Talk:Campaign for the neologism "santorum"

Deletion

Page is purely slander and violates various Wikipedia standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.55.80.148 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 22 January 2008

Please sign your posts - unsigned posts are not taken seriously. Also, although the subject of this page is disgusting, it is informational and factual, and therefore meets Wikipedia standards; please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santorum. -- Nicholas SL Smith 16:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed 100% This isn't well-known enough outside of "deviant" homosexual circles to classify as encyclopedic content. Even if a comedian uses the word, it's a one-shot deal and not a part of common jargon outside the gay activist community. 209.55.80.148 (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santorum for a close look at the dialog that took place about whether to keep or delete this article. Kingturtle (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL nobody has pointed out that this person posted to agree with themself. 71.111.43.178 (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's pathetic that this is page is on Wikipedia. This article lowers the credibility of Wikipedia to that of urbandictionary.com. Does every neologism need a Wikipedia page? I had never heard of this use of the surname prior to seeing this Wikipedia page. I know practically nothing about Rick Santorum but it's clear that this page is here to defame him.Ewick12 (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait, you didn't know about this -- and now you do? You learned something via Wikipedia?? Geez, you're right -- there's something dreadfully wrong here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The encyclopedic value of the "something" learned from this article would be vastly exceeded by an article about Santorum's ear wax, or how the mucus in his left nostril differs from that in the right nostril. If there were a few published sources on those subjects, they still wouldn't be appropriate for stand-alone Wikipedia articles, especially if there were already a stand-alone article about Santorum's anatomy. I'm not supporting him for president, but I also don't support this extremely crappy article. We already have the article Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality, not to mention Savage Love#Neologisms. Maybe we ought to get it over with, and put a link to this article at the top of every Wikipedia page, next to "My talk My preferences My watchlist My contributions Log out", since the whole focus here is propaganda, right? Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's disingenuous to claim this doesn't qualify to be a stand-alone article. It's been very widely reported in mainstream media; the website Spreading Santorum is still among the first Google hits returned on a search for Rick Santorum or Santorum; Joe.My.God, a multiple award-winning blog with millions of readers, consistently refers to RS as "Frothy Mix"; the nickname was prompted by a call from a notable person; etc, etc, etc. The man, the retaliatory nature of the nickname, or the matter it describes may be distasteful to some readers, but those things are not reasons for removing articles from Wikipedia. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It should be merged into one of the several existing articles that already cover it, not deleted. Or maybe it could be merged into a new article titled "Neologisms created by Dan Savage". The main reason that hasn't already been done is because some people like manipulating google hits.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

If you want to see this deleted, the appropriate venue to assess community consensus on that point is AfD. However, since such a discussion was held only a few months ago, I find it unlikely that there will be consensus to overturn it. --joe decker^{talk to me} 17:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Additional sources for research

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Some additional sources at links above. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Note

Will begin to undertake some research in additional secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Expanding an article about a vile attack on a living person - it's twice the size now and refs have gone from 33 to 95 - has got to be against the spirit of least of our BLP policy. My proposal, and my intention, stated right now, is to return this article to the content it had on May 9th. →StaniStani  03:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I would advise against doing a unilateral revert without first getting consensus. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

That's why I posted here. What's your opinion? Support reversion to May 9, or not? →StaniStani  04:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

No, there are new sections like United States presidential election, 2012, Recognition and usage, and Media analysis which shouldn't simply be deleted. Judicious trimming might be in order. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

A two-sentence stub would follow the spirit of BLP protection, but I'm not proposing to spit against the wind here. →StaniStani  05:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The BLP policy is not a blank check for deleting anything negative related to a living individual. Criticism, commentary, and even base mockery of a public figure like a Senator is protected free speech in the United States. While it would be ridiculous for anyone to try and make Wikipedia a platform for creating the kind of meme Savage did, it is perfectly prudent for Wikipedia to neutrally report on the overwhelming amount of coverage given to the topic. Steven Walling 05:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

By expanding the number of key terms, adding more bio information, and linking back more references, this article has enhanced the original attack. →StaniStani  05:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Not in the least. Without Wikipedia, all you have are Savage's site and supporters on one side, and supporters of Santorum on the other. With a comprehensive Wikipedia article that demands verifiability and neutrality, the facts about the situation are presented so that people can make up their own minds about it. Steven Walling 06:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The article appears to be about a phenomenon rather than the person, and is rigidly fair - on reading it, it does not try to link the man with the term, it exposes Savage's motives and actions to criticism, presents all of the "realworld" recognition of the phenomenon and its impact in such a manner that someone can question whether the campaign was or is fair, and provides Santorum's considered reply to the phenomenon in full. There's no question that the phenomenon (whether it should be or not) is notable. Orderinchaos 07:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Steven Walling and Orderinchaos said it much better than I could; I'm just chiming in. Steven Walling's optimism about Wikipedia's mission, that it would allow readers to make up their own mind, is farther than I'm willing to go, but the facts about how the topic is presented in the article are assessed correctly by the two mentioned editors. If they weren't, perhaps the Kerry-section should be cut from Flip-flop (politics), and Cheese-eating surrender monkeys should be deleted altogether (a BLP violation against almost 66 million living people, some of whom are probably allergic to cheese). Drmies (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

France is not a person. To return to the topic: the original attack is Google-based. By adding more key search terms to the Wikipedia article, and adding more back-links in the refs, more people will find the definition linked to a living person. Hence my issue with the article being expanded. →StaniStani  17:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

But the French are people, many of them living. Honestly, while I can understand a certain hesitation about the article (after all, it's pretty gross and the term was of course a low blow), that expansion would increase google hits and thus make this a personal attack or so, I don't see that at all. But to each their own. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The fact that Wikipedia permits

The fact that Wikipedia permits a pseudo-article like this one which was artificially propagandized for the purpose of personal slander just proves the fact that Wikipedia itself is a bogus project that most legitimate academic institutions will not allow their students to use as source material. Very pathetic and a disgrace. The editors should be ashamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.23.183 (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• The fact that you would post such drivel is an offense to your 2nd grade teacher, Mr. 68.36.23.183! The fact is that the subject has been covered by every news source, including Fox news many times. Blame Fox, not wikipedia.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Slander is defined as "a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report". In no way has Savage's coining said anything about Rick Santorum which is untrue. He does not allege Santorum has any personal experience with santorum, though in his explanation for coining the term he does attribute various hateful, dishonourable, and deeply offensive remarks to Santorum... all correctly.

So, in short it's not slander. --Saforrest (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Define "pseudo-article," and indicate how this article meets that definition. Once you are clear with your complaints, they can be addressed properly. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Move to close this thread, so to speak. Drmies (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

One thing to remember is that this article really isn't about Rick Santorum, as he's primarily a passive participant in this story. It's really about Mr. Savage. Care should be taken, and I think it has so far, to make sure that the article accurately reflects Savage's actions, motivation, thoughts, intentions, and goals since he is the primary driver in this episode. One thing to watch for and add to the article is how the general US public perceives this campaign by Savage. Do most support it, disapprove, or don't care? Cla68 (talk) 12:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I am so confused

This is such a blatant BLP violation that i'm rather shocked that there are actually users defending it. At the very least, this should be at "Santorum (term)", in order to discuss the term in the context of its use in relation to the Senator. But to primarily discuss it in the sense of a gross sexual word and then to apply it copiously to a Senator, I don't care what sources you're using, this is one of the worst BLP violations that i've ever seen. Silverseren^C 20:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Prior discussions for the title of the location of this article took place in 2006 (Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Santorum (sexual neologism)), and 2007 (Talk:Santorum_(sexual_neologism)/Archive_1#Protologism_or_neologism.3F). In addition, multiple WP:RS sources refer to it as a "sexual neologism". -- Cirt (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Two things. First off, I don't believe that a group of three users should be able to usurp a poll prior to that that decided to not name it sexual neologism or sexual slang. Secondly, quoting links from four years ago kinda emphasis my point. The Santorum page itself still links to this one as a neologism, not a sexual one. And, yes, while the sources refer to it as a sexual neologism, that's something that should be expressed in the article and not the title, because the article is discussing its use as a term in a political campaign and not its common use as a sexual neologism when referring to something sexual in their lives or in fetishes. This word, while decided to be defined as something sexual, is being used politically, not sexually. Silverseren^C 20:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Just FYI, there was a BLP/N discussion [1] earlier this year that discussed potential renamings. --joe decker^{talk to me} 20:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing in that discussion about renaming it to (term), there is only a proposal to rename it to something a bit ridiculous. So, that's completely not a support for the current name as it is disagreement with the proposed new name. Silverseren^C 20:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It has been moved multiple times in the past, and has been stable at this title location for several years now. -- Cirt (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are several suggested renamings in that thread and the subsections that follow it, and I provided the reference as background data, not to take sides. In fact, you'll see if you dig through there that I have a different issue with the current name, but I've kinda thrown up my hands at the naming wars on this article. I saw someone note a 2006 and 2007 discussion, and I simply wished to add that there had been at least one more. That is all. --joe decker^{talk to me} 20:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It has been characterized as a "sexual neologism" by sourcing including writers for The Washington Post [2], the Los Angeles Times [3], and even in an interview with responses by Rick Santorum in Roll Call [4]. -- Cirt (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all, WP:CCC, so please lay off the stable arguments. And, I repeat, because it is called a sexual neologism, then it should be called such within the article, but you are using it in the article as a political term and it's use in elections, not its use as a sexual term in real life. If the article was about its use in the world as a sexual term, then this title would be appropriate, but, as far as I can see, it is only being used in a political campaign, which makes such a title inappropriate, because it is being used as a term. Silverseren^C 20:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The article is about both. -- Cirt (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Except the article is primarily focused on the political end of the discussion and is only cursorily about the sexual element. There is no reason why the article should be at a more neutral name such as (term) or (neologism), like the Santorum disambiguation page has it at. Having it at its current title without the article being primarily about the sexual side of the term just makes it a BLP jab. Silverseren^C 21:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I would have no objections to a move to Santorum (neologism) - however prior discussions seem to support it at this location, for rationale that it is not simply a neologism, but also a form of sexual slang, at the same time. -- Cirt (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I would just hope that IFF the article were to be moved, again, it would then NOT be moved again in the future, multiple times, and could perhaps remain stable in a static title location. -- Cirt (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that move as well. "Sexual neologism" is a bit verbose for a parenthetical disambiguation, even if it's literally more accurate. Steven Walling 21:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Moved it to Santorum (neologism). Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Please fix the talk page archives. There are now "/Archive 1" pages under multiple names from previous moves. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Should be all fixed now. ;) If not, please let me know the links of which pages to fix. -- Cirt (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Moving this to a slightly different name is appropriate, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to stub this article to reduce or eliminate BLP violations

The following discussion 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.

---

Expanding the article, renaming it, and all the other manipulations amount to just this:

You are solving the wrong problem! -- Dilbert

The existence of this article enhances Savage's original Google-bomb of the Senator. Expanding it adds more text for Google to index. Adding more information in the body of the article about the Google-bomb, reactions to it, the victim's response - all add key terms for Google's crawler to add to the PageRank score. Tripling the references make more backlinks in Google.

• Stub the article - no more than three sentences and only one mention each of Savage and the Senator, and delete all but two references. Or you are just lining up Wikipedia as an ally for Savage's attack. →StaniStani  22:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, essentially per this comment by Steven Walling (talk · contribs): "The BLP policy is not a blank check for deleting anything negative related to a living individual. Criticism, commentary, and even base mockery of a public figure like a Senator is protected free speech in the United States. While it would be ridiculous for anyone to try and make Wikipedia a platform for creating the kind of meme Savage did, it is perfectly prudent for Wikipedia to neutrally report on the overwhelming amount of coverage given to the topic. Steven Walling 05:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)" There were three attempts to delete this page in the past. All three failed. The topic is noteworthy. The santorum phenomenon has received significant discussion from multiple WP:RS independent secondary sources, and is notable. -- Cirt (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per years of precedent re this article.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 22:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. 116 reliable sources indicates that this is being widely discussed without Wikipedia's assistance. I hear about this all the time on The Daily Show and it's frequently alluded to (though of course they can't spell it out) on MSNBC. This is like blaming the egg for the hen that birthed it instead of the other way around. Gamaliel (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose and I must add: RIDICULOUS. BLP is not a whitewash and monitoring this talk page for the latest attempt to do so and repeating "oppose" is tiring. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
• Oppose as a backend around AfD. Wikipedia exists to document notable phenomena; not to play PR to powerful politicians. Quigley (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Nothing about this article implies anything negative and false about the ex-Senator (unless quoting his own words is slander now). --Jfruh (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - As the wrong problem doesn't exist. You seem to think BLP means removing any unfair, negative info about public figures. It doesn't. It means presenting the facts in a neutral way, backed by high quality sources. Now, do you think any of the sources are questionable or do parts of the article state an opinion? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose for just about everything mentioned above, including "ridiculous". This has nothing to do whatsoever with BLP issues--in fact, this may be closest thing to a call for censorship I've seen on Wikipedia. Stani, you have made your opinion clear in various threads here, and I think the consensus is that your concerns are not rooted in Wikipedia policy or guidelines. Time to drop the stick. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose This is getting a bit silly - BLP basically means "cover it sanely and safely", not "don't cover it at all". The ongoing reliable source interest in the phenomenon means that the horse has already well and truly bolted. We Wikipedians can't change the course of history, we can only report on it. Orderinchaos 03:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, a clear consensus exists to assist in this Google-bomb. None of you addressed that. Note that I stated my case, and it remains unrefuted. I will not pursue it further. My opposition is on record. If it remains on record, I'm satisfied to walk away from this article. For those of you who might be thinking of RevDel'ing this discussion, I remind you that that is against policy. →StaniStani  05:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

If I'm following you correctly, you're protesting that there's something going on here along the lines of the observer paradox -- i.e., the very existence of an article that follows the usual Wikipedia quality guidelines would still have negative consequences, because of Wikipedia's exteremly high Google page rankings? I can sort of see the point to that, but I'm not convinced that it should matter -- and it certainly doesn't mean that people who just want to put together a standard-issue Wikipedia page are somehow acting maliciously. Wikipedia can't control how it the outside world perceives it, and I frankly don't think it should try to take that into account, because it would always change, and that way lies madness. --Jfruh (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This expansion of the article achieved its purpose: to make the Wikipedia article about the attack on the Senator a higher Google result than the article about the Senator, and to reinforce the high ranking of the attack itself. Other people are discussing this effect now. →StaniStani  17:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

When you say "achieved its purpose," you appear to be implying that people are editing this article for the express purpose of gaming Google search results. I can't speak for everyone, but I don't think that's the case. People just want this to be a good and decently cited article. You should assume good faith. --Jfruh (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

What's amazing though, is that if you search the term in google news, you get an overwhelmingly strong amount of good reporting on 'his' issues, and his biography comes up #3 on the google search. His good press work over the past month is actually changing the importance of the word as a internet thing. Stani, quite simply, Cirt did nothing wrong. In fact, if anything, he made it very explicit that it's a term that derived from an attempt to satarize Santorum's position. WP:I don't like it doesn't mean that we are complicit with any kind of attack, it just means that you don't think the term should be associated with the politician, which is a completely fair assessment of these events. Sadads (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe the expansion of the article has increased the visibility of this article via Google search, it was already above the article on the Senator. The high ranking of searches about the term has been the case since the term was coined, which predates the general popularity of Wikipedia. The high ranking probably derives from the fact that the term gets more press coverage than the Senator.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Although inspired by a certain now-former senator, the article is not about him. The topic is noteworthy and has already survived three attempts at deletion. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Orderinchaos said it perfectly. Steven Walling 02:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I have to agree with all the opinions expressed above, we got alot of sources, it would be a crime to not have the article, Sadads (talk) 12:05, 24 May 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.

Section on actual santorum

I don't want to wade into a sensitive topic, but I was just wondering why there isn't/if there shouldn't be a section of this article actually dealing with "santorum" - i.e. the mix of lubricant and fecal matter - since most of the article is about the media response to the word itself, Wikipedia is Not Censored, and there is certainly material to discuss the phenomenon in health terms - like a 2006 article by Dr. Charles Moser in Sexuality, Reproduction and Menopause ? -Kez (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

That is an excellent idea. I am not able to access that article, but perhaps if you could help provide access to it, and also suggest perhaps a few other similar sources, I could incorporate them into such a section. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I mean Moser's discussion of santorum isn't exactly extensive, it's just a sentence, but I'll quote its section here:

"Anal Stimulation of the anus/rectum is called ass play. Butt plugs (objects used for anal insertions) are held in the rectum by the anal musculature and can be used during sex or worn for longer periods of time. Anal beads are devices for anal insertion consisting of a series of beads connected by a string or molded plastic which are inserted into the rectum and pushed in and pulled out the anus. The mix of fecal matter and lubricant, a common result of ass play, is santorum.

"Patients may prepare for ass play by douching (a series of enemas). Various substances (wine, other alcoholic spirits, coffee, and illicit substances) can be added to the enema solution, resulting in a very rapid and powerful drug effect."

I guess the "Recognition and use" covers some of the the other sources I'm aware of, but that section still seems concerned with the word itself, so perhaps a subsection of that section would be most appropriate? -Kez (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done, added it diff. Perhaps if you could suggest a few more sources that discuss the term in that context, we can then address formatting and structuring. -- Cirt (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Note that this usage is nothing more than a definition in an article prefaced with "Some physicians may be unaware of their patients’ sexual activities or may feel ill at ease discussing them. Provided with a basic knowledge of these activities and their associated slang terms, a physician can better communicate with the patient..." (emphasis mine). Although it appears in a medical journal and is intended for doctors, it should not be construed to be a medical or authoritative use of the term. Is yet another citation really necessary in an article that seems to have already become a concern in some areas? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Are more citations ever a bad thing on Wikipedia? The content is clearly notable, and is clearly being discussed in a comprehensive manner, letting our readership access as many opinions as possible should always be our first priority, Sadads (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

That is not an opinion, it is a recognition that the slang term santorum exists, which is not in dispute. Larding the article with any available reference, no matter how tenuous the connection to the topic, is not helpful to the reader and not what an encyclopedia generally does. In this case I am concerned that the long-winded "Professor and Chair of the Department of Sexual Medicine Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco, California, physician Charles Moser" makes it seem like this is a medical or authoritative use of the term, which it is not. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Quoted definition of santorum

I think Wikipedia:Revision_deletion#Criteria_for_redaction

Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little/no encyclopedic or project value and/or violates our Biographies of living people policy. This includes slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material of little or no encyclopedic value, but not mere factual statements, and not "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations.

Applies to the quoted definition of "santorum". The quoted definition can be replaced by "an obscene neologism associated with anal sex" without loosing any meaning necessary to the encyclopedic purpose of the article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Question: Shall we also propose to remove the description of the advertisement from the article on the U.S. Supreme Court case, Hustler Magazine v. Falwell? -- Cirt (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea; never looked at it or thought about it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• The American Dialect Society selected santorum as the Most Outrageous Word of the Year for 2004.
• The 2006 edition of The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English cited santorum as an example of "deliberate coining".
• The santorum phenomenon, its history and development was the subject of a paper presented at the 2008 annual meeting of the National Communication Association.

These are not trashy, tabloid organizations. Wikipedia should not refrain from covering topics which are embarrassing/offensive to BLPs. It should do its utmost to cover the topic in a fair and neutral manner. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait, we're being asked to redact the definition of the term that is the topic of this article? That doesn't sound like a terribly encyclopedic approach to me. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. The exact definition is outrageous and distasteful. Which is why, like it or not, it received widespread coverage. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This term is one of the most successful political smears since Swift boating, and may well have a similar impact on Santorum's political chances of becoming president. As such, it deserves full encyclopedic coverage, and that includes quoting the definition, the shocking nature of which is a great part of the source of its power. -- The Anome (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the article is overblown. A redirect to a paragraph in the Santorum biography would be more in line with BLP policy. --JN466 21:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

That might be a reasonable outcome of an AfD. On the other hand, we've already done 3 AfDs for this article -- I doubt a 4th would produce a different outcome from the 3rd. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Aside from references, I make Swift Vets and POWs for Truth six screenfuls on my browser window, and this article five. Given the likely political significance, and general wide level of coverage, that's not disproportionate for an article on a (so to speak) smear. -- The Anome (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, the origins of the neologism, its effects, and Santorum's response do not belong in the biography as they would take up much more than a paragraph. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The last AfD was in December 2010. Since then, the article has grown from 1486 words to 4796 words, and currently takes the two (!) top spots in a Google web search for Santorum's surname. In addition, we have Santorum controversy, covering much the same ground. --JN466 22:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You're seriously suggesting that the one paragraph in that article "covers the same ground" as this one? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Jayen466, you're welcome to file a new AfD, but I wouldn't expect any change from the results of the previous three. You might want to note that the coverage of this term in this article itself is now the subject of articles in multiple reliable independent sources, which appears to provide support for the assertion that this is a standalone topic. -- The Anome (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The reason it's covered in reliable sources is that it itself has in practical terms become part of the campaign. That's an interesting philosophical point; our purpose is to provide neutral coverage, rather than becoming an actor in favour of one side or another. --JN466 22:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

In spite of the term's association with the anti-Santorum campaign, I still believe that this article maintains WP:NPOV, and does not itself endorse that campaign. If there are any NPOV violations that need fixing, please bring them here. You might want to read WP:IDONTLIKEIT, however. -- The Anome (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that having an article itself is not neutral? If so, I would point you towards Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories which documents what were clearly politically motivated attacks on Obama. Yet it is neutral in its coverage. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Or, indeed, the coverage of any number of other political smears, both historical and present-day, or our coverage of the many and varied offensive racial and other epithets. -- The Anome (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

In following the discussion here, I am sort of intrigued by the repeated reference to this whole kerfuffle as a "smear" against Rick Santorum. A smear campaign as I understand it involves attempting to undermine someone by spreading damaging information, whether true or false, about them. I don't think anybody's attempted to do that in this instance; there's been no attempt to, for instance, claim that santorum is named after Santorum becuase Santorum enagages anal sex. Dan Savage has always been pretty up front that it's an attempt to link Santorum's name to something unpleasant because of Santorum's political views, but he hasn't ever tried to imply that Rick Santorum has anything to do with the frothy mix etc. in practice.

This seems important to me because much of the debate here is about BLP violations, which are in place protect living individuals from people believing certain damaging facts about the subjects of the article. But there's nothing about santorum that has anything to do with Rick Santorum, other than the fact that Dan Savage coined the term because of his opposition to Santorum's political views. Does that distinction seem clear?

(For the record, I honestly think that the actual use of the word "santorum" as a common noun outside a political context is pretty limited, and that this article could be profitably merged with "Santorum controversy," since such a thing exists. But I think it's taken on enough of a life of its own that it shouldn't be folded back into Rick Santorum's article.) --Jfruh (talk) 23:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll repeat this again...the person at the center of this article's topic isn't Mr. Santorum, it's Mr. Savage. Mr. Savage is the individual behind this whole thing. Santorum is a passive participant, perhaps even a victim as described in some of the sources. So, this article isn't a BLP violation on Santorum as long as it accurately represents what he originally said, which Mr. Savage apparently took exception to, and how Mr. Santorum has responded to Mr. Savage's campaign. Cla68 (talk) 01:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I can see that the article is important as an example of successful google bombing and creation of an association of Santorum's name with a dirty word. However I have not seen in the responses here any reason why the precise definition needs to be here. It is available in many other places; it is degrading. I think it does fall within our deletion policy. In addition, I'm not sure the neologism itself is notable other than with reference to Savage's campaign. I think the entire article needs to be re-written with focus on creation of the neologism as a political act. Details about what the invented term means are nearly irrelevant other than it relates to anal sex. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The neologism itself is notable, please see this comment posted above earlier, by NeilN (talk · contribs), which outlines that. -- Cirt (talk) 14:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, Wikipedia:Revision_deletion#Criteria_for_redaction would clearly apply to "the most outrageous word" unless the word itself was notable. It is the successful linking of the invented word to Santorum which is notable, not the precise definition, which is barely more significant that a random pattern of light and shadow cast by fluttering leaves. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You're cherry picking the first half of the sentence: "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little/no encyclopedic or project value...". Images of Muhammad are offensive to many Muslims. Yet we keep them as they have encyclopedic value. Just telling the reader that santorum is "an obscene neologism associated with anal sex" does not properly portray its vulgarity and shock value and why it was chosen the most outrageous word. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm still mystified by the notion that an encyclopedia article on this topic would exclude the definition. This strikes me as the antithesis of "encyclopedic". So I've offered a direct response to the claim that it shouldn't be here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Amen to that. I mean, the article is fairly well balanced right now in that it first defines the neologism (which is the topic of the article mind you) then explains it's creation as a google bomb campaign and subsequent reactions. I don't know how you could better treat the subject, without either consciously excluding clearly relevant information, or writing about something other then the topic of the article, Sadads (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Fred has a point here that the article could be renamed as "Savage's anti-Santorum campaign" or something like that, as the artificial creation of this neologism by Savage would be part of that. Cla68 (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Bing

This neologism is often referred to as an example of a successful "Google bombing".

As a matter of interest, Bing is even more effective than Google at finding this neologism from a bare search for the word "santorum", with (at least from my own trial search) Santorum's own "exploratory" campaign website relegated to tenth place, and only a bare Freebase entry for Santorum-the-person between number three and four positions. See http://www.bing.com/search?q=santorum -- The Anome (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if any secondary sources have commented on the differences in results between the various search engines. -- Cirt (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

That was my interest too -- describing this as a "Google bomb" underestimates its reach. I haven't yet seen any reliable sources that mention this, but the effect is very noticeable. The effect on Yahoo! Search, on the other hand, is less prominent. See http://search.yahoo.com/?q=santorum -- The Anome (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating, please do keep us posted if you find secondary sources evaluating this phenomenon across additional search engine websites aside from simply Google. -- Cirt (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The Anome, I was indeed able to find multiple secondary sources confirming this, and I have added them to the article. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Google rating of this article

As reported in the press, this article is now the top result for a Google search for "Santorum". It's actually overtaken Dan Savage's own googlebomb site in the last few days. Previously, it used to be in 5th or 6th place, IIRC.

The three templates that were added earlier this month have something to do with this. Google bases its page rankings on the number of in-bound links. The political neologism and sexual slang templates add more than 100 in-bound links each.

To be perfectly honest, the term's inclusion in the "political neologism" template seems a little contrived. It looks out of place among terms such as

• "Adopt a Highway • Afrocentrism • "And" theory of conservatism • Big government • Chairman • Checkbook diplomacy • Children's interests • Collaborationism • Conviction politics • Cordon sanitaire • Cricket test • Democide • Dhimmitude • Eco-terrorism • Epistemocracy • Eurocentrism • Eurorealism"

All three templates are new, and were created by Cirt between May 10 and May 15 [5][6][7]. (For reference, the first reports that Santorum might run for president appeared in early May.) --JN466 15:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This article shows up third when I do a Google search for "santorum." Google's search results aren't the same for everyone. Henrymrx (t·c) 15:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

And it doesn't show up in the first couple hundred results when using SSL Google. Interesting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

for google SSL, it is now place 2, with place 1 being Spreading Santorum and place 3 the senator's article -- 84.173.178.190 (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that this is contrived, and to be fair, we don't know at all that those templates caused an increase in ranking- the ways of google are rather subtle, and the fact that Santorum was reported to run for president would have been entirely expected to raise the number of external people linking to the article, as well as, quite rightly, making Cirt want to make the article better. Correlation is not causation. The only way we would know for sure is if we removed the template and waited to see what effect, and then add it back and see again what happened, but that would take many weeks. Google may well be lowering the ranking because of the template, they often treat that kind of thing as link-spam and reduce the ranking.Rememberway (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Internal links are not used to calculate PageRank. Please don't propose that as some reason to undo another users work. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Oh, you are so, so wrong. If internal links weren't used by google, half the of the wikipedia would have no google rank at all, they're quite often only linked internally, and further I've seen ranking change as I modify the internal links (over some weeks.)Rememberway (talk) 05:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Note: Jayen466 (talk · contribs) is most definitely assuming bad faith here about my supposed intentions. Please note that the article was already included in the associated category "American political neologisms", before the template was made. This was most certainly not "contrived". Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• This might be considered as Jayen's response to this accusation. Cla68 (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Previously, it used to be in 5th or 6th place, IIRC." Nope, its been in the top 3 for a long time.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see Template talk:Sexual slang

Please see Template talk:Sexual slang, Fred Bauder (talk · contribs) has advocated for removal of this article from the template. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Also please see Template talk:Political neologisms

Also please see Template talk:Political neologisms, there is a proposal to remove this term from that template. -- Cirt (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Update: Now a user has gone ahead and nominated the whole template for deletion, discussion at: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 May 25#Template:Political neologisms. -- Cirt (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was ~2:1 against this proposal. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

---

How about retitling this article to Dan Savage Google bomb campaign against Rick Santorum, and making it a subarticle of Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality, with a {{main}} link in that article.

I think that's essentially what this article is -- a very detailed account of Dan Savage's campaign. It's not an article on a word. --JN466 00:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. That is a very POV title. The neologism is notable. This article is about the neologism. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • This article is about the event, the coinage and its ramifications, not about the substance, santorum, and should be named accordingly. Santorum can be written when there are enough reliable sources covering the health implications, impact on sexual practice, uses, control, etc. of santorum. Should be moved to Coinage of the term santorum.
• Note: This is not simply a "google bomb", remember that it began as a successful attempt to create a neologism. Get the chronology straight. -- Cirt (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • At any rate, it is an article on a political campaign. Linguistically, the term lacks notability; it's listed in one dictionary of slang, plus one book on neologisms, and your examples of use in literature cite four primary sources. Retitling would work, I think, and remove most of the concerns people have about this article. The article itself multiple times quotes sources referring to it as a "campaign". --JN466 00:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
    • There were three attempts to delete the article at AFD. All three failed. There were "proposals" at this page to stub it. Those failed. This is yet another type of WP:Forum shopping "proposal" on this issue. -- Cirt (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Savage has made it very clear, as reflected in this article which Cirt has done a good job on, that the whole thing is a result of "hard work" on his part to get this neologism to the top of Google's rankings. So, the real story here appears to be Savage's campaign against Santorum, and the sources appear to support that. Cla68 (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose and a trout to Jayen466 for POV pushing by completely ignoring this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support - this would be a worthwhile compromise. →StaniStani  01:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose this is just more whitewashing. This is the simple common name title demanded by policy. The proposal is made up, descriptive, and would not be found in any source material. I will note again that I hate having to watchlist this article simply to come by every week and oppose the latest whitewashing attempt driven by US political agendas. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
• Oppose per years of consensus against similar proposals.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose It's not primarily a google bombing, so article name is inappropriate.Rememberway (talk) 05:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per all the comments above, that would be far worse POV pushing. This is becoming a little ridiculous, again and again, a small number of users are advocating for changes because of an WP:I don't like it opinion either towards the neologism or the way in which it treats Santorum. I think we need to remember: again and again, the topic has been proved to comply with WP:Notability over the course of several years, so arguments against notability of the "neologism" are going to get a vast response of oppose and then be closed, and are almost WP:SNOW cases. I am not aware of any other way to create a major shift in focus of the article, so unless we can get another set of justifications for the changes, I believe this argument, and frankly as far as I can tell POV pushing in favor of Santorum without regards for his own admitted inability to control the viral spread of the neologism, has exhausted itself along that route. If you haven't noticed, his PR people have been doing a fairly good job at bringing other news stories to the front of google news searches. Also, if continues to make good news, I would imagine that this article would find itself below his own biography on Wikipedia (currently #3 or 4 on Wikipedia Google) and his campaign website will become far more frequently chosen on searches because of people sympathy with him. The searches are not in our control, and saying WP:I don't like it to the searches is not a reason to change content on Wikipedia, Sadads (talk) 08:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I understand the urge that some editors have to do something, anything to protect living individuals from Wikipedia articles, but this is becoming little better than forum shopping at this point. Show me a Wikipedia article about a word that is not titled with the name of that word, and then this will be something closer to a valid proposal. Gamaliel (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose for every reason listed above, especially those outlined by Sadads. Henrymrx (t·c) 16:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose This is beginning to have the feel of campaigning by process. The Google bombing isn't actually the issue the article is about - its entry into popular culture is. Orderinchaos 18:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Please stop obsessing about this article's Google ranking. Wikipedia articles, as a rule, rank highly in search engine results; and this article, with its neutral, dispassionate, and impeccably sourced treatment of the subject, is especially deserving of such treatment. The term santorum, if you would read the article, is used without reference to the Senator or its origins in such a diverse range of sources as erotic novels, sociological books, and medical journals. The term has long transcended both the Santorum controversy and Dan Savage, and can no longer be contained in either of their respective articles. Quigley (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. What Quigley said. And Sadads. I don't see the point of this ongoing questioning--what is this, the Spanish Inquisition? But the arguments brought to bear here are about as powerful as the soft cushions. The article is sourced, the topic is notable, there is no BLP violation since it is not a BLP and it is not about LPs. BTW, if the charge is that the very existence of this article gives rise to undue political influence, then renaming it to something somewhat silly is a roundabout way to exert political influence as well, just in the opposite direction. And the more we hear of these proposals, the more it seems that not policies, not guidelines, not standards of good article writing are at stake here, but that taste (political, sexual, whatever) is the bone of contention. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Cla68. per WP:NOTNEWS. per WP:BLP. per WP:ATTACK. and finally per my view that this simply is not, and can not be, considered anything remotely "encyclopedic". With all due respect to Clrt and all other editors who desire such content here, this is simply a "tool" to empower one individual's vile attempt to smear another person. — Ched :  ?  23:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

  All three of your policy/guideline pointers which you are trying to generally apply are easily refuted. This is not a recent or breaking news event - it has been discussed and analyzed for years. WP:BLP is not a magic eraser that can be waved about. You have not stated how this article violates WP:NPOV, WP:V, or WP:NOR. Previously I asked if the quality of any of the sources was an issue - I didn't receive a response. Finally, WP:ATTACK states "When material is spunout of a biography of a public figure by consensus because that section of the article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it is not necessarily an attack page, even if the content in question reflects negatively upon its subject.". Rather than putting forth generalizations, pointing out specific problematic article content would be much more helpful. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to post NeilN. I'm not really interested in delving into a protracted debate here, so no I won't be pointing to individual sentences or references. I'm looking at the article in it's totality. Yes, I am well aware that the article has been around for quite some time, and that consensus is to keep it. My view however is that while we can look at the individual statements, we often fail to see the intent; a "can't see the forest for the trees" if you will. That Savage would do what he did speaks more for his own character, than it does for his victim, but I digress. Imagine if you will that we would pull out a comment or neologism from say Rush Limbaugh or even Michael Savage that was disparaging toward the current US President, or say Barney Frank. I seriously doubt that such an article would last 24 hours here to be perfectly frank. (ok, pun intended there). The point is this - to those who say that the article is not an attack on a BLP I would simply offer that perhaps they step back and look at the "concept" of this article. An article that explains why a person's last name is also one person's term for anal discharge. I'll admit that there's a whole lot of "lipstick" that's been put on this sow, but it's still a sow none-the-less; and in my opinion, no amount of lipstick, (or volume of references) can change that. While I doubt you could ever convince me to the contrary in regards to my views on this article, it does appear that you have the numbers on your side, so it likely doesn't matter much. Cheers and best, — Ched :  ?  00:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support merging the contents to Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality, then having another discussion about whether we should keep this title as a redirect. If we open things up to the wider community, we might find that consensus changes. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I wasn't going to bother responding to this, because consensus that it should exist seems so clear. But of course if everyone thinks that way, consensus will never change. So I'm adding my voice to those who say this should be redirected; the content can be radically tightened and merged into Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality, because this neologism business is an extension of that. As it stands, we have a 5,000-word article that is almost a quote farm, and which is, essentially, about nothing. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Tighten up and then let's see. I also wasn't going to comment (here because I'm editing a template), but it did trouble me that the article lacked conciseness and a usual focus. In contentious topics, that's often a sign that past editors have tried to pile everything into it they can find - not a good approach for an encyclopedia. Essentially my inclination is per SlimVirgin who nails it well. But on checking the article I think there may well be more than can go into that article. It could be a legitimate spin-out. The trouble is it's so overdone right now that it's hard to tell. It badly needs cleaning up, de-quote-farming, and tightening. Articles should characterize their topic, not replicate everything ever said about it. Then see what's left. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

One thought - a better encyclopedic article would probably be the campaign rather than the neologism. If we had a more neutral title for the campaign than that proposed above, then we could put the neologism in its wider context - a word coined and widely taken up as a result of Dan Savage's stated intention to create a word or meaning that would be associated negatively as a form of mockery or rebuke to Santorum for his comments. While the neologism is notable, often a notable issue sits better as part of a broader article covering its context. Any suggestions for a better title to describe the dispute or campaign? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, so much of this just seems to be a WP:CFORK of Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality that it's tough to imagine a title that isn't POV. It really does seem to be one man's campaign against another. — Ched :  ?  14:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I object to this word's being pigeonholed into a "campaign". Certainly, Savage played an early role in its introduction, but it has since taken a life of its own, independently of politics. There is no evidence that the American Dialect Society chose to recognize the word to spite the Senator, or that the safe sex books that used the word were participating in a political campaign, or that the punk rock or blues songwriters and fiction writers that adopted the word had anything to do with Rick Santorum. The term "santorum" describes a concept that is a very real part of many peoples' sex lives, which they didn't have a widely recognized word for until now. Though both Dan Savage and Rick Santorum have an interest in promoting the idea that its popularity has to do with politics, the diversity of sources that use it and recognize its use as legitimate show that the term has matured past any political "campaign". Quigley (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree. This is isn't just about Savage. Saying that it's a campaign between two people just isn't accurate. A quick check at urbandictionary.com's three pages worth of entries [8] will show that it isn't just one person spreading this word around. This has been going on for EIGHT YEARS. It may be a campaign that one person started, but lots of people have jumped on the bandwagon. If it was one person's campaign, Savage could make it go away. While I doubt that he wants to, he couldn't make this word go away if he did. Regardless of how this got started, it has a life of its own now. Henrymrx (t·c) 15:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Why not Scurrilous personal attack by degenerate gay activist Dan Savage against noble American Rick Santorum? The article is about the neologism, and that's the appropriate title. Information about the term's origin is properly contained in the article. I consider it unfortunate that people who are upset by the existence of the term therefore argue that Wikipedia shouldn't contain information about this particular fact about the world. It's almost as bad to try to use the title to minimize and belittle the subject. JamesMLane t c 15:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. The usual rule on article titles is to use the common title and to prefer a short title. Given that the article is written neutrally and is not a WP:BLP violation, I see no reason to depart from the usual rule. If Senator Santorum has a Google problem, then surely it is Google's choice whether to solve it for him. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support, although a better solution would be a move to Wikipedia attack on Rick Santorum or maybe just a merge into Wikipedia malfeasance. Obviously this article should not exist. Everyone understands this, including the people defending the article -- they just hate Santorum more than they love Wikipedia, is all. It's a "neologism", but does anyone actually use it? Of course not. Nobody uses this term in conversation and it is not a properly extant word in the English language. It's entirely a phenomena of editors twittering and tsk-ing over how Dan "Carl Romanelli should be dragged behind a pickup truck until there's nothing left but the rope" Savage has been so deliciously naughty again. Not a pretty sight, but enjoy your article, kids. Didn't think it was possible to give Rick Santorum the moral high ground, but you've pulled it off. Herostratus (talk) 04:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

  Wow, what a stunning display of assuming bad faith. For the record, I'm not an American, don't know know who Santorum is beyond the fact he's a politician and don't really care about his politics/views. Might want to get off your high horse. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

  I have to repeat the resounding Wow! And point out that though I am an American (and registered as a Republican, hoping for a more libertarian-leaning candidate to make their way onto a ballet near me in the future), I have since retreated from caring about politicians, because I have become disenchanted with the entire system. I had no idea who Santorum was until I read his biography before commenting on this article. I was even asked, to do a GA review, but turned it down partially because of it's relationship to politics. Such assumptions of bad faith are extremely inappropriate and have nothing to do with the conversation going on here of the Notability of the topic not the utility of the neologism. Please stay focused on Wikipedia, not your own political beliefs and/or high horse, whatever influenced your comment above, Sadads (talk) 09:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

  Well, you both have a good point. Yes, in addition to polemicists, there are always editors who -- how to put this -- lack the subtlety of mind to understand what the Wikipedia is what we are supposed to be doing here and who are not so much deliberately ignoring WP:BLP as simply unable to understand it. In these cases a gentle nudge to venues more suited to their capacities (coloring books come to mind) might be the appropriate solution. I stand corrected. Herostratus (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - as per all of the above opposes. Eight years of usage and its effect on Santorum's (the politician, not the froth) political future make this notable. And accusing Wikipedia of creating this phenomenon is simply absurd.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 08:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support. This article has long since crossed the line between neutrally reporting on a campaign and participating in one and to the extent which the rules allow participating in a campaign to be considered "neutral", that's a loophole in the rules. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article is on the intentional coining of a new word and the current title reflects the article's content. Voyager640 (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per almost every other "oppose" !vote above. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C07:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support (although not too fond of the proposed new title). Please someone tell me what on earth the sections "United States Senate election in Pennsylvania, 2006" and "United States presidential election, 2012" have to do with the term "Santorum"? Nothing. The article itself states, "In a May 2011 interview with The Huffington Post Savage responded to the statement that the phenomenon was 'actually wreaking havoc with [Santorum's] potential run for the presidency' by stating, 'Well, thank you. That was the plan. And did you see, he [is] now turning it into a feather in his cap. "Oh, the gays are after me and have hurt my feelings." He is definitely running for president though. Not that he'll win, or even that he thinks he'll win. Obama's going to wipe the floor with this Republican field. Santorum's campaign, just like the rest of them, is for four more years of Fox News commentator.'" Savage has made it clear that this was meant as a smear campaign against Santorum. The entire article, in fact, is about the effects of the word's usage and spread across the Internet. AKA, Savage's campaign. So, the article should be titled to reflect this. (Disclaimer: I don't agree with many of Santorum's views, including the one on homosexuality, but I also despise how Savage tries to fight hate with a smear campaign.) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 13:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

  Hey Fetchocmms, I largely agree with your assessment if in fact the majority of the news sources were treating the neologism as a product of the campaign. However, since Santorum's nomination for presidency, and pretty much since the initial bout of press coverage, the focus has been on the association of the neologism with him, not on how the word became associated, even to the point of leaving out Savage's connection to the word in some cases. I think, now, the word has taken on a life of it's own, and it's use in independent literature in small amounts further reinforces the inherent uniqueness of the term, not the campaign that placed it there, Sadads (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support - as per all of what Fetchcomms says. I am also against what I see as the undue reporting of this using Wikipedia in the style of actively promoting the phrase and support a minor merge to the BLP article and a deletion of all this attacking type promotional hype of an alleged neologism that is actually only a localized partisan activist insult. Off2riorob (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

  Exactly how is Wikipedia "actively promoting the phrase"? Please point out the promotional language in the article. If it appears near the top of Google's search results, isn't Google "actively promoting the phrase"? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

  If you look past User:Off2riorob's dogwhistle doublespeak, you'll see that he's just pushing the old "Culture War" false dichotomy to construct a narrative where objective presentation of facts he doesn't agree with is a partisan promotional attack. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 07:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Precise target can be hashed out later, but the truth of the matter is that there really is no such thing as a sexual neologism called a "Santorum". I loathe Santorum's politics, but this is an artificial creation of a journalist to attack a public figure. The article is focused on the creation of and the controversy over this thing, it is not about the fake word itself. Tarc (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

  Um... I don't know how you can say the word doesn't exist or is "fake" or not mean what "some people" have claimed what it means... all words are purely product of human artifice and have no innate value. That it has only taken off in one community, doesn't mean that it is "fake" especially if others have accepted it's coinage such as various novelists and the American Dialect Society. I understand where you are coming from on the idea that the word is a political attack, but there is no way you can say that santorum is not a valid neologism in some communities. The process of creating the word is the whole point of the article, else it would not be an encyclopedia entry which digs deeper then the surface meaning of the title, it would be a dictionary entry. The neologism is a simple means to identify, per simplified naming from our naming conventions, and explores the controversy, because it ultimately surrounded the word itself, and the word is what is being commented on ever since in the news. The controversy is less important then Santorum's association with the word "santorum" in the way commentators treat it, Sadads (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

  Um I can say it because it is, y'know, true. A gay journalist who has a (quite justifiable, IMO) beef with an anti-gay politician ups and creates a word to denigrate that politician, and manages to get it google-bombed into notoriety. It is noted in the lead of the article as an example of deliberate coining. That "some communities" have started using it as a result of the deliberate coining is irrelevant. This is agenda-driven editing, plain and simple. Tarc (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

  So you don't actually think the word is fake, its just coined because of bad beef. So the word is now notorious and thus notable in and of itself? Why are you supporting a name change? I don't get your position, Sadads (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

  Facepalm Obviously. Tarc (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

  Haha, great icon! Definitely going to reuse that one. I really don't get why you would stand by a name change on Wikipedia, when you think the word has gained noteriaty (a reason why something would be notable). I think this is the very essence of the problem with the discussion on this page, everyone is acknowledging that the word is notorious, but some people are claiming that it's notoriety (or subject to being infamous in certain circles) does not mean that it by itself is notable. I understand why the name could be objectionable on a moral ground, but we would be circumventing our own policies on notability and POV forking this content away from the the center of the discussion of the words notoriety in reliable sources: the word. That can't be considered POV editing, the content of the article can be seen as POV, but the name in this case, not so much. Sadads (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

"[T]here really is no such thing as a sexual neologism called a 'Santorum'" Only half correct: the neologism is in lower case, not upper. And do you really mean to dismiss the provided references which do, in fact, refer to this word as a neologism? To the point of actually naming a neologism of the year? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is the original Wikipedia article on this topic. According to policy, the other forks should be worked into this article. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose -- the sources demonstrate that the effort to create the neologism was successful, so it is inappropriate to describe it merely as a "campaign". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose--Apart from the new title being a crime against the language, we don't need to change the title of the article at all. Edit, oh man. We should totally move it to Scurrilous personal attack by degenerate gay activist Dan Savage against noble American Rick Santorum Protonk (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

  If you dropped the "degenerate" and "noble" hyperbole, what is left pretty much captures the essence of the subject matter. Tarc (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. We dont make value judgments. The neologism has become a notable phenomenon and widely used, perfectly acceptable as an encyclopedia topic. -- ۩ Mask 00:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
• Note: Proposal similar to above Talk:Santorum_(neologism)#Proposal, now proposed at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Rename_and_reorient_the_article. -- Cirt (talk) 04:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Article's about the word. If you think it's too much about Savage or capital-s Santorum, then edit the article. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 06:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. There doesn't seem to be any solid basis in policy for the proposal. It wouldn't improve the ability of our readers to find information about the term or the incident. As many others have stated, almost any other proposed title would be whitewashing or POV-pushing. Without a strong policy foundation for the change, it comes down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which isn't a good reason to make changes. I'm concerned that some editors may be less concerned about what the policies actually say than they may be about the truthiness of the position that this article in some way constitutes an attack on Santorum. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support Don't care for the proposed new title but this needs to be renamed. It is an article about the event – the coinage and its ramifications – not the substance, santorum. An article correctly entitled "Santorum" would cover the health issues, impact on sexual practices, uses, control, makeup, etc. of santorum. I doubt such an article could be written today, given the present paucity of appropriate sources, but perhaps in the future. Certainly, this article is inappropriately titled. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:35, 4 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.

Lower case first letter in title

I can't see any talk page or archive discussion that concluded that the {{lowercase title}} template should be applied to this article, and there is no rationale to be found at WP:CAPS or MOS:CAPS. I am removing the template. Please discuss here before inserting it again. ^Bongo_matic 05:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It was originally inserted diff, by Rememberway (talk · contribs). I happen to agree with it, but I will defer to the outcome of discussion here about that. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Most words that are written in lower case have encyclopedia entries that appear capitalized, so what's the rationale (note that I'm not disputing that the term itself is uncapitalized, a la Talk:Santorum (neologism)/Archive 1#Lower case initial letter)? ^Bongo_matic 05:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

In all secondary sources I have come across that discuss the term, the vast majority of secondary sources use a lowercase letter to refer to the neologism. -- Cirt (talk) 05:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

That isn't subject to dispute. The word is introduced in the lede in lower case, and referred to in lower case throughout the article. Compare apple, which is a word used in lower case, introduced in the article's lede in lower case, and has a capitalized title. ^Bongo_matic 05:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah okay sure, good example. I defer to your judgment. :) -- Cirt (talk) 05:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

In many discussions, when the the term is introduced as "Santorum (neologism)", or if people see the title without grasping the concept, they will continue to refer to the term as Santorum (the surname) and not santorum (the sexual term). If BLP concerns trump all rules and policies, as some people on this page seem to think, then we can certainly make an exception to the manual of style for this clarification. Quigley (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yea, we hear this term all the time in real life (/end sarcasm). to be perfectly blunt here ... this entire article and it's continued discussion reminds me of a 7th grade boys locker room discussion of a playboy mag. Should we suspend all our BLP rules for this? ... Pffttt ... too late, seems we already have. Whatever .. you kids have fun with your "naughty words". — Ched :  ?  06:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Attacking fellow editors as "you kids" and arguing that an article ought be deleted due to having "naughty words" is a non-starter. —Bill Price (nyb) 14:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Tell ya what Bill ... naaa .best that I don't. — Ched :  ?  05:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Need for images?

The images in the article do nothing to improve the reader's comprehension of the topic at hand. The very same images are included in the biographies of Savage and Santorum, if the reader is interested enough to click through to those articles. Since this is largely related to a word, the images seem purely decorative. I would have simply removed them, but given the current scrutiny on this article it seems best to discuss first. Would anyone object to their removal? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The images are free use, and directly relevant to the article in the subsections in which they are discussed. There is no reason to force the reader to click to another page. Compare the number of images used at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. -- Cirt (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The images in the Obama birth certificate article are unlike the images used in this article. They depict elements of the subject under under discussion (i.e., the birth certificate itself, or people holding signs which make reference to Obama's citizenship) not the people involved. How are readers being served by seeing pictures of Savage and Santorum? Does how they look have any bearing on the issue? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree with Sadads, below. They are both discussed to a great extent. -- Cirt (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
      • The same image has also been added to Skipping Towards Gomorrah and Savage Love: Straight Answers from America's Most Popular Sex Columnist. Since both articles feature images of the books with Savage on the cover, these are completely superfluous. Any objection to the removal from those articles, since we are discussing it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
        • The image is free use, I am not seeing a reason to remove it other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Cirt (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - the development of the word relies on the two people pictured, and they are both discussed to a great extent. Since one of our policies for high quality articles is that they be adequetly and appropriately illustrated, would you have any suggestions Delicious carbuncle as to what should illustrate the article? Would an image of santorum be approrpriate?Sadads (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • This article seems to be about the neologism, not the substance it refers to, so an image of santorum would not be appropriate. I fully expect, however, that one will be added eventually. As the topic is based on abstract things (coinage of a word, spread on the internet), it is difficult to say what would be an appropriate image. If no images are appropriate, I see no harm in not having an image. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Can we agree that the neologism is the product of a public dialogue/campaign between the two pictured individuals? If so would it be proper to illustrate the process with representations of the two individuals who were primary actors? This seems hardly different then adding author pictures to articles that include discussion of the creation of books, like Jonathan_Strange_&_Mr_Norrell#Composition_and_publication, or of actors on the red carpet in relationship to their role in films. I think removing the images would be contrary to common practice in literary articles on Wikipedia, and would strike me as biased against this particular article, Sadads (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
      • This article isn't about a book and it most certainly is not a dialogue between two people. This is a simple suggestion with clear rationale which I believe reflects normal practice. Rather than arguing here, I will wait for others to weigh in. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
        • I am not really seeing a cogent rationale that describes why use of images in the same manner of the Featured Article cited above by Sadads would not be appropriate. -- Cirt (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
          • That featured article uses the image of the author, not the author's targets (it's a fiction book--no real life targets). Treating it like that article means we could use the image of Savage, but not the image of Santorum (who is a victim of the campaign). Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
            • However, the creation of the neologism or the media coverage would not exist without both of the men being involved in the neologism. The process of creating the word required both of the pictured individuals acting, not just one as is the case with a novel. This would be like writing an article about a non-fictional book about a person and not including a picture of the person being treated, Sadads (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Fair use images of the two key figures discussed in the article is a no-brainer. Under this kind of overly stringent criteria, most of the images on Wikipedia could be considered "decorative". How much nitpicking do we have to do with this article? Consensus is that this is a fair, NPOV look at a notable issue. Time for everyone to move on. Gamaliel (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Since this is developing into a question-for-consensus, I would oppose removing the images. Both Santorum and Savage are directly related to the topic of this article, so it is reasonable that their images would be included as part of the article.TechBear | Talk | Contributions 19:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: fair use images relevant to the subject topic (and there are only two).--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Might I warn against any of you wandering down to the local pharmacy and perfoming Original Research? The article (despite the nice 'rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic' vibe you have going on here) really doesn't need a picture of the actual by-product that y'all seem determined to link to the victim. →StaniStani  01:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Original research is discouraged, but original images are, by contrast, encouraged. Please stop making bad assumptions about others' intentions. The frothy mix is legitimately discussed as a sexual issue totally apart from the term's origins; you would learn this if you read the article. For people looking to the frothy mix, rather than to bowdlerize the good Senator's history, an illustration (it needn't be a photo) could only help. Quigley (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

New discussion at BLPNB

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Santorum --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions from User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

Per suggestions from Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) diff, I added some info critical of the santorum phenomenon, both to the body/text of the article, and to the lede/intro diff. This was reverted by Quigley (talk · contribs) diff. As an attempt at compromise between the two — I have added it back into the body/text of the article, but left it out removed from the lede/intro diff. Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

What is the purpose exactly, of smearing Savage as "a very liberal advice columnist in the alternative media who does not hide his hatred for Mr. Santorum"? Or calling his activities an "activist" act of "revenge"? The facts hidden in this nauseating anti-Savage rhetoric (Savage is a living person too, lest we forget) are already covered in the article in a neutral way (and if POV authorities are quoted, they're on the term, not on any person). I don't know how much leeway Hullaballoo Wolfowitz gave you in his directions, but to use those attack words, even in quotes—on a living person—only scores political points for Santorum. If the campaigners against this article had any credible pretense to being motivated by upholding BLP, it is now lost. Quigley (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

A valid point, I would like to hear what Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) has to say, as my edits were acting directly upon his recommendations of what to add to this article. -- Cirt (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Quigley's point is valid; I find it hard to even see it as resonable. The article already includes descriptions of Rick Santorum that seem no less derogatory ("morally wrong," "unfit for a leadership position in the United States Senate," and the single quotation from Savage that addresses Santorum personally makes it clear that those third-party comments are reasonable characterizations of Savage's opinion.

I think the framing of the article subject as simply a "neologism" is a fundamental error. It's closer in nature to an internet meme or a "political meme", and the motivations of those promoting its circulation are not simply valid concerns for an encyclopedia article, they are necessary concerns. No one would reasonably question reporting the commercial motives for a meme propagated to promote a product. Writing this article without some focus on Savage's motives would be like writing the "birther" article with mentioning the well-reported suspicions of underlying elements of racism. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

One of the reasons that I thought the suggestions by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz were a good idea, and indeed, I implemented them myself directly into the article, is that I believe it makes sense to present multiple different viewpoints as given in secondary sources. Actually, one of the sources recommended by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was already given prominent coverage in the lede/intro of the article, prior to his suggestion to add more from it. -- Cirt (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The article contains no equivalent on Santorum for the direct and personal attack on Savage that was suggested. "Morally wrong" and unfit for leadership was Howard Dean's description of Santorum's antigay remarks: "attacking people because of who they are". It was not a description of Santorum's person, as the the attack on Savage was. The suggested additions are not only unhelpful but also unnecessary: there is already an extensive section that neutrally explains Savage's motivations for the coining, both the rational and the visceral, in the "contest" section of the article. Furthermore, the politics reached its peak at the coining: 2003. The sexual term has since dwarfed the political controversy, which happened almost a decade ago. Now, the comparison to the birther conspiracy is irresponsible if taken too far. It has parallels in that by documenting and expanding both articles, we are not inherently taking a side. But the comparison stops there: whereas the birthers may have bigoted motives, Savage was reacting to bigotry by Santorum. It is a moot point, since Savage does not control the term anymore, as it is more sexual slang than political slang. Quigley (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope we can at least agree on a compromise between Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Quigley — namely, to keep the suggested additions in the body/text of the article, but leave them out of the prominent placement of the lede/intro for now. -- Cirt (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I can agree to a consistent application of the rules: if BLP strictly applies, then existence of the columnists' personal attacks on Savage anywhere on the article is unacceptable and uncompromisable. If BLP does not strictly apply, then we should work out parallel language for Santorum. Quigley (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with Quigley's interpretation of BLP. BLP does not prohibit us from reporting facts about living persons, including facts about opinions, including facts about uncomplimentary opinions. The opinions we report don't have to be well founded. They need only be significant and relevant to the subject of the article. Sometimes, an unfounded attack is significant enough to have its own article (such as John Kerry military service controversy).

The article at hand isn't about attacks on Savage. Therefore, a generalized attack on Savage would not be relevant. It is relevant, however, to report a significant comment about the subject of the column (this coinage), even if that comment takes the form of an attack on Savage. (One qualification is that we don't need to quote every example of a derogatory opinion. Fair reporting of each POV will suffice.)

This instance is on the borderline. From the link I gather that Vasillaros is a regular columnist for the second-largest newspaper in the second-largest city in Santorum's state. If that's so, then I'd say he's a prominent spokesperson. In this instance, his column isn't about Santorum or santorum, but about the nasty words you can find through Google. His slam at Savage and at the "santorum" saga is just an aside in that context. The quotation would more clearly merit inclusion if it were more closely related to the subject of the column, and hence something representing more consideration than just a nasty aside. Overall, though, given that Vasillaros is a columnist in Pennsylvania, I lean toward inclusion.

The Mother Jones characterization of the whole thing is clearly significant, but it's biased to use only the selective quotation in the diff given at the top of this thread. The magazine actually said that Savage acted "[i]n revenge for some nasty homophobic comments Santorum made...." The "revenge" term, by itself, ascribes to Savage a motive that many readers would consider ignoble. It should be put in context by the inclusion of the next seven words, which for many readers would change their evaluation.

Neither of these quotations is important enough to include in the introductory section. JamesMLane t c 03:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright, well, seems okay for the body/text, but we appear to be forming a consensus not to have those particular quotes in the lede/intro. -- Cirt (talk) 03:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Examples from literature

The following passage from our article,

Santorum has received utilization in fiction works, including the 2005 novel Hard by Jack R. Dunn,

<ref name="jackrdunn">{{cite book|first=Jack R.|last=Dunn|year=2005|title=Hard|page=134|quote=She wads up the t-shirt, uses it to wipe a trickle of santorum from her ass, and throws it under the cot.}}</ref>

the 2006 work The Stepdaughters by Rod Waleman,

<ref name="rodwaleman">{{cite book|first=Rod|last=Waleman|year=2006|title=The Stepdaughters|page=146|quote=Mark fucked his wife with slow, sure strokes that seemed to the panting Valerie to penetrate her more deeply than ever before. At each descent of the pouncing big prick into her sanctum santorum, Valerie thrust upward with all her strength until the velvety surfaces of her rotund naked buttocks swung clear of the bed|isbn=1-59654-370-1}}</ref>

and the 2008 books Men on the Edge: Dangerous Erotica edited by Christopher Pierce,

<ref name="christopherpierce">{{cite book|first=Christopher|last=Pierce|year=2008|title=Men on the Edge: Dangerous Erotica|page=38|quote=Then, one of them broke ranks and rammed his blood-lubed fist straight up my ass and twisted hard, pulled it out and licked the santorum clean.|publisher=STARbooks Press|isbn=978-1934187289}}</ref>

and Hate Starve Curse by Austen James.

<ref>{{cite book|title=Hate Starve Curse|year=2008|publisher=Broken Science Press|page=30|first=Austen|last=James|isbn=978148235028|quote=Any residents not burned alive in the fires or drowned in the flood will be made to drink a mixture of bodily fluids typically deposited in on the streets during Mardi Gras until death. The mixture should consist of (but is not limited to) sweat, snot, urine, saliva, tears, vomit, sexual fluids, and feces and santourm.}}</ref>

strikes me as an OR-ish use of primary sources. There is no secondary source commenting on the term's inclusion in those works, and we wouldn't usually go and try to find, list and quote every single work that has used a neologism. Moreover, the occurrence in "The Stepdaughters" seems to be a typo for "sanctum sanctorum". Reading the chapter, the character is most definitely engaged in vaginal, not anal, sex. There is also a typo in the last quote, santourm. --JN466 19:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the OR. Yes, primary sources, but in a way that seems consistent with WP:PRIMARY. You appear to be right about a typo -- but isn't it WP:OR to come to that conclusion? (Anyway that's a hell of a typo -- I'd love to see a secondary source take note of that one.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Waleman's book was first published in 1971. --JN466 19:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Very good point, illustrating how weak the scrutiny given to the sourcing in this article has been until now. It also doesn't really use the term "santorum," but misspells the Latin phrase "sanctum sanctorum." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The book Hard by Dunn is a self-published, free e-book. [9]. [10].--JN466 20:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

"Broken Science Press", the publisher of Hate Starve Curse, seems to have published exactly two books, both by Austen James: [11][12]. --JN466 20:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

STARbooks Press is a bona-fide publisher of gay literature. --JN466 20:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You can hardly blame Cirt for including that false usage of santorum. They probably got it from the santorum entry on Wikiquote. Oh, wait... yes, you can blame Cirt, as they also created that page... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done — I have gone ahead and taken the initiative myself to voluntarily remove Dunn 2005 diff and James 2008 diff, per above. -- Cirt (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

On what justification? Nomoskedasticity points out that the use of Dunn and James is correct by NOR policy. "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to 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." That the specified primary sources use the term is a straightforward, easily verifiable description of fact. It is not original analysis, synthesis, or interpretation. There is no legitimate justification to remove Dunn and James. And I would like an explanation for why Jayen466 even mentioned that STARbooks Press is a "bona-fide publisher of gay literature". Is this more gay-baiting along the lines of Corbin Fisher? Quigley (talk) 05:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Quigley, I removed Dunn and James because of the above discussion, and because I was uncertain if self-published sources were noteworthy enough in this situation for inclusion. However, if consensus is different, they may be added back. Perhaps a compromise would be not to mention them directly in the article, but instead include them as a footnote or endnote? -- Cirt (talk) 05:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is inconclusive, happened in a very short span of time, and requires serious meditation on manners of policy, and not just opinion. Therefore, I think you have acted too quickly upon the drastic opinions of a few, especially when it comes to removing neutral, sourced information, and adding anti-Savage opinion. It would be prudent to wait a few days before making any major changes to this article, so that all interested parties may weigh in. Also, it is quite disturbing to see a flood of POV-unbalancing edits with no edit summary or rationale other than "per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is not an argument or a policy. Consensus is not him or him and another person; consensus takes time to form. Quigley (talk) 05:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, part of compromising is to try out some ideas from multiple parties - and also in the process making it somewhat likely that no single party is fully pleased with all parts of the end result. -- Cirt (talk) 06:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Trying out an attempt at compromise idea as mentioned above, retaining two of the removed cites, as footnotes diff, without emphasis on direct mention in main article body text. -- Cirt (talk) 06:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't take recourse to self-published sources and free e-books to demonstrate usage. The STARbooks ref at least has a bona fide publisher (although it's still a primary source, and no secondary source has commented on the use of the word in that book). --JN466 13:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Glad we can agree to compromise on the Pierce 2008 book. Would still like to hear back from Quigley (talk · contribs) regarding the latest attempt at compromise. -- Cirt (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Ebooks are not a "recourse" by any means. It is to be expected that a term popularized in the first few years of the last decade would see prodigious use in ebooks as well as in paper books. We are, after all, writing an e- and not a paper encyclopedia. Cirt, I'm not clear on what you regard as the "latest attempt at compromise". If you are referring to this edit, then I do regard it as a compromise, and not as an invitation to Jayen466 to continue to subject this article to death by a thousand cuts. If you are referring to some later edit, then be specific and use diffs. Quigley (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Quigley, you were right about what I was referring to, diff. -- Cirt (talk) 02:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we are still "twice removed" from good sourcing here: firstly, we are citing primary sources using the term, rather than secondary sources pointing out that these sources use the term, and secondly, we are citing self-published sources by unknown authors. I am prepared to entertain the STARbooks reference, as that is a publisher with a track record, but including the other two is undue. --JN466 02:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

That is a reasonable compromise, I should think. But perhaps in addition to that, we could move the 2 sources proposed to be removed, to the Further reading sect. -- Cirt (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Trim background?

The background section seems a bit long, especially in the context of the subject. I'm proposing removing the second and later paragraphs, which are basically, "reactions and responses to Santorum's comments." Those reactions and responses don't really have anything directly to do with the term "santorum." The section links off to Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality which seems an better place for that information. Oddly, these paragraphs seem better fleshed out than that article, so perhaps they should be migrated and integrated there. — Alan De Smet | Talk 05:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I have implemented part of this suggestion, and greatly reduced the size of that section, diff. However, I think at this point the remainder can be retained, in its greatly reduced format from previous. Of course, if you wish to use the prior text and sources to improve the other related articles, that would be great as well. :) -- Cirt (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Update: Trimmed down the sect size even more, diff. Hopefully that is satisfactory, in a comparison with the prior version. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 07:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Changes by User Off2riorob

• edit (reverted by Nomoskedasticity as factually inaccurate changes) followed by again by same edit.

Consensus from the Community expressed above, at Talk:Santorum_(neologism)#Proposal, does not support these changes. Please, do not make such changes to the focus of the lede/intro of this article, when consensus at Talk:Santorum_(neologism)#Proposal opposes this. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

That is a very limited consensus, with only a few experienced contributors. Clearly this article has multiple issues and in the near future we are going to require a wider discussion regarding it. Off2riorob (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I see at least 23 editors that have commented there. That is not a "very limited consensus". That is more than comment at most article talk page content WP:RFCs. It is a solid consensus against these changes. -- Cirt (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I realize you will defend this bloated attack piece with all your skills (that is actually what I find most disturbing) but you have to realize or at least have noticed that many experienced editors disagree with your massive expansion of it and at some point it will require wider input and a community RFC. Off2riorob (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Many experienced editors have also expressed their disagreement with the proposed change, and it has been the topic of wider discussions e.g. at BLPN as you might recall. No doubt these discussions will continue; perhaps they will even be characterized by good faith. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Good faith is not closing your eyes to what you can clearly see. Off2riorob (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The article has already been through three AFDs, and a "proposal to stub" the article. All of those efforts to disappear this article have failed. Clearly the community is not in support of doing that. -- Cirt (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Lead sentence

A suggestion to change the lead sentence, which is displayed as part of the Google search result, has been made at BLP/N. Interested editors are invited to comment there. --JN466 20:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought it should be discussed here, not there. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done, I have implemented the above suggestion, see diff. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

 Not done -- Cirt, please stop rushing to implement every suggestion someone makes; it has been proposed for discussion, so let it be discussed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, no objections, more discussion is a good idea with regard to this particular change. -- Cirt (talk) 01:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the attempt to shift the discussion to BLPN, and also to Jimbo Wales' talk page. By polling both of these forums, whose opinions regarding these matters are known to be deleterious to this existence of articles like these, those editors who are in the minority on this talk page are shamelessly forum shopping to get the results they want. As for the proposed change, it refocuses the article to give undue prominence to Savage and to obscure the meaning of the neologism, gratifying the political sensibilities of the editors rather than the utility of the readers of this article. Quigley (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Quigley, I believe your attack on SlimVirgin for forum shopping (if I read that first diff correctly) and your characterization of this dispute as political in nature amount to a failure to assume good faith, and I request you reconsider your words and strike through your accusations. →StaniStani  07:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Your accusation of personal attacks is itself a personal attack, and your demand for a retraction is inflammatory. In fact, the whole premise of this so-called dispute is a giant assumption of bad faith that implicates anyone who has ever edited this article; it is the bold and anti-encyclopedic claim that by documenting a phenomenon that we are somehow participating in it. Between this deplorable idea and the relentless attacks on the personal motivations of User:Cirt for expanding this article, any good faith that might have survived the beginning of this discussion has been dried up completely. Quigley (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

When ya all interested parties have had your little bit of fun, and moved on to the next thing - this "article" will be deleted/redirected with a minor merge - as it deserves to be. You should consider what the founder of the project thinks about this article - see here - Off2riorob (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk)

Mr. Wales ceded his benevolent-dictator-for-life role back to the community some time ago, and now has the status of a constitutional monarch. Although his opinion is important, community consensus is more so. -- The Anome (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Such activist opinionated alleged community consensus as this one are destructive to the projects goals and ambitions regarding NPOV and encyclopedic educational content and does nothing but demean and diminish the project - clearly this article is supported by lots of LGBT editors - they are not representative of the silent majority at all. Off2riorob (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

And how would you know that? The silent majority are, by definition, silent. Claiming to be the voice of the silent majority is a claim anyone can make: it's unfalsifiable. -- The Anome (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I at least can recognize a vocal minority supporting its self interests without consideration of the neutrality and goals of the project as a whole. Off2riorob (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Really? From what do you draw your conclusion that the other participants here are "LGBT editors"? -- The Anome (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Users interests are easily revealed through their edit history. Also imo as a neutral user with the projects neutrality and BLP issues in mind - no one would support this bloated attack unless they were "involved" in some small manner - Off2riorob (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Really? Tell me, am I, in your opinion, a member of this presumed LGBT cabal? -- The Anome (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I am speaking in regard to the overall picture not in regard to specific contributors. If you have an association with the gay activism I would appreciate it if you declared it. Off2riorob (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope. No connection with gay activism at all. As you can see from my editing history, my interests are mostly computers, mathematics, physics and geography. Nor am I involved with U.S. politics, on either side. -- The Anome (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

You know, I could just as easily make the opposite bad faith argument. Behold. Is EVERYone opposing the great and noble efforts of persecuted minority Dan Savage members of the right-wing extremist homophobic establishment in this country? You're just a fan of Rick "Man on Dog" Santorum!!111!! Stop the gay-bashing hate speech!!!!eleven! Yes, that was meant to be read sarcastically. Can we stop trying to poison the well and stop throwing accusations of bias around? Henrymrx (t·c) 22:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

My point is exactly that throwing around terms like "LGBT cabal" or "silent majority" is futile, and we should take personalities out of this and consider arguments on their merits alone, without making assumptions about the motives of other editors. -- The Anome (talk) 22:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

"LGBT cabal" - you are the person that said that - it is your expression. Off2riorob (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't you think this article is a bit bloated and unduly attacking of a living person? Do you think a single paragraph might be more than enough? Do you think it needs expansion? Off2riorob (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the bloat is a direct result of the many attempts to delete it on policy or decency grounds, as its proponents hammer home the point that it meets WP:V and WP:N and strive ever harder to achieve strict compliance with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP policies. If its presence here hadn't been objected to on just those procedural grounds, this never would have happened, and this would have been a much smaller article. See Streisand effect and unintended consequences. -- The Anome (talk) 22:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

So you agree it is bloated, good a point we can agree on. - I suggest anyone here reads it completely to get a real feel for exactly how bloated it is. I am surprised at your suggestion that the article has been expanded because of users procedural objections to it .. and I don't think doing that is a correct beneficial thing to do for the project either. Users are objecting to my expansion of this article so I will expand it as much as possible to defend it ... Off2riorob (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob: But that's exactly what has happened. I agree that it might perhaps sufficed to be half of its current size; but deletion was never going to fly. The process of fighting its mere existence has resulted in a massive blowback in the other direction. Welcome to the Internet, where things like this happen. I'd stop digging now, if I were you. Perhaps in a few years' time, the article can be reduced in size as its relevance becomes historic. Or not, as the case may be: it's entirely possible that Savage's one little word may end Santorum's chances for the presidency, in which case this will be -- almost absurdly -- confirmed as being one of the most significant stories from this political cycle. -- The Anome (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not digging much.. - I am proud to speak up against the massive expansion of this article by User:Cirt. This specific issue is important but whats more important is to bring attention to user Cirts similar issues at multiple locations and work towards bringing the users contentious editing to the communities attention and to have them restricted. Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, just for clarity, I should explain that that was an allusion to the expression "When you're in a hole, stop digging", coined by the British politician Denis Healey. -- The Anome (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

"no one would support this bloated attack unless they were "involved" in some small manner" - so it seems you are talking specifically about every single editor who disagrees with you. Tell me, how am I "involved"? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Only you know, how are you involved? Off2riorob (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

So you are assuming that every editor that claims neutrality is lying? Wow, Sadads (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow to you too - please don't put words into my mouth. Off2riorob (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Sadads isn't far off. If I say that I'm not involved then how do you reconcile that with your statement? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Apologies if I offended you, but your most recent comments suggest that the entire reason you are here is because an assumption of bad faith on Cirt and anyone that defends his position here on this article. I agree he is impolitic sometimes, but he certainly isn't a malicious editor and that doesnt mean the rest of us are in cohoots with him or marching to the same tune as the articles content, Sadads (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - If you say you are uninvolved that is your busyness - I didn't say you where involved. What position do you take in regard to the currant article and its size at present is a more relevant question you could answer. Off2riorob (talk) 23:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I am picking up that there is some resistance to suggestions to delete the article but less objections to the fact that the article is clearly overlarge , undue and could be easily trimmed to half its size - users should focus more on the actual content. - rather than feeling defensive and supporting as a knee jerk. - It is fine to say - I support this articles existence but it is imo overly large and undue. Off2riorob (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you could make a start by assuming good faith on everyone's behalf. I can see where you're coming from, and to some extent I share your concerns and that of those other editors that oppose the existence of this article in its current form. But Cirt's point of view, and that of those who agree with him/her also makes sense to me, and, in the balance, and the peculiar circumstances here, I think Cirt's point of view makes marginally more sense than the other; and I'm clearly not alone in that conclusion. Given that Cirt's edits very strictly adhere to Wikipedia's rules on editing, and is clearly not malicious, I think the result is a foregone conclusion. I suggest everyone cools off for a bit, and stops pushing for a few months, and works solely on polishing and updating the article, rather than attempting to expand or shrink it significantly. The significance, or lack of significance, of this word will become clearer over the next few months. -- The Anome (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob said it himself: this article is a merely a pawn in a group of editors' campaign "to bring attention to user Cirts similar issues at multiple locations and work towards bringing the users contentious editing to the communities attention and to have them restricted". And if this weren't clear enough disruption in and of itself, he now speaks boldly about what Jayen466 only alluded to—some LGBT cabal that protects this page, despite the fact that a majority of editors on both sides of this dispute (including Cirt, The Anome, and myself) do not have LGBT-focused editing histories. The incontrovertible fact about santorum is that its use has expanded beyond Dan Savage's webpage, and its enrichment of the English language has been well-documented in reliable sources. The (lack of) significance of the word, if our concern is for the man who denies civil rights, has already been demonstrated: the word played no quantifiable role in Rick Santorum's losing his Senate seat, and the man is a fringe and unlikely candidate for U.S. president. But this article is not about the man; it is about the term, which belongs now not to one man or one woman, but to the global community of English-language speakers. As a result, the full and separate coverage is not undue; it is the summation of Wikipedia's goals, and it is a necessary hedge against the lie that the word has no independent currency outside of the person and the event that lead to its coining. Quigley (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't actually find the word well documented as a word separated from the campaign. Looking at the examples we give in Santorum_(neologism)#Recognition_and_usage, we have a limerick in BBspot's "Geek Limerick contest", which runs,

The Internet is a great forum;

We can mock people when we abhor 'em.

And if you don't believe

What the web can achieve,

Then just Google our dear friend Santorum.

That's the person, not the neologism.

Similarly, the Partridge Dictionary of Slang reference is not actually the alphabetical dictionary listing of English slang words, it's in the introduction. What does it actually say there, when it describes the word as a "deliberate coining"?

Kranz and Cusick mention its coining in the context of the campaign. Roger's Profanisaurus belongs to an adult humour comic. Neologism in the lexical system of modern English is a Ukrainian self-published master thesis. [13][14]. Gunn is a misquoted footnote; he actually refers to Savage's coining of the term, and attributes it to him. Then we have two self-published novels, one properly published book, and then Gonzo Crosswords (!). Rubel looks okay, Moser too; those seem actually the only good references of that lot. --JN466 03:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The natality paper seems like quite an intelligent discussion, though it appears to be a student paper. Wasik is fine, though of course it covers the campaign, rather than the word. Next, we have the Purity Test, whose full title is, The Purity Test: Your Filth and Depravity Cheerfully Exposed by 2,000 Nosy Questions. Then we have a book on the Simpsons, which mentions Savage's coining the term, and lastly a quote from Savage himself. My impression is that this is pretty much every last instance of the word editors could find. --JN466 04:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The research is somewhat difficult, with regard to coming up with the appropriate search terms to find uses of santorum but in usage of the neologism term itself. It is likely additional usage exists. -- Cirt (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Would you have a source quote from Partrdige? --JN466 04:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, we could include that. -- Cirt (talk) 04:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

No, what I meant was, could you copy the context in which the word is mentioned in the book here on the talk page? As for the search term difficulty, santorum + sex, santorum + anal, santorum + shit will probably weed out a lot of false positives. ;) --JN466 04:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Partridge 2006 — "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." — keep in mind this was from back in 2006, however, I would be willing of course to include the full quote on the article page, if that is suggested. :) -- Cirt (talk) 04:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Is it listed in the alphabetical section, or is this the rationale why it was excluded from the alphabetical listing? --JN466 04:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe it is, but like you I would be guessing as to why. -- Cirt (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I meant, what precedes the passage you quoted? Is it an explanation of which types of words are not included in the alphabetical listing, and why? (For reference, Google Books does not find any mention of the word in the 2007 and 2008 editions.) --JN466 04:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

They write that they tried to avoid entries of "intentional coinings without widespread usage". -- Cirt (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. In that case I think you ought to revisit the relevant passage of the article, to bring it more in line with the source. --JN466 04:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done, I have taken the initiative to voluntarily implement this suggestion into the article, diff. -- Cirt (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you. I've added a little more of the context we discussed above [15]; it's an authoritative source, and its view is good to have. Thanks again for your cooperation. --JN466 05:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

This edit diff, is a bit of WP:NOR, we should not be stooping to guessing as to why something is not included, or looking through dictionaries and mentioning all dictionaries that do not list a term... -- Cirt (talk) 05:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

From what you said above, I understood that they said they tried to avoid entries of "intentional coinings without widespread usage", and then gave santorum as an example, saying "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." Did I misunderstand your explanation above? --JN466 05:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Your edit appears to be WP:NOR. It is reading into the source, instead of simply stating it. Due to the controversy involved, best to stick to direct quote from that source — which is what I have done, already. -- Cirt (talk) 05:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

But the reason they mentioned it, specifically, is as an example of the type of word they chose not to include, isn't it? --JN466 05:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

No, that is not directly stated in the source. That is an assumption. -- Cirt (talk) 05:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Could I ask you then to post here the entire intervening passage, from the place where they state they "tried to avoid entries of" "intentional coinings without widespread usage", to "An example of deliberate coining ..."? That would be much appreciated. Then we can look at it together and determine if my edit went beyond what the source said. --JN466 05:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry but there is a lot of text in the entire intervening passage. -- Cirt (talk) 05:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. I thought the two statements you cited were in relatively close proximity. Could you at least give us a couple of sentences before and after each? I.e.

• before and after the sentence where they say they tried to avoid "intentional coinings without widespread usage", and
• before and after "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.".

I just would like to understand the point the introduction is making there. --JN466 13:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you find a moment to provide the source quotes I asked you about? --JN466 21:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: It is quite unfortunate that the tone has degraded in this sect. It started out above with a good faith discussion about compromising. In fact, the very original purpose of this particular sect has been resolved already, see diff. -- Cirt (talk) 03:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI - another forum where this is being discussed

• User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Rick_Santorum

FYI - another forum where this is being discussed. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• It looks like this issue is going to keep being raised again and again, until Santorum's very long-shot candidacy ends.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Milowent, it seems that Macwhiz (talk · contribs) would tend to agree with you about that, diff, diff. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal similar to above proposal, on another forum

• Note: Proposal similar to above Talk:Santorum_(neologism)#Proposal, now proposed at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Rename_and_reorient_the_article. -- Cirt (talk) 04:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be the season to forum shop. I wonder what goes well with santorum and heels? And is it on sale? Active Banana (^bananaphone 23:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Active Banana, that is unfortunately an accurate assessment of one of the problems with resolving the repeated discussions and proposals of a similar nature, across multiple pages and forums. -- Cirt (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Lede

I'm not at all convinced that there's a consensus for the change to the first sentence of the article recently implemented. Although User:Jayen466 claims there was "6:1:1" support for the change at WP:BLPN#Lead sentence, that's a misleading ratio, as only 8 editors participated. Simply put, this article is about the word, and we're burying the lede because some forum shopping editors cried BLP. But this is no more a BLP issue than Dyke (slang), and the current opening is about as ridiculous as "The Model-T was a product produced by Henry Ford's manufacturing company in response to market pressures and an emerging middle class. In 1908, it became the first of its kind to be produced using interchangeable parts and assembly lines, and in 1927 the 15 millionth Model-T automobile was manufactured by Ford Motors."

The point is that I oppose the recent change, and I intend to boldly revert unless I'm clearly in the minority on this talk page. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I would point out that there is already a sect on this talkpage for that proposal — but unfortunately its tone has degraded in the quality that various editors chose to refer to one another. So perhaps you are correct to start a new sect here on the talkpage to discuss your objection to the recent change. -- Cirt (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

tl;dr. Time to stop bickering and start !voting. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 03:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

---

• Note: I commented about this proposal once already, diff. I have no strong objections to it, neither would I object to the prior wording — I was the one that first took the initiative and voluntarily made the edit to implement it diff, later restored again by Jayen466 diff. But if there is consensus among editors from the community for the change as it stands — and it would help to resolve some of the ongoing issues and come to a good faith compromise about the start of the lede, that is a good thing. :) -- Cirt (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support This article is about the coinage of the term. An event. It is not an article about the substance, santorum. The present opening sentence is appropriate. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

  Bzzt, sorry, wrong, you must be thinking of Coinage of "santorum". This article is about the neologism "santorum," which is a word. The most important fact about a word is the meaning of the word. Who coined it comes later. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

  I don't like you. You're rude to people and can't argue and you fill up all these pages with your half-formed, one-eyed childish blather. You're inserting odd formatting and preemptively closing discussions and making no sense at all. You're, in short, disruptive. Your behaviour here is toxic. Learn some manners or go away. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

  I don't think whether you like me is relevant to this discussion, and I don't think that your personal attacks are a very compelling argument. Please comment on content, not contributors. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 07:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Note: Given the precedent set by User:Jayen466 at WP:BLPN, I intend to call this one in about 17 hours time. If you're going to WP:CANVAS for !votes, better get started. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support As Cirt and I have just established above, according to the Partridge dictionary of modern American slang and unconventional English, which is a reputable reference work in this field, "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." They consciously did not include it in their alphabetical listing as they try to avoid entries of "intentional coinings without widespread usage". The revised opening sentence is in line with that. As for my having made the edit, a 6:1 consensus in favour of a BLP-related change at BLPN, with one abstention, is a sufficient mandate, given BLP policy's presumption in favour of the BLP subject. I would have been happy for the discussion at BLPN to have remained open longer, but Nomoskedasticity, who had previously reverted Cirt, closed it as resolved. --JN466 04:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

More recent sources acknowledge the term as a form of sexual slang. 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" — cite: Wasik, Bill (2009). And Then There's This: How Stories Live and Die in Viral Culture. Viking Adult. p. 80. ISBN 0670020842. — secondary sources identify the term as sexual slang. -- Cirt (talk) 04:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not a BLP issue. You're giving that source undue weight. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 07:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Rename, summarize, and merge

A consensus seems to be developing in various places (e.g. here and here) that this article ought not to exist, or that it ought to be summarized and merged into the controversy article, then renamed and redirected.

Cirt, is that something you'd be willing to support and work on? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 05:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Um...that isn't the consensus forming at the first of these links you gave us ([16]) and it appears that a significant number of users object on Jimmy's page as well, though that discussion is turning more towards a turn to WP:COATRACK. Neither forum is projecting a clear consensus for a merge, delete or summarize. This is why forum shopping is problematic, the conversation has now forked in different places, Sadads (talk) 05:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

See above comment, on this talk page, by Active Banana, diff. -- Cirt (talk) 05:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

My reading of the way consensus is changing is that the more people comment, the greater the consensus will be that we should rename and merge, at least. So my thinking is let's get it done.

Cirt, you could condense what you wrote into a summary-style one paragraph for the controversy article, then we could think of a name for this page (Dan Savage santorum campaign, for example), then redirect that title to the summary-style section. That covers all our needs—readers will see the redirect, will read the sources, will read the context—but without Wikipedia appearing to be involved in spreading the meme. That strikes me as a reasonable compromise. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 05:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, in the recent comments no-one who is defending the notability of the topic feels that the entire article should be squashed, but rather we feel that it should be trimmed and refined, that has been the major concession as of late. The recent turn has by no means pointed towards merging or renaming. Most other comments that conceded points have been associated with forum shopping or the return to arguments based on bad faith. Anyone else reading the recent comments like SlimVirgin? I would also like to point out that many users, like myself and most of the people who commented on the two closed proposals to do what you want to do above have not been commenting on the other pages, probably because of the fact that this is forum shopping, Sadads (talk) 05:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I can make a good faith comment here, and agree with you that the article page Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality should be expanded with additional secondary sources. But that should occur in the future, irrespective of the resolution for this page. :) So far, to date, no editor has made efforts to improve and expand that other page. -- Cirt (talk) 05:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Please stop forum shopping. The "consensus" on Jimmy's talk matters fuck-all compared to the discussion that went 2-1 against this proposal not halfway up this very page. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 12:40 am, Today (UTC−5)

• comment This entire topic has been spread across so many articles, talk pages, template discussions, user talk pages. and such that I have to wonder if perhaps a centralized discussion in the venue of an WP:RFC is warranted? I'd suggest that given the strongly divisive viewpoints, and the breadth of this topic, that something be centralized, and listed at WP:CENT. Considering how polarized the subject has gotten, perhaps we could even request that once an RFC has been expedited, an experienced "Crat" close the discussion with some finality. Just a thought. — Ched :  ?  06:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• There's an RfC above, Ched, but listing it centrally is a good idea. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Sigh .. you're right Slim. Perhaps I'm just getting too old for this. It's just that the entire debacle seems so very wrong in my view. In fact, I even posted in that thread. I guess I'd just like to see a single page where this entire ordeal could be gathered together, and some semblance of order could be found here. For so many years I have avoided such these things, and yet I got drawn into this mess. Perhaps a new day will avail me with a bit more wisdom and fortitude. — Ched :  ?  07:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Ched, it is a good idea to post to WP:CENT, but it was also the right move by SlimVirgin to have the central location for the ongoing RfC be located at this talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 07:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that a central page would be a good idea, but I'm not sure we should open up another forum at this stage. If this RfC is posted widely enough, it might draw enough people in. I did try adding it to CENT but was reverted. [17] SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 07:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I posted neutrally worded notices to a bunch of talkpages of related WikiProjects, so hopefully that will give wider notice, to the existence of the RfC. -- Cirt (talk) 07:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• comment it amazes me every day. Just when I think I've seen the utmost irrationality, I run across editors in completely opposite camps who work together to achieve a compromise and find some sort of consensus. No wonder I keep coming back to this nuthouse. :) — Ched :  ?  08:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Restarting the RfC

The RfC above is a mess. It was added on top of an existing discussion with a different proposal. The RfC asks for comments on a different set of options. The newer responses will not be compatible with the older ones. There's no reason to do this at this stage -- the existing discussion has lasted for a week, the consensus is clear. Any outcome that fails to respect that consensus at this stage will have no legitimacy. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It's the same proposal. Rename, merge, redirect. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 08:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Megadittos. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
• I agree the conflicting proposals are a problem. There is a need for an RfC, though. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• What are the conflicting proposals, Anthony? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 08:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• One is the original proposal simply to rename and make this a sub-article of Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality, which I endorse; the other is to rename, redirect, and merge content, which I'm coming round to. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• I can't see any difference. Jayen suggested renaming this one, and merging it into the controversy article, with a redirect from the new title. That's the RfC proposal too. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 09:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean now. Jayen was going to leave this as a stand-alone. Sigh. This whole thing is such a complete waste of people's time.

We could start a new RfC, but my goodness. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 09:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It's only turning into a waste of time because some people aren't happy not getting their way and keep pushing it despite consensus repeatedly going in a different direction. The way to stop wasting people's time is to stop wasting people's time. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

This needs to be reviewed by a wider cross-section of the community. And I'd like to hear the opinions of more senior and experienced editors. How about this:

Proposal: that this article be renamed Dan Savage campaign, condensed to one or two paragraphs, merged as a section into Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality, and the new title redirected to that section?

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

You mean as a brand new RfC? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 09:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess. I could go round to those projects notified by Cirt and redirect them to this new RfC. It's a bit messy but can you think of a better way to go? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Who here isn't senior and experienced enough for you, Anthony? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably better not to do that. If we were to start a new one, I would simply revert my edits to the old one, including the header, and move the new one (with the same header as now) lower on the page; keeping the same header would mean we wouldn't have to change the posts elsewhere, or the RfC pages.

But I don't think we can justify having two going at the same time on the same page. I've asked Jayen for advice, and linked to this discussion, so perhaps we should wait for him to comment, as he started the first discussion. I'm sorry if I've messed this up. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 09:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Cool. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I reverted my edits to the discussion, so the IP's closure of it is back, and I've restarted the RfC lower on the page. It's not ideal, but I can't see a better way forward as of now. It's the same header as before, so people's posts about it elsewhere needn't change. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 09:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you to Nomoskedasticity and Anthony for pointing out that I'd misinterpreted the first proposal. I wouldn't have noticed otherwise. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 10:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"It's only turning into a waste of time because some people aren't happy not getting their way and keep pushing it despite consensus repeatedly going in a different direction. " Was this an uncomfortable assertion that you'd prefer not to address? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The more it's discussed, the more consensus seems to be changing, because uninvolved people are now commenting. At least, that's how it seems to me. When there's evolving consensus, it makes no sense to shut discussion down. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 10:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Criticism removed

• I added some criticism to the article diff — this was removed by 24.177.120.138 (talk · contribs), diff.
• I think it is a good idea to add in some criticism from secondary sources, to provide some balance to other sources that comment upon the phenomenon from other viewpoints. -- Cirt (talk) 05:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I have made an attempt at compromise, as the above user's edit summary complained about addition of the quote. I added back the source, without the quote, diff. -- Cirt (talk) 05:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Eh, okay, sure. I think most/all of the "Media Analysis" section should go, tbh. It's not called "List of opinions about the controversy surrounding santorum-the-neologism", after all. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I have taken your suggestion into consideration, and I have trimmed down the size of that sect. -- Cirt (talk) 07:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to rename, redirect, and merge content

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 is this: in April 2003, a U.S. senator, Rick Santorum, made some remarks about gay sex that many found offensive; see Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality, created in December 2003. 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 [18] created a Wikipedia article about it in August 2006, originally called Santorum, [19] 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 and added to two new templates, which 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 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)
• 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. 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)
• Support. 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 the appropriate article. The only effect of the stand-alone article is to make Wikipedia a player in this political act. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support The current position gives undue weight to a political campaign. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 11:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Strong Oppose. This "controversy" has been discussed to death on this page, at BLP/N [20], 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 [21][22][23] 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. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support BLP violations and probable 'coatrack'.(olive (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC))
• 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)
• Support (placeholder) — Ched :  ?  16:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs) 18:30, 4 June 2011

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support - This COATRACK needs to be chopped and burnt. John lilburne (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
• 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)

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. --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: [24]. "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)

• 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)

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)

• (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)

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)

Sourcing issues

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

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

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

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

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

Jimbo's comment

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