Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Campaign for "santorum" neologism was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
edit this subpage
Ongoing debate - 00:41

Key question(s) to be resolved:
    Achieving Consensus - 00:41
    Key question(s) to be consensus resolved:
    • RfC: Should the characterization of the definition be replaced with the definition itself? No consensus for change. JakeInJoisey (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
    - Consensus Resolved -

    Agreed upon points in debate

    • Dan Savage's name should not be incorporated in any titleing. See decision.
    • This article is: about a campaign started by Dan Savage to humiliate Rick Santorum by establishing his surname as a sexual innuendo.
    • "santorum", if employed in article title, is lower case
    • The campaign to establish the word association is notable.
    • "Vulgar" cannot be used as an unattributed, unqualified and/or unsourced characterization of the "definition" in "Wikipedia's Voice"
    • "Vulgar" satisfies WP:V, WP:RS and WP:UNDUE considerations as a "fact about opinion" for article inclusion.
    • Website can be used in lede.
    • External link to website is permissible (see decision).

    Search engine results[edit]

    A quick Google just now yielded this very article as the first result, the WP article about the senator as the second, the Urban Dictionary definitions (first the neologism, then the senator), and the spreadingsantorum page fourth. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

    Uhm...thank you? Is there a point you are trying to make Orangemike that I am missing? Is this about the notability issue?
    Nope, just a datum. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
    Okey dokey.--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
    And some editors worried we were contributing to the campaign. Seems like we superseded it. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 04:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

    Entirely Inappropriate for Wikipedia[edit]

    This article is: (1) Outdated (2) Infantile (3) Not encyclopedic (4) A personal promotion for Mr. Savage

    It needs to be deleted. If not deleted entirely, the personal promotion for Mr. Savage, (i.e., his picture) needs to be removed. 74.103.182.239 (talk) 07:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

    No. Just because you don't like it is not a legitimate reasoning to remove an image.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes. We realize Rick Santorum is a homophobic fool. We get it. This was interesting and humorous when they first published it, but now it is irrelevant, incoherent, and not encyclopedic in any way whatsoever. Why does Wikipedia have to sacrifice its integrity by publishing things like this just because Santorum makes a fool of himself? Not only should the picture go, the whole article should go. Also, why would this be nominated for "good articles"? It could have been a great article, but the problem was it was never very good. APatcher (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
    • No - once a subject becomes notable, it does not cease to be notable. There is no such thing as an "outdated" subject, be it an Attic Greek dialect or a long-forgotten pop star of the 1920s like Gilda Gray. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Agreed. This was a highly visible, and extremely successful political campaign by Savage that derailed the career of one of American conservative politics' rising stars, achieving massive press coverage in the process, and arguably changed the U.S. political landscape regarding equal marriage. It was, and remains, notable. -- The Anome (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Puerile and Sophomoric and of no' current notoriety - it is not up to Wikipedia to maintain such "stuff" when there are legitimate encyclopedia articles not yet written. Collect (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
    You're not being asked to maintain this article. Go write your "legitimate" articles if you wish. --NeilN talk to me 18:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
    We were asked for our opinions here -- if you do not like my opinions than you know precisely what actions you can take. Clue: attacking the person with whom you disagree is not one of them. Collect (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
    And we can comment on other opinions. If you don't like that, perhaps don't comment? And clue: that wasn't an attack. --NeilN talk to me 19:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
    I don't think anyone is denying that it was puerile, sophomoric humor on Savage's part -- indeed, it was a quite literal political smear campaign. But it was a tremendously successful and significant political hatchet-job that changed the American political climate. No other major mainstream U.S. politician has dared to follow in Santorum's footsteps, and I believe the aftermath of Savage's campaign is a major reason why. In the meantime, the existence of this article is not holding up the creation of other articles about subjects you consider more worthy. -- The Anome (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
    Same reply as above. And add Lo alecha hamlacha ligmor as well. Collect (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
    v'gam lo alecha. So why do you bother here? Anyway, WP:PUERILE and WP:SOPHOMORIC don't do much for you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
    Because we are enjoined not to totally ignore what ought to be done. In the case of Wikipedia it means to produce a neutral and accurate encyclopedia about notable topics. To the extent that we do not even try to make any effort to do so, we fail our duty. To the extent that we allow false witness to be borne about others, we bear false witness ourselves. Collect (talk) 01:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    No, that's not it -- the point is, why not do something where you can actually accomplish something. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    Participating in discussions is "doing something" whether you personally agree with other opinions or not. The concept that people should be silent is something addressed many times in many places -- from Reinhold Niehuhr on. Collect (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    To be a smear campaign, it would have had to impute something untrue about the ex-senator. Because it did not, it was not a smear campaign. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    • WP:AFD is thataway. There is no purpose served by discussing it here. Tarc (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Ugh. Per Tarc. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    • What Tarc said. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 04:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    • False on all four counts. It's still a noteworthy campaign and an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. Whatever you think of the campaign itself, our article about it is both mature and encyclopedic. And Savage's picture does not appear in this article to promote him personally, just like Santorum's picture (that used to appear beside his remarks) did not promote him. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)