Talk:Campaign for the neologism "santorum"/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 10

Alternate proposal: just remove the article from search engines

While I don't really like the precedent, there's nothing to say that every article needs to be indexed by search engines. There's a technical limitation in place that requires every page in a content namespace be unconditionally indexed, mostly to avoid stealthy vandalism (such as removing "Abortion" or "Barack Obama" from search engine indices). The majority of the concerns here seem to be focused on how people are coming across this article (via Google bombing, etc.), not necessarily that the article exists. Yes, some people are going to scream about NPOV and NOTCENSORED and others are going to say that any kind of article is a BLP violation. Both sides have legitimate points in their favor, so a compromise might be best here. Keep the article, but kill it from search engines.

One possible implementation might be to use MediaWiki:Robots.txt. Another would be to talk to the Wikimedia system administrators about instituting a specific exemption. Using robots.txt seems to be the smarter choice from a technical point of view, though, for what it's worth. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Certainly an interesting idea, I suppose it tempers BLP concerns to a degree. -- Avanu (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind, if we did this, the top hits on google would move up his regular bio one spot, right after dan savage's vicious hate site, which will remain No. 1. Quickly followed by urban dictionary, articles about his "anal sex" and "google problem," etc. Does that really help Sen. Santorum to bury the article which at least explains where this is all coming from?--Milowenttalkblp-r 04:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
The idea isn't to help Sen. Santorum. We would be wrong to try to help him. The idea is to keep Wikipedia encyclopedic and respectable. Yopienso (talk) 04:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
"The idea is to keep Wikipedia encyclopedic and respectable."
Which presumes this isn't encyclopedic and respectable, which if true (by consensus), this article would have been deleted years ago. Consensus has repeatedly rejected that. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Consensus hasn't made this a settled issue yet. Time will tell if this is the polka craze or the polka dot. (which one lasted?) -- Avanu (talk) 06:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Which presumes that the editor demographic that is deciding to keep the article is a match with the outside world. That those that are not part of WP don't see articles such as this as infantile, and unworthy of a serious publication. John lilburne (talk) 06:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
You must be nearly the last person left on Earth who regards youth as inferior. Media, advertisers, publishers - who resents infantility? The best selling books are children's stories about wizards and asinine conspiracy theories about Obama's birth certificate. Certainly the HR officials in the fancy corporate offices have no trouble preferring the 23 year olds over the 50 year olds. You come and tell young Wikipedia editors that they should pretend to be old? What on Earth for? Yet there is no reason at all why the old cannot also appreciate the freedom to collaborate in documenting social phenomena such as this. If the purity of intent shown by articles like this is infantile, then by all means, let us be infantile. Wnt (talk) 08:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
This isn't about wizards, or Obama's birth certificate, and whilst HR officials prefer 23 yo because they are cheap, they prefer interns they don't have to pay even more. But I appreciate your candour in wanting to produce and protect articles that follow the lowest common denominator into the gutter. John lilburne (talk) 08:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia can be no "better" than its sources, its editors, and the people who read it. And if we've forgotten that those people are good enough, that they can be trusted to edit our articles and certainly can be trusted to read them unabridged, then we are truly lost. Wnt (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

"Let's have an article, and then make it difficult for people to find it". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Deciding to make a page virtually invisible to most Internet users because of BLP/privacy concerns sets a disturbing precedent. Change the content; don't hide the page. elektrikSHOOS 01:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The first line of the lead

I came here when I saw this issue at WP:BLPN. I'm not on either side of the Cirt/JN466 situation [1][2] (Cirt recently greatly expanded this article), I'm not gay but have several close gay friends, I'm not American and have some understanding but no investment in who wins the Republican nomination. I'm on this page because for a while it was the highest result on a Google search for "santorum" and the snippet of the article that Google displayed was essentially saying "Santorum is a piece of shit." Cirt has subsequently moved the Savage definition down the lede, so the Google snippet for this page now reads

"The word santorum /sænˈtorəm/ is a neologism coined by American advice columnist Dan Savage in response to controversial statements on homosexuality by..."

I'd like to hear the views of interested editors on whether Cirt's edit was appropriate, because ip user 24 (presently blocked) is demanding its reversion and has been repeatedly unilaterally undoing it.

Personally, I think it was one of the best edits I've seen on this project, in terms of repairing harm to the encyclopedia's reputation. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the edit, and note that "consensus" for its implementation was sneakily gotten by User:Jayen466 by holding a poll on BLPN, where the biases of the editors are obvious. The purpose of this article is to be useful to its readers, including to those who come to it through Google, so it should present clearly and forthrightly the definition of santorum first, and its origins later, because its origins are backstory, and are not really useful for people who have seen the term used in sexual slang and want to know what it means. Quigley (talk) 06:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I've made a few changes to the lead now, in line with tempering the idea that this is actually a proper neologism, rather than a political tool. If anyone really uses this word exclusively to mean 'fecal matter and lube after anal sex', please find them. Its *very* clear that it is an ad hominem political attack and to suggest that it is in common use for any other reason flies in the face of logic. -- Avanu (talk) 06:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Also (@Quigley) the idea that the use of the guy's name is just 'backstory' now is almost ridiculous to the point of being absurd. I could see your point if we were talking about the Vandals since that was 1,500 years ago. But this term was coined 8 years ago. The word "neologism" itself should give you a clue that 'backstory' is just as important now if not *more* important. -- Avanu (talk) 06:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Anthonyhcole seems to be expressing ownership of the content in the lead now after having started a discussion with that section title. Just to be clear, simply because someone starts a thread mentioning something doesn't mean everyone needs to suddenly stop trying to improve it and just discuss. I don't know what changes Cirt made and what changes this IP user made. I was simply working on the article to make it more clear what it actually is about. The sentence "The word santorum /sænˈtorəm/ (distinguished from the name 'Santorum') is a political statement in the form of a neologism promoted by American advice columnist Dan Savage" makes it very clear BOTH that this is considered a neologism by many AS WELL AS being primarily a political tool. Anthonyhcole made the argument that this expands the lead too much, so I looked for something to move and found that the section I could move already existed below in the article under 'Recognition and usage'. Anthony, if you have an actual issue with the content, please explain that objection here, but since its more than clear that it is both a neologism and a political attack tool and additional cites show this, please leave it in unless you have a better suggestion to improve it, rather than just removing stuff. -- Avanu (talk) 07:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Just noting that the current first sentence appears to redefine santorum as the act that created it. Its creation was a political statement. The word itself is a neologism. Gacurr (talk) 07:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that the creation of *and* use of *and* promotion of *and* the word itself are all political statements. Saying "in the form of a neologism" gives the definition that you are looking for in saying that it is a neologism. -- Avanu (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Avanu, my main motivation for starting this section and reverting your subsequent edit to the first line was to get you and others to discuss the content rather than fight it out on the article page. Regarding the length of the lead, considering the state of the article, that's a minor issue and I'm happy to let it go. I agree with Gacurr's analysis. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I guess my obvious question for you would be how is it *not* being used as a political tool now? Savage is quoted in the article itself -- according to the Philadelphia Weekly, the term "gained real traction" and "found its way into salacious dictionaries—and books published on actual paper," with Savage admitting that he "worked pretty hard" to get it out there.
This isn't just a simple neologism, but a crusade by an individual to defame another. The idea that it took on a life of its own, by itself seems flatly contradicted by its main promoter, Dan Savage. -- Avanu (talk) 08:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
For the first sentence/paragraph to be about the context is not unreasonable. It is pretty clear, based on the contest, that the nominal literal meaning of santorum is not as significant as with some words - the decision was made to coin the term before its definition was decided. Therefore the rationale of the word's coinage should come first. It looks like when the word is actually used, it is most often figurative anyway. Wnt (talk) 08:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. The lead should, and does, address the context. But saying "santorum" is a political act is inaccurate. It is the product of a political act. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
For Dan Savage, saying "santorum" is a political act. Spreading the word around is a political act. And him grinning with sadistic glee at the results is the *product* of a political act. The primary purpose of this word, this neologism, is to cause damage to Rick Santorum by serving as an ad hominem. To say that the political act was over once the word was created ignores reality. -- Avanu (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Properly, we should not make special exceptions for articles based on what external websites do. People need to stop looking at Google. Forget Google, forget everything but writing a good article. But since this article may be renamed to be about the campaign itself, it's not really important now is it? The way you are editing it recently makes it into an article about the campaign... which IMHO is appropriate, but entails a rename. But if it's going to be about the word, you need to put the definition first, see Hooverville etc. BECritical__Talk 14:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree that Google shouldn't determine how we write an article. But in this case the response to it just happens to be appropriate anyway. When someone in the 30s mentioned a Hooverville, he was probably actually talking about an actual shanty town - it was the primary meaning of what he said. But when people now talk about "a bunch of santorum" on the Web, they're probably not actually talking about fecal matter lube etc. but rather expressing their disapproval of anti-gay Republicans, flavored with a special sauce. So I think in this case, based on both how the term was created and how it is used, it is acceptable to discuss its derivation in the first sentence and its meaning in the second. Wnt (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like a good argument, but that needs to be included in the article if it can be sourced don't you think? BECritical__Talk 18:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
It would be nice, but I doubt we'll find that kind of careful analysis in a reliable source. It is my belief that determining the order of sentences or sections in an article is one of a few legitimate uses of original research on Wikipedia. For example, I recently reordered some text in quercetin to put antiinflammatory roles first, in part because possibly antiinflammatory activity could underlie alleged anticancer activity and effects on obesity and diabetes. I had no source for that, either. But we have to order the sections somehow, and original research is better than doing it blindly. Wnt (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good to me (: BECritical__Talk 21:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Considering the inflammatory and attacking nature of this term and the BLP concerns (not sourcing, but "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.") It seems some of the recent edits seem intent on marginalizing these concerns. -- Avanu (talk) 06:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:NEO

Per WP:NEO, it is clear that we should change the title, as the vast majority of sources are about the political campaign, not the neologism. This is true quite irrespective of the outcome of the above RfC. --JN466 22:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Definitely... with a redirect from this article title. BECritical__Talk 22:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Above, I suggested Santorum neologism controversy. Thoughts? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I think we need to make a list of possible names for discussion. BECritical__Talk 22:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

It's an improvement on what we have, but I feel Dan Savage santorum neologism controversy or Dan Savage santorum neologism campaign would be more appropriate. It is Savage's campaign, and I feel he should be in the title. --JN466 22:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposing to ignore the results of the RfC? Really? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Renaming is a different proposition from renaming, merging and redirecting. And of course the renaming won't happen without consensus. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Can we discuss some of the ramifications of the alternatives? For instance, renaming to Santorum neologism controversy, without touching any of Cirt's recent modifications to the page's search engine friendliness, would probably leave the page at or near the top of search engine results for "santorum." Whereas, starting the title with "Dan Savage" would probably remove it from the first ten or so results, at least. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
If your goal in renaming is to manipulate search engine results, then my guess is that it will be a non-starter. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Everything we do here affects search engine results. I'm in favour of bringing these implications out into the open. If we ignore them it leaves us open to manipulation by those who don't ignore them. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the page would be removed from the top ten results. It might end up below or level pegging (i.e. above for some users/at some times, below for some users/at other times) with the article on the person, which would be appropriate. It is very clearly Dan Savage's campaign though, and it does not appear in the top ten search results for Dan Savage at present. (Not even the top hundred as far as I can make out.) It should. --JN466 23:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I read WP:NEO before. It says don't make up an article by finding a bunch of sources that use a word and shoving them together to prove it exists. It says find a secondary source about the word. Well, we have sources about the word. This page is completely in compliance with the policy. And I don't see one thing in it about what the article is named! Wnt (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
If you went by the sources that are about the word, it would fail WP:N. What raises it above that threshold is the reporting the campaign as such has received, and that is what most of the article is about. --JN466 23:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I call santorum on that. The word is notable in its own right.[3] Gacurr (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Count the cited sources in the article that are about the word, and then count the ones that are about Dan Savage's actions, how he got the campaign going, and its results. Don't you think the latter far outweigh the former? I'm not sure the American Dialect Society selecting the word as the most outrageous neologism of 2004 alone would make it pass WP:N, as a neologism, per WP:NEO. We have about four or five sources covering it as a neologism (including the fairly comprehensive Partridge, which took the view that it wasn't ripe for an entry). --JN466 00:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
To combine: Santorum neologism campaign. I would include Savage's name, but he's not the only one participating. BECritical__Talk 00:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
It's his brainchild though, and all the sources we cite attribute it to him. The article mentions his name 65 times (plus another 29 mentions in the references). --JN466 00:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Well Dan Savage santorum neologism campaign would be acceptable. It sounds clunky, but it's accurate. Savage santorum campaign would be way cool, but.... sigh..... BECritical__Talk 00:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I think Santorum neologism campaign is adequate, accurate, and correct per WP:TITLE. Adding Dan Savage's name adds unnecessary complexity: Is there more than one notable campaign to make a neologism out of Santorum's name? If there isn't, then no futher qualifier—such as whose campaign it might be—is necessary. Being unnecessary, WP:TITLE (and common sense) says leave it out. I'm good with Santorum neologism campaign and would support it if an RFC were called. Oh, and count me in the camp that feels it would be a good thing if the article remained near the top of Google's results for santorum, because I believe it defrays any damage that Savage's number-one-ranked site might cause... but ultimately, I don't believe Google rankings should have any bearing whatsoever on our proceedings. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Do reliable sources refer to the subject of this article as "santorum neologism campaign" or would Wikipedia be coming up with that name? A search on Google with quotes yields no results. Gacurr (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
No. But note that a fair number do use the term "Santorum's Google problem" (Indeed, if not for the fact that touching anything related to this seems to generate massive controversy I'd just go ahead and make a redirect from that to here. It is a reasonable search term. ) JoshuaZ (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
While "Santorum's Google problem" is by far the most common article title out there in the news world, it's an inelegant, imprecise euphemism. It makes it sound like this is the 1950s, and the senator got knocked up by the search engine. It's also got a vague air of POV push to it; Santorum has a problem with Google? The title presumes that Santorum has a problem in the first place—which, according to those who champion WP:CRYSTAL for this article, is an unwarranted assumption. Santorum neologism campaign or Santorum neologism controversy are more neutral, more descriptive, and better fit the WP:TITLE guidelines. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Is an article about the word and also about Dan Savage not a legitimate source for the notability of the word? Looking back through the history of truthiness, the neologism got deleted five times until the American Dialect Society weighed in.[4] Does Steven Colbert being mentioned in articles about truthiness undo the notability of truthiness as a word? Gacurr (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that attempts to shoehorn Dan Savage into the name are misguided. We generally don't put author names into the names of articles about books, albums, videos, etc. So why do it with a word? Wnt (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Because the real story here is not the word itself - which remains non-notable and not in general use by anyone. The real story here is the attack. The article should be about the attack, not the alleged "neologism". This is the same principle as we use with the standard response to BLP1E: to recognize what the real subject is. In most BLP1E cases, we find that the real subject is the event, not the person. Similarly here, the real subject is the event - a successful googlebomb - not the word itself. A move would be justified even if there were no BLP issues at stake. But there are serious BLP issues at stake here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Been trying to make the same points since I recently decided to focus on this article again after many years. I remember clearly what Senator Santorum said at the time, in context. I was interested in the outcome of Lawrence v. Texas and the expansion of the U.S. 'privacy' right. The reporter insisted on getting an answer for issues that Santorum didn't want to really give answers on, but eventually Santorum relented and answered. Dan Savage didn't like it, he portrayed it as the worst thing ever, the media in general predictably jumped on board to make it sound more controvesial, and led to the Dan Savage contest and apparently his ferverent crusade to bring down the image of one senator.-- Avanu (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The reasoning whith which JN466 did start this thread, is also completely in line with my reasoning above. Please see also #Article title does not reflect the phenomenon for that. There is notability for the article, but the subject of that notability is not the word. The word is not notable per se. It is the event around. The article does not reflect it. By naming it by the word, we instead create new reality, we do not describe the reality. There might be posible situations, where it might be the least confusing to use the word, as the subject of the event for article for that event. But this is not the case. See above too. I would like to just note, that my concern is not how much on top this article will end up - after googling out the Santori's name. What I am concerned is the title apearing there. Is it appropriete for the content or not? Jimbo points out BLPE1, I do point out also, if I may, the wp:NDESC and wp:NPOV#Naming, the title creates the reality beyond what the reality really is. --Reo + 10:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Exactly so. --JN466 12:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • A shorter version would be Dan Savage santorum campaign. That term is actually used ("Savage's santorum campaign") in the Natality paper, which is the only comprehensive scholarly source addressing it directly.--JN466 13:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Spreading Santorum is the name of Savage's website from which he launched the prank. It is presently a section of this article. It deserves a stand-alone article and the information about the prank belongs in there. Savage refers to all of his activity at the website as impacting Santorum, not just the hosting of the neologism on a search engine optimized page there. This story is bigger than the neologism, that is part of a prank, which is in turn part of a popular political campaign centered on Spreading Santorum. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I like the option of Spreading Santorum. I think that solves a lot of the issues brought up by people on all sides. Active Banana (bananaphone 13:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I could sign up to that. (The s in santorum should be lower case though, I believe.) --JN466 14:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure, because it seems like it promotes the site... I'd be more comfortable with Spreading santorum, which wouldn't be a direct quote of the site name, and would be in keeping with WP:ITALICTITLE, as we'd normally italicize a term under definition or discussion in running text. Of course, there's still the nagging issue of the double entendre inherent in the phrase "spreading santorum"... that's the part I'm just not sure about. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, it will make the site more prominent, but those who believe the term should be the title will not be entirely satisfied, either. It's not perfect for any who feel strongly about this but it might be an acceptable compromise for some. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Could I ask people to bear in mind that there's an ongoing RfC about this? It sounds as though some of you want to pre-empt it, or file another RfC with a different question while the first one continues, which would cause more confusion. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 16:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Good to see you here, SlimVirgin. Can I ask your thoughts on this? Part of your proposal involves renaming. We're discussing possible names. You've also suggested reducing the size of the piece down to a paragraph or two. We're discussing a proposed leaner article above at #Proposed_rewrite. Your input on these would be very welcome and appreciated. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Anthony, my preference when I file an RfC is just to let it run, so I wouldn't want to make suggestions about what the content should be if the articles were merged. But I do think one or two paragraphs would be enough to explain the campaign. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
That's a genuine pity. But if you change your mind please jump in. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
If we use Spreading santorum one would assume the article to be about the site. SV, where is the ongoing RfC on renaming? The RfC above isn't about renaming, it's about deletion in functional terms. That's why it's not getting traction. Tell me about WEIGHT: it seems like there are enough sources for a full article, or at least a lot of text, on this subject (it might be merged to the homosexuality controversy article). Since BLP concerns don't really apply (we're merely reporting facts about coverage in RS), why should we limit coverage? WP usually has coverage relative to the willingness of WP editors to write the material. Where is the problem with having a lot of coverage of this subject? I wasn't under the impression that WEIGHT applied to the balance between different articles, only to the balance between subjects within a particular article. Maybe I missed it, but I just haven't seen a justification for limiting coverage on this article. We've already established that outside concerns like Google results don't apply to WP. What else is there? BECritical__Talk 17:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
There's an RfC on whether we should (a) rename and (b) merge. It was opened to try to get one centralized discussion going with one clear question, so we should really wait until comments have dried up and consensus becomes clear. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
It's 46 to 30 with no sound argument, so far as I can see, why this violates WP policy if properly named (as a campaign). I think it's time to start thinking about the endgame. BECritical__Talk 18:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The thing is, the RfC combines and binds together two separate questions; (a) whether to rename and (b) whether to merge. Since the start of the RfC, it's become apparent that a good number of editors on both sides of the merge debate feel a rename is warranted, based on the WP:NEO, WP:NDESC and WP:NPOV#Naming policies, and I thought we could negotiate a consensus to rename while the RfC was ongoing to bring the title in line with policy – but I accept this makes things messy. I think we can still discuss and brainstorm potential names, as the above RfC leaves the precise name open, but I am prepared to defer any actual renaming of the article until after the RfC has been called, if that's what you and other editors prefer. I sincerely apologise if I've added to the general mess, distress and confusion by raising the matter now. On the other hand, it's something that would need to be discussed in any event after the RfC is closed, whether its decision is to merge or not. --JN466 19:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree. I don't see why we can't brainstorm now. But if there is really a major issue here, we might consider a rename to a more NPOV title prior to the what... 10 days at least to close the RfC? I think the current RfC helped in that it made apparent what can and can't acquire consensus. BECritical__Talk 19:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
You haven't added to any confusion, Jayen, so no need to apologize. Discussing other names is good, and you're right about WP:NEO. I was just a bit worried that some people seemed to be posting as if they wanted to move it now, or open up a second RfC. I think that would be messy.
Is there a time concern here, apart from it involving a living person? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 19:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
If the BLP concerns alone are not sufficient reason to hurry, than any claims that there is any BLP issue at all are superfluous at best or downright disingenuous. Active Banana (bananaphone 19:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
i respectfully disagree that it is "clear" that the title should be changed. the suggestions above, such as neologism controversy and so on suggest that this is not already a neologism. -badmachine 19:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
@SV, yes the BLP concerns would be the reason for rushing to rename. I share those concerns only to the extent that sources may be misused in the article. As long as we're reporting RS in an NPOV way, I don't see a problem. BECritical__Talk 21:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


WP:NEO says, and this is a quote: "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles" (emphasis mine). Given the existence of multiple reliable sources which feature treatments of this term, I think that the narrative in this section is being constructed under false pretenses. NEO expressly does not say what User:Jayen466 would have you believe; it says, instead, the exact opposite. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, since we're looking for alternative names, shouldn't we consider what the sources call it, which is Rick Santorum's Google problem? "It may feel like 1990, but talk radio, cable talk and the Internet have changed the political landscape. What has come to be called "Santorum's Google problem," in which web searches of his name turn up a foul term that doesn't pass this newspaper's breakfast test, is the most striking example." [5] Above, ⌘macwhiz said there were a lot of problems with it. What? BECritical__Talk 23:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
what about his yahoo, altavista, and other search engine problems? redirect for all possible search engine names to dick santorum's google problem? iow, i believe this suggestion is flawed, and as SV says, there is a discussion going on above about this. who knows, the article title may remain unchanged, even in light of his upcoming campaign. -badmachine 00:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I believe, to discuss the NEO and article name is right think to do. While there is ongoing voting/debate in the RfC, the RfC had been originally quite divissive and seemingly full of partisanship. It is nice to have some discussion leading to some common conclussions, closing us to acceptable consensus. It seems we are coming to overcome somehow the divission (partly) This meta-discussion is also relevant to the votings above. I think, that I myself will probably conditionally withdraw the voice from support in favour of the other solution, as I see it, as probably the most fitting choice to rename the article.
I think this title (or similar) would be descriptive for the event, it would encompass the website name, the neologism, (inadvertently also the fact that the neologism is spreading), the subject of the campaign is not hiden for the sake of BLP, but it minimizes victimization through the Wikipedia itself as the title marks it justly that there is campaign. NPOV: both sides may look at the info in the article from different viewpoints, while not being insulted by the mere article existence. Those who are insulted by the prank, they may see it now as article about the "campaign", but for those who search the term in earnest, it is logical name too, because the title just brings out its origin. For those here who are concerned that something controversy title implies the word is not fixed enough ... the above title does not imply that. Reo + 23:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Good one, I like it. --JN466 09:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Critical, it's not that I hate Santorum's Google problem, exactly. I could be persuaded to support it... but my immediate reaction is a moue. The way I see it, it has the following things going for it—
  1. It's very widely used in contemporary reporting of the issue, almost ubiquitously so.
  2. It's inoffensive to those with delicate tastes in titles.
  3. It describes the content of the article... but...
—and then there's the things that bother me about it—
  1. It's an euphemism: a politically-correct way of saying things to avoid offending those of delicate sensibilities. Let's face it, "Santorum's Google problem" is the word santorum. For practical purposes, the two things are synonymous.
  2. I predict that some will object that the word "problem" is unsubstantiated, because Santorum has said at least once that santorum is not a problem for him. It's also a word that, in a title, should always raise an "are you sure?" caution flag for potentially loaded phrasing.
  3. For all the debate whether or not we're throwing Rick Santorum under a bus with this article, wouldn't this throw Google under there too? Santorum's problem isn't exactly with Google; it's with the word santorum. The problem is beyond Santorum's control, and arguably is beyond Google's control as well: Google didn't choose to rank santorum so high; that was an emergent property of their PageRank algorithm. It might be more accurate (and more absurd) to title the article Rick Santorum's problem with the people whose web pages contribute to his name's Google PageRank.
  4. It could be Rick Santorum's "Google problem"; the use of his first name will establish that it's not the problem of some other Santorum (or even of santorum for the easily confused). I know "scare quotes" are frowned upon, but the newspaper editor in me keeps wanting to put them in there, because it's more of a quotation than a description.
Now, not all of these issues have the same weight in my mind... but they're all in there, contributing to my unease about this particular proposal, even though it's an obvious choice going by the sources. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 00:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
No I think you give very good reasons for not using it, and thanks for explaining (: Putting that aside, Santorum neologism campaign is the best one I've seen yet. We might put Santorum in italics? BECritical__Talk 01:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, did I make that one up, I thought you did :P BECritical__Talk 01:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Santorum neologism campaign seems to me a brilliant description of what we're looking at here. It summarizes the controversy, while also making clear that this is a neologism being pushed in a very political way. Khazar (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Although I was one of the people who suggested this title above, it might be better to rephrase it as Campaign for "santorum" neologism just to make the title unambiguous that this is a campaign about "santorum", not a campaign by Santorum. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I like that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't sound as good but it's better communication. BECritical__Talk 17:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Works for me. I like that it has no extraneous words, and no subtle insinuations. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Excellent too. I still wouldn't mind having "Dan Savage" at the front, i.e. Dan Savage campaign for "santorum" neologism, as it is essentially a one-man campaign; it's described as such by Partridge, and Savage owns the associated website. And it's relevant to Dan Savage; it has given him a lot of publicity, too, as much as it has Santorum. --JN466 20:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that to include "santorum" (lower case) in the title takes a side by indicating in Wikipedia's voice that it's a real word. We could follow the Alan Dershowitz/Norman Finkelstein plagiarism dispute, which we call Dershowitz–Finkelstein affair. How about Savage–Santorum affair or Savage–Santorum controversy? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 20:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean by "real" word? Surely it is undisputed that there is a campaign to promote a "santorum" neologism. "Neologism" means that the word is a new invention which may or may not be widely adopted, a popularity question on which the title of the article need take no position. Saying that is not "real" seems to stray into murky metaphysical waters. (Tolkien's Elvish languages are invented/constructed and have no native speakers, but are they not "real"? Presumably a "fake" language would only be one that had no meaning.)
Savage–Santorum controversy is unacceptably vague — the article is not about general disagreements between Dan Savage and Rick Santorum, but rather about the campaign to promote a particular neologism and its impact. Furthermore, I'm uncomfortable with the push to put "Savage" in the title. Indisputably, Savage started the campaign, but a quick Google search for "Santorum frothy" finds many other authors using this terminology as a way to disparage Santorum. Moreover, many of the sources attribute the high Google rankings etcetera to "gay activists" etcetera who were inspired by Savage, not to Savage alone. Putting Savage in the title seems to endorse Santorum's claim that "it's one guy." Simply saying Campaign for "santorum" neologism avoids taking sides regarding who is perpetuating this campaign. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Words are intangible. What makes neologisms real? Santorum was created, spread, and discussed. Changing the article to "Savage–Santorum whatever" (shouldn't it be in alphabetical order instead?) would produce a result similar to the merge you proposed earlier. Instead of the santorum dispute being the focus, the dispute between the two individuals will be the focus. Most of the coverage of the santorum campaign would be removed and replaced with a comparison of each player's view of homosexuality. In order for most of the article content to survive and remain accessible, the article must focus on the santorum as a neologism campaign. I recommend renaming the article to "Spreading Santorum (Dan Savage campaign)" or something along those lines. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, I see an obvious problem with Savage–Santorum affair; it sounds like a romantic tryst, and considering that the senator's views on homosexual activity are what sparked this whole thing in the first place, that's probably a road we shouldn't go down. Besides, the suggested titles are vague. A reader who didn't already know about the subject would have no idea what the Savage–Santorum controversy might be. They might not even be able to infer that it's in any way related to Rick Santorum. Not only is that questionable per WP:TITLE, it's just bad writing practice, and it's a disservice to our readers. There are better choices that don't mince around the subject but don't have obvious biases. As for "indicating in Wikipedia's voice that it's a real word", I'm far from convinced that's an issue, but if it were, why not scare quotes? That's what they're for... // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Another point about including "Savage" in the title: it is not necessary. According to WP:NAME policy, we should use the most concise unambiguous title. There is only one widespread "santorum" neologism, so Campaign for "santorum" neologism is unambiguous and does not need "(Dan Savage)" to disambiguate it. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Another point about including "Campaign" in the title: it is not necessary. According to WP:NAME policy, we should use the most concise unambiguous title. There is only one widespread "santorum" neologism, so Santorum (neologism) is unambiguous and does not need "Campaign for" to disambiguate it. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

"Campaign" is not for disambiguation. It is to accurately describe the article's contents. As it stands now, the article is not primarily about the word per se or its use in sexual contexts. The article is primarily about the efforts to promote the word, and the political impact of these efforts. There is a simple reason for this: almost all of the reputable sources on the term are primarily concerned with the campaign and the political angle. (There is also a neutrality concern with the current title, as it implies that the word as a neologism is what is notable, which is disputed; almost all of the sources describe the political aspect and the word's unusual source and rise to prominence as what is notable.) — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
If you think the article's content isn't in line with the title, change the content, not the title. There's no neutrality concern with the current title: the word is consistently characterized as a "neologism" by reliable sources. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Steven on this one. I still think though that Dan Savage's name should be in the title. Again, this is not about disambiguation against other santorum campaigns, but about accurate description. It is a one-man campaign, carried on via Google and Savage's Spreadingsantorum website. It's wrong to have Santorum's name in the article title, but not Savage's. --JN466 10:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Right. Whatever view you take of this, it's clearly more about Dan Savage than it is about Rick Santorum or the neologism "santorum." Savage's name belongs in the title to reflect the centrality of his involvement. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 15:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
No, that's not "clear" at all. The only thing that's clear is that this article is about the neologism "santorum," so that's what the article should be titled. We don't need anyone's name in the title. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 01:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No "friend at Google" --- a friend HERE!

I'm retracting this, since I don't know for sure what happened. The article says "Tim McNulty of Pittsburgh Post-Gazette commented in an article on May 31, 2011: "... it looks like that problem might be getting further help from the good people at Google – as of this morning typing in the ex Senator's name brings up the latest news stories on him at the top of the screen, not something unfit for young political wonks." Unfortunately McNulty has it wrong. The source of this page now contains a "robots:noindex, nofollow". That is not Google suppressing the result, but someone here. I think it's hidden somewhere in the templates - maybe in Template:hide in print? Wikipedia is not supposed to exist for doing partisan political favors for the Republicans! Wnt (talk) 00:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

For me (in the UK), this article presently is the top Google result for Santorum, with Rick Santorum in second place, and Dan Savage's site in third. --JN466 00:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
And the dab page is gone, too. So typing "santorum" into the Wikipedia search bar takes you straight to Rick Santorum. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Santorum&action=history --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure I've seen that robots noindex option discussed recently in relation to this page. Maybe Jimbo's talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
That only has to do with the print version of the article. Wikipedia external links always have the nofollow property. I searched for "robot" in the source and didn't find it. If you are talking about the talk page, who cares? I think WP talk pages are never indexed. And WP is still the second result on Google. BECritical__Talk 00:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I saw someone mention noindexing, but it didn't sound like consensus or a plan. Now I want to know who did it and how and how to put it back, as there is no agreement to do this.
However, I do not dispute that santorum should point to the person now that he is a candidate; we'd do that for anyone else regardless of the situation. Wnt (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Floquenbeam makes an argument based on Obama and Reagan, and it seems valid. --JN466 00:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Alright, that's odd. I just looked at the source again and now it's gone. It was in the fourth meta tag right at the top of the article. Did someone fix it already? Wnt (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I just checked, and it is in the same place as it is if you look at the source of a history revision. But I have no history revisions in my browser cache from the time I was looking, nor were any of their links colored, so I really don't think I looked at one of those by mistake. Wnt (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I also see it as second hit on a Google search. I have no idea what is afoot with this. Wnt (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Way strange. BECritical__Talk 00:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
@Wnt: Template:BLP – You must've viewed the page source while in edit mode. Template:NOINDEX is transcluded within Template:BLP, which is displayed while editing. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I didn't think I had, but there's no way to rule that out by looking at my browser history. I'm retracting this because I don't know what happened, and your idea may be right. Wnt (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • comment I always love a chance to disagree with Jimbo .. but I'm sorry, I think he's right on this one. Yes, but law (our policies), there's a validity to this article .. but sometimes "law" does not equate to "justice" .. as a civilized race of humans, sometimes we need to think about what is "RIGHT". I'm sorry, what this article does simply is not "right". end of. — Ched :  ?  03:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
    So, you're saying that you agree with Jimbo, in that you don't like it either? 24.177.120.138 (talk) 06:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
    "End of"? Wow. "Civilized" is a construct, Ched, and bloody wars are fought over different people's ideas of what is "right". WP has lots of articles about things that I suspect 99% of us would agree aren't "right". If those articles are well sourced, neutrally written, and on notable topics, then consensus is we should include them. By doing so, we are neither promoting nor thwarting "justice" (another construct, the particulars about which reasonable people disagree). I unwatchlisted this page and just returned to see what was up, and I have to say I find it intensely troubling that numerous editors, including a number of longtimers, seem unable to grasp this distinction: the existence of an article is not equivalent to the promotion of its subject. Fwiw, I happen to agree with you that law doesn't necessarily equate with justice, and I absolutely can envision scenarios when WP:IAR should be invoked because other policies could result in a gross miscarriage of justice. I don't think this is such a time. Further, I think it's pretty clear that consensus trumps IAR every time. (In the event that the entire community goes mad, I suppose the Foundation could get involved, but that has never happened, afaik.) Rivertorch (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
(added later) To clarify, I meant to say "reliance on other policies could result in a gross miscarriage. . ." Rivertorch (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
IP 24... If you're able to grasp what I'm saying, then you are unwilling to, so I doubt there's much sense in furthering discussion. Allow me to be perfectly clear, I'm simply not interested in debating your snide comments. Rivertorch, let me think about that "Civilization is a construct" a bit. I understand what you're saying, but I'm not fully content to concede to such without further expansion and definition of that. Certainly the evolution of our civilization rises above a mere "construct". My points about "law" and "justice" equate to much of what you say. By "law" (or in our construct, policy), perhaps WP:V, and WP:RS are adhered to. It's my opinion that in this case, the "injustice" is the concept of the article, and the end result of it being in it's current state. AND, I can see the infringement on other "laws/policies" such as WP:BLP, WP:ATTACK, WP:CFORK, WP:COATRACK, and undue weight. I don't know as "consensus trumps IAR", but that is a topic for a different discussion. Also, while user Dreadstar is correct in policy to say that consensus is not about the numbers, usually often it does work out that the numbers speak louder than the talking points on WP, and that error in understanding of policy, will likely play out again in this RFC. I've read a lot of this talk page, and others as well. I'm simply convinced that while those in the oppose came (those supporting the article as is) may have a couple points they are able to bring forth, they are not being objective in regards to ALL the policies we have in place here, and certainly incorrect in their evaluation of what is "right", what is "wrong", what is just, and what is proper. I understand that you see things differently, and I fully support your ability to voice your views. I also appreciate all the "content" based arguments that have been respectful, civilized, and well argued here. But to be perfectly honest, while I may not be able to persuade you to see "my view", please understand that it's quite unlikely that anyone would be able to change my view as well. I do appreciate the the points you bring up though, and wish you well in all. Cheers and best. — Ched :  ?  01:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Good God this site is starting to sound like a cult, isn't it? Wnt (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Yah. We've apparently gotten to the point where "I don't like it, and if you do, there's not much sense in furthering discussion" is the only argument left. Very groupthink. Very creepy. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 01:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I've pointed to the policies I base my rational on in previous posts. I read policy and guidelines, and I attempt to stick to those things in discussions such as these. I don't base my views on things like this. Beyond that, I don't really have any more to add.Ched :  ?  21:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Beside your ad-hominem argument that I've engaged in hypocrisy, you've got nothing else to add? Well, I do: please content on contributions, not contributors. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Archiving

This page is prohibitively long for editors with slow connections. If there are no objections, would someone who knows how please archive everything above the RfC? (And maybe the section #No "friend at Google" --- a friend HERE! since it doesn't appear to require further input.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. This page is auto-archived. We shouldn't archive discussions pre-emptively, because it gives the appearance of attempting to suppress discussion. Users with slow connections should get better ones; after all, it is the 90s. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 06:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Set the auto archive rate to be faster if it isnt clearing the page quickly enough. --81.98.54.230 (talk) 09:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
What rate is the auto-archive set at now, (I don't know where to look) and what do you think would be an appropriate new rate? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Such is the rate of discussion here that almost any setting would not help much. I have picked off a few more that imo appear resolved/stale - The mizabot settings can be seen at the top if you click edit this page and are currently set to thirty days (will be archived after stale for thirty days) I am no expert but this setting will at least stop the bot archiving the RFC before time. Off2riorob (talk) 09:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Rob. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
No worries. I have removed myself from this discussion but I will pick off sections that appear stale/resolved as and when I can in an attempt to keep the size of the talkpage manageable and as accessible as possible to users on more restrictive download options. Off2riorob (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I've changed to bot to archive sections which have had no new comments in the last 10 days. That won't have any immediate effect, since every section has had comments in the last week. The "Proposal to rename" section constitutes about half the page, but I guess that's going to be around for a while?
—WWoods (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks WW. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Cacophemisms in general as articles?

They are a specific class, generally obscene in natural, and always derogatory, and generally not in common usage as they are "aimed" at a person etc. Ought they in general be promoted as "encyclopedia articles"? Or are they, by their very nature, contrary to existing Wikipedia policies? Collect (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Our article on dysphemisms (which cacophemism redirects to) is pretty short and unreferenced underreferenced. Google turns up some interesting results, including this quote from Joel Feinberg: "Cacophemistic language is a rough and raw, blunt and vulgar way of saying anything—good, evil, or neutral—of a thing. Not all of it is obscene by any means; witness 'grub' and 'duds' for example." We have an article on the word dud, a redirect to food for grub, articles on queer and snail mail, as well as fart. Tom McArthur, in The Oxford Companion to the English Language, writes "A cruel or offensive dysphemism is a cacophemism (from Greek kakos bad), such as using 'it' for a person: Is it coming again tonight?" Ethics for the Real World gives terrorist as an example of a cacophemism; we have a redirect for that to terrorism. So, I'd have to say that I'm not sure I agree they're "generally not in common usage". It seems like we permit them in all sorts of encyclopedia articles, and if they're contrary to existing Wikipedia policies as a class, then we have a pretty huge cleanup on our hands. I think it's more the case that the term encompasses such a broad range of terms, and involves so much value judgement in determining what is and is not a member of the class, that it's not useful in determining policy. At the very least, we don't want to give some zealot (Look! A cacophemism!) license to start deleting the word it from articles because it could be a cacophemism. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Sure looked referenced when I looked. Collect (talk) 00:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
You're right, it has one reference and one Further Reading. I've corrected my statement. However, given what I turned up in a short look, it seems like it might be ripe for expansion. Well, that or deletion because it's just defining a word, and I hear that's what Wictionary is for... ;) In any case, though it is a pretty cool word and I thank you for introducing me to it, I suspect it would turn into the mother of all weasel words if we tried to base a general policy around it. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, no one is arguing that any class of terms in general automatically gain encyclopedia articles. However, when a particular term (and the political campaign surrounding it) attracts widespread commentary in dozens of reputable sources over 8+ years, and is widely argued by notable sources as impacting national-level politics, then it is perfectly reasonable to have an neutral article on it. The goal of such an article is not to "promote" the word, but rather to describe its promotion and political/cultural impact. The fact that the subject matter is unsavory and regarded by some as unjust is unfortunate, but that concern is not within the scope of Wikipedia's policies (except insofar as we should report those opinions to the extent that the sources reflect them).

On the other hand, as several of us have argued, it might be more appropriate to title the article Campaign for "santorum" neologism (or something along those lines) to make it clearer what this article is about, but that is a separate RfC (once the current RfC about deletion is concluded). — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

That's an argument to split this article into two, one about the word, and one about the campaign, not an argument to move this article. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
An article about the word absent political efforts and impact would have almost no content. Almost all of the reputable sources covering the word do so from the political angle. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
You're missing the point. I'm not proposing one article devoid of content related to the political effort and impact and one article about it, but two articles, each focusing on different aspects of the political effort and impact. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 03:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Article split?

A lot of the arguments for renaming this article seem to be of the "this article is about the google-bomb, not the word"-variety, and, to an extent, I see the logic there. A lot of this article is about the campaign, not about the word, and that's arguably problematic. But what the promoters of an article-move consistently fail to recognize is that, despite the fact that much of the article's content isn't strictly on-topic, the neologism "santorum," itself, meets WP:N by virtue of being discussed in multiple secondary sources as a word, not as a campaign. So, I propose we split this article in two, by creating a separate Campaign for "santorum" neologism (or whatever) article, and moving much of the Dan Savage/Rick Santorum back-story there, but allowing Santorum (neologism) to remain with a focus on the controversy surrounding the word, it's increasing prominence in the lead-up to the 2012 elections, the struggles that mainstream media outlets have had in covering the increasing prominence of the word, health issues, etc. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I am in favor of most any arrangement that results in santorum the word[6] having its own page on the encyclopedia. So I can support a split. Also would note that despite what some sources say, the promotion of the website about the word and the politician to a high place in search rankings is not, technically, a Google bombing.[7] Gacurr (talk) 03:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Gacurr, please do not take this as an accusation, but I had assumed from your editing style and the timing of your appearance here that you were the same user as 24.177.120.138. It is fine if you are and fine if you are not, but if you are, your support of your own proposal might seem self-serving. Was I mistaken? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Your skills of detection leave a lot to be desired. If you have concerns about me as an editor in the future, please leave them on my talk page. The article talk page is for improving the article, not accusing another editor of being someone they are not. Gacurr (talk) 04:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry that my comment upset you. As I said, it was not an accusation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense to me. The current article is already primarily about the Campaign for "santorum" neologism and the political impact of the spreading of the word on the Internet (its search-engine prominence and its use as a way to deflate Santorum's political efforts). Most of the sources are about this too. The word itself, as it is used in sexual contexts, is only lightly covered. That's why it makes sense to rename the whole article, as it is now, to something like Campaign for "santorum" neologism. If you try to "split" the political impact, commentary, and background into another article, there will be nothing left here. Conversely, it doesn't make sense to split out the "Savage/Santorum backstory" from the "media coverage" and "controversy", as the backstory is essential to understanding the word's prominence and impact and the controversy surrounding it. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 03:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You're transparently trying to marginalize the topic by reducing it all into a one-man political campaign. Look, no one is arguing that the inception of this word was not an orchestrated smear by one man, but the facts on the ground are that it's since become more than that. The majority of this article is not directly related to santorum-the-campaign, but santorum-the-political-and-linguistic-phenomenon, and you can't make a reasonable case that all of the content about the latter should be moved into an article about the former. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 03:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree with Steven, and with numerous others above, on this one: oppose. Although my initial opinion was to leave the article as-is—in part because of the pending RfC, which I feel overreaches considerably in its proposal—I was not then aware of WP:NEO. Taking that guideline into account, I can't find anything that would justify using WP:IAR to ignore it, so I accept that, as an article about the neologism, the article has a major problem. However, as an article about the events that lead to, and sprang from, Savage coining the neologism and it becoming newsworthy worldwide for over a decade, the article remains notable, well-sourced, and of obvious interest to our readers—despite being highly controversial and, as I've said from my first comment over on BLP/N, rather distasteful. Splitting the article into one viable article and one non-viable article makes no sense. Better to keep it, retitle it (and it looks to me like we're homing in on consensus for a new title), and refocus it. The thing that may be a sticking point to me is, I would like to see a redirect from its current title, so we don't break links from other sites. I suspect that will be a controversial stance. Anyway, I think that a reasonable consensus can be achieved for all that after civilized discourse and negotiation, and it's almost two-thirds of the RFC proposal anyway. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 04:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
If the article has a problem, fix the article. I oppose changing the article's title, and I'll revert any effort to do so while this RfC is in progress, or if you attempt to do so without holding a separate RfC for the proposal. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I stand shoulder to shoulder with my buddy 24. I feel it would be inappropriate to rename without putting it to RfC, if the above RfC doesn't pass. Tedious but transparent and fair. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

If the article is primarily about Campaign for "santorum" neologism, then that is what the article should be named. The fake word itself is not the subject matter here. Tarc (talk) 12:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources

What kind of secondary source justifies the creation of an article about a neologism? WP:NEO says "we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept." Partridge mentions it but only to say it's not widely used and doesn't include it in the alphabetical listing of slang terms. It is not a book about the term. The only paper on the term is an unpublished, unreviewed student essay. This doesn't seem enough to justify a stand-alone article. Are there other serious books or papers on this that I have overlooked? The article is bloated with references to popular media coverage of the prank (see #bloat) but NEO seems to expect more than that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

My impression of the media is that they are sort of laughing along with the joke, but that rarely does the word have occasion to be used, let alone is it really *catching on*. It is entirely possible that Dan Savage uses it everyday, but he has already proclaimed what his goals are. -- Avanu (talk) 07:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
My point is, they're not books or papers on the term. WP:NEO prescribes books or papers about the term before an article on a neologism can be hosted here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Aren't refs 2, 3, and 68 books? But "such as" does not mean "only", anyway. There are many secondary sources here. Wnt (talk) 07:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
They're not books about santorum, or papers about santorum. There are no books or papers about santorum (apart from the student essay) cited in this article. Popular press coverage of a political stunt is not anything like ("such as") a serious book or paper on a neologism or substance. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Read WP:NEO again. There's no requirement for "the existence of books or papers about the term before an article on a neologism can be hosted here." It simply calls for the existence of reliable sources about a term (as opposed to reliable sources using a term.) In the quote you cherry-picked, the phrase "such as" implies that books and papers are examples, not an exhaustive list.
But. Even if you were right, you just acknowledged that there are papers about the term in the sources given, so I assume you're satisfied that the burden of WP:NEO has been met. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 06:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I am having second thoughts about this. I've asked for clarification at WT:NEO, but I'm now thinking your interpretation is more likely to be correct. Shame. That would have simplified things enormously. That paper you refer to is an unreviewed unpublished student essay, no better than an interesting, nicely formatted blog. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I still think WP:NEO offers useful guidance on the direction of the article. I know not everyone agrees, but for the sake of argument let's stipulate "santorum is a neologism". Given the sources available, I think it is difficult to have an article about "santorum the neologism" without introducing original research, because there are so few sources about santorum as a neologism. However, santorum the neologism as an act of political satire has a very notable, and to my mind encyclopedic, history. It may be WP:CRYSTAL for me to say so, but I believe that the coining of this word will be a case study in political science for quite some time. So I still think it's safer to make that distinction clear in the article.
If we want to discuss if WP:NEO is really relevant or not, I suggest that the essential question is: "Are the plethora of available sources for santorum 'about the term' in the sense meant by WP:NEO, or are they about the phenomenon of the term and therefore 'using' the term for WP:NEO purposes?" Unfortunately, I think that's a really thorny question, and right now I could argue either side of that question with equal success in my head... // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 13:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

What is the case that Santorum's remarks were overemphasized?

I always approve of making BLPs fairer by adding information, and I've seen people in this discussion claim that Santorum's remarks were just a careless afterthought, not really meant to express a strong anti-gay sentiment (even though it was at an AP interview?). Since some ... one has full-protected the article, we might as well work up a paragraph making the case that Santorum's comments were overemphasized and he didn't really deserve all this. Can you cite your sources for this? Let's get something written down, at least to argue about. Wnt (talk) 08:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I might be able to track down the original press conference video. I remember watching it back at the time and thinking how they pressed him into saying those remarks. .... looking .... -- Avanu (talk) 08:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
If you try to make a unbalanced article more balanced by dumping rocks onto one side of the pan, sure as night follows day, some one will dump more rocks into the other pan. Eventually you'll just end up breaking the balance support. John lilburne (talk) 09:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I think it's far more likely you'll run out of rocks, and the pans will be balanced in accordance with the local geology. You think it's that easy to come up with reliable sources about this stuff? Wnt (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
i am pretty sure that several of our sources cover the fact that after he made the remarks he was asked several times if he wished to correct or withdraw the remarks and he refused.Active Banana (bananaphone 11:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

First sentence (parenthetical comment)

The first sentence currently:

The word santorum /sænˈtorəm/ (distinguished from the name 'Santorum') is a neologism promoted by American advice columnist Dan Savage in response to statements regarding the US Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas made by then Republican U.S. Senator Rick Santorum from Pennsylvania.

The first sentence without the parenthetical comment:

The word santorum /sænˈtorəm/ is a neologism promoted by American advice columnist Dan Savage in response to statements regarding the US Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas made by then Republican U.S. Senator Rick Santorum from Pennsylvania.

Since Santorum with an uppercase 'S' already appears in the sentence in the politician's name and santorum with a lowercase 's' has a lowercase 's' and is qualified as a word, "the word santorum", the part in parentheses seems unnecessary and redundant. Gacurr (talk) 10:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

So the merely change in case is enough? "S" versus "s"? Talk about glossing over BLP concerns. -- Avanu (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
The parenthetical statement is ridiculous: the article has already been reviewed -- repeatedly -- for violations of BLP and has been judged -- repeatedly -- not to violate the BLP guidelines. The title of the article already serves as a disambiguation; the "clarification" is unnecessary. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 12:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Just because several people ignored the intent of BLP doesn't mean there still aren't concerns. Rather than simply say "nuff said" and move on, how about coming up with language that can address these concerns? -- Avanu (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Judged by impartial people, perhaps. IMO the article title itself is at present a BLP violation. Tarc (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
The term "cacophemism" appears more accurate than "neologism" in any case. Collect (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
The parenthetical is pointless. According to the article a cacophemism is a "deliberately harsh term" like "dead tree edition" for a paper edition; whereas santorum is simply a neologism used to describe a certain substance which could surely be described in more offensive conventional terms. I doubt it's a cacophemism at all. Wnt (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
It is not "simply a neologism", it was created with the specific intent to affect the target of one journalist's ire. People here want to pretend that this word is somehow on par with, say, Cleavland steamer or dirty sanchez, but that simply isn't the case. Tarc (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Without question, this word is a personal attack. Its main promoter says so all the time. Some of our editors stubbornly seem intent on being blind and refusing to acknowledge that. As several editors have been saying, this article should not be titled like it is now, but something like "Dan Savage notable attacks on Santorum" or whatever. The title and lead of the article try and push the idea that this is a normal neologism and not a personal attack. Regardless of what some would like to belive, we shouldn't use Wikipedia as an unabashed tool to define the English language. We're supposed to be neutral observers, not helping to push points of view. -- Avanu (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I would like to remind editors the subject of this section is the parenthetical comment in the first sentence and whether or not it is necessary to include. Please let us know your view and reasoning on that subject so this might be discussed. Gacurr (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I think it's redundant. I reverted it once yesterday. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC).
I Think it is redundant. But I think it is quite unnecessary to discuss it in depth right now, because it seems the comunity is more or less comming to the conclussion, that tha article title should change. If article title will change, the article lead will have to change as well. --Reo + 16:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree it is redundant. It is an issue because yesterday one editor kept re-adding it saying it was a BLP issue (the parenthetical comment). The one editor reverted three individual editor's edits on this, threatened to go to ANI in their final revert, and then went to ANI anyway, even though no one had reverted their final edit. Shortly thereafter the article got locked. So this thread is to help resolve the matter. Gacurr (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
It's redundant. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Concur; it's redundant and unnecessarily confuses the sentence for our readers, to the extent it doesn't just plain insult their intelligence. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree. The parenthetical is quite frankly inane. And the claim that this article inherently poses a BLP problem is without any foundation. The term doesn't assert any negative factual assertions about Rick Santorum; Dan Savage used his name to coin the term to make a subversive association and to Google bomb his name. That doesn't involve a factual assertion about Santorum, and therefore is not a BLP concern. To the extent that there are any factual claims about Santorum in this article, BLP is satisfied by them being sourced and NPOV-worded. postdlf (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
(@Postdlf)
  • "The term doesn't assert any negative factual assertions about Rick Santorum"? Do you think Dan Savage agrees with you on that?
  • "That doesn't involve a factual assertion about Santorum" Exactly... that is why it is something to look at with more caution.
  • "BLP is satisfied by them being sourced and NPOV-worded" Summing up BLP in this way makes it seem as if you don't realize there is more to BLP than those two things.
It is exactly this kind of logic that is the problem here. Its an effort to completely disregard the intent of BLP. BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject, and in some circumstances what the subject has published about himself. - Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. Also beware of feedback loops, in which material in a Wikipedia article gets picked up by a source, which is later cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original edit. -- Avanu (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
The other editors disagree with your edit, Avanu, so it's going to be undone. Will you refrain from restoring your edit if page protection is lifted? By all means, continue trying to build consensus for it if you wish. But will you refrain from restoring it until that is achieved? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
The other editors disagree with the article in general at present, Anthonyhcole. But what you probably meant to say is "some other editors". Address the BLP and NEO concerns and we'll all be fine. The page protection is good because it makes people focus on fixing this article. -- Avanu (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I guess the question is why are so many editors intent on saying there are no BLP concerns at all, when so many editors are clear and articulate in saying there are concerns here. I would hope you don't simply attribute it 100% to partisan crap and dismiss it on that basis, but actually are trying to see the other point of view as well. For my part, I realize I live in the US and that political speech is STRONGLY protected by our first amendment rights. But I hope you acknowledge that we're building an encyclopedia here, not protesting for or against gay rights. MANY editors have said this needs to be substantially rewritten and definitely retitled, and many other editors are simply dismissive saying that everything is fine. I would say that when a substantial number of people start bringing up concerns, it is at least worth a look. -- Avanu (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Since many of you seem to say BLP doesn't apply (although at the very least, it applies in spirit), how about WP:TE (tendentious editing)? Tendentious editing is a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the neutral point of view, and fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions. -- Avanu (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
It's hard to avoid the impression that you're intending to carry on editing the article in the manner in which you were editing it this morning. Perhaps I'm wrong. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I would like to have page protection lifted from this article because I think it was precipitate. As far as I'm aware, until you inserted that edit into the lede and then edit warred to keep it in, things were orderly and collaborative here. All editors who have commented here, including some who share your view on this article, have told you the edit is inappropriate. At ANI you were told to respect the consensus on this talk page regarding your edits. There, you were in fact warned that, if you continue to edit war over this, you will be sanctioned. I'm now going to ask the editor who imposed protection to lift it. You can deal yourself in here by collaborating and abiding by the rules we all follow, or you can leave the game. It's up to you. I hope you choose the former. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I would think it is an overstatement to say it is all my fault. I'll accept a degree of blame, but making this solely about me when we've all got a piece of things here is a little unfair. BLP concerns are one of the most important things to address when they come up, but despite a lot of editors expressing serious concerns, we have a lot of other editors being entirely dismissive. Majority rule doesn't mean that we ignore concerns that aren't in the majority. -- Avanu (talk) 22:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Hi Avanu. I have looked through your posts to this section and not seen where you comment on whether or not it is necessary to include the parenthetical comment in the first sentence. Please let us know your view and reasoning on that. Thank you. Gacurr (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
It *is* necessary, despite its redundancy, to provide a counterbalance to the overall tone of the article and the extreme negativity of the word itself. This is called for because we are supposed to strive for balance (WP:NPOV), proper tone (WP:TE), and sensitivity to living people (WP:BLP). -- Avanu (talk) 01:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure how the parenthetical comment would accomplish that. Gacurr (talk) 01:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Am I the only one whose brain hurts at Avanu citing WP:TE as justification for his argument? In the words of Inigo Montoya, "I do not think it means what you think it means." Sure, it's a great essay that tells us an editor might want to look hard at themselves if they find themselves running afoul of 3RR, or if they say they'll keep on making an edit that lead to a block, or accuses others of malice, or disputes the reliability of apparently good sources, or repeats the same argument without convincing people, or ignores or refuses to answer good faith questions from other editors, or engages in disruption to make a point. It talks about all these things as a manner of editing—specifically, an inappropriate manner of editing. What it does not do, that I can see, is say that one must apply "counterbalances" to the content of an article to achieve "proper tone". WP:TE is about how, not what. It says "The perception that 'he who is not for me is against me' is contrary to Wikipedia's assume good faith guideline". While I certainly agree that WP:TE is very appropriate to apply to the discussion on this talk page, I don't see that it has much at all to do with the necessary content of the article. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
You're surprised? Just yesterday, User:Avanu was arguing that WP:POINT justifies calling someone a piece of shit on this talk page. He epitomizes WP:TE, and is overly due for meaningful sanctions. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Not so much surprised as pondering the possible application of the term chutzpah on that last point, but I might be the slightest bit biased there for some reason. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
(@24.177.120.138) That is unequivocally inaccurate. I wasn't the one who kept bringing WP:POINT into it. I also said VERY VERY clearly that it wasn't a personal attack, it was to demonstrate the offensiveness of such words. My impression is that this is getting far off track and you simply don't want balance in this article. Please correct me if that's mistaken.-- Avanu (talk) 02:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
You're mistaken. You've now been corrected. Please retract. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Correction: your assertion that I "simply don't want balance in this article" is mistaken. You're correct is that this is getting far off track. So far, in fact, that it might be obscuring the fact that, your tendentious objections notwithstanding, a consensus has emerged for the removal of the redundant parenthetical disambiguator from the opening sentence of this article. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I think you're mistaken. Your definition of "balance" and 138's—and mine—differ. I have offered my reasons for differing with your opinion, as have several others. Rather than discuss those opinions on their merits, you've dragged in appeals to a number of authorities, at least one of which has no discernible relation to your line of argument. However, as the victim of what was overwhelmingly perceived by your peers as a personal attack both here and on AN/I, I know that you weren't the one bringing WP:POINT into it—because I give you the benefit of the doubt that if you had read and understood WP:POINT, you would not have done the very thing you said was inexcusable to do in order to prove your point. If your impression is that I do not want balance in this article, let me be unequivocally crystalline clear: Your impression is wrong. Can we admit that possibility and move on to a civilized discussion? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely, Mac. To me its clear the article isn't balanced at the present. A lot of editors seem to say it is fine, but there has been a lot of talk bringing up concerns. So how do we address that? -- Avanu (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Most of the talk bringing up concerns has been you, and most of those concerns have been summarily dismissed by most of the other editors on this article. So, the best way to address any remaining real concerns is for you to drop the stick and allow them to be heard. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Summarily dismissive attitudes aren't good. You might look above and see Talk:Santorum (neologism)#Proposal to rename, redirect, and merge content if you think I'm the only person with concerns. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 03:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not being summarily dismissive. Your concerns have already been heard, evaluated, and dismissed, repeatedly and verbosely. You're trying to cultivate the appearance of conflict to the end of perpetuating this fiasco, and I'm done with it. I'll not legitimize your tendentious editing by participating in your delusion that there's merit to your arguments; there is none, and it's time for you to cut it out. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 03:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I don't think you're the only person with concerns. I just don't clearly understand what those concerns are, or why precisely you disagree with my point of view as stated earlier in the thread. Let me throw some points out to try and focus this: There's a fundamental difference in opinion regarding WP:BLP's application here, so let's stipulate "no consensus" between us on that point and look to see if we can find another one we can agree on. I've already said that I agree WP:NEO applies; however, I am not pushing to rewrite the article to be about the event instead of about the neologism because I think it's premature to do that until the pending RfC concludes—doing so would confuse things even further. Until the RfC is decided, we should keep the article nominally about the neologism because that's what it was before the question was put to the community. ("Hey! Come give your opinion on this! Oh, but we decided to do it anyway before we were sure of your answer!" Um, yeah, no one will resent that...) I don't see how WP:TE applies, and I disagree that our readers are not smart enough to figure out that a term in italics with an IPA pronuciation is not the same thing as the proper name that is mentioned later in the same sentence unless the linguistic equivalent of a neon sign is inserted into the sentence. So: Make a compelling argument that we should fundamentally change the focus of the lede before the RfC on the idea concludes, or that our readers are dumber than I give them credit for...? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree about the RfC, but I don't see that we have to consider that an 'either/or' type of thing. In other words, if a substantial portion of people decide not to rename the title, is there any other way to address the concerns, or do we just drop it? Some people have even made the case that definitions are for Wikitionary, not Wikipedia. Just because I ask for parentheses originally doesn't mean that it is the only way to reconcile the concerns. But other suggestions need to present themselves. -- Avanu (talk) 03:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The point is, as others have eloquently made above, until the current RfC concludes it's premature to act to address some or all of the other concerns. I, for one, fully expect that the RfC will end with no consensus to take all the actions suggested therein... and that the closure will be very quickly followed by another proposal, formal or not, to take less drastic action. Certainly, I think there's reasonable consensus that some degree of rename is required, and that some degree of refocus is required. I don't think the article will emerge unchanged. I just don't think it will be as drastic as first proposed, or as some would like it to be.
As for your concerns regarding the parentheses: I've explained why I think the way to reconcile your concern that lead you to introduce them is to say "I don't believe your concern is valid, because I don't think our readers are that dumb, and the distinction you're trying to create already exists." That's my suggestion, and it seems to me that's the consensus suggestion on this proposal. "If your arguments are rejected, bring better arguments, don't simply repeat the same ones". // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 04:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} request

Requesting the redundant parenthetical phrase "(distinguished from the name 'Santorum')" be removed from the first sentence of this article, given the consensus in the discussion above. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

There is clear consensus in the above section for this. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
After reading the discussion above, I agree there is consensus for this, so I have removed it for now. All editors of this article need to address the concerns raised about this article and its title, and to reach a compromise. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Martin :) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)