything. The section might more accurately be titled as "Chatter by chatters 'that something might have an effect, or might not' whatever". Meanwhile the world moves on as if nothing has happened. John lilburne (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - that part of the article meanders and is hard to read. That's pretty normal, as over time articles build up an accretion of random stuff that people have to say about a subject. Ideally we would cut this down to verified statements of fact by third party neutral sources, analyzing in an authoritative way what the political and other implications are, not participants or pundits chattering. Failing that, we could choose a few representative and/or noteworthy examples about what relevant people have to say. The background can also be cut down to just give the basics and refer people to the "controversy article", unless and until we merge the two. "Recognition and usage" also seems too long by half. We could cut down on scattershot isolated examples of usage, as well as "point-counterpoint" claims that seem to be debating whether it has or has not gained traction. Does that debate really matter for our purposes? It's gained a little traction and that's it. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Notability issue and AfD's as affecting article content

We obviously aren't writing on a clean slate here. (This may be the dirtiest slate in Wikipedia at the moment.) There've been something like half a dozen attempts to delete this article. Two important facts are: (1) some Wikipedians' desire to expunge this article from Wikipedia is intense, and (2) other cases have established that "Closed as keep" means "Closed as keep for now, but deletion advocates can come back and try again and hope for a different set of responding editors or a different closing admin." The conclusion: It's a virtual certainty that, regardless of what happens now, there will be another AfD before long, and another after that if the next one also fails.

This circumstance is relevant to any rewrite of the article. A rewrite must not eliminate any information that tends to support the notability of the subject. The need to edit with an eye to the future AFD's is the price we pay for not having some kind of three-strikes-and-you're-out rule on deletion attempts. I hope we can all agree that it would be unfair to remove information from the article, in the name of shortening it, and then to delete the article because of the absence of that information. JamesMLane t c 06:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts on renaming

I waited 10+ days for the RFC to mature before renaming. Within 24 hours SarekofVulcan did a second rename based upon counting a handful of votes. I don't think that was a good idea because it invites turning this article title into a game of ping pong. What's to stop another admin from coming in 24 hours later and renaming again, and so on. It would be a good idea to wait at least 7 days for discussion to mature before doing any more renames. It probably would be a good idea for Sarek to reverse the page move in order to minimize controversy and prevent further premature moves.

I've been slow to respond because I was camping at Coolidge State Park, where there is no Internet whatsoever. Jehochman ^Talk 12:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question, nothing at all -- in fact, I sort of expected it. As long as each admin's choice reflects the developing consensus, I don't see a problem with multiple renames during the course of the discussion. I agree that the consensus that has formed is that the article should be about the googlebomb/campaign/whatever you want to call it, so any rewrites due to changing titles should be minor at this point. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that that is consensus; the POV that this "really is" the Google bombing (whereas "campaign" includes the distribution of a meme, for example) is aggrieved and has been heard from often and loudly. But I support the straw poll proposal some sections below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

Please rename this to anything with those god-awful quotation marks. Reywas92^Talk 13:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to burry your comment, so I rather indent a lot. I am troubled, that after the RfC was closed, people stoped to have any interest in the renaming debate. Only when the move is going, or is threatening to happen, people swarm back and have sometimes even quite interesting observations. But those observation should be somehow centralised and juxtaposed and we need some organized effort to move forward. Should we Call some RfC for renaming? RM? Or we need just to highlight the discussion above? Not just votes, comment on different title options are needed. If not, then just wp:BRDs would be all we could expect here to happen. Reo ⁺ 13:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

We had a good RFC going on, then Sarek, who is now involved in the issue[48][49], came along and reversed my administrative action. There really should be a new RFC, or RM discussion, and we should reset the title to the result of the prior RFC (like it or not). Advertising the discussion is very important. We need more input, not just the same editors restating their opinions more and more loudly. We also need admins to respect each other's actions, per WP:WHEEL, and not impose personal views, per WP:UNINVOLVED.

Key points to consider:

• Should Savage's name be included in the title?
• Is this a Google bomb or merely a search engine optimization problem for Santorum?
• Is "Santorum" capitalized, quoted, possessive?

For the moment, editors should discuss what the best title would be, and except for Sarek reversing the page move, I would request that no further page moves be made until there has been substantial discussion. It is not at all helpful to edit war or wheel war over the title. Jehochman ^Talk 14:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The -1 name couldn't remain for many reasons. The current name is 'good enough' that it doesn't require an immediate replacement until we reach an actual consensus (the -1 name was NOT based on consensus). As we continue to work on the lede, imo it will become clear what th3e best article name might be. Flatterworld (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't reverse the page move, I modified it based on a talkpage discussion, and not to my preferred title. But, to answer your questions:

• Savage's name should probably be included, but it's not a deal-breaker.
• google bomb (lowercased per New Oxford American Dictionary (or at least, according to the ref in the GB article))
• Should be lowercased unless part of "Spreading Santorum". Should probably be quoted, except part of SS. Shouldn't be possessive, unless we're referring to the Senator rather than the object of Savage's campaign.

One other question I'd like to toss into the mix -- are we agreed that the article should be about the campaign/google bomb/whatever, rather than the term itself? I would say that the discussion has pretty well established that, with a few dissenters, but I might have misread that.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought wheel warring was edit warring by admins. In this case, there was no wheel war when defined that way, there was a further action. I'm not really defending Sarek, and it might be nice if he reverted just to bow to community pressure, but I'm not sure why there is so much fuss. I would also note that the current name is closer to actual community consensus than the previous. I would say that both renames were steps in the right direction. And Sarek, you read it correctly "the article should be about the campaign/google bomb/whatever." BE——Critical_{__Talk} 16:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and one shock trooper admin getting on another shock trooper admin's case seems wrong. You both took strong controversial actions which both shoved the discussion along in the general directions it should go. Jehochman got away with it, Sarek didn't, but you both acted without full consensus. Certainly Jehochman acted with less consensus. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 16:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with BeCritical. In all his points.

Jehochman You really did good BOLD step (IMO). To rename the article means, your reading of the consensus was (IMO) right (though bold), but the other part is, how did you come to chose just That title, you did for it? But your closure was not chalenged, becouse the decission... was interim right? (not big deal) You can not much argue with SOV, who of you was too bold here. His move felt just like logical follow up of your own move (interim name based on interim consensus, not big deal either);(Both moves could had been argued on the similar grounds, that some steps should be preceding them). Both moves were well taken by comunity in the end - as long as they are considered interim. So let's move and let's find the final one. Either way those two names are not much different from each other - in their core meaning - so not big deal. I hope that you will help to comment and chose the proper name too ;). Reo ⁺ 16:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree overall with what Jehochman did, as I said earlier in this talk. And I'm uncomfortable with what Sarek did, as I've tried (to little effect) to explain at his talk. (Maybe Sarek's Google problem? Kidding!) But at this point, I think Sarek has waited it out long enough that it has become moot where the "interim" started or ended. We are where we are, so dropping that stick and discussing what the best title would be is the best way to go forward. I don't have a strong opinion about what would be the best title, and I think it's possible to over-think it. But my preferences would be for something that focuses on "campaign" rather than on "neologism". --Tryptofish (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Jehochman was the closing admin on an RfC. Such admins are determining consensus, not acting because of a consensus. They should generally be uninvolved which Jehochman was. Sarek overturned a closing admin's action and did it through a protection and with out discussing it with the admin whose action he'd overturned. That seems to fit the definition of a wheel war.

Sarek denied a process with his move, and whether one likes the move or not, this is a highly contentious situation. Process helps keep things tidy when there's a mess, and this is contentious mess. That's the issue here. We have to respect collaborative processes on a collaborative project or collaboration falls apart.(olive (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC))

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Rename_through_protection. While I don't agree with Sarek's move, I agree with the three points he's made above: (1) Savage's name should ideally be in the title, but it may be hard to manage without making it sound cumbersome (2) it's a google bomb (per RS descriptions, and the fact that Savage canvassed people to link to it) (3) upper case for the personal name or the website name "Spreading Santorum", lower case if it's something like "Dan Savage google bomb for santorum".

All said, the most straightforward title is Santorum (google bomb). That's its notability now. --JN466 17:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

@jayen: I wonder if Google bomb is universal enough. While those who use internet a lot might be aware of it, some who come to Wikjpedia will not have that kind of experience and the word may be unknown to them. The title of an article should be as accessible as possible in meaning. Just a thought.(olive (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC))

@olive: It is also not accurate. Gacurr (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Sarek's move was another legitimate possible outcome of the RFC, but it was as step on a slippery slope. I definitely don't want another admin to come in and move the article yet again, worst of all back to the original title, or to another charged POV title. We can leave the title as is for now. Jehochman ^Talk 19:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yet another SEO 'trick'

There are fifty-one (51) occurrences of 'Rick Santorum', as opposed to 'Santorum'. (An earlier high was 56.) That is doubtlessly affecting this articles 'relevance' rank for those googling for 'Rick Santorum'. I don't believe in coincidence. I am sick and tired of this ridiculous gameplaying. As Dravecky pointed out above, googling for 'Santorum campaign' now produces this article as the second search result. (And if I hadn't redirected Santorum campaign to his presidential campaign article, it might have been #1.) I am reminded of Harry Evans's famous directive to journalists, as to the proper frame of mind to take when talking to politicians: "Who is this lying bastard, and what's he lying to me about this time?" CClearly not limited to journalists. I'm certainly becoming increasingly skeptical, as opposed to Assuming Good Faith. Just because Savage exhorted his readers to do whatever they could do to make his word the #1 SERP for Google doesn't mean anyone here has some 'right' or 'excuse' to misuse Wikipedia. I've worked on a lot of political articles, and the first name appeared in the lede. After that, only the last name was used. That's one of the Guidelines. And somehow this article just happens to have 51? Really? Flatterworld (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Good acumen. Should be trimmed out. The other part is, so as much as we talk about it, so much we create different talk pages, full of links here. The new ANI now - also. Even before, I thought (but I didn't point it out), that we should find some better description than 'campaign'. Campaign as a word, was good for start here, becouse people realized, what the subject of article is all about. But I note that for newcommers it is not that clear from the 'campaign' word at all (still protesting, that the word is not neologism and so).

This one here is negative campaign, not just any campaign. There shoud be some loose synonymum for it or description, we didn't hit so far. Reo ⁺ 18:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Even before, I thought...that we should find some better description...we didn't hit so far.

I believe Jimbo had it early on..."attack". JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

More than half the occurrences are in the title of the articles used as sources (and we have to have sources for BLP, among other reasons). The section where Rick Santorum's name appears the most times is his response. Gacurr (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

90% of those citations are cruft and OR. So, that's easily solved. Have we met before Gacurr? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with the change, but I will suggest a possible good-faith explanation for the phenomenon: Possibly someone wanted to make sure that there was no confusion as to whether "Rick Santorum" or "santorum" was being referred to. I wouldn't do this throughout the article, and I know it isn't exactly policy, but I can see it being a good-faith attempt to disambiguate. It is possible that there may be one or more places where using Rick Santorum's first name would avoid confusion on the part of the reader; if it's not possible to rewrite such a hypothetical sentence to avoid confusion, we shouldn't be shy about using Santorum's first name... but not excessively. (In other words, apply Hanlon's razor to the phenomenon.) // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

If you believe that, I suggest you run a 'find' through the article before repeating your 'possibility'. If you still believe that to be the case...I have a bridge you might be interested in buying. ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not it is done so people know that Rick Santorum is not santorum, the number of occurrences in an article, in which a necessary element is the politician's name, is not unexpected. Running a 'find' through the article, the politician's name appears in the body 18 times. In the response section, a picture caption increases the number by one. The title of that section, Response by..., increases the number by one again. The table of contents, duplicating the section title, increases it once more. So 21 times. This is a far cry from the 51 complained about. Gacurr (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's a list of synonyms. Might I suggest crusade? It's both appropriate and unlikely to be confused with any political campaigns. Or, we can return to attack, cyberattack, cyberbullying, et al. Flatterworld (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

All of the alternatives you suggest have value judgements associated with them, and are thus non-neutral. Campaign is both the correct word to describe the phenomenon, as well as the most neutral. Our job is to write the article, not worry about Mr. Santorum's political prospects or Google ranking. It is true that we need to make sure that the article is not written in an attempt to negatively impact Mr. Santorum. Similarly, it must not be written to aid him. We have no responsibility for Mr. Santorum's visibility on Google or any other search engine. We simply have a responsibility to uphold our core values.

Our policy concerning given names is overridden by our policy of quoting people accurately. When we use a verbatim quotation, such as the one from The New York Times about "President Bush, Senator Clinton and Senator Rick Santorum", we use the exact quotation, even if the writer didn't follow the Wikipedia MoS. As for your speculations about the alleged mproper motives of some editor(s), my experience is that it's fairly common for edits to bio articles to include superfluous titles or first names. I've removed a handful of improper uses of "Rick". (I agree with Gacurr about leaving titles alone, also. I agree with Macwhiz that, in this unique circumstance, there can be some need to disambiguate, but if the context is commenting or making a donation, I have confidence that our readers will realize that it's the former Senator rather than the frothy mixture.) JamesMLane t c 00:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: Well, Flatterworld, I thought there was some validity to your point, so I corrected the errors. Dreadstar then reverted me, restoring those instances of "Rick" with which you'd rightly taken issue, and giving this ES: "yeah, let's make it every santorum, eh?" I have no idea what this means or why he reverted. Rather than subject this article to yet another edit war, I'll wait for other editors to comment on whether Dreadstar's revert was correct. JamesMLane t c 05:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

New source

Editors may be interested to read "Wikipedia awash in 'frothy by-product' of US sexual politics". You knew this would happen sooner or later. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

They got the title wrong: "Wikipedia a whitewash in 'frothy by-product' of US sexual politics". Plus that article mentions Rick Santorum by name 10 times. So it is clearly SEO. Gacurr (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Aw.... Flatterworld (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Great article, and strangely accurate. Fire up the echo chamber!!! Actually, although I'd avoid relying too much on it for WP:NAVEL reasons, I do like some of the language the author uses in the background section when describing what the campaign is all about. For example, the term is "equating the Senator's name with..." Equating is a good word. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I just came back to post the link, and here it was. I especially enjoyed the part about core contributors, as in has sparked weeks of controversy among the core contributors to Wikipedia. I assume we're all included in that group? In which case I demand my official tshirt.... ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Core contributors? Somebody needs to alert Delta, Mathsci, and some of the others that they're missing out. Wikidemon (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, we'll need to create another neologism article: Wikibombing. --JN466 20:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

There's some feedback there, which I'll paste just because It's what I've said before:

Seth Finkelstein argues that despite his own personal views, such articles should be squashed. "I should disclaim that I find Rick Santorum's political positions to be reprehensible, and I sympathize with the feelings behind the actions against him. But, in reply to the obvious more-activist-than-thou point of how one can be concerned over these Google and Wikipedia reactions, rather what prompts them from Santorum's stances, there's something very worrying going on here," he wrote on his personal blog. "Today it's Rick Santorum ... tomorrow, who knows? And I suspect that right-wingers are going to eventually be able to play that game far better than left-wingers."

But right wingers already played the game, with topics ranging from the Swift Boat Veterans to Bill Ayers. This is just the way Wikipedia works. It's a flaw of the medium. The line between participant and documentarian is inherently blurred.

In other words, if we're going to have an encyclopedia, and cover whatever has RS sources, we will just have to accept the realworld consequences, which at times will mean that WP is part of the spread of various types of information. In the absence of any policy guidance to show us how to take account of such outside influence, it's best to ignore our effects on the world. On the other hand, discussing how and when we could take realworld effects into account would be an interesting debate, and I think several editors, including Jimbo, have been subtly urging us to have that discussion. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

T shirt!! [50]

Picture's excellent, but I would want the caption to echo what Mike Royko wrote to (each and every one of) his assistants when he retired: "You were the best. Don't tell the others." So..."I am a core contributor at Wikipedia. Don't tell the others." Best worn in the hundreds at Wikniks. ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently we're "fiddlers". All we need now is an awards ceremony, with gilded replicas. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's more like that three-definition thing: "I am a core contributor, you are a well-intentioned wannabe, they are fiddlers. ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Gilded replica? No thanks. I might settle for something at Wikipedia:Service awards. One could choose from "core contributor to santorum", "santorum fiddler", "Wikipedia Google-Bomb Squad", "Wikibomb Squad", or "I Savagely fought the Santorum wars, survived innumerable Google bombs, and lived to tell the story. Which you don't want to hear. Really." Flatterworld (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

lol, "santorum fiddler." Should be "I'm the core contributor to Wikipedia, don't tell the others." BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:ILOVEIT!!!. Could you put that up on CafePress so I can buy one? - Wikidemon (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Lol you serious? I only found it searching for... um... wikipedia core user on google. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Lol, finally something what we all here have in common :)). I feel connected to you all in WikiBrotherhood :-D, I feel somehow rewarded ;) dear fellow wikifiddlers :). --Reo ⁺ 01:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you know why Wikipedia doesn't have a Wikifiddler article? It's because it is a neologism that is not widely used. Of course, this AfD was in 2005 and it may well be mentioned in more sources by now, perhaps even in the introduction to a dictionary.... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:Joint BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for new article

Wikibombing refers to the practice of creating Wikipedia articles, and internal linking within Wikipedia, for purposes of maximizing the Google page rank of the Wikipedia article, and thereby elevating the prominence of a subject. The term first gained public attention in connection with the [[Campaign for "santorum" neologism]], an attempt by supporters of [[Dan Savage]] to equate [[Rick Santorum]]'s surname with the phrase, "a frothy".... etc. What do you think? We could add this to a few templates... - Wikidemon (talk) 07:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it might be worth writing an essay about it. This would make a good case study. --JN466 13:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate Wikidemon's joke, but I agree with Jayen466 that some sort of essay is probably needed, with the point being to provide a list of things to watch out for in controversial Wikipedia articles. btw - it's not just unusual ranking in the SERPs, it's also the 'snippet' which is used. Which is why the lede is important. As Dan Savage's "SEO volunteers" are well aware. Same for the article name, as that's part of the url. I'm not suggesting we do an "anti-SEO" campaign for such articles, just that we be aware of how all this works. Flatterworld (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Note on bolding

By the way, in the hope that it will make the title struggle less heated: it is not necessary (in fact, it is discouraged) to bold a descriptive title in the first sentence. The convention to bold names applies strictly to alternate names for the subject, which readers may wish to find quickly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks... didn't know that, it's so much the convention to bold. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for next steps in renaming

So many names have been suggested that I think a preliminary step or two is necessary to reach a consensus. I think we should start with a straw poll to see if there is consensus on what the title should primarily refer to. Is the article primarily about the campaign/attempt/googlebombing/SEO/political attack, or is it about the word/neologism/coinage/slang term?

If we can get to consensus on that we can use that to strip out some of the options and try another step. For example, if we get consensus that the former is the right topic, then we could narrow it down: is it primarily a political act, for which SEO is a technique but not the topic itself? Or is the article fundamentally about this particular act of Googlebombing/SEO? If on the other hand the article is agreed to be about the word, we could ask next whether it is about the act of coining the word or about the word itself. That way we might be able to get down to just a few possible names; the current discussion is rather diffuse because of the number of different candidate names.

Does this seem like a good next step? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a good step. But I would expect this (unless the pool diminishes to a few activists) to result in no consensus for either. What then? (This is not "don't do this"; it's "let's have a plan.") Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not particularly optimistic about this road leading us to a happy consensus, but I think the first step or two might be achievable, and that would be worthwhile in order to narrow the scope of any subsequent debate. Anything we can do to focus the discussion seems worth a try. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank You Mike Christie for the effort.

Key points to consider:

• Should Savage's name be included in the title?
• Is this a Google bomb or merely a search engine optimization problem for Santorum?
• Is "Santorum" capitalized, quoted, possessive?

Renaming related sections:

#Back to the re-naming issue voting and commenting
#Renaming Related discussions

#Naming discussion

#Propriety

#Should "Dan Savage" be in the title?

#Neologism

#Santorum (neologism)

#Thoughts on renaming #Suggestion for next steps in renaming

I think the first part is rather answered already in the RfC, that is, it should had been renamed to the campaign/attempt/googlebombing/SEO/political attack one. If you, or any others might think, there was not such a consensus, well lets keep the straw poll on this qestion rather quick and separate from the other ones, so we can move forward in paralel.

I agree we should narrow the options down and I would suggest to use key points Jehochman already suggested above. They were good ones:

Key points to consider:

Should Savage's name be included in the title?

Is this a Google bomb or merely a search engine optimization problem for Santorum?

Is "Santorum" capitalized, quoted, possessive?

And I believe, we should not omit to go to the section with names. It is necessary to keep coming with creative Ideas and being feedbacked on them. It is interesting what may other people notice. It is good to keep here other debate on the narrowing issues as well and in paralel (not as replacement) many arguments to those issues here come to mind, just when seeing the names up above.

My two cents for Google problem - If I would not see them together in the title, I would think, they are just the most perfect words for title, only when actually seeing them, I see their unfortunate doublemeaning. So lets talk. --Reo ⁺ 02:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

campaign/attempt/googlebombing/SEO/political attack: I don't like 'campaign' because of Santorum's current political campaign, so it's confusing. It's not about Santorum's Google (or any other) problem, it's about Savage's crusade (or whatever word instead of campaign). We could call it Dan Savage's santorum attack, as Dan Savage's santorum isn't clear. ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 03:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Rereading Jehochman's close above I think it can be agreed that the first part is already decided; it's a "campaign/attempt/googlebombing/SEO/political attack". My suggestion for the next question would be: is it primarily a political act, for which SEO is a technique but not the topic itself? Or is the article fundamentally about this particular act of Googlebombing/SEO? If there's a better question to ask to home in on the right article topic (and title) please say so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

(post ec) Looks like we're agreed that Jehochman's close does answer the first question. Any other suggestions for the next question? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

(post ec) I concur with Jenochman's approach as to establishing consensus on specifically delineated questions though I have some issues with the phrasing of #2 & #3. I'll table those for the moment as the wording might be influenced by resolution of #1. IMHO, another RFC is warranted. May I suggest...

Should the title of a Wikipedia article on the Dan Savage/Rick Santorum controversy incorporate the name of either, neither or both of these individuals in that title?

JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Holy crap..

I have never thought so poorly of wikipedia as I did after stumbling upon this article. shame shame on us.. I see consensus is to keep this article, aftering reviewing the recent AFDs. I know all the rules around here.. But shame shame to all who wrote this article and all who supported keeping it. This is nothing more than a deliberate attempt to smear and besmirch a person with a sick and nasty topic. Keeping it may well stick with the letter of the law, but it absolutely violates the spirit of the BLP policy. This article serve no purpose but to perpetuate an offensive slander. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The AfDs are the least of it. Among others, we had an RfC, still visible at the top of this page at the time of writing, and a failed arbitration request. --JN466 13:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I will just say again: In my many years editting here, working on featured content and everything else, I have never been so disappointed in Wikipedia as I am right now. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

There have been numerous news articles about the topic. I don't think any administrator will delete it. You could help the discussion by listing specific changes in the article that would help make it more informative and less of an attack. Jehochman ^Talk 13:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This article should be deleted entirely, and a note of it made in the Dan Savage article. For example, Lewinsky (slang for oral sex) does not have its own article. It redirects to a logical topic... —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a valid idea, but it's been discussed a lot, and doesn't have a consensus yet. One thing you could do is suggest ways to pare down this article. Once it is small enough, with just the pertinent facts, you could then propose a merger. Jehochman ^Talk 13:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

If an American conservative columnist had started a campaign to call a sex act a "Lewinsky", and that campaign had received large amounts of coverage in reliable sources, I can't see why we shouldn't have such an article. Politics is often a dirty business, and we should not report selectively based on what we find makes us queasy.

I honestly can't see why this article generates such especial hostility. We report many things which are unpleasant, or politically motivated, and attempt to do so from a neutral point of view. Can anyone tell me what differentiates this article, in its current form, from the swiftboating article, which also reports a hostile publicity campaign in American politics? -- The Anome (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

What is so wrong about this one is that this became as story, and received top google search status, because this article exists. Had we not made this article, or deleted it in 2003 when it was clearly not-notable, media coverage would likely have never occurred. This page IS the google bomb. This article was and is being used as a weapon to affect external search results. This article by the far the largest story on this topic on the web. That is to say, we are making more of it than any other outlet. We are perpetuating it. In this way, this article fits the definition of an attack page, and violate the BLP policy. That there is even debate on this topic remaining is what I find so shameful. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Because Jerome Corsi didn't call it "swiftkerrying", and google searches for "John Kerry" or just "Kerry" correctly/properly display searches for the senator, not the Swifties disinformation campaign. Tarc (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It this simple. The very topic of this article is libel. Even under the US strict definition of libel. WP:LIBEL obliges us to immediately delete such content. It clearly meets that criteria - 1. It is false, the word santorum has no such meaning, not in any dictionary. 2. It purpose is to do harm. 3. Because it so affects google search results, it has indeed did harm. That alone is legal causus belli for a suit against the foundation. There is no debate, it is the dictate of the foundation libel be deleted immediately. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you'll find that http://www.spreadingsantorum.com was the original Google bomb, and was already quite effective by the time this article was created. Yes, I think it's likely that the original author may have googlebombing as part of their motivation for creating this article, but it has quite clearly now been beaten into a shape where it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. -- The Anome (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm well-aware of how this all originally came about, thanks. What it merits is at most a 2-3 paragraph treatment in the "Rick Santorum and homosexuality" article. It does not merit treatment as a legitimately-used word, since it isn't one, and the whole google-bombing agenda does not need an article of its own. Tarc (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

@Charles Edward to your reasoning at 13:57, 21 June 2011

....I actually partly agree on this here, and I pointed it here several times. That is for one reason, that we must to rename it to something quite neutral (neutralise the G'Bomb's explosive power). In fact, the article may pretty well turn against Savage himself, but neither that should be our intention. The only think important, is to not particpate on the attack ourselves.

1. Being high in the Google results does not make us participate in the attack. If are not filled with the loathsome content, we are not part of it.
2. We also should really take care of the imbound links within Wikipedia targeting (from inside other Wikipedia articles and especially templates) this article and trim them down (partly done)
3. We should take care of the 'Rick Santorum' occurance in the article and trim them down to just necessary number.
4. Beyond that, we are not here to worry to outside world, we only have to cure, where the remedy is on our part. It is in my opinion true, that the bare existence of the article under the stupid previous name helped, to generate the problem.

Some people reading this talk, might be surprised why I was bringing here the links showing the traffic to this page and compared it with Rick Santorum's article. After looking upon them, I realized, that the change of the name had quite an effect upon people visiting this site directly from Google. (Gone down) When the title does not pretend, that this article is about the fecal matter, people simply started to lose interest to come here. The more precise we will be with the article title, the less we will be deceiving visitors, the less of fun the prank will generate and we will have no active role in it.

To delete the article is not the only solution.

It is in fact wrong solution Reo ⁺ 14:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is NOT swiftboating because it isn't a case of "wrong facts", but a 100% personal attack with no facts involved. If Savage had spun Santorum's actual views, it would have been more like swiftboating. Instead, it's been closer to the birthers, although even they claimed some sort of 'facts', absurd though they were. This is an attack, but I see no libel involved, or any legal issues. imo it's a shame that Dan Savage might be remembered more for this than his It Gets Better project and his advice column. A memorable "own goal". Flatterworld (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

There are several important points, imo. Charles Edward, I assume you've googled the term. Would you really prefer that Dan Savage's website continue to appear as the #1 result with NO (shall we say) rebuttal? An encyclopedia's job is to explain. In this case, a 'gut reaction' to what appeared to be (I've read differing quotes) a personal attack on an entire group of people by a sitting (at the time) Senator. It was the sort of thing one might hear from any of the late-night comedians, soon forgotten. The difference is, it's lasted eight years and through the help of his supporters it's become the #1 search engine result. So, people want to know why. Yes, they should know this sort of thing doesn't just "happen", it's not the fault of Google - and the reasons why some people support Savage on this, and why some don't (not to be confused with supporting Santorum's views). These are important things to explain, even if some of us would have preferred the adults had acted like adults and the focus had been on specific views and issues rather than a personal attack. Think of it as a teachable moment. Perhaps when the spectacular fireworks are over, and all the associated jokes have been made, people will realize we really do need to focus on issues, not game-playing. Flatterworld (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I have worked on several articles similar to this.. Democrat Party (phrase), Macaca (term), etc - fake words made up by partisans that leave you scratching you head on why we even bothered with an article about them. And the articles are nothing but partisan battles that have made their way to wikipedia. They are fake topics, cooked up by political partisans, spread across the web, picked up by (partisan) reliable sources, then added here as part of an attack campaign. Then we report them as though they are a fact, and we are not involved in the campaign, when the very existence of the article does make us part. This article has taken the same route as others I have worked on, where instead of dismissing the topic altogether, we morph it into a topic about the controversy rather than the term. And I completely agree with the side that is within the letter of policy that this article is notable, has reliable source, and is probably OK to be left here. But that does not change the motivation of editors who authored it is a piece of POV to push an agenda outside of wikipedia. The article itself is fine and within policy. Its existance is the issue - it should not be morphed into an article about the controversy. It should be deleted and the contents merged into Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality, which would put it in appropriate context.. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Summarize

The discussion is long and messy, so it is helpful to summarize periodically. The consensus I see above is that the article is about:

A campaign started by Dan Savage, and supported by many others, to humiliate Rick Santorum by turning his name into a neologism for something disgusting.

The first question is whether this statement accurately summarizes what the article is about, and whether most people can agree to that. Second, if you like that statement, how can we shorten it to an article title by eliminating any unnecessary facts or words? Jehochman ^Talk 13:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Y aye. What title describes it best? --Reo ⁺ 13:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a fork of Suggestion for next steps in renaming, and we have plenty of forks already, thank you very much. Flatterworld (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)