Talk:Campaign for the neologism "santorum"/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10


Website image

Should an image of the website be included in the article? My addition was reverted stating "Utter WP:NFCC fail, the reader does not need to see a brown stain on a website to understand the subject matter." What if the image was made available under a free license...could it be added then?Smallman12q (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it would contribute anything to understanding the issue at hand. As the article stands at this instant, as an article about the neologism, an image illustrating the article would have to be an image of santorum, and I doubt anyone in their right mind thinks there would be consensus to include that in the article at this point. Nor do I think that would contribute to understanding the issue at hand, either. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Possibly two side-by-side images of Rick Santorum and Dan Savage would be appropriate at the top of the page? (Going by the principle that the article is mostly about the promotional campaign for the neologism and the political conflict it represents.) — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 01:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that a picture of the senator is really relevant here. The campaign isn't based on what he looks like, and this isn't his biography. And there's not any real need to further link him to the neologism. By contrast, the website picture is somewhat useful: it may be just a brown stain, but it conveys Dan Savage's idea of the approximate "recipe" for santorum - how much lube, how much fecal matter, the approximate viscosity. I think the website screenshot high at the top, the photo of Dan Savage later, nothing of Rick Santorum. Unless you get a photo of someone hurling some of the stuff at him. 8> Wnt (talk) 02:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Support. Seems appropriate to me that an article about santorum would have a picture of santorum. The one from the web-site is probably acceptable, at least until someone submits a photo. (talk) 06:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No image necessary or desirable; it would be needlessly inflammatory. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Support. If the word deserves an article, I see no reason to exclude a descriptive picture of the substance. I'm having trouble visualising exectly what it looks like. Should it be in a petri dish, a sample jar or, well, you know, in its natural found environment, though? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Given WP:NOTCENSORED and given the sometimes ridiculous arguments for the main article, there's no reason to exclude a picture of the substance (provided it was available under a free license). The problem with including the picture is that the picture helps the article participate in the attack even more than it already does. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

oppose Fair use criteria are pretty strict. I'm not at all convinced that we can justify this as sufficiently relevant. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This question demonstrates part of the problem with the article at present. "Supposedly" it describes a pretty gross substance, yet we can't even get a consensus of people to include a screenshot of a website promoting this definition. If this article were about the event (aka the promotion), then the screenshot would go into the article no problem. If this article were *really* about a gross substance, we would easily have consensus for putting an image of the fecal material in question. I am definitely opposed to a prominently placed photo of Rick Santorum in this article as that would even MORE violate BLP by intentionally associating him with this term. As many many editors have said, let's just rename this thing and move on, we've wasted more than enough ink on it and it seems pretty clear that there is general support for a rename. -- Avanu (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose - WP:NFCC #8. A picture of a brown stain from a website does not assist in the reader's understanding of what this page is about. Text is quite sufficient. Tarc (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Please re-add the Website image

[[File:Spreadingsantorum.png|thumb|right|Dan Savage's Spreading Santorum website defines and illustrates santorum in a splash screen]]

Discussion at #Website image above supports restoring this image to the article. I intended to do it when protection expired on the 12th, but since it didn't, here I am. (I'll comment out the above display, or someone else can do it, as soon as this request is processed. For the next few hours? I think this falls under Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria_exemptions#Exemptions as a "page used to manage non-free content".) Wnt (talk) 05:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's a true reading of that section. It seems to rely on bolded !votes rather than summarizing the views expressed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
From the above discussion it looks like Smallman12q, myself, 24.177, Anthonyhcole, and Ken Arromdee support the image. Nomoskedasticity and Macwhiz oppose. GJohnson doesn't address it. Avanu doesn't seem to address it except to dismiss the article as a whole, so I don't think he counts either. That's 5 to 2 in support of retaining the image that topped this page before the big push to make the world safe for Rick Santorum's candidacy announcement began. I call that consensus. Wnt (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I oppose it as well, as I initially removed it from the article. Seeing a picture of a brown stain is no doubt titillating for some here, but it adds nothing to the reader's understanding of this worthless article, thus failing WP:NFCC. We can always go to FfD (Files for Deletion) to hash that out for certain if people feel it necessary, though. Tarc (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Yuck. The image does illustrate far better than words alone the visceral yuck of the website If we can find third party reliable sourced commentary on that image and its relation to the subject that would pass NFCC, although it seems more relevant to a discussion of Savage and his campaign than to the neologism itself. The image illustrates Savage's efforts, not the neologism. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
It is discussed at sites like and - obviously partisan, but third party. Wnt (talk) 04:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't support adding the image. I oppose it. I did point out that Wikipedia rules say we should add the image, but the rules are broken. I would invoke WP:IAR, because using the image perpetuates the harm. Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I am declining this request due to lack of consensus at this time. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Santorum (neologism)

i dont see any valid reason that this article shouldn't have the name it had for about five years or so. this article survived more than one afd as santorum (neologism), and plenty of people opposed this move (or both moves). now that the article has been moved to campaign for "santorum" neologism, presumably santorum (neologism) is back on the table? -badmachine 11:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

when is consensus not consensus?

to me, it seems like this was moved against consensus, or before any consensus was formed. does anyone else feel this way? -badmachine 18:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it was the wrong close. We had a much better name for the article; while perhaps no single name had consensus behind it, this definitely doesn't, and it adds a BLP problem we didn't have before, because it makes it unclear whether the title is referring to a senator or feces. Wnt (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
According to many claims here, it is both. I'd recommend, again, moving forward and finding consensus for a new article name and content. Dreadstar 19:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
If we only had an article title that made it clear that one is not the other... Some sort of disambiguation... Gacurr (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
oh, like [[santorum (neologism)]]. -badmachine 19:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
"When I disagree" is the classic Wikipedian answer to this question. Tarc (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Maybe - but in this case even Jehochman didn't claim he had consensus support for his title, but called it "first aid". What kind of first aid, I don't know. I think we could use a Lotto number to pick one of the titles proposed in this article or in the section above, and 9 times out of 10 we'd get a better title. Wnt (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
That kind of first aid is called "giving a fuck about WP:BLP". Try it out sometime. Tarc (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
WP:BLP trumps everything. Consensus, verifiability, neutrality, honesty, civility, and above all, common sense. But I just don't get how "Santorum (neologism)" violates BLP more than "Santorum Google problem". Wnt (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
What do the reliable sources call this incident? How do they charaterize it? How is Santorum listed in the Oxford English Dictionary? These are good questions to investigate. We have no need for additional rhetoric. Jehochman Talk 19:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Well said, Jehochman. Dreadstar 19:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Evidence shows that Savage readers were trying to get the term into the OED in 2003 and 2004.[1][2] (I should note this is more evidence it wasn't merely a Google bomb, but a true campaign to create a new word, though the sources may face criticism) With 22000 hits for santorum OED it's hard for me to find evidence one way or the other, so I think I'll put it to WP:LIBRARY, which I just found out about recently. Wnt (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Alas, the answer was no. Some people need to try harder! Wnt (talk) 06:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
It's not easy to find neutral reliable third party sources that come down on an issue like this, they would rather report on the fray than analyze what's behind it. For what it's worth the Mother Jones piece that's quoted several times in the article (as part of the subject, not as a reliable source, as it is an opinion piece in a liberal publication) calls it Santorum's "Anal Sex Problem" and summarizes it as such: "In revenge for some nasty homophobic comments Santorum made back in 2003, Savage successfully used the web to turn Santorum's name into a sexual neologism". I think most sources cover it as an unfolding series of occurrences. Picking out one or more of the specific events, results, or people involved to stand for the entire subject is tricky. Different sources use different hooks to stand for it. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

POV-title tag

template:POV-title was added to the renamed article. imo, the tag should include a deeplink to whichever of the hundred discussions is relevant (and will, of course, be ignored). -badmachine 19:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Normally it's premature to add POV tags either while productive discussion continues, or as protest to failing to gain consensus for something. They're best at signalling a long term deadlock, in my opinion. In this case though I do think it's useful to let any uninvolved reader passing by know that the title here is in flux while we hash this out. I think the current state of this talk page as a whole is as good a starting point as any to figuring it all out. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The template doesn't seem to have a link argument; but this is why I think the title POV:
Santorum Google problem asserts that the nature of this subject is Rick Santorum's problem with Google searches. That's definitely a point of view on the meaning of the subject; but it's only one point of view, and not consensus even among us, let alone in reliable sources. Google would disagree, and so would many of us.
(So if somebody does find a way to link, they can do so here.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I support adding more templates, clearly the article has multiple issues. Templates are good for such disputed articles, they put people off reading them, the more the merrier. Possible rename title suggestion - Savage's frothy anal attack - Off2riorob (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Is that usage? Let's have a citation. ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, in the logic of the Savage-ites, all it takes is a few faux usages like that to transform an invented word into an everyday one, right? Tarc (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't know; I don't watch Savage. But aren't you one of the people who object to neologism, which says precisely that this isn't an everyday word yet? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Btw, the tag now derives from this edit, which actually added {{TitleDisputed}}, a redirected template. Would somebody who actually rhinks this title is POV please explain why? (I realize that people think it non-consensus, or imperfect, or incomplete; but those are different complaints.)Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Interim move

Per the discussion above, I've moved the article to the current title having all "first choice" votes. This is not intended to be a final resolution to the discussion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. This makes two assumptions (that it is a neologism; and there is a campaign), which seem fairly widely agreed, so it is much less objectionable; and santorum is lowercase, which should answer some more objections. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
With your your closure of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Santorum_(neologism)_(4th_nomination), I'm not certain you should be renaming the article. And no, it's not a neologism. Dreadstar 22:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
That AfD closure doesn't make me involved, it was a straight admin action. And I went with the title that had the most first-choice votes at this time. Nothing else in the discussion even came close.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realise you owned this. Pity the poor RFC closer above. Dreadstar 22:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, that wasn't an intentional removal -- I edit conflicted about 3 times while trying to post the above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Neologism: A word or phrase which is new to the language; one which is newly coined. -OED (although some may prefer the "A nonsense word interpolated in an otherwise correct sentence by a person suffering from a neuropsychiatric disorder, esp. schizophrenia" or "The holding or adoption of novel (esp. rationalistic) views; rationalism" ;->). It was a neologism when Savage first said it; it still is - that is, it has not reached established usage, nor has it died. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm equally adept at finding sources; some of them say a neologism is "in the process of entering common use", which this purported neologism clearly isn't doing, as I stated earlier. Dreadstar 23:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Let's see them. Since the normal use of neologism (for instance, most of the OED quotations for that definition) is to complain that a word is useless and so not entering common usage at all, this seems {{dubious}}. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Since I'm not an article, I'll just point you here; feel free to fix that, if you like. My encyclopedia Britannica and others say a lot more about the meaning and etymology of the word, the assumption is that a neologism is a newly coined word that is in process of becoming more widely used and known, like laser and internet, not limited-scope attack words falsely elevated by googlebomb and Wikipedia. It just ain't. The real point of this is that if the word is indeed a neologism, then this article is not about the term, othewise it would be about a paragraph long and not contain the massive amount of WP:OR it currently contains. It's either about the campaign or the term, that's the question, and the current article's name comes no closer to addressing that issue than the original interim name. Dreadstar 23:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
No need for a false dichotomy. Let's have an article about the word and an article about the campaign. The Economist says: "And thank you to all those who wrote in to note that despite our description of Rick Santorum as an extreme social conservative, 'The results of a Google search seem to say otherwise'. Seems he just can’t shake that neologism." Gacurr (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
This is better than the other title. Even the eponym would agree: "Former Sen. Rick Santorum ... said he is taking no active steps to fix his so-called “Google problem,” an issue that has plagued [his] online presence for years. 'I don’t see it as a problem at all,' [he] said..." [3] Gacurr (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm hardly surprised that a single-purpose account that has spent its 2-week existence focused on this issue is breaking out the pom-poms. Tarc (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
plz dont bite. this is as good a cause to take up as any other. -badmachine 01:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Sarek this was a pretty shitty jack move, to be honest. All this does is reintroduce the problem that Jehochman was trying to avoid in the first place while a better-worded title was hashed out. Tarc (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree with Sarek's move, support move back to Jehochman's article rename until a new name is hashed out. Dreadstar 15:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Sarek, I also object to this move. Jehochman closed the RfC. If you want to rename, start a requested move discussion, but please don't take unilateral action through protection. Would you please undo your move? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Start a process with no chance of successful completion to undo a decision based on one admin's opinion and two percent of the comments at an RfC? Yeah, right. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The one thing that is missing in this title is the Google bomb aspect, which is key to the topic's notability. --JN466 23:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    • And the name Savage, I see that mentioned several times in the comments above. And it is a campaign to make a neologism, or is the neologism part of the campaign? The current title is just as vague if not worse than what was there before. And I too call on Sarek to move it back. Dreadstar 23:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I object to this move irrespective of any position I might have because it undercuts Jehochman's closure and the peaceful discussion indicating editors were willing to work peaceably to the next step in clearing up this issue. Please reverse your move out of respect for both Jehochaman and the editors trying to move on in a peaceful way.One admin closed this RfC.That's the way RfC's work, and one admin reversed that closure unilaterally.That's not how RfC are supposed to work. I wasn't sure I liked Jehochman's closure to begin with so stayed out of it, but this has been a huge mess, and I have to admit like what he did or not, the smoke was clearing finally. This throws discussion backwards rather than forward. (olive (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC))
    • This RFC last worked normally before Jehochman's action. But let us by all means undo both of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't like process wonkery, but it's important to fall back on process when a dispute has reached this level. Jehochman's closure of the RfC should have been respected. If people disagree with it, WP:RM is the way ahead, once alternative names have been suggested. But for one lone actor to ignore the move protection and move the title again within 24 hours just wastes more time. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 23:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't feel too worked up about preferring either title over the other, but as a matter of not setting off another flurry of back-and-forth edits, I would suggest going back to what Jehochman did, and regarding that as the interim edit. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • {E/c} Sarek, I think you overstepped on this policy- and common sense-wise, as per SV and others. On the other hand, although I object to the way you too boldly changed the title, I don't object to the title. Everybody take a deep breath now and think: Campaign for "santorum" neologism. Doesn't that describe the article without stepping on anyone's toes? Right off the bat, it's a campaign. Bravo! It is a campaign. Next, we see the word itself in quotes and not capitalized, specifying a common noun, not a surname. Now, grammarians, just what is the campaign? "Santorum" here modifies "neologism." "Neologism" is the object of the prepositional phrase that modifies "campaign." Ergo, the article is about a campaign that aims to create a neologism, "santorum." There are no personal attacks, no mentions of Savage or of Santorum, no "Google" or "Yahoo" or "Dog pile" and most importantly, no assertions of success or failure of said campaign. In other words, the word is not identified as a neologism; everything points to a campaign to make it one. I think this title fills the bill.
SV's and Tryptofish's recent comment are sensible; I would support Sarek's self-revert. Still, read my reasons for thinking the new title is OK. Yopienso (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I know I voted for this title above. But I suggest that unless there are major objections to the title itself, this may be a step in the right direction. It was certainly bold, but let's let it stand as the current state of the debate and let those who object tell us their reasons. We don't need to be concerned too much that it will stick merely because it's the incumbent name... and if it does then it's a good enough name. BECritical__Talk 23:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • (ignoring any procedure question over whether two bolds make a bong) I don't think the name is quite perfect. I can see where it's coming from but it focuses unnecessarily on the "campaign" (as opposed to the overall issue), it's not clear that the campaign is to establish santorum as a neologism as opposed to a campaign to promote something called a santorum neologism that already exists, and finally I don't think it's established the creation of the neologism is the major point of the campaign, the campaign was to disparage santorum or to galvanize gay rights supporters or something like that. Creating the neologism was the means, not the end. On the other hand it is a relatively neutral title. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I also disagree with this move, and would prefer that SoV reverse his own action. One thing I would like to point out, the Jehochman move was done after a week or two of widely publicized RfC discussion; while this move was done after barely a days worth of discussion, which was not even a published RfC. Yep, I think SoV goofed on this one, but I assume it was with the best intent. — Ched :  ?  23:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • note It appears from his contribs that SoV is now off-line, so I suspect that he won't be reversing the move any time shortly. — Ched :  ?  00:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The incorrect closure of the RfC, to a result supported by less than 1.5% of comments, is what should be undone. The original title santorum (neologism) should be restored until, and if, a new name can be settled on. Gacurr (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
And about the same amount of folks agree with you Gacurr, so there....--Threeafterthree (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree 1.5% if that helps. Happy Friday, everyone. Get some sun before you come back here, please! - Wikidemon (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Gacurr, you're obviously not a new editor. Have we met before? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • i propose multiple interim moves with as many arcane punctuation marks as we can fit in there. that way, we have to make [more and more redirects, thus contributing to the "problem". but seriously, does the title have to have the quote marks?? -badmachine 01:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

*I have no particular problem with this rename, even though I hope it doesn't become permanent, because the previous 'interim name' (Santorum Google problem) was unclear and subject to way too many bad jokes. We will end up with many redirects anyway, so I don't buy badmachine's argument on that point. I dislike euphemisms used in article title, same as I dislike Bowlderization of books. But, we seem to have a group here in which no consensus will be achieved unless we tap-dance around the subject and give it some fuzzywuzzy name. Perhaps the next thing on the group's list will be to rename World War II as a 'controversy' or a 'campaign' or a 'problem'? How about 'misunderstanding'? 'Tantrum'? We're going to need a new word for this sort of Wikipedian gameplaying, imo. Flatterworld (talk) 01:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Well, at the risk of repeating myself, the "campaign for santorum neologism" title doesn't quite cut it for me. It sounds like something language-oriented, like the Plain English campaign, whereas it's politically motivated, and SEO-related. That doesn't come across. Santorum Google problem kind of worked for me, at least as an interim solution. So would Santorum (Google bomb). --JN466 01:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

**The former sounds as if he's simply internet-challenged (the Google search page is SO difficult to navigate!), the latter as if Rick Satorum himself created the Google bomb. (Which is a general problem with euphemisms - they're unclear. On purpose.) Anyway, discussion of alternatives belongs in the earlier section. Flatterworld (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I would support "Santorum (Google bomb)." It is concise and reflects, to a degree, why the subject is important. Roscelese (talkcontribs) 02:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I have no intention of self-reverting, as there was no consensus for that particular rename. "Santorum's Dan Savage problem" might have made sense, but "Santorum's Google problem" could not stand unless there was consensus that it really was a problem that Google, out of all the search engines, had caused. (And, for that matter, that it was a problem at all, which the Senator seems to himself reject.) So, I reviewed the existing discussion, evaluated what the current leader was, and made an interim change to reflect the interim state of the discussion. If something else pulls ahead in a day or two, someone else can make another interim change, or we can wait till discussion settles and make a final change. This is not disrepecting Jehochman's RFC close -- reverting back to the original on the grounds that there was no consensus for the new title (and, looking at the discussion above, significant consensus against it) would have been.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
So it's clear. You have used your admin tool to move this protected article because you don't agree with the name. Why didn't you join the discussion and argue your case, like the rest of us? It wasn't a BLP violation. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Yup, Sarek's move was a show of either poor judgement - as clearly indicated here

- or just purely Bias; either of which are not qualities welcome in an Admin. Dreadstar 19:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

  • I am happy with this move. The "interim" solution was clearly based on the opinion of one admin rather than a fair consensus. The current version is closer to satisfying those who find a declaration that "santorum" is a real neologism implausible or offensive, and yet it doesn't violate neutrality or verifiability by associating the term with negative opinions about the campaign or to one search engine. Focusing on the controversy rather than implying either point of view is correct is in line with the spirit of Wikipedia. Well done. Steven Walling 02:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • For anyone outside Wikipedia (hint, the people we are writing for) this title makes no sense and is what I consider one of the worst I've ever seen. What exactly is a "campaign for "santorum' neologism"? We need to write for people who don't edit here, not for editors. This is a continuing problem with these types of bad decisions. I dare anyone to show this title to a non-editor. They simply won't have a clue what it means, as it reads like something a random word generator would create. Titles should have meaning to the average reader, not for Wikipedia editors. Viriditas (talk) 04:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
    • ...which is much the same problem I saw with Santorum Google problem, which is why I was eager to change it to something else. At least this version doesn't accuse Google of anything. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
      • You were over eager. We weren't accusing Google of anything and I don't think you can possibly believe that. I thought we had arrived at (not unanimity but) a general understanding that this article should be named after the Google bombing/search engine bombing/Google problem, and not the failed neologism. Jehocman's close recognised that, and your knee-jerk rename has remphasised the neologism and doesn't even mention the Google problem, the actual subject of the article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
        • No, the rename emphasized the "campaign" -- in other words, the google bomb.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I think we should go back to Jehochman's version. The issue here is timeframes; the coining of the neologism occurred in 2003, and the organised campaign effectively ended then. The 'google bomb' aspect then happened to some degree by accident; it became a 'problem' reported in newspapers in 2011 as a result of the former Senator's newly-announced candidacy for the Presidency of the United States. The article has therefore had to change focus: an off-beat attempt to embarrass a single Senator in 2003 became an interesting and obscure word in 2009, but is now an issue reportedly affecting the chances of a candidate for a highly important office. The latter issue is the more important. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Agree with Sam Blacketer; the Google problem is what is notable about the whole thing, and what outside, mainstream readers are likely to know and hear about. --JN466 16:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • What is the purpose of an "interim" move? We aren't going anywhere. No reason to add to page logs and proliferate redirects. Protonk (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this title

There really isn't. Anyone who thinks these is, is fooling themselves on the altar of something. Merrill Stubing (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

There's no consensus for any other title. There's the most consensus for this title (Campaign for "santorum" neologism). As noted above. BECritical__Talk 03:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Would you mind stating for the record which title you mean, because by the time this section is archived, it will probably be obsolete.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Campaign for "santorum" neologism". A tiny statistical advantage is not consensas. Merrill Stubing (talk) 03:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Of course there isn't a clear consensus for this title yet -- but there's a heck of a lot more than for the previous one, which was roundly decried above. That's why I came straight here after the move and said that this was only an interim move, and that discussion needed to continue. I don't personally think it's the best title, but it's what I was given to work with at that point in the discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
You've missed the point. None of us was happy with Jehocman's title Many commenting above were unhappy with Jehocman's title, that's why discussion was ongoing. But Jehocman's close recognised the consensus to name the article after the actual topic, the Google bomb/search engine bomb/prank/campaign (whatever: the right name for the event is what we're discussing), rather than the word as a neologism. This title you have unilaterally imposed ignores that consensus and re-emphasises the failed neologism, which is an element of the topic, not the topic. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Anthony, it's not true no one was happy with Jehochman's title. Several of us were willing to accept it as a compromise; it's just that a few who weren't continued discussing here. Point is, no matter what the RfC closure was, no one should have changed it unilaterally, especially not (as you say) restoring "neologism" to the title, which is part of what caused the dispute in the first place. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 06:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Good point. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
If Jehochman's title is restored, please put apostrophe "s" after "Santorum". The problem was Santorum's. As far as Savage was concerned, there was no problem at all.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I liked Jehochman's title better than what we have now, with or without the apostrophe. You can argue the grammar without the apostrophe as well: the Google problem, or Google bomb, relates to the search term "Santorum". And it is a Google bomb, because Savage got his readers to link to his site. --JN466 03:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Not a Google bombing. It is a successful website. Getting readers to link to your site is everyday website promotion. A site about a word, santorum, and a politician, Santorum, is a success when it shows up on top in the search results for the words the site is about. Gacurr (talk) 03:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
i respectfully disagree with Becritical. there is no consensus for any of the renaming suggestions. since there is no consensus for a new title, the old title should be retained, imo. -badmachine 11:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I didn't say that, I said it had the most, meaning it had more than the others. BECritical__Talk 17:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Btw, I agree that there is no present consensus for any title. Is this one tolerable until we reach consensus? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You'll never solve this

I have read through only some of the above; I think you guys are trying to untie that famous knot. The problem is not the title of this article, the problem is that the name/word "Santorum" is in it, and any accurate title will contain it. The only way to get rid of that is deploying Alexander the Great's solution. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You have completely misunderstood the problem. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think so. But then explain it to me in two or three sentences; I seem to have missed it in these long discussions. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
The last thing this situation needs is Jimbo or the Arbitration committee, or anybody flourishing their sabres, when the tedious process of argument and compromise is working. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
? You lost me. Where did I mention any of that? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Seems I have completely misunderstood you. :) I thought you were recommending solving this intractable problem with a bold stroke. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Somehow, yes, but not the one you were inferring: Looking at the section you started below, we are actually not so far apart. If one wants this article to be about the neologism, then the name will have to be in the title; the "bold stroke" is getting away from the name or the person and focusing on the incident — I realize now that the remark about "any accurate title" was confusing... should have written "any accurate title which focuses on the person". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

What is this article about?

This article is about a very funny and successful and notable search engine bomb. The article is about that, the sources are about that. It is not, nor should it be on both notability and relevance grounds, about the failed launching of a neologism. The notable, historic even, event here is the bombing. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You forgot to use the word Google in your last sentence. Anyway, we discussed whether this is a Google bombing or not above. It isn't. It is standard, albeit very successful, optimization of a website's ranking in search results. Gacurr (talk) 07:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
The term 'santorum' versus 'omg'
The term 'santorum' versus 'bling'
The term 'santorum' versus 'lolcat'
It is definitely a neologism, but there's no way to tell where the name of the Senator starts and the neologism begins because Google Trends only goes back to 2004. So really since even lolcat tends to kick its butt (and this is with the Senator being included in the results), I'd have to say as a neologism, its pretty weak.

-- Avanu (talk) 08:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Gacurr, many of our sources describe it as a bomb. It, "Google/search engine bomb," is a neologism and its meaning seems to include this prank. But that's beside my point. This article and its sources are about Savage's search engine prank, not about a failed attempt to launch a neologism.
Avanu, it's a neologism. A failed neologism. Where's the scholarly commentary? What dictionary is it in? For a while Partridge dictionary of slang was being touted as mentioning the word. Then, when an editor got hold of the book, it turned out the editors had rejected it as not notable, and declined to include it in its alphabetical listing. The neologism is not notable outside Savage's notable prank. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I see your point, Anthony. I think it is a good argument in favor of it losing its status as neologism (in Wikipedia). However, it has been covered in media as a neologism, and so that argues it back the other way. As many editors have said, this shouldn't be about the neologism angle anyway, it should be about the event. So not sure why we're debating this. -- Avanu (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I was agreeing with you, but you picked up on my very irritated state of mind which I carried over from elsewhere. :) Sorry 'bout that. I'm going to have a Milo and let this go for a while. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I think the present name is a marked improvement from "Santorum Google problem", or indeed from any title with Google in the name. It is awkward but not misleading. Wnt (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't match the title

Read the article and it's sections, and try making sense of them with the new title:

  • The "Recognition and usage of the term" section (it's a term? I thought it was a campaign?)
  • The "Coining" section (you can coin a campaign?)
  • The "Response" section: Philadelphia Weekly reported in 2006 that Santorum "was forced to acknowledge the word existed." (underline mine)
  • There are 22 uses of the phrase "the term" in the article.

It follows, from the above, that the article is documenting a new linguistic mode of usage for an utterance which is also a surname. To remedy the issue under the current title, the article would need to be rewritten to describe Dan Savage's campaign itself. However, the linguistic usage of the term described within this article is independent of the surname itself, and is assuredly notable. This is true notwithstanding any misgivings that editors may have about the associations that its definition entails.

Some editors have argued that the word is not in wide usage, and thus should not be falsely construed as such. This is eminently reasonable, but it does not negate the fact that a notable linguistic mode of usage for "santorum" exists in the first place, which should be documented (and already is, as written). What we must communicate in the title is that the term is a proto-word, one which has not yet obtained permanent and respected status in the english language (and perhaps never will.) This happens to be the definition of a neologism (according to us, "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.")

Ironically, it is actually less damaging for Santorum the senator (with a capital "S") if there is an article about the subject of this new linguistic mode of usage (lower case "s"), to disambiguate its definition from him personally. At some point, those unfamiliar with the senator who use the term "santorum" in a conversation will query a search engine to find more information about the term, only to find an article about Santorum himself. This couldn't be closer to what Dan Savage would have intended: de facto defamation.

Due to these facts, I suggest a title that more acurately describes the nature of this linguistic mode of usage: {{center|{{Requested move/dated|Santorum (nonce word)}}

Campaign for "santorum" neologismSantorum (nonce word) –}}

Quoting our own definition for nonce word:

A nonce word is a word used only "for the nonce"—to meet a need that is not expected to recur. [...] Nonce words frequently arise through the combination of an existing word with a familiar prefix or suffix, in order to meet a particular need (or as a joke). The result is a special kind of pseudoword: although it would not be found in any dictionary, it is instantly comprehensible (e.g., Bananaphone). If the need recurs (or the joke is widely enjoyed), nonce words easily enter regular use just because their meaning is obvious.

I feel that this title is a fair comprimise, because it doesn't attempt to give the term more credibility than it deserves. However, it still acknowledges that it is a linguistic term in usage, regardless of the spontaneous and whimsical nature of its realization.

I implore wikipedians not to sacrifice specificity at the hand of a misplaced desire to act as gatekeepers of the zeitgeist. We can not undo the history which has lead to the linguistic formation and usage of this proto-term. It is not our place to ignore or deny the existence of phenomena if they offend our sensibilities; it is, however, incumbent upon us to document them. (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

'Nonce' has distinctly unwelcome overtones to British ears. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your cultural perspective, Sam. Some possible alternatives are Santorum (coined term) or Santorum (term). We could also go the route of Santorum (jargon) or perhaps even Santorum (sexual jargon). After all, the domain of this term's usage is generally sexual in nature. My primary concern is that this article is properly labelled as a linguistic phenomenon. However much we may disagree with how it was introduced, it still used as a term (whose usage this article discusses). (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Also, for those interested, there is a discussion of the origin of the term "nonce word" here, on the Oxford University Press's website. It was coined by James Murray in the 1880s, an editor of the Oxford English Dictionary. (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

There is already a discussion on the title going on up above. I suggest that this RM be closed, and this title be added to the existing section. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please do it. BECritical__Talk 17:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes plese. I got frustrated how that naming discussion got completelly overlooked in the recent flood of words. Please lets higlight it is somehow. Make RfC from it or something. To avoid ambuguity I mean #Back to the re-naming issue section --Reo + 19:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
This sounds preposterous according to the definition above. No one would know what "santorum" means without hearing the definition; it's not like "bananaphone" which needs no definition. This is just more ideological wreckage strewn across the battlefield. Wnt (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Bananaphone was an example given, but nonce words needn't be compound words (e.g. Quark or Sniglet). As I understand it, the characterization is more about how the word was formed and how widely it is used, rather than whether it conforms to an self-descriptive structure. (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I've just stumbled on another alternative that I'd be perfectly happy with: Santorum (stunt word). According to The Concise Oxford companion to the English language:

Stunt Word. An informal term for a word created and used to produce a special effect or attract attention, as if it were part of the performance of a stunt man or a conjuror.

Our article on stunt words is still just a stub, though. Others: Santorum (fad word), Santorum (slang). (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Quibble. I think this is the right direction; but nonce word has a strong implication of "used once" - that's the etymology- and that's not the case. Support santorum (coined word).
    As for the overall section; this is professedly a temporary title. Rewriting to match it would be silly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • support. since the article must be renamed, this seems like a good option. -badmachine 23:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Is this really any different than the original title of Santorum (neologism)? Also, what is the point of having another move discussion, when the previous RfC was summarily ignored? Gigs (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion for evaluating title options

I was thinking about whether or not there might be a rule of thumb we could use to help evaluate options for titling this page. It occurred to me that WP:BEGINNING might help—the Manual of Style guideline on the first sentence of an article. One thing the first line should do is use the term and "give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist."

Right now, we have "The Santorum Google problem is the result of a Google bombing campaign by American advice columnist Dan Savage in response to controversial statements regarding the US Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas made by then Republican U.S. Senator Rick Santorum from Pennsylvania."

Okay, so what happens if someone does a web search and that sentence is the only snippet they have to evaluate whether or not to click the link? Someone who doesn't already know about the "Santorum Google problem" is not going to be helped out by that sentence. It says how the problem came about, but not what it is. Frankly, I'm not positive how I could write a clear, concise sentence beginning "The Santorum Google problem is...", meet the WP:BEGINNING rules, and be English I'd be proud to own.

So, this is the rule-of-thumb I'd like to suggest:

Perhaps this could help separate some of the wheat from the chaff. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh... and it seems to me like that first sentence would therefore pretty much have to use the term santorum somehow, because that's what Santorum's "Google problem" is, after all. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Nice point. Maybe you'd like to suggest an opening sentence that sums up what this article is about. That sentence may, in turn, help suggest an appropriate title. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Very well put. Once we rename, we need to rewrite in a way which does not take into consideration outside implications. We are not violating BLP by clearly defining the issue in the first sentence. It may well be that we'll pare this article down to a mergeable length, but we have to start off just writing a good article, the same as we'd write any other. Your suggestion here is a good start on both the rename and the rewrite. By this standard,
Title: "Dan Savage's campaign to make Senator Rick Santorum's last name a word for anal discharge." Which shortens to Campaign to make "santorum" a neologism
First sentence: "The Campaign for "santorum" neologism is a campaign started by American advice columnist Dan Savage to make Republican U.S. Senator Rick Santorum's last name into a word meaning "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex"
The above might be taken as an argument to make the title "Rick Santorum's Google problem." It shows that we're really making things up by using that title.
Title: Rick Santorum's Google problem
First sentence: Rick Santorum's Google problem is the result of a campaign started by American advice columnist Dan Savage to make Republican U.S. Senator Rick Santorum's last name into a word meaning "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex." This definition garners very high search engine rankings for any search of the Senator's name.
Mmmmmmmmmmmm.......... needs editing. But it works better than the first one. 'Spreading santorum' campaign probably works better:
First sentence: The spreading santorum' campaign is a campaign started by American advice columnist Dan Savage to make Republican U.S. Senator Rick Santorum's last name into a word meaning "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex." This definition garners very high search engine rankings for any search of the Senator's name. BECritical__Talk 07:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me the notable and relevant part of this story is the fact that Savage got a page saying "Santorum is a mix of fecal matter and lube" to rise to the top of search engine results for "santorum." This is what confronts all who google the name, and this is the essence of Santorum's problem. Perhaps Dan Savage's "santorum" Google bomb is closest to this. The lead sentences would then be something like,

In 2003, offended by comments on homosexuality by then US senator Rick Santorum, syndicated columnist Dan Savage orchestrated a campaign to promote a page defining "santorum" as (definition) to the top of search engine results for that term. Dan Savage's "santorum" Google bomb has since received significant media coverage, and his embarrassing page has consistently ranked at or near the top of search engine results for "Santorum" and "Rick Santorum."

I understand some argue that it is SEO, and Google bombing is something different. But Google bombing is a neologism whose meaning is still forming, and certainly many of our sources use the term in this way. Alternatively, we could call it a Google prank, as some sources have. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I would go with something like 'The campaign for santorum neologism is the attempt to define santorum as "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex", started by United States sex-advice columnist Dan Savage through his syndicated column and website, as a commentary on United States politician Rick Santorum's controversial public stance regarding homosexuality.' as a first cut. I think it has the virtue of summing the thing up and giving the reader the option to bail out now while still having the core of the thing. Let's face it, a fair number of people will want to pull that ripcord early after taking Jon Stewart's dare to Google "santorum"... // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Another option I like a lot less: 'Rick Santorum's "Google problem" describes the results of a Google search for the term "santorum" in 2011, which would return as the highest-ranked result a website created by American sex-advice columnist Dan Savage defining the term as "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex" as commentary on American politician Rick Santorum's controversial public stance on homosexuality, rather than links relevant to Santorum himself or his political campaigns.' The problem here is that I can't figure out how to work in the fact that the Google-problem phrase is one coined by the press and used somewhat widely without making the sentence clunky. Plus, it comes off sounding like we're admitting to using an euphemism, and that still rubs me the wrong way. Encyclopedias don't use euphemisms. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The "Santorum Google problem" title is something pushed on this article without consensus, which even Jehochman admits is a lousy title. We've heard some much better proposals many times but only an admin will make a move, and probably only if it's to an even worse title than this. So let's just make redirects from our favorite names and pointedly ignore what the article is presently titled, and make the best introductory sentence we can without regard to it. Wnt (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I figured I'd try writing that one just to get a benchmark for "awkward". As I wrote it, it came to me that most of the "*campaign*" titles could be slotted into the first sentence, and most of the "*problem*" titles into the second one. I had to throw it down in wikitext, just to see how it would look.... didn't make me like it any more. I still think the first one makes a better lede, and I can see in my head how I could write an article proceeding from that open pretty easily. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy to make the move given some form of consensus, or even partial consensus just to see if people can live with it as a compromise. We need a bit more consensus than we have though. BECritical__Talk 18:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree a title should be clear. Crystal clear. "Problem", "campaign", "neologism", "controversy" - there are quite a few people here determined to sanitize the title (and article) and imply it was some innocent attempt to coin a new word, or to engage respectably in a political campaign by spreading "relevant information", or to blame the victim (as in, it's Santorum's problem, not that of Savage et al), or to imply there are two sides as to whether this was any sort of attack at all. As opposed to calling a spade a spade: this was an attack using cyberbullying as the weapon. Not all of you are arguing in good faith, and it's absurd for me to pretend you are. You want to be insulting, condescending, and dismissive of those pointing out facts? Your choice. Flatterworld (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You could argue the exact same point the opposite way, that calling the event a "problem" or "controversy" ignores the elephant in the room, Santorum's homophobic comments and opposition to human rights for gays, something akin to calling it Anita Bryant's perception issues or Jeffrey Dahmer's peculiar culinary choices. Santorum is hardly a victim to his fight with gay rights supporters, and as a U.S. politician is no stranger to wars of words with political opponents. There are obviously plenty of people on the other side, who do sympathize with and support in Savage's activism or who participate on the issue without respect to Savage's personal involvement. We get the point, you believe Santorum has been aggrieved here. Others by their statements think the same. Plenty of others hare no doubt think Santorum is the disgrace, not Savage. We all have our personal opinions, and it is not bad faith to hold them even as they influence the perceptions through which we judge the underlying facts behind Wiipedia articles. But it's not our place to settle scores, and few if any of the sources do either. We can just lay out the facts, without adding value judgments that allow opinions to find their way into articles. Santorum said X. Savage did Y. The public did Z. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

::Anita Bryant's views were covered in her article (hardly a surprise). Are you suggesting we follow that precedent and merge this article into the Dan Savage article? Karl Rove's political attacks are covered in his article - same precedent. Look. We don't have a separate article for every effort to disagree with Rick Santorum's views, or other politicians' views, so there must be something unique about this effort in order to justify it imo, this has become notorious enough to have its own article almost entirely because of its effect on SERPs. It's a first, I believe. Instead of simply "preaching to the choir", Savage's efforts now appear to anyone and everyone searching for either 'Santorum' or 'Rick Santorum'. Do you disagree with that? That's what makes it unique, but it doesn't necessarily follow that it should be the name of the article. You characterize this as a "war of words", but you're not using the term as most people would define it: a discussion or debate. This is an attack, by association, with a made-up word intended from the start to be known to everyone so when they thought of the person they would simultaneously think of this definition. It works because 'Santorum' is an unusual search term. Thee aren't thousands of people with that name, or organizations, or even similar non-proper nouns. You don't get my point. Your point seems to be confusing your opinion of somemone with their right (or non-right) to be attacked in this way. I believe in civility as in do unto others as you would have them do unto you. As soon as you start claiming this attack is peachy-keen because Santorum isn't a real person "like the rest of us", you heading down a slippery slope. Which should not exist in Wikipedia, imo. Wikipedia should stand for a flat and level world. Hence my username. Hence my interest in ensuring the title of this article is reality-based. Savage has stated, over and over again, what his purpose was in creating his Spreading Santorum website. You refuse to acknowledge that fact. That's a problem. Flatterworld (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Conservative politician assails gay rights. Gay columnist assails conservative politician. Hilarity historically unique search engine results and new sexual term ensue. We have plenty of articles about conflicts and feuds between different people and groups that are separate from the articles about the individuals. That's the neutral part of it. I would argue that calling it a "problem" held by Santorum and calling it an "attack" launched by Savage are equally lopsided because they add value judgments and tell the story from the perspective of one side or the other. That distracts from what it is, a chain of actions and events with a particular outcome. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Will you agree that Rick Santorum's statement was an attack using legal bullying as the weapon? Santorum used his voice and power; Savage used his voice and power back. The difference being, only one would have taxpayers paying to lock up the other. Wnt (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

::I don't think so. Santorum would like to pass laws marginalizing various groups of people, and he states his views, but I'm unaware of anything he's done beyond that in the sense of trying to game the current legal system. "Lock up people"? We're talking about what Savage IS doing, you're talking about what Santorum would (presumably) like to do. There's a difference. We have free speech. He talks. People listen. They then decide to vote for someone else. That's how it works. Maybe some of you are so desperate to attack him because you think the US is in imminent danger of electing him President, so "all's fair in love and war"? Flatterworld (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Wnt's point, but I'll add the question that seems to me to be even more relevant: Flatterworld, is it your contention that everyone who's arguing in good faith must agree with you that "cyberbullying" is an objectively accurate description of the Savage campaign? For my part, I think it pretty clearly is not an accurate description. I think it's an opinion, and a poorly founded one at that. People can in good faith hold that opinion. The tougher question arises if a longtime Wikipedian wants the title or article text to assert that opinion as a fact. I'm inclined to say that this can still be good faith, although it's probably because some people are so blinded by their animosity toward Savage's actions that they've momentarily lost sight of NPOV. JamesMLane t c 19:17 June 2011 (UTC)

:::IF you read the link I provided earlier for the definition of cyberbullying ("Creating websites, videos or social media profiles that embarrass, humiliate, or make fun of others"), and IF you don't believe that describes what Savvage has done...well, I'd like to hear your explanation. If I described a horse and someone insisted it must be a tree, I'd say the same thing. imo someone may well be "blinded" here but it's not me. I was one of Savage's strongest supporters for his efforts against bullying, especially the It Gets Better Project. I still am. I had hopes he would make the connection with his own behavior and use an alternate way to discourage people from supporting Santorum. Using issues, not name-calling. I continue to live in hope. ;-) But if Savage is determined to continue his cyber-bulling attack, then I'll continue fighting it. Because cyber-bullying is wrong. Period. Flatterworld (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Even if we agreed, this would still be our WP:SYNTHESIS, until it became consensus that this applied.
Should satire and mockery of minors be restricted or banned entirely? Probably, and that is what the website you link to supports; minors are often not fully responsible numan beings, and over-react. But Rick Santorum is 53, and running for President of the United States. Does he have low self-esteem? Is he using drugs because of this? Is he skipping school? If so, God help him when he reads the Economist or AL-Jazeera, even before Inauguration Day.
This proposal would appear to be that we not recognize (and, since it's an ethical claim, that we individually go out and stop) satire, mockery, and political parody over the Internet. If it were parody of children, you'd have a case; are you claiming Santorum is a child? If not, this is a call for the restoration of scandalum magnatum. I think that deeply immoral, as well as illegal in most English-speaking countries, and I beseech you to desist. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Without commenting on the merits of this, I just have to point out that these Santorums are certainly children, and seem to have fallen by the wayside in this "campaign", but I'm sure the children they go to school with would never use this article to make fun. Nah, just wouldn't happen would it? And if did, without WP:RS it's just be WP:OR and meaningless here, eh? That strikes me as a problem. Dreadstar 21:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Which is scandalum magnatum limited to good family men. How charming. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The claim that this is in any way even remotely related to scandalum magnatum is a charming absurdity; and I still don't see the concern for the children named Santroum in your comment, you seem to only focus on one sigular person. I assure you, this affects much more than that one person. This is an attack-article that helps perpetuate the attack, plain and simple. And yes, I believe it's cyber-bullying and hypocricy by the initiator of this attack - no RS for it, but that's obviously the case. Dreadstar 21:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
But think of the children? Oh, come now. Please do not adopt the slogan of every hypocrite since the promoters of Little St. Hugh of Lincoln: "if we don't suppress whatever I want to suppress, the little children will suffer". By this argument, we would delete nigger and all similar articles; go suggest that change of policy first. No, we have no duty to remove all evidence of notable attacks on public figures, and those with living children are no exceptions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding me; yeah go ahead and cherry-pick my arguments and rebuttals in an attempt to undercut the legitimate points made; in the end, you're wrong and the concerns I and others raise are completely legitimate, while comparisons to nigger, Hitler's Balls and scandalum magnatum are out of whack. There's little to no chance the unsourced cyber-bullying synthesis will affect the title, but I have indeed suggested policy changes or a ruling to reflect the purpose and meaning of the project, because we certainly have a duty to do no harm and this stand-alone attack-article is harmful to the extreme. And yeah, don't think of the children, that's exactly the point I made. Nice. Dreadstar 22:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)thought exercise Before you jump into the forget about the children mode, I ask you to consider this for a moment. Consider that your last name is really "Anderson". Consider that you have a 12 year old in school where the class uses Wikipedia as a research tool. Consider that a sex-columnist equated your last name to some sort of anal discharge. And then consider how you would feel if your son/daughter came home crying about being tormented about an "encyclopedic" article .. it's Wikipedia, therefore... it must be fact. I'd ask that you consider this for a moment before you continue along the line of debate which you are currently engaged. Thank you for your time. — Ched :  ?  22:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Very well put, Ched; much better than my attempt...although I fear it won't make any difference in this particular case. Dreadstar 22:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Using the children as a criterion for inclusion amounts to censorship. An example on point is Dirty Sanchez. Wikipedia has kept this article since 2004, despite the problem it may present to those with the surname or those who find the subject matter objectionable. Gacurr (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
That's a load of BS, Gacurr. Echoing others, just what other accounts do you edit from? Dreadstar 22:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
You seem to be suggesting that we may need to amend the rules in order to act with a higher level of decency and kindness in cases like this. Do you or anyone else have any suggestions as to how the rules should change? BECritical__Talk 22:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Flatterworld, I appreciate your giving me an answer to my question, but your answer is, IMO, indefensible. You refer to "the" definition as if we're all bound by it. If it's a fair reading of that page to wrench the definition out of context and apply it to political disputes between adults (even adults who have children), then the definition is preposterous. If you disagree, I invite you to mosey on over to John Kerry military service controversy and urge that it be retitled Cyberbullying of John Kerry (after all, people created a website designed to embarrass Senator Kerry, with the added touch that, unlike Dan Savage, they included lies about their target). After you finish sticking up for a Democrat the way you're sticking up for a Republican, we can doubtless find plenty of other Wikipedia articles that describe political disputes and that can be given the same treatment. JamesMLane t c 21:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

:::::I think I see where the problem is. First, you obviously haven't checked my edit history if you think I've been partisan in my campaign against the Lee Atwater-Karl Rove school of 'campaigning' (which has, of course, been used mostly against Democrats). Of course the campaign against Kerry was filled with lies, but it was filled with lies about an actual topic (his military service) as opposed to making up a word which had nothing to do with Kerry. iow, it was a controversy, as people who served (and didn't serve) with Kerry said different things at different times. The point was to separate the facts from the lies from the spin from the misunderstandings. We're talking about the title of THIS article now, which means "how is it best described?" - which is why imo 'campaign', 'problem', 'controversy' et al are euphemisms. This isn't a campaign against Santorum's views on government and legislation, it's strictly a personal attack. That's all it is. There's no discussion to be had, or debate to engage in, no 'facts' to argue - just an IHATEYOU statement which Savage has encouraged people to take part in. All we're missing are the torches and pitchforks. That needs to be reflected in the title of the article, as well as in the body of the article. It's the most notable thing about this, along with the SEO techniques. Flatterworld (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, your response just reeks of POV. You pointed me to what you called "the" definition of cyberbullying. In response, I pointed out that applying that definition to political disputes among adults would produce absurd results. Your reply is to make up some criteria that aren't found in "the" definition. Your personal opinion is that a mocking of Santorum's views -- views he actually did express -- is "strictly a personal attack" and is despicable. Lying about the facts of someone's career may also upset you but clearly not as much. My opinion happens to be to the contrary, but of course both our opinions are irrelevant. Our exchange has very well highlighted my point: that the application of the term "cyberbullying" to the Spreading Santorum campaign is very far from an objective fact, is only an opinion, and is an opinion that has a great deal to be said against it. I have no objection to the inclusion of the "cyberbullying" whine (which is how I see it), provided that it's not stated as a fact but is merely in the context of reporting a significant opinion, properly attributed and cited. Wikipedia should not state as a fact that Savage engaged in cyberbullying, any more than it should state as a fact that this criticism of Savage is a meritless whine. JamesMLane t c 05:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to stop talking about the morals of the situation, if we're going to make headway here (under the current rules). Santorum made some horrible remarks, abusing power other humans gave him. Savage did the same thing. They're both pricks and deserve what they get... at least by the morals of various people here. But it really doesn't help us much in writing this article. However, we can try and pick a title which hits as few of these buttons as possible, and if we look for that kind of title we might agree that it narrows the list to only a few acceptable ones. BECritical__Talk 23:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC) :Except we're NOT talking about "the morals of the situation" as you describe them. As least I'm not. Flatterworld (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Rewriting to match the title

I think that all tweaking of the title aside, there is general agreement that this article needs to be about the campaign by Savage and others. Thus, we could begin rewriting the article with that in mind, even while we see if there is a better title than the current one. So my questions are, what needs to change in the article? How does it need to be tweaked to be about a campaign? Are the sources good, well used? BECritical__Talk 17:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this is the right approach. I think a good title discussion can be held after a rewrite to match the prevailing consensus that there is no actual neologism here, but rather an attempt to create one. The current title (at this instant) is Campaign for "santorum" neologism - that seems as good a working title as any, and I hope that we don't have too many changes over the next few days as we work to improve the article. My view is that the title ought to mention Mr. Savage's name, but not Mr. Santorum's - but that debate can wait until we see how the article looks in a few days time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I cannot agree; there is no consensus that there is no neologis here. That's a POV on what the essence of this article is, and what "neologism" means; it's not universal even on this talk page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Let me speak more carefully then. The claim that there is a neologism here does not have consensus, and the title should not push the idea that there is one.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Whether or not it is a neologism by some definition, what makes the word and the associated campaign notable is the coverage given to the impact on Rick Santorum. Whatever the title ends up being, I think it should reflect that fact. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
It's true that santorum is a neologism to whatever extent. The general consensus is that a separate article about it is not justified under WP rules, but an article about the whole campaign may be. BECritical__Talk 21:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
while i am in favor of the old title, i suggest the absence of quote marks in the title, e.g. [[Campaign for santorum neologism]] instead of [[Campaign for "santorum" neologism]]. -badmachine 21:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC) [edit: retracted the struck out part] -badmachine 00:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Then the neologism might be "Campaign for santorum" rather than "santorum." BECritical__Talk 21:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
good point. -badmachine 00:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, there is a neologism (an odd one, there are some other suggestions above about what to call it) that was coined as part of a campaign by advocates offended by Santorum's comments. There's no obvious consensus not to have an article, or that the entire thing should be phrased as somebody's advocacy campaign rather than the results of that campaign. Expunging the article of that material could be seen as "deletion by rewrite", an end run around the failed deletion attempts, and posing this as Savage's deal rather than Santorum's is, as people have noted, a POV exercise. If you take this all the way back, we have: (1) a Supreme court case on a gay (and straight, as the court ruled) civil rights issue, followed by (2) remarks by a politician that greatly offended some gay activists, followed by (3) "revenge" (per one source) in the form of a historically novel campaign to tarnish the politician's name, followed by (4) actual tarnishment of the politician's name and (5) a new term ostensibly about body fluids but really about anti-gay attitudes. I'm not necessarily saying we should have a separate article, or focus the entire material, on point #4, but those are all parts of the unfolding series of events - focusing it entirely on #3 seems just as lopsided. Where do you draw the circle or circles around that subject matter? - Wikidemon (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
That sounds like an argument for merging the content here with Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality. However since that has failed before, I'd like to know if people think this article is properly sourced and written if it's about the campaign generally and its background, and save any merging issue till later. BECritical__Talk 22:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Also, re the scope of the article, I think we can have a broader scope than the title would imply so since all those things you mention are background, we could have it under the current title. It's just a matter of whether we're using sources well. BECritical__Talk 22:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, could be. It might be reasonable to deal with this as part of that controversy (issues #1 and #2 out of 5, above), though I don't know that everyone would support that. I mentioned above that titles cannot always encompass everything that's in the article, they just have to satisfy some concerns (see WP:TITLE)including being recognizable and letting the reader know precisely and concisely what the article is going to be about. Precise and fully encompassing are different things. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to the immutable law of unintended consequences and the ongoing efforts of certain forces trying to bury this article, the latest no-real-consensus name now causes this to pop up as the #2 entry when you search for "santorum campaign". So, there's that. - Dravecky (talk) 06:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

::Well, thanks to the immutable law of ITCOULDALWAYSBEWORSE, if I hadn't redirected Santorum campaign from this article to his presidential campaign article, it might have been #1. ;-) But yes, that's a definite problem and based on that, 'campaign' should not be part of the eventual name. Flatterworld (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


Suggested introductory edit...

In 2003 and in response to then United States Senator Rick Santorum's controversial statements regarding homosexuality, sex advice columnist Dan Savage initiated a web-based campaign to establish "santorum" as a vulgar neologism. During an April 2003 interview, Santorum asserted that consenting adults do not have a constitutional right to privacy with respect to sexual acts because, in his view, certain acts—specifically polygamy, adultery, and sodomy—undermine society and the family.[1] Savage, a gay rights activist, subsequently asked the readers of his "Savage Love" column to coin a definition for "santorum," and announced the winner as "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex".[2]

Comments? Improvements? JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

  • It reads quite well and it is essentially accurate (except one point, see later), but it is little confusing, it doesnt follow clearly how the subject of the article and title of the article are related. (as in example WP:BEGINNING#cite_note-1)
    • The other point is, that Savage launched campaign quite more broadly or at least was taken further by others not just on the internet, or even related to one web page. (and that is what the formulation implicates). The vulgar neologism got in to printed books, some (slang, fringe, urban) dictionaries, as it seemss from sources mentioned by someone above and in the text (What I say is that the the campaign is predominantly web based, but not entirelly web based).
Also to bring statement of Rick Santorum on the very begging gives pretty much highlight to him in the introduction instead of the campaign or Savage. He belongs there, but somehow it doesnt feel right for me, that he in the very begining of the article about that event.Reo + 13:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • This is greatly improved, thank you! BECritical__Talk 14:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
@Reo On
What I say is that the the campaign is predominantly web based, but not entirelly web based.
Reo, "web-based" (which might be better than "website-based"...I'll amend it) does not imply that the campaign wasn't subsequently noted in other media venues (eg. print, news, talk radio, TV commentary etc etc) only that its genesis was Savage's "online" activism which, IMHO, prior introductory edits already appeared to be addressing (I was attempting to copy-edit, not alter). Perhaps other editors can comment on whether the introductory warrants expansion as to the relative breadth or success of the campaign itself.
You missunderstood me here or maybe I lacked in description,.. by not being just web-based I did not mind the reactions in media venues, those are just reactive and they are not part of 'campaign', what I meant is that 1) the campaign itself started in printed media, 2) continued by starting new web-site but 3)many activists followed it by diversity of means, not just in internet as part of the campaign to establish it (just those silly books as mentioned before incorporating the term in the silliest vulgar way and so.Reo + 08:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
He (Rick Santorum) belongs there, but somehow it doesnt feel right for me, that he in the very begining of the article about that event.
Reo, the phrases can certainly be re-ordered (and they were in one of my earlier edits) but I think the current text reads significantly better. Also, your concern about the sequence of "name" appearances in what is, after all, the first sentence of the article strikes me as being of little consequence. Perhaps others might comment? JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Re having Rick Santorum in the first sentence, ask yourself what you'd do if you didn't have any outside concerns influencing your decisions. Of course Santorum and Savage are the main players, you mention them right away. Everyone here should read this. It would clear up a lot of objections. BECritical__Talk 16:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with "vulgar". Savage didn't use the vulgar/obscene phrases "shit" and "buttfucking"; he used the more clinical terms "fecal matter" and "anal sex". How much less vulgar could you be and still describe this phenomenon? Calling it a "sexual" or "sex-related" neologism will be quite enough to establish that it will be considered vulgar by the hyperprudes, without incorrectly asserting that it's undeniably vulgar. JamesMLane t c 17:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Changed it. BECritical__Talk 18:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Changed it back per your edit summary on sourcing. I'm rather confident there are more but I would think even proponents should be willing to concede the "vulgarity" of the term. Perhaps not.
Be that as it may, can we please come to some consensus on this before further editing?JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
A phenomenon implies significance. There's no significance to this 'event', it's severely restricted and a non-event. Which is part of what makes the appellation 'neologism' entirely problematic. Dreadstar 19:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Sigh. Not at all; a phenomenon is "A thing which appears, or which is perceived or observed"; an observable. This can be observed in sources independent of Savage; the article documents that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Sure, cherry-pick from the online definitions you read, that's sure to impress the scholars who truly understand the etymology, history and usage of a word. By your narrow definition, everything is a phenomenon - which is quite contrary to the purpose of the word. In your selective case, the mundane becomes a phenomenon. Dreadstar 20:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
My apologies. I should have realized that you are applying the logic of Humpty Dumpty, in which words mean what you want them to mean, the OED is some "on-line dictionary" or other, and φαίνω "seem, see" has nothing to do with the meaning of phenomenon. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Nice sarcastic strawman; but I see you get my meaning. Dreadstar 21:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Sir, I do not. You have now redefined both "phenomenon" and "neologism" to suit your turn. Enough, Sir; this is "such learning as a college will easily" deride. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
LOL! Your comment provoked quite a few laughs amongst my literary collegues, not a one at my expense...thank you very much.  :) Dreadstar 21:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
What about neologism is an issue here?
"A neologism (/nˈɒləɪzəm/; from the Greek νέο-, néo-, "new", and λόγος, lógos, "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."
Even the fully equivalent neolexia is a match. The Economist recognizes it. A 140-page scholarly thesis on neologism recognizes it. Roll Call recognizes it:
"Try it for yourself: Enter 'Rick Santorum' into Google. In a fraction of a second you’ll have hundreds of thousands of results. But two of the top four cite a graphic definition for a sexual neologism. In this case, the neologism is a reference to anal sex."
Where is the problem? Gacurr (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Gaccur you are here for whole - full time, you already saw all the arguments about neologism, why do you come to bring the same argument over and over even with similar structure of your sentence and comment. Could you please answer the arguments in /Archive_4#WP:NEO part first, debunk them? Just very short reminder - wp:Neo wp:BLP1E, what you do think, how do they fit in? This "neologism" choice you still promote is one big reverse wp:COATRACK. Reverse, because normally people try to hang wrong content on article with notability given. People fight over what will be connected to something given by title. This one is reverse COATRACK, where the content already provided is somehow notable, but it seems like if the folk tries to hang the "best" title for it. Different titles would give different results for SEO, so it does matter this time.
Gaccur I do not say You do it for this purpose, but piking neologism to the title does not give any sense, it pretends notability to the words, which does not exist. You saw the questions already. Where are the secondary sources to show, that the neologism has such an big usage, that it in it's own right became notable for encyclopedia? Show them and fit them with wp:Neo wp:BLP1E. Repeating again and again definition of neologism somehow tends me to repeat wp:Neo again and again. I hope I adressed your question where might be the problem. --Reo + 20:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
It's a problem with the copy/paste crowd of online-only content, "in the process of entering common use" isn't well understood. Adding on the misunderstanding of Wikpedia policies such as WP:N, WP:V and WP:OR, we have a huge article with 99% of it's content completely unrelated to any possible neologism that exists. Speaks volumes about WP:BIAS, WP:COMPETENCE, WP:UNDUE and WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. Dreadstar 21:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I am asking what the problem with neologism is, in response to another editor above saying that calling santorum a neologism is problematic. I am not arguing here for it to be the disambiguation term in the title. Is the entirety of the problem that some editors cannot see that santorum is notable, and thus, somehow, we cannot call it a neologism (which it is)? I do not see a BLP issue here. NEO concerns having an article, not calling a word a neologism. Gacurr (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

:So the claim here is that Savage's own description of the point of his contest for the word is irrelevant? What next - he actually intended it as a way to honor his favorite Congressman? (end snark) It's fairly clear (to most of us) that Savage wanted the word to be a 'vulgarism'. That doesn't mean one can't write a non-vulgar definition for it. I think we're losing the plot, here. Flatterworld (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

How about saying directly what the campaign was trying to establish, instead of worrying about whether it is vulgar, a neologism, defamatory, or anything else? ...a campaign to establish the phrase, "a frothy mix of (etc)" as a new definition for the term 'santorum'. The specific definition is very important for the lede, and can't easily be replaced by descriptions, summaries, euphemisms, etc. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Because leading off with "a frothy mix of (etc)" is unencylopedic? Yeah, I think that's it. Unencyclopedic and unnecessary. Describe it later, add images if you must. Surely there's a sound file?  :) Dreadstar 00:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Quite the opposite, it's the heart of the matter. Saying exactly what we're talking about is encyclopedic. Trying to figure out just what part of a 12-word phrase we want to summarize with a 2-word euphemism because the phrase is offensive is unencyclopedic. "Vulgar" sounds like we're prudish, judgmental, and afraid to say it. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
It's not the heart of the matter at all, to claim the vulgar (sourced!) phrasing is the heart of the issue is either a sign you don't really understand the nature of this issue or it's a disengenous attempt to derail this into something it's clearly not. Either way, bad news, and totally against WP:POLICY. Dreadstar 04:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
If you're going to accuse me of not understanding or being disingenuous, the discussion is over and you haven't convinced me. Consensus being necessary here, you've just lost the argument. Sorry.Striking the WP:BLABLABLA violation as I missed the good natured humor - Wikidemon (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC) - Wikidemon (talk) 06:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
In noting your comments here, I didn't expect to convince you. I was merely making an observation; facts are facts. Dreadstar 06:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe the point here is to have such an adjective which points out, that the new definition is humiliating (call it vulgar, unflattering, defamatory ... each has different flavor to it) rather then being connected to sex. That it is being connected to sex is true, but not so important. Agree with Flatterworld, Savage wanted it, to be pretty 'unflattering' as association. This is right to point in the lead section out somehow.

Vulgar neologism? Humiliating? demeaning? degrading?

Vulgar ? Humiliating? demeaning? degrading asociation? --Reo + 20:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Find a source on what Savage wanted that has any chance of being based on evidence, and see what it says. We've had enough speculation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
While "sexual" is obvious and doesn't need a source, I couldn't find any proper sources for "vulgar." The one quoted doesn't seem to directly refer to Savage's definition, though I can't load the full text. BECritical__Talk 21:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
While "sexual" is obvious and doesn't need a source, I couldn't find any proper sources for "vulgar."
Given the rather gruesome specifics of the "definition", "vulgar" strikes me as being more obvious and less in need of sourcing than "sexual". Be that as it may, there's no lack of references (is Santorum's own characterization non-RS?) to attributions of "vulgar" or "vulgarity" in a simple Google search though many (if not most or all) might be WP:RS problematic. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Vulgar isn't part of the definition given by Savage, sex is. The rest I agree with, and I thought Santorum's statement was not RS. But I don't really care about this lol. BECritical__Talk 01:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

:Comment. Here are all of Savage's columns referencing 'santorum'. The first four include: "Minor quibbles aside, SARS, I love your suggestion. There's no better way to memorialize the Santorum scandal than by attaching his name to a sex act that would make his big, white teeth fall out of his big, empty head. And don't doubt for a moment that Savage Love readers have the power to do just that." Later, the nominations. And the next month: "Hey, everybody: We have a winner. Savage Love readers, by a wide margin, want Sen. Rick Santorum's name to stand for... THAT FROTHY MIXTURE OF LUBE AND FECAL MATTER THAT IS SOMETIMES THE BYPRODUCT OF ANAL SEX! It was a landslide for that frothy mixture; the runner-up, farting in the face of someone who's rimming you, came in a distant second. So congratulations to WUTSAP, who nominated that frothy mixture, and a big thank you to the thousands who voted." about "as a neologism intended to shock and embarrass the politician as much as possible"? That was the point of the contest, was it not? And if you want something about the SEO effort, there's: "When you first linked Rick Santorum's name to [description of shitfoam deleted], I thought it would never stick. I was wrong. If you put "Santorum" into Google, the first three hits are to his Senate website, the next two are CNN, and the two after that are about that frothy mix. You might want to challenge all the computer geeks out there to make your santorum, not Senator Santorum's official website, the first thing that comes up on Google. (signed) Santorum on My Mind (reply) Good idea, SOMM. I hereby challenge computer geeks to move my definition of santorum to the top slot on Google." Links: 1, 2, 3, 4 [User:Flatterworld|Flatterworld]] (talk) 01:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Something like that may work, minus the "as much as possible". Shock" seems a little off, did Savage truly intend to surprise Santorum and even if so is that as significant as the effect of embarrassing and castigating him? A person in the public realm who announces they intend to X is not necessarily a reliable source for saying that is their purpose. "Anyway I think that getting to a sourced statement of the purpose of the campaign may be a good stand in, if for some reason people don't want to say specifically what the definition was. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

:::I wasn't thinking of 'shock' in the sense of 'surprise', as much as 'appall'. I don't really care about the specific word, we just want to be clear Savage didn't pick a definition at random (off the top of his head, so to speak), but ran a reader contest to come up with the word Santorum would least want to be associated with, perhaps? Flatterworld (talk) 01:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems clear the online campaign was "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass". It'll be interesting to see which words we choose. I think it's more instructive to say that's what the purpose was -- something we can source authoritatively -- than to describe how offensive it is, which is a matter of opinion and judgment. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Really? That's not what you said above, that "it's more instructive to say that's what the purpose was"; you clearly stated that the heart of the matter was the vulgar definition, frothy mix and all that. At least get your own story straight. Dreadstar 04:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
The part you have right is that I'm approving of a suggestion other than the one I made above. The subject of the article is that Savage launched a campaign to establish "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex" as a coined definition for "santorum", out of an objection to Santorum's statements. Failing that, it is correct and informative to instead say that Savage launched a campaign to define Santorum's name "as a [sexual] neologism intended to [shock and] embarrass the politician as much as possible". Either of these describes what happened and avoids opinion, embellishment, or euphemism. Posing the subject of the article as Savage's campaign to create a vulgar neologism is not quite correct, misses the point, and promotes an opinion about the vulgarity of the term as fact. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I understand the concept of saying one thing stongly and decisively, then changing it to another equally strong and decisive statement. Plus this gives the perfect opportunity to repeat that infamous mantra "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex", all together now... Dreadstar 06:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
That's nonresponsive. Listening to and perhaps being won over by alternate proposals like Flatterworld's is what article talk page consensus discussions are all about. You admit above that you're not discussing the matter with me but merely making "observations" in the form of verbal jabs, which I would not care to decipher. You can count my standing opposition to using "vulgar" or other subjective opinions to identify the subject. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the last was a feeble attempt to inject some humor into the thread. Fell flat. Apologies. Didn't mean to impugn your intelligence or integrity with my earlier comments. Frustrating venue, this one. Dreadstar 15:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, thanks. Sorry to be jumpy. Yes, there is surely humor to be found in adults quibbling over whether [would rather not repeat WP:YUCK violation] is "vulgar" or not. :) - Wikidemon (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

::::::: Vulgar: 1. Lacking sophistication or good taste; unrefined: "the vulgar trappings of wealth". 2. Making explicit and offensive reference to sex or bodily functions; coarse and rude: "a vulgar joke" I have no particular problem with using the word 'vulgar', but Wikidemon does. Fortunately, there are many other words and phrases in the English language. I would say the important points are what Savage's intention was (including ridiculing the politician himself rather than his issue positions), when it started, in reaction to what (and we need some clarity on whether Santorum was stating what the legal system WAS and/or his belief it should continue in that line), his method (read contest), his encouragement of his readers to make it the first result on Google (as opposed to some off-the-cuff 'online campaign'), and that it's an ongoing, active campaign (eight years is a long time for such a campaign). Flatterworld (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I was thinking of the first definition above, which you've got to admit expresses an opinion. The second is a verifiable factual assertion, and clearly true in this case. I'd argue that because "vulgar" can be interpreted either way, as an expression of dislike or as a statement that something is scatological, makes it imprecise here. Plus it is at least slightly archaic. It's hard to imagine anybody younger than 40 using that word with a straight face in my part of the world. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I've changed "vulgar" to "sex-related". We quote Santorum's response, calling it a vulgarity, so we're reporting that notable opinion without adopting it as fact. We also quote the opinion of a Christian writer who calls it "disgusting". The term "sex-related" will instantly give the reader a general idea of the term's subject area. JakeInJoisey says that the accuracy of "vulgar" strikes him as obvious, presumably from the text of the "frothy mixture" definition itself. If so, because we quote that definition, the readers to whom it is obvious will know it without any spoonfeeding from us. JamesMLane t c 00:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts on renaming

I waited 10+ days for the RFC to mature before renaming. Within 24 hours SarekofVulcan did a second rename based upon counting a handful of votes. I don't think that was a good idea because it invites turning this article title into a game of ping pong. What's to stop another admin from coming in 24 hours later and renaming again, and so on. It would be a good idea to wait at least 7 days for discussion to mature before doing any more renames. It probably would be a good idea for Sarek to reverse the page move in order to minimize controversy and prevent further premature moves.

I've been slow to respond because I was camping at Coolidge State Park, where there is no Internet whatsoever. Jehochman Talk 12:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question, nothing at all -- in fact, I sort of expected it. As long as each admin's choice reflects the developing consensus, I don't see a problem with multiple renames during the course of the discussion. I agree that the consensus that has formed is that the article should be about the googlebomb/campaign/whatever you want to call it, so any rewrites due to changing titles should be minor at this point. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that that is consensus; the POV that this "really is" the Google bombing (whereas "campaign" includes the distribution of a meme, for example) is aggrieved and has been heard from often and loudly. But I support the straw poll proposal some sections below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

Please rename this to anything with those god-awful quotation marks. Reywas92Talk 13:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to burry your comment, so I rather indent a lot. I am troubled, that after the RfC was closed, people stoped to have any interest in the renaming debate. Only when the move is going, or is threatening to happen, people swarm back and have sometimes even quite interesting observations. But those observation should be somehow centralised and juxtaposed and we need some organized effort to move forward. Should we Call some RfC for renaming? RM? Or we need just to highlight the discussion above? Not just votes, comment on different title options are needed. If not, then just wp:BRDs would be all we could expect here to happen. Reo + 13:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

We had a good RFC going on, then Sarek, who is now involved in the issue[4][5], came along and reversed my administrative action. There really should be a new RFC, or RM discussion, and we should reset the title to the result of the prior RFC (like it or not). Advertising the discussion is very important. We need more input, not just the same editors restating their opinions more and more loudly. We also need admins to respect each other's actions, per WP:WHEEL, and not impose personal views, per WP:UNINVOLVED.

Key points to consider:

For the moment, editors should discuss what the best title would be, and except for Sarek reversing the page move, I would request that no further page moves be made until there has been substantial discussion. It is not at all helpful to edit war or wheel war over the title. Jehochman Talk 14:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

:The -1 name couldn't remain for many reasons. The current name is 'good enough' that it doesn't require an immediate replacement until we reach an actual consensus (the -1 name was NOT based on consensus). As we continue to work on the lede, imo it will become clear what th3e best article name might be. Flatterworld (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't reverse the page move, I modified it based on a talkpage discussion, and not to my preferred title. But, to answer your questions:
  • Savage's name should probably be included, but it's not a deal-breaker.
  • google bomb (lowercased per New Oxford American Dictionary (or at least, according to the ref in the GB article))
  • Should be lowercased unless part of "Spreading Santorum". Should probably be quoted, except part of SS. Shouldn't be possessive, unless we're referring to the Senator rather than the object of Savage's campaign.
One other question I'd like to toss into the mix -- are we agreed that the article should be about the campaign/google bomb/whatever, rather than the term itself? I would say that the discussion has pretty well established that, with a few dissenters, but I might have misread that.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I thought wheel warring was edit warring by admins. In this case, there was no wheel war when defined that way, there was a further action. I'm not really defending Sarek, and it might be nice if he reverted just to bow to community pressure, but I'm not sure why there is so much fuss. I would also note that the current name is closer to actual community consensus than the previous. I would say that both renames were steps in the right direction. And Sarek, you read it correctly "the article should be about the campaign/google bomb/whatever." BECritical__Talk 16:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and one shock trooper admin getting on another shock trooper admin's case seems wrong. You both took strong controversial actions which both shoved the discussion along in the general directions it should go. Jehochman got away with it, Sarek didn't, but you both acted without full consensus. Certainly Jehochman acted with less consensus. BECritical__Talk 16:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I completely agree with BeCritical. In all his points.
Jehochman You really did good BOLD step (IMO). To rename the article means, your reading of the consensus was (IMO) right (though bold), but the other part is, how did you come to chose just That title, you did for it? But your closure was not chalenged, becouse the decission... was interim right? (not big deal) You can not much argue with SOV, who of you was too bold here. His move felt just like logical follow up of your own move (interim name based on interim consensus, not big deal either);(Both moves could had been argued on the similar grounds, that some steps should be preceding them). Both moves were well taken by comunity in the end - as long as they are considered interim. So let's move and let's find the final one. Either way those two names are not much different from each other - in their core meaning - so not big deal. I hope that you will help to comment and chose the proper name too ;). Reo + 16:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree overall with what Jehochman did, as I said earlier in this talk. And I'm uncomfortable with what Sarek did, as I've tried (to little effect) to explain at his talk. (Maybe Sarek's Google problem? Kidding!) But at this point, I think Sarek has waited it out long enough that it has become moot where the "interim" started or ended. We are where we are, so dropping that stick and discussing what the best title would be is the best way to go forward. I don't have a strong opinion about what would be the best title, and I think it's possible to over-think it. But my preferences would be for something that focuses on "campaign" rather than on "neologism". --Tryptofish (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Jehochman was the closing admin on an RfC. Such admins are determining consensus, not acting because of a consensus. They should generally be uninvolved which Jehochman was. Sarek overturned a closing admin's action and did it through a protection and with out discussing it with the admin whose action he'd overturned. That seems to fit the definition of a wheel war.
Sarek denied a process with his move, and whether one likes the move or not, this is a highly contentious situation. Process helps keep things tidy when there's a mess, and this is contentious mess. That's the issue here. We have to respect collaborative processes on a collaborative project or collaboration falls apart.(olive (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC))
See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Rename_through_protection. While I don't agree with Sarek's move, I agree with the three points he's made above: (1) Savage's name should ideally be in the title, but it may be hard to manage without making it sound cumbersome (2) it's a google bomb (per RS descriptions, and the fact that Savage canvassed people to link to it) (3) upper case for the personal name or the website name "Spreading Santorum", lower case if it's something like "Dan Savage google bomb for santorum".
All said, the most straightforward title is Santorum (google bomb). That's its notability now. --JN466 17:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

@jayen: I wonder if Google bomb is universal enough. While those who use internet a lot might be aware of it, some who come to Wikjpedia will not have that kind of experience and the word may be unknown to them. The title of an article should be as accessible as possible in meaning. Just a thought.(olive (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC))

@olive: It is also not accurate. Gacurr (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I think Sarek's move was another legitimate possible outcome of the RFC, but it was as step on a slippery slope. I definitely don't want another admin to come in and move the article yet again, worst of all back to the original title, or to another charged POV title. We can leave the title as is for now. Jehochman Talk 19:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Note on bolding

By the way, in the hope that it will make the title struggle less heated: it is not necessary (in fact, it is discouraged) to bold a descriptive title in the first sentence. The convention to bold names applies strictly to alternate names for the subject, which readers may wish to find quickly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks... didn't know that, it's so much the convention to bold. BECritical__Talk 02:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


The RfC above proposes renaming this article. So far, these have been proposed. I've linked to the earlier discussions around them. My preference is Campaign for "santorum" neologism. Steven G. Johnson's argument is sound. Or 'Spreading santorum' campaign, Rio's improvement on my Spreading Santorum SlimVirgin's Dan Savage santorum campaign Succinct, findable. Thoughts? Please correct my mistakes and add suggestions. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't support this one; details in previous discussion, but briefly: it's got a euphemism, it unfairly besmirches Google, and it obfusicates the content of the article it titles. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Naming discussion

Much like in the Background sub-section of the article, under Coining (maybe change this to Etymology?), we link to a main article on the Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality, I would not be opposed to creating a new article to deal with the subject of the campaign. Campaign for "santorum" neologism, "Spreading santorum" campaign, and Spreading Santorum all seem like reasonable titles for this, though the last one may become too focussed on the website. Given the vast array of possibilities I can say I have not yet made up my mind, but will be pondering the choices. Thank you for compiling the list. Gacurr (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I suppose the advantage of having both Savage and Santorum's names in the title is it will help search engines find it? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The text of the article is included in the search engine's database. So unless we left out mentioning either the politician or the writer from the article, it would still be found. Gacurr (talk)
Actually, I was thinking about ranking. In the early days, if the search term was in the page title it boosted the page's ranking. Don't know about now. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Search engine ranking is not an editorial consideration on Wikipedia so far as I know. Gacurr (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
It is for me. Most of the Wikipedia articles I visit as a reader, I get to via search engines. I'm thinking, if I want to learn about that thing Dan Savage did to Rick Santorum's name, I'd be likely to begin by just searching for savage and santorum. And I'd expect, all else being equal, an article with both names in the title would rank higher than one without. It would help with finding the article when you're searching within Wikipedia, I think. --Anthonyhcole (talk)
A search on Dan Savage and Rick Santorum brings up this article no problem on Google. Wikipedia's internal search is also finding the article without any problem. Gacurr (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Hm. While it's good to draw all these disparate thoughts together, I'm concerned it marginalizes the discussions that have already taken place. For instance, I don't now support Rick Santorum's "Google problem" for reasons I'm not copy-and-pasting. :) Perhaps we could borrow a bit of wikiquette from the RfC process and modify it, inviting each (serious) "suggester" tied to the above links to add a brief indented statement for or against the term tied to their name, with all discussion of those points to be down here and not threaded into the list?
My current favorite is still Campaign for santorum neologism. Google will pick up Savage's name from the body of the article just fine, and adding it to the title seems like it's either unnecessary disambiguation, or... oh, what term to use? Not quite weasel-wording, not quite wishy-washy... like it's stuck there defensively somehow?
One thing the copyeditor in me would be very picky about: per WP:TITLE, santorum should be italicized in the title if used as the neologism. If you're using redlinks to illustrate names, you'd have to do, e.g., [[Campaign for santorum neologism|Campaign for ''santorum'' neologism]] to get that to show up... but I'll believe runs of '' are intended to become italic in titles to save typing! // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Being about a politician, the word 'campaign' seems like it might be less than clear. -- Avanu (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. macwhiz, a lot of what you suggested was running through my mind as I was collating that. I'd like the authors to write a paragraph advocating for their title. And I'd like it to be modifiable over time, without strikethroughs so the rationale can improve. What do you think? I'm going to bed now :) (I'm starting to lean toward Embiggening Truthiness). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I fail to see why any rename is even worth discussing. This article is about a neologism, "santorum". Wikipedia guidelines are very clear that articles should be named clearly and concisely for the topic being presented. How is Santorum (neologism) inappropriate? Should we first come to a consensus as to whether the article should be renamed before we start discussing what to rename it to? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 21:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, what won me over on that point was that santorum as a word in and of itself just isn't that notable. It really isn't in documented widespread use. However, the campaign to get it into widespread use is absolutely notable, and frankly, it's the interesting part of the story. When you strip away the iffier citations, you wind up with more about the campaign to make it a word and the fallout that resulted than you do about the sexual byproduct it now defines. However, I definitely think there should be a redirect from the current name, if for no other reason than for the list of major media outlets that have linked to the current name, as seen at the top of this page. Look, if someone googles "santorum", what's going to give them a more neutral, less attack-y idea why their buddy told them to look it up? Savage's site, or ours? Reducing our PageRank for "santorum" isn't going to do Santorum any favors. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I absolutely agree and, as explained in my comment above, do not support re-naming this article. Devising a spin-off article for the purpose of a more detailed treatment of a subject related to the word is an acceptable proposition and I can support doing that in relation to the Spreading Santorum website and any campaign type activities for the word that are well-sourced. Gacurr (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
That title is arguably ambiguous, as Dan Savage has campaigned politically in his columns and elsewhere against Santorum on numerous occasions, with the "santorum" neologism only being the most famous line of attack. At the very least, you should put "santorum" in quotes or italics (as English punctuation dictates when you refer to a word as such), but it is clearer to say Dan Savage "santorum" neologism campaign to unambiguously make the point that the campaign refers to the neologism specifically. But "Dan Savage" is unnecessary, nor should the title take Santorum's "It's one guy" PoV versus the obvious (and sourced) fact that many supporters of the campaign share the blame/credit for the redefinition's current prominence. Campaign for "santorum" neologism seems sufficient unambiguously describe the subject matter. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to quotes or italics, but the lower-case spelling of santorum in itself avoids any ambiguity. The phrase "Savage's santorum campaign" is used in the Snidow paper, thus spelt. The campaign arose from Savage's column and website. He is, time and again, the person interviewed about it. Any campaign worth the name will have supporters other than the originator -- otherwise it isn't a campaign. --JN466 03:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Wiki should lead with the better known definition (relating to anal sex), then to the person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Support Dan Savage Santorum Campaign. This article is currently not about the word santorum and it's use in the world, because there is no common use of the word, since it was made up for a specific use in a campaign to smear someone. The campaign itself is clearly notable from the sources provided, but the title of the article should be something in regard to the campaign and not a non-notable neologism. SilverserenC 23:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
That title is ambiguous, because Dan Savage has criticized Santorum on numerous occasions; the "santorum" neologism campaign is only one avenue of his criticism. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Campaign for "santorum" neologism, which concisely explains what this article is about (since the article as is is mainly about the promotion/politics and not about sexual usages per se) and explains why it is notable (since the sources almost all focus on the political and promotion aspects of it). Note also that numerous prominent sources refer to it as a "campaign", e.g. [6][7][8][9], so we aren't inventing our own term for the subject. I oppose the push to include "Savage" in the title, which seems to be (a) unnecessary, (b) a defensive/tendentious attempt to minimize the subject (ala Santorum's "It's one guy"), and (c) does not reflect all the sources on the subject — while Savage indisputably instigated the campaign and maintains the website, many of the sources point out the obvious fact that the prominence of the neologism is due not to Savage's efforts alone, but to the support of thousands of other online authors [10] (or "gay activists" [11]), and indeed googling "santorum frothy" will turn up many people who have adopted Savage's line of attack on Santorum. However, all that being said, there was some discussion previously that perhaps we should allow the current RfC to close before opening a new RfC on renaming. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • By the way the 'real' definition supported by sources isn't *necessarily* the one about fecal material. Let me quote this student paper that we have linked as [67] in the article:
A search of “santorum” and “Dan Savage” garnered 17 articles, one of which was a New York Times guest column by Savage himself on April 25, 2003. Other articles called the term disgusting, but recognized that it had become shorthand for social conservativism. Others reported on Bob Casey’s (a Senate candidate and challenger for Santorum’s seat) return of Dan Savage’s campaign donations due to the columnists role in minting the “raunchy definition” (Budoff, 2006 for instance).

-- Avanu (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I think people may be heading too far down this path. It does not does not at all appear to me that the RfC to change name / merge has anything close to a consensus, which would leave the article here as is. With the necessity of conducting a further official discussion after it is closed. Right now anything other than brainstorming and straw polls to see if there are some basic common grounds seems to be very pre-mature. Active Banana (bananaphone 14:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


  • Comment: I have yet to see a consensus that this article is in need of renaming, so any discussion of what it should be renamed is premature (and, I suspect, agenda-driven). I think this discussion is being conducted under false pretenses. It appears to be a "crypto-RfC." I would like to know whether this discussion is going to be used to justify a page-move in spite of the emerging consensus at the real RfC found near the top of this page. (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it would be moved without another RfC, which is why I wanted to close the current one whose conclusion is obvious. BECritical__Talk 00:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Labeling things in negative terms like "agenda driven" doesn't make it a conspiracy. A rename has broad support, it solves the issues that many people have with the article, it addresses the real issues, and the way it is being approached leaves open a lot of options. On the other hand, you could always find another way to work things out if you find this process so reprehensible. -- Avanu (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I didn't call this a conspiracy, but this isn't a "process", and I don't think that a rename has the broad support you claim. This is a case of self-selecting discussion participants. The one option not left open in this approach is "no change," and I think that's extremely telling. (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, super telling.... -- Avanu (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
The simple fact that there are a lot of suggestions from a host of people should indicate that there is a significant contingent of people who disagree with your assessment, 24. This also has been discussed (extensively) on AN/I, and I suspect that the discussion there did more to bring in fresh eyes than anything else. I arrived here as a result the related discussion involving some of your behavior at WP:WQA, which directly related to the discussion here. Horologium (talk) 01:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
"A lot" is subjective and meaningless. The suggestions of "a lot" of people don't imply a consensus if there are more people who support the status quo, and we have no way of knowing whether that is the case, given the biased phrasing of the question/poll/whatever this is. (talk) 07:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I too am a little confused. In none of the many attempts to have the article merged, deleted, renamed or otherwise bowlderized for the sake of a former republican senator have we found anything resembling consensus to alter the basic form of the article. So I'm curious why we are now picking from a host of names among which the original is only one (and placed last). Protonk (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Nothing saying it can't be first. So I moved it to the top of the list. -- Avanu (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Let's not denigrate the comments of the many editors who have stated concerns with the Wikipedia compliancy of this article to anything else than their perceived problems with the article.
RfCs should run their course, seems to me. RfCs are requests for discussion as the name says, not votes, or only votes, so, as long as there is discussion within a designated time frame, the RfC should remain open. Consensus is declared by a neutral 'closer', and given the importance of discussion (that 's RfComment not RfVotes :O) may be based both on the discussions and the votes. The advantage to allowing the RfC to run its course is that no one later on can say, "well sure but the RfC was cut off before I /we could comment or vote." The end decision will be more definitive if due processes are adhered to.(olive (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC))
Indeed, and nothing says that all other conversations and negotiations must stop because there's an RfC pending. For me, the pending RfC is a bridge too far, but I'm willing to discuss the parts of it that aren't too much; maybe we wind up with an independent consensus, maybe we wind up knowing what the next RfC will be when this one closes... but I don't see anyone suggesting action while the RfC is pending. Besides, the article name discussion is probably the most productive, consensus-generating part of this wall 'o text. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Except you cannot arrive at an independent consensus if you're excluding the viewpoint of the majority of users to have expressed their opinion at the current RfC. In other words, the only consensus this discussion can hope to achieve is the consensus for a new article title among editors who agree that this article's title should be changed. But that's a useless consensus: you need to first establish a consensus that this article's title needs to be changed, and then, should such a consensus emerge, you still need to consider the opinions of those who didn't agree with the previous consensus in deciding on a new title. I'm not saying that you shouldn't discuss this-- by all means, feel free. I'm just saying that any consensus achieved herein is moot. (talk) 07:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree too. 24 I agree with your line of rationale and while I see the renaming of the article being to be the best opt I do not see this naming debate to be nothing more than just brainstorming for those particpating. New arguments and concerns are identified here... The formal process has to go step by step as you say. All arguments fromally adressed there. No reason to worry --Reo + 09:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not excluding anyone's viewpoint. However, if you look at the "Oppose" and "Other" comments, by my count it's 52-61 in favor of keeping things as they are versus being open to rename, and that's a lot tighter than the !vote for the RfC as a whole. It's possible that some of those "oppose" !voters could be persuaded to accept a title change if a reasonable alternative were offered that was based on policy and fairness. Plus, don't forget, consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale, so if we can't find our way clear of, say, WP:NEO, the !vote may be moot itself. Reo's got the idea of it: consider this a working group that will offer up an RfC if and when it's ripe to do so, and we're trying to refine what we would propose in that RfC. Hey, this thread is giving me a much better idea of where everyone is coming at this article from. Understanding everyone's views is important to any consensus, so there's value even if it winds up moot. Better to try and find a compromise no one is too unhappy to accept, than to wind up at ARBCOM... // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing up WP:LIMITED. It's important to keep in mind that the outcome of this RfC, or a separate RfC to rename, might me moot as well, given the three previous AfD discussions about this page, and the previous years of debate that retained the status-quo. Frankly, unless there's an overwhelming consensus to rename, I don't see it happening. (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
@Protonk, one of the main things that has come out of the process here on the talk page is that a lot of editors think the current RfC suggestion is too drastic, but would support a rename. Thus the discussion. BECritical__Talk 03:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
IP24, Saying we can't discuss a proposed change, that you don't approve of, until consensus has formed in favour of that change is at best odd. Calling those who wish to discuss the change "agenda-driven" is insulting; as is "false pretenses."
I deliberately left the no change option out of the list because "Should this be named after the event rather than the neologism?" is one question and "If so, what new name?" is another. Each question will attract different arguments. If we conflate the two, the discussion becomes atomised and unproductive. If others agree I'd like to delete the no change option from the list, as well as Avanu's amusing suggestions, and return this to a discussion about what to rename to, if we rename. I apologise if it looked like I was taking the renaming for granted, it is by no means a forgone conclusion. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm in favor of you changing what you think is best. By the way, despite the slight humor or literary tone of my suggestions, they were not all necessarily intended to be disregarded. -- Avanu (talk) 07:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Then, to the end of reducing the confusion, you should limit your talk page contributions to those things that are intended to not be disregarded. (talk) 07:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
IP24, please stop. -- Avanu (talk) 08:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
What, disagreeing with you? No. (talk) 08:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
No. Being a smart-ass. Anthonyhcole seems to be making a legitimate attempt to improve the article and in a cooperative spirit, I agreed with him that my page names were humorous, and was open to removal of some, at his discretion. You follow this up with a wisecrack, when really I was just being conciliatory and polite. Generally that is what I strive for, but at times I've been less than great. So, again, please just try and be nice, and I promise your fellow editors will appreciate the effort, and I will likewise try. -- Avanu (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll make you a deal: you agree to stop being tendentious, I'll agree to stop being a smart-ass. Yah? (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
That's not a legitimate way of making decisions. The opinions of those who don't agree that this article needs to be renamed should still be considered in any discussion of what to rename this article to, but, lacking a consensus that this article should be renamed, those editors are not going to participate. This is way premature, and, I feel comfortable going so far as to say, useless. (talk) 07:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree. No final decisions will be made here. It is insulting to characterise our endeavour to clarify the issues around renaming as "useless." Try to keep those thoughts to yourself. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
By the way, you had every right to ask for these clarifications. I should have been clearer from the outset. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, we had this same conversation not 7 days ago. look here. Protonk (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Should "Dan Savage" be in the title?

It's been argued that including "Dan Savage" or "Savage" in the title gives too much prominence to Savage (the thing has a life of its own now), and implies Savage invented the term (a reader did) or that he boosted its Google rank (13,000 linkers did). Sorry if I missed some arguments. What are the arguments in favour of including Savage in the title? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC) is Savage's website. Savage refers to it as "my campaign". [12][13]. The Snidow paper refers to "Savage's santorum campaign". [14] To this day, reliable sources explaining "Santorum's Google problem" attribute it to Savage's campaign. [15][16]. It's one of the things Dan Savage is most notable for. --JN466 12:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
What is wrong with not including "Savage" in the title? Wikipedia policy is to use the most concise unambiguous name. Campaign for "santorum" neologism is certainly unambiguous and gives an accurate impression of what the article is about. Dan Savage campaign for "santorum" neologism gives more information (putting aside disputes over the extent to which this can be solely associated with Savage), but so does Dan Savage campaign for "santorum" neologism that started in 2003 with a contest suggested in Savage's column in response to remarks on homosexuality by Rick Santorum ... but we wouldn't use such a long title, because the additional information is in the article and hence it is not necessary in the title.
"Savage" is obviously not necessary in the title to eliminate ambiguity (there are no other campaigns for "santorum" neologisms). Nor have I heard any clear argument that Campaign for "santorum" neologism is somehow misleading (how?) without Savage's name. So why is "Savage" necessary in the title, as opposed to leaving it to the article body to explain Savage's involvement?
Compare this to the argument for including the word "campaign" in the title. If we eliminate "campaign for" and simply use "santorum" neologism or Santorum (neologism), the argument (which itself has not achieved consensus yet) is that this is misleading: it implies that what is notable is the word per se, rather than the campaign to promote it and its political impact. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
No serious argument can be made that the neologism would exist if not for Savage. Although the idea of the campaign and the actual definition of the word both seem to have come from Savage's readers, Savage put the idea of the campaign into action, used his syndicated column to draw attention to it, used his readership to come up with the definition, created the website, and generally ensured that the neologism became more widely known. Not that that means Savage must be in the title, but it is certainly reasonable for it to be included. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree with both Steven G. Johnson and Delicious carbuncle. I prefer the simpler title Campaign for "santorum" neologism both because simpler is better IMHO and to avoid arguments. BECritical__Talk 14:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
As carbuncle wrote: Not that that means Savage must be in the title. That is my point. Savage's involvement is absolutely essential information to include in the article text, indeed in the lede. But so, for that matter, are Santorum's remarks on homosexuality that sparked the issue. For this information to go into the title, however, you have to argue that it is necessary to make the title unambiguous or necessary to avoid some misleading implication. Where is that argument? — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
The campaign is inextricably linked with Dan Savage. His name was mentioned 94 times in our article last time I counted. It's described as "one-man campaign" (Partridge), "Dan Savage's internet media campaign", and Dan Savage's "Internet war" with Santorum in our sources. It would be misleading, or at least leave out a central component of this topic as presented in our sources, not to make that clear in the title. --JN466 14:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
there appears to be plenty of coverage without any mention of Savage [[17] Active Banana (bananaphone 14:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I didn't dig too far, but once you eliminate the blogs (including the many hits to Towleroad, which is a gay blog which has gleefully participated in Savage's campaign), there isn't so much coverage, and the reliable sources either don't mention the neologism (such as 9 & 10 News), or quote Savage without naming him but explicitly linking to a previous article about him (such as the blog from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette), or only have the mention of the epithet in the comments (such as The Huffington Post or The Los Angeles Times or KOLO). The neologism would not exist had it not been for Savage, and his name should appear in the title, since he is the one orchestrating the operation. Horologium (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Sure, you get lots of passing mentions of Santorum's "Google problem" in recent articles on his candidacy (as well as a few unrelated mentions of Google). Doesn't change the nature of this campaign, and how sources that address it in detail describe it. --JN466 14:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
(tongue-in-cheek) Is the concern that we'll need to disambiguate from Wikipedia campaign for santorum neologism at this rate? I understand the concerns about Savage, but WP:TITLE gives really good guidance, right near the top: precision and conciseness. The title without "Savage" is "only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously" and "shorter rather than longer". Is there justification under WP:TITLE for adding "Savage" to the title? If there is, it's not obvious to me. Heck, one might still make a good argument that WP:TITLE outweighs WP:NEO and so the title should remain unchanged, but I haven't seen such a good argument yet. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:TITLE, "article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources; when this offers multiple possibilities, Wikipedia chooses among them by considering five principles: the ideal article title will resemble titles for similar articles, precisely identify the subject, be short, be natural, and recognizable." Dan Savage santorum campaign meets that. It's called Dan Savage's campaign in reliable sources. Why disappear his name from the title? It would be just as wrong to call it Dan Savage sexual neologism campaign, leaving out Santorum's name. I could live with Campaign for santorum neologism, but I don't think we're doing the article and the reader looking for it any favour by omitting Savage's name. --JN466 15:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
The article is about Dan Savage's campaign, so his name should be in the title in my view. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 15:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
The article is about Dan Savage's campaign in response to Rick Santorum's remarks on homosexuality, which are also "inextricably linked" to the subject according to all the sources. So should the title be Dan Savage campaign for "santorum" neologism in response to Rick Santorum's remarks on homosexuality? Also inextricably linked to the subject are the search-engine rankings, which are mentioned in nearly every article on the subject, so clearly the title should be Dan Savage campaign for "santorum" neologism in response to Rick Santorum's remarks on homosexuality, which has resulted in an unpleasant sexual definition of "santorum" being ranked highly in search engines. In short, I don't buy this "inextricably linked" argument. The title should be as long as necessary to unambiguously describe the content and not be misleading, but no longer — all other information can go into the article itself. The most important information can go into the lede. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Lots of people have made stupid remarks regarding homosexuality (including other potential presidential candidates), but only this one has been turned into a neologism; it's not the remarks, it's the reaction of Savage that is notable. The fact that Santorum has an unusual last name probably plays a role in it as well; generic last names won't have the same impact. Horologium (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
But it's not Savage per se that makes it notable. As you say, it's the "reaction": the campaign for a neologism, its success in high search-engine rankings, and the political impact on a major US politician and US politics. There's no question that Savage's involvement is an essential part of the story that should be in the article. The question is, why does the title need to be lengthened to include his name, as opposing to leaving it to the article? How does Campaign for "santorum" neologism mislead or introduce ambiguity? — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • No, the subject of the article is not Dan Savage. A person's having been an essential part of the creation of a thing does not mean we should tack their name to the thing. It's Yellow Submarine (song), not Ringo Star's Yellow Submarine; Bo (dog), not Obama Presidential Dog, and so on. Further, if the motivation here is that the article, coatrack, attack article, etc., adding Savage's name to an article for launching the initiative would not cure the BLP violation, it would turn one violation into two. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I find it amusing that some editors are suddenly mindful of WP:BLP when Savage's name comes into play, but not so much in regards to BLP for Santorum himself. (and by amusing I mean extremely hypocritical) Tarc (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Whatever you were seeing, people suddenly mindful of BLP in sympathy with Savage, is completely absent from the discussion as far as I can tell. What sparked your comment? Binksternet (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

So, the article is about the campaign, it's Dan Savage's campaign against Santorum, so should be characterised as that. That makes sense to me. Presently, this article tops Rick Santorum when I google "Santorum." Would beginning the title with "Dan Savage" be likely to drop it below Rick Santorum? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It might well drop below Rick Santorum, but we won't know until we try. It might not – in which case I'd say it's none of our concern; I'd live with that. What is almost certain is that having a title beginning with Dan Savage would make the article show up when you google "Dan Savage", which at present it does not. Again, I think that's fine; Savage stands by his campaign and is proud of it. I think it is legitimate for surfers googling him to find this article, whether it helps the campaign or not. --JN466 16:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Just wondering about the implications. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This thread may be dead now, but it's linked in the helpful issues-description infobox (thank you to whoever added that in various spots). While Savage is the originator of the campaign, and still its most visible proponent, it has now grown beyond being his plaything. If he stood up tomorrow morning and called off the whole thing, asked his readers to stop spreading santorum, I'm not convinced the thing would die off. Someone would keep the flaming bag alive, and in that eventuality the proper name for the article could well wind up being closer to Rick Santorum versus the Internet (or rather, The Internet vs. Rick Santorum). I'm not arguing for this name (despite my RfC comment), but add the reasoning to the pile of arguments against including Savage in the title. That pile already brims high from such items as "no need to disambig from the other pranks/attacks on Santorum" and "we don't call it Ronald Reagan's 'Morning in America' Campaign." ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 03:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Since this ended up being the linked section instead of this page's hundred other threads, I hope no one will mind if I restate a comment from below (which Zenswashbuckler was already kind enough to quote). I don't believe we need Dan Savage's name in the title for the same reason we don't need Albert Einstein's name on Special relativity, Shakespeare's name on Hamlet, Ronald Reagan's name on Morning in America, George Bush's name on Read my lips: no new taxes, Bill Clinton's name on Monica Lewinsky scandal, William Henry Harrison's name on Tippecanoe and Tyler too, Hitler's name on Lebensraum, Los del Rio's name on Macarena (song), or the Republican Party's name on Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: it's not needed for disambiguation. Jayen's right that Savage's name is "inextricably linked to this campaign," but wrong, I think, that Wikipedia policy demands (or even allows) an author/creator's name in front of the item to which she/he is inextricably linked. (Almost all coverage of the Gettysburg Address mention both Lincoln and the Civil War, for example, yet it would be silly to rename the article Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address during the US Civil War.) For now I think the simplest title is best. Khazar (talk) 06:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


If we're going to move this, please don't use the word neologism in the title. The rule for titles is to use the common name, and nobody associated with this story uses the word neologism. I never see that word outside of Wikipedia articles. It's forced jargon. —Designate (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
"Neologism" is important to remove any ambiguity: the article is not about the usage of "Santorum" to refer to Rick Santorum, but rather the neologism (or the campaign for the neologism and its impact). And unlike other titles like "Spreading santorum campaign", explicitly saying "neologism" in the title does not presume that the reader already knows that the campaign is about a neologism — lack of ambiguity should not require that the reader already know the content of the article. Nor is "neologism" jargon — it is quite a standard and common English word. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Lower case and quotes or italics will distinguish it from Santorum. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Technically yes, but it does readers a disservice to rely upon subtle typographical cues to make a distinction that is absolutely crucial to the article. Far better to be explicit. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Then you're not looking. I saw CNN use the word "neologism", like, a dozen times in a segment about the Rick's "google problem". (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
But this isn't a neologism in the sense of a new word that's in the process of being accepted. It isn't used except by people trying to spread it as an attack. It was a failed attempt to create a meme associating a living person's name with anal discharge. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 16:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Unless you're a reliable source, your opinions on the success of the "campaign" don't matter. CNN, on the other hand, is reliable, and they've called it a neologism. (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
It is a neologism by every definition I've seen, but not a widely adopted one. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
It may be reasonable to alter the descriptor in the title to be more precise. Some sources call it a neologism for want of a better category. Maybe it's closer to sexual slang, or perhaps there's a more precise technical term for it that would satisfy WP:TITLE. It's important to add a descriptor because the article is about the term as a historical political / social event, not about the thing the term stands for. The coining of the term did not do what a neologism usually does, which is to reflect a new awareness or thinking about what the term stands for. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
It's a neologism. The title should remain Santorum (neologism). Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
It's a neologism but that's not the main topic of the article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Also, Smurf (neologism) should be redirected here since you could say "I smurfed smurf all over the smurf". But seriously, the real story here is that the word doesn't even really mean what Dan Savage wanted it to. To be perfectly honest, Ssantorum has 3 definitions now (at least). 1. Surname to many people 2. Shorthand for 'social conservative' 3. gross fecal mess The real encyclopedic story is where the word is now and how it got here, not #3 alone. -- Avanu (talk) 02:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Back to the re-naming issue

Previous specially pertinent discussion is here. Previously suggested names re-posted below. I think the nearest to consensus was Campaign for santorum neologism. However, we might also want to consider the current title or Rick Santorum's Google problem which is from the sources. BECritical__Talk 20:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

  1. Dan Savage santorum campaign SlimVirgin
    First choice, if quotes are added.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
    First choice, if "santorum" is in italics or quotes. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  2. Dan Savage campaign SlimVirgin
    not descriptive. Savage has been involved with a lot of campaigns. (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  3. Dan Savage's verbal attack on Rick Santorum Jimbo Wales
    Hecka POV. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    First choice. We're an encyclopedia, tell it like it is. — Ched :  ?  21:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    We're a neutral encyclopedia. Do you have evidence of consensus that that's how it is? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    Ummmm ... well, I've read the sources. I wasn't aware that anyone wasn't in agreement that Savage chose to do this on his on accord. Can you point to a link that supports the supposition that Savage didn't attack Santorum? — Ched :  ?  22:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    Perhaps Scurrilous personal attack by degenerate gay activist Dan Savage against noble American Rick Santorum? Protonk (talk) 23:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    Facepalm ... figured that was coming (again) :-) — Ched :  ?  03:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    I assume this will be accompanied by a matching proposal to rename Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality as Rick Santorum's verbal attack on gays, right? ... No? Huh. Khazar (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    Dislike this option, because "verbal" makes it sound like Savage stood up and yelled at Santorum.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  4. Santorum (sexual slang) JamesMLane
    Okay on this as well as original title, but recognize the argument by many that per sources the term has not spread widely enough to be considered slang or a neologism. Further, the main notability is not the word as a description of a phenomenon, but the word and surrounding campaign as a social / political happening. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  5. Santorum neologism campaign Steven G Johnson
  6. Santorum neologism controversy elektrikSHOOS
  7. Rick Santorum and homosexuality John Carter
  8. Rick Santorum homosexuality controversy John Carter
    don't we already have an article about that? (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  9. Savage Santorum campaign Be——Critical
    What, are they on the ticket together? No good. Speciate (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    Not a bad idea, actually. I hear the G. Gordon Liddy/Timothy Leary debates made some cash and played to sold-out audiences. Viriditas (talk) 06:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    This sounds like a setup for a sitcom. elektrikSHOOS 22:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  10. Dan Savage santorum neologism controversy JN466
  11. Dan Savage santorum neologism campaign JN466
  12. Spreading Santorum Anthonyhcole
    Second choice – Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    First choice. It identifies the exact name of the effort to link Rick to the slick. It calls it what it is, an effort. It doesn't confine it to Google. Speciate (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    First choice. This is the topic, even though the campaign preceded the website. Viriditas (talk) 05:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    Second choice. It implies a slight shift of emphasis; but this means we are writing about the website, not forcing an opinion on what kind of thing the subject is into the title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  13. Rick Santorum's Google problem BE——Critical
    I hate hate hate this one! It's why I came here. It is not grammatically correct, and it is not Google's fault. The effort extends beyond Google and beyond the internet. Also, it assumes too much; that Rick Santorum has a problem, or that there is something wrong with people expressing their dislike for Rick Santorum's political positions in a creative way. Speciate (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    oppose. Not just about Google. (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  14. Rick Santorum's "Google problem" macwhiz
    I don't support this one; details in previous discussion, but briefly: it's got a euphemism, it unfairly besmirches Google, and it obfusicates the content of the article it titles. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
    Ditto. Speciate (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    Second choice, both as new title and refocusing of article content. I agree with Macwhiz, but I think putting it in quotes distances it from google, if we are able to use quotes as part of an article title. Wouldn't that cause problems? - Wikidemon (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    Distant third choice, as much as I have come to regret proposing it in the first place. At least this version makes clear which Santorum has the problem, has a possessive apostrophe, and has quotes to make clear that "Google problem" is the euphemism being used. (I still find the idea of using a euphemism in an article title really distasteful, though.) Still, it's better than the alternatives. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    Second choice, because it's straight from the sources. However, it still gives notability to the campaign. BECritical__Talk 22:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    Second Choice. Thenub314 (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  15. Santorum Google problem per Jehochman's closure
    Second choice. Passable compromise, used in sources. --JN466 23:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    Unfortunatelly that implies to me that Rick Santorum has some quarell with the Google company. That's reason, why I would not pick this one --Reo + 08:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  16. Rick Santorum Google problem or Santorum Google problem --David Shankbone 22:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    I hate hate hate this one! It's why I came here. It is not grammatically correct, and it is not Google's fault. The effort extends beyond Google and beyond the internet. Also, it assumes too much; that Rick Santorum has a problem, or that there is something wrong with people expressing their dislike for Rick Santorum's political positions in a creative way. Speciate (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  17. 'Spreading santorum' campaign Reo
    • First choice - Wikidemon (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Second choice, again because it's concise and accurate. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Third choice. It's a straight description of the campaign. However, it also gives a lot extra notability to it. BECritical__Talk 22:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    • First choice. "Spreading Santorum" was the name for the website, and I don't believe we should call it "Google problem", especially since it's meant to go beyond Google and be used as a neologism. We should use the title Savage used rather than creating an arbitrary name. – Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Third choice; Spreading Santorum would be simpler. Both imply a slight change in the emphasis of the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Second choice. Viriditas (talk) 06:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Second third (for #24) choice, even though I created it, I feel somehow uneasy iz may have unintended double meaning, the unintended insunuation by the 'spreading' verb --Reo + 08:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Second choice. The word "campaign" helps readers understand that an attack is involved. --Noleander (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Second choice. Neatly encompasses the origins of the campaign (the SS-website) while also implying that the campaign extends beyond a single website. Khazar (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    • First Choice. 01:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenub314 (talkcontribs) 01:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
    Second choice. elektrikSHOOS 15:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  18. Campaign for "santorum" neologism Steven G. Johnson
    • First choice, as it's the most concise and unambiguous. Note that this option does not actually say santorum is a neologism; it says that there was a campaign to make it one. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    • First choice. Avoids a lot of potential POV issues, says what the article is about. BECritical__Talk 22:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    • First choice Reo + 08:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    • First choice. Concise; and the word "campaign" helps readers understand that an attack is involved. --Noleander (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    • First choice. Concise, immediately clear, and implies the attack/astroturfing element in NPOV language. Khazar (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    • First choice. Concisely and neutrally implies that there is a campaign to promote its use while preserving the main subject of the article, i.e., the word itself. Also neatly implies that the word may or may not actually be a neologism, which is one of the core points fueling most of the discussion on this page. elektrikSHOOS 22:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
    • First choice. Puts the focus on the campaign, which is a key point; the quotes are a nice touch too. Neutral. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
    • First-and-a-half choice (would rather not renumber). This one is growing on me - neutral, correct, to-the-point, and succinctly informative to readers both familiar and unfamiliar with the subject as to what the article will be about. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  19. Dan Savage campaign for "santorum" neologism JN466
    Second choice. — Ched :  ?  22:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    Dan Savage had the Idea, he started it he has the one web-site, but he is not the only force leading the attack. It's more like agenda of quite a community of people. In my opinion Dan Savage should be in the very beggining of the Lead sentence (that he initiated...), but not in the title. --Reo + 08:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
    Second choice.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  20. Savage–Santorum affair SlimVirgin
    Oh Please God No. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  21. Savage–Santorum controversy Slim Virgin
    Third choice. I'm not happy with anything but "Spreading Santorum" and "Spreading Santorum campaign", but I can live with this one. Viriditas (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    Too vague. I'm pretty sure this isn't the only time Savage and Santorum have disagreed. elektrikSHOOS 15:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  22. santorum (neologism) (with {{lowercase}}, as imposing the fewest possible assumptions: disambiguation is necessary as long as Santorum is primarily the ex-Senator. Septentrionalis.
    • First choice. Don't censor the subject, don't do favors for gay-haters. Sorry to be brutal about it, but my conscience is clear.--Milowenttalkblp-r 01:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
    first choice, Merrill Stubing (talk) 03:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
    First choice. Protonk (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  23. The problem Rick Santorum is facing because every search engine in the world's top search results says santorum is an anal sex by-product. There's really nothing wikipedia can do to fix this problem or ameliorate it.--Milowenttalkblp-r 22:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    Hoping no one minds, I've numbered these for ease of discussion Hobit (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  24. Santorum (googlebomb)? That term is used in the sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    Second choice. I really prefer Santorum google bomb. Currently Miserable failure redirects to Political Google bombs in the 2004 U.S. Presidential election, which shows that 'google bomb' or Google bomb has precedent. Speciate (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    First choice. Short and to the point. --JN466 23:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    Distant fourth choice, but it is basically inexact. The one thing, where I got persuaded by Gacurrs arguments is the difference between Google-bomb and SEO. The mechanism is reverse to that of Googlebomb (the effect here is as humiliating). I admit, for general public it doesn't matter, for most people this would just tell the story the way they may understand. But it is not accurate. --Reo + 08:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  25. SEO Campaign for "santorum" neologism (alternated #16) Reo
    • I think this is viable version, if not too complicated. I will think of it as second choice for now, maybe I change it for first later. --Reo + 18:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

#Santorum (cyberattack) Flatterworld

  1. Santorum (cyberbullying) Flatterworld
    No, the "cyberbulling" definition doesn't stretch in this direction.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

#Santorum (SEO attack) Flatterworld

    • Hmmm well, maybe this one as acceptable some fourth one. --Reo + 08:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  1. Dan Savage's "spreading santorum" campaign against Rick Santorum's anti-gay stance
  2. Santorum Google ranking problem Reo + - just cretive, someone take some idea to take it further? 13:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  3. Dan Savage Google-bomb Attack on Rick Santorum Savage's name belongs on the marquee. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  4. Campaign to attack Santorum's name Reo + / 13:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  5. Campaign to create 'santorum' neologism; Campaign to associate Santorum to neologism Reo + - 13:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


I disfavor any version that includes the Savage name in the lede, as Santorum is the locus of the issue, not Savage. Tossing his campaign back on him is not a neutral thing to do. Also, what does the MOS say about capitalizing google? Our sources are all over the map on this capitalization issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I will have to think about this a bit about which possible option is best. I am inclined to agree with Wikidemon, I do not like the options that include Savage. As far as variations on the theme of the current title go, I am not to concerned as to whether or not we include "Rick", or quotes around [Gg]oogle [Pp]roblem. I do miss the 's, "Santorum's" would be better. Thenub314 (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah... "Santorum Google problem" makes it sound like Google needs to tell their employees to stop having anal intercourse in the server room, or something. It needs that possessive... // Grammar Nazi ⌘macwhiz (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Good one :) - Wikidemon (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I was trying to avoid the possessive, but I agree it sounds a little off. "Santorum Google issue"? --David Shankbone 22:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if some sort of ranked-preference !vote would be the best way to find a consensus that we're all sure is a consensus? I understand the closer's reasoning, but I'm not sure I agree with it... and I've already made clear my feelings that each word in "Santorum's Google Problem" has problems of its own. Also wondering if it's worth it to call a formal RfC on it, just to give it a framework... I actually hope we don't need to do that. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Savage is the person that started the attack and created the whole story, why you don't you like having him in the title is beyond me. Dan Savage's Santorum creation - or perhaps - Dan Savage's creation of Santorum - Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Same reason we don't call it "George Bush's Willie Horton campaign". The notability is the event itself, and calling out the people behind it to shine the spotlight back on them is an exercise in blame. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Or Dave the Chameleon; which does not mention the Labour Party. The best title for a political slogan is the slogan; the best title for an insult is the insult. Again, compare nigger. The only reason even to disambiguate is that we cannot distinguish from Santorum, which primarily means the senator. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I like 16 the best, it seems to be what the article is about. I don't object to getting Savage in there per se, but I'd say only 17 isn't misleading in some way of those proposed. Hobit (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I would prefer to see the article merged, but if it must exist, I support Jehochman's rename to Santorum Google problem. I would also prefer a title with Savage's name in it, because it's about his campaign, but I accept the closure as a reasonable compromise. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 21:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
(re to Wikidemon) Hmmmm ... yea ... I think we have an essay on that. Have to agree with Off2riorob here: Savage started the campaign/attack with this word/term(?), I'd think if anyone's name should be in the title .. it would he his. — Ched :  ?  21:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
That's true in the world - what goes around comes around and all that. And that's true on Wikipedia with BOOMERANG / PLAXICO But what we don't do is use Wikipedia to give off-Wikipedia loudmouths their comeuppance. Again, there's a POV problem. Also per COMMONNAME, it isn't known to the public as Dan Savage's smear. Many or most of the sources mention Savage by name and as part of the history, but they don't use his name as part of the term. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
(out of sequence post to respond directly) I agree to an extent, and yet since we already cover this entire matter in at least 4 other articles, I just can't support another recreation of the entire affair. I also wonder if anyone has given thought to the old Hollywood feeling; "Even bad publicity is better than no publicity". I hardly agree with Santorum's views on gay rights, but the fact of the matter is this attempt at an article revolves around "Savage's" efforts, and not about "Santorum's" views. (which are covered elsewhere). THAT is why I believe if anyone's name is going to be in the title, it should be "Savage's". What the "public knows" isn't as relevant as being accurate. They come here to learn, so if they don't know, our articles are supposed to be educational, accurate, factual, and NPOV. — Ched :  ?  22:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikidemon, I don't think it's right to speak of "come-uppance", as though we were spilling a dirty secret that Savage would rather no one knew about. Dan Savage is very open about his campaign. He's proud of it. He views it as the right thing to do, to attract attention to bigotry and intolerance, and many people in fact feel his action was justified. When he received the Webbie award the other day, he wore this shirt. It's his campaign. --JN466 17:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I suppose we could always just go with "Savage smears santorum" ... just a thought. — Ched :  ?  22:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh my ... I SOOOO have a reply in mind for that ... but I know better, so I'll withhold my immediate thoughts. 0:-) — Ched :  ?  22:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, yes, a lot of people are -er- quite the opposite, on both sides. My principal concern is to see whether WP:TITLE shows a neutral way through; I do think it does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm still struggling with the concept that we have to rename the article. We have had multiple discussions (even a bonafide RfC, as well as some AfDs, and some merger discussions) and the conclusion has always been that the article be kept and not renamed. I agree that the consensus about the article is shaky--the RfC above seems to be 55/45 for keeping the article as-is. However the numbers (nor the arguments, IMO) have not favored altering the articles for the reasons given above. So how is it we have skipped passed the decision to rename the article and on to the discussion of what it shall be named? How is this anything other than another bite at the apple? Protonk (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Hmm. Seems the above RfC has closed with a someone odd conclusions. Protonk (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Well we definitely can't use the current title. "Santorum Google problem" seems to be just three of the main key words around here, but not an attempt at a permanent name. At least it should be "Santorum's Google problem" but more properly "Rick Santorum's Google problem." Or it should be "The problem with Google because of Santorum." Whatever, we have to rename it in some way. BECritical__Talk 23:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

      • Above I mentioned that I was doing first aid. I encourage a discussion to refine the name so that it is precise, neutral, and grammatically correct. I see the initial renaming as a step in the right direction, not an end of the discussion. Jehochman Talk 01:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • How many googlebombs has Savage done? Perhaps this is just Don Savage Googlebomb or Don Savage Googlebomb on Santorum. I see a lot of sources saying this is Santorum's google problem, so this is a good start. Where to go from here? (And, btw, very good job on this, Jehochman!) Dreadstar 01:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • This rename mystifies me. I don't see either consensus or BLP supporting "Santorum Google problem" over "Santorum (neologism)". I don't see what this accomplishes for anyone, unless it's going to be used as an excuse to ditch information about the effect of Savage's print column, or as people mention, other search engines. If anything, the change increases the BLP troubles, because before the article was about a word someone made up, but now - perhaps - it is about Rick Santorum's Google problem! I mean, wouldn't "Rick Santorum's Google problem" be a logical extension of the change you've made? The word per se can't be a Google problem, can it? It's just a word. If you are insistent on making some tiny change to the name as a cosmetic measure, why not say "Santorum (internet meme)", "Santorum (neologism campaign)", "Santorum (internet meme by Dan Savage), "Santorum (neologism campaign by Dan Savage)" (the best wording I can think of right now), even "Santorum (cyberbullying)" though I dislike that last. Wnt (talk) 01:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't see a need for this article at all, no matter what it's named - the existing blurbs in the other articles on these subjects are quite sufficient.[18][19] But if we're going to keep it and name it, then it needs to be far more accurate than calling it neologism when it clearly isn't. And S's google problem is definitely something that sourceable. Dreadstar 01:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Doesn't meet Internet meme thresholds either. Dreadstar 01:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I think Savage's name needs to be in the title, since the article is really about him and his efforts. Santorum has really been a passive participant with no real involvement besides the use of his name. Cla68 (talk) 05:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't believe we need Dan Savage's name in the title for the same reason we don't need Albert Einstein's name in the title of Special relativity, Shakespeare's name on Hamlet, Ronald Reagan's name on Morning in America, Abraham Lincoln's name on Gettysburg Address, or Los del Rio's name on Macarena (song): it's not needed for disambiguation (unless Santorum is the victim of multiple neologism campaigns that I'm unaware of). Listing the originator's name here would break Wikipedia precedent for no reason save to make a political point. The simplest title is best. Khazar (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Jehochman didn't intend it as the end result as he said. I think he literally strung together some key words. I pointed out above that we can't keep the current title, because Slimvirgin wanted to keep it as is. So we really don't need to discuss the current title: it was never intended to stay. Cla68, you may be right in what you and others say, but the reason for not having either name as a name is that it sidesteps these issues. When we say Campaign for "santorum" neologism we are actually leaving out all names and focusing only on the campaign. At least, we're leaving out names as much as possible. We will be the second result on google almost no matter what we do. BECritical__Talk 06:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

*Rubbish - s/he said it was based on 'consensus'. So we're now to have a name du jour? 'Santorum Google problem' was supposed to be some sort of improvement? Meanwhile, I noticed the conspicuous absence of any options resembling 'Santorum (cyberbullying attack)' which imo has the distinct advantage of being both accurate and descriptive. Instead, we get a supposed 'consensus' that it wasn't an attack by Savage, but a 'problem' for Santorum. Which (apparently) sprang out of nowhere with no one else involved? Really? Sounds like blame the victim to me. Somehow we're all supposed to 'forget' and blithely ignore everything Savage himself said about the website's purpose? Of course I find that ludicrous and mind-boggling - and I am not alone. There are now 921,000 results for googling wikipedia santorum. 412,000 results on blogs alone. Looks like this will end up being yet another Wikipedia 'argument' that's fought in the media instead of within Wikipedia. "Too clever by half" springs to mind. So does "own goal". There will, of course, be some good which comes from this. Small children will point and laugh at how adults, loudly declaring their anti-bullying credentials, cover their eyes and ears (while mouthing wild excuses for the bully) when an adult does the same. Pass the popcorn - I've seen this movie before. Flatterworld (talk) 06:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Please calm down. Here is the quote: "Above I mentioned that I was doing first aid. I encourage a discussion to refine the name so that it is precise, neutral, and grammatically correct. I see the initial renaming as a step in the right direction, not an end of the discussion. Jehochman Talk 01:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)" And the name "Santorum Google problem" is from the sources. BECritical__Talk 07:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

:::And you might try changing your attitude. IF you were trying to be an honest broker, THEN you would have added 'Santorum (cyber-bullying attempt)' - especially after I pointed out it was missing on the list you decided (unilaterally) to create. You didn't, but decided to lecture me on what - my demeanor? Reactions to your apparently deliberate exclusion from the discussion? What do you expect me to do - apologize for your continuing bad faith actions? (btw - first aid does NOT normally consist of kicking the injured into the ditch.) You've already decided all it needs is to be 'refined' - as opposed to drastically changed. That's a pretty odd statement to make in the middle of a suppossedly open, inclusive discussion, imo. Flatterworld (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I almost wonder if it wasn't an intentional stroke of brilliance. The choice of title was good enough to keep anyone from screaming oul" loudly enough to demand an appeal without thinking about it, but at the same time it's not satisfactory enough to keep us from discussing a better choice—and so far, do it with refreshingly little rancor. If that was the intent, King Solomon would be proud. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

::::More likely the attempt is to keep kicking this can down the road until the campaign is over and it doesn't matter any more. I've seen plenty of precedent on Wikipedia for that before. Be_Critical requests 'giving the system time to do its work' on Jimbo's Talk page. How much time has this been going on already? "How about 'forever'? Is forever good for you?" Why do you think it went to ArbCon? Flatterworld (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Is it possible for this discussion to be come more of a fragmented clustetrfuck than it already is? A sub-section here, people leaving nested comments after each 1-23 (and counting) entry before this, the cyber-bullying tangent, the whining about poor, poor Google's image. Not even sure where to go here and not get lost in the noise. I will say though that any renaming suggestion that includes "santorum neologism/slang" as a part of the title should be taken off the table, since that is the problematic form that we just moved from. Tarc (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    • "We" didn't do anything of the sort. Jehochman did it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
      • And he did it with a very good reason. It is a shame that you cannot set aside your personal beliefs in favor of upholding basic BLP policy. Tarc (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

**Are you actually claiming that cyberbullying is a tangent in relation to Savage's campaign? As in the sense of totally irelevant, not worth discussing, this is really about something totally different, just move along, nothing to see here? Am I supposed to be intimidated by your claim? Flatterworld (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

      • Flatterworld, your point is well taken, but as long as there are no RS (let alone a preponderance of RS) calling Dan Savage's campaign "cyberbullying", it's not a realistic option for the title. Let's focus on the ones that sources have actually used. --JN466 18:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

****That's not how articles are necesarily named in Wikipedia. The point is to be accurate, clear and useful. That can be a balance, which is a major reason for redirects. If someone is known as Connie Mack, we use that as the name and Cornelius Harvey McGillicuddy IV as a redirect. I have no problem if someone wants to create a whole list of redirects for this, but what we are discussing here is the most accurate, clear and useful official article name. The 'reliable sources' in this case are mostly the news media who (understandably) find the situation funny. They have lots of names for Sarah Palin as well, but that doesn't mean we should take a poll and name the Wikipedia article whatever happens to be most popular at the time. Flatterworld (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

          • Cyberbullying is a pejorative term, and thus takes a clear side in the dispute, labelling what Savage did as reprehensible. While a few bloggers have made that case, especially against the backdrop of Savage's anti-bullying campaign, it's not how the sources available to us are describing it. We can find a more neutral title (and seem to be well on our way). --JN466 22:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Oh, quit whining, I was just picking one of the million topic titles to note how fragmented and tangential this mess has become. Tarc (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

****Perhaps you should have stopped at 'fragmented'? Flatterworld (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yet another SEO 'trick'

There are fifty-one (51) occurrences of 'Rick Santorum', as opposed to 'Santorum'. (An earlier high was 56.) That is doubtlessly affecting this articles 'relevance' rank for those googling for 'Rick Santorum'. I don't believe in coincidence. I am sick and tired of this ridiculous gameplaying. As Dravecky pointed out above, googling for 'Santorum campaign' now produces this article as the second search result. (And if I hadn't redirected Santorum campaign to his presidential campaign article, it might have been #1.) I am reminded of Harry Evans's famous directive to journalists, as to the proper frame of mind to take when talking to politicians: "Who is this lying bastard, and what's he lying to me about this time?" CClearly not limited to journalists. I'm certainly becoming increasingly skeptical, as opposed to Assuming Good Faith. Just because Savage exhorted his readers to do whatever they could do to make his word the #1 SERP for Google doesn't mean anyone here has some 'right' or 'excuse' to misuse Wikipedia. I've worked on a lot of political articles, and the first name appeared in the lede. After that, only the last name was used. That's one of the Guidelines. And somehow this article just happens to have 51? Really? Flatterworld (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Good acumen. Should be trimmed out. The other part is, so as much as we talk about it, so much we create different talk pages, full of links here. The new ANI now - also. Even before, I thought (but I didn't point it out), that we should find some better description than 'campaign'. Campaign as a word, was good for start here, becouse people realized, what the subject of article is all about. But I note that for newcommers it is not that clear from the 'campaign' word at all (still protesting, that the word is not neologism and so).
This one here is negative campaign, not just any campaign. There shoud be some loose synonymum for it or description, we didn't hit so far. Reo + 18:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Even before, I thought...that we should find some better description...we didn't hit so far.
I believe Jimbo had it early on..."attack". JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
More than half the occurrences are in the title of the articles used as sources (and we have to have sources for BLP, among other reasons). The section where Rick Santorum's name appears the most times is his response. Gacurr (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
90% of those citations are cruft and OR. So, that's easily solved. Have we met before Gacurr? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not disagreeing with the change, but I will suggest a possible good-faith explanation for the phenomenon: Possibly someone wanted to make sure that there was no confusion as to whether "Rick Santorum" or "santorum" was being referred to. I wouldn't do this throughout the article, and I know it isn't exactly policy, but I can see it being a good-faith attempt to disambiguate. It is possible that there may be one or more places where using Rick Santorum's first name would avoid confusion on the part of the reader; if it's not possible to rewrite such a hypothetical sentence to avoid confusion, we shouldn't be shy about using Santorum's first name... but not excessively. (In other words, apply Hanlon's razor to the phenomenon.) // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

::If you believe that, I suggest you run a 'find' through the article before repeating your 'possibility'. If you still believe that to be the case...I have a bridge you might be interested in buying. ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not it is done so people know that Rick Santorum is not santorum, the number of occurrences in an article, in which a necessary element is the politician's name, is not unexpected. Running a 'find' through the article, the politician's name appears in the body 18 times. In the response section, a picture caption increases the number by one. The title of that section, Response by..., increases the number by one again. The table of contents, duplicating the section title, increases it once more. So 21 times. This is a far cry from the 51 complained about. Gacurr (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

:Here's a list of synonyms. Might I suggest crusade? It's both appropriate and unlikely to be confused with any political campaigns. Or, we can return to attack, cyberattack, cyberbullying, et al. Flatterworld (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

All of the alternatives you suggest have value judgements associated with them, and are thus non-neutral. Campaign is both the correct word to describe the phenomenon, as well as the most neutral. Our job is to write the article, not worry about Mr. Santorum's political prospects or Google ranking. It is true that we need to make sure that the article is not written in an attempt to negatively impact Mr. Santorum. Similarly, it must not be written to aid him. We have no responsibility for Mr. Santorum's visibility on Google or any other search engine. We simply have a responsibility to uphold our core values.
Our policy concerning given names is overridden by our policy of quoting people accurately. When we use a verbatim quotation, such as the one from The New York Times about "President Bush, Senator Clinton and Senator Rick Santorum", we use the exact quotation, even if the writer didn't follow the Wikipedia MoS. As for your speculations about the alleged mproper motives of some editor(s), my experience is that it's fairly common for edits to bio articles to include superfluous titles or first names. I've removed a handful of improper uses of "Rick". (I agree with Gacurr about leaving titles alone, also. I agree with Macwhiz that, in this unique circumstance, there can be some need to disambiguate, but if the context is commenting or making a donation, I have confidence that our readers will realize that it's the former Senator rather than the frothy mixture.) JamesMLane t c 00:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Addendum: Well, Flatterworld, I thought there was some validity to your point, so I corrected the errors. Dreadstar then reverted me, restoring those instances of "Rick" with which you'd rightly taken issue, and giving this ES: "yeah, let's make it every santorum, eh?" I have no idea what this means or why he reverted. Rather than subject this article to yet another edit war, I'll wait for other editors to comment on whether Dreadstar's revert was correct. JamesMLane t c 05:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

New source

Editors may be interested to read "Wikipedia awash in 'frothy by-product' of US sexual politics". You knew this would happen sooner or later. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

They got the title wrong: "Wikipedia a whitewash in 'frothy by-product' of US sexual politics". Plus that article mentions Rick Santorum by name 10 times. So it is clearly SEO. Gacurr (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

::Aw.... Flatterworld (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Great article, and strangely accurate. Fire up the echo chamber!!! Actually, although I'd avoid relying too much on it for WP:NAVEL reasons, I do like some of the language the author uses in the background section when describing what the campaign is all about. For example, the term is "equating the Senator's name with..." Equating is a good word. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

:I just came back to post the link, and here it was. I especially enjoyed the part about core contributors, as in has sparked weeks of controversy among the core contributors to Wikipedia. I assume we're all included in that group? In which case I demand my official tshirt.... ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Core contributors? Somebody needs to alert Delta, Mathsci, and some of the others that they're missing out. Wikidemon (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, we'll need to create another neologism article: Wikibombing. --JN466 20:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

There's some feedback there, which I'll paste just because It's what I've said before:

Seth Finkelstein argues that despite his own personal views, such articles should be squashed. "I should disclaim that I find Rick Santorum's political positions to be reprehensible, and I sympathize with the feelings behind the actions against him. But, in reply to the obvious more-activist-than-thou point of how one can be concerned over these Google and Wikipedia reactions, rather what prompts them from Santorum's stances, there's something very worrying going on here," he wrote on his personal blog. "Today it's Rick Santorum ... tomorrow, who knows? And I suspect that right-wingers are going to eventually be able to play that game far better than left-wingers."

But right wingers already played the game, with topics ranging from the Swift Boat Veterans to Bill Ayers. This is just the way Wikipedia works. It's a flaw of the medium. The line between participant and documentarian is inherently blurred.

In other words, if we're going to have an encyclopedia, and cover whatever has RS sources, we will just have to accept the realworld consequences, which at times will mean that WP is part of the spread of various types of information. In the absence of any policy guidance to show us how to take account of such outside influence, it's best to ignore our effects on the world. On the other hand, discussing how and when we could take realworld effects into account would be an interesting debate, and I think several editors, including Jimbo, have been subtly urging us to have that discussion. BECritical__Talk 21:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

T shirt!! [20] :Picture's excellent, but I would want the caption to echo what Mike Royko wrote to (each and every one of) his assistants when he retired: "You were the best. Don't tell the others." So..."I am a core contributor at Wikipedia. Don't tell the others." Best worn in the hundreds at Wikniks. ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently we're "fiddlers". All we need now is an awards ceremony, with gilded replicas. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

:::I think it's more like that three-definition thing: "I am a core contributor, you are a well-intentioned wannabe, they are fiddlers. ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC) ::::Gilded replica? No thanks. I might settle for something at Wikipedia:Service awards. One could choose from "core contributor to santorum", "santorum fiddler", "Wikipedia Google-Bomb Squad", "Wikibomb Squad", or "I Savagely fought the Santorum wars, survived innumerable Google bombs, and lived to tell the story. Which you don't want to hear. Really." Flatterworld (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

lol, "santorum fiddler." Should be "I'm the core contributor to Wikipedia, don't tell the others." BECritical__Talk 22:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
WP:ILOVEIT!!!. Could you put that up on CafePress so I can buy one? - Wikidemon (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Lol you serious? I only found it searching for... um... wikipedia core user on google. BECritical__Talk 01:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Lol, finally something what we all here have in common :)). I feel connected to you all in WikiBrotherhood :-D, I feel somehow rewarded ;) dear fellow wikifiddlers :). --Reo + 01:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Do you know why Wikipedia doesn't have a Wikifiddler article? It's because it is a neologism that is not widely used. Of course, this AfD was in 2005 and it may well be mentioned in more sources by now, perhaps even in the introduction to a dictionary.... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
{{joint}} BECritical__Talk 02:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for new article

Wikibombing refers to the practice of creating Wikipedia articles, and internal linking within Wikipedia, for purposes of maximizing the Google page rank of the Wikipedia article, and thereby elevating the prominence of a subject. The term first gained public attention in connection with the [[Campaign for "santorum" neologism]], an attempt by supporters of [[Dan Savage]] to equate [[Rick Santorum]]'s surname with the phrase, "a frothy".... etc. What do you think? We could add this to a few templates... - Wikidemon (talk) 07:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it might be worth writing an essay about it. This would make a good case study. --JN466 13:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

::I appreciate Wikidemon's joke, but I agree with Jayen466 that some sort of essay is probably needed, with the point being to provide a list of things to watch out for in controversial Wikipedia articles. btw - it's not just unusual ranking in the SERPs, it's also the 'snippet' which is used. Which is why the lede is important. As Dan Savage's "SEO volunteers" are well aware. Same for the article name, as that's part of the url. I'm not suggesting we do an "anti-SEO" campaign for such articles, just that we be aware of how all this works. Flatterworld (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I've started off an essay here: WP:SEOBOMB. Editors are invited to review and improve it. --JN466 15:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Does your invitation include the addition of a section titled "Opposing point of view", deriding the whole concept and disaagreeing with much of the rest of the essay? JamesMLane t c 15:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
It's a wiki. --JN466 00:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

What source says this? Because "Santorum" the sex term predates this article. Merrill Stubing (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it does, the ongoing bold attempts to rewrite history notwithstanding. In fact, whereas Santorum (neologism) and Rick Santorum are in a statistical dead heat right now, back in March, before any so-called optimization of the article took place, Santorum (sexual neologism) led Rick Santorum by about 25%. It seems when Rick Santorum has not recently announced his candidacy, people are considerably more interested in finding information about the word santorum. And that this effect has nothing to do with internal Wikipedia linking. Gacurr (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion of the essay, and the effect of internal linking on Google page rank, at the Village Pump. --JN466 00:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for next steps in renaming

So many names have been suggested that I think a preliminary step or two is necessary to reach a consensus. I think we should start with a straw poll to see if there is consensus on what the title should primarily refer to. Is the article primarily about the campaign/attempt/googlebombing/SEO/political attack, or is it about the word/neologism/coinage/slang term?

If we can get to consensus on that we can use that to strip out some of the options and try another step. For example, if we get consensus that the former is the right topic, then we could narrow it down: is it primarily a political act, for which SEO is a technique but not the topic itself? Or is the article fundamentally about this particular act of Googlebombing/SEO? If on the other hand the article is agreed to be about the word, we could ask next whether it is about the act of coining the word or about the word itself. That way we might be able to get down to just a few possible names; the current discussion is rather diffuse because of the number of different candidate names.

Does this seem like a good next step? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a good step. But I would expect this (unless the pool diminishes to a few activists) to result in no consensus for either. What then? (This is not "don't do this"; it's "let's have a plan.") Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not particularly optimistic about this road leading us to a happy consensus, but I think the first step or two might be achievable, and that would be worthwhile in order to narrow the scope of any subsequent debate. Anything we can do to focus the discussion seems worth a try. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank You Mike Christie for the effort.

I think the first part is rather answered already in the RfC, that is, it should had been renamed to the campaign/attempt/googlebombing/SEO/political attack one. If you, or any others might think, there was not such a consensus, well lets keep the straw poll on this qestion rather quick and separate from the other ones, so we can move forward in paralel.

I agree we should narrow the options down and I would suggest to use key points Jehochman already suggested above. They were good ones:

Key points to consider:

Should Savage's name be included in the title?

Is this a Google bomb or merely a search engine optimization problem for Santorum?

Is "Santorum" capitalized, quoted, possessive?

And I believe, we should not omit to go to the section with names. It is necessary to keep coming with creative Ideas and being feedbacked on them. It is interesting what may other people notice. It is good to keep here other debate on the narrowing issues as well and in paralel (not as replacement) many arguments to those issues here come to mind, just when seeing the names up above.

My two cents for Google problem - If I would not see them together in the title, I would think, they are just the most perfect words for title, only when actually seeing them, I see their unfortunate doublemeaning. So lets talk. --Reo + 02:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

campaign/attempt/googlebombing/SEO/political attack: I don't like 'campaign' because of Santorum's current political campaign, so it's confusing. It's not about Santorum's Google (or any other) problem, it's about Savage's crusade (or whatever word instead of campaign). We could call it Dan Savage's santorum attack, as Dan Savage's santorum isn't clear. ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 03:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Rereading Jehochman's close above I think it can be agreed that the first part is already decided; it's a "campaign/attempt/googlebombing/SEO/political attack". My suggestion for the next question would be: is it primarily a political act, for which SEO is a technique but not the topic itself? Or is the article fundamentally about this particular act of Googlebombing/SEO? If there's a better question to ask to home in on the right article topic (and title) please say so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

(post ec) Looks like we're agreed that Jehochman's close does answer the first question. Any other suggestions for the next question? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

(post ec) I concur with Jenochman's approach as to establishing consensus on specifically delineated questions though I have some issues with the phrasing of #2 & #3. I'll table those for the moment as the wording might be influenced by resolution of #1. IMHO, another RFC is warranted. May I suggest...

Should the title of a Wikipedia article on the Dan Savage/Rick Santorum controversy incorporate the name of either, neither or both of these individuals in that title?

JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

What noun to use (campaign, etc.)?

Personally, I support going back to Santorum (neologism), but if consensus has moved on, so be it. Assuming that we've decided that this article is or should be about the act of coinage and not the coined word, then here is a necessary consideration. If we must drop the word campaign, we must be careful what we replace it with. It's unfortunate that I can't find an RS that calls this what it really is (I did find one or two blog comments, woohoo). As of 2005, the WP article Culture jamming cited this very matter as an example of a Googlebomb (which is itself an example of a culture jam). Most culture jams aren't directed at a single person, but (using WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS) that is exactly what this is: an attempt to disrupt Rick Santorum's popularity and legitimacy as a politician, by subverting his name in the public mind, using a (wickedly) humorous substitute definition. I see several possible words to use to describe this thing we are dealing with (I follow them with what I consider the strengths and weaknesses of each term):

  • Campaign
  • Culture jam
    • Strengths: descriptive; neutral.
    • Drawbacks: unsourced (OR).
  • Attack
    • Strengths: descriptive.
    • Drawbacks: arguably non-neutral; less well-sourced.
  • Cyberbullying
    • Strengths: perhaps descriptive.
    • Drawbacks: very non-neutral; unsourced (OR).
  • Prank
    • Strengths: somewhat descriptive; somewhat sourced.
    • Drawbacks: neutrality depends on source ("prank" like kids TP'ing a house, or "prank" like dropping a bucket of pigs' blood on Carrie?)
  • Crusade
    • Strengths: none I can see.
    • Drawbacks: not descriptive (Savage isn't picketing the guy's house); non-neutral; unsourced.
  • Project
    • Strengths: synonym for campaign, therefore descriptive and neutral.
    • Drawbacks: unsourced.
  • Search engine result (manipulation/project/etc.)
    • Strengths: descriptive; neutral; sourced (as "Google bomb"); non-trademark-diluting (unlike "Google bomb").
    • Drawbacks: long-winded; unlikely (I think) to draw non-tech-savvy readers who are looking for the answer to the question "What the hell happened to Rick Santorum's name???"
  • SEO manipulation - see above.

You can probably tell from how I've characterized these that I'm most in favor of keeping campaign. The titles of Rick Santorum presidential campaign, 2012 and Campaign for "santorum" neologism are pretty disparate and not easily confused, with Santorum campaign redirecting to the former. While it's unfortunate that a search for santorum campaign will turn up both articles, I just don't see what other term we can use that is descriptive, neutral, and sourced (i.e. not OR). If I'm overlooking something, please point it out. Sorry if tl;dr. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 17:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


The discussion is long and messy, so it is helpful to summarize periodically. The consensus I see above is that the article is about:

A campaign started by Dan Savage, and supported by many others, to humiliate Rick Santorum by turning his name into a neologism for something disgusting.

The first question is whether this statement accurately summarizes what the article is about, and whether most people can agree to that. Second, if you like that statement, how can we shorten it to an article title by eliminating any unnecessary facts or words? Jehochman Talk 13:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Green tickY aye. What title describes it best? --Reo + 13:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Green tickYYes, that is the subject of the article. I do not have constructive suggestions for renaming because I believe the subject is a WP:COATRACK for what ought to be 3–4 paragraphs in the Dan Savage article with one brief paragraph at Rick Santorum. However, since multiple failed AfD attempts indicate that Wikipedia cannot resist treating this smear campaign as an independent encyclopedic topic, I will say that I support the view that the title ought not combine the words "campaign" and "Santorum". (I have no interest in Mr. Savage or Mr. Santorum. This article came to my attention because I am undecided whether the spillover article at Wikiquote should be tagged for NPOV or just deleted for lack of quoteworthiness.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

:This is a fork of Suggestion for next steps in renaming, and we have plenty of forks already, thank you very much. Flatterworld (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Page protection

6 hours full protection -- I have no idea which version I just protected, though. Discuss.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC) :REALLY? No idea? You were wandering through a meadow, playing with kittens and butterflies, and thought you'd protect 'some version'? Don't know and don't care which? Just how stupid do you think we are? Flatterworld (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for protection. Definitely needed. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The version where most of the references have been removed. [21] And the article condensed by the editor whose proposal to "condensed to one or two paragraphs" and merge the article into another was, after a couple of weeks of community-wide input, rejected days ago. Gacurr (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
While I understand and normally accept the policy of retaining the version an article is on when it is protected, I believe that, given the extreme rancor this article is currently facing, that the text should be rolled back to the version that existed before the edit warring began, especially since the current non-consensus version has deleted a significant amount of material and supporting citations that had previously been accepted. From 123 references to only 23? With no consensus? Really? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Seconded. The article should be rolled back to before the move that predictably led to disruption. Gacurr (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Gacurr (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Hi Tarc. I have heard rumors that Wikipedia is having a hard time attracting and retaining new editors. When a newcomer comes along and is continually "called out" for being a new editor, as though that is supposed to detract from the comments on the subject here (improvement of the article) it may be that that behavior by some editors is exactly why new editors do not stick around. Similarly, when a recently-closed RfC rejects whittling the article down so it can be mashed into another and then the same editor who proposes that comes along days later and replaces the article with his or her whittled down version, it may turn off editors. Why bother to take part in an RfC if its result is going to be summarily ignored? Why bother to take part in Wikipedia if a proposal to whittle down an article is rejected by a clear consensus and then a couple days later the same editor making that proposal goes ahead anyway? Gacurr (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Probably for the same reason the United States has an Electoral College rather than a direct vote for president; on important matters, the simple tallying of the unwashed masses is not enough. As for "newcomers", I have a fairly good idea of who you are, and a newcomer you ain't. The tagger doesn't sign a tag, btw. Tarc (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Good call on protection, although I'd vote for a longer duration. And yeah, folks, WP:WRONGVERSION. Read it. Dreadstar 18:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh geez, shall we pass around some baby rattles? Pacifiers? Nothing of value was lost, there is no harm in allowing the current version to sit in place for a bit. Perhaps upon reflection, users here will begin to see the difference between writing for an encyclopedia vs. writing for TMZ; get to the point, leave aside the cruft. Tarc (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

**I do not make excuses for bullying of any sort. Your mileage obviously varies. Flatterworld (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

  • All I can say, is after trying to read this article for the past few weeks, finally a readable version is in place. This will give those of us who didn't want to wade through a bloated page the opportunity to catch up and maybe to join the discussion. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Full protection expired, so I restored the previous semi-protection.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

yet another RfD request here

While the rest of us are trying to work things out within the Wikipedia system, KoshVorlon is engaging in vexatious litigation (aka "throwing a tantrum"). Is there no way to stop this? Flatterworld (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Ignore. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

|} ::RUBBISH. (nb: in reply to now-deleted statement/insult by Tarc) It's a clear attempt to keep the deletion template at the top of the article, thereby casting aspersions on it. After all the discussions here about SEO attempts, I would have thought everyone, especially someone like Tarc who's been around the block a few times, would recognize that. Flatterworld (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

False advertising!! It's a DRV. I thought it would be an RfD, which would have at least been more interesting. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Good luck at futura AFD!

What you all fail to realize (in the endless circular arguing above) is that this article will not always and eternally survive AFD, all thanks to Rick Santorum himself making Santorum the fecal matter an issue by addressing it on the news in response to Dan Savage creating the spreading santorum idea in the first place, before this article even existed with a frothy mixture of Google juice. It's a lost cause because it's notable in the real world beyond any doubt now, from Santorum's silly acknowledgement. Merrill Stubing (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I assume you meant "will now always and eternally survive AFD". Yes, I agree. Any resubmission of the article for deletion should be reverted and the submitting party admonished. Binksternet (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

State of the article

I just tried to copy edit the article to bring some structure to it so it can be read, and I couldn't do it. POV aside, it's a very poor article that really needs to be drastically reduced in size. Does anyone mind if I go in and do that? I'm asking first because I don't want to spend the time only for someone to revert.

It's currently 4,458 words, so I'd be aiming to reduce it to around 2,000–2,500. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 03:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone has got to do something. I looked at it and felt the same way. What if you just do small changes on each edit with a summary if controversial, so that each edit is easy to evaluate on its own? BECritical__Talk 03:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I tried to do that, BE. I imposed a new structure on it so it was easier to see what belonged where. Then I tried making a small start by moving things into the new sections. But it just doesn't work. It's too much of a stream of consciousness, so I would basically have to start from scratch. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 03:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, well somebody has to do something... I don't know what to tell you about not wanting waste your time. You do a good job on articles like on Veganism. BECritical__Talk 04:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Whatever the outcome of all of this, right now we have an article in main space which is not in anyway, reader friendly, so I think it would be excellent if you want to tackle the article. I don't agree with the title or what it means or describes so my only concern is that the title will, or maybe has to, influence the article. The more immediate problem though, is a poorly written article, so concerns aside, I'd support your rewrite. And thanks for taking it on.(olive (talk) 04:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC))
SV in da house! Seriously, you're a great author & editor so there's a 100% chance it will be a better article after your efforts. You're more experienced than me at this, but I've found that when doing a major rewrite of controversial / heavily edited articles it's best to do it in 2 stages: (1) re-arrange everything into a more appropriate structure, without making any substantive changes. See if that sticks, then (2) go through one section at a time at a reasonable clip. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
WD, I tried first re-arranging, but the material is so mixed up, I couldn't do it. It would be easier and faster to rearrange and do some drastic cuts at the same time. Otherwise I'm spending time re-arranging material that's unreadable. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 04:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Please go ahead, every confidence that it will be a better article after you're done with it. --JN466 04:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'll give it a shot. I'll try it on a subpage, because it may get worse before it gets better. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 04:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
SV, is there a reason you keep adding the Catholic Church sex abuse cases stuff to the intro summary? The detail does not seem at all important to the summary. It is not even discussed in the article. The statements that led to the coining of the sexual neologism were not about the Catholic Church abuse. It reads more like a red herring for anyone trying to find out about the santorum neologism campaign. Gacurr (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
He didn't suddenly start offering his views about sex for no reason. It's important to offer some context to explain how and why the comments were made in the first place. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 05:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
For version control, should we defer any major changes or decisions pending SV's proposal? - Wikidemon (talk) 06:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, given that you want this article not to exist at all, it's puzzling to see you imagining that you would create a version of the article that would be acceptable to the large numbers of editors here who are opposed to its deletion (either partial or total). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd be aiming to reduce it to around 2,000–2,500. Chucking out the entire section on politics would be a start. Not one word of it is based on anything other than the chucking of runes and the examining entrails. Besides it is one huge blob of recentism from start to finish. John lilburne (talk) 06:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

::I really don't understand this focus on word count. The point is to cover everything important, as succinctly and clearly as possible. I would not presume to claim I knew how many words that would take, and I don't see it as a proper goal or mission here. It's putting the cart before the horse. (And removing the 'political' section makes no sense at all, as it was the major point of Savage's campaign.) Flatterworld (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The 'political section' is almost entirely 'ufology', there is not one quote or reference in the section that has any basis in fact, other then that others have speculated about whether it will/has/had any effect on anything. The section might more accurately be titled as "Chatter by chatters 'that something might have an effect, or might not' whatever". Meanwhile the world moves on as if nothing has happened. John lilburne (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Agreed - that part of the article meanders and is hard to read. That's pretty normal, as over time articles build up an accretion of random stuff that people have to say about a subject. Ideally we would cut this down to verified statements of fact by third party neutral sources, analyzing in an authoritative way what the political and other implications are, not participants or pundits chattering. Failing that, we could choose a few representative and/or noteworthy examples about what relevant people have to say. The background can also be cut down to just give the basics and refer people to the "controversy article", unless and until we merge the two. "Recognition and usage" also seems too long by half. We could cut down on scattershot isolated examples of usage, as well as "point-counterpoint" claims that seem to be debating whether it has or has not gained traction. Does that debate really matter for our purposes? It's gained a little traction and that's it. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Notability issue and AfD's as affecting article content

We obviously aren't writing on a clean slate here. (This may be the dirtiest slate in Wikipedia at the moment.) There've been something like half a dozen attempts to delete this article. Two important facts are: (1) some Wikipedians' desire to expunge this article from Wikipedia is intense, and (2) other cases have established that "Closed as keep" means "Closed as keep for now, but deletion advocates can come back and try again and hope for a different set of responding editors or a different closing admin." The conclusion: It's a virtual certainty that, regardless of what happens now, there will be another AfD before long, and another after that if the next one also fails.

This circumstance is relevant to any rewrite of the article. A rewrite must not eliminate any information that tends to support the notability of the subject. The need to edit with an eye to the future AFD's is the price we pay for not having some kind of three-strikes-and-you're-out rule on deletion attempts. I hope we can all agree that it would be unfair to remove information from the article, in the name of shortening it, and then to delete the article because of the absence of that information. JamesMLane t c 06:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Draft rewrite

I've written a draft at User:SlimVirgin/neologism. It's 1,387 words with 23 footnotes (some containing bundled refs), as opposed to 4,471 words with 123 footnotes. I think I've included all the key points. I've removed repetition, dead links, material I couldn't find in the sources, and most of the "me too" sources, many of which only mentioned the issue in passing.

Note about the sources: I checked about three quarters of them as I was writing, but haven't checked them all yet, so I can't completely guarantee text-source accuracy. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 15:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's rewrite

[moved here from below]

I've created a draft rewrite of this at User:SlimVirgin/neologism, per the discussion here. I've removed the repetition and "me too" sources, so it's now 1,387 words with 23 footnotes, rather than the current 4,471 words with 123 footnotes. Having read most of the sources and how they describe the issue, two descriptive titles would be Rick Santorum Google problem or Dan Savage santorum campaign. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 15:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I find your version much improved, with less POV and more sticking to the facts. I endorse adoption of the rewrite. (I still favor an ultimate merge with Santorum Controversy article.) —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I support adoption. That is a credit to the project. Thank you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
My admiration SlimVirgin. After two re-readings, nothing is really missing there. And it became legible. I support adoption Reo + 16:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone. I'm going offline now, so I'll add it to the article for now, and if it's reverted we can continue discussing and trying to gain consensus for it. Also, see prior discussion about this here. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 16:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Support adoption as well. Very, very well done. --JN466 16:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

so I'll add it to the article for now, and if it's reverted we can continue discussing and trying to gain consensus for it.. Don't even think about it. Waiting a whole hour and a half and getting a couple of positive comments does NOT constitute some mandate for change. It's also insulting to those of use participating in good faith attempts to work things out within the system. Flatterworld (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC) ::I have reverted your unilateral change, and I have made this a separate section on the Talk page (nb: it was originally buried at the end of the Summarize section, which was a summary of the discussion so far, nothing about 'summarizing' the article..). Hiding it within the previous section could be interpreted as yet attempt at gaming this article/situation. I am sick and tired of all the game-playing on all sides. Flatterworld (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Flatterworld, you reverted within 3 minutes. Did you even read it? It is vastly improved, and now reads like a credit to this project. Please consider self-reverting. It's what it should have been in the first place. Neutral, lucid, and informative. --JN466 17:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

::::I did not have TIME to read it before SlimVirgin updated it. Neither have most other people participating here. That rush to judgement was incredibly high-handed, insulting, and unWikipedian. That was a MAJOR change that deserved more than an hour and a half notice, especially when buried within another section. This is how an experienced ADMIN behaves? Disgusting. I respect all the people who have been contributing here, not just those I disagree with. I wouldn't dream of ignoring them. What exactly do 'discussion' and 'consensus' mean to you? Nothing? Or synonyms for "your way or the highway"? Flatterworld (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Flatterworld, SV had asked yesterday if anyone minded her doing a rewrite. Perhaps you missed the discussion above? This was not a unilateral thing; people here asked her to do it. --JN466 17:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

::::::A rewrite for review, yes - I certainly didn't expect her to announce it in an unrelated section, wait only an hour and a half, and then slap it in - after announcing she was going offline. Flatterworld (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC) :::::jftr, User:Modernist reverted "awaiting consensus". iow, we don't need consensus for SlimVirgin's rewrite, just the revert. What on earth is wrong with you people?! Did 'consensus' suddenly get a new meaning depending on who uses it? Flatterworld (talk)

I think it is a version that most involved editors could probably live with. It seems to say everything the earlier version did, without the padding. Specific critiques would be useful. I'm struggling to find fault with it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

::::So you now officially speak for EVERYONE here? Really? We don't need discussion and consensus because you know all? Really? Flatterworld (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

 :) Just saying what I think about the neutrality, concision and clarity SV has achieved. I see nothing wrong with SV being bold, by the way. Nothing. And nothing wrong with your reversion. The subsequent edit war was a bit unseemly, though. But I can understand the exuberance. Bad luck about the wrong version. You should AGF there, though. I honestly don't think Sarek has displayed partiality. He's pissed off SV just as much as he's pissed you off here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I refer to SlimVirgin's rewrite when I say "holy shit". This article just lost 100 references. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

20 good references is worth a million poor ones. I don't see where anything valuable is lost. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 17:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • A very good job, and I would support completely replacing this article with SV's rewrite (a) without modification, but (b) without prejudice to making further changes, i.e. without necessarily confirming that every single part of that article has consensus. I do have a few concerns. It seems overly apologetic towards Santorum's anti-gay comments and spends a good deal of time portraying them as reasonable, while giving undue prominence to some prudish, skeptical, and dismissive reactions to Savage. If this were some other field the focus would be on the positive fact that a phenomenon exists rather than the implied negative that not everyone approved of it. There are also some specific things that we've discussed and don't necessarily have consensus, such as identifying santorum as a "vulgar" neologism. Nonetheless, it is a vast improvement. In an up / down !vote I would strongly endorse it, but as I said, we could use that as a starting point for refinement. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, obviously. If this tripe must remain as a standalone article for now, a slimmer (pun unintended) version that gets to the point without the bloat is far preferable. Brevity is the soul of wit and the essence of lingerie, and all. Tarc (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support SV's excellent re-write. If indeed we must host this as an article, then it needs to be concise, hit the low-points, be more encyclopedic and easy to read and navigate. The previous version was bloated and unwieldy, Slim's version is an excellent start in the right direction. Dreadstar 18:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support whatever can get general consensus. Nice job so far then (: BECritical__Talk 19:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support SV's major improvements. Thanks for tackling this. Khazar (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Only one minor suggestion: perhaps we might add the word "devastating" back into that quote about "one of the more creative and salient attacks..." from the ReputationDefender source (qtd in Roll Call); if we're going to include a sentence about how this can be positively spun by a former staffer, I think it's worth making its presumed harm to the campaign explicit as well, especially when the latter comes from a neutral & expert commentator. Khazar (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • SV's rewrite is a substantial improvement from my perspective. It covers the salient points concisely and neutrally. To the extent that it seems impossible to avoid doing an article that would be better left undone, this is a job well done. ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks, everyone. Flatterworld, regarding the extra sources, if you read them you'll find they were mostly padding—what I'm calling "me too" sources—but if you find any that said something different and substantive, we can certainly add that material again. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 07:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

** Oh really?? You should have done a version compare then. Look. Thanks ever so much for your reaching out to me with so much kindness and civility but...I don't actually do this sort of passive-aggressive thing nearly as well as you do. Which is why I have resigned from Wikipedia and am now crossing out all my 'contributions' to this charade. I'm sure you'll understand my lack of interest in continuing this ridiculous game. Flatterworld (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


  • While I believe, that the SV draft is perfect kick off forward, so I also think there are some points to adress. Well actually, most were said by Wikidemon. Generally I think, the tune came maybe just little bit too much to the other side. That is, it's not just context in which Santorum statments are presented, it feels apologetic.
There is quite a little written about impact on Santorum's campaign. Alas, I can not remember where I was reading it, but I remember some sources where debating it. (If it would be due this prank (even partially), that Santorum lost, then that's just quite notable). But well, rereading the originall political section, it does not look, as it was there either. --Reo + 19:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Am I mistaken in thinking that this has been written and supported entirely by one POV in the large RFC just completed? It certainly expresses one point of view on this matter, including the unsourced vulgar in the lead. In an op-ed, I might even agree with that, but it's not the sort of language a neutral encyclopedia uses, nor is that opinion in the source cited.. I therefore suggest:

Please add {{POV}} to the top of this text; and {{fv}} to the bold vulgar in the lead. Actual compliance with guidelines would debold the phrase, but I don't expect that. 22:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

There was a lot of chaff that needed discarding. Now we need to put the wheat back in. I note the article has now dropped:

  • the widespread descriptive phrase "Google problem;"
  • the fact that Savage also registered;
  • Rick Santorum's argument that consenting adults do not have a right to privacy under the U.S. Constitution;
  • the fact that this campaign may be an example of search engine optimization rather than a straight-up Google bomb
  • the reasoning behind this particular choice of tactic as well as behind the contest's winning definition ("The reader reasoned that since Santorum had invited himself into the bedrooms of homosexuals, they should be "inclusive" and name a gay sex act for him.[32]"; "Savage said that the winner was a "perfect fit," as there was no prior name for it.[31] Santorum, he explained, is "unwelcome. If you're doing [anal sex] right, it's not gonna happen, and if it happens, it's a bit of a killjoy, which is what it would be if the actual senator strolled into the room."[31]").

I applaud the much shortened length of this article (thanks, SV, for doing that work). It would have been nice to have this discussion before simply heaving the rewrite up live, which has led to even more drama and acrimony. But the article itself is on its way to where it needs to be. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 00:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Nice work SV, especially nuking the see also section :), seriously, the "bloated" version was ridiculous. The only thing I question is the use of vulgar in the lead instead of sexual term, but whatever, much better, thanks! --Threeafterthree (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

First sentence

Not only do I dislike the process here; I think this version no improvement. Let us begin at the beginning:

American columnist Dan Savage initiated a campaign in 2003 to create a vulgar neologism using the surname of Rick Santorum, the Republican senator for Pennsylvania at the time.
  • First of all, bolding is unnecessary and undesirable, again.
  • Second, this has still been sourced to a source which doesn't say "vulgar"; that's the language of Santorum and his allies, not of neutrality.
  • Third, Savage didn't "initiate a camapaign to create a neologism"; he coined a neologism, and began a campaign to make it an established word - unless there is a source which suggests he would prefer not to have it join gerrymander. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
    • The bolding is more or less per MOS -- the subject of the article should be in the first line, and bolded. The actual title doesn't lend itself well to use in this manner. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thinking poorly of Wikipedia

I have never thought so poorly of wikipedia as I did after stumbling upon this article. shame shame on us.. I see consensus is to keep this article, aftering reviewing the recent AFDs. I know all the rules around here.. But shame shame to all who wrote this article and all who supported keeping it. This is nothing more than a deliberate attempt to smear and besmirch a person with a sick and nasty topic. Keeping it may well stick with the letter of the law, but it absolutely violates the spirit of the BLP policy. This article serve no purpose but to perpetuate an offensive slander. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 13:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The AfDs are the least of it. Among others, we had an RfC, still visible at the top of this page at the time of writing, and a failed arbitration request. --JN466 13:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I will just say again: In my many years editting here, working on featured content and everything else, I have never been so disappointed in Wikipedia as I am right now. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 13:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
There have been numerous news articles about the topic. I don't think any administrator will delete it. You could help the discussion by listing specific changes in the article that would help make it more informative and less of an attack. Jehochman Talk 13:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
This article should be deleted entirely, and a note of it made in the Dan Savage article. For example, Lewinsky (slang for oral sex) does not have its own article. It redirects to a logical topic... —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 13:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
That's a valid idea, but it's been discussed a lot, and doesn't have a consensus yet. One thing you could do is suggest ways to pare down this article. Once it is small enough, with just the pertinent facts, you could then propose a merger. Jehochman Talk 13:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
See a proposed rewrite at User:SlimVirgin/neologism. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 15:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
So long as this exists it will always be used as an example of all that is wrong here. I doubt that many of the editors involved will ever be taken seriously again. John lilburne (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

If an American conservative columnist had started a campaign to call a sex act a "Lewinsky", and that campaign had received large amounts of coverage in reliable sources, I can't see why we shouldn't have such an article. Politics is often a dirty business, and we should not report selectively based on what we find makes us queasy.

I honestly can't see why this article generates such especial hostility. We report many things which are unpleasant, or politically motivated, and attempt to do so from a neutral point of view. Can anyone tell me what differentiates this article, in its current form, from the swiftboating article, which also reports a hostile publicity campaign in American politics? -- The Anome (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

What is so wrong about this one is that this became as story, and received top google search status, because this article exists. Had we not made this article, or deleted it in 2003 when it was clearly not-notable, media coverage would likely have never occurred. This page IS the google bomb. This article was and is being used as a weapon to affect external search results. This article by the far the largest story on this topic on the web. That is to say, we are making more of it than any other outlet. We are perpetuating it. In this way, this article fits the definition of an attack page, and violate the BLP policy. That there is even debate on this topic remaining is what I find so shameful. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 13:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Because Jerome Corsi didn't call it "swiftkerrying", and google searches for "John Kerry" or just "Kerry" correctly/properly display searches for the senator, not the Swifties disinformation campaign. Tarc (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
It this simple. The very topic of this article is libel. Even under the US strict definition of libel. WP:LIBEL obliges us to immediately delete such content. It clearly meets that criteria - 1. It is false, the word santorum has no such meaning, not in any dictionary. 2. It purpose is to do harm. 3. Because it so affects google search results, it has indeed did harm. That alone is legal causus belli for a suit against the foundation. There is no debate, it is the dictate of the foundation libel be deleted immediately. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 14:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I think you'll find that was the original Google bomb, and was already quite effective by the time this article was created. Yes, I think it's likely that the original author may have googlebombing as part of their motivation for creating this article, but it has quite clearly now been beaten into a shape where it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. -- The Anome (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm well-aware of how this all originally came about, thanks. What it merits is at most a 2-3 paragraph treatment in the "Rick Santorum and homosexuality" article. It does not merit treatment as a legitimately-used word, since it isn't one, and the whole google-bombing agenda does not need an article of its own. Tarc (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
@Charles Edward to your reasoning at 13:57, 21 June 2011
....I actually partly agree on this here, and I pointed it here several times. That is for one reason, that we must to rename it to something quite neutral (neutralise the G'Bomb's explosive power). In fact, the article may pretty well turn against Savage himself, but neither that should be our intention. The only think important, is to not particpate on the attack ourselves.
  1. Being high in the Google results does not make us participate in the attack. If are not filled with the loathsome content, we are not part of it.
  2. We also should really take care of the imbound links within Wikipedia targeting (from inside other Wikipedia articles and especially templates) this article and trim them down (partly done)
  3. We should take care of the 'Rick Santorum' occurance in the article and trim them down to just necessary number.
  4. Beyond that, we are not here to worry to outside world, we only have to cure, where the remedy is on our part. It is in my opinion true, that the bare existence of the article under the stupid previous name helped, to generate the problem.
Some people reading this talk, might be surprised why I was bringing here the links showing the traffic to this page and compared it with Rick Santorum's article. After looking upon them, I realized, that the change of the name had quite an effect upon people visiting this site directly from Google. (Gone down) When the title does not pretend, that this article is about the fecal matter, people simply started to lose interest to come here. The more precise we will be with the article title, the less we will be deceiving visitors, the less of fun the prank will generate and we will have no active role in it.
To delete the article is not the only solution.
It is in fact wrong solution Reo + 14:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

:(edit conflict) This is NOT swiftboating because it isn't a case of "wrong facts", but a 100% personal attack with no facts involved. If Savage had spun Santorum's actual views, it would have been more like swiftboating. Instead, it's been closer to the birthers, although even they claimed some sort of 'facts', absurd though they were. This is an attack, but I see no libel involved, or any legal issues. imo it's a shame that Dan Savage might be remembered more for this than his It Gets Better project and his advice column. A memorable "own goal". Flatterworld (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about Savage or Santorum. It is about how WP deals with such issues, and how WP elevates a minor event into a festering, pustulent, boil. Jimmy Wales understands that this article, its spread across the site, and the sites inability to take any responsibility for it, is an albatross. John lilburne (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

There are several important points, imo. Charles Edward, I assume you've googled the term. Would you really prefer that Dan Savage's website continue to appear as the #1 result with NO (shall we say) rebuttal? An encyclopedia's job is to explain. In this case, a 'gut reaction' to what appeared to be (I've read differing quotes) a personal attack on an entire group of people by a sitting (at the time) Senator. It was the sort of thing one might hear from any of the late-night comedians, soon forgotten. The difference is, it's lasted eight years and through the help of his supporters it's become the #1 search engine result. So, people want to know why. Yes, they should know this sort of thing doesn't just "happen", it's not the fault of Google - and the reasons why some people support Savage on this, and why some don't (not to be confused with supporting Santorum's views). These are important things to explain, even if some of us would have preferred the adults had acted like adults and the focus had been on specific views and issues rather than a personal attack. Think of it as a teachable moment. Perhaps when the spectacular fireworks are over, and all the associated jokes have been made, people will realize we really do need to focus on issues, not game-playing. Flatterworld (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I have worked on several articles similar to this.. Democrat Party (phrase), Macaca (term), etc - fake words made up by partisans that leave you scratching you head on why we even bothered with an article about them. And the articles are nothing but partisan battles that have made their way to wikipedia. They are fake topics, cooked up by political partisans, spread across the web, picked up by (partisan) reliable sources, then added here as part of an attack campaign. Then we report them as though they are a fact, and we are not involved in the campaign, when the very existence of the article does make us part. This article has taken the same route as others I have worked on, where instead of dismissing the topic altogether, we morph it into a topic about the controversy rather than the term. And I completely agree with the side that is within the letter of policy that this article is notable, has reliable source, and is probably OK to be left here. But that does not change the motivation of editors who authored it is a piece of POV to push an agenda outside of wikipedia. The article itself is fine and within policy. Its existance is the issue - it should not be morphed into an article about the controversy. It should be deleted and the contents merged into Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality, which would put it in appropriate context.. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 14:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Assumption of bad faith noted, but as one who has supported maintaining an article about the neologism I find it difficult to follow the rest of your commentary if you lead off by telling me I'm shameful, sick, and nasty. Are you sure this is what makes Wikipedia the laughing stock of the world? Last time I checked, it was the liberal whitewash of the Obama article that made Wikipedia so shameful, or maybe the fact that we had an article on Rickrolling. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

There is cumulative effect here. People don't just point to one incident, but many. There is the LaRouche stuff by SV that is similarly tainted, the articles on fourth rate Scientologists, the Beck crap that gets posted in the all the articles of those he has a rant against, the trashing of academics that dare to say anything that isn't totally hostile to junk science. The cumulative effect of every negative article or criticism of anyone being added to articles. The rush to document every which celeb is screwing who story. Creating articles about the kid whose song video went viral on youtube. The creating of stub articles on minor royals, and their babies. The list is endless. This is just one such incident that almost anyone not involved in US politics can see for what it is. John lilburne (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Then, of course, there are many longtime editors who are disgusted at how much effort has to be expended just to continue to bring our readers well-sourced, accurate, neutral statements about a significant event. Will those of you seeking to suppress this information ever be taken seriously again? I'll be an optimist and say yes. I hope that the participants here will realize that people can have good-faith disagreements about specific points, and it doesn't mean that they're in some politician's pay or that they don't care at all about Wikipedia. JamesMLane t c 22:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
a significant event there lies the problem. This isn't a cure for AIDS, the eradication of smallpox, the elimination of world hunger, or the invention of velcro. According to the categories at the bottom of the page this article is of low importance in almost every respect. John lilburne (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll concede that it's not a cure for AIDS if you'll concede that "cure for AIDS" is not the threshold for notability. The community consensus seems to be that it's notable. Most of the opponents focus on BLP-related arguments. Anyway, my main point wss that, although you fervently support one side of this dispute, you should recognize that Wikipedians who fervently (or tepidly) support the other side are not thereby shown to be sleazeballs who should not be taken seriously. Recognition of the concept of "good-faith disagreement" would improve the tone of these interminable arguments. JamesMLane t c 05:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Whether the other side are 'sleezeballs' or not, has never been my concern. What is shown in the articles outlined above is a distinct lack of discernment, the inability for whatever reason, to comprehend the actual importance of the event/issue. Not in the common complaint against pokemon articles, which has some fascination for people recording their childhood, but in the sense of this being an event that has been blown out of all proportion. Frankly whilst this particular article should never have become what is was, having done so should not have taken weeks of arguing and rows to get back to a more reasonable state. John lilburne (talk) 07:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Those of you feeling outrage over this article should put your heads together and find a way of formulating your feeling in a policy proposal. Once you define what makes this article essentially different from other controversial or objectionable material, then maybe you will be able to come up with a formulation by which we can weed out such articles. You've admitted above that this article meets the letter of the rules here. So if it doesn't meet the spirit, how would you rewrite the rules to eliminate articles like this without creating unwanted consiquences? BECritical__Talk 22:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

There is not easy way to forumulate a policy for dealing with articles like this without adversely impacting a whole host of other guidelines an policies. At a certain point, editorial common sense is required. This article, it is original form, was a total and horrendous violation of policy, and was permitted to sit here for years only to aid and perpetuate the growth of this story. And to those above, if my saying shame shame on you is a personal attack.. give me a break. This article is in itself an attack page. You are supporting an attack of the most personal in nature. Have you no shame? I was merely appealing to any sense of common decency you may have. I am sure you are fine editors, the cream of wikipedia is editting this article and participating in this discussion. I know you have all worked on wonderful content. But this.. This topic deserves no more than a brief mention in another article about the broader subject. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 12:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I note your opinion. You might consider that people - the majority of people here historically - do not share your opinion. If you want to work with them constructively, best not to accuse or condescend. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Historically a majority of people did not share many of the opinions of Mr Savage (including Mr Santorum apparently) ... I don't recall Savage ever saying that one should work constructively with Santorum, or be anything other than condescending towards them. John lilburne (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
It's true that, if Savage conformed his public statements to Wikipedia policies, this incident would never have happened. It's also true that, if Santorum conformed his public statements to Wikipedia policies, this incident would never have happened. You've found that polemicists in the public sphere don't always strive for neutrality, that many of them don't see themselves as members of a community working together toward a common goal, etc. So what? Are you suggesting that, when we approach an article about Mr. X, established Wikipedia policies and guidelines are superseded by whatever we can discern about how Mr. X conducts himself? JamesMLane t c 16:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that community opinions change, and they can change quite quickly. Reliance on precedence of what a bunch of people thought a month ago or even last week is no argument when it comes to what people think today. Two weeks ago this article was three times it current size, and I doubt that many would have thought that SV would have been able to changed by so much. The ground has shifted on this article. It is still far to big in my opinion, but at least all that political speculation nonsense is mostly gone from it. along with the piling on of links. Hopefully the other polemicists, like Beck and whoever his counters are, will gradually find it harder and harder to get their attacks promoted on these pages. John lilburne (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Bold template

Please I hope, that You don't mind - I created /Renaming summary subpage - quasi template. Please feel free update it and fix my good faith attempts to point out what are points where we already reached some consensus. This was just first draft. There is too many forks in the debate, so we are again and again lost and debate repeat itself. Some repository and memo may be quite helpfull. --Reo + 16:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice (: BECritical__Talk 17:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I prefered the template being floating near active sections. It helped to navigate to proper sections from there. Now I am madly scroling up and down again, being bit more lost. Maybe I am alone?

Well as long as almost no one else was trying to update the floatbox content, it was probably not success and not helpfull anyway. Or was it? --Reo + 20:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

General warning

Things are getting out of hand here. If there are further assumptions of bad faith, disruptive or tendentious edits or edit wars I may start blocking the offenders. Consider yourselves all warned to be on your best behavior. This is obviously a controversial topic where people are getting upset. If you feel upset, step away and calm down before editing. Jehochman Talk 18:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC) :Thanks for the personal warning, but I'll save you the effort: I QUIT. I got involved with this article because I'm anti-bullying of all sorts, not limited by my approval or disapproval of the bully and bullied involved. I call it as I see it, believing sunlight to be the best disinfectant, and if you want to label that an "assumption of bad faith", with all evidence to the contrary, feel free. Unless and until Wikipedia Admins are willing to walk the walk on this themselves, there's no reason for me to waste any more time at Wikipedia. Congratulations - you now have the field to yourself. Flatterworld (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

And when the appearance of bad faith is too strong to assume good faith anymore? Added Cases in point: KoshVorlon's repeated efforts to overturn consensus and get the result he insists is the correct one, and Tarc's personal attacks against those who disagree with him. I should still assume good faith? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 19:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes. That's the whole point of WP:AGF. You do it when you think it isn't deserved. If there is any reasonable way the editor could be acting in good faith (e.g. they are over-excited, myopic, confused), then you should assume that. I've left a note for KoshVorlon that caused two other admins to slag me. I'm trying to be fair, but it's not easy. Jehochman Talk 01:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps deservedly, given the comment on your talk page that the editors who are acting tendentiously are those who want the page kept. A strained reading of the above debate if I ever saw one. I of course, have my opinions about the page but I have neither threatened to use the tools nor closed any contentious RfCs on the subject. Protonk (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Guidelines about living person

It seems to me that these guidelines about living persons may be applicable. They are found at WP:BLP. I assume that these guidelines are to avoid possible legal violations in general. Some others seem to deal with the integrity and standards of Wikipedia in general and I therefore thought they might be applicable.

cut-and-paste of BLP section
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Avoid victimization

When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and notable, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.

Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material

See also: Wikipedia:Libel

Policy shortcuts:


Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to comply with Verifiability. Note: although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the BLP noticeboard, instead of relying on the exemption.

Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved. In less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator at Wikipedia:Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents.

Mugginsx (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is about the neologism and the controversy it has engendered, and not about Rick Santorum directly. Consensus has established, repeatedly and at great length, that BLP policies do not apply. Please look at the text of this talk page, and the archive, for the copious documentation. In short, please stop beating this horse: it is quite dead. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 19:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
So nice to see that courtesy and decorum is not dead here quite yet.Mugginsx (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, let me make this simple. As one who has spent many years as a paralegal, I believe this article to be slanderous, and as such should be removed. No matter what other Wikiregulations may say, this, I believe, should be the overriding one. Mugginsx (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
BLP applies wherever statements about a living person are made. So it applies here. But I'm well aware of defamation law, not that I'm a lawyer, and it does not apply to describing the defamatory claims of others. We can therefore describe the sources. We are more limited here than in the real world, because we are limited to RS sources. And Rick Santorum is not, by a long shot, notable for only one or two events, so you're quoting the wrong part of policy. BECritical__Talk 19:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Defamation is not always the same as slander although defamation can be said to be slanderous it may not be slander in the legal sense. Using someone else's words or repeating someone else's words does not make Wiki immune to a slander lawsuit. One cannot hide behind the fact that "someone else said it". Mugginsx (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
But one can hide behind the fact that one is discussing what someone else said rather than endorsing what someone else said. At any rate, you can not give a blanket condemnation to the whole article. If you think some statements in it are libel, paste them here for discussion. BECritical__Talk 20:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
My apologies for being short tempered. This article has been under constant attack for a month, with people pouring in to make BLP arguments without first bothering to read the megabytes of discussion that has already taken place that dismiss those arguments as not relevant. It gets tedious. Questions of slader or defamation are irrelevant with regards to this article, as we are limited to reliable sources and cannot use hearsay or rumor. This article had 123 citations, most from very reliable sources such as CNN, ABC News and the Boston Herald, which will be restored once the full protection lockdown is lifted. Again, my apologies. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 20:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
A little law lesson here. Per Wikipedia's definition (which is as good as any), "defamation" (of which slander is a subset) is:
(a) the communication of a statement that makes a claim
(b) expressly stated or implied to be factual
(c) that may give a [person] a negative image.
(d) It is usually a requirement that this claim be false.
The communicative aspect of Dan Savage's definition is not implied to be factual, so that's the end of it. He's not making a claim of fact (or even one of opinion) about Santorum so that's the end of it. Repeating something that isn't defamatory is, by definition, not defamatory. But even if Savage's statement were defamatory, Wikipedia's claim of fact is not that Savage is correct but that Savage said it. Hence, BECritical's point, we are describing the claim of others.
There are some other laws around about intentional infliction of emotional distress, harassment, and so on, but they would all violate the First Amendment if applied to a situation like this, as it's each citizen's legal right to express their dislike for a public figure as colorfully as they wish. The Communications Decency Act of 1996 was an attempt to make this very sort of communication illegal. The US Supreme Court struck down both the prohibition on scatological talk (talking about "sexual or excretory activities or organs" in a way "patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards") and on vexatious talk (communication that is "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass"). - Wikidemon (talk) 20:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Techbear: You mention above that the article is not directly about Rick Santorum; perhaps ... however, no matter how much lipstick you put on a pig, it's still a pig. In other words .. it IS about Rick Santorum .. directly or indirectly. And pleas of "stop beating a dead horse" simply aren't going to make this all go away. Given the amount of discussion here, I'd think the 4-legged equestrian is quite conscious at this time. Yes, everyone is a bit short-tempered here, and I can appreciate that. I also assume we all hold our beliefs quite dear, and are all attempting to explain our points of view. I've taken a day or two off here and there just to avoid getting too wrapped up in a very active and passionate debate here; simply to regather my thoughts and find my calm happy place. While WP:V and WP:RS and perhaps even WP:N may be met in regards to this info, I don't see ALL our policies and guidelines being met. (i.e. WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, etc.). This information is covered in at least FOUR other articles, and I see this stand-alone article as unacceptable as it is presented. Perhaps an article such as: Wikipedia's attempt to explain Dan Savage's attempt to counter-attack Rick Santorum's attempt to describe his political views on homosexuality might be the next incarnation. But that's just my views, and I'm just one voice in the many here. Cheers and best to all. — Ched :  ?  20:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

  • And by the way, IMHO, BLP issues should always apply when dealing with a living person. I can't find the policy that states any exception(s) to that very bright line. — Ched :  ?  20:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
It's understandable that a new editor would not think to look in the archives, or know where to look, so as to know that a matter has already been discussed exhaustively. So a little patience is in order. But the next step inexperienced editors sometimes take, "I don't care what you've decided before I got here because you're wrong and I haven't bought into the way you do things", doesn't work on Wikipedia and is probably a mistake for a newbie approaching any collegial group. For experienced editors, "I'm right and you're wrong" is not a trump card with BLP or anything else. It may be the case that BLP trumps most other rules where it must, but one editor's personal opinion that there is a BLP violation in a given situation does not trump another editor's opinion that there is not. At a certain point, repeatedly bringing up failed proposals does become a problem known around here as tendentiousness. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
And no one is being specific. Absent specifics, responses here are no longer needed. BECritical__Talk 20:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Your response(s) (and attempts to chill discussion) are duly noted. And perhaps it's just my personal opinion, but it appears to me that the more people that visit this issue, the more we draw closer and closer to a 50/50 view, vs. the 70/30 view we had some time back. But that's just me. You folks all have a great day/night. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  21:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes settled archived stuff can change radically and quite quickly. John lilburne (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I understand that the topic of the article is controversial, and some find it offensive. However, in comparison with other items that others may find slanderous or offensive, it is well in line with wiki policy. I can understand that some may not be happy about the "santorum" affair, but let's please try to leave POV at the door. Wiki is not making a claim about santorum, nor is Dan Savage. It's not slanderous, by its very definition. It could possibly be defaming if wiki or Dan was suggesting something directly about Santorum but they are not. Mr. savage associating him with something unpleasant is not making a claim about him, as offensive as it may be. Regardless, Wiki is not making a statement or claim or directly describing Mr. Santorum nor directly impugning his character, nor repeating a claim to that affect. The article is worded specifically to avoid this and describes the phenomenon rather than advocating it. The article discussed the controversy itself. This is wholly in line with BLP, and is comparable to things like the description of conspiracy theories regarding President Obama, or President Bush, or discussion of addictions in any number of stars, etc. It is an objective discussion of the topic, neither promoting or decrying. To me, personally, it's an unsavory topic. But this isn't about our personal POV, or what we personally would like to read. Regardless of political inclination, this needs to be the core of how we approach these controversial topics. NPOV is not served by censorship of discussion, but by objectivity of discussion. As much as I may not like the topic, it is notable, and it is handled in the correct way. I see no reason to remove it, especially to suit one POV or another. Again, to compare, discussion of theories regarding President Obama's citizenship should not be removed just because some feel it to be slanderous, or are offended personally by the allegations. It was a notable topic, and therefore warrants an objective discussion, as does this. Obviously they're not the same level of importance, but the principle remains the same. (talk) 21:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC) (oops, wasn't signed in. This was written by me.Jbower47 (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC))
A Wiki article that is repeating someone else's statement (if it is slanderous) does not exempt Wiki from slander. I respectfully suggest to you that you are wrong. Mugginsx (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
And, of course, your personal opinion should unilaterally overrule consensus on this matter. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 21:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
(ec) If Rick Santorum wishes to co-name Wikipedia in a slander/libel suit against CNN, MSNBC, Mother Jones, The Nation, The National Review, ABC, CBS, the Washington Post, The Daily Show, The Huffington Post, The Colbert Report, Roll Call, The Concord Monitor, and for describing his Google problem, I wish him the best of luck. Until that day, though, my personal vote is that we continue to report on major news events as they occur. Khazar (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikidemon - The possibility of slander is the issue I presented, not any consensus. If the court considered the Wiki article to be a "published work" then it could be libel. If you have any legal expertise equal or superior to mine, I would, of course, be willing to hear it, but you misunderstood the Wikipedia guidelines for slander as you stated them. That was all that I was trying to point out. I do not want to argue, just to disagree, and I have as much right to post here as anyone else though it seems that those with differing opinions are treated differently than those who agree with the article and, by some, there seems to be an attempt to intimidate those who disagree with the article. Mugginsx (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
And an interesting sidebar for us everyday editors is this. Dreadstar 22:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
That is interesting. Mugginsx (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
...or at least it would be if the topic at hand was editors adding slanders to Wikipedia, rather than information from our standard reliable sources. I don't have Muggins' legal background, of course, but I have difficulty believing his/her suggestion that joining dozens of other media sources in reporting on this topic is going to result in legal action against us. Santorum hasn't even sued Savage. It's pretty outrageous to imply that he's going to sue Wikipedia editors for reporting on CNN reporting on Dan Savage... especially in the same breath as complaining about attempts to intimidate. Khazar (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. Get serious folks. Either say what phrases are actually illegal here or... get serious. And I do not believe that Mugginsx has legal expertise, if so he needs to study further. Or else take it to one of Wikipedia's lawyers to review. BECritical__Talk 23:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
So your standard is simply what is legal? Not what is encyclopedic or in line with our policies here? -- Avanu (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
But one isn't simply quoting other people, one is engaged in selecting and ordering such statements, and linking them together. One can place entirely factual statements together in such a way that they imply the opposite to what the source actually says. An example can be found on this talk page. John lilburne (talk) 23:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
John, your point is well taken. Obviously we want to take extra caution with this article, and I'd join BeCritical in urging you to list any specific points you see in SlimVirgin's current revision that are so demonstrably malicious and inaccurate that they could be construed as libel. But Muggins' suggestion, if I understood it correctly, was that the existence of this article, regardless of its form, is libelous for reporting on other people's reporting about a libel. (This is even granting that we call Savage's actions libel, which is itself debatable; I don't believe I've seen anyone call it that in any of our RSs). This strikes me as a stretch. Khazar (talk) 00:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, even what Savage did was not illegal under U.S. law. A defense against charges of defamation can be done on truth. But also, where truth doesn't enter into the question, as in calling someone a piece of shit, there is no defamation. If Savage had said that Santorum produced santorum with so-and-so, that would be defamation- if untrue. And Avanu, if you've read my other posts, you know that wasn't fair, but we're talking legalities here. BECritical__Talk 01:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Law regarding speech in the US is very convoluted. Technically, our 1st Amendment gives us almost unabridged right to say nearly whatever we like. But there are laws and court cases on the books that make this less than perfectly clear. To assert that equating a person's name with shit is not defamation in a common sense perspective of reality is to simply ignore it. Legally defensible or not, the attack here is directly on the name, directly against the very thing that people often come to court to defend -- "my good name". So, yes, we can make longwinded arguments about how we're going to be fine legally, but that really isn't (or shouldn't be) the point. -- Avanu (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Right. Isn't, and shouldn't be, the point. But trying to scare people here with legalities has to be dealt with. BECritical__Talk 03:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
And how to you plan to deal with people discussing legal issues. It sounds very much like a threat. Also, for obscenity issues, look at Wiki article entitled Miller v. California, more specifically, the paragraph entitled The Decision. The legal issues are valid and though Mr. Santorum chooses not to sue at this time, does not mean he will not in the future. Also, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and should not be compared to one with regard to legal vulnerability. Also, is there not a Wiki regulation or guideline against moving material around on a discussion page? Lastly, I would ask all editors or potential editors to this article to read Wiki policy entitled Legal/Legal Policies. It clearly states that within some very few exceptions, the editors are legally responsible for the content. Personally, I wouldn't touch this article. I would only vote for deletion. It states as follows:
"Responsibility for Edits and Contributions - An editor is legally responsible for his or her edits and contributions on Wikimedia Projects. The Projects are only hosting venues: the Wikimedia Foundation generally does not edit, contribute to, or monitor the content on the site. For that reason, the Wikimedia Foundation is not responsible for the edits or contributions of the editors.[2] See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. 230.
Editors should be advised to exercise caution and avoid contributing any content that may result in criminal or civil liability, including infringing material, defamatory statements, and privacy violations." (This is the end of the quote).Mugginsx (talk) 12:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Let me throw in my two cents here too. I agree completely with you Mugginsx. And to everyone else objecting - consensus is irrelevent. WP:Libel is the the dicate of the foundation. Slander must be deleted, no matter what. The admins are charged by the foundation to enforce this policy strictly, just like the BLP policy. I have pointed out previously that this article is pure libelous slander. It fits the the federal legal definition of libel to the T. Trying to morph this article from one about a slanderous term to on about the controversy surrounding the slanderous term is not an acceptable solution. It is my opinion that we should take this directly to the foundation since consensus here cannot be found, the RFC has petered out, arbcom refused to intervene - effectively no one one wants to get their hands dirty with this and do what policy requires - deletion. I also agree with BeCritical - we need the foundation legal department to wiegh in on this. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 13:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Since Jimbo himself has been active on this page, I'd assume the foundation is already well aware of the page's existence, and I note an absence of official legal concern so far. And again, unless Santorum decides to sue half the news organizations and bloggers in North America for mentioning his Google problem, it's difficult to see why editors of this page would be singled out for joining the wide coverage of this controversy. The threat of libel action or California obscenity prosecution (!) strike me as equally unlikely. I'd suggest the editors repeating these threats review WP:LEGAL: "While you may sue in a court of law, Wikipedia is not the place for legal disputes. Making legal threats is uncivil and causes a number of serious problems: It severely inhibits free editing of pages, a concept that is absolutely necessary to ensure that Wikipedia remains neutral. Without this freedom, we risk one side of a dispute intimidating the other, thus causing a systemic bias in our articles. It creates bad feelings and a lack of trust amongst the community, damaging our ability to proceed quickly and efficiently with an assumption of mutual good faith. We have had bad experiences with users who have made legal threats in the past. By making legal threats, you may damage your reputation on Wikipedia." I'd suggest that those with legal concerns contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly rather than hashing them out with non-experts on the talk page. Khazar (talk) 13:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I made no legal threats. As you well know, I only reprinted Wiki's own guidelines. Anyone can find them on the page I directed them to.Mugginsx (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
And if you read Jimbo's posts, its clear he wanted us to proceed with extreme caution, and completely rework this article... —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 13:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and at no time did I suggest that an editor should sue, rather that they should protect themself against a lawsuit as an editor to the article, should a lawsuit be initiated at some time by Santorum. That being said, I respect what you have said throughout this article and I will defer to you. Mugginsx (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I have contacted the foundation about this matter. Policy is clear. Libel must deleted once identified, no exception. Libel has a clear definition. This article arguably fits it (earlier versions of this article 100% fit the definition and at minimum must be redacted). —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 14:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
(ec x2)@Muggins: I think we can agree that you've at least repeatedly and thoroughly insisted that editors on this page could be prosecuted for libel and obscenity for their edits. While I'm sure you've had the best intentions in warning others about their liability to lawsuits, you can probably also see how this isn't really in the spirit of WP:LEGAL; these suggestions have an ugly effect on the debate regardless of intention.
@Charles Edward: I've also argued from the beginning that we should approach this with caution and rework this article into proper coverage of the controversy, rather than the neologism, so I'm very much with you that far. I'm even helping to craft guideline recommendations at WP:SEOBOMB to ensure that we have some guidance in place to approach the next such controversy. But I note that Jimbo didn't say "or you will all be charged with libel," which is the key distinction here for me.
Again, I'd suggest you both take your concerns up with the Wikimedia Foundation directly rather than debating them with non-experts. I'll personally be astonished to learn that we're not allowed to report on a controversy already covered by the mainstream American media, but if I'm wrong, I'll gladly step aside and you'll have done the editors on this page (including me!) a great service. Until then, though, I think we have to keep covering this widely-reported controversy as we would any other widely reported topic.Khazar (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I do believe your position will ultimately triumph. Having been around here for years, I know well how things like this generally end up. :) The best case scenario my side could realistically hope for is a pared back, honest, low-key article on the controversy. However, I feel so strongly about this particular topic though that I feel it necessary to exhaust all possible options to end the existence of this article in its current form. I am little shocked arbcom did not accept this case. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 14:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
And now I will go back to watching the Casey Anthony Trial.Mugginsx (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Well as long as the members of the foundation are reading EN-mailing_list, so they would know pretty well about the controversy of this article. ... faster than most people here. Reo + 00:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on this page is becoming unorganized and lengthy

Someone who's not afraid to stir up a little controversy needs to clean up this page a little. I haven't seen any definite consensus for anything since the RfC, which was the last centralized discussion regarding the state of this page. As of this edit I see at least five distinct sections discussing renaming the article. This page has also become an excessively long repository of stale arguments and needs to be trimmed faster and more intelligently than the bot can handle.

Would an admin (or other brave editor) be able to clean up this page a little? Manually archiving the discussions which are clearly stale would be a good start. Figuring out some way to safely merge the existing rewriting discussions would be good too. I've already seen some work done in the form of a floating box, but on this page it's still too much of a hassle to navigate and track what the consensus is. I'd do it myself but I feel that I'm too much of an involved party at this point to be able to do it without being angrily templated by someone. elektrikSHOOS 02:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Completely Agree - too many directions and too many threads. The campaign straw poll seems like its just designed to focus on the word "campaign" or "attack", not really laid out in a way to promote a title discussion. But its an effort, so credit and kudos for that. -- Avanu (talk) 02:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)We could probably also archive the RfC at this point as it's been archive-boxed on the page. That alone would save a lot of scrolling. elektrikSHOOS 02:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm brave enough to try this; I'll move one section at a time so it's easy to undo if someone disagrees. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to skip the section Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism#The article doesn't match the title because there's an active WP:RM template there; it's quite clear that's not going to succeed given the ongoing discussions but I'm not sure what the cleanest way to remove it and the associated RM request is. If someone else could archive that section that would be helpful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I moved eight sections; about ten screens of text, on my monitor at least. I hope that's helpful. Unfortunately, every remaining section either has a comment in the last twenty-four hours, or discusses renaming in a way that I think means it deserves to stay for a while, or otherwise seems relevant to the discussion. In another day or two I think we can have another clean-up pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should create a subpage for renaming, and move all those threads there, and then set up an archive and bot. The main talk page could then be used to discuss the content of the article. Would that help? Jehochman Talk 04:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no objections to that approach, and it would make it easy to archive once we're done. Anything that makes this a little less stressful to navigate would be very helpful for everyone involved. elektrikSHOOS 04:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Is there a talk page lurker who could do this? I'm not particularly good at clerical things, and I've got a pile of work to do still tonight. Anybody who hasn't been too engaged in heated debate can do this refactoring and organization. Jehochman Talk 04:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't object if someone did that but I don't think it's necessary -- I think this page is slowing down a little, and in a couple of days I think the bot will be archiving quite a bit more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: Merge this article with "Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality"

I have seen this idea floated by a number of editors, on both sides of this debate, but no serious discussion the topic. Clearly, this article and Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality are directly related and on the same subject. In merging, we could keep all of the content, redirect this title to that page, and everyone could be happy. I see no good reason not do this. Both articles would benefit by the added context. We are clearly having little to no progress on renaming this article. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 14:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Rejected last week by the RFC, too soon to discuss again. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't see where that specific proposal was discussed at any length in the RFC.. Perhaps you mean the AfDs? —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs)
Charles, see the RfC here. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 15:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
It's also in Archive 6. elektrikSHOOS 15:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah, archives. I withdraw my proposal then. Sorry guys. :) —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

An actual question about article content

An ally of his told Roll Call that Santorum could turn the issue to his advantage: "You say: 'You want to see my battle scars? Google my name. You don’t think I’ve been in the trenches for years? I’ve got the scars to prove it.'"

This quote marks the end of the body text in the article. I removed it (and a few people tweaked the paragraph surrounding it) but it has since been re-inserted. I want to make sure that the article contains some response from the Santorum people, but this quote is pure spin. It is an ally (or aide, who knows, as the source is anonymous) of Santorum positing a hypothetical statement the candidate could make should he want to turn this issue to his advantage. I don't see how such a quote adds to the article or to a neutral/informative presentation of the subject. As I'm sure the base and vile nature of Dan Savage's vituperative assault on our collective morals will be marshaled to justify keeping a quote like this in for "balance", let me make clear that while we do need balance in the article we don't get there from here by giving voice to anonymous spin doctors. Protonk (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised by the persistence of that quotation as well, considering that the far more common opinion (that Santorum's "Google problem" is a serious obstacle to his presidential ambitions) from more neutral and reliable sources remains largely unquoted. Feels undue-y. Khazar (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Certainly it's spin (although probably not "pure"). It's one side's opinion. Per WP:NPOV, we report facts about opinions. If this were attributed to Santorum himself, to one of his aides, or to Karl Rove or some other known Republican operative, its inclusion would be clear-cut. The anonymity makes it harder for us to assess the significance of the opinion, but I'm inclined to trust Roll Call to some extent -- the speaker was not some randomly selected passerby, but was some sort of political insider, and this particular opinion wasn't just a crank observation, but had enough political merit to it that Roll Call judged it worth reporting. I would include it, along with including the similar observations mentioned by Khazar about the negative effect on Santorum. JamesMLane t c 17:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh I trust roll call. I don't think they made the quote up or pulled it from a *very* minor figure. But we can't (and the reader can't) determine the weight of the quote without knowing the source. That would be fine, except the quote is kind of a brash claim that really serves only to assert that a "negative" about the candidate is a "positive". Protonk (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Also important is the function of anonymity. Normally (or at least in the past) when news sources sought anonymous comment they did so because the person speaking could face reprisal or would be unwilling to saw something negative on the record. Here anonymity is granted in order for a campaign "ally" to make an obviously positive claim about the candidate. The fact that the quote is anonymous should cause us to raise our eyebrows. Protonk (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
The ally was David Urban. [22] I didn't add the name because it wasn't necessary. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Might as well, as the text as read implies an anonymous source. Protonk (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Adding the name would involve explaining who he is, but the significance of the quote is simply that there's another way of looking at this, a less negative way. The name and description of the source wouldn't add to that. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
That may be true. But the comment is still basically hypothetical (and pretty unlikely, as I can't imagine Santorum would go out of his way to bring attention to Savage's campaign) and content free. I just get the feeling like it is kept in for "balance", but I can't see either how it balances anything else or what it is meant to balance against. Protonk (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't feel strongly about that unattributed quote either way. Its one thing to say suggestion(s?) have been made that Sen. Santorum might be able to use the santorum campaign to his advantage, but I would minimize any such mention in the article because its a very minor point as part of the big picture and its almost laughably untrue.--Milowenttalkblp-r 18:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I've updated my comment WRT to the nature of the source. I still feel strongly that the quote is out of place. Protonk (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Santorum eponym controversy

In trying to synthesize all the good ideas in the above discussions, I have come across a really accurate word that appears not to have been suggested yet. Please see eponym. Can the topic of this article be described accurately and succinctly as the Santorum eponym controversy? I believe this formulation is non-judgemental, precise and unambiguous. Using the word eponym allows us to remain neutral, as does the word controversy. The relevant arguments such as whether this is an attack, or not, whether this is a neologism, or not, can be covered in the article without being pre-judged in the title. Thoughts? Jehochman Talk 18:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggested that word yesterday. It seems accurate-ish, just not how it normally gets used. -- Avanu (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
It suffers from the same problem as neologism. This isn't an eponym or neologism, because the word isn't used. It was just a campaign to create one. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
(EC) IMHO it's just a fancier word for neologism. (with slight a definition difference but takes the exact same place in a sentence.) There are exactly the same pros and cons for Santorum eponym controversy and Santorum neologism controversy.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
It's a good word, but where is the "controversy?" The first meaning of the word "campaign" is ": a connected series of military operations forming a distinct phase of a war" and the second "a connected series of operations designed to bring about a particular result" and therefore perfect here [23]. Whereas, "controversy" is "a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views," and we aren't writing about the opposing views [24]. Thus, Santorum eponym campaign. BECritical__Talk 19:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems that the definition on WP is wrong. The definitions I'm getting on the web for Eponym make in inappropriate here. BECritical__Talk 19:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I hate to keep banging this drum, but why isn't this in the omnibus "naming" section above? Or in one of the other naming threads? Protonk (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Straw poll for use of "campaign" in the title

This page's talk page is moving so fast that I don't want to post in the section where this conversation started; I'd like to focus people's attention on the attempt to start getting consensus. See Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism#Suggestion for next steps in renaming for the prior section.

Given that we apparently have consensus that the article is about the campaign, or political attack, I would like to get consensus on the use (or not) of the word "campaign" in the title. Since that word has had more support than any other, I am setting up the straw poll to have "campaign" as a status quo choice, with three other options. Please comment under each heading with either support or oppose, and a brief reason if necessary. If you are proposing one of the other options you can also indicate which other word you would support but I think we will get nowhere if we try to list ten options and support/oppose them. This is about narrowing down the field, not about a final choice. If this approach should lead to a consensus a subsequent straw poll could add more specificity -- e.g. on the question of whether to include "Savage" in the title. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Option 1: retain "campaign" in the title

Supporting this option means that you believe the word "campaign" is the best available noun to be used in whatever eventual title is chosen. It doesn't mean you support the current title.

  • Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. NPOV, includes both SEO and non-SEO aspects of the action, implies its political nature.Khazar (talk) 00:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - A grossly understated euphemism for what everyone undertands is a defamatory attack of epic proportion. There's no putting lipstick on this particular pig. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per Khazar (and because I still can't dig up any RS calling it a culture jam). ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 00:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support also per Khazar Mtking (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per previous discussions, but also 3 might be good. BECritical__Talk 01:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Campaign mainly exists on the Internet but isn't exclusive to it, so "Googlebomb" is too specific. Campaign is also, in my opinion, a more NPOV wording because it merely implies a concerted effort without any other connotations attached to it. elektrikSHOOS 01:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Campaign is a word often associated with political races, and although this is a political act, my 2 cents is that the word should be avoided in the context of describing a politician if its not related to a political race here because there has to be another word out there that can be a reasonable substitute. "Dan Savage eponym attack" maybe.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Avanu (talkcontribs) 01:46, June 22, 2011
  • Support as the minimal statement of the process; when no description is consensus in the sources, use a neutral one. Second choice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. It means the article is, as it should be, about the events, and neither about the person nor about the dubiously notable neologism. And it doesn't take "sides" in that campaign. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose because of possible confusion with political campaign, but I could live with it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per possible confusions with the political campaign but also per precision. This is a particular type of campaign and I'm unsure why we are taking such pains to present it ambiguously. It is an "attack" or "smear campaign" of some kind of another. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Acquiesce. It's neutral and accurately descriptive. I'd prefer a neutral and accurately descriptive term that didn't have any possible confusion with political campaigns, but no one has suggested one. Presumably the rest of the title will make the distinction clear, e.g. by using a term like "neologism" or "coinage". Also, Santorum campaign should continue to redirect to Rick Santorum presidential campaign, 2012, so it's hard to see how any readers will actually be confused. JamesMLane t c 17:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • weak Support per JamesMLane. If a better word can be found, I'd be happy with that. No one has found one yet that I like _better_ than campaign, but the confusion with his presidential campaign is troubling. Hobit (talk) 17:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Seems accurate to me. Steven Walling 18:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, it is inconsistent with the secondary sources and is goofy-sounding. The best alternatives are Spreading santorum or Speciate (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Even if "santorum campaign" redirects to the political campaign article, the word "campaign" in the title, realistically, helps the Googlebombing. A technically sophisticated person may search with quote marks, and may click on the most plausible sounding result first. An unsophisticated person may not, and many people searching for information on his political campaign won't be technically sophisticated. It doesn't matter if they're not "confused"; the negative effect of the Googlebomb doesn't require confusion. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Option 2: use a different word or phrase that implies it is an attack or political act

This includes many suggestions from above: culture jam, attack, prank, cyberbullying, political act, political action, crusade, project. Supporting this option means that you believe a word like this is appropriate in the title, but "campaign" is not the right choice.

  • Yes, use a different word - there's no implying anything... this was an attack, and not one party to this story says otherwise. Dan Savage would agree, Rick Santorum would agree, and most, if not all, of the reliable sources agree. So what's wrong with using a word all these things agree on? -- Avanu (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Why "imply" as opposed to state outright what everyone knows to be factual? NPOV? An absurd mis-application of that policy. Any deference to WP:NPOV proprieties in the face of the nature of this ATTACK is shameful. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm confused. We both sound like we're arguing the same thing and I'm saying support and you're saying oppose. ? -- Avanu (talk) 02:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm opposed to "implying" anything (which the option offers) as, I believe, you are as well...but I also concur that the wording and implications of the option can be interpreted differently and elicit somewhat muddled responses and have updated my response accordingly JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, on the grounds that it would tend to put Wikipedia in the position of taking "sides". --Tryptofish (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak support - crusade would be a good description, but it's hardly NPOV. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per the simple fact that this is accurate. It was a smear campaign or an "attack" and no one denies this. Savage certainly doesn't. Tryptofish says that we should not be "taking sides" but how is accuracy a matter of "taking sides?" Should we refer to "physical assaults" as "interpersonal interactions" from now on? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
    How is "campaign" not accurate? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
    I never said it was "not accurate," however it is not as precise, and in its ambiguity could imply any type of "campaign" as opposed to the specific type of campaign that this indisputably is. Calling a physical assault an "interpersonal interaction" may also be "accurate." Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. My personal preference would be "Dan Savage attack on Rick Santorum". Dingo1729 (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
    Strongly concur. From your keyboard to consensus' ear. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose until word is found I prefer campaign but could support this if the right word is found. It isn't a smear. Attack is probably accurate but overly broad. Google Bomb might be made to work somehow but I can't see it. So oppose until someone finds a good word. Hobit (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose as POV, because it has such a negative connotation, and as inaccurate, because it wasn't a direct attack in the usual political sense. Warning: If any such alternative is adopted, I'll propose a parallel move of John Kerry military service controversy, e.g. to Attack on John Kerry's military service. JamesMLane t c 17:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
    You need to familiarize yourself with WP:BATTLEGROUND because in the above you are threatening to violate WP:NOT, which is a policy here. Was the swiftboat fiasco an "attack?" If it was, why don't you start a discussion on the appropriate page right now, because that incident has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, and this content. See WP:OTHERCRAP also. I'm a registered Democrat, and a left leaning one at that. I deplore Santorum's politics but that's neither here nor there, because Wikipedia is not a place for us to push our political POVs, or to engage in political tit for tat editing. Please reconsider your approach to this and other political topics. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Griswaldo's comment, but on the other hand I also agree that Attack on John Kerry's military service is a better title for that article. I'll put it on my watchlist in case you want to start a move discussion. Dingo1729 (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Embedding POV in the title is a very bad idea. Steven Walling 18:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Option 2.1: use a different word or phrase (suggestions besides 'campaign')

  • I would have no objection to "controversy". --Tryptofish (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Option 3: use a different word or phrase that indicates the method of the attack

This includes SEO, SEO attack, googlebomb and any related phrases.

  • Support - googlebomb attack - the most widely recognized (and, IMHO, eminently sourceable) characterization of "how" and "what" (and, BTW, your utilization of "attack" in the option name is wholly appropriate) JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Whatever you choose, it should be backed up by sources. And it should hopefully not be too jargony for the average reader to comprehend at first glance. -- Avanu (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: That's a POV that that particular effect of the campaign is essential. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • It depends on the word(s) chosen. I would oppose any phrase that includes the word "attack". But an NPOV word that is informative about the "process" might be a good idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment -- how broadly is "the method" meant? I could support something like "popularization" -- Savage's hope was to popularize the word, bumping it up on search engines and bringing it into common parlance in non-Santorum contexts, the way "gerrymandering" is now used without reference to Elbridge Gerry. Thus, terms that describe the method more narrowly, such as "Googlebombing" or "SEO optimization", aren't really accurate. The current title ("Campaign for 'santorum' neologism") is somewhat suggestive of the method, broadly construed, because it notes that Savage hoped to popularize his coinage. JamesMLane t c 17:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
    I intended this option to be quite broad, so I would include "popularization", though some formulations could fit under options 1 and 2 -- e.g. "Dan Savage campaign to popularize ..." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Option 4: none of the above

This would cover titles like "Savage-Santorum controversy", or any other title that does not fit into the three types listed above.

  • IMO it is pretty telling that if there's so much difficulty in simply figuring out what to call it, then it probably does not deserve to be a standalone subject. Having it as a sub-section of Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality will render this discussion moot. Tarc (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
    I would support it being a subsection of that article, but my impression is that we won't have consensus overall for that. -- Avanu (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
    See the RfC which closed about a week ago. Consensus was that while the push to promote the word was decidedly notable, the word itself dubiously wasn't. Hence discussions about renaming as part of a larger push to refocus the article. elektrikSHOOS 04:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I guess I would put myself here. Protonk (talk) 04:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Something based on "controversy" could work. Something based on "neologism" should be avoided, as should "scare quotes" in the title. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I didn't, and still don't, see any consensus to have renamed it in the first place. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


Please place discussion here rather than with your !vote; if threads develop above I think they should be moved to here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I still see no good reason why the previous title, Santorum (neologism), was inappropriate, incorrect, misleading or otherwise in conflict with Wikipedia guidelines and standards for article titles. If the title is going to change yet again, why not change it back to this previous one? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 00:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
As I understand it, the neologism itself was deemed not notable, while the campaign to foment the neologism is indisputably notable. A fine distinction, but that seems to be the result. Give it a few years, I imagine it'll catch on... ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 00:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
The RFC result was that neologism status was disputed, or that it was a non-notable neologism, but a highly notable political campaign, internet meme, or something like that. Editors here are still trying to hash out exactly how to describe the phenomena. We have to be careful to report on the controversy, not become a part of it. Jehochman Talk 02:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Dan Savage himself acknowledged that it would be a challenge to get a word with this definition into common use because it is a concept that no one wants to think about and no one wants to really mention. The truer sense of the 'neologism' is the one mentioned in the paper we have as a source that calls this "shorthand for social conservative". I would say probably 'derogatory' shorthand. The idea that people are actually using this to literally mean the definition that Dan Savage promoted is not really supported by sources. Think of how its actually used, versus how it was promoted. Compare something like "wardrobe malfunction" that actually people were shocked by, but is commonly accepted now as an inadvertent clothing-related gaffe. -- Avanu (talk) 02:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm still confused. Are we just going to keep having a renaming debate continuously until Rick Santorum drops out of the race or until we achieve our new goal of getting this article below Santorum's campaign website on a google search for "santorum"? Because that seems pretty distasteful. Protonk (talk) 04:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Characterizing this epic personal ATTACK as some benign "campaign" is like characterizing RAPE as "sexual intercourse". JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Santorum campaign

Is the linguistically Most Correct option. Merrill Stubing (talk) 06:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Which has the unfortunate characteristic of being the same name we might colloquially use for Santorum's presidential bid. Protonk (talk) 07:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I think the editor above means that in common American English usage people will say things like, "Today the Santorum campaign issued a position paper on the Afghanistan War..." Perhaps what you are looking for is something like "Campaign to smear Santorum" or "Savage campaign to smear Santorum", depending on whether you think the campaign's initiator needs to be named in the title. A good question to consider is whether there any other campaigns to smear Santorum that would require the extra word "Savage" to disambiguate. Jehochman Talk 13:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
      • That's precisely what I mean. Protonk (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
        • I'd object to "smear" unless it can be sourced, ideally back to Savage. Not sure what a better word would be though. Attack? Google Bomb? No clue. But 'smear' means 'to slander' which I think is inaccurate. Hobit (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
          • To smear does not mean "to slander," at least not according to the OED. It simply means "to discredit," when used in this manner (e.g. a "smear campaign"). However, a much less known meaning of smear seems oddly appropriate here too. OED, def. 6b. "To thrash or kill; to wipe out or destroy by bombing. slang." Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
            • Webster has it as " a usually unsubstantiated charge or accusation against a person or organization —often used attributively <a smear campaign> <a smear job>" World English has it as "to slander". I think neither of those applies. The OED's definition would be a good match. But I think it strongly implies something that's not true given what the other dictionaries have.Hobit (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
              • The first meaning of the word "campaign" is ": a connected series of military operations forming a distinct phase of a war" and the second "a connected series of operations designed to bring about a particular result" and therefore perfect here [25]. It's not even primarily political. BECritical__Talk 19:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
                  • I suspect I'm missing your point, but campaign is fine, it's smear I object to for the reasons given. Hobit (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Legal issues revisited

It is established law in the United States that republishing a defamatory statement on the Web cannot legally be "defamation". See Barrett v. Rosenthal, (binding only in California, but notable because no court other than the California Appeals Court had interpreted section 230 of the Communications Decency Act differently). There is some support for the view that if the poster conspired with the originator, then both could be found liable for the defamation, but even that is not established law. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

  • I don't think we need to revisit this. The article isn't defamation and it is unlikely that Savage's actions are defamation. And frankly a court will determine that when/if Santorum sues Savage. Our discussion on this page will continue apace with some people persistently claiming that because the subject is "naughty" the article is defamatory and BLP requires us to scrub it from the record. Protonk (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I felt it needed to be revisited because the prior thread didn't seem to have a resolution, but then wandered off to different topics, so a reply would be out of place. Still, unless some editor creates a new, original, defamation, Wikipedia and other editors are generally safe. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
      • That's understandable. I don't want to ping you specifically, but those kinds of meta "BLP/defamation/IANAL" threads are perpetually unresolved. The answer is to cull meta discussion on article talk pages--additional information doesn't solve the problem. Protonk (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll make this as clear as I can. As a legal matter Savage did not commit libel by comparing Santorum to a bodily fluid. The territory of libel and slander is factual assertions, not opinions or insults. Further, even if Savage's statements were libelous, neither Wikipedia nor its editors commit libel by reporting what Savage Did. If you feel anything on Wikipedia violates the law and you're not getting anywhere with the editors working on it, there are places to take your dispute as you have repeatedly threatened to do. Wikipedia gives wide berth to legally questionable content, as it is a huge product without the resources to get into lawsuits. However, one place where the project has to stand firm is that it cannot self-censor for fear that public figures would sue over negative publicity. If we went down that path, any ability we had to cover the world objectively would be gamed out of existence. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

  • A startling number of editors disagree with your statement, unfortunately. Protonk (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Wikidemon by your own argument I would have to wonder why you support censoring the nature of the campaign (which is quite clearly negative as a matter of "fact") or the nature of the word santorum (which is quite clearly offensive, and meant to be so, as a matter of "fact"). In which area do I take your stance seriously? Here or in those areas? You can't have your cake and eat it too. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
      • That's a novel use of the word "censoring". Deciding to say things one way and not another is not censoring the way you choose not to say. Maintaining editorial standards is not censoring things that fail those standards. Censorship is something else entirely. It is a fact that the 'santorum' definition is intended to be uncomfortable to people - offensive if you say so, but that's not quite it. However, it is not a fact that the word is uncomfortable. It's a mistake to confuse subjective reaction with fact. If a thousand zebras are startled and run away when a lion approaches, they are alarmed. That does not mean that lions are alarming. That's just a reaction, a subjective feeling. Nothing is "negative" on Wikipedia, that's a value assignment. Charlie Manson is not negative, he is what he is. So you should take both sides seriously. The article should not pass judgment on the propriety of the campaign, but the article should say what the campaign is. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Wikidemon, You have tortured logic to "Inquisition-like proportions".Mugginsx (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
          • Wikidemon, it is a fact that "santorum" is an obscenity and it is a fact that Savage's campaign was meant to have negative effects on Mr. Santorum. No amount of tortured logic will change these facts. See my longer answer to you and Protonk below regarding language and meaning and the disservice your ideologically driven argument is doing to this encyclopedia. I'm done going in circles with you.Griswaldo (talk) 11:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
            • Please keep it real you two, and accept the obvious instead of calling me illogical for pointing it out. I'm not "censoring" anything by disagreeing that we should use value judgments to describe our subjects here. You're making a silly rhetorical argument that there's a contradiction between saying we should keep value judgments out of articles, and saying we shouldn't censor our subject matter for fear of objections from a politician. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
              • Wikidemon: I think that you honestly believe in this article's worth. I will not insult you as others have insulted me and everyone else who have objected to this article. Having said that, I will say that you are defending the indefensible for some reason I do not understand.Mugginsx (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
              • Calling something a "value judgement" when it isn't doesn't get you out of the logical contradictions you've been heaving all over the place. We can objectively call something an "attack" and we can also objectively call something an obscenity (within a certain social context (in this case the English speaking world). You're simply making claims that two things which are alike aren't to absolve yourself of the contradictions. It isn't working. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
                • Please stop with the jab about logical contradictions. You haven't pointed out any, and even if you could demonstrate that I'm not thinking straight that's not a constructive way to support a proposition. Think for a moment. Wikipedia asserts facts, not opinions. You're not using "attack" or "obscenity" with precision, but if you could fix a definition of obscenity as something like "offensive to contemporary community values" then yes, it is conceivable that you could objectively establish that something is obscene to a particular community. It's a long way from there to being encyclopedic but if you could clear the hurdles like sourcing, weight, relevance, and avoiding synthesis, what you would end up with is a sourced statement that santorum is considered obscene by some portion of the contemporary English speaking world, not that santorum is obscene. We write articles from an global perspective, and writing about things from the point of view of a particular social context is by definition subjective. That's what subjectivity is, reality from the point of view of a subject. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


Umm, the campaign is over, the word exists. I used it in an apology just last month. I've seen it in porn. etc. What's wrong with the original title : Santorum (sexual neologism) ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

These anecdotal claims of usage are completely unhelpful. Provide a reliable source that claims it is a word that is in use. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 04:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Any objections to asking RfC comments to weigh in again?

The straw poll above is not demonstrating a clear consensus. I would like to ask editors who commented in the prior RfC to comment in that straw poll, in order to get as much input as we can. Would there be any objections to posting a note to the talk page of everyone who commented on the RfC but who has not yet expressed an opinion in the straw poll? It would link to the RfC (currently archived), link to the straw poll, and ask them to consider commenting again in order to get to a consensus on the name. Any reason not to do this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I recommend you start a new RFC and advertise it in neutral locations. It would be best not to solicit particular editors. We do not want to just hear the same opinions over and over again. The way to generate consensus is to bring in more previously uninvolved editors. Jehochman Talk 13:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
My objection is the same as always: I'm really unconvinced that what this page really needs is more sprawling discussion of the title. Protonk (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, but just in case, that the talk and straw poll would be prepared enough and organised. It might way forward, but I am curious, what would be the cardinal questions. The particular words? Campaign? Vulgar vs Sex-r? I am affraid that those would be too subtle questions. Straw poll to pick best candidate from the voting above? I asume, if would call for RfC, I would recomend to summarise some points we came to agree on. And to say pluses and minuses of several aspects. Put them on the box somwhere visibly and let people wander around, choose what they think is right. But without any pre-prepared strategy, I am affraid, it would be mess. Reo + 20:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
True, but there's also a risk of exhaustion if we organize the questions to the point that a good deal of stamina is needed to stay with the discussion. In that case you might find that people with a strong interest in one POV or another are more inclined to stick around than are disinterested editors who can bring a truly neutral viewpoint. (I'm not intending to accuse any current editors of that; it's a structural problem common to many discussions.) So I think it would be better to post a note (e.g. to the village pump and the BLP noticeboard) asking for input on the current point as outlined above, without another RfC. I did think of trying to get agreement on a roadmap before starting the section above but I felt (and still feel) that it would have petered out into another dead end.
To reply specifically to the point that we don't need more sprawling discussion of the title: I think that if you look at the comments you'll see that strong opinions about the article's topic and about the right way to interpret NPOV are embedded in those !votes. I think the article title is an excellent proxy for establishing consensus on the topic. It also has the useful characteristic of being short enough that polls on things like which noun should be used are actually useful, since it's unlikely to be more than six or seven words long. If we were to get consensus that "campaign" is the right word it implies consensus about other aspects of the article. That becomes a peg on which to hang other decisions about the content.
However, if others don't feel this is worth it, I don't particularly want to proceed with soliciting more input. I have watched this article, rather resignedly, for years; I don't mind waiting longer to see it improve. (I do volunteer work on neologisms for the Oxford English Dictionary, which is how I got interested in this article.) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


This article has been delinked at the list of eponyms. That talk page appears to be inactive so I'm posting here. Protonk (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is really an eponym.. Neologism is closer, but also not completely accurate. Eponym suggests a voluntary, almost honorary naming, much like "namesake". —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs)
Lynching is an eponym. I doubt it is voluntary, or honorable. McCarthyism is an eponym. I doubt it is voluntary, or honorable. Social Darwinism is an eponym. I doubt it is voluntary, or honorable. Speciate (talk) 04:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
That's probably correct. To be clear I don't have strong feelings about the inclusion in eponyms, I just saw it amidst a host of delinking actions and figured discussion was needed. Protonk (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm absolutely positive it wasn't canvassing. I guess it drops now, eh? Dreadstar 20:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
?? I posted here because the List of Eponyms L through Z talk page is basically untouched. This was the target of the link and the subject of the controversy, so it is the next best choice. Perhaps if I had said "HEY GUYS PLEASE REVERT THIS CUZ ITS BAD" on more than 1 page, it could be considered canvassing. But you knew all that because you linked WP:CANVASS. Protonk (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Gosh, but...but...I did give you a break! Oh, gosh, oh, golly, sorry if that came out wrong. Dreadstar 20:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
ಠ_ಠ Protonk (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Mostly me, I's a personal failing that I continually strive to overcome. Just ignore me unless I'm making some good, excellent point.  :) Dreadstar 21:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Noooo! That's my role, don't steal it from me, it's all I have!  :D Dreadstar 22:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Technical details of domain setup

I've added some words describing the technical details of the setup between and This is an interesting strategy -- I wonder if this is a deliberate SEO strategy? -- The Anome (talk) 08:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Just FYI

In my opinion, editing of the sort currently being done on the lead will 1) stall real progress and 2) eventually get this article and a bunch of the editors here pulled up before ArbCom. BECritical__Talk 07:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The dogmatic insistence on including a particular pejorative, point-of-view laden, term which is not found in the original source material would certainly be the foundation of a case, and the committee may look askance at the confrontational personal terms in which the talk page debate is being conducted. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
What, specifically, do you find objectionable in the current attempts to deal with the lede? How could we deal with it better? Is this not a content dispute? I'd submit that despite some of the colorful language thrown around here, most of the people on this talk page are old hands who respect each other's company and can do just fine without ArbCom's help. ArbCom is not terribly functional at the moment, decline most cases, and takes months to dispose of those it does take, usually in cursory fashion that leaves nobody satisfied. In short, I think the town cops are asleep at their post right now, we're on our own! Hope that helps. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
They seem to have other things on their minds at the moment. Like debating the appropriate type of fastener to disuade the egress of equines. John lilburne (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Or porcines... but I don't get it, the fastener to keep the horses from getting away? It must be a saying of some sort. I don't want to go into specifics... it just seems like it's getting out of control to me, or was till last night anyway. BECritical__Talk 17:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
There is an American colloquialism "closing the barn door after the horses have escaped" which means taking an important corrective action only after it is too late to correct anything. - 22:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Thx :P BECritical__Talk 23:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Rubbish. This is a content dispute and barely a dispute. In looking at the recent threads the language is most often deliberate, humorous posturing. The result of the back and forth is a lead that seems to be NPOV and well written. A good lead is half the battle in writing a good article.-well begun is half done. Best to get on with things and now clean up the article. Does anyone here think the article won't be subject to be back and forth discussion until agreement is reached. And frankly the tone and humour here between editors is a lot more collegial than a lot of discussion I've seen on other places. Wikipedia doesn't have to be boring, serious, and pedantic. (olive (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC))
True, but this article is not going to get nearly as much leeway as others. I'm just calling it as I see it, and it seemed to me last night that things were getting out of hand. I do think we should get on with other things, and the humor is great. It is very interesting that the discussion on this page is as collegial as it has been, all the way through; I'm not sure why that is. BECritical__Talk 17:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
The question of whether santorum is vulgar is truly one of the typical Wikipedia angels dancing on the head of a pin type debates. I think it would be ridiculous for that to go to ArbCom after everything else they rejected. Wnt (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Clearly not an issue that's going to sway Arbcom to take a second look at this after already rejecting it.Griswaldo (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
mmmph, a former Arbitrator saying there could a foundation for a case seems like enough justification for this thread to me... since he said that, it looks like I read it right. BECritical__Talk 23:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


  • Tons of articles on Wikipedia about genuinely important topics are sh*tty and languish largely unedited; an article about a super-trivial sh*tty topic has tons of editor attention. Do we still wonder why Wikipedia is lightly regarded? But my remarks will elicit yawns from the yammerheads. And so it goes.  – Ling.Nut 02:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
It is no surprise that people who wish to whine will whine about Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not lightl regarded so you've lost me there. Further, an article about a long-lasting, historically unique campaign against one of the 100 Senators of the US that brought to light previously obscure facts about Internet publicity and the evolution of lanugage is hardly trivial. Someone else might feel that an ancient military leader, breed of goat, or small town park is not worth covering. We try not to pass judgment. If many sources cover something we can cover it too. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
not lightly regarded? Where, at the Wiki picnic? Please, wikipedia is still considered a joke by most, if not all of academia. Let me guess, they don't count, right? Anyways, believe what you want. --Threeafterthree (talk) 02:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
And I'm sure it is because of this article. Please don't drag meta-commentary into this thread. The page is long enough as it is. Protonk (talk) 03:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Eh? Its a spat between two guys. If it is a campaign then what is it a campaign for, or against, what is its endgame? Free lube? What exactly? John lilburne (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Don't blame everyone for the name. I thought santorum (neologism) was just fine. Protonk (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
And I thought that covering it in at least 4 (FOUR) other articles was quite sufficient ... but oh well. Whatcha gonna do eh? — Ched :  ?  16:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Call Ghostbusters?;) Protonk (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── lmao ... very good. :) — Ched :  ?  18:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Excerpt from Santorum interview", USA Today, April 23, 2003.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference valuewar was invoked but never defined (see the help page).