Talk:Campaign for the neologism "santorum"

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Santorum (neologism))
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nominee Campaign for the neologism "santorum" was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
August 19, 2006 Articles for deletion Kept
December 25, 2006 Articles for deletion No consensus
October 2, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
October 23, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
December 19, 2010 Articles for deletion Kept
June 12, 2011 Articles for deletion Speedily kept
June 20, 2011 Articles for deletion Kept
June 21, 2011 Deletion review Endorsed
Current status: Former good article nominee
edit this subpage
Ongoing debate - 06:58

Key question(s) to be resolved:
    Achieving Consensus - 06:58
    Key question(s) to be consensus resolved:
    • RfC: Should the characterization of the definition be replaced with the definition itself? No consensus for change. JakeInJoisey (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
    - Consensus Resolved -

    Agreed upon points in debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The results slightly change if I google upper-case "Santorum", the top 2 stay the same. --212.186.181.3 (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

    External links modified[edit]

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

    External links modified[edit]

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

    As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

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


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

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

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

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

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

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