Talk:Campaign for the neologism "santorum"

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeCampaign for the neologism "santorum" 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.
Article milestones
August 19, 2006Articles for deletionKept
December 25, 2006Articles for deletionNo consensus
October 2, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
October 23, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
December 19, 2010Articles for deletionKept
June 12, 2011Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
June 20, 2011Articles for deletionKept
June 21, 2011Deletion reviewEndorsed
Current status: Former good article nominee

edit this subpage
Ongoing debate - 11:00

Key question(s) to be resolved:
Achieving Consensus - 11:00
Key question(s) to be consensus resolved: - 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).

Google placement in 2016 for searches on "Santorum"[edit]

Just for future reference, Dan Savage's "santorum" meme appears to still be going strong in 2016, twotwelve and a half years after Savage originally coined it. I've just done a Google search for "Santorum", and the for 10 results were as follows, in order:

  1. "Santorum for President" website
  2. Wikipedia's Campaign for "santorum" neologism article
  3. Urban Dictionary definition of this term, per Savage
  4. Wiktionary definition, ditto
  5. Mother Jones article about the "Google problem"
  8. Santorum's Facebook page
  9. "Santorum" entry on Know Your Meme, discussing the term, per Savage
  10. Atlantic article discussing Santorum the politician

-- The Anome (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Make that twelve and a half years... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
You're right, I slipped a decade, now corrected above -- thanks! -- The Anome (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Funny, I just tried the same, because I was wondering. That's one long-running (t)rick(roll) ... ehm, santoruming, to coin a term. Yes, a neologistic campaign against a person shall now be known as "santoruming" them. (Although it might be more appropriate to say that Santorum has been "Savaged" ...) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I also googled "santorum" Feb 21st 2016 (after deleting my browser history and switching to English, I am from Austria) and got a slightly different order:
  1. Wikipedia's Campaign for "santorum" neologism article
  2. Wikipedia's Rick Santorum article
  3. "Santorum for President" website
  4. Wiktionary definition, per Savage
  5. Urban Dictionary definition of this term, per Savage
  6. Mother Jones article about the "Google problem"
  9. CNN article: Santorum drops presidential campaign
  10. Santorum's Facebook page

The results slightly change if I google upper-case "Santorum", the top 2 stay the same. -- (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Campaign for "santorum" neologism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Elizium23 (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Renamed to Campaign for the neologism "santorum"[edit]

I've now renamed this article from 'Campaign for "santorum" neologism' to 'Campaign for the neologism "santorum"'. My rationale is that the latter is idiomatic grammatical English, while the former is a journalese contraction for the same thing which reads awkwardly. -- The Anome (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't the title be Spreading Santorum, since that's the actual name of the campaign? The Dutch Wikipedia has the title that way, and it seems like the most reasonable article title for this. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Campaign for the neologism "santorum". Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

This article is over-cited and over-categorized.[edit]

As part of the whole wrangle over this subject (and possibly a successful attempt to raise the article to the top of Google ranking by a now departed and contentious editor), this article was stuffed with 55 citations and dozens of categories, some of which are not applicable.

I propose to cut some of the duplicate citations and reduce the number of categories.

Discuss.StaniStani 07:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't mind cutting some of the categories. But I don't see a case for eliminating citations. Why not have a comprehensive set of sources? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
It's a sophisticated form of SEO, and many of the citations are making the exact same point. However, removing near-duplicate categories is progress.StaniStani 11:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
We shouldn't worry about whether something is SEO. An abundance of citations is a good thing, per WP:V. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 28 December 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. See general agreement below to maintain the status quo and keep the quotation marks in the title. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  02:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Campaign for the neologism "santorum"Campaign for the neologism santorum – Current title is inconsistent with all similar titles in Category:Political terminology. I'm not even going to try to ping participants in previous discussions. wumbolo ^^^ 15:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Your objection seems to be the use of the quotes. Those quotes are necessary, as they indicate clearly that santorum is the neologism. I cannot speak to political terminology, but this is a well-established usage for specifying a particular word. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
    I'm going by what MOS:WAW says – if it's not confusing, quotes are unnecessary. wumbolo ^^^ 16:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
    To me, the title seems confusing when the quotation marks are omitted. —David Levy 16:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
    The standard, widely-accepted rule is to mark a word with quotes when referencing the word as a word, rather than the idea or meaning of the word. Yes, there are inconsistencies across the Wikipedia, but we should be implementing the rule in titles that do not use it, not removing the rule from titles that do use it. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
    That's not what the WP:MOS says. There is not "standard, widely-accepted rule" when the MOS says otherwise. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS doesn't trump the MOS without extraordinary circumstances or arguments. wumbolo ^^^ 18:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
    TechBear isn't citing a local consensus. If what he/she is saying is accurate (to be clear, I don't know one way or the other), this means that the MoS doesn't reflect our actual convention in this particular instance. In such cases, the correct course of action is to modify the MoS (in the absence of consensus to begin doing things differently), not to modify our convention to match the flawed documentation thereof. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. —David Levy 19:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Do not move, title is clearer with quotes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
    @SarekOfVulcan: the word "santorum" can be italicized in the title, i.e. "Campaign for the neologism santorum" wumbolo ^^^ 21:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
    Italics is used to emphasize a word, and is not a substitute for using quotation marks. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 00:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
    It literally is preferred, per MOS:WAW. wumbolo ^^^ 12:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for clarity. There does not seem to be a clear-cut convention here, but when a word or phrase is itself the topic then I think quotation marks are appropriate (see "Polish death camp" controversy). Where a particular phrase or word is not the topic, then I think quotation marks are inappropriate (see the histories of Panzer ace and Fighter Pilots' Revolt incident). One way to tell that the word is the topic is that the title contains "the word X", which this one does (although it has 'neologism'). Srnec (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per MOS:WAW and add italics with {{DISPLAYTITLE|Campaign for the neologism ''santorum''}}. Dicklyon (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Leaning oppose. Even "neologism" isn't exactly a common word in the English language, so "neologism santorum" could appear to be the name of a thing. Sanctum Sanctorum comes to mind. bd2412 T 02:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.