Talk:Campaign for the neologism "santorum"/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12


Straw poll

Again, as stated above, the purpose of this is not to determine consensus but rather to help steer discussion. JakeInJoisey provided the first question and I'll add a few as well. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Question: Is incorporation of Dan Savage's name in any proposed article title appropriate?

There is a clear consensus, that the inclusion of Dan Savage's name in the title of the article is not appriopriate. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
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.

Is incorporation of Dan Savage's name in any proposed article title appropriate? JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


  • Yes - This political attack is inextricably linked to Dan Savage. It strains, IMHO, WP:NPOV that the TARGET of this attack should be further villified yet the AUTHOR of the attack remains unidentified in this article title. This is an instance where editorial discretion, in full compliance with Wikipedia policy, can and should act in the best interest of both the integrity of this project and fundamental fairness. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Given the current effort to expand the scope of this article by incorporating content related to Savage's escalation of his attack on Santorum (see discussion below), serious re-consideration should be given to renaming this article Dan Savage's political attack on Rick Santorum. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes - why not it's his creation. D Savage's dirty name association. Youreallycan (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes - as should the LGBT activists who have campaigned with him. (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes He is the "prime mover" and ignoring that in the title will mislead readers. Collect (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
He is the "prime mover..."
...and you'd be hard-pressed, I'd venture, to provide sourcing addressing this subject that doesn't also reference his name. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes The "campaign" or whatever we're calling it cannot be separated from Savage. It is inherently linked to him. NYyankees51 (talk) 05:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes. As noted earlier, many article titles include a person's (author's) last name, such as "Schroedinger's cat" or "Euclid's Elements" or "Fermat's Last Theorem". Such a title could be named "Savage's political neologisms" because sources indicate he also redefined "rick" and other names. It would be too narrow to focus on only "santorum" and pretend the other names were not also targeted. -Wikid77 17:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment If renamed, the article should be retitled Savage's Savaging of Soggy Santorum Sexual Sequelae. — O'Dea (talk) 10:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


  • No. As a rule, we don't include the author's name in a work; thus The Green Child doesn't contain Herbert Read's name in the title. Others have pointed out that by now this thing has taken on a life of its own with people like Stephen Colbert weighing in. You might even argue that the reader who submitted the definition deserves the credit. ;) Wnt (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
    But we do call it Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell, even though we have no other article on that subject. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Also see: "Euclid's Elements" with author Euclid. -Wikid77 17:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
The Elements are titled per WP:COMMONNAME; water fuel cell was moved, I believe, in error. Wnt (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • No. Unless there are a rash of other definitions with articles, such that a differentiation between them is required. No such clarification of authorship is required, and since it is not common practice ... it is inappropriate to include at this time. (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • No, for the reason stated by Wnt. -- The Anome (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Wait, there are many article with the person's name in the title: as "Schroedinger's cat" or "Euclid's Elements" or "Fermat's Last Theorem". -Wikid77 17:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
You game the type of exception that proves the rule. Each of the above items has a name inextricably linked to it's creator. There's no other name for Schroedinger's Cat that doesn't mention Schroedinger, and when it comes to theorems, the unusual aspect here is that Fermat happens to have two famous theorems (see Fermat's Little Theorem. Here, naming the author would require unnecessarily retitling the "work". SamGensburg (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • No for the reason stated by There's only one theory of relativity, so we have an article at Theory of relativity rather than Einstein's theory of relativity. Dan Savage is not more important than Einstein. Contrary to JakeInJoisey's argument, we do not "vilify" a politician by accurately reporting on incidents in that person's life, even incidents that involve attacks on or disparagements of that person. Usually the subject is notable only because of the connection to the target, not the author, so the best identification of the subject matter will often name the target: Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, George W. Bush military service controversy, etc. The present case is unusual in that the whole subject of the article is the political use of a particular word (or a particular combination of eight letters, if you prefer). The best title doesn't use Rick Santorum's name but does use the neologism/attempted neologism/eponym/octagraph/whatever -- "santorum" but not "Santorum". JamesMLane t c 17:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Usually the subject is notable only because of the connection to the target,...
Perhaps so but, in this instance (and, IMHO, quite, quite notably), the subject exists and, according to Savage himself, endures only because of Savage's ongoing campaign. Were that not the case, Savage's "offer" to terminate the campaign upon Santorum's "donation" of $5M would be nothing more than a meaningless, hollow gesture. the best identification of the subject matter will often name the target: Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, George W. Bush military service controversy, etc.
In neither of those matters is a specific progenitor identifiable...relegating both, I'd suggest, to rather unpersuasive or unrepresentative comparative status. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • No per JamesMLane's argument, and the fact that per WP:BLP we probably shouldn't be dragging any unnecessary names through the mud without good reason. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • No. He's the father, so to speak, but the thing has momentum all its own. If we knew who the originator of originator of the Lolcat was, we wouldn't give him this much attention. The only real difference is the level/means of initial publicity, and Savage asking his readers to be the first ones to propagate the new definition. They succeeded in that now most of the U.S. knows there is something peculiar about Rick Santorum's last name, or at least the act of googling it. Savage is responsible for starting the first little snowball; the avalanche is the avalanche. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 20:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • No Another attempt to use the voice of the encyclopedia to make a judgment about the propriety of this campaign, of course. Protonk (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • No per JamesMLane's theory of relativity reasoning. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • No - it goes against Wikipedia convention to avoid adding the inventor's or proponent's name to things, plus or minus. We don't call it Henry Ford's Model A, Martin Luther King's I have a Dream Speech, or Sirhan Sirhan's Shooting of Robert Kennedy. It serves no encyclopedic purpose to do that here, so I won't speculate about what nonencyclopedic purposes may be accomplished. BTW, hasn't this issue been decided already? - Wikidemon (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • No Savage started the campaign and organized it, but at least tens of thousands of people have participated in it. It is not his campaign. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • No - It is not our normal encyclopedic practice to attribute authorship to neologisms or, in this case, a notable campaign to establish a googlebombing word or neologism. Carrite (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • No - unless there arises some unrelated campaign for redefining "santorum", the current title succinctly identifies the topic. WP:TITLE repeatedly makes it clear that conciseness in titles is valued. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • No, even if he stopped "his" campaign at this point, it is clearly no longer something he controls. It would be like naming the Mother's Day article Anna Jarvis's Mother's Day. Pawsplay (talk) 06:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • No, the name of Dan Savage need not be in the title, for the reason given above by Pawsplay but it should definitely be in the article. It's clearly Savage's campaign and, as such, should be routinely included for information purposes.-The Gnome (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • No. Savage is the "inventor" of the word, and practice of policy has been not to include the inventor or coiner. (e.g. "Bell's telephone"). Examples like "Schroedinger's cat" are cases where the name of the inventor is tied to and has become a generic name used about the subject. PaoloNapolitano 15:17, 16 February 2012 (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.

Question: campaign, controversy or other?

Should the article's subject be described using the word "campaign," the word "controversy," or are other words more appropriate? elektrikSHOOS (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


  • Comment: "Campaign for" addresses the argument of those who didn't like Santorum (neologism) (one of the former titles) because, they say, the word isn't widely used and therefore hasn't reached the status of a neologism. The advantage of "Campaign for" in conjunction with "neologism" is that it doesn't assert that the campaign has succeeded, only that an effort has been made, which I think is not disputed. The disadvantage of "Campaign" is that it suggests a sustained effort over time. Dan Savage hasn't done all that much since setting up the website and urging people to link to it. My bottom line is that I'd like to find an improvement on "Campaign" but right now I don't know of one, so by default I'd say to stick with it. JamesMLane t c 07:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The disadvantage of "Campaign" is that it suggests a sustained effort over time.
I'd call that accuracy and not a disadvantage. Santorum's recent elevation in status has, IMHO, initiated no small number of media references, some probably intended to resurrect the issue...and likely this reinvigorated discussion as well. Other than that though, a good assessment with which I concur and would opt for "Campaign for" as my second choice (not that anyone is asking about second choices). It may be perceived as clunky, but it is, apparently, digestible to most. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
In Savage’s view, there is no “campaign” anymore. He recently told a reader inquiring about “your campaign to redefine ‘santorum’”:
Savage, Dan (2012-01-11). "Savage Love: Santorum Surges". The Stranger. ISSN 1935-9004. First, GP, the campaign is over: Santorum has been redefined. 
Savage considers this a fait accompli. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 08:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


  1. Controversy covers all sides of the issue, avoids confusion, and is most appropriate given the original intent. Original post from May 15, 2003 ... (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


  • Political Attack - which most precisely represents reality. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Word - This may sound like a cop-out, but titling this article Santorum (word) avoids all of the issues that are causing, or being alleged to cause, the arguments at issue of late. The word word is more accessible than eponym; santorum is unequivocally a word whereas many editors have argued that it isn't a neologism; readers can judge for themselves whether or not the attempted definition is an attack without WP bashing them over the head with it in the title; and the phenomenon has grown beyond being a campaign by any one person or small group of people to the point where everyone who pays any attention to the news gets the joke when Jon Stewart shows CNN coloring Santorum's Iowa counties brown. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 19:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Meme - Because word might be a little too non-specific; its cultural penetration and decentralized propagation render campaign totally unsuitable; and controversy would imply that media and politicians are constantly arguing over whether the redefinition is legitimate or deplorable (which for the most part they're not, and didn't, even when the word was new). ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 19:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I like it. It fits the definition of a (forced) meme. Speciate (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Oooh, "meme" is good. (Interestingly a lot of the up-to-the-moment hits for Santorum meme are about his sweater vests, but I think we don't have to worry about anyone becoming confused.) –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 05:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Well it would be till someone asks you to source it. There aren't many RS that use the word. Be

Critical 05:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Meme fits the bill best, imho. Larkusix (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Neologism - I understand people's complaint about the accuracy of this label because Savage didn't invent the original word but the complaint doesn't seem to be supported by the dictionary, at least Random House, which provides the definition "the introduction or use of new words or new senses of existing words" (emphasis mine). "Controversy" is inaccurate, because there's no argument or debate or question at the heart of this topic; it's just something a lot of people don't like. "Political attack" is inaccurate because, while the reason for the attack is political, the actual means of attack isn't. "Word" is overly vague. I don't hate "campaign" or "meme" but I prefer "neologism". Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Your "Random House" link is persuasive but with a caveat. The already-discussed "Partridge" determination (which, as I understand it, is an accepted authority in these matters) that "santorum" does not rise to "neologism" status suggests that the "Random House" definition is less than complete. As long as the use of "neologism" is qualified by language suggesting that "santorum" has not yet attained "neologism" status (eg. the current "Campaign for"), then "neologism" would be my second choice. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Exactly why can we not link to in discussion? Primary sources can be used in talk page discussions about primary sources. BLP is not a cache-22, you have to be able to talk about something in order to talk about it. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Its of no benefit to the article and will never be included there - Its a chat thread/letters to the editor, full of demeaning attack comments, - are you joking? Youreallycan 23:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Right at the moment, because I'm pissed off at the edit-warring and prepared to block or full-protect. Take it up at a noticeboard please, but I'm not willing to see more jousting here. Everyone knows what the web address is, there's no compelling need to link it unless you can gain a consensus of uninvolved editors that it should be linked. Franamax (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I might have missed some context here, was there edit warring over redacting the link from this !vote? Edit warring is indeed bad on both sides, but I do agree, BRD and consensus would suggest we leave the link off the article page unless there's a consensus to include, which does not look terribly likely. Linking to a sub-page to make a point about something that subpage says by way of discussing a different matter here on the talk page (whether to call it a neologism, word, movement, whatever) doesn't seem particularly contentious or harmful to living people. Anyway, all the best with efforts to keep order! - Wikidemon (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Here is the context you may have missed. Franamax (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Any of those are better than the current title (except the second one, of course). (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
It cannot be any of the form "santorum (descriptor)". The article is about Savage's google-bomb campaign/movement/whatever, it is not about the fake word itself. At one time it regrettably was, but due to some hard work by SlimVirgin last year, the article was cleaned up and focused, as it should have been alla along, on the campaign. Tarc (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Why not just call it...what it is...the actual name of the website. It's really what this is all about anyway.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Second! Cut to the chase already, and call it what it is. (talk) 03:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Derogatory eponym is pretty descriptive. Collect (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Eponym with or without a modifier like "derogatory" preceding. Eponymousness is this term's raison d'être. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Santorum's Google problem Per WP:COMMONNAME, this is what the reliable sources call this subject, and we should do the same. BeCritical 22:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Political attack Most accurate. Second choice is NYyankees51 (talk) 05:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Savage political attack (pun intended). Second choice "Political attack", third choice google-bomb. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC Question: Which linguistic classification is the most appropriate for the word "santorum"?

A recent improvement in Senator Rick Santorum's prospects for garnering the GOP presidential nomination has reinvigorated community focus on the Rick Santorum/Dan Savage "santorum" controversy. Community input is solicited in arriving at a consensus resolution to the following question:

In your view, what would be the most appropriate linguistic classification for the word "santorum" ?

16:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

As it relates to this article, which grammatical classification is the word santorum? Place response in bold with appropriate link, if needed. Please, table any arguments to omit any such classification from the title. This here is a question of classification, not about title inclusion as of yet. Keep in mind WP:OR. Examples: neologism, eponym, innuendo, slang, ironic metonymy, etc. ... (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


  • Eponym - While this may be a case of recording change in the process, a word stemming from an individual has been defined. Whether or not the definition sticks and regardless of its meaning, it was defined as such. citing ... Name game: The slang system has left Senator Santorum feeling very uneasy from The Independent, July 7, 2011. (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Euphemism - Both sourced and, apparently, as defined per Wikipedia. If you follow the incorporated link to profane, you are presented with "profanity" as exemplified in '...words, expressions, gestures, or other social behaviors that are socially constructed or interpreted as insulting, rude, vulgar, obscene, desecrating or other forms." Savage wanted "santorum" turned into a euphemism that would make its way to neologism status. He got only as far as the euphemism aspect. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC) JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Neologism, which describes the word. Euphemism is an ideal second choice per JakeInJoisey's argument above. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC) (switched them around; once I thought about it, neologism feels like a better choice to me elektrikSHOOS (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC))
Not to detract from your feelings, but Wikipedia:Verifiability dictates the need for a more rigorous reasoning ... i.e. citation needed. (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Assuming "campaign" remains incorporated, "neologism" might be accurate if it's presented as Savage's "goal". However, with all the recent carping as to "sourcing", where is the sourcing documenting Savage's intent to "campaign" for, specifically, a "neologism"? The only sourcing I recall is the "Partridge" rejection of "santorum" for consideration as a "neologism". JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, carping for verification. Are you knocking references? And if you recall a source, please share it. (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Derogatory eponym would be by far the most accurate. The "definition" is specifically gemacht to be derogatory. Collect (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
A truly apropos idea. It concisely embodies the undeniable nature of the word in its full context, that of a slight affronting the very person whose name it is redefining. Though the question comes into play, whether it is truly derogatory in a neutral sense of the word. But first, let's have a comparative study:
  1. Eponymous slur
  2. Eponymous slight
  3. Slanderous eponym
  4. Insulting eponym
  5. Derogatory eponym
While the eponymous nature of the word is not in question, the character is, as well as the appropriateness of the term being used to describe it. It is first and foremost, eponymous. It is only strictly a neologism to those who seek to include "-gism" in the title of this Wikipedia article, to further their own designs. Whether the character is derogatory or not is probably subjective enough to not include. But some exampling of the nature of the word should be addressed. (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
While the eponymous nature of the word is not in question...
Oh, but it is in question. Your provided source illustrates and suggests via the examples provided that an eponym has its genesis in some characteristic directly attributable to the namesake and is also commonly understood in colloquial use. That is hardly the case here. Instead, a "definition" was fabricated from whole cloth and a surname designated to represent that definition. While its author might certainly delight in its characterization as a bona fide "eponym", it is an "eponym" wannabe just as much as it is a "neologism" wannabe. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
It is an eponym, not an "eponym wannabe" because there is not doubt that the term is named after an individual and who that individual is. An eponym is simply "a word derived from the proper name of a person or place" so santorum's eponymous nature is not at issue. That it's insulting to the proper name it is derived from doesn't stop it from being an eponym. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The problem with neologism, is that while this is a new definition, it is not a new word (string of characters). The only pre-existing definition was merely a proper noun, but non-the-less, it is not an altogether new word. It is, however, altogether eponymous; in that, the new definition uses an existing proper noun as its word. One trumps the other, you see. For compromise, and clarification as to the nature of the usage of a proper noun with new meaning, a modifier (such as "derogatory" or whatever) could be used, but isn't (IMO) required. (talk) 03:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree, it's altogether an eponym. And like I said above, its eponymousness is central to the issue. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
moot content

Meta Comment: There is already a well responded to poll currently in progress as to the appropriateness of "eponym". This question/section should be tabled pending some determination (if any) from that ongoing process. Unless there is some objection raised, I'm going to hat this section pending the outcome of the prior process. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, this is just for one word, necessarily apart from the separate "campaign vs anything else" and "should the name be changed" questions. It was separated from that poll since that poll resolved nothing. See the rest of the questions in this "Straw poll" section for clarification. Whether that poll specifically resolved "eponym" or "neologism" is exactly why it was reasked in a more direct manner here. The other poll you refer to is barely pending, as it is and has been a virtual dead-heat (no consensus). (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Also, this is a fact finding section, to parse the title into it's component sections and (hopefully) find where the problem is. The question of whether to ask if the title as it currently exists is acceptable is sub-textual to this entire discussion, and moot unless any viable change can be determined (not agreed upon, as this isn't a democracy but an academic venture). (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
It was separated from that poll since that poll resolved nothing.
You are in no position to be pronouncing anything but your own opinion as to a determination of that ongoing poll and it will likely be closed with a determination made by an uninvolved editor...which you are decidedly not. As "eponym" appears to be failing as a consensus-acceptable characterization, your posed question (and re-offering of "eponym" as a viable consideration) appears to evidence some obduracy in your position. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Right, you're missing the point. I am offering anything as a viable consideration. When a change is attempted involving a title, if the new title fails (title in full, not part) and since the poll suggested sufficient disinterest in the current title to continue, all I pronounced was a reframing of the question to help clarify just what was wrong with the original. Keeping in line with the two preceding questions here. I apologize if you have been offended in any way, but obduracy is precisely what these questions are attempting to overcome. If you disagree with "eponym", that's fine, but citations help; and I thought I was using one appropriately with my own rationale. Clearly you don't think so. But that doesn't make your reasoning any greater, because you found what you believe to be a more valid source above. Let's try to keep on topic though, and avoid ad hominem arguments. (talk) 21:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC) ... again, the poll in progress you refer is for "Santorum eponym controversy" not whether or not "eponym" should be included at all, or "controversy", or even why the title change question was raised other than: "Here's one alternative, is it better?" ... Well, these are other, more specific questions. As a point of order, please refer me to the WP policy that dictates only one question can be raised at a time. (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Your "meta comment" is directed at "eponym". Otherwise, your argument is baseless ... pending the point of order requested above. (talk) 13:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

My "meta comment" is directed at what I say it is directed at which, in this case, is this poll. You objected and your poll is not tabled. I'd suggest that you put down the stick and get back to the conversation. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
What stick? You're the one who jumps to "banning" talk on my talk page at the slightest indication of ... nm. You were off base, I was trying to help clarify your statements by moving them to the most direct location, apparently your intent was as off base as I feared. Moving on then. (talk) 13:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
This entire "Meta Comment" section has become overly disruptive to the question at hand and the discussion in general. I request that it be sectioned off by a third party. (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I quite agree...and, since we apparently concur, I will collapse this content. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I am commenting here per a request by JakeInJoisey at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics#Linguistic Expertise Solicited. I have no opinion on the "most appropriate" label, but offer these observations on those currently suggested.
    • Noun. If one accepts that santorum exists as a word in roughly the sense described on this page (which, it must be acknowledged, is not an uncontroversial assumption), that word is certainly a noun. The proper noun Santorum, referring to Rick Santorum or other similarly named people, is also a noun.
    • Neologism/Coinage. The word is a neologism, since it was coined within recent memory. It could also be called a coinage, on the same basis; coinage sometimes conveys the additional sense of an unnecessary or specious new word.
      Your observation appears to conflict with the position taken by "Partridge" as reflected in the prior discussion here. Can you reconcile what appears to be the difference in positions? Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
      Well, Partridge pointed out that the status of santorum as a true neologism was in question under their rules because the entire manner in which it came to cultural significance was Savage's column and website, not a more "natural" use that grew organically by people actually using the word to describe the substance (this being what separates it from other deliberate neologisms like Truthiness). But if Cnilep is right, then coinage would work here regardless of Partidge's stance on neologism, as coinage does not necessarily imply the organic widespread use of the word, only its deliberate creation and a notable degree of awareness of it. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 16:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
      ...I should add to the preceding: If Cnilep is right and I've understood him correctly. Thanks. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 16:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
      It appears that Partridge rejects santorum on the grounds that (1) it was deliberately coined and (2) it is not actually in use. The disclaimer I included under "noun" should apply to all of these remarks: they assume, not uncontroversially, that santorum actually exists (is used) as a word. Partridge, it seems, does not make that assumption. Cnilep (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Eponym. The word may be regarded as an eponym under some senses of the word, but the most common sense of eponym seems to be the name of the person after which something is called (e.g. "Pelops is the eponym or name-giver of the Peloponnêsus." Grote, History of Greece, 1846), rather than the thing called by that person's name (e.g. "The eponym malapropism was coined from the character Mrs. Malaprop" Membean (web site), 2011). The former is the only relevant sense listed in the Oxford English Dictionary second edition, though the latter sense does appear in draft revisions from 1993. The name-giving-person sense is the first sense given in Meriam Webster's 10th, though, again, the thing-so-named sense is the second sense given.
      Interesting. So, if I understand your position correctly and referencing the specifics of this discussion, "Santorum" (surname namesake) is, in the "most common sense", the "eponym" in this equation while "santorum" (the object referenced) would be currently rejected by "Oxford" but accepted by Meriam Webster as an "eponym". Have I got that right? Further, if the COMMON noun "santorum" was non-existent but created and defined at the same time, then it has no identification or association with the PROPER (and existing) noun "Santorum" other than spelling. Could that still be legitimately characterized as an "eponym" given those circumstances? JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Euphemism. The common noun santorum is not, strictly speaking, a euphemism; a euphemism is a new or less-distasteful substitute for a taboo or offensive word. The new word did not substitute for an older one.
    • Metonymy. Likewise, the word does not refer to an object or phenomenon by reference to something associated with it, a necessary element in metonymy.
    • Innuendo. Single words, out of context, are generally not regarded as innuendo – a indirect reference to something negative.
    • Slang. Although the word is certainly not standard, and therefore edges toward slang, it is also not clear if it is used by any in-group of speakers, a usual necessity for slang.

Cnilep (talk) 04:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your observations and I'm confident they'll serve to inspire some additional thought. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
"Innuendo" was previously considered, objected to (quite rightly) and discarded. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
You keep making comments like "that was discussed there", so if it was discussed, please link to it. PaoloNapolitano 18:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
The link is here...and please note above that "innuendo" was my personal choice as well until a more compelling argument persuaded me otherwise. It is unfortunate that these many disagreements are rarely brought to resolution and must be re-argued over and over...a situation I am attempting to rectify as to this issue with this RfC. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Derogatory Coinage - Per User:Cnilep and User:Zenswashbuckler above. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Neologism -- it's a new use of the word. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Already established consensus that it is NOT a "neologism"...but you're more than welcome to try again. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
It certainly has NOT been established that it is not a neologism. It's the very definition of a neologism. Dsetay (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Then I would suggest that you check the relevant talk archives Dsetay. I'll link to them shortly for you to peruse...commencing here and here. 17:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC) JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I see nothing in those archives that says this is a settled case. Your often repeated argument is that the Partridge dictionary is that it is a "deliberate coinage", which in and of itself does not discount it being a "neologism". Since your argument is based on the authority of the Partridge dictionary, I'll one-up. The Dictionary of Linguistics Terms defines a neologism as "a word or phrase created for defining a new (unknown before) object or expressing a new notion", which "santorum" certainly does. Whether an individual coined it or whether it is widespread or not is irrelevant. It is the only term used to describe a previously unnamed substance. Ergo, it is a neologism. A wikipedia consensus that the partridge dictionary does not use the word neologism is meaningless.Dsetay (talk) 01:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to Jake, we're all now aware of another source that refers to it as a neologism: [1]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Eponymous Neologism - It's a newly coined word that uses someone's name. Dsetay (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Trying to classify the word seems like wasted effort because it's not really a word--that is to say, as far as I know it's not really used and wasn't meant to be used, it was made up to make a point and now it's mostly just mentioned. As I think you guys already determined in previous discussions, this article should be about the issue, not so much about the word itself, and thus there's no need to label it that way. Just explain Savage's column and what he said in it, and the reaction to it; that's all the article needs. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Noun is unquestionably the most appropriate linguistic classification. I think the question intended is In your view, what would be the most appropriate etymological classification for the word "santorum" ? the answer to which is more complex. There are a number of good candidates discussed above, but Euphemism isn't one of them (due to a lack of evidence of previous usage of a word or expression that this word replaced). Several of the alternatives only fly with explicit evidence that the coiner of the word considers the word to have negative connotations; if that is the case it's not clear from the article. Eponymous Neologism is good; both neutral and supported by the facts as presented in the article. Note: I came here from an appeal for expert help posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for responding. If I might pose the same question to you as was posed to User:Cnilep (your fellow Wikiproject:Linguistics member) above, how might you reconcile, if possible, Partridge's rather explicit rejection of "santorum" as a neologism with your personal view? Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the OED, sense 1a example 8 is:
1991 Times Educ. Suppl. 4 Jan. 24/5 His dopey title‥and his invention of the most graceless neologism I've seen in years—‘disconfirm’—do nothing for his argument.
This shows that neologisms can be introduced deliberately and that they count as neologisms from their first use (or at least from the end of the work in which they are first used, intra-work issues are a separate concern). The deliberate coining of Partridge in the 2006 edition of The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English discussed here in no way means that the word is not also a neologism. Note: I do not have immediate access to the hardcopy and am relying on the extended quote linked to. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
This shows that neologisms can be introduced deliberately and that they count as neologisms from their first use...
Very well. Thank you for your observation. Now, just so I understand your position, you appear to be suggesting that Partridge is not quite the authoritative source that I had assumed it to be based upon the prior discussions here (which is my sole exposure to this subject and source). Would you say that there is some mixed opinion within the linguistic community as to Partridge's authoritative status on the subject of neologisms? I freely admit to total ignorance on this subject, but am now somewhat intrigued by the seeming contradiction. Is there a legitimate contradiction here or are the cites from Partridge being misconstrued in their presentation? Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
(a) Eric Partridge 1894-1979 was hugely authoritative in the field of slang and neologism in English. (b) He died prior to any of the events under discussion here, making him an unreliable source on them. (c) The [Talk:Campaign_for_"santorum"_neologism/Archive_5#Partridge_revisited quote given] appears to be a posthumous updating of his book (alas I don't have access to this specific edition). (d) Even if the quote were authoritative, it cannot be used either for or against the word neologism in this context, because while it describes santorum as 'the child of a one-man campaign' and not having wide usage (at the time of print, naturally), it neither says nor implies that it is not a neologism. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
RIP. I've learned something already. neither says nor implies that it is not a neologism.
While I'm fully prepared to acknowledge faulty memory, I believe the crux of the argument inre Partridge was that "santorum" had been misrepresented as a as a valid, Partridge-listed "neologism" rather than as a specifically excluded entry whose exclusion was remarked upon in the introductory text (or somewhere other than the "neologism" listings). Is that not your understanding? JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

All this arguing over whether the word is a "noun", a "euphemism", or a "neologism" is patently silly. You guys are making a category mistake. Nouns, euphemisms, and neologisms are not in the same category and are not mutually exclusive; it's possible for something to be all three. Saying "it's a noun, not a euphemism" is like saying "this thing is not an banana, it's yellow!". rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Eponym It is something named after a person, so eponym seems most accurate. FurrySings (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Pejorative. It is clear that using "santorum" to refer to "post-anal sex fecal matter" is just a cheap attempt to slur the reputation of post-anal sex fecal matter. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Stuartyeates is right: the correct linguistic classification is, quite indisputably, "noun". I would think the right word for this article title is "googlebomb" or similar. The article is about an attempt to embarrass a public figure using the internet, and you're looking for a word that means that.—S Marshall T/C 00:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Why isn't in External Links?

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.

It seems counterintuitive to me that this article does not link to itself, apparently by a deliberate decision. Can someone explain to me why there should not be one? ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Its a specifically designed blogger attack site against a single living person that is the subject of one of our BLP articles. There are some pretty demeaning and offensive posts there, we don't need to link to such a site, it's plenty to discuss the sites existence and unnecessary to link to it. Youreallycan 11:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
It's a deliberate decision to keep this article separate from its subject: the article is about the campaign, not part of it. However, the name of the campaign's site (in both of its versions) is in the article, if you need it. -- The Anome (talk) 12:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
That's some convoluted gobbledegook. It's absurd that we talk about it but won't link to it. The "attack site" rules aren't pertinent here. For what it's worth, any interested reader can go ahead and type it into google or their web browser. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I know it's contorted. A compromise between two extreme and diametrically opposed positions always is. -- The Anome (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Another issue is that linking to the site is actually part of the attack - the link has been spammed and google bombed and it is the clicking on the link that keeps the attack site as the first search return for his name - wikipedia BLP policy suggests that the project would not want to be part of that attack by unnecessarily linking directly from this site to the attack. Youreallycan 12:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The googlebombIts search ranking is an effect of linking the text "santorum" to Linking "" to would only affect search results for "", which does not contribute to the googlebombits "santorum" rank. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2012, Ed. 25 January 2012 (UTC)
And Wikipedia is not here in order to name "" three thundred times either. Do you really think that this is the purpose of Wikipedia? To name the site as many times as one can on a page or pages? I fear that whether Google existed or not is irrelevant to the fact that spamming a site name is still spamming. As Gertrude Stein would have said: A spam is a spam is a spam." Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Why would you think that anyone thinks that the purpose of Wikipedia is to name a site as many times as one can? Do try to discuss this rationally, Collect. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I am not expert on google bombing to raise the profile of a website but adding a link from here to the attack site will add page views thereby raising the sites profile and add to the attack. Youreallycan 12:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
That's probably true, but that's also an effect of having this article at all. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The purpose of this article should be to document its subject, without, as far as possible, either aiding or suppressing the campaign it describes. Mentioning, but not linking, the domain names of the campaign sites is an attempt to maintain that balance. -- The Anome (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I reverted removal of the link to once, very very roughly an hour ago, as its appropriateness for this article seemed (and seems) blazingly obvious. I later found that the article had lacked the link for some time. I wondered why. A quick look showed this discussion of whether or not there should be a link, but the discussion seems inconclusive to me. -- Hoary (talk) 13:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Please feel free to re-start the discussion: it's certainly an issue without a single obvious clear solution that would satisfy everyone. However, the current compromise has held up pretty well for some time. (Just for clarification, I would be happy to see the link put in the article; but I can also see that many people would see that as provocative and counter to policy, and I can see their point of view as well. The current compromise works for me. I should also mention at this point that although Wikipedia external links have NOFOLLOW set, this is by no means universally honoured by reusers of content.) -- The Anome (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I was about to comment on the matter of NOFOLLOW. Thank you for the invitation to restart the discussion. I don't propose to do so, because the matter promises to take some time, I'm not all that concerned, the discussion may well generate less light than heat (especially during the next month or two in the political career of RS), and I'm busy. But I'll register my dismay at the way in which these "BLP" concerns are being used to remove a link from an article on a matter for which the site linked (or not) would seem to be of key importance. (By comparison, the article "Westboro Baptist Church" is I think right to have a link to its "official site",, no matter how offensive this site may be.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The GHF site is imo offensive, but in this regard it is not an attack site aimed at a single person that is the subject of one of our biographies. Youreallycan 14:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that BLP, properly read, would limit us from linking to a notable site designed to criticize the positions of a politician simply because it chooses a deliberately shocking of doing so. Nor does linking to a site make us responsible for the entirety of its contents.
As far as a BLP analysis of this article goes, I'd be much more concerned that we repeat a claim of Savage being a "foul" person who does "horrible things" right in the lede. I'm not suggesting we need to remove that quote, because I think when reporting on a notable feud between public figures, we have a fair amount of leeway to dispassionately present the content of the dispute, and the site is a notable part of that content.--Trystan (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I am reading two rationales - one that adding the link influences search engine results and that this is inappropriate, and that it is a BLP violation. So as not to influence the search engine result, I am listing the link without hyperlinking it. If it needs to be further disguised I would not be opposed. For the BLP violation I would like to hear a rationale about how having this link is any more of a violation than having this article. I think the link should be included because it is fundamental to understanding the nature of the campaign. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

In Wikipedia's external links guideline, WP:ELOFFICIAL overrides WP:ELNO, but WP:ELNEVER overrides WP:ELOFFICIAL. So in an article about an attack site, the question of whether or not to include the official web site of this campaign hinges on whether this BLP violation falls under WP:ELNO or WP:ELNEVER. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No - Wikipedia clearly suggests that WP:BLP concerns outweigh "attack page official sites" for sure - this is not even a close call. Meanwhile, if an EL is improper, it is improper even if Nowikied. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
In complete agreement with Collect on this. The site serves nothing more than to denigrate the name of a living person. Arzel (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
WP:ATTACK refers to pages created within Wikipedia specifically to disparage their targets. In no way does it prevent us from appropriately covering notable criticism of politicians by other public figures.--Trystan (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
You are confusing notable criticism with what is basic anger. This isn't a disagreement with a political position, this is Savage saying, I don't like your opinion so I am going try and get other people to say that your last name is "Shit". This is the political debate of a four year old, and the website is the tantrum response. Savage is free to scream whatever he wants from the top of the mountain, and since it is a story we can talk about Savage's screaming from the mountain. This, however, does not mean that we must provide a link to the mountain to further promote Savage's screed, especially when it is nothing more than a personal attack on a living person. The website itself doesn't even say anything that isn't already in the article. The only real benefit to anyone is Savage, in that it gets the link out there some more. Arzel (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it is appropriate for us to make editorial decisions based on our personal assessment of how mature or effective Savage's criticisms of Santorum are.
Clearly there isn't going to be consensus to add the URL (linked or unlinked) to the external links section. As long as it doesn't get censored from the article entirely, I for one am content to drop the issue.--Trystan (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
At some point we'll have to consider what the preponderant opinion here is. I agree that it is nonsense not to include the link in External links, and nofollow mitigates most of the concerns one could raise. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
No follow relates only to this site - this part of the objection is related to the fact that this site is mirrored at a hundred, or even hundreds of other sites, that do not follow the same standards as wiki no follow. Youreallycan 18:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not aware that Wikipedia policy requires that we adapt our approach to the consequences that might emerge at other websites -- I would be surprised if this is the case, though I'm happy to admit that I could be wrong. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
If we are aware that adding a link to wikipedia increases the traffic to that site and we are aware the site is a place for demeaning and degrading comments and posts about the subject BLP and ELNEVER suggests we don't link to it. Youreallycan 19:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Linking to attack page

The issue is whether this article should link to the website called spreading santorum. Here are the issues:

  1. There is the assertion that Wikipedia's linking to this site causes Wikipedia to participate in its promotion in a non-informational way, i.e. by changing its search engine rank external to Wikipedia
  2. Wikipedia has policies which prohibit linking to attack sites, and this site is an attack site
  3. Regardless of the linking policy, Wikipedia has WP:BLP regulations which are prime and override everything else, and linking to this site violates BLP rules

Are there other issues?

The reason I assert for linking to the site is that the site is the official website describing this article. The "campaign for 'santorum' neologism"'s model has been to promote that website, and it is not possible for anyone to understand this article without understanding that this website exists and can be visited.

user:Damian Yerrick suggested that WP:ELNEVER applies; I think this must be a mistake because that is only about copyright and I do not know of anyone claiming that the site violates copyright. WP:ELNO says, "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid..." and I assert that this site is the official page of the article's subject, so I say that does not apply.

I feel that point 1 about the influencing search engine rank can be mediated somehow if that is a problem - we can put the address in a picture so that engines will not see it.

Users arzel and collect say there is a BLP violation but I do not understand. What is the BLP argument for not including the link? How is including the link any more of a BLP violation than the existence of this Wikipedia article about the campaign embodied in that website? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The first objection (that we are promoting an offensive idea by mentioning it) is a canard, as it is fundamentally opposed to the mission of an encyclopedia. We mention every subject under the sun, neutrally and without censorship, not adding our own efforts however righteous to elevate or downplay the subject in the public's mind. Many people make it their job to spread beliefs, religions, styles and tastes, and they create images, memes, sound bites and catch phrases, and publicity events specifically to spread through public media. If a terrorist organization kills people to gain notoriety and spread fear, or a credit card company engineers a holiday to increase sales, we don't avoid talking to them, or linking to their official sites, in an effort to avoid becoming a mouthpiece for their message. We're a neutral conduit that spreads all messages, good and bad. As to BLP overriding all else, if that were true we would just shutter the project because we can and do hurt living people. It's hard to argue that a politician now running for President who likened gays to pedophiles and practitioners of bestiality is so powerless and victimized that he needs our protection from the comeuppance of those he insulted. That's not our business. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Who says that Santorum needs to be protected. The argument here is whether to link to an attack website. It is not like the website adds any information, and it is not all that clear why there is such a desire to link to a site that has no intrinsical value, provide no additional information about the topic, and serves only to push up page hits for the denegrating term. Arzel (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I dispute that the website has no value and provides no information because it meets WP:N. If you have a rationale for saying that something can meet WP:N yet not have value then I would like to hear more about it, because I thought N was the standard. If you are concerned about page hits, then how would you feel about the website address being embedded in a picture which no bot could read? Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The website is simply the definition which is already included. Please tell me how that provides any valuable information. Arzel (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The link is to the landing page of a site that seems to function as a blog. The splash - or should I say splat? - page includes design, layout, and social media elements, and the infamous brown splatter image described in the article, which is worth minus a thousand words right there. The blog contains quite a bit of content and is updated regularly. I haven't had the urge to read it in any depth, but it does seem to contain updates on the google bomb campaign, and more general political advocacy. So yes, a lot more there than is, or can be, in the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the leading page is a link to a blog (WP:EL 11). Although I would debate that it contains anything of value since it is little more than attacks on Santorum. And if the Blog is the primary reason for inclusion than it violates WP:EL number 11. Arzel (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
It does not matter at all what the page contains or that it is a blog, because even if the page contained content which was meaningful to you that would not make it notable. It is notable only because it is the official website for the campaign for the santorum neologism, which is the focus of this article. It is further notable because it is the subject of many articles in reliable sources. Do you dispute that it is the official website of this campaign? Do you dispute that it is the focus of many reliable sources which are cited in the references of this article? Under WP:EL, the first rule of what should be linked is "Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. See Official links below." In WP:ELOFFICIAL it says that "These links are exempt from the links normally to be avoided..." which includes things like being a blog or having no content. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
This article is not about the website, therefore WP:ELOFFICIAL is irrelevant. Arzel (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Are you kidding?!? The very item you just linked specifically says:

An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following:

1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.

2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

Explain to all of us how the very website that is running the campaign doesn't meet those conditions. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 18:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
ELofficial is not a guarantee of inclusion and it was not created for single instances and exception as this. Anyone that take a while to read the content hosted on that blogger site will accept it is primarily in existence to attack a living person and that content is hosted there that demeans and desires a single living person that is the subject of one of our biographies. Linking to the blogger site is part of the attack againt the person. As such WP:BLP supported by a bit of WP:IAR allows and encourages us not to link to it. Youreallycan 15:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Isn't it a good enough compromise that we do include an external links section, but do not link but rather put in plain text? BeCritical 22:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Either a plain text link or a link in a picture is, so far as I know, unprecedented. I am not sure that Wikipedians are even supposed to worry about this because this sounds like a legal issue which users have no position to debate anyway. I think I might like to have the conversation just be about whether the article benefits from the link, and whether the link constitutes as a personal attack, and if the article benefits and it is not an attack then the link goes in as a link unless the WMF says that this is legally harmful. I know nothing whatsoever about how search engine ranks are affected by the text or linking of Wikipedia articles, and so far as I know, no one in this discussion does either. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I do: Wikipedia external links have a special property, called "nofollow," which the wiki software inserts in every external link. That means Wikipedia cannot be used to effect Google rankings. BeCritical 23:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
En Wikipedia is mirrored to hundreds of other www sites that do not stop bots using nofollow. Adding an external link to a wikipedia article massively increases the traffic to that site. Youreallycan 00:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
The practices of other websites are not our concern. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The preponderance of opinion seems to be for including the external link, as a link. I see one argument against having the link which really makes common sense, and that is Youreallycan's argument that other sites which mirror this one might drive up the google rank. The other arguments don't make any real sense, if we are going to have the article at all. It seems to me that Youreallycan's argument takes our concern for our external effects to new heights, and many here are arguing that we should not modify our editing based on what happens offsite. BeCritical 00:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That is just a part of my policy driven objection to adding this external link to en wikipedia - primarily - its a blogger site - created to attack a living person - there is a lot of attack and demeaning user generated content, and defaming content hosted on the blogger site, as such, its not even a primary reliable source - Youreallycan 00:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
The site is not a reliable source. It is a primary source, not that this matters, because it is not being used to source any information. The link is only to give a demonstration of what the article is about as it is the official website for the subject of the article. The site is created to attack a living person and it does contain demeaning user generated content. I find nothing about those characteristics any more objectionable than the existence of this article, and if the article exists, then I think the quality of the article is greatly diminished by not also including this link. Do you feel this article should exist? If the article exists, do you think it can be understand fully without access to the official website? Is there a Wikipedia policy which says anything about the community's duty to censor Wikipedia in anticipation of what external sites will do with the information on Wikipedia? Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
In summary; this article already demeans Santorum, so there is no reason to object to the blog site that is the source of the personal attack. Why don't we just ignore BLP and WP:EL on every article? Arzel (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't see that as an accurate summary. And if this article demeans Santorum in any way, then point to that part and we'll fix it. BeCritical 02:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
WP:ELOFFICIAL says that it overrides most other WP:EL concerns. Please respond to that if that does not relieve your concern. Also, what is the BLP concern? It is a rare circumstance that an attack site is the focus of international notoriety consistently for nine years. Are you disputing the notability of the site, and you see it as a non-notable attack page? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
It looks to me like a general consensus to have the link, without taking any extraordinary measures like putting it in plain text or a picture. BeCritical 18:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
It looks to me like you simply are ignoring those that disagree with you. Arzel (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 18:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Attack sites is a rejected proposal. This is a very old debate that has happened multiple times. We have linked to many, many worse pages. There is absolutely no reason the link should not be included. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
There is absolutely no value to make the link. The website serves only to attack the subject and fails via WP:BLP Arzel (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I realize that's your opinion, but you've failed to gain the consensus of others on this page. Since you haven't brought up any new reasons for rejecting the link, I don't see the consensus as having changed. BeCritical 18:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Concur with Arzel's assessment as an accurate reflection of the the now-archived prior discussion of this issue here and here. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
A number of pros and cons. There appears to be consensus at the moment for including the link, although there was no consensus (as opposed to consensus to remove) in a prior discussion. Consensus can change and this is only the second or third time, but after a while it's best to settle things and be done with them, not to keep rehashing old things or declare a new consensus hastily. Few new facts since then, except some ongoing news coverage, and with Santorum as a leading candidate close to an election it's a more current issue. This discussion is wider and involves a number of new participants. Normally BRD would suggest that there has to be a consensus to add or make a change, but this isn't that exact of situation. The content is already there, and some are proposing that we break with normal editing style by failing to include a link we would normally include - so I'd say it's up to them to demonstrate why. I haven't seen a viable BLP issue or solid reason why removing the link would better serve the encyclopedia (not saying the argument is misplaced, just not a winner). Truly, whether the link is there or not makes very little difference, which may be the reason people opposing it got the upper hand last time, it's really not that important to include it and some people strongly object. On balance, at the very least I'd wait a while or else revisit it after the election, there's no deadline here. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
If there is consensus to include and it's a matter of "failing to include a link we would normally include", I think there's not much of a case for not including it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't see that the prior discussions ended in a clear consensus not to include (as Wikidemon points out); rather they petered out as people grew tired of hearing the same arguments over and over. What looks to me like the most cited policy in those discussions, WP:BLPSPS, doesn't apply because we're not intending to use this link as information about Rick Santorum, we're using it as the WP:ELOFFICIAL to the subject of this article. It is no different than putting the link to Rick Santorum's official campaign website on the Rick Santorum article. Our article makes painfully clear that Wikipedia is not endorsing the views expressed in the external link, and that we are linking it solely because it is at the heart of the campaign itself, integral to the article subject. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 19:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone please list the people who support the different approaches so that we can see what the dominant view here is. BTW, I think it makes a big difference that WP:ATTACKSITES is a failed proposal. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I just checked, and the American Nazi Party gets a link to their official website. Explain to me how, even defined specifically as a personal attack site and not a political prank, is less deserving. Pawsplay (talk) 06:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Straw poll on EL

Discussion was concluded in an RFC that closed as include. [2]--v/r - TP 22:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
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.

I am summarizing the discussion, but I was also a participant so someone please check the point of view in this table and feel free to edit it!

Summary of arguments about link inclusion
pro against counterpoint
site has value as the official site of the subject of the article site content described sufficiently in this article; site content has no value
The campaign the article describes is very highly connected to this website Article is not about the website
site violates WP:EL #11 site meets WP:OFFICIAL
site violates WP:BLPSPS This is not a BLP, and the site is not being used as a source of information.
Link violates WP:ATTACKSITES WP:ATTACKSITES is a failed proposal
site violates WP:BLP It is the consensus that the article does not violate BLP, and the article is partially about the site.
including the link means participating in a "Google bomb" Wikipedia uses nofollow links; other sites re-posting Wikipedia content is not a reason to censor Wikipedia
linking to the site personally enriches Dan Savage not obvious if this is true or why this is relevant
WP:SOAP If the site is the "Spearhead" of the campaign as argued then it fails That's an argument for deleting the article; if we keep the article, we need the link
Giving the link promotes the site Giving the link is more likely to make people disgusted at the site, and even if it did promote it, it's not our business to censor Wikipedia because we don't like something.

Here are the previous discussions on this topic - here and here.

It seems like some people are saying that linking to the site constitutes a violation of BLP, but describing the site does not constitute BLP. I propose a straw poll to try to identify all the objections to including the link, and to get responses to the counterpoints made to objections. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Any point making it official as a WP:RFC? - Wikidemon (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I would not oppose that, but since I proposed the poll, I think it would be best if someone else proposed the RFC. You, perhaps? Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Only If you don't prefer a definitive consensus resolution to 11 more months of incessant carping. What wording would you suggest? JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Include the link

  1. The only argument against including it is that it is a violation of BLP, but no one has said why: in what way does the link violate BLP, that the article does not? If it is our consensus that the article does not violate BLP, why would the link violate BLP? Having the link is natural in the circumstances, and does not promote the site content in any way. Wikipedia should not base its own text on what external sites may or may not do, or on possible but unspecified consequences outside our control. The necessity to consider harm per BLP does not extend beyond reason, and the link meets the inclusion test even for a biography. Wikipedia is comprehensive. BeCritical 19:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  2. If the article itself can exist (in conformity with BLP) as I think it can (and as previous deletion discussions have established quite definitively), then I see no reason the link cannot be included. In fact adding the link almost seems like a minor point, an afterthought, given the nature of the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  3. WP:BLPSPS doesn't apply, since this article is Campaign for "santorum" neologism, not Rick Santorum; since this is only tangentially a BLP-related article, the only policy on the BLP page I can see that applies is WP:WELLKNOWN. Now if there were a WP:BLPNOHELPINGJERKS policy, that said in effect "Wikipedia articles shall not cover anything consisting solely of people being assholes to each other," then we could delete this entire article, about half the Opie and Anthony page, everything on this page that can't be replaced with official court citations, and certain sections of Alex Rodriguez. Sorry, couldn't resist. Since there's no such thing, though, all of this content remains, including this article, which should have a full complement of external links just like any other page. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 20:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
    BLP Applies everywhere, your reasoning is invalid. Arzel (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  4. We would normally include a link in this type of article, and there's no reason not to include the link here. We have this entire article about Dan Savage attacking Rick Santorum. It's not a BLP violation to provide an actual link to the attack, and nobody's explained how it would be a BLP violation; what are we saying with the link that hasn't been said in the article? I haven't found any other article about a similar topic where we refrained from linking to the relevant official site; Stormfront (website), for example, links to that forum, which is filled with truly vile, hateful stuff. Theoldsparkle (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  5. Yes, this is pretty obvious. None of the listed arguments against hold any weight, and the counterarguments are correct. The site is a primary subject of the article. It diminishes the encyclopedic value of the article and violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED to refuse to cover a topic, and to refuse to allow readers to even examine it, out of an objection to the subject matter. Many find the site distasteful, and many will find other websites we cover distasteful. We do not play favorites with knowledge. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  6. It is appropriate to include a link to the official website of the subject of the article. Edison (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  7. The site should be linked to to illustrate the subject of the article. The only reason I have seen against including the link in all the discussion to date is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Of course, WP:BLP and WP:EL have been mentioned, but no one has demonstrated how including the link would violate these policies (despite numerous requests), and I can find nothing in them to exclude the link myself. At this point, I consider further mention of WP:BLP and WP:EL as not only counterproductive, but purposefully disruptive, and a mere cover for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'm not inclined to assume good faith anymore, unless concrete and specific reasons are produced. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
    No one can accuse you of inconsistency, Dominus, since at the same time that you insist that citing Wikipedia policy would be "purposefully disruptive" you fail to cite any policy in support of your view.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  8. Link to it. WP:ELOFFICIAL puts it squarely under WP:ELYES. Opponents have been unable to justify their WP:CRYBLP. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
    It is not an official organization or movement, simply a blog page of someone that hates Santorum. Whining WP:CRYBLP does not bode well for WP:AGF Arzel (talk) 03:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
    Of course it's a movement, to promote a definition of santorum. Which they notably did by making the #1 search result for santorum. is the spearhead of that campaign. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
    WP is not a Soapbox to promote a political agenda, which is all that site is trying to do, albeit in a juvenile manner. Arzel (talk) 05:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
    By that reasoning we should remove just about every EL for any controversial subject matter on the project, including Rick Santorum's own links. Ridiculous. You're really stretching here and making your better arguments less credulous. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  9. Link per Dominus Vobisdu, Robin Lionheart, and Theoldsparkle explanations above. Heiro 23:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  10. Link. The subject of the article is the neologism campaign, and the site is official site for that campaign. Someone reading an article which prominently discusses a website is likely to have an interest in visiting that website as a further information seeking behavior. The purpose of external links is to facilitate these natural avenues of further inquiry for our readers. A WP:BLP contravention could override this, but I don't see any case for one. The spirit of BLP is to keep biographical content factually reliable and neutrally presented. It explicitly does not prevent us from covering, dispassionately but fully, notable criticism of an individual by others.--Trystan (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  11. There is no policy based reason to not have a link and plenty (see above) of reasons why to link to it as the most relevant external link for this subject. There are hundreds of offensive websites attacking numerous people linked to from Wikipedia. WP:ATTACKSITES was rejected as a policy. Wikipedia links to Encyclopedia Dramatica and Stormfront. This single page is fairly innocuous compared to those. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  12. Include link It should be included for several reasons (a) It is the official website of the article. (b) We have an article on it and a link would be a useful tool to understand it. (c) Opposing the link would mean a slippery slope to removing links from several other articles, and such attempts are usually opposed. (For example, see Anders Breivik article and check the manifesto) (d) Nobody has properly demonstrated that the link violates BLP (e) Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED. Pass a Method talk 02:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  13. Include link. I'm an outside user who's come to this talk page after seeing it linked on WP:AN. While I respect the opposer's BLP concerns, I fail to see how including the link violates BLP any more than the article itself does. The article is also transparently incomplete without it. Personally, I think the campaign is pretty stupid, and it's a bit embarassing for Wikipedia that we have an article on it at all, but since we do (and it's apparently not going anywhere), there's no reason to exclude the link. Robofish (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  14. Include link - We should not let our personal political objections to a site impact the decision-making process as to whether a link should be included. For example, the fascist Stormfront (website) includes a link to........... the Stormfront website. Certainly the site mentioned here is the locus of the campaign about which this article is written. Whether you support the campaign, whether you're bitterly opposed to the campaign, or wether you're in the middle somewhere supporting some aspects but not all, shouldn't matter. This is fundamentally an aspect of a political movement dealing with a public figure (a candidate for President of the United States), not an "attack site" about a private individual. Carrite (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  15. Include per Robofish, who said pretty much exactly what I was thinking. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  16. Include The link is discussed within the context of the article and it is the nearest thing the article has to an official website. ThemFromSpace 20:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  17. Include, there's no logical way around it, its the source of the extremely notable "controversy" which supports the existence of this article. Personally, by way of disclosure, I must admit that I also find Santorum's views on gays to be so reprehensible that I cannot live with myself or look my children in the eye and tell them I believed in America if I did not speak out against him. So, I ask myself, would I support a link to the World Net Daily's birther-central page (wherever it might be) on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, and I have to concede - yes, on the same grounds.--Milowenthasspoken 21:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  18. Include, we normally link the website if it is primary/relevant to the article. There is no BLP vio to do so. Also per Carrite and Schmucky. R. Baley (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  19. Wikipedia has no policy that prohibits linking to sites that promote distasteful subjects. For instance, the American Nazi Party prominently links their official website. Pawsplay (talk) 06:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  20. Include link per WP:NOTCENSORED. I came to this page after finding it in a google search, and find it bizarre that we have an article on a website about a political campaign, but don't like to that campaign's website. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Do not include the link

  1. Oppose link as violative of non-contravenable Wikipedia policies including WP:BLP and not using the straw arguments placed above. And I fail to see how a site whose sole purpose is to attach a disagreeable "definition" with the name of a living person qualifies as an "official site." Collect (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
    And yet no one has described how the link is in any way a violation of BLP: it's the consensus that this article itself is not a violation of BLP. Why then would the link be a violation? BeCritical 20:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Link as a violation of WP:BLP and WP:EL #11. BLP applies everywhere. I am not sure where Zen comes off claiming that it does not since this is not a BLP. WP:EL is equally apt since the site is a blog, and this article is not about the blog site, it is about the general campaign. On a side note I am noticing a number of "new" commentors here. Arzel (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
    Since the EL11 you cite is prefaced by Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject (emphasis in original), it does not apply. I "come off" trying to assume good faith, that is, assume that you have some reason for claiming this is a BLP violation. Since you've refused thus far to state a principle of the BLP policy which a link would violate, I'm forced to try to interpret which parts of the policy you might be trying to argue from. Either describe, in detail, how it is a violation, or stop using BLP as a club to get your way. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
    I have stated the rational SEVERAL times above, quit whining and read the previous discussion. Arzel (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
    No official link exists for many articles. "Fansites", including everything from websites run by fans of a musician to a charitable organization supporting patients with a disease, even if they are endorsed or authorized by the subject, are not considered official websites because the subject of the article is unable to control the information being presented. Since Santorum is the subject and has no control of the information being passed, the link is not an official link. Arzel (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
    That's sort of like saying The Social Network could have no official link, because Mark Zuckerberg has no control of the information being passed. Mark Zuckerberg is not really our article's subject. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 05:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
    The site is not a blog to which that rule is specified. Furthermore there is probably little contention to the official movie website since the goal of the website doesn't appear to be to try and trash Mark Zuckerberg. They are simply not in the same plane of existence. Arzel (talk) 05:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
    Alright, take the official link for The Case Against Barack Obama. Among other articles there critical of Barack Obama, you can read screeds by professional trasher Ann Coulter. (Frex, "No sentient human is required to take Obama's profession of Christianity any more seriously than if it were coming from a 1980s blow-dried, money-grubbing televangelist with a mistress on the side. All liberals are atheists. Only the ones who have to stand for election even bother pretending to believe in God.") So, does that book not have an official link? ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 06:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
    Yes, that link from Human Events should not belong on that article either. You should go remove it. Arzel (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
    It's unofficial by your WP:ELOFFICIAL interpretation, not mine. So you should remove it, not me. It'd show your impartiality. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
    Done. Arzel (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Link - Per general observation that mitigating support or even perceived support for this most vulgar "political attack" with its inherent BLP considerations is not only well within the prerogative of WP "editorial judgement" but must surely be suggested by even the most minimal sense of forbearance under the principles espoused by WP:BLP. Is there a WP:RIGHTTHINGTODO that might be cited?JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
    Under the "editorial judgment" rationale, if you'd like to create a policy that would remove the direct external link to Stormfront, I wouldn't be opposed. But if we're operating under site-wide principles, failure to link in this case smacks of IDONTLIKEIT. I'm not accusing you of acting that way by any means (on the contrary, your edit history on the article and its talk page indicates great equanimity), but I see most arguments against the link eventually boiling down to that essence. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
    Citing, essentially, WP:IAR as a way of getting rid of the link isn't a good idea. The link is a natural and useful addition to the article, and in no way promotes the content of the site. BeCritical 23:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  4. Oppose link Clear violation of WP:BLP & WP:ELNO. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  5. This is an encyclopedia, not a click-through to generate pocket change for Dan Savage. The website itself is largely irrelevant to the overall anti-Santorum campaign anyways; the main thrust of the article is the campaign to affect Google searches. Tarc (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
    Which is centered around that site. The site is in the article lead, one of the most notable aspects of the article and campaign. It is, along with the definition, one of the most central factors here. And what pocket change? The site doesn't seem to have adds. What in the world are you talking about? BeCritical 03:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
    The site costs pocket change to run, but without ad revenue it's a net negative for Savage. More traffic just means more money to run it, actually. This argument doesn't make any sense at all. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
    A straw poll is intended simply to gauge where opinions on a particular matter lie, not to rehash a threaded discussion for the nth time. If would be best if the two of you stop attacking every editor who has weighed in in opposition. Tarc (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
    No rehash. That was the 1st time anyone here's discussed whether generates revenue. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
    I would be interested to know if that is a criteria used to determine inclusion. Is there a precedent on this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  6. Oppose link - strongly oppose this link being promoted via wikipedia and all its mirrors - it is an attack site that hosts demeaning and attacking content about a living person that is the subject of one of our articles - that is its purpose , pure and simple - go into it and read some of the posts and comments there, its a disgusting attack site - Its disgusting that supporters of savage and his attack are unable to let go of their personal desire to add to the attack and are voting to add this, and its a poor reflection of wiki policy and guidelines that a link such as this is not automatically excluded and that this discussion is even necessary. This should not be closed on a head count but on a reflection of policy - with consideration to BLP in especial regard to what this link actually is and what its specific purpose is. The closer should also be one of our more experienced administrative closers. I imagine the inclusion or exclusion of this will set a new precedent, as I don't think on Wikipedia there are any other links to external bloggers sites that are specifically created to attack and demean a single living person. IMO this attack site should be blacklisted on wikipedia. Youreallycan 11:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC) - (this post created a lot of discussion moved to its own section below)
  7. Oppose using Wikipedia to promote this website Bulwersator (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  8. Oppose - The counterpoint to the WP:BLPSPS argument does not hold up. Per WP:BLP, "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, and categories." BLP policy is not limited to biographical articles. Rlendog (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2012 (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.

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.

RfC - Should be hyperlinked within the article body and/or "External Links"?

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.

BLUF: The consensus is to use the official link.

The !votes in the discussion appear to roughly equate to 73% in support of the use of the link. Of the supporters, the largely quoted policy is WP:NOTCENSORED, as is the WP:ELOFFICIAL guideline. The opposition is mainly focused on WP:BLP, including WP:BLPEL, which says that websites that contradict the spirit of the WP:BLP policy should not be linked to.

In evaluating the strength of arguments, our task is to give weight to all reasonable interpretations of the applicable policies and guidelines, and not to favor our own preferred interpretation. It is true that BLP policy prevails over the external links guideline in case of conflicts; however, the meaning of BLP, when the policy text is ambiguous, is subject to interpretation by community consensus. Readings inconsistent with the plain text of the policy and/or guidelines should, of course, be accorded little weight, but it is very possible for the same policy text to have multiple reasonable interpretations. The closer's task is to give weight to all those interpretations, and not to impose his own preferences.

We first address the weaker arguments:

  • The NOFOLLOW argument appears to suffer from serious defects on both sides of the argument. Although Wikipedia's links are NOFOLLOW, there are hundreds of sites that mirror Wikipedia that do not put NOFOLLOW in their links, and that fact is properly taken into account in evaluating the harm caused by inclusion of the link. That said, the spreadingsantorum site is already highly ranked on Google without help from Wikipedia, and for the reasons discussed below, it is unlikely that the harm caused by inclusion of the link will be substantial.
  • We do not agree that WP:NOTCENSORED is a valid argument here, as it is not an obligation to provide certain information. Its purpose is to avoid removing information that may be construed as offensive or age-inappropriate.
  • To the extent that some editors relied on WP:ELBLP and not WP:BLPEL, it should be noted that WP:ELBLP is in the "Links normally to be avoided" section of WP:EL and therefore explicitly does not apply in cases of official websites under ELOFFICIAL.
  • To the extent that some editors relied on WP:ELOFFICIAL as a reason to include the link, the argument is defective because ELOFFICIAL is clearly phrased permissively. It allows, but does not mandate, the inclusion of official links. Assuming that a link otherwise complies with our policies and guidelines, whether it is to be included is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment.

A fundamental aspect of the BLP policy is that we should avoid doing harm to living people. In considering the question of harm, the argument is "How much harm will this link cause to a living person?" When reading WP:HARM, one has to answer three questions. The last two are of very little consequence in this case. 2. Is the information fact? Yes, it is the official website of the campaign. That is a fact. The content of the site does not change this. 3. Is the information given due weight in the article? Yes, a link to the official site would be appropriate weight. 1. Is the information widely known? is the important question in this case. In a Google search on "Rick Santorum", the website in question appears as the fourth search result. This appears to be already widely known. So the URL appears to pass the WP:HARM test.

We note that there is a strong argument that the article should either include the link or be nominated for deletion, on the basis that (A) the article and the link are not on two different sides of some distinct line except in interpretations of the letter of WP:BLP (where it is quite clear), and (B) the article and its internal links could be used to provide instruction on how to promote the website on Google page-rank, which is arguably more harmful but is an inevitable consequence of the project. Given the considerations in this and the preceding paragraph, we think that the supporters reasonably argued that putting anchors around is not any worse than leaving it bare, and that the consequence of the link is merely convenience.

The other important issue in the discussion is the tension between WP:BLPEL, and WP:ELOFFICIAL. Supporters argue that the inclusion is permitted by ELOFFICIAL, while opposers argue that it is barred by BLPEL. ELOFFICIAL permits the inclusion of official links, provided that they are consistent with WP:ELNEVER (i.e., not blacklisted, and not a copyright violation), while WP:BLPEL states that "in general, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy". (Another part deals with links that violate WP:EL. For the reasons discussed above, we believe that arguments to exclude the link based on that guideline are inconsistent with its plain language and entitled to little weight.) The supporters point out, however, that we routinely link to official websites, such as Westboro Baptist Church or Stormfront (website), even though they unquestionably "contradict the spirit" of WP:BLP.

In examining the text of the policy, it is important to note WP:BLPEL qualified its prohibition with the words "in general". If the prohibition were absolute, this would be a much more clear-cut case of a policy prevailing over a contradictory guideline, and the opposers' argument would likely carry the day. However, the way BLPEL is worded permits a reading that allows for exceptions to its general prohibition on sites that contradict the spirit of BLP. Our linking to official websites that are plainly nowhere near BLP-compliant on other articles tends to support this reading. This then boils down to the question whether the policy does indeed allow for such an exception, and whether Savage's website should be one of the exceptions to this policy. The arguments for both sides, viewed in this light, are reasonably balanced; both sides have made reasonable arguments grounded on reasonable, although different, interpretations of the policy. It is not in our position to favor one side over the other.

With the above considered, the arguments on both sides appear equal in strength. It is our opinion that there is more support for and that the consensus of the discussion favors providing a clickable external link as an official website of the subject of the article.

Following a very long discussion (and straw poll) above, the question here is whether to include Dan Savage's "Spreading santorum" website at as an external link for this page. Some people believe that it is a BLP violation, while others reject that view and believe that it is a proper EL and even belongs here per WP:ELOFFICIAL. The following represents a summation of the opposing views...

Argument for inclusion: The site is the official site of the subject of the article (the campaign) and is discussed in the text as central to the article's subject. A reader of the article is likely to seek out the site as a further method of inquiry, which is the purpose of including an external link. While WP:BLP applies to some extent, it is not a justification for removing or curtailing coverage of well-sourced, notable, neutrally-presented criticism of a public figure. Our obligation to consider harm extends only to making sure the article is fair and neutral, not to abandon WP:NPOV by adopting Santorum's interests as our own. Our personal opinion of the campaign is not relevant; we provide external links to many other sites that we would never "promote" and are deeply offensive to many, including ones which feature personal attacks. Our NOFOLLOW tags in outgoing links mean our inclusion will not affect page ranking, and what other sites that mirror our content choose to do is not within our control.

Argument against inclusion: WP:BLP requires us to consider the harm done to living persons by the content of Wikipedia. In this case, providing a link is inherently non-neutral because it involves participation in a campaign to attack an individual. We are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of our actions, and the consequence of including the link is to increase both traffic to the site and possibly to keep it on top of search engine rankings for a longer time, because we know our mirrors do not necessarily use NOFOLLOW. We can not claim neutrality while deliberately abetting Savage's personal campaign against Santorum. In comparison to this significant harm, including the link would result in only trivial benefit to the article at best. A reader interested in visiting the site is easily capable of copying the already incorporated but non-hyperlinked URL or searching for it in Google. The site itself is merely vulgar insult and personal opinion, and therefore not an important information resource. It is its existence, rather than its content, that is important to the article. 04:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


RfC: Include the link

  1. In essence, we have already had the necessary discussion here (with a straw poll above in which 18 people favored including it and 6 opposed) -- though of course there is nothing wrong with soliciting wider input. Beyond that: if the article itself can exist (in conformity with BLP) as I think it can (and as previous deletion discussions have established quite definitively), then I see no reason the link cannot be included. In fact adding the link almost seems like a minor point, an afterthought, given the nature of the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  2. Include. Again per the same arguments at the straw poll, and this very useful table of arguments. There are two general principles here: first, that we cannot hope to do absolutely no harm in the outside world, as explained at WP:HARM. Second, the only argument against the link is that (a) it might harm Santorum if WP readers clicked on the link and (b) external sites which mirror WP might keep the site on top of search engine results (A link in WP cannot have this effect). Wikipedia cannot modify its articles based on what other websites do: we need to be independent and uncensored, and this is the official link for this subject. BeCritical 19:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  3. Include per ELOFFICIAL. The "don't include" argument referring to WP:ATTACK makes the mistake that the guideline confers ATTACK characteristics to the Wikipedia article which lists it. It does not; the Wikipedia page which includes it is this one which explains it. This article is the best and only place for the link, and the link should be included because it is the official one for the topic. Others go so far as to label the URL as falling under our WP:ATTACK guideline which of course it does not, being as it is a guideline applying to attack pages found or formed in Wiki namespace, not the wide world. Finally, WP:BLP allows negative information that the famous person does not like; scroll down to see the part about WP:WELLKNOWN. "BLP" cannot be an unexamined shout of protest—it must be considered in context. Famous persons such as Rick Santorum are not as well protected as relatively anonymous people. Binksternet (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  4. Include - per WP:ELOFFICIAL, a good encyclopedia offers follow-up resources for its readers. And this includes cases wherein the official site is an attack site devoted to smearing living people (see David Duke, Stormfront (website), and others listed under Template:White Nationalism for a small number of examples). In fact, this case is much less vicious and dangerous, and less offensive to BLP policy, than those ones - juvenile scatology is nowhere near as serious for BLP as race-baiting and plotting action against the conspiracies these people believe in. Yet we have external links in those and many other cases, because we could hardly claim to be an impartial encyclopedia if we linked readers to some sites, but balked at others. Balking at this one on such shaky grounds constitutes a clear NPOV violation. Finally, the search ranking issue is a well-meaning red herring: Wikipedia's outbound links use nofollow tags, and thus have no effect on search engine rankings. In this case as in others, Wikipedia reports on the story without participating in it, and it will do so better by following its own precedents and adding the link. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 19:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  5. We should include, as that is the convention for how we write articles and there is no compelling reason to break with convention. As a starting point it is absolutely normal and proper to include an external link to a website that, like this one, is a primary subject of an article. We do not question on a case by case basis whether the content at the other end of the link is agreeable or offensive, good for the world or bad for the world, interesting or mundane. As its primary mission Wikipedia covers everything under the sun unflinchingly and without judgment, and a website like this at the intersection of politics, civil rights, and Internet culture is unquestionably a notable phenomenon. The question becomes why not include the link? Various objections have been raised, but the only one that carries any weight is that per our BLP policy we should not cause harm to any living person. Here that policy is misapplied. We are not causing harm to the politician that is the subject of the site, we are reporting that a third party is attacking a politician or, some would say, that the politician has hurt himself through intemperate comments that drew angry response like the site's. Politics is a rough and tumble business and we must report that it is so rather than shield our readers' eyes from subjects that we deem too troublesome for them. The notion that we are promoting the site's viewpoint by letting people read it is, frankly, specious. If letting readers examine a thing were promoting a thing, then we would have to censor all bad things from the encyclopedia. Nor is there a balancing question, as there would be at WP:NFCC, between adding disfavored content and the extent to which the content adds to the reader's understanding of the subject matter. Presumptively it does, but even if we had to judge that, there is a blog on the other side of the link with a large amount of design and ever-changing content relevant to the subject. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  6. Include per WP:ELOFFICIAL. The article already summarizes the contents of the link, so including the link does no harm that has not already been done; meanwhile, it provides benefit by aiding readers' ability to view, and evaluate for themselves, the primary source at the heart of the topic. I have seen no convincing rationale for why this article should be treated differently from any other article in this respect. Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  7. Include It should be included for several reasons (a) It is the official website of the article. (b) We have an article on it and a link would be a useful tool to understand it. (c) Opposing the link would mean a slippery slope to removing links from several other articles, and such attempts are usually opposed. (For example, see Anders Breivik article and check the manifesto) (d) Nobody has properly demonstrated that the link violates BLP (e) Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED. Pass a Method talk 19:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  8. Include the link per the straw poll outcome, which I believe represents a rough consensus in favor of inclusion. As I also said there, though, I must admit that I find Mr. Santorum to be repugnant when it comes to his comments about gay people, and I could not live with myself if I sat and watched him say it without voicing my objection, for the sake of all that is good and decent in humanity.--Milowenthasspoken 19:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  9. Include - I'll recycle my words above: We should not let our personal political objections to a site impact the decision-making process as to whether a link should be included. For example, the fascist Stormfront (website) includes a link to........... the Stormfront website. Certainly the site mentioned here is the locus of the campaign about which this article is written. Whether you support the campaign, whether you're bitterly opposed to the campaign, or wether you're in the middle somewhere supporting some aspects but not all, shouldn't matter. This is fundamentally an aspect of a political movement dealing with a public figure (a candidate for President of the United States), not an "attack site" about a private individual. Carrite (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  10. Lets not revert back to WP:BADSITES --Guerillero | My Talk 20:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  11. Include per my statement above. ThemFromSpace 20:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  12. Include. The argument against, "We can not claim neutrality while deliberately abetting Savage's personal campaign against Santorum" makes little sense. Rather, we cannot claim neutrality while deliberately censoring a link to the very website that is the topic of this article. That Wikipedia may be perceived as non-neutral by including the link is irrelevant; Wikipedia is already perceived that way by ideological groups who object to articles they disagree with. That should have no bearing on editorial content. Santorum, with the help of Savage, brought this notoreity upon himself. So it's an attack site, but yet, it is notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Therefore there is no reason to exclude a relevant link, particularly when the entire topic of this article derives from that web site. It is also irrelevant what search engines do; Wikipedia (as far as I know) does not base its policies on the consequences of search engine algorithms. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  13. Include The BLP considerations here are intertwined with the existence of this article. If this article isn't a BLP violation, then neither is linking to the official site for the topic. If there is a BLP concern here, the way to handle it is to remove the article, not the link. aprock (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  14. Include, per all the arguments that have already been rehashed above. Having the article but not including the link is bizarre. It's particularly odd to think that by excluding it, we're somehow keeping people from finding it or protecting Santorum's reputation: anyone who reads the article as it is could find the link in a matter of seconds if they wanted to. It's all very well to say 'but if people find it and spread it, that'll help promote this meme that libels Santorum!', but that's already happened a long time ago. Excluding the link at this point would be closing the door after the horse has bolted. It's the same reason that the article Beck v. Eiland-Hall includes an external link to '', which is unquestionably libellous, but just as unquestionably directly relevant to the subject of the article. Robofish (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  15. Include per my reasoning in the above straw poll. Can you explain to me, by the way, how a second poll it at all anything other than a waste of time? The first poll had wide participation and a clear result. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  16. Include It seems evident that an article about a campaign should link to the website of that campaign. BLP is never an acceptable reason to argue for something to be removed. If it is a BLP violation, it should be removed with all deliberate speed. However it is not a BLP violation since it is reporting on the well-known claims made by others. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  17. Include per ELOFFICIAL. If we applied the antis’ loose, all-encompassing interpretation of BLP across the board, we’d remove official links from categories like Orly Taitz, The Obama Deception, or Michael Moore Hates America. BLP’s not a tool for censoring links to critics. No reasonable person thinks Wikipedia is a tool of Westboro Baptist Church, Stormfront, or Aryan Nations. We link to their sites not because we’re POV, but because we’re neutral. This site is practically the subject of the article, and Wikipedia is not censored. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  18. Include - We can't use Wikipedia to promote this (or any other) subject. And promoting a site that attacks a living person would be particularly egregious, as a clear BLP violation. But merely linking to a site that is of central importance to a well-sourced, notable and neutrally-presented article can not be construed as promotion of that site. Presumably every site we link to receives increased traffic and, via our mirrors, a search engine bump. If we deem that to constitute promotion, there are many, many sites that we should stop linking to; at a minimum we would need to add an exception to WP:ELNEVER for any site that criticizes a living person, and that would be a significant deteriment to our ability to provide useful links to readers. BLP requires us to take extra care that material is factually accurate and dispassionately presented, but explicitly does not require us to refrain from fully covering a notable topic simply because it involves third-party criticism of a public figure. To do so would be incompatible with our dispassionate, uncensored approach to providing information.--Trystan (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  19. Include here, do not put it on Santorum's page or the Controversy page. Speciate (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  20. Include for all the reasons I've stated before. This isn't a BLP issue - WP:ATTACKSITES is a failed proposal. The philosophy the other side endorses is a Sympathetic Point of View, a concept so discarded on Wikipedia that the NPOV policy pages no longer even mentions it (but the explanation still exists on Meatball). To delete linking to criticism, while continuing to link to the subjects propaganda, is a sympathetic whitewashing. The harm argument has some sway for BLPs of people who are notable for events not of their own doing, but not for a major public figure like Santorum who is spending millions of dollars a week on advertising a presidential campaign. The idea he is going to be harmed by a critical link is preposterous. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  21. Include. Claims by editor(s) in the 'No' camp below of possible libel are utterly wrong per Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. Indeed, if successful legal action could have been taken against Savage himself by Rick Santorum then it would have been already. The only harm that the website does to Rick Santorum is indirect, as it highlights his controversial views, views which he stands by and is not in any way ashamed of. I would strongly suggest that nobody who approves of Rick's views thinks any less of him due to the existence of the Savage campaign, they only think less of Savage. Rubiscous (talk) 04:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  22. Include. It's pretty much the topic of the article. To deviate from our usual practice here would be to take a political position, something we can't do. We link to The protocols of the elders of Zion, which defames an entire people, and has promoted pogroms and countless murders. This, on the other hand, is a political satire site that mocks a politician. Let's get things into perspective, shall we? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
    Actually we don't. The links are to a specifically annotated version thereof. With not only a strong disclaimer and essays at the start, but on every single page of it. WARNING: This document is a provem antisemitic forgery and hoax. Abuse is strictly forbidden. The "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," the most notorious and most successful work of modern antisemitism, draws on popular antisemitic notions which have their roots in medieval Europe from the time of the Crusades. The libels that the Jews used blood of Christian children for the Feast of Passover, poisoned the wells and spread the plague were pretexts for the wholesale destruction of Jewish communities throughout Europe. And so on. [3] Collect (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
    So, we do link to it. Would you like to attach a disclaimer to our link warning the reader it's satire? We could probably do that if you felt it was necessary. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
    The external link section of the Protocols page is an unruly mess and may not have the best link to the source, or perhaps it's a useful link to an important annotation. We don't normally insist on editorial disclaimers, warnings, spoiler alerts, or the like to in front of objectionable external material. The question of which version to link to doesn't arise here, but a similar question recently arose at Encyclopedia Dramatica, which recently got moved to a new host. Incidentally, that article had a similar discussion about whether to include a live link or dead link. The specific issue there was harassment, but it could have been couched as a BLP matter too.[4] I don't remember exactly how it transpired but the live link eventually prevailed. - Wikidemon (talk)
  23. Include. The link is helpful for anyone who wants to know more about the campaign. It is a key primary source for the topic. We also routinely provide links to racist sites in articles about racist organizations. TFD (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  24. Include The link is part and parcel of the campaign to create the neologism - it does no harm that the existence of this article doesn't already do, and leaving it out would be unencyclopedic. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  25. Include The link is part and parcel of the subject. See also -, Wikipedia Review, Stormfront (website). No harm is done to the subject of the website, as Wikipedia outgoing links are NOFOLLOW, meaning we are not involved in the googlebombing. We are not responsible for the behavior of our mirrors - if we were, then we would also be forced to remove links to the above sites. The allegation of "significant" harm is ridiculous, when the website has been linked by The Slate Group, a Division of the Washington Post Company in their description of the campaign, amongst others. Hipocrite (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  26. Include This article is about the campaign for the neologism. The website is the campaign for the neologism. As unappealing as the whole thing is, it seems awfully foolish not to include the website. AniMate 21:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  27. If it has been settled that the article is about the campaign, then the website that is the centre of the campaign is clearly relevant. There's no reason to depart from usual policy in such cases, which is to link. The claim that the site itself is a BLP violation is preposterous nonsense for two reasons: BLP applies on Wikipedia not off it, and the site does not make any claims about the former Senator (it just attempts to misappropriate his surname, which is a different thing). Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  28. Include link. It's the subject of the article, and, as other users have pointed out, we regularly include the official page of the article subject all the time, even if that page harms or libels an individual or individuals, because it's part of providing coverage of the subject. BLP is a laudable goal, and perhaps some of the users here are even invoking it in good faith, but we don't apply it across the encyclopedia in the way they're suggesting we do here, and there is no reason to give Rick Santorum special treatment. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 00:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  29. Include link. The link is part of the subject of the article, just as, Wikipedia Review, and Stormfront (website). Because of our NOFOLLOW policy we do not add to the google bomb effect and the behavior of our mirrors is out of our control. Heiro 15:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  30. Include: For all the reasons listed above, especially that the site is the subject of this article. I still don't see any validity in any of the BLP arguments, and we are not, nor should we be, responsible for the actions of mirror sites. All of the "solutions" proposed are inadequate and cowardly. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  31. Include: It doesn't make sense to have a page about the campaign but not have the link to the website promoting the campaign. Either this page and the link should be both removed, or both should be included. FurrySings (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  32. Obviously include. There's BLP and then there's hysteria. The torrent of BLP concerns about this article is hysteria. Nothing Wikipedia does will dampen or ease Mr Santorum's Google problems. But, like previous RfCs on this topic, it is a jolly good way to waste time. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  33. Include as obviously appropriate. Not including it is clear censorship based upon political beliefs only, as there is no policy-based reason to do so. DreamGuy (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  34. Include as consistent with relevant policies and guidelines. Mr. Santorum is an adult, a former United States Senator, and a candidate for the presidency. If a public figure such as he chooses to make reckless statements that lead to unpleasant repercussions, that cannot be our concern. We're neither Mr. Santorum's nannies nor his PR agents, and it is not our job to clean up after him. Rivertorch (talk) 07:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  35. As long as we don't, uh... *fumbles for vocabulary*... use, uh... "anchor text", I think it's called? As long as we don't use anchor text of "santorum", providing a link to the site won't be part of Savage's campaign, and we should include it. Oh, and for the record, this is precisely the opposite of a Google Bomb. DS (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  36. Include - why should we make people go elsewhere to find information? Isn't the information supposed to be here? We provide web page links for Nazis. We publicize terrorist attacks. Why be squeamish about documenting one of the more significnt information technology events of the past couple of years? Pawsplay (talk) 06:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
    Indeed what information is there relevant to this article that is only obtainable from the external link at issue here? re Nazis, any given neo-Nazi (or neo-Nazi organization) generally gets "official" links only at his or her (or that organization's) Wikipedia article. If they set up additional website(s) to go after targeted individual Jew(s) they don't generally get more "official" links, this time to these additional sites they've created, here on Wikipedia.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  37. Include - The current article features a compromise, the link text with no hyperlink. Adding an active link will add no verifiable harm to Mr. Santorum, nor is this article a biography about Mr. Santorum. If other similarly controversial subject have similar links to attack pages, this article must include the link to keep NPOV. Johnden223 (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  38. Include — Other than being a major part of the subject of the article, the link is not inherently derogatory. Whether one thinks of lube and fecal matter is offensive is a matter of opinion. At the most fundamental level though, how is referring to a website's appearance through third-person sources even proper citation? A direct link is the only way to ensure a neutral point of view of the subject matter. (as a side note, the Rick Santorum page links three times to his campaign website, which could also be considered promoting POV).Dsetay (talk) 01:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  39. Include For about the 40th fucking time, yes. Protonk (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  40. Include This is a no-brainer. Eceresa (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    Include - obviously relevant to the article. --He to Hecuba (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Sock of banned user.
  41. Include - In my opinion, this link is the sole notable ascpect of the entire riducle crusade against Santorum. Either include the link or don't have the article at all. BV talk 04:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  42. Include Larkusix (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  43. Include I'm still overwhelmed by the amount of text on this page. But speaking for those of us coming here for information on this topic (and, in my case, to ask a question), I don't understand why you wouldn't link to the site. You're telling me, "We can give you information about it, but you'll have to google santorum if you want to see what we are talking about." Then the user clicks on and Google registers the click. So by doing this, are you not contributing to the so-called problem and making it stay relevant to Google? Ashail P (talk) 01:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
    Excellent point! No one else thought of that. Yet another data point on my conviction that we shouldn't consider the outside world when writing WP. BeCritical 02:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
    If I may add to my response after the fact, I want to make sure my opinion is not discounted as others' have apparently been in past discussions. In terms of Wikipedia's policies, this is is not a Biography of a Living Person (which I read to make sure I understood what I was talking about), this is the topic of the article. So a link on Mr Santorum's article (or most anywhere else) would be inappropriate, but a link on this article is not. As I pointed out, the "right thing to do" arguments may even have the wrong end of the issue if our goal is to somehow protect Mr Santorum. The debate misses the point. People who come here are already looking for information about the site in question, and as such, the arguments against the inclusion are unconvincing. Ashail P (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  44. Include this is a notable topic and the site is what the topic is about. Encyclopedia Dramatica includes an official link. Anybody can find these sites by typing the name into Google or reading any of the sources. Why should we sanctimoniously exclude the link? If the topic is unsuitable we should delete the page; if suitable we should be complete and have an official link. Santorum is running for president and will hardly be harmed by its inclusion in this article. He's a highly notable, public person. Harsh criticism is part of seeking high elected office. Jehochman Talk 23:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  45. Include. This shouldn't even be an issue - linking to a WP:WELLKNOWN allegation is absolutely permitted under the BLP regime, and this isn't even an allegation; we're just reporting someone else made a gibe. I support both the official site link as an external link, and an inline citation immediately after the words "a website". Wnt (talk) 10:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  46. Obvious include. This site is the overwhelming the subject of the article. Yeah, it's nasty. Well, that's the point of the article. --GRuban (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  47. include Is the actual cause of the issue in question, not linking does a disservice to our readers. Given that the website is one of the top hits for "Santorum" on Google and every other search engine, and given the well-known nature of the problem, and given that external links here don't give Google-juice since they all use nofollow, from a do-no-harm perspective, there's clearly no harm being done. Our goal here is to provide articles that give relevant information, in this context, the website that is the primary vehicle for the neologism. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  48. Include. This site is the subject of the article, and should be made accessible to the reader in the same way as any other website about which we have an article. The opponents of including the link would have a much stronger case if the discussion was about including the link in the article about Rick Santorum, but this page is not about him it is about the highly-notable attack campaign against him. WP:NOTCENSORED, and however odious editors or readers find the site being linked to, distaste is not a valid reason to exclude the link, any more than it would be a valid reason to exclude the link on Westboro Baptist Church to, or links to race hate sites from articles about such organisations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  49. Include. Harmful to Mr. Santorum? No. (Cf. truly Santorum-harming declaration by - oh, who was it? - of equivalence between homosexuality and bestiality.) Article topic notable? Yes. Credible BLP issues? None. Writegeist (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  50. Include This is a complicated issue, but Wikipedia's policy on official links seems to allow the spreadingsantorum link. An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following: 1.The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article. 2.The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable. This article is predominately about Dan Savage's campaign to redefine the word 'santorum', and the website in question is controlled by Dan Savage, and is about the new definition of santorum, so it does appear to qualify as an official link. Also, I did some research on other public figures, and there are instances of critical websites being used as external links. For example, in the Silvio Berlusconi article, there is a link to a website whose sole purpose it to show that he is a professional liar: (in four languages)Debbie W. 22:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Do not include the link

  1. NO - BLP Violation The site in question is an attack site on a living person. Clearly under any other circumstance we would never even consider link to an attack site from a BLP related article. The pro-link people seem to think that because the attack site resulted in a notable story that linking to the attack site overides BLP. The rest of us argue that it doesn't matter if the site resulted in a notable story, linking to the site is still a violation of BLP, espcially since the goal of that attack site is to get Savage's drones to link the site in as many places as possible to drive up web traffic and internet search rankings. This is clearly a unique situation but BLP is an overiding principle, and I see no reason to link to an attack site. Furthermore, the site itself offers no additional information (outside of additional attacking of Rick Santorum) that is not already included in the article. Several above make the statement that we have links to racist organizations, however this is a specific attack page against a single person. They are simply not the same. Arzel (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
    Editors should also consider the merits of a prior BLPN discussion on this subject and specifically to the clear WP:BLP Policy transgression you have, IMHO, correctly raised. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
    That was one prior discussion, among many, that considered the novel proposition that BLP requires removing links to notable websites that are the subject of the article without reaching a definitive conclusion. Considering that there is no obvious BLP transgression and that I don't see any major arguments raised there that are not raised here, I'm not sure how one was correctly raised. For anyone who wants more it might help to compile all the prior discussion on the matter. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
    discussion...that considered the novel proposition that BLP requires removing links to notable websites that are the subject of the article...
    What, IMHO, was a considerably more salient and considerably less "novel" discussion was the citation of the WP:BLP policy prohibition "...self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs,...". Save for protestations of BLP inapplicability to the contrary, I don't recall an administrative determination having been made on that dispute. Did I overlook it somewhere? JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
    The question is novel in the sense that it is new and has not been definitively answered. No policy was written with this type of link specifically in mind, so people are trying to fit it into various broader categories they do understand and that do have wide support, as you do by invoking the external links section of BLP, and as others do by citing WP:EL, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTCENSORED, etc. BLP policy was not written to exclude links to the notable subject of an article based on that subject being a self-published content, it has not before been interpreted to exclude them, and adding this exclusion don't support the purpose of BLP. You can interpret almost any policy expansively to achieve a new content result, and this would be a new result that depending on how far it is taken would exclude lots of links that are currently in the encyclopedia without challenge. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  2. Hell no - For several reasons: First, linking to this webpage is about like linking to a copyright violation that became notable—we don't do it per the copyright policy. We shouldn't link to this per the BLP policy. Secondly, the link itself falls under WP:REVDEL criteria #3; specifically, "links to web pages that disparage or threaten some person or entity and serve no other valid purpose." Thirdly, per WP:BLPEL, we should avoid linking to sites that violate the spirit of WP:BLP. That website is nothing but an attack page, which leads me to my fourth point. The inclusion of the link seems to be skirting the edge of libel. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  3. Per Arzel and per elements expressed in the overview (save for the "NOFOLLOW" argument which I am unqualified to assess). Mitigating support or even perceived support for this most vulgar, overt personal, political attack with its inherent BLP considerations is not only well within the prerogative of WP "editorial judgement" but must surely be suggested by even the most minimal sense of forbearance under the principles espoused by WP:BLP. Were there a WP:RIGHTTHINGTODO, it could surely be invoked here. The already non-hyperlinked URL incorporated in the article main body is clearly a more-than-adequate compromise. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  4. Do not include: Wikipedia is not censored, but we should not allow it to become a vehicle for the propagation of somebody's vilification campaign. There are several BLP concerns with that link – it is not only disparaging and derogatory, but stands in contravention to WP:BLPEL and WP:ELBLP which apply to this article as well. I would also like to remind the users in favor of inclusion that WP:EL is a content guideline, and in cases of conflict between guidelines and policies, the policies prevail. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 20:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  5. Do not include: Per the shoud-exist-and-be-a-policy WP:RIGHTTHINGTODO. We don't censor anything, but keep a link who denigrates a living person, no matter what kind of link it is, can't be considered right. In all others, I agree with Nearly Headless Nick that if a guideline and a policy conflict, the policy has prevalence. Béria Lima msg 20:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  6. NO. The site is an attack site on a living person. Wikipedia should not allow it. It's a BLP violation. Wikipedia shouldnt be used as a vehicle to promote hate towards a living subject. Caden cool 20:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  7. No And consensus can not override WP:BLP - this "vote" is thus improper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  8. No. I was all ready for yes until I looked at it. I find it funny--and totally, totally unacceptable per our BLP policy. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  9. Exclude - Wikipedia should not link to a website, any website, devoted to bully and disparage an individual. It is unacceptable per the BLP policy, but more importantly per the spirit of the BLP policy : to avoid harm to living persons where harm can be avoided. This has nothing to do with censorship, and everything to do with doing the right thing towards a living person. How many of you would support linking to a website disparaging a gay teenager, knowing full well the potential consequences of bullying? CharlieEchoTango (contact) 00:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
    I would, provided that it meets the standard sourcing requirements. For example, when Canadian broadcasters made disparaging remarks about Johnny Weir, I favored including reference to it, while the BLP fundamentalists wanted it out. The article (which I haven't looked at in over a year) now includes it. While cases of suicide are heartbreaking, we cannot allow suicides to dictate to us how we should behave or to determine whether there are repercussions for behavior -- to do so gives suicide an aura of power that makes it a more appealing option. We must instead channel our condemnation toward the general defense of civil rights for everyone. Wnt (talk) 10:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  10. Do not include Collect has this dead on. Unless someone can show how this does not violate WP:BLP, WP:ELOFFICIAL cannot possibly override it. Neither a guideline nor consensus can circumvent our policy, which is ultimately just our statement of keeping a tiny amount of ethical responsibility to those people we write about. The site is an attack site; its only reason for existing is to attack a living human being. As Reaper Eternal correctly points out, if this were any other article, the link would not only be removed, but, in fact, be RevDel'd. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  11. No Collect says it perfectly. Rlendog (talk) 04:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  12. No It's ok for an activist to counter attack against a politician who promotes ignorance and hatred. It's ok to have an article on a notable topic. It is not ok for Wikipedia to be used to assist this kind of counter attack. ELOFFICIAL and NOTCENSORED are not relevant as this is a unique situation and we are not a bureaucracy where a link must be inserted because the link might be seen to satisfy "official", and because editorial judgment has nothing to do with censorship. This issue concerns an activist's attack-by-neologism, and per BLP Wikipedia should not be used to amplify that attack. Johnuniq (talk) 06:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  13. No - As per WP:BLP - we should not be linking to blogger sites created for the specific purpose of demeaning and degrading a single living person. Youreallycan 08:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  14. No. Not again. By linking to the site, Wikipedia participates in the attack. And ELOFFICIAL is being badly misused; ELOFFICIAL does not mean that everything which passes it is exempt from other policies. It's entirely possible for something to pass ELOFFICIAL and fail BLP in which case since it fails BLP it should not be included. Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  15. No. When ELOFFICIAL is being used to override the rest of the linking policy (which references things like "taste" and "neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding") one should pay special attention to the line in Wikipedia:External links that says "The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link." I do see in the example rationales for inclusion given "information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail" and I do not see "information that could not be added to the article because as self-published claims about a third party it would indisputably fail Wikipedia:Verifiability." Note also that Wikipedia:Linking_to_external_harassment says a non-"live link" "is sometimes used as a workable compromise" and the link at issue here already appears as a non-live link in the body of the article.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    I'd like to remind everyone that Savage's campaign involves linking to the site with the politician's name as the anchor text. If he had (out of some dadaeque whim) asked that people use the term "Rhubarb Muffins" as the anchor text while linking to the neologism site, it would be very difficult to get a good recipe for rhubarb muffins online, but the politician wouldn't care. All we have to do is omit the anchor text. DS (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
    Interesting point. I'm not sure of the technical details. Perhaps you want to move this to the section below. BeCritical 17:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  16. Exclude. The only new argument I have relates to Barrett v. Rosenthal, Ms. Rosenthal was adding her web site to various of the articles. The web site really was the subject of the lawsuit in Barrett v. Rosenthal. I believe the consensus was that the site really was libelous but-for Section 230, and we didn't want to be associated with it. IIRC, it ended up on the en.Wikipedia blacklist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  17. Exclude per strict implementation of Wikipedia rules for Biographies of Living Persons. The argument about Rick Santorum being a person in the public arena and, thus, unprotected from those rules is null and void because Wikipedia is not, in any sense of the term, a political forum. The person who's been the target of the relevant campaign objects to it, strongly and unambiguously so. It is clearly inappropriate for Wikipedia to link to a site attacking the subject personally. For what it's worth, I oppose almost everything Santorum stands for, politically, and I also get a kick, personally, from the punishment he received for his ignorant commentary on homosexuality. But personal, political opinions should not affect how we edit an encyclopaedia! -The Gnome (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  18. Exclude BLP policy violation to include it...unambiguously.--MONGO 08:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Extended discussion

Meta Comment: The RfC bot has removed this RfC from its listings and it probably requires resubmission. While our views on this issue are in opposition, I'd propose that Wikidemon or Trystan resubmit this RfC as acceptable arbiters exercising control over the RfC language (to include Trystan's language) and duration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I have resubmitted the RfC incorporating the language suggested by Trystan, seconded by me and appended to the original RfC by BeCritical. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

We should remember that this is not a BLP. There is a very legitimate undecided policy question about whether BLP applies to non-BLP articles specifically about situations which are derogatory to living people: how can we discuss the material at all without violating BLP? If we are allowed to discuss the material, can we do it thoroughly, including the relevant linking? The argument is that since there is consensus this article should exist, that we should give the subject a thorough and unflinching treatment. BeCritical 20:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure where you get that "legitimate undecided policy question about whether BLP applies to non-BLP articles" idea. Please review the policy page: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." This is not undecided, disputed or contested, but categorically stated. It is not Wikipedia's job to take an activist stance with regard to political controversies. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias are conservative (not using the term in American parlance). We should not let ourselves become a part of a vilification campaign and this is policy. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 20:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
"Particular care," yes, but this is not a BLP, and even per BLP Santorum is a public figure, and we cannot expect to do no harm at all. When you look at policy, it's not nearly as absolutist as you say, even though it seems that way at first glance. We have to have good judgment. My judgment is that actually if the link does any harm at all, it is extremely minimal, and balancing that against having Wikipedia be subject to what other sites do leads me to believe we should include. BeCritical 21:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
It is true that BLP applies to every article. Where it applies differentially is that when an article contains a contentious statement about a living person we are very careful about the strength of the sourcing supporting the truth of the statement, whereas when an article says that a third party has made a contentious statement about a living person we instead ask for strong sourcing that they in fact made the statement, and that it is notable, relevant, and of due weight. We should not be in the business of promoting other people's vilification campaigns, nor of downplaying their vilification campaigns. Or of deciding who the villain is and who is righteously aggrieved when there is a clash of interests and values. The very premise of an encyclopedia is that by shining a light on every subject we empower readers and thereby the world at large to make their own decisions. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely, and the fact that this article exists is sufficient proof that we regularly uphold the values that you claim we espouse. When it comes to living people, we also like to err on the side of caution. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 21:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment - All respect intended to, and all good faith assumed of, those arguing for it - but forgive me if I don't see how drafting WP:RIGHTTHINGTODO as policy is in any way a good idea. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Bravo. ☻ ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Addressing User:Sven Manguard's question above: "Can you explain to me, by the way, how a second poll it at all anything other than a waste of time? The first poll had wide participation and a clear result": My understanding is that the opponents of including the link have refused to recognize the "clear result" of the first poll, and an RFC, evaluated and closed by an outside party, was deemed the most likely method of reaching a result that would actually be heeded. Theoldsparkle (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Meta Comment: Without objection, I will introduce the following edit to the opposition viewpoint (suggested addition emboldened/underlined)...
A reader interested in visiting the site is easily capable of copying the already incorporated but non-hyperlinked URL or searching for it in Google.
JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I object to that addition. If you want to make arguments against inclusion you can put them in your own comment, rather than larding up an RfC text that wasn't in what I originally submitted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
As I stated in the "RfC Proposal", the proposed text of this RfC (or any RfC for that matter) should be subject, at least for a limited time, to consensus acceptable re-composition. As a proponent of the "Include" viewpoint, you are also entitled (in fact invited) to amend, with consensus acceptance, the text expressing your own view. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
"With consensus acceptance"? But surely it is now clear that you don't have consensus for your addition. Please revert it. We already have the absurdity of two texts at the head here, following your attempts to delete the RfC I initiated. Don't compound your error. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Suggested edits as to the "Argument for Exclusion" were, in fact, solicited by its author, Trystan. If I see an objection to my edit from those who support that position, I will be delighted to revert my edit. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • My attempt to de-hyperlink the subject link on this talk page per an as yet unresolved WP:BLP objection has been reverted. Editors should be reminded that WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well as article pages. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm once again entertained at the way minorities intent on obstructing consensus at WP, realizing they are outside of both precedent and policy, attempt to create doctrine on the fly — in this case a redlink to a draft essay, of all things. It would be funny if it weren't so typical.Carrite (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, there's lots of amusing things about this article. One example is the masking of a POV attack on a BLP by proxy. Of course we're not talking about Dan Savage's Political Attack on Rick Santorum silly, we're talking about his Campaign for "santorum" neologism (but let's just toss in a little consensus "rick" for some added "entertainment"). JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah, not to worry, my friend. A well placed whiny post by someone on the founder's talk page and ten days from now the WMF Board will pass a resolution on the Sacred Principle of Tasteless Neologisms, which can be cited as doctrine. Then the community gives that the bum's rush three days later... At which point this matter is resolved in favor of the majority, as it should have been weeks ago and we move on to the next dramathon. Carrite (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Satire is exempt from libel and slander laws. So Wikipedia's BLP rules do not apply. Speciate (talk) 03:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
That is a strange and false statement. Arzel (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
It is true. I also researched libel law. It's highly unlikely that the site itself is libelous (only if it makes untrue assertions which are meant to be taken literally), and certainly not the link to it. BeCritical 03:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to libel or slander, I was referring to the statement that since he called it satire BLP doesn't apply. Arzel (talk) 04:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Libel or slander laws do not enter into it. Merely naming an icky substance after Rick Santorum would be neither. Like Strigiphilus garylarsoni does not libel Gary Larson (even if he weren’t honored to have a biting louse named after him). ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Avoiding legal liability for Wikipedia and its editors is only one of the purposes of BLP, there are others. For what it's worth, I wouldn't say the site is a satire of something, it is the thing itself. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure where you all are going with this. I am not seeing where anyone made the claim that it is libel, all I said is that simply calling something satire doesn't remove the possibility of a BLP violation. Arzel (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is what I am saying. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
It was brought up in Do not include #2 above - "The inclusion of the link seems to be skirting the edge of libel". If both sides can agree that libel is not an issue then I call upon Reaper Eternal to strike that comment as unhelpful to the debate. Rubiscous (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
So, if it not libel, and it in no other way violates WP:BLP, then why are we debating this at all? Speciate (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment Reply to Include 16 - The site is not reporting on the well-known claim by others. The site is the source of the claim. Reply to Include 14 - The linked site is dead and has been dead for three years and is thus no longer an issue. Reply to Include 17 - There is no offical link on Michael Moore Hates America, and it doesn't appear there ever was. WBC is a horrible demented completely worthless hateful organization, but it is a different issue since the site is not directed at a specific person, thus not a BLP issue. The Orly Tate link has been removed as promotional WP:ADV. Stormfront and AN are clearly racist organizations but the links are not BLP issues. Arzel (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

And others have shown us where we include links which are attacks on single individuals, such as Obama. BeCritical 05:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Where? I removed the Orly Tate link because it was a merchandising plug. I am not aware of any other links that are callng Obama a piece of shit, and if there are please let me know and I will remove them immediately. Arzel (talk) 14:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
We link to this, and in contrast to, it makes claims which are actually libel, that is it makes false fact claims which are meant to be taken seriously. That's a much more serious issue than spreadingsantorum, and if we include that link, which actually includes libel, including spreadingsantorum is a nobrainer. BeCritical 19:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment We seem to generally allow linking to websites when they are the subject of the article, as is the case here. See for example, Wikipedia Review, which is just as problematic as the spreadingsantorum link. Whether a website hosts defamatory material on a single person or on many people is an irrelevant detail.   Will Beback  talk  23:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Not from a blp point of view. Arzel (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
How so?   Will Beback  talk  00:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
WP Review is not a BLP issue. Arzel (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Let's posit that WP Review hosts unsourced defamatory information about non-notorious living persons. How is it not a BLP issue? Are you alleging that it does not host? Are you alleging it's reliably sourced? Are you alleging it's not defamatory? Are you alledging the targets are so notorious that they cannot be defamed? Let's play the same game with Stormfront (website). Hipocrite (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Um -- WR is not part of WMF's purview, and certainly not under the WP purview - so how can WP issue a policy affecting an outside venue? WR is not an RS source, to be sure. I would suggest that no BLP should link to WR for any purpose relating to any "living person" claims, and if you tell me which articles so link in violation of WP:BLP, I would certainly remove any links to any contentious claims made there post haste. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Would you remove a bare external link to the site on an article about the site? Hipocrite (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Hypotheticals are tough - give me the specific example of a WP:BLP violating cite from Wikipedia. Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
This is not a discussion about citations - it's a discussion of external links. I gave you two - we link to stormfront from stormfront, wikipedia review from wikipedia review. Hipocrite (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment Collect, the #7 no above, says that consensus cannot override BLP. But there is no question of that here. Rather, the question is about how BLP should be interpreted in this case. And for deciding how and whether BLP applies, we require consensus. BeCritical 19:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Meta Comment - For the purposes of clarity and accuracy, both now and its eventual archiving, the current section title, "RfC", should be amended to reflect the topic it references. I believe "Should be hyperlinked within the article body" is an appropriate title. Comments? JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

As there appears to be no objection, I will re-title the RfC shortly. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Policy Discussion

Most of the above comments seem to be coming down to whether or not this is a BLP violation. At the risk of WP:Wikilawyering, I think it might be constructive to look at the specifics of that policy and how differing interpretations might validly lead to differing results.

I think Zen does a good job above showing that WP:BLPEL is where the potential problem lies. Neutral coverage of notable criticism of a public figure's views is specifically allowed under BLP (hence the existence of the article itself), but what we can link to is more restrictive. I think the critical part of BLPEL is this:

  • Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs, and, when including such links in other articles, make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy.... (emphasis mine)

A strict, literal reading of this would be that the content of the external sites that we link to would have to be able to pass our BLP policy for an internal WP article. This would represent a very strict test, one which would be signficantly out of step with current guidelines and practices, as we link to a lot of external content that would not pass BLP standards as they would be applied to an internal WP article. Essentially, under this intepretation, we shouldn't link to any site that contains information critical of an individual living person unless that site qualifies as a reliable source on the individual. If this is the intended meaning of this policy, putting this into practice would be a large undertaking, requiring signficant updates to our guidelines (particularly WP:ELNEVER) and removing many external links accordingly.

A more liberal reading of BLPEL is that it is not the external content of the site itself which would need to pass BLP, but our act of linking to the material that needs to conform to BLP principles. That would presumably be the case when the linking to the material is done as part of neutral coverage of a notable controversy. So where the criticism is validly the subject of an article, it would be within the spirit of BLP to provide the link as we would for any other WP:ELOFFICIAL.

Either way, I think it might be helpful for the policy to be clarified, to either make the stricter reading unambiguous (and thus drive the necessary changes to guidlines and practices) or to make the validity of the liberal interpretation explicit.--Trystan (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


Article talk page: Talk:Santorum neologism.. -Stevertigo (talk) 06:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Eesh. I forward Pi Zero's suggestion to read this page before going any further on the thread linked just above - I wrote out a line by line response before reading that intro page and discovering that, indeed, it's now a moot point. In fact, it's a moot enough point that I'd suggest that when we realize the falsity of the unstated assumption that any coverage whatsoever is per se non-neutral, and subsequently restore the Wikinews link, we link to this page instead of any particular article. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 17:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I understand:
  • "Like Wikipedia, Wikinews also has a Neutral Point of View policy: Wikinews:Neutral point of view."
  • "Wikinews does not have a Biography of Living People policy; however, to comply with NPOV, unfavourable or damaging details relating to people must be clearly attributed to a source."
So what's your point? My comment there was that the article in certain ways violated Wikinews' own NPOV policy. -Stevertigo (t | c) 01:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, your objections #2, #7, and #15 are baseless because you've confused the meanings of words (viz. "phenomenon" just means something that exists, and neither "prevalence" nor "prominence" has any connotation of "legitimate"); #1 confuses juvenile meanness with actionable defamation, then asks why something that isn't there isn't tagged; #8 asks a question that is answered before it's even asked; #6, #10, #11, and #12 state facts about or quote from the article without stating an objection so I'm not sure what to make of them; and #13 is seeing ghosts (nowhere is there any word about validation; Sydell's job is to give context to the news, in this case the search results people will see when they look up Santorum). By contrast, #3, #4, #5, #9, #14, and #16 seem to have some merit, more or less. But that's all basically water under the bridge. The point I was making above was that since the article in question is going to be archived soon anyway (rather than being the type of article, like those on Wikipedia, that would be constantly updated, corrected, and vigorously NPOV'd), and since (like it or not) this is unlikely to be the last time we hear about the neologism from Wikinews, we should crosslink the category the articles appear in rather than any one article or a kludged-up list of articles. That's all. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 05:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
As its User:Cirt that is creating that content we should not be linking to it at all and no one should be adding links to any of his creations of content related to living people either - its a simple back door get around violation of his Arbitration editing restrictions on this project. Youreallycan 11:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
That's just about the worst argument I've ever heard. The issue can be considered on its merits, entirely apart from the identity of individual editors (on another project, no less). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) - User:Tom Morris does a fair bit of work on wikinews with User:Cirt, such as this one, on Cirt's primary contribution focus here that led to his Arbcom restrictions, *Australian woman claims Church of Scientology imprisoned her for twelve years - started by Tom and improved by User:Cirt. Tom knew the wikinews article was written almost completely by User:Cirt. Tom is fully aware of the users editing restrictions here and under the circumstances should not have added the link. - It could easily be seen as him adding his mates article link to avoid User:Cirt from violating his arbitration conditions here. User:Cirt's expansion of this article was the primary reason for all the community disruption ever since. Youreallycan 12:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Off to Rio Rob: Just can't let it go, can you? Carrite (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Users that use the en wikipedia project in violation of NPOV, in a desire to further promote their own POV, no I will not let that go. Replied on your talkpage, - Youreallycan 21:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I work with Cirt at Wikinews. But that's because Wikinews is small enough that anyone that is active there pretty much works with everybody else that's active, because you have to in order to get things done. I work with Pi zero and Blood Red Sandman and Brian McNeil and William Saturn and Rayboy and all sorts of people. I deeply resent the suggestion that having written a Wikinews article about Scientology, this somehow proves I'm part of some grand conspiracy. I also fail to see how boldly adding a sister project link to a legitimately published Wikinews story to the relevant Wikipedia article shows some form of collusion to help Cirt evade a topic ban. I add such links quite frequently to Wikinews articles that I have and have not edited or reviewed, on all sorts of topics. Since when did the ArbCom restrictions include sister project links? If ArbCom now dictates sister project links, why not go the whole hog and have it deal with images too? If someone takes a CC image from Flickr and transfers it to Commons and I then add that as an image to, say, a controversial BLP, do I have to be worrying about the ArbCom restrictions on the uploader? —Tom Morris (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Tom, if those In This Place taking side-swipes at Wikinews, or its contributors, had much of a clue about the project's rigorous review policy, they'd have to retract some of the remarks herein.
Wikipedians are afforded a lifetime to create a "correct" article; hence the masters-thesis-length debates over single paragraphs. I've no time for that.
What I will say is, I'm pleased to see nobody out-and-out accusing Wikinews, again, of not being a reliable source. --Brian McNeil /talk 22:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian McNeil (talkcontribs)

Requested moves

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.

Dan Savage Google bomb

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 14:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Campaign for "santorum" neologismDan Savage 'santorum' Google bomb – Forgive me if this has been proposed before, but one of these titles makes more sense. Whether this is a legitimate "neologism" has been disputed here for a long time, but everyone agrees that it is a Google bomb. "Dan Savage Google bomb" could also work. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, the bot will apparently only list the initial move template and the subsequent "moves" remain unlisted. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose. What, the consensus two weeks ago not to mention Savage's name in the title isn't good enough for you? Consensus can change, but not that fast. We simply don't include authors in work titles unless there is some necessary disambiguation (à la The Liar (Goldoni)); is there some other santorum neologism campaign that this needs to be distinguished from? It has gained notability way independent of Savage. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 16:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
    It seems there is a consensus that the current title is bad, but we're trying to come up with solutions. Sorry for coming up with a solution. Also, can you demonstrate notability independent of Savage, i.e., news articles that mention the "neologism" without mentioning Savage? NYyankees51 (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
    Many of the results in this search would support Roscelese's claim. They would also support a proposal to move this article to "Santorum's google problem". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Many of the results in this search would support Roscelese's claim.
Then citing 3 that you purport to support a claim that "santorum" "... has gained notability way independent of Savage" should be a rather facile exercise. Apparently, "see here" is the best you can do. Res ipsa loquitor. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as what is frankly a wordy mess of a proposed title. Also, there is no real reason, and probably a few counter-reasons per WP:BLP, to shove Dan Savage's name in there. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This has been shot down already, as Roscelese points out. It is also misleading, because while Savage started the "campaign", it has been carried out by thousands of individuals who are not under his control. Nor does Savage's name have to be mentioned for disambiguation purposes, and there are no other similar notable campaigns against Santorum. The "alternate" proposal of dropping Santorum's name from the title is clearly unnaceptable and POV to the extreme. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sorry, but that's an even more complicated title than at present; Dan Savage may have started it, but is not the only person involved; and it wasn't an attempt at a google bomb even though it turned out to be one. Though I still think Santorum google problem or some variant could work as a title. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- that's a pretty crappy name. I could echo the concerns about whether there is a need for disambiguation, but quite apart from that: it's a pretty crappy name. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - The current title sucks for reasons we've all been over. But the proposed title is slightly worse, both for the DAB reasons other editors already pointed out above, and because the issue at hand is not really a google bomb:

Because Google "fixed" that problem, Santorum's supporters say, Google should "fix" the SpreadingSantorum problem, too. But it's not the same problem. Google bombs skewed reality by linking irrelevant search terms to their targets' pages. Few people searching on "miserable failure" were really looking for Bush's bio, and if they were, they would have added his name to the search and come up with relevant results. When Google fixed the problem, it improved its search function by returning more relevant results -- and, crucially, it didn't do this just to disarm the "miserable failure" bomb, but to forestall all such pranks.

SpreadingSantorum, on the other hand, is a page created by someone (writer Dan Savage) about Rick Santorum. It might be offensive, but it's relevant. It's a perfectly legitimate Web page. Savage and the people who linked to the page -- thereby helping it reach the top of search results -- used no algorithm-thwarting trickery to climb up the Google ranks. It's a popular Web page, and it lands at the top for the same reasons that (SBUX) lands at the top for a search on "coffee." (source) ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 17:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose for reasons previously given in multiple prior failed proposals to rename, please see talk page archive. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose it actually is not a Google Bomb. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Per Jimbo: "...the title ought to mention Mr. Savage's name, but not Mr. Santorum's..." JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
    I agree with Jimbo. In cases of deliberate creation of ambiguity Wikipedia titles should exclude the term which is the ambiguation target. Ambiguation is contrary to the knowledge purpose of an encyclopedia. However this would also mean not supporting this proposal because it retains the term in the title.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: 1), indeed, links to information about Rick Santorum. It is therefore not a Google bomb. 2) Even if it was, there certainly is not more that one so as to necessitate the inclusion of the authors name. 3)If you're going to change the name it should be returned to Santorum (neologism) since by any stretch of the imagination, that is what it is: "neologism [nɪˈɒləˌdʒɪzəm], neology/ n pl -gisms, -gies/ 1. (Linguistics) a newly coined word, or a phrase or familiar word used in a new sense". "Santorum" was a familiar word used to describe a previously unnamed substance. If Wikipedia sticks with its policy of using the most common-sense title, that's what it should be. To ensure NPOV and be truly encyclopedic, Wikipedia should place higher weight to the Linguistics categorization over personal feelings. You can't "campaign" for a neologism anymore than you can be half pregnant; it's either a newly-coined word or it is not. A neologism being perceived by some as being derogatory does not change this. Could you imagine a page called Campaign for "MILF" slang term? Dsetay (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment It's better than the current title, but in fact the name of this, per WP:COMMONNAME, which is policy and which we should be following, is Santorum's Google problem. BeCritical 19:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment what about renaming it spreadingsantorum, spreadingsantorum campaign or Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Meta Comment - The question calls for a Support or Oppose position on a proposed move to a specific title. For the sake of brevity (perhaps and for the love of God), editors should, IMHO, refrain from offering and defending their favored alternative(s). JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. I do not agree that it is a googlebomb. Strictly speaking, this campaign was not googlebombing by linking “santorum” to a site about santorum; technically, that’s search engine optimization. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It is not actually a Google bomb, nor, as noted previously, is it really owned by Dan Savage, merely devised and promoted by him. Pawsplay (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose It was not a Google bomb. TFD (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Discussed ad nauseum. This also incorporates all the bad things about chaining the name to google with the silliness of singling out dan savage in the title. Protonk (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose much per Protonk. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Savage did not set out to create a Google bomb. Binksternet (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - we shouldn't pin it on Savage, it's not a google bomb, and we don't have good sourcing as to exactly what Savage set out to do. Do I have to repeat my logic in each section? - Wikidemon (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This seems to be a matter of a political reversal in my opinion. The Subject is Santorum not Savage, even if Savage initiated it. He deserves mention but not in the title.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and just delete the article, unless someone can propose a better way for Wikipedia to opt out of ourselves being part of this unending and sorry story. Andrewa (talk) 09:32, 22 February 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

"santorum" Google bomb

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 14:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Campaign for "santorum" neologism"santorum" Google bomb

This is an alternative proposal to the above. Per WP:COMMONNAME, this seems to work best. Just about every source cited in the article refer to it as a "Google bomb" or a "Google problem". Very few say "neologism". I believe consensus is that the current title is bad, but we don't know what to replace it with. I think this works best. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

  • You don't perceive a problem with having two discussions like this going at the same time?? Okay, then. No to "google bomb", yes to "Santorum's google problem". But this isn't going to work... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Savage or not, it's still not a Google Bomb. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Then it appears you have some work to do at Google bomb. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I have to point out that six concurrent move discussions is a complete clusterf*ck. Can we possibly simplify all of this somehow? elektrikSHOOS (talk) 05:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Not my preference but a considerable improvement over the existing title. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose It may be slightly better than the existing title, however Santorum's Google problem is the proper name under policy. BeCritical 19:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: As has been amply pointed out to you (and me, too), it does not comply with the definition of a Google bomb.Could go with "Santorum's Google problem", which is what it is most often referred to in the press. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose on narrow basis - The reason given (Just about every source cited in the article refer to it as a "Google bomb" or a "Google problem".) is slightly misleading: only if you remove the words a "Google bomb" or is the summary accurate. Most sources attest "Google problem;" very few attest "Google bomb" (and those that do are mistaken on technical grounds as described above); and "...problem" does not provide sourcing for "...bomb." ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 20:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for same reason as previous request. Strictly speaking, this campaign was not googlebombing by linking “santorum” to a site about santorum; technically, that’s search engine optimization. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Copy/paste my arguments about google problem and add on the fact that this creates another factual inaccuracy, describing the campaign as a "google bomb". Protonk (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not a Google bomb. --22:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - while it's not entirely accurate, I think this is probably still the best title, as it roughly communicates the subject of the article as simply as possible. Robofish (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Savage did not set out to create a Google bomb. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This would be a pretty good title, except that I'm swayed that it's not technically a google bomb. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's not a Google bomb.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and just delete the article, unless someone can propose a better way for Wikipedia to opt out of ourselves being part of this unending and sorry story. Andrewa (talk) 09:33, 22 February 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Criticism of Rick Santorum's views on homosexuality

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 14:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Campaign for "santorum" neologismCriticism of Rick Santorum's views on homosexuality

The most neutral (IMO) and non-biased title. Merge with Santorum_controversy_regarding_homosexuality. PaoloNapolitano 20:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Please remain civil. I am merely presenting editors with alternatives. PaoloNapolitano 20:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Do you mean to tell us that you are entirely unaware of the failed merge proposal, or are you actually suggesting that we should have that discussion again? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • This RfC can be closed as there is already (yet another) merge proposal in progress. If you have an opinion, state it there: [[5]]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support This seems to satisfy all concerns. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose and procedurally close as another merge discussion is currently underway, and there is no need to rehash. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose No. Protonk (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, proposed destination is much wider than the neologism. Merge, maybe.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Nope, this is about a political campaign against a guy who has become a Presidential candidate. That title would constitute a POV fork of the biography, I do believe. Carrite (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The merge proposal failed, sneaking it in under the guise of a rename is not going to work. The campaign is notable independent of the views that prompted it - if anything, the 2003 comments should be merged here - and I'm seriously fed up with these bad-faith attempts to wear out users who are interested in following policy and consensus. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 00:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the zillionth time.--Milowenthasspoken 03:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Savage was not trying to simply criticize Santorum's political position, he was trying to ridicule the man and negatively affect his political career. Binksternet (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • oppose, there is another article on santorum with that title. Pass a Method talk 19:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as stated above by another user, we have an article with pretty much that title.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and just delete the article, unless someone can propose a better way for Wikipedia to opt out of ourselves being part of this unending and sorry story. Andrewa (talk) 09:34, 22 February 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Santorum's Google problem

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Campaign for "santorum" neologismSantorum's Google problem – As per WP:COMMONNAME. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Support - per COMMONNAME as well as WP:RS - WP is the only thing calling it "Campaign for 'santorum' neologism." That can't be right. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 20:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support -- vastly preferable to the current title, ample support that satisfies WP:RS, and accessible to those whose vocabularies don't extend to "neologism". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose - a further POV vilification of the victim. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
    I'm unclear as to how it constitutes a POV violation to call it what virtually every source calls it. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 20:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC) it what virtually every source calls it.
I'll simply decline response to that degree of rhetorical posturing other than to observe that allusions to "virtually every source", upon examination, will rarely be universal [6] and will often be biased. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
But follow the sources used in that article and it brings you here: [[7]], which explains why it is not a Google bomb. You've just presented an example of a journalistic lapse by a reporter who should have known better, and in fact did. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
You have my apologies for the exaggeration; what I meant to say was that more sources call it "Google problem" than call it anything else; and those that call it a "Google bomb" are factually mistaken. The last thing this page needs is more rhetorical posturing, so I'm sorry to have exacerbated that. What is still not clear to me, then, is why the common name is a POV violation. I don't want to put words in your mouth, or ascribe to you beliefs you do not hold, but neither sourcing nor brevity supports a title like Dan Savage's attack against Rick Santorum. If I've misinterpreted your position again, I apologize in advance - let me know. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 22:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
...but neither sourcing nor brevity supports a title like Dan Savage's attack against Rick Santorum.
This one (among lots of others) does. Apparently Savage is considerably more open to that characterization than a bevy of WP editors...
"It is a vile attack — I completely embrace that."
Dan Savage Talks 'Vile Attack' On Rick Santorum, MTV, January 10, 2012
JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Huh. Well, that's something. Since he owns it, that's not the most terrible idea. On the other hand, the rest of the quote at that source seems to indicate he's owning the "attack" as a means alleging the "man on dog" comment to be just as vicious as the "frothy mix" business. It's still a question whether our article name needs to get in the middle of this (or take that unequivocal an opinion on it). ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 04:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
On the other hand,...
The "other hand" is most certainly fodder for exploration/development in the main body but should not, per NPOV, be a consideration in fashioning an NPOV title.
It's still a question whether our article name needs to get in the middle of this...
The progenitor embraces an "attack" characterization, sources describing it as such are plentiful...yet titling it as Dan Savage political attack on Rick Santorum is somehow POV anathema? I just don't get it (or perhaps, regrettably, I do). JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I said it's a question, not "POV anathema." That means I think it's a reasonable topic of discussion. Now don't you start putting words in my mouth. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Now don't you start putting words in my mouth.
Then I'll offer you an apology in kind for the misunderstanding and apparent lack of clarity. My comment was directed at the general rejection in this forum of either the use of Savage's name or the characterization "attack" in any title consideration. It was not directed at you specifically...and I'm pleased to note your openness to a reconsideration in that regard. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Too tabloid. The newspapers and websites using this name are mainly tabloids. PaoloNapolitano 20:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Paolo, I invite you to google the phrase "google problem" in quotes, and reconsider that statement. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 20:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Per WP:COMMONNAME. The most common term used by reliable sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support According to policy, it is necessary to use this article name. I should just say that all the arguments against it are probably going to fall into two categories: 1. It's not accurate. and 2. It's not NPOV. Neither of those are good arguments. Here is the policy on whether the name should be accurate: "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms." Here is the policy on whether the name needs to be NPOV, in case you think it's not: "If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased." BeCritical 20:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Clearly the most common reference to the issue across a wide variety of media.
    • I would not consider Forbes, the Economist, and Time Magazine to be tabloids. Dsetay (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. “Google problem” is misleading, he also has a problem on Bing, Yahoo, and other search engines. Also, any mention of this media misnomer should be enclosed in quotes, like “Santorum's "Google problem"”. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Robin, again such arguments are completely and specifically irrelevant per Wikipedia policy, see what I said above. BeCritical 20:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Although a fairly common name, it is limited (doesn't mention other search engines), does not state what "the problem" is, and misaims the article at Santorum's woes instead of the phenomenon itself. The article is primarily of encyclopedic interest as one of memetics, and this proposed title relates purely to search engine rank, a more limited way of viewing the topic. As a "problem," it rates maybe three sentences under search engine gaming, and perhaps a line in Santorum's article. What makes it an article topic is the planning and implementation of a campaign to neologize Santorum as a political prank, one which has seemingly succeeded. Santorum doesn't have a "Google problem," he has an unpopularity problem. Google Problem is euphemistic, at best. NPOV concerns. Pawsplay (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
    • You cannot campaign to coin a term; you either coin it or you don't. Savage's "campaign" was to redefine Santorum or make simply to make it the top search result on Google, not create a neologism, since creating a neologism would require no campaign. Regardless, the most common reference, be it euphemistic or limited or whatever, is "Santorum's Google Problem". When the media refers to the subject of this article, they say "Santorum's Google Problem". The current name is simply inaccurate as it makes no sense.Dsetay (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Savage's "campaign" was to redefine Santorum...
That is just woefully incorrect and which I'll simply attribute to ill-consideration. One can attempt to "associate" a surname with some vulgarity newly and purposefully "coined" but one can't "redefine" a surname. Can we please desist with that rather overripe conceptualization? JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
      • This is a strawman argument. The current title doesn't say 'Campaign to coin "santorum" neologism', it says 'Campaign for "santorum" neologism'. You're right that you don't need to campaign to coin a term, but the article title describes the campaign for the neologism itself, spreading its usage and trying to force extended popularity. It does indeed make sense provided you don't insert words that aren't there. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. As far as I can tell, this is the common name. I will not be heartbroken if it remains at the present name, since Rick Santorum is politically finished. (If he wins the nomination, then the Republican Party will fall in on themselves like a pack of rabid dogs, never to recover.) Speciate (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Again. Needlessly euphemistic. Implicitly blames google, which perpetuates the misconception that google is somehow behind the ranking. And this is about the 30th move request. At what point do we treat these proposals as an attempt to force a fait accompli? Protonk (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for two reasons. First, as has been stated above, this really isn't limited to google. Second, and more importantly, calling it his "google problem" is a recent turn of events. The website has been around for years, and changing the name now, as a result of the change in branding taking place now, is recentism, which is discouraged here. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The old name Santorum (Neologism) was sort of a form of Google-bombing in and of itself, I think. The current title describes the cultural-historical phenomenon being covered in the piece, but it's definitely not a "Common Name." That would be "Santorum (Neologism)." The proposed title, "Rick Santorum's Google problem" or whatever, strikes me as even less common, less descriptive, and less useful than the current title. There's no perfect solution here, but I see the current title as the Least Bad option. Carrite (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not a Google problem. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as above, it's not a "Google" problem, it's a search-engine-in-general problem. If it's a "problem" at all. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to ask for an RfC later on this question, as RfCs aren't so much votes. The arguments here are against policy, and worse don't even take policy into consideration. BeCritical 22:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the arguments in favour of this move misinterpret or selectively interpret policy. Firstly, I'm a major proponent of WP:COMMONNAME, but it does clearly state "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources". The problem is not a Google problem, which means that regardless of it being commonly referred to as such, we can't use that title because it's simply inaccurate. In reality, our common name policy expressly advises against this name change. Secondly, the title currently used for the article is a descriptive title per WP:NDESC, not a literal title. The fact that Wikipedia is the only source to use this exact title is irrelevant, as descriptive titles are "often invented specifically for articles". The title is presented in as neutral a manner as possible in keeping with NDESC's advice. Given that these are the two main arguments in favour of moving, their respective inapplicability in this situation removes the impetus for the move. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
This is much more like it... I'm certainly not an expert on naming policy. I don't see any sources which have determined that this proposed name is inaccurate. Indeed considering the dominance of Google, and that Google has become a synonym for "web search," it seems accurate to me. Anyone else have an argument here? BeCritical 01:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
You know you've been in the China/Taiwan topic area for too long when you half-expect a rebuttal to be an editor repeating himself a thousand times...ahem. Good response, Becritical. I was under the impression others had provided some sources to that effect on this page already, but I don't really have the time to give anything but a cursory comment at the moment. Hopefully others can fill that in for me. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
BeCritical is entirely too rational to try and make sense on a Chinese topic. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
LOL, should I be glad I don't know what this Chinese topic is? BeCritical 01:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I believe they're referring to Chinese, Taiwanese, and Koreans ridiculously arguing the same points over and over on any topic that involves overlapping history. Dsetay (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
The only other title that would seem to accurately describe the article would be to return it to Santorum (neologism). Like articles on Gook, Wetback, MILF, and Wardrobe malfunction, the article describes the etymology of a word, its significance, etc. Santorum's "Google Problem" is that he has an eponymous neologism that is higher ranked than even his campaign website. The article, in essence, is about said neologism so Santorum (neologism) would be the only logical title. Campaign for "santorum" neologism makes no sense.Dsetay (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support as possibly (I am unconvinced) better than the existing name, and probably is in line with WP:COMMONNAME and is found in WP:RS. Oppose because it doesn't really hint at the content for a reader who doesn't already know the material. Also oppose as free advertising for Google (though that is how is used in RS). SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Oppose As per protonk - "Needlessly euphemistic. Implicitly blames google, which perpetuates the misconception that google is somehow behind the ranking." - who says its a problem - he seems to be doing well on it. - and per User:TechnoSymbiosis comments. Youreallycan 03:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose Per points above. Also, If we're going to have a descriptive title the one presented here is misleading because it tries to summarize this "campaign" through the context of Rick Santorum's bids for public office. The campaign itself which is several years old is just as notable as its current impact on Rick Santorum's White House aspiartions. This title is a symptom of the news media that is obssessed with every gold nugget of information regarding the ongoing GOP race. In regards to that, they are largely not interested in doing some semblence of scholarly research on the matter. "Santorum's Google problem" is a convinent throw away term for political commentators to use and does not accurately reflect the article's scope, which is basically essential for an article title. "Santorum's Google problem" in my opinion may fit in with WP:RECENT when discussing this neologism. BV talk 05:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The subject of the article is wider than just the Google-related issues, as being the campaign to create a widely-publicized name slur for a politician's family name. I do not think there is a wp:COMMONNAME for the whole article, because as typical, the various news reports only cover part of the issues. Perhaps a better title would be "Savage campaign for senator name slur", and in that manner, avoid repeating the Senator's name as directly connected with the slur. On a school playground, a teacher would likely defuse a similar situation by telling the students, "I don't want to hear any student say that name again". Meanwhile, using the title "Google problem" is too narrow for the whole article, which is much wider than just Google issues. -Wikid77 12:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
    No, "slur" would also be a misnomer. santorum isn't a slur; it doesn't even refer to people. Savage merely named an unpleasant substance after Rick Santorum, and promoted his definition remarkably well. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk)
  • Oppose per COMMONNAME, because the commonly used term is too ambiguous and inaccurate. Binksternet (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support It has more google hits than all these other names. Also, several reliable sorces have called it so. We usually go by reliable sources in wikipedia. Pass a Method talk 01:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is the title of many news articles about the issue, not the name of the issue. That's why it gets ghits. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME.--В и к и T 23:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support because of COMMONNAME, and also because it's recognizable and gets to the point. I do think we should put quotes around google problem, or otherwise make clear that we are using this term as a colloquialism, not endorsing or opining that Santorum in fact does have a google problem. For example, we have an article about Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure and it's clear that it is the film title, not we, who are claiming that they had an adventure and it was in fact excellent. But supposing someone created a popular name out of "Bill Clinton's sex problem" or "Donald Trump's Bad Hair Day". We couldn't make it sound as if that were our opinion. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support. The COMMONNAME argument is getting fairly persuasive in the light of there being 463 Google results (actual, gotten by changing &start=500 in the search HTML) for the name, many of which appear to be reliable sources. It still annoys me that this name is wrong, and will probably be meaningless to readers in a decade or two when some other company or merged entity dominates the search market, but in the end "verifiability, not truth" is what matters - the readers need the name that they would actually search for to get further commentary on the issue on their own. Wnt (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
...but in the end "verifiability, not truth" is what matters...
Wrong. Not just wrong in its redaction of the context in which "verifiability, not truth" is contained, but wrong in your assertion that "verifiability, not truth" represents some super WP core policy relative to all others. The phrase is "The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" and once that threshold has been crossed, ALL of the core policies hold equal sway. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. While I think it would be preferable to the current name, it does have some issues. Most obviously, it's a bit too informal to just refer to Santorum by his surname. If we're going to go with this option, it should either be Rick Santorum's Google problem or just Santorum Google problem (referring to the word, not the person). I think the latter might be the best option, actually. Robofish (talk) 12:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Searching the same way I find 409 hits on Google for "Rick Santorum's Google problem" as compared to 436 for "Santorum's Google problem", so it looks like this is indeed the COMMONNAME and the name proposed above is merely a substring. "Santorum Google problem" pulls up 462 hits, but most of those are in fact "Santorum's Google problem" in the displayed list. If logic applies to Google's synonyms (I doubt it) this might mean that as few as 26 of the hits really only use that phrase; but of course some might use both. So it looks like Rick Santorum's Google problem is indeed the COMMONNAME. Though, this name has certain 'political' implications, as it clarifies that we are dealing with a BLP here (though I'm not endorsing overbearing interpretations of that policy), and it also makes it clear that "to rick" and any other gibes Savage invents to dog Rick Santorum's results will be on topic for the article. That's a different focus from an article truly about the comings and goings of the single neologism "santorum". But it might be the more relevant historical focus at this time, until such time as "santorum" the word starts to step out past the larger amount of coverage about its effect on the politician. (Eventually the politician will go away, and I predict that eventually we'll see the word come to be used as routine jargon by technicians in some specific industrial contexts who work with used/contaminated oils) Wnt (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose- I can't help but think there are some other problems here, but this is just not the answer. I think it sounds horrible and very unencyclopedic.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose, and just delete the article, unless someone can propose a better way for Wikipedia to opt out of ourselves being part of this unending and sorry story. Andrewa (talk) 09:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per COMMONNAME, as outlined above.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. The proposed form is certainly more common in the RS. I get 0 Google News archive hits for "Campaign for "santorum" neologism" -wikipedia. If you take off the quotes, you get a few results. But none of them describe a "campaign" for a "neologism." That compares to 29 results for Santorum "Google problem" -wikipedia. It should be, "Rick Santorum's Google problem". To use "Santorum" by itself is to participate in the campaign. The first couple of paragraphs are spent justifying Savage, i.e. the POV kicks in before the issue the article is supposed to be about is even explained. In the body of the article, there is an undue emphasis on Santorum's comments regarding homosexuality. So this is a pretty sleazy article whatever the title. Kauffner (talk) 05:19, 25 February 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 14:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Campaign for "santorum" – Let's call it exactly what it is, by renaming the article after the website. Whatever you think about the whole affair, it's certainly a neutral title. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose - The article is about the loosely organized but fairly widespread and high profile effort to create an alternate definition for political ends. A website title should be about a website. Carrite (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral. This title is arguably equivalent to the current one. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Too narrow in scope for the content of the article Dsetay (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose To narrow on a practical level, and not the common name. BeCritical 22:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Way too narrow in scope. The article is not just about the website. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose: Recognizable, concise, and neutral, if a bit imprecise. But not natural for someone who isn’t already familiar with particulars of this campaign. I think users searching for information would use a search term “santorum”, so “santorum” or “Santorum” should be a distinct word in the title. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Prefer santorum myself, but the website is not the most likely search term.--Milowenthasspoken 00:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article is about the Savage campaign, not about the web site. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While the website is an important element, it isn't the full scope of the issue. For instance, Urban Dictionary also promoted the neologism. Pawsplay (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current title conveys succinctly the subject of the article. The proposed name change would simply be a lot less informative. __meco (talk) 09:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The subject of the article is wider than just the website-related issues, as being the campaign to create a widely-publicized name slur for a politician's family name. Perhaps a better title would be "Savage campaign for senator name slur", and in that manner, avoid repeating the Senator's family name as directly repeating the slur. On a school playground, a teacher would likely defuse a similar situation by telling the students, "I don't want to hear any student say that name again". Meanwhile, using the title "spreadingsantorum" is too narrow for the whole article, which is much wider than just that website. -Wikid77 12:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - this is a good title, it gets to the point at the heart of the matter. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - Wow...imagine this article with an acurrate title. Well...we can dream can't we.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and just delete the article, unless someone can propose a better way for Wikipedia to opt out of ourselves being part of this unending and sorry story. Andrewa (talk) 09:35, 22 February 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Broad rename: Savage campaign for political neologisms

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Rename "Campaign for "santorum" neologism" → "Savage campaign for political neologisms". The planned neologisms have expanded to "rick" and "romney". I have been checking for WP:RS sources, and they have covered those terms as well, while noting Dan Savage. At first, I thought to suggest a new title with the term "name slur" but the word "rick" is intended to mean "remove with the tongue" so that word cannot rightly be called a "name slur" by itself, just another neologism. Obviously, the word "rick" is not likely to have separate notability (w/o "santorum"), so just expand this article to include what reliable sources have stated, and rename to the broader title "Savage campaign for political neologisms" as shorter than title "Campaign for 'santorum' and 'rick' and 'romney' neologisms". The current title would become a redirect. The new title would be more fair to the whole situation. It is not, truthfully, just about the word "santorum" as "rick" has been widely noted as well. Please discuss here and !vote further below. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose it doesn't even have "santorum" in the title, and "Savage" is a common word, so the requested title is wholly opaque. A "savage campaign for political neologisms" is a wholly different meaning from a "Savage campaign..." and there is no way to distinguish it. Since it is a descriptive title, it doesn't describe the situation clearly, so should not be used. The suggested Campaign for 'santorum' and 'rick' and 'romney' neologisms is atleast clear on what this is supposed to be about. (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, "savage" is a common word, and "ford" means to cross a stream, and "mustang" is a horse, but "Ford Mustang" is a typical article title (about a car) composed from common words. Do you have any other concerns? -Wikid77 14:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
That's awfully obtuse. Even if we wanted to shoehorn Savage's name into the title and extricate Santorum's, so as to cast the spotlight back on the bulb, there would be better ways to phrase it. The point of encyclopedia articles is to educate interested but unfamiliar lay readers with a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter. Article titles serve to identify the subject, as an indexing and organizational system to drive people to the content they're looking for. "Savage campaign for political neologisms" would be very confusing to anyone who does not already know exactly what the article is about, as the literal English meaning of the title is something like "Aboriginal battle for new governmental definitions". - Wikidemon (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
The title is not obtuse, but rather, inclusive. There is already a redirect for "Santorum neologism". As for confusing, the world already deals with that: consider "Race horses" and "Pony cars" where people are able to talk about horses and cars. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
You couldn't pick "Dan Savage" instead of "savage"? If you can't see how extremely ambiguous your proposed name is, think of it from the point of view of someone from say Australia. (talk) 09:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as nominator, to broaden coverage. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, give it a rest. Objections have already been raised about focusing on Savage only in this article, this suggestion just intensifies that debate, which has not been and will not be settled. Wait till after the primaries, at least. Pawsplay (talk) 13:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Dan Savage is continually noted in recent news reports as having defined the "santorum" neologism, so that connection cannot be denied, per WP:NOTCENSORED. However, thanks for noting the objections. Other people followed what Savage had started. -Wikid77 13:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - this is the most notable thing about Savage and now starting to be about anyone he politically opposes. Youreallycan 14:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
What other neologisms seem to be notable, along with "rick"? -Wikid77 (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Surely Wikinews must be a credible source for some requisite notability...
  • [ Spreading Romney], website dedicated to redefining Mitt Romney's last name
  • [ Spreading Gingrich], website soliciting suggestions for new definition of Newt Gingrich's last name
JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Interesting how Savage's name appears in the very first paragraph of the Romney Wikinews piece, but we learn literally three lines from the bottom that this one was started by a completely different person, who claims (take it or leave it) to have no political motivation. Much of that piece is about Santorum and "santorum," and relatively little about Romney and "romney." While it's clearly the same kind of thing, if this article is going to be a WP:COATRACK of feces-related political smears, there's not enough of a linkage there to put Savage's name on it.* It's either about Savage and S/santorum, or it's about feces and politicians, narrowly titled. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 17:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
*unless the verb "to savage" specifically gains the new meaning of "to eponymize someone with shit" - then that's the only neologism we need to worry about titling and our problems here are done!
  • Support Or to "Derisory uses of political names" in any case if we wish to leave Savage out of it. Collect (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Savage had nothing to do with creating the Romney page, and "rick" hasn't attained more than a sentence or two worth of notability yet. Once "rick" and "romney" become something more than flashes in the pan, maybe this title would be worth considering. Right now, "santorum" is the only notable member of this category, so no. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 15:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is obviously the name for burying content SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
There would be no "burying" because the prior title "Campaign for "santorum" neologism" would still be a redirect, still in the open. -Wikid77 16:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The "neologisms" are inherently and inextricably linked to Savage. This is accurate and fair. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - An appropriate step towards title refinement as this political attack methodology, pioneered by Savage, develops...or we can coatrack every "son of santorum" here. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per ZenSwashbuckler. The appeals to "rick" and "romney" are yet another flimsy excuse to try to remove Santorum's name from the title and put Savage's in instead, when the subject is notable for its attachment to Santorum rather than to Savage. It's amazing how the same users who claim that the santorum neologism is not notable enough for its own article, despite the prolific coverage, are now claiming that these latter two neologisms have so much coverage that they share the distinction of being the primary subject. The Romney thing also was not created or promoted by Savage. Please stop wasting everyone's time. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 16:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
...when the subject is notable for its attachment to Santorum rather than to Savage.
Really? Can you provide 3 WP:V, WP:RS sources that reference "santorum" independent of Dan Savage's name? That might lend some real credibility to your assertion. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
It's not a question of whether the sources don't mention Savage, because that has never been a criterion for notability - I doubt you'd argue that the fact that all or most articles on, say, Huck Finn mention Mark Twain as evidence that Huck Finn should be merged into its author's article. It's a question of whether sources on the subject are primarily about Dan Savage's column or about Rick Santorum's campaign, and the answer is obviously the latter. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 19:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I offered above a search that would provide many results satisfying your desire: [8]. Not all of them will do it, but again many of them will. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Your offer of sources is a Google search result? Which doesn't differentiate "Santorum" from "santorum"? And which I must then wade through to find 3 purported representative sources? Res ipsa loquitor...unless you care to do better than that. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
No, not a "google" search result -- but a google news search result, giving articles in which "Santorum" and "google" both appear but "Savage" does not -- capturing, in the main, articles referring to Santorum's google problem (though without referring to Savage). You can see the point if you want to. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC) articles in which "Santorum" and "google" both appear but "Savage" does not...
Which is, of course, irrelevant in response to the question posed. Res ipsa loquitor. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, I've already got my waders on, I'll go in for you:
  • "Anti-gay don't pay". Star Observer. 2012-01-26. And of course, who could forget Rick ‘the mixture of lube and fecal matter after anal sex’ Santorum? 
  • Smiley, Brett (2012-02-12). "Romney Means 'To Defecate in Terror'". New York Magazine. But it could be worse — Santorum came to be "defined" in the same manner. It means, "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex." 
  • Adams, Richard (2012-02-14). "US politics live: Rick Santorum's surge threatens Mitt Romney". The Guardian. In the same way that "spreading Santorum" was used to associate anti-gay candidate Rick Santorum with "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex," pranksters have now posited that "Romney" is also a verb, meaning "to defecate in fear." 
~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for doing someone else's legwork. I'll have a look at them and comment further once examined. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Copycat compaigns are even stronger proof that the "Santorum" neologism is particularly notable. Silly attempt top get Sanrums name out of the title. Fat chance. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose For various reasons, this is certainly no better than what we have, but has Savage's name, which depending on your POV is either advertising or shaming. Also, "Savage campaign" has a double meaning which we should avoid. So it's not NPOV, and no improvement. The only way we can have non-NPOV names is if it's a COMMONNAME. BeCritical 18:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This article is not about Savage and Savage was not the only campaigner. Pass a Method talk 19:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - A recent discussion on this page failed to establish a clear consensus that the "rick" neologism was sufficiently notable and relevant to warrant even a passing mention in the article. While I think the sources may support a brief mention, I would be highly skeptical that it is significant enough to justify renaming the article.--Trystan (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
    Agreed that the new "rick" definition is a far less notable thing than the original "santorum" one. But as a point of order, it is in the stable consensus version of page, having been there without objection from shortly after it happened last August until some edit warring on the subject late last month that is in part what brought on the current page protection. As such, consensus and BRD would suggest that there needs to be consensus to delete the material, not a new consensus call to preserve it. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
    Agreed, I don't know if the material belongs as I haven't done the research, but edit warring isn't the way to have it removed. BeCritical 07:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
    You've put that backward, Trystan. The recent discussion failed to establish a clear consensus to remove "rick". rick was in the article for half a year, until edit warriors removed it just before the current lockdown. Reverting to the pre-argument status quo will mean restoring the rick paragraph. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Reverting to the previous status quo will mean restoring the "rick" paragraph.
...with the obvious exclusion of your edit here which initiated the ruckus in the first place. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Right, except for my controversial edit adding the phrase 'meaning "to remove something with your tongue"'. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I did not intend to offer a comment on the validity of removing the material or the edit war that followed, nor to reignite that debate here. My point was only that if editors can't agree that something should even be mentioned, it would be a stretch to get agreement that it should be reflected in the title.--Trystan (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support This would be Jimbo Wales' preferred reading and Jimbo has long experience dealing with Wikipedia's "clients" and their needs. When there is a deliberate attempt to ambiguate, as here, the targeted term should be left out of the title, otherwise Wikipedia ends up perpetuating an ambiguation campaign that ultimately makes it more difficult to carry out our knowledge mission.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
    • And thus it is revealed; you wish to alter the real world by changing a Wikipedia article's title, as if that would work. Here's a fact for you; Intrade has Santorum's chance of winning the Republican nomination all the way up to 16.8% today. Speciate (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
      • On the contrary, I'm calling for Wikipedia to stay out of it. The article Observer effect (information technology) even has a section on Wikipedia that calls attention to the example of an internet meme and notes that "Wikipedia might increase its visibility, generating artificial notability..." Including the Senator's name is what "alter[s] the real world" because it contributes to the ambiguation "meme".--Brian Dell (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose pathetic attempt to sanitize Santorum's Google problem. Speciate (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Your proposal would not be a good title. Though concise, it’s not recognizable, nor natural, nor precise, nor consistent. Furthermore, your proposed title is not accurate: while the campaign was political, the neologisms were not — the words are sexual, not political. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - several problems with this one. It omits the santorum neologism, which is the heart of the matter. It focuses attention on Savage, unnecessarily. And it's confusing and obtuse to boot, see my above commentary. So the wording is awkward, not just the focus. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - And I might add a bit ridiculous.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and just delete the article, unless someone can propose a better way for Wikipedia to opt out of ourselves being part of this unending and sorry story. Andrewa (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

"santorum" (eponym/neologism/coinage/etc.) controversy

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 14:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Rename "Campaign for "santorum" neologism" → ""santorum" (....) controversy". The word is indeed controversial, and a title implying that would be the most neutral and balanced alternative per WP:NDESC. Both Santorum himself and independent voices have criticised Savage for his campaign. Suggest a suitable word describing "santorum", whether it is neologism, coinage, eponym, etc. PaoloNapolitano 08:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Meta Comment - This will be yet another premature attempt at title resolution when underlying, much more fundamental questions have yet to be resolved. In this instance, I'll refer you to the previous discussion here which is an attempt to come to some consensus resolution as to just what "santorum" IS in a linguistic sense. IMHO, we would do well to first get that question both resolved and "in consensus ink". JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

*Oppose - This was previously rejected in a lengthy debate (which ultimately led to an Arbcom intervention). Santorum is NOT a "neologism"...according to the most authoritative source on the subject yet introduced, Partridge. It is, IMHO most accurately, a "coinage" striving for "neologism" status...hence the consensus acceptability of the current title. Let's not try to re-bake this particular cake. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I have broadened the proposal, please suggest a suitable replacement word describing "santorum". PaoloNapolitano 14:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The campaign itself is of primary importance to the article. The controversy it generated is seconday. Also, please take the time to familiarize yourself with the talk page archives when you start editing or proposing changes to controversial articles so that you get a feel for consensus and know what changes have been proposed in the past. Reviving dead horse arguments which don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning consensus is disruptive. And for God's sake, don't strike out other editors' !votes unless you have permission or a damn good reason. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. That title's not bad. "controversy" seems more consistent with other articles, and a natural term to use. A little weaker on precision, but in several other ways an improvement on what we've got. I still favor calling the S-word an "eponym"; its being an eponym is why this whole controversy exists. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Likely to have obvious search engine ramifications, as I recall a major source of earlier contention. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • oppose -- "coinage" is worse than "neologism", it's almost as if we're talking about pennies. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sans campaign, the topic is not really "notable." Collect (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - it is not well-established that it is a controversy as such, and if it is a controversy that is not the core of the matter. There is a thing - the word, and the campaign. The thing is something other than a controversy, and it is not a controversy that the thing exists (even though it may be controversial). - Wikidemon (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think any article with "controversy" in the name could have a better name. Wnt (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - better than the current title. Putting 'controversy' in the title is not a bad idea, since if there's one thing that's clear from all the arguments here over the past few weeks, it's that this is undoubtedly a controversial subject. Robofish (talk) 12:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - --Amadscientist (talk) 06:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and just delete the article, unless someone can propose a better way for Wikipedia to opt out of ourselves being part of this unending and sorry story. Andrewa (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Santorum" neologism

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 14:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Campaign for "santorum" neologism"Santorum" neologism – Why the need for "Campaign for"? Makes the title unnecessarily verbose, not to mention WP:COMMONNAME. InverseHypercube 10:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose, because this article isn't really about the word. It's about the campaign, the consequences and the resulting controversy, rather than the word itself. Also, can we please have a moratorium on new rename requests, for at least a week or so? It's clear opinion on this article is so divided it will be impossible to get consensus for any of them. Robofish (talk) 12:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:TITLEFORMAT. Article titles generally shouldn't be enclosed in quotes unless there is some specific, special reason to do so, which doesn't apply here. In addition, the proposal is remarkably similar to Santorum (neologism), which was the article's original title and was moved from for numerous reasons which I don't particularly care to rehash here but can be found in abundance in this page's archives. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 10:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
    Yes, you're right. Anyway, I would support a move back to Santorum (neologism). InverseHypercube 18:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, it's not a legitimate neologism. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - But if it happened I wouldn't really care.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and just delete the article, unless someone can propose a better way for Wikipedia to opt out of ourselves being part of this unending and sorry story. Andrewa (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

RFC closer

RFC was closed. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 00:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
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.

Just repeating my position with a reference point for other users that User:Sandstein is a respected NPOV closer of such RFC and AFDs as we need a closer here - see this close for an example of his policy and consensus interpretations and closing statements - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santorum (disambiguation) (2nd nomination) - I think its time we requested closure of the RFC on this article. After investigation of this close, are there any policy driven objections to this closer being asked if he will assist us in closing this RFC? Youreallycan 20:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I will repeat that Sandstein is not an acceptable closer, and your continued insistence on bringing him up has made him even less acceptable: if I didn't know him, I'd still be suspicious simply because he's being pushed so hard. I'm glad though that you're willing to accept a close, and I definitely second you there. BeCritical 21:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
If you can present anything that is policy driven or an example of his involvement in this topic area I will accept your rejection but you haven't and you can't - all you have got is that I support him as a quality and respected NPOV closer - so you reject him. Youreallycan 21:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
No, I've seen how he operates and it went to ArbCom. BeCritical 21:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Operates? diffs please - Anyway - as I know he is a respected NPOV policy driven closer, one of our best - closer to the day, I will be asking him for a closing interpretation of consensus and comment and present it for interpretation and discussion anyways. Don't be scared - policy is what drives us here - you choose a closer - User:Ironholds was one you supported and lets ask them to close it together. Youreallycan 21:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I second a close, but by open request at AN. Nothing against Sandstein, but your hard sell has turned me off to him. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
This is the kind of detailed investigative close we need here to resolve this. there are few admins that are willing to close such complicated discussions - and fewer still that have no ascertainable involvement in this sector - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santorum (disambiguation) (2nd nomination) - Youreallycan 21:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I case I wan't clear, I said "No". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Dominus that we should do it by open request. BeCritical 21:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Any objections to posting this at the WP:AN -

Campaign for "santorum" neologism RFC close request

  • Involved Users are looking for two combined experienced administrators, that have no ascertainable involvement in this sector under discussion and are willing to close the complicated and lengthy RFC discussion on the "santorum" neologism article. - Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism#RfC - Youreallycan 22:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


Request administrator for closure of RfC: Talk:Campaign_for_"santorum"_neologism#RfC

Nothing more needs to be said. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Only the most POV of admins would take this to close it according to their POV, and if they are POV, then we should be able to find that in their history. But I don't think Youreallycan's version is bad. It might be a good idea to have two, don't you think? BeCritical 22:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

done - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Campaign_for_.22santorum.22_neologism_RFC_close_request - if you object go there and say so, thanks - Youreallycan 22:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Just an observation having recently been down this road. A WP:AN request for uninvolved administrative closure (which is an elevated RfC close request) might be considered inappropriate as this RfC has not run the full 30 days. User:Sandstein recently declined one on that basis. For the record, I have placed a normal close request within the RfC in the appropriate place. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you might be correct there - its only been open two weeks - to me it seems ready to close - if there is any objection to closing then no one is likely to close it. - Youreallycan 22:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Please request the closure opinions of three admins and go with what two of them say. This worked recently on a contentious move request (China). Although all three agreed, only the most vehement opposers complained after. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Two closers need to agree and discuss and work it out to close - three users can disagree, and one user gets the super-vote - two closers is stronger - Youreallycan 02:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Why hasn't the RfC been closed? BeCritical 01:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we scared them off. They probably need a little love over at WP:AN given all the topic bans, accusations, and stuff they're dealing with. They're not ready for editors in a content dispute who are actually getting along with each other :) - Wikidemon (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
LOL. BeCritical 03:18, 23 February 2012 (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.


The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 14:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The best move might be to place it in an article on "Derisory usages of names" as a larger article within which this over-weighted mess might assume its proper frothy texture amidst other such usages over the years. Collect (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. BeCritical 00:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Santorum is independently notable.--Milowenthasspoken 03:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Completely misses the point; derisive uses of names are not notable in and of themselves. The neologism meme is the notable aspect, and its consequent success in Google. Pawsplay (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This is a very notable example of a "derisory usage", and thus best treated in a separate article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: An attempt to bury the issue. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 03:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for proper weight. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In the unlikely event that enough other usages were found to justify an article, this has enough coverage that it would have to be content-forked out anyway. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 01:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Your idea might make a good historical article, but Roscelse is right. This particular instance has some unique aspects meriting in-depth discussion, so we'd still end up giving this santorum affair an article to itself. Oppose. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. That is a different, more general topic - which, though interesting, would be very difficult to manage here. If we found three sources talking about derogatory name games like this, giving various examples, are they talking about the same thing? Can we put them together? Should we allow editors to add in similar examples? Or is that a whole bunch of "WP:original synthesis"? And it appears that each fact about each individual person named in such an article would be attended by more "!votes" and drama than we know what to do with. If someone succeeds to do this, they deserve some kind of adamantium barnstar. Wnt (talk) 10:34, 18 February 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

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.

Rename not in cards

It appears that despite the fact that most editors hate the current title, there is no consensus whatsoever to change it. The current title, despite all of the flaws that editors on all sides of this talk page's myriad arguments have pointed out, is relatively stable and has the virtue of succinctly and neutrally naming the subject of the article. I think, then, that the ludicrous number of proposals to rename constitute just so much sound and fury, and that our time would be better spent on other things. I suggest we cease trying to rename the article and move on to other things for now. If later on editors want to try to bring up the name again, we can do so, but for right now I don't see that all this is doing any good. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 04:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree. I think the current name, with the Santorum (neologism) redirect, is an an acceptable working solution at this time. The current name describes the focus of the event, and the simple redirect allows the issue to be indexed easily on the disambig page for Santorum, for those who are purposefully looking for it. WP:WIP. Pawsplay (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Agree. Much as I have my own preference, I have to admit that no further attempts to rename or merge are ever lkely to succeed. In fact, I would go so far as to propose that any such attempts in the future be simply deleted on sight as non-contructive, and a one year topic ban from all topics related to santorum in the very broadest sense for all violators. We've wasted enough time and energy on this nonsense. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Agree Although next time I think it would be useful to answer a different question: not "what is the best name," but "what is the name most favored by policy." That question might narrow the choices considerably... we didn't really have sufficient argument about COMMONNAME in the section above to find out what the consensus on that question might look like. BeCritical 05:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Agree for now. Once the RFC is over, perhaps after the US 2012 election, we can revisit what this article should be called. The current title is not ideal and I'm sure there is a better one. Ten years from now, if Wikipedia still exist, no doubt this will be sttled. This is just a hard time to decide. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. I like the idea of an "election blackout". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is always room for discussion about renaming articles, just not to a recent prior title which had been soundly rejected. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. The name is a separate violation of Wikipedia policies, not restricted to WP:COMMONNAME (which is not an absolute policy, as noted in WP:TITLE) and WP:BLP. However, the current crop of renaming attempts is disruptive, with six active names. Normally, even if there is agreement that the current name is bad, a poll is held to find a "better" name by consensus, and then a separate rename discussion is held. The best one I've seen so far is the Savage campaign for political neologisms, with the note that "rick" and "romney" are also words created by Savage. (The definite article is required to make it clear that "Savage" is a proper name, rather than a description.) If "foo" were a generic name for "Google bomb", then "political foo" might be even better, with redirects from many of the names discussed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Except Savage didn't coin romney as a term. That is the worst proposition yet, based on falsehood to begin with. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
OK, so we can leave Savage out of it, then, as well as Sanctorum. Perhaps Political SEP (Search Engine Pessimisation) might be the correct generic term. (Meaning, attempt to provide alternative search engine hits on the names of politicians.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Sources are stating the "romney" term was inspired by Savage's website, so perhaps the text about "romney" could be placed under a header about "Other related neologisms" or such, certainly not listed as a term which Savage had coined. -Wikid77 16:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as situations develop there can be reasons to rename articles. As per Authur's comments above also. Youreallycan 16:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - we don't need consensus to close these wacky proposals, they can be closed or simply ignored and allowed to archive when it's clear they aren't going to fly. Nothing's going to happen until the RFC closes anyway, at which point we may or may not want to have an orderly discussion on the subject. It seems unlikely that any title including the present one could prevail by consensus, but perhaps if it were an all-or-nothing decision between the current title and the most viable alternate, an alternative could emerge. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree - but also reserve the right to support some rename. I'm not !voting against the very idea of renaming the article, just mentioning that the current name is one of the acceptable alternatives. It does get to the heart of the matter with each word: there was a campaign, it was about the word santorum, and the campaign was to create a neologism-ish thing out of the word. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree, despite having just commented on several of the move proposals, it's clear that no consensus is going to be reached on any of them. I think we should adopt a moratorium on new names for this article and move on to more productive matters, before someone proposes Santorum-Savage neologism campaign Google bomb problem controversy or whatever else. Robofish (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral- I am not really thrilled with the title but it doesn't bother me that much. I just feel there is a bigger problem here and I don't think the problem is going to go away. I suggest keeping the article locked for a period.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose The name of this article makes little sense. A name should reflect common usage. Nobody outside of Wikipedia talks about the 'campaign for "santorum" neologism' There is a similiar article for campaign for "romney" neologism, which is in the process of being merged into another article. I think merger of this article with the Santorum homosexuality article would make a lot more sense.Debbie W. 05:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment What may make sense for one article will not make sense in another as there is a local consensus to determine such. The other article has less historic weight as this one.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
In fact, the extreme instability (i.e., the incessant edit changes before it was locked) of this article undermines any historic weight that it may have. Although I believe that the core content of this article is notable, and should be covered by Wikipedia, the title and format of this article are awful. I think everyone should take a step back, and try to look at this article from an outsider's perspective. No other politican that I know of, in the USA or elsewhere, has has a Wikipedia page largely dedicated to a one-man (Dan Savage} internet campaign against them.
While many people want to let this stay unchanged until after the election, that may be the worst option. If Santorum is the Republican Presidential nominee, any Santorum-related articles on Wikipedia will receive a marked increase in viewer traffic between now and November. To have this article in its current form on Wikipedia is an embarrassment. The article is not neutral, violates Wikipedia's naming guidelines, and gives excess notability to Dan Savage who already has a Wikipedia article. The core content of this article is already in the main Rick Santorum article, and could be added to Santorum homosexuality article. Irrespective of the age of this article, I advocate its merger into another article.Debbie W. 13:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree. None of the renames have gotten any real traction. Pass a Method talk 11:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Too Trivial Topic for an Encyclopaedia?

Why is this trivia in an encyclopaedia? With all of the resources and participant energies applied to this topic Wikipedia could have created several very prominent topics of thought, couldn't they? Stevenmitchell (talk) 08:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

And yet here you are... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
It's hardly trivial. This article documents one of the cleverest stratagems of modern propaganda, PR and information warfare. The frantic activity on this page solidly testifies to its devastating efficacy. __meco (talk) 09:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
If Santorum is the Republican nominee for '12, this will gain a lot more press coverage. As it is, it's a very clever way of subverting someone's reputation, and there are plenty of reliable sources. I agree that it's not a priority for us to have a good article on this, but it's still worth covering. --He to Hecuba (talk) 10:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Stevenmitchell: I agree, but anyone who is surprised that editors spend vast amounts of time and effort on relatively trivial matters must be new to Wikipedia. See WP:LAME and WP:SHED. Robofish (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Its also well known that en wikipedia has a very active LGBT project where Savage has a lot of support. Youreallycan 14:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Baloney. It's well known that Wikipedia is more liberal than you think it should be. Many straight people here support a fair hearing for LGBT topics. Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Baloney? Can I have some santorum on it? En wikipedia has a duty to be NPOV not liberal. Your comment is correct but that does not remove the reality that en wikipedia has a very active LGBT community (mostly gay actually) or that its well known that protesters fighting for gay rights are using the Internet as a weapon in the battle for equality. - Youreallycan 16:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Are you saying that equality is only for straights? Wikipedia represents a neutral scholarly position, and scholars are more often open minded than closed. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Somebody hatted this as a "WP:FORUM", but as it discusses potential article bias it is not off topic. That said, the attention paid to LGBT topics reflects that Wikipedia is not a "lowest common denominator". When the site is edited properly, people do not fight trying to destroy one another's work, but work side by side to establish vast amounts of information covering every perspective. Wnt (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm dreadfully afraid that we may now have proof that liberalism and NPOV are likely to be the same thing, as Wikipedia is a scholarly encyclopedia. BeCritical 03:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
LOL! Of course. The scientific research repeatedly shows liberalism and greater intelligence go hand-in-hand. Anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together knows that. Otherwise they don't....;-) -- Brangifer (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree, and editors have tried to expand scope: Many editors have noted that this is a narrow topic and should be expanded to be more, well, encyclopedic ("all-encompassing"). From the start, the key objection has been that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" (WP:NOTDICT) to define a single rare neologism, so the scope was clarified as the campaign to force a new meaning. However, another concern is the article is akin to "Gossip about politician John Doe" where even "notable" gossip (repeated in many sources) is still gossip, and we need to observe WP:NOTGOSSIP to require articles to be about significant topics, rather than "Joe Doe likes to eat toast dipped in wine" or "Joe Doe was called a frothy wino" rather than earning a university degree in finance. For a while, the article was listing every moment when a celebrity learned the new meaning. Then, when Dan Savage got publicity about redefining "rick" along with the family name, then the focus became actually the more accurate title: "Savage campaign for senator name slurs" because it was then more than just the single word "santorum" when "rick" was also redefined. However, we still have people who want to focus on only the narrow word "santorum" (defying policy WP:NOTDICT), but meanwhile, remember that many people do not even think an article about this subject is much beyond a form of popular gossip. It should be broadened. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd like more articles on the search engineering feat involved, but it's outside my area of expertise. Pawsplay (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
See below section #Technical details -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I added this topic to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars after Robofish mentioned it here, but apparently people are even going to argue over whether it should be included on a comedy-page. Ashail P (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

How is it possible, under about several dozen different WP criteria, that this (cough) "article" has never been AfD'd? JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about?? This article has been considered at AfD no fewer than 5 times (not to mention the various merge discussions). (I thought you might be referring to WP:LAME, but that one as well has been nominated for deletion multiple times.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Hmm -- apparently I am not to be blessed with an answer to my question -- [9] ... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I did not see an "comedy page exemption" in WP:BLP -- might you quote it here? Collect (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
It wasn't my intention to contribute to the fighting. But could you quote for me the "this edit war is not lame because I am involved with it exemption" on that page? Ashail P (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Is it an edit war? Don't think so. There may have been a few edit wars involved but this is not an actual "lame edit war". It is lame...but just not an edit war.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Technical details

The issue is only notable due to the success of the Googlebomb campaign, so it would be interesting to give some detail about how the Google ranking system works, and more importantly, why Google considers its high ranking of a Google bomb and smear and slander campaign is somehow principled. -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I recall reading something about Google responding to critics about ranking santorum so high. If you can find a reliable source (I just failed) about this please let us see it. Speciate (talk) 01:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
It's factually wrong to say that this is a google bomb. A google bomb is designed to point searches for a specific phrase to a website in which it doesn't appear, as a prank. In a nutshell a google bomb throws off a search engine through sneaky hyperlinks to paste an unwanted, irrelevant phrase on someone's website. For example, the miserable failure google bomb sending people to the White House biography of George W. Bush.
This, by contrast, is search engine optimization - which is designed to point searches for a specific phrase to a website in which it does appear - using open placement of the phrase to draw searches to their own site that they want people to see in searches for that phrase. In this case, a search for "santorum" points to a website that has the word "santorum" prominently displayed, and many incoming links to it. In a nutshell, this thing is an example of using search engines as they are specifically designed to function - there's no loophole to close except a noose. Search engines could manually remove the site from their search returns, but that's not an algorithm fix, that's a specific political choice, as when Chinese search engines specifically don't return Falun Gong websites for searches of the phrase "falun gong." Here's a short further explanation of the issue. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 03:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, now I feel like a bit of a moron - it's been long enough since I read this actual page that I forgot or didn't realize this is already mentioned - see here for further references. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 03:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
The article quotes a search engine expert:
"search engine expert Danny Sullivan stated that Santorum mischaracterized the campaign as a Google Bomb, when it was actually a successful redefinition of Santorum's name."
Note that this person is not an expert in linguistics, and according to him merely 'optimizing' a search engine is tantamount to a "successful redefinition" of Santorum's name. Is he correct? He can't be because he's not an expert in linguistics. A linguist would easily point out that 'optimizing' search engines does not equate to "redef[ining]" someone's name. Likewise the keen linguist would point out the fact that smear campaigns are not typically the way in which new words are formed to begin with - there first has to be a need for a term to exist, and then a word is formed - exactly the opposite way in which slanderers are promoting the santorum slur. -Stevertigo (t | c) 04:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
It's ironic that people have objected to the term neologism in this article, when that article conveniently lays out why this line of argument is incorrect, namely: "neologism ( /niːˈɒlədʒɪzəm/; from Greek νέο- (néo-), meaning "new", and λόγος (lógos), meaning "speech, utterance") is a newly coined term, word, or phrase, that may be in the process of entering common use, but has not yet been accepted into mainstream language. Neologisms are often directly attributable to a specific person, publication, period, or event." Words come about in all sorts of ways. Consider feminazi, another neologism, devised as an act of political hostility, yet clearly a term with its own definition at this point. HillaryCare, RomneyCare, sideburns, "misunderestimate," all of these words had inventors. Pawsplay (talk) 05:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Savage himself says that he did not set out to manipulate search engines, as he did not and still does not understand very much about the Internet. It's probably a mistake to ascribe those intentions to him, and news accounts that casually do that are being a little careless. The more likely story is that he set out to popularize the new word / neologism by getting people to talk about it, most of those people were online, and that dovetails with how google calculates page rank. That's more like accidental search optimization, or grassroots marketing or something. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Replace term "successful redefinition" as source doesn't support it

Steve's point above about linguistic expertise holds water. The line about "successful redefinition" should be removed. That language appears to be WP:SYNTH based on a couple of different statements in the source which by themselves appear to be within the interviewee's actual field of expertise. The unexaggerated point still stands: search engines would only be able to remove the santorum page from the search returns if they made a choice to manually amputate it. The upshot of which is, while there's nothing to say that there's been a "successful redfinition" of the word "santorum" in the English language, the internet results that come up when you search for it online are honest and relevant, and barring force majeure they aren't going away. What do people think of the following as a replacement for that sentence:

In an interview with TPM, search engine expert Danny Sullivan stated that Santorum mischaracterized the campaign as a "Google bomb," when it was actually a relevant use of Santorum's name.

That can probably be improved a bit; once we have an agreed version we can put up another editreq template. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 16:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not a relevant use “of Santorum’s name”, it’s a relevant use “of santorum”. And I think you meant “nothing in this interview to say”, since as you noted, there is actual usage of santorum. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I would be OK with constructing it as you suggest, except that it is exactly because the search phrase is identical to one Rick Santorum's actual last name that this article is not about a Google bomb. What would make it a conscious act of censorship for search engines to decline the return of is precisely that it is a relevant page for any search of Santorum's name. I think this is a point that deserves to be made explicitly, rather than merely stated through italics. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 15:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
That’s why I support using the word “eponym” in the title. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 10:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
No doubt you do. The establishment of an "eponym" in the vernacular traditionally reflects some commonly understood characteristic of its namesake. To suggest that Savage's vulgarity, manufactured totally from whole cloth, is, in any sense, a legitimate "eponym" lends Savage's linguistic political attack a status which it neither deserves nor, it appears, is supported in any respected authority on the English language...or did I miss some citation somewhere of such a source? JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
You seem to be confusing eponym with epithet. Eponyms like graham cracker, silhouette, or wellington don’t tell you much about their namesakes. Every word ever spoken was “manufactured”; eponyms are just words created from names. Wanting an authority to confer eponym (or epithet) status on a word seems kind of like wanting an Academy of English to declare two words homophones. Words have attributes. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 13:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, well, assuming for the moment (which seems reasonable to me given the contentiousness on the question) that "eponym" is a non-starter (legitimately or not) at this time (and if it isn't, that's for another one of the many other threads on that topic anyway, and we'll come back to this after that's settled), can I take it there's no further objection to replacing the current wording with the above blockquote? ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 19:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
The McMorris-Santoro cite is problematic on several levels, plausibly the result of a bit too much partisanship and a bit too little precise composition/editing. First...
Savage literally created a new definition for the word “Santorum” and then made a website explaining it.
No minor point in this current environment, besides the fact that one can't and doesn't "redefine" a surname, he probably would have been ok here had he utilized "santorum" (lower case).
McMorris-Santoro continues (and I'll strike/replace the double-negative so you won't have to struggle...this guy is a journalist? Yikes)...
“At his point there’s nobody who (anyone) could not argue [Savage’s definition of santorum] is not a definition in a lot of quarters,” Sullivan said.
IMHO, It would be a legitimate WP paraphrase, given the above careless use of upper and lower case "Santorum", to amend your suggested edit and cite McMorris-Santoro as follows...
In an interview with TPM, search engine expert Danny Sullivan stated that Santorum mischaracterized the campaign as a "Google bomb," when it was actually the creation of "...a new definition for the word...santorum".
Just my .02 JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── My thanks for editing the source material for readability's sake. I'm afraid what you spent the most effort arguing isn't what I'm concerned about (sorry for that). The most important point being made here is that there is an essential distinction between "Google bomb" and search engine optimization that is being lost in the uproar over the vulgarity of the new definition and the convenient media (mis)label "Google Problem."

Leaving aside my relatively very minor quibble that using so many ellipses in a direct quote makes us look like we're twisting the person's words around whether we are or not, I think what needs explicitly stating here is that what the website does is to use search engines as they are intended to be used in order to spread santorum. I think it's unavoidable to include some phrase like "relevant use of (the word/name/search phrase)" or "successful flagging of (it) in search returns" or even "Savage floated his santorum balloon and honest internet surfing doesn't want to shoot it down." Yes, I know. Let's just move on. If consensus is to avoid stating that the search phrase is identical to Santorum's name, well, that's not ideal but it's really not that huge an issue, considering. But it cannot be glossed over that the campaign's strategy was to use a relevant search string to draw people who specifically wanted information about the person Savage was pissed at, as opposed to using sneaky hyperlinks to force people who didn't want any information about Rick Santorum onto a seemingly random page way out of left field.

So, I guess try the following on for size?

In an interview with TPM, search engine expert Danny Sullivan stated that Santorum mischaracterized the campaign as a "Google bomb," when it was simply a relevant, that is search friendly, creation of "a new definition for the word...santorum".

Not sure I like the extra clause equivocating the word relevant - if consensus supports "relevant use of...," full stop, then that's the biggest change to make. If not, the above is livable as to NPOV. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems muddled. To put it more plainly, Sullvan was saying this was not a Google bomb because was a relevant search result for the query “santorum”. Search friendliness is beside the point. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I quite agree. As yet I also see no other feedback on this iteration. So, leaving out mention of "Santorum's name," and taking out the wishy-washy diminution of "relevant," let's try:
In an interview with TPM, search engine expert Danny Sullivan stated that Santorum mischaracterized the campaign as a "Google bomb," when it was actually a relevant use of the search query santorum to create "a new definition for the word."
Good? ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 17:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Opinion from User

  • - This article is not part of an attack, nor is including a link to, the issue at hand is historical interest

Apart from the question in the first place how much Wikipedia may be influence search engines, and what responsibilities the community may have, this issue is destined to blow over at some point. At least for me, is steadily slipping off the top Google results. The issue is rapidly approaching past tense. Perhaps with time, we can look forward to more detailed analyses of what happened, and why, in terms of search engine technology, memetics, Google policy historically, and so forth, as it appears in reliable sources. Pawsplay (talk) 06:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

We didn't just have a SOPA blackout to NOT have the right to add this site to the page.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

What effect does the site have?

Does Savage's control of the site and its direct redirection to the site affect the way Google ranks the latter site? Has Santorum made any effort to reclaim the domain via ICANN? -Stevertigo (t | c) 08:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Why? Would it effect this article somehow, or do you just want to know? BeCritical 08:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
These would be important things to add to the article. -Stevertigo (t | c) 08:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
You would think so, but I can't find any reliable coverage of the subject. My google news archive search for +"" spreadingsantorum turned up only these two articles:[10] and [11] (the second, possibly due to a typo). - Wikidemon (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Linquistics: Clasification

Could Santorum have the same latin root as Sanity as in being Sane??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No. Any similarity is purely coincidental. We know the origin of both words, and they don't come from the same source. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
And even if it weren't coincidental, it wouldn't be relevant to improving this article. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

EL RfC Close Epilogue

My thanks to TParis, Xavexgoem, and Timotheus Canens for taking the time to weigh the various arguments and write out the extremely thorough closing statement. My hope is that we, the editors on this page, take this result and move on collegially, not treating it as a righteous victory or ignominious defeat for the forces of good against the Greater Internet Barbarian Horde. I hope that editors on both sides of the EL question will keep trying to improve this article, and I continue to welcome involvement from all corners on this talk page. Sincere thanks to everyone who weighed in, and I look forward to seeing this page load as something other than a massive wall of text just as soon as the archive bot gets to it. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 17:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Thanks to the closers for a job well and thoughtfully done. BeCritical 18:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Isn't it ironic that the justification to keep the link was largely based on it being the official website of the "campaign". If the subject matter and title of the article were simply returned to Santorum (neologism) as before and as would make more sense, then there would be less justification to include the link. So, congratulations to those insisting that this is a campaign and not simply a neologism. You made the link possible.Dsetay (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
You make a really good point. Personally, I think that this article has become out of control, and suffers from article creep. All the decisions being made on this page make sense from a localized viewpoint of Wikipedia policies and the history of this particular article, but made little sense when viewed in terms of all the Santorum articles, and the spirit of what Wikipedia should be. This article has an asinine title, and has become more about Dan Savage than the actual neologism. If an encyclopedia is going to cover a neologism, it should just cover it, and not write a long-winded article about the campaign to create the neologism. I believe that there should be a article named 'santorum (neologism)', and that it should be short (2 paragraphs?) on the definition of the word, and its origins. If that were the case, there would not be a justification to link to the Savage website.Debbie W. 06:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree in principle on the reason why, but that is the ruling. It would appear that an attack page which is the official attack page of a living person overules BLP. This only opens a can of worms for, and Arzel (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

If you read the close more clearly and without prejudice, you'll see the rationale is not as black and white as "it's the offical link so it wins" or that it is even an official link at all. The close is that it depends on the harm caused and it is editorial judgement. WP:BLP must still be considered for all other links just as closely as it was considered for this close.--v/r - TP 23:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Only your first worm is crawling. At this writing, asks readers for content, and and are placeholders held by domain-reselling squatters. (Incidentally, Gingrich already inspired an eponymous neologism in 1995: to newt meaning “to act agressively as a newcomer”. It was a dud.) ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Unprotect the page

Please. BeCritical 18:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

By uninvolved, I mean I am really uninvolved. So I will contact the admin who protected to page to make sure that was the only conflict that caused the protection. I read on the protecting admin's talk page that the external link was the reason for the full protection so I returned it to semi protection.--v/r - TP 18:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
And just for the record, my prior threats to block editors using the live link on this discussion page is rescinded. I know that should be obvious, but just in case... :) Franamax (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
(: BeCritical 19:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


Anyone want to talk about article names again? Really, I need to: it's like singing soft kitty when you're sick. BeCritical 03:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead. I'm listening.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, if we were counting votes, Santorum's Google problem lost by 13 to 16 if I counted right, and probably had the most support above. But I suggest that we take the two names which got the most support and float them again. Perhaps, looking at the above, one might use the current name as one of the options. To get wider involvement, perhaps we should do an RfC. It might be better to just drop the subject, but again there might be a different dynamic right now since the close of the last RfC. BeCritical 04:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
If we simply use the same names over and over until we narrow it down, that could be a consensus be default and I would at least like a chance to see an equal number of new ideas as well be presented if possible, but why not.
How about the current name- Campaign for "santorum" neologism, your suggestion-Santorum's Google problem and one other name, perhaps Dan Savage's santorum neoglism. Seriously.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Archiving chat deviating from subject

"Santorum" is essentially a non-existent substance

Despite being an homosexual, Dan Savage evidently has little experience with actual anal sex, as there is no “frothy by-product.” The anal sphincter is ordinarily very tight and has a “squeegee effect” upon the penis, allowing very little lube to come out afterwards, and almost never a trace of fecal material. Whatever has been deposited inside almost always remains inside until expelled in a subsequent and ordinary bowel movement. I think this shows that the coining of this neologism is both ill-informed and mean-spirited.Dutchman Schultz

Read further. Savage has written something like, If you're doing anal sex right, there won't be any santorum in your bedroom, neither the substance nor the senator from Pennsylvania. I doubt it will work in the end to conclude that Savage is ill-informed about anal sex. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
We have already had this discussion. Even if we hadn't, though, we'd need a source to describe that fact, if fact it be, and discuss its ramifications and consequences, since the conclusion you draw is at this point entirely WP:OR. Thanks. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 19:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Where on earth could I possibly find a source for a thing that doesn't exist? If I were to survey porno movies, for instance, that would constitute "original research," wouldn't it? Finding such a source would be like trying to find a litterary citation proving that anchovies taste salty, that watching television doesn't cause your eyes to bleed, or that sharks don't live in Lake Michigan. Go ahead, do some ass fucking, see for yourself! Dutchman Schultz (talk) 20:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

inline external link request

  • - Including a link to in the article

Now that the RFC is closed and an external link present, why is "" in italics and not hyperlinked? If the goal here is to share information, and we already decided that the link is pertinent to the subject, why not allow people to click on it? I'm not sure I see an argument to keep the external link, but to have XXX active links in the page, and the ONLY inactive link being the most pertinent. (talk) 10:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Because its a publication and that is the formatting the MOS calls for. It is not an internal page, so cannot be wikilinked, and external links in the body violate the MOS. Easy. :) —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 14:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
See above. Hyperlinking it in the "external links" section is appropriate. Hyperlinking it in body text generally isn't. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Can we start talking about the actual article and how to improve it now?

.......because the lede is not encyclopedic and starts off with a quote from Savage that, while accurate and probably needed in the article...seems way out of place in the first sentences of the article. Such use of quotes is generally for illustrative purposes and yet we have not established a true context for it yet. Even if we leave it in the lede (and that is certainly a matter of consensus..let's talk) shouldn't there be more before the quote to give it true context to the subject and not appear so biased as if this article itself is aimed at...making Santorum's "big, white teeth fall out of his big, empty head"?

In my opinion (yes, I speak the word that dare not be spoken...OPINION! WOOHOO!) since the article is about the "campaign" we might want to begin with something along these lines:

On May 15 of 2003, at the suggestion of a reader, sex columnist and gay rights activist Dan Savage began a contest to create a new definition for "santorum". This came as a response to comments by then-U.S. Senator Rick Santorum during an interview with the Associated Press that were criticized as anti-gay.

Then follow that up with:

Discussing a recent United States Supreme Court decision striking down an anti-sodomy law, Santorum compared the right to consensual (homosexual) sex within the home to polygamy, incest and adultery, and made references to bestiality and child sexual abuse in the context of distinguishing them from monogamous, heterosexual marriage as forms of deviant sexual behavior.[1]

Savage subsequently asked his readers to coin a definition for santorum,[2] and announced the winner as "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex." Savage created a web site to promote this definition, which became a prominent search result for Santorum's name on several web search engines. In 2010 Savage offered to take the website down if Santorum donated US$5 million to Freedom to Marry, a group advocating legal recognition of same-sex marriages.

In September 2011 Santorum asked Google to remove the definition from its search engine index. In response, Google said that the company does not remove content from search results except in very limited circumstances.[3]

With the actual "definition" in italics.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Support - Your suggested edit is essentially a return to the considerably more "encyclopedic" treatment that was structurally formulated through 6 months worth of hard-won consensus stability. Unfortunately, its current state reflects a reality that NPOV is a minor inconvenience easily dispatched by a coterie of committed editors. The bulk of those who would argue for NPOV have, to their personal discredit I'd also suggest, long since abandoned this particular playing field. Had they elected to weigh in, for example, in the most recent RfC, it might have resulted in a decidedly different determination. It was the "numbers" alone that was the ultimate, determinative rationale for choosing between two credible WP policy-based arguments...and, IMHO, BLP should have prevailed. It didn't.
While you have my "vote" for restoration of this article lead to an encyclopedic, NPOV presentation it formerly represented, in this current atmosphere NPOV is a highly quixotic endeavor. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Amadscientist, it appears the answer to your question ("Can we start talking about the actual article and how to improve it now?") is no -- Jake prefers that we continue talking about the RfC and/or listen to his musings concerning other editors. Oh, by the way, I support your proposal as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC) I the only one that noticed that the date of May 15 is same day the California Supreme Court originaly struck down the California ban on Gay Marriage? (yes...I know that is OR, but we can use original research on the talk page) I just have to wonder if this has been mentioned in any particular way anywhere. It is, after all, just a coincidence...and some 5 years later but kinda makes you go "Hmmmmmm".--Amadscientist (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
One other thing I took note of and it may or may not have been discussed and researched already, but...Urban Dictionary had this very definition added in November of 2003. Is this covered with reliable sources because the fact is it's on the first page of a google search for "Santorum" as well. Again OR, but it does have some bearing on the subject...since Savage is spending his own money for something someone else did for free and is having about the same results. The latter of course surely benifiting from the first. OK...done for now. I await the pitch forks and torches...--Amadscientist (talk) 13:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • That seems like an improvement on the current lede. I agree that the quote is awkward because it doesn't really get to the heart of the matter. I'm not sure the two subsequent events (Savage's offer to take down the site, Santorum's demand of google) are worth as much weight as they get in either version, as they were both temporary posturing. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Support per JakeInJoisey. I decided to go back one year to look at this article's history. On Feb. 26, 2011, the article started The word santorum is a sexual neologism ..., and read like an article from an encyclopedia. Dan Savage was mentioned, but he was not the primary topic of the article, and his picture was not included in the article. A year ago, this was a decently-written encyclopedia article, whereas today it reads more like a badly-written news story. A major rewrite is needed. The Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality article has since been renamed and cleaned-up, so this article can also be fixed. Debbie W. 22:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Support, it's a good lead. Comment: "Your suggested edit is essentially a return to the considerably more "encyclopedic" treatment that was structurally formulated through 6 months worth of hard-won consensus stability. " Nonsense, it avoids the unencyclopedic elements of that non-consensus. And just because people disagree doesn't mean they don't care about NPOV. BeCritical 02:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment. The core of the issue is that when you type this person's name into Google, a page pops up that makes disgusting claims. This is what the opening needs to focus on. Santorum's comments regarding homosexuality and other issues are being given far too much prominence. After all, that issue is the focus of another article. In addition, do we really need to quote the full slur in the lede? The overwhelming majority of news reports on this subject do not mention frothy mixtures. Also, the article is promoting Dan Savage, who is not usually mentioned by name in RS accounts either. Kauffner (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Santorum's comments and the ensuing controversy are relevant as background. We need explain them only as much as is necessary to establish the context. They might merit more length than WEIGHT suggests, but only because the whole thing is so convoluted it's hard to explain properly in less than a couple sentences. But we can relegate most of that to a "background" subsection. Incidentally, I'm not sure what BeCritical is supporting above. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I think it's a pretty good lead. I don't think "criticized as anti-gay" is too much of a characterization. Now if someone comes along and wants to characterize further (obscene, slur, derogatory, humorous, vulgar, unprintable [12]) or make up things like "negative word association," that would be bad. And yes, we do need to have the full definition. BeCritical 06:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the lede is about Santorum's views on sexuality, and so is the first section. All the reader needs to know is that Savage is ticked off by something Santorum said about gays. Kauffner (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, more or less. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Done![13] I agree with you (Kauffner). I also cleaned it up to flow better, in simpler English. Let's see if it sticks. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Why Is This Not Mentioned in Rick Santorum Entry, Too? I was surprised when I read Rick Santorum's entry and found no mention to this campaign. It is probably one of the more notorious campaigns against a politician in the last decade, and certainly is a thorn in his side that speaks to a lot of his political stands. I don't think it needs more than a sentence, and a link to here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomdarling (talkcontribs) 19:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

That question is discussed on the talk page of that article. I won't try to repeat that discussion here, but it's been brought up and rejected several times - you may want to review the archives of that talk page. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I copy edited as stated and added references.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Not "Done" as in finished, "done" as proposed, but it's never finished as another editor can always contribute a good faith effort to improve. Sorry Wikidemon.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Do we have consensus for the website in lede?

This would be a bold edit if not discussed and I just wondered if we have consensus for this? Should we at least discuss if this should be mentioned prominently at this point in the article or that up for discussion?--Amadscientist (talk) 07:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Considering its central role in the campaign, it would be difficult to justify NOT mentioning the website prominently in the lede. It would be like not prominently mentioning Santorum or Savage. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I just wonder if the definition and a mention that there is a website might be more neutral and not look as if wikipedia was promoting or elevating the website itself by giving it such prominence.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
The current lead is the most encyclopedic one I've seen since I came to the article. It does the lead essentially as we would do any other lead on any other subject. The website itself and its prominence in search engines is the reason this article exists. Prominence is only natural per WEIGHT and normal writing. BeCritical 16:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
That makes sense.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Although the RfC has ended, I strongly recommend changing the lead. Almost every article in Wikipedia begins with the article's title followed by a general description of the subject. Here, however, the first two paragraphs jump right into details of specific events during the campaign. I'm thinking something along the lines of: "The campaign for the (a) "santorum" neologism is...". That style of intro would conform a lot more to the spirit of the vast majority of articles here. The current lead, however, would make a superb first paragraph for the first section. Ender and Peter 02:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Confusing or unclear - undue importance to Urban dictionary

User Nomoskedasticity has replaced the urban dictionary detail - we have previously discussed it and came to a conclusion that the fact that even if it is mentioned in a citation, it was only there while the algorithms sorted themselves out for a few hours is of such limited importance as to be undue to include it without explaining - the limited time it was there and why it was there. Not everything that occurs is noteworthy. The basic notable thing is that Santorum was the number one google search return and after google changed the way its results returned it was no longer the first result. - as was stsated the last time - as a reader I am left thinking the Urban dictionary is still the first result for a search for santorum and I am left thinking the the urban dictionary as mentioned in the lede has some importance in this issue - which it does not at all - the undue weight to the urban dictionary's limited time at the number one spot is confusing and unclear as pr3esented so I have added the template - please do not remove it until the issue is resolved. Youreallycan 13:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Searching santorum on from Massachusetts (not signed in, clicking Google's "settings" button reveals "Moderate SafeSearch" is on), the first Urban Dictionary result (sanctum Santorum) doesn't come up until page 6, so I don't see that there's any particular reason to include anything more than a sentence or two about the algorithm shuffling. I note that the "Searches related to santorum" chart at the bottom of page 1 has santorum urban dictionary as its first suggestion. I don't think that means anything for this article, though, since all it means is people specifically want UD's definition(s); this deduction is both OR and beyond the scope of the article barring further references. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 14:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I never once saw the UD definition at the top of my searches when this whole thing was going down. There is no reason to give the impression that it was anything more than a temporary blip when it is easily verifiable to not be true in general. What are we going to say that for a few hours, couple of days at most, UD was at the top. That aspect has more to do with Google than anything realted to this article. Arzel (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Please do not engage in WP:OR to edit this article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. But two of the three refs that allegedly support the "new top result" being Urban Dictionary don't actually say any such thing: the Seattle PI piece doesn't even mention UD, and the ABC piece only says it's on the first page of results. The NYTimes ref that says it is the first result is a blog entry from Noam Cohen, so the most we could say is that he (or maybe the paper) found it to be the top result when he searched in late February. If we must include it, I think the best thing to do at this point would be move this info out of the lead, and further down the page write something like "For a few days in late February and early March of 2012, did not appear in the first page of results on Google, due to algorithm updates. Some users saw an Urban Dictionary definition on the first page during this span." But given the paucity of media corrections or even the barest of follow-ups to their own overinflated hype stories, I don't think we'll find many refs to tell us what the current state of search returns is - so we may be better off leaving this out entirely (barring further related media activity). After all, a blip of a few days during a span of nine years on the first page of results is hardly noteworthy for more than precisely those few days. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 15:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I actually agree -- which is why it's undesirable even to have the bit about the alleged drop of Doing my own WP:OR, I get google search results where that website is still on the first page -- and apparently that sort of thing is sufficient to raise doubts about the reliability of the sources here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) -
  • User:Nomoskedasticity has removed it all now - it is absolutely notable that the site is no longer at the top spot for the google search return in the lede, and the reason why - the whole notability of the word is related to its top spot google return for the santorum search. - Youreallycan 15:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
But if the sources are wrong, then we shouldn't use them. Some people are noting that they are wrong, via their own google searching which produces results where the UD result is not first. In my own google searches, is third -- hardly "dropped from the top results". So it's true -- there are doubts about these sources and we can't rely on them. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
All the its fifth or its six and urban dictionary replaced it for a few hours are not long term notable - those returns will all move and change - probably daily and depending on the search history of whoever looks - the only notable long term occurrence is that google altered the way it assesses non official websites and the D Savage santorum website ceased to be the first return result , and none of the the multiple reliable sources the reported the story are wrong about that. Youreallycan 16:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Wait -- so the sources are right?? I thought they were wrong. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I replaced the unclear template with a NPOV one - User Nomoskedasticity's refusal to allow reporting of the sites drop from the primary google return in the lede is a violation of neutral reporting. Youreallycan 16:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
But the sources are not reliable. That's abundantly clear in your own comments above. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment - With the increasing tendency of search engines to tailor results to individual searchers based on their various data collections about those searchers' web habits, there's going to be very little point examining whether a site is Number One! at all. A high search ranking is about all that can be meaningfully described, since every user's searches will produce slightly different results. Depending on what's been happening during the slew of U.S. Republican presidential primaries, and obviously a number of other factors, has been anywhere between result #1 and result #6 for me, bobbling all over that small span during the course of January and February 2012. Currently it's #3. But me writing that in the article constitutes OR. Now if it is at all notable and not UNDUE that the site dropped off Page 1 of Google results (not Bing, Yahoo, et al) for those few days, it's only reportable in the algorithm-switching context, and there only framable as Noam Cohen of the New York Times reported on February 29 that "the new top result" was Urban Dictionary's use of Savage's definition. Since the result fluctuation was so short-lived, I don't even think the article would be remiss in omitting it. But if we do not omit it, it must be a limited, DUE mention and not overstep the bounds of what is verifiable. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 17:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Less wishy-washy refinement of above comment - With the subsection Campaign for "santorum" neologism#2012 ranking algorithm changes in place, this has received all the coverage it requires from us. Go ahead and put in the Urban Dictionary business in a limited fashion if you like, but a claim made above in this section that the whole notability of the word is related to its top spot google return for the santorum search is only true if you substitute high for top. A change from #1! to a slot or two down doesn't make the word go away, nor magically disintegrate its notability. All it means is that Rick Santorum can hit the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button when he searches his own last name now. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 17:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
So can we remove the POV tag? BeCritical 22:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Please don't remove templates without the issue being resolved. Regarding your edit summary when you removed it, the issue is with the lede so its not possible to template only a section. Its notable for the lede in the life of the neogolism that it was top of the search returns and it no longer isn't after google altered is rating of non official sites there are many reliable citations to support that and refusing to include it in the lede is not neutral reporting. Youreallycan 02:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Why would this recent and nebulous development be prominent enough for the lead? And why would it be POV not to put it in the lead? I don't follow you. BeCritical 02:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
nebulous? - Santorums google problem, isn't that the main, or one of the main issues in regards to this - its the search engine results that make/made this word notable and its removal from the primary returns and the many reliable reports of that occurance make it notworthy for the lede. Youreallycan 02:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
It's not out of the top results. I just checked on Bing. Thus, nebulous. And ^^ you'd have a much better point were this Santorum's "Google problem". Anyway, the current lead is correct it is a "prominent" result. No change necessary as far as I can see. BeCritical 03:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Its never been refered to as Santorums bing problem has it? - Our title as you well know is a compromise. If its notable that googles agorithyms made it the primary return then its equally notable that they have changed then and it no longer is the primary return for the search result. (talk) 03:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
The lead doesn't say it's the primary one. BeCritical 03:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
There is no point in listing a nebulous claim that it is at the top of anything since it is easily checked to not be true at least some of the time. Make such stupid claims will only invite argument since people will check and see that it is not true. It may have been for a day or two, and may move around, but I just checked and it was nowhere in the top lists for Bing. Also, this was always about Google. Arzel (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The assertion that it is specifically the very top spot on Google returns that makes the word notable (saying nothing about other search engines, where it continues uninterrupted as a high ranking result), rather than simply a high ranking, one that competes with WP:Rick Santorum and his official website, is just false. A number of sources breeze over the ranking itself with "the top spot," eager to get to the meat of their reporting; but to the extent that our sources describe the ranking issue in detail (maybe they do their research more than a day after Jon Stewart makes a reference to it?), they consistently use language that carefully describes a high, not necessarily the top, ranking.

Mother Jones:
For voters who decide to look him up online, one of the top three search results is usually the site, which explains that Santorum's last name is a sexual neologism for "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex." (story cited six times in article)
Enough people wrote about and linked to Spreading Santorum that, for the past several years, it has generally stood as the top search result for both "Santorum" and "Rick Santorum."(Enough people wrote about and linked to Spreading Santorum that, for the past several years, it has generally stood as the top search result for both "Santorum" and "Rick Santorum." (note source's care to use "generally," not "always") (story cited once in article)
New York Magazine:
The site went viral, and to this day, hilariously, it is featured prominently in Google/Bing/Yahoo searches for "Rick Santorum" or "Santorum." (story cited once in article)

And this piece, which isn't yet cited in our article, makes clear that the first few results are always going to be different for everybody anyway, so any talk about "the number one result" is hazy at best. It's not like people stop seeing it if it comes in at #2. So there's no way this is WEIGHTy enough for the lead. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 15:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree and edited accordingly. Apparently (according to text someone put in) it's still in the top results and that's where it always has been. It would be a weight and NPOV violation to put overemphasize any small changes that have happened. The article should never have claimed it was always the very top result if it did (I didn't notice). BeCritical 19:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Lead edits

I returned the lead to the version discussed above. One of the main problems with previous leads is that they used characterizations such as "unflattering."

I would also like to discuss the words "during an interview with the Associated Press," which I think are irrelevant in the lead and should be removed. Doing so would also simplify the way the first sentence reads. BeCritical 06:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your edit.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Isn't it standard for the lead to begin with a basic definition of what the page is about? (i.e. The campaign for "santorum" neologism is...).
My suggestion would be "The campaign for "santorum" neologism is a campaigned initiated by columnist Dan Savage to redefine Rick Santorum's last name as "The frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex."Dsetay (talk) 05:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
See, the reasons that doesn't remotely work go straight to the heart of why there's been so much debate over this article's title, and its lead. It's not really a "campaign;" one guy started it, but it's fundamentally driven by a grassroots/"netroots" desire on the part of many thousands of unique web users to make fun of Santorum, which under any other circumstance would make it a "meme" except that not a single reliable source calls it that. There's basically no way to write a sentence of the kind you suggest that is both true and succinct, since the article title itself is a half-assed compromise whose tangential relationship to reality is a direct consequence of its bare-bones, ugly neutrality. There's no good solution to this. If we want to try that, though, I would suggest that the best thing to do would be to change the last sentence in the first paragraph to read,
"He created a web site,, and asked his readers to link to it in order to promote the definition, which became a prominent search result for Santorum's name on several web search engines."
It's been hard enough to even get a lead that everyone can live with, let alone one that concisely restates the article title in its first sentence or two. You can see why this page has been such a source of contention. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 14:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The article is not about the website, therefore the lead sentence should not include the website name. I think the lead is fine the way it is. Some chages suggested seem to work against previous concensus in order to get the definition moved up in the lead. Arzel (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is it titled "campaign for 'santorum' neologism" instead of "campaign for a 'santorum' neologism"? I'm curious not trying to argue, because especially when you put it in a block of text like that, it looks wrong to me. Ashail P (talk) 08:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Because it was only supposed to be temporary title. Should be Campaign for the neologism "santorum" BeCritical 22:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd have to disagree with that title specifically. One of the biggest things I've noticed at Wikipedia is that article titles generally follow some sort of headlinese formatting. It's also implicitly stated at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. In line with that, I'd avoid use of the word "the" in the middle of a title unless we had some specific reason to do so. "Campaign for the neologism 'santorum'" is really just a wordier version of the article's existing title, and I'd personally prefer the latter for the sake of brevity. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 00:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm personally of the opinion that we shouldn't use articles in page titles at all, unless we have some specific reason to do so, which doesn't really exist here. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the info! I decided to stay away from these arguments and Wikipedia editing in general after someone threatened to block me. Ashail P (talk) 05:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Why does the lede not mention the community effort that made Spreading Santorum number one? At the moment it looks as though it is a one man campaign, whereas the competition was suggested by a reader, and the google campaign was fought by many people. (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

google search returns

Just a note to say that the statement in the lede, "it is now replaced with a link to a similar definition at Urban Dictionary." - is no longer true - the urban dictionary return has gone now from the google search returns. - boldly edited to reflect the new reality -feel free to revert on any objection.Youreallycan 23:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we should mention that Spreading Santorum is still top result at Bing, Yahoo and Baidu?[14]--В и к и T 00:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

That may be worth noting but - its not a google bomb issue. Web search results are so temporary its dubious to assert anything fixed - it is well sourced that D Savage's site has been a top returning google bomb for a few years though. On my Yahoo search Savages blogger site is not the first return. Youreallycan 00:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Reverted -- the comment above is pure WP:OR, and we'll stick with what the source says. Since when do we have editors do their own google searches and report in the article on the results of the search? If we did, we could report the fact that my own search just now resulted in appearing at #6, in the "top results" on the first page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Up to you, but imo it could still use a time clause, like, 'for a day', or something like that. Its in the lede and the fact that urban dictionary was at the top for a day seems undue and, a bit false as written. If I read the lede now I am left thinking that the top search result for Santorum at this time is urban dictionary, which it is not. Urban dictionary is not even showing in the first ten pages of search returns for Santorum. You have also removed the reason it has dropped, that seems notable in the lede.Youreallycan 13:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Urban dictionary appears nowhere in the top results. It may have for a period of hours or even a day when the PANDA release was migrating through the web, but it is easily checked to be not true. In any case, unless it makes it to the top and stays stable for a period of time it is undue weight for the lead. Arzel (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay -- but since Spreadingsantorum is actually in the top results for google searchers, it is "untrue" and undue to include it at all -- so the whole sentence can go. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Just a note... Google actually displays different results for different users depending on language, cookies, past history and who knows what else they collect about us. CodeCat (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Nomo, we still have RS that clearly points out that changes have reduced the pominance of the search. Considering how long it was at the top, it is certainly notable. Arzel (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
"What mispelling"?? Good god... I'll not revert again for the moment, but y'all are doing some pretty obvious original research, completely missing CodeCat's point. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I've put in a stopgap clause at the end of that sentence to convey the differential return situation CodeCat points out, but we'll need a better way to say this over the long term, I think. Just don't have time for it right now. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 20:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Is the section about google still accurate? I don't see the spreadsantorum link anywhere on the first page, even with SafeSearch switched off. This web page is the first result however, funnily enough.Gymnophoria (talk) 10:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
More WP:OR? Not really what we need. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Santorum the man

I wanted to read about the presidential candidate. For some reason, although Savage's name is wikilinked in the lead, Santorum's is not. wikilinked anywhere in the article. There is also no link to the disambiguation page. In short, without typing his name in the search box, there is no way to read about the man. Is there a reason for this, and would it be possible to a) wikilink his name, and b) add a link to the disamb page. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed by Nomoskedasticity. BeCritical 20:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

J. Bryan Lowder opinion

A recent edit added 'A 2011 Slate article said Savage "could probably be considered violent or bully-like" for organizing the neologism attack on Santorum.' There are multiple issues with this edit. Slate does not speak with one voice; it is an assortment of news and opinions, so the text ought to have been properly attributed as "J. Bryan Lowder wrote in Slate...". However, Lowder's notability is doubtful and the comment seems undue; he is described only as a "journalist and critic in New York". Finally, the quoted phrase is taken out of context, where it is actually an offhand comment that includes a followup: "And sure, Savage’s jab at former Sen. Rick Santorum (in which he equated the politician’s last name with the sometimes messy results of anal sex) could probably be considered violent or bully-like. But it also reduced a virulent, hateful opponent of the mere idea of LGBT existence to a public laughingstock." For these reasons, I've removed the addition. AV3000 (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to agree, it skews the meaning of the quote to have it without the "but it also reduced..." corollary. And I see little use of the full quote if all it is doing is saying in effect "both sides suck". Tarc (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
    • ^ Cite error: The named reference USATodayApril232003 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    • ^ Cite error: The named reference sl031503 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    • ^ Cite error: The named reference Burns was invoked but never defined (see the help page).