Template talk:Sexual slang

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


A search for santorum on an actual porn site returns 0 hits. It should be removed from the template. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

That a few videos titled "Santorum" might now be added to the site should not change the obvious fact that the neologism is not in use as a word. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
A word that is actually in use will be found to be in use among naive users of the language, not just in isolated instances divorced from ordinary use. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal from the template. Original Research performed by Fred Bauder (talk · contribs) does not trump secondary sources identifying this term as a form of Sexual slang. The term should remain in the template. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    • In his 2009 book And Then There's This: How Stories Live and Die in Viral Culture, author Bill Wasik identified the term as a form of sexual slang, noting, "his surname was turned into a sexual slang word" — cite: Wasik, Bill (2009). And Then There's This: How Stories Live and Die in Viral Culture. Viking Adult. p. 80. ISBN 0670020842. — secondary sources identify the term as sexual slang, and we go by those sources, not by the WP:NOR performed by Fred Bauder (talk · contribs). Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support It doesn't have the real-world currency of the other terms. Three appearances in print – representing its actual use as a slang word, divorced from the political campaign that spawned it – as opposed to millions of bona-fide uses of the other terms here – don't warrant inclusion. --JN466 19:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Santorum isn't often used casually but it is cited, and the template's bar appears to be pretty low. Binksternet (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Binksternet, Sadads (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose How does one define "sexual slang", and how do the other words that appear on this template make or not make the cut? That Santorum (neologism) is sexual slang is established; you cannot have something removed from the Wikipedia just because you don't like it being there. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 19:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose CNN, for one, calls it a sexual neologism. --NeilN talk to me 21:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- the rationale for removal is curious: pornographic web sites are not the only places one would expect to find sexual slang, and there's no conclusion to draw from a Wikipedia editor's inspection of one such site. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If you want to argue that santorum is not sexual slang, then that article's talk page is the place to do it. However, I would not suggest recycling your totally flawed technique to quantify santorum's use; that article has many more reliable sources than a single pornographic website that use and attest to the use of santorum as a sexual slang term, from books by sociologists to peer-reviewed sexological journals. Quigley (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per sources cited by other editors here. Gamaliel (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Forum shopping - here, Template talk:Political neologisms and wikien-l - David Gerard (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - not a widely used term in the general population. StaniStani  01:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is becoming a ridiculous politically motivated crusade across the entire project to belittle one article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
    • You're warm. The complaint is about use of Wikipedia for political purposes. The word is not part of English vocabulary, other than for political purposes. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Never mind that the word has been recognized as a part of English vocabulary, as several of the reference citations prove. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 19:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to reasons outlined above, especially forum shopping. Henrymrx (t·c) 16:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for the same reasons as everyone else. Prioryman (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per NeilN, for the general public, CNN is probably a more reputable source than a porn site, a single porn site at that. --Death by fugue (talk) 03:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. Is there another, perhaps more common, term for this substance? / edg 11:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
No, which is why a term was coined for it and why that term has come into use. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support removal it's not even a neologism anymore as it approaches 10 years old without any hint it is getting more popular except on Wikipedia. It's a word fading in usage relevancy. The spat that generated the contest might be noteworthy but not the word. Not a dictionary. --DHeyward (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • weakly support removal It seems that this term is not that frequently used. The relevant notion isn't that relevant to many sex acts (as demonstrated by the fact that it wasn't even a defined term until a few years ago). I am however uncomfortable strongly supporting removal since the apparent inclusion for this template is very broad, and as a term, its existence is described in more reliable sources than many of these other terms (for example, there are apparently many fewer sources for "rusty trombone"). Does someone want to make a general set of criteria for what should or should not be on this template? If we do that, it may be easier to figure out if this should be included. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose this discussion could be considered evidence of usage. Pjefts (talk) 05:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
    • That argument has no ground when people try to push in AfDs for keeping articles about words they made up. I could easily make up a new slang term and add it to the template. A discussion ensuing would not be a reason to keep to it in the template. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
      • All words are made up by someone: most of the terms in the template are made up words. Is it your assertion they should also be removed? And the fact is, Santorum (neologism) is on the list and has been for some time; the argument that must be made is why it should be removed, not why it should be retained. As for deleting the article, it has been challenged -- several times -- and it has always been found to be sufficiently notable and sufficiently well documented to merit inclusion. "I don't like it" is not a valid argument. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
        • The point is that having a discussion about something is not a useful argument to include the term. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support removal. The term is not in use independently of the campaign to spread it. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Fucking Sanity Support; who are you trying to kid? There exists ZERO human beings who have ever used "santorum" to designate what the word is pretending to designate without the intent of making an attack on Santorum [ed. or of discussing the attack]. That the word may be in "use" as part of a concerted attack on Santorum is pretty much undisputable (and may well deserve an article). Calling it "sexual slang" is an outright lie: it's not slang, it's not used for its literal fake meaning, and it is not used in a sexual context. — Coren (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Note that there are published books which have used the word in its intended meaning rather than in reference to Dan Savage or to Rick Santorum. The concept of "ZERO human beings" must be something other than what I was taught: I listed five published examples in the section below, assumed to be written by human beings. Binksternet (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Actually, *two* published books, both by fringe publishers, plus one self-published free e-book, and another self-published book. [1], [2] --JN466 22:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • If a group of animal rights advocates had gotten together to try to create a neologism turning the name of an animal researcher into something horrible, and had started using the word themselves to spread it, we wouldn't even be having a conversation as to whether to include it on Wikipedia as though it was really in use. I'm really disappointed that Wikipedians won't put their POVs to one side and focus on the principle. Please see Veil of ignorance, which is what's needed here. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
    This. — Coren (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If Wikipedia is to survive at all, we have to draw a line against censorship somewhere. This template is identifying a word as sexual slang. It is not a name, and it is not saying anything about a person. You might as well say that "dick" should be taken off the list in respect for people with that first name. I am not convinced the term is unused - it is too widely spread by now for people not to use it, though the usage is more often figurative. Wnt (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. The only people who use that word are people who are intent to associating the subject matter with Santorum. Appying minimal editorial judgment in not participating in an attack isn't "censorship". You are welcome to participate in that campaign elsewhere. You are welcome to express your opinion against the senator as strongly as you want. You are not welcome to misuse Wikipedia to attack anyone. — Coren (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Covering the topic is not an attack. Removing nasty stuff about Republicans because they're about to run for office, or have since declared, is not "minimal editorial judgment". Wnt (talk) 05:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, you might have been right if including "santorum" in this template had anything to do with covering the topic. In fact, you've just proven my point: if it has anything to do with someone who is running for office, what is this doing on a template about sexual slang? If it's sexual slang, then it has nothing to do with anyone running in office.

I'm sorry, but this Canadian has no fucking interest in petty US politics. I've got a great deal of interest in preventing this encyclopedia from being misused as a political weapon, regardless of who's doing the using. — Coren (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Support as per User:Coren's comments. This is pretty clearly something our policy and guidelines - Neutrality - BLP - exclude without even a consensus. Off2riorob (talk) 11:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per Coren. This is not actual sexual slang, nor is it a notable "neologism," because it is quite simply not in use as a word. If anything is notable it is the campaign started by Savage, and in that case it should be accurately associated with larger topics, like "political activism" but not "sexual slang." Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Gacurr comments at Arbcom, regarding the American Dialect Society. Keep santorum as part of the template. Thenub314 (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Not justifiable[edit]

In fact, that vote above is nonsensical. I'm removing this egregious BLP violation from the template now, and until someone puts forth a single source discussing the use of "santorum" as sexual slang outside the context of the constructued attack on Santorum.

I'm trying really, really hard to keep assuming good faith that the editors who argue for keeping this in the template are not doing so in order to misuse Wikipedia as a weapon against a living person (regardless of how deserving that person may be of scorn and vilification). This is far from trivial given how poor the increasingly unjustifiable rationalizations to keep that attack a part of Wikipedia tend to get.

Regardless, no amount of consensus overrides WP:BLP. — Coren (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It does actually. See Santorum (neologism). While I favor removing it by virtue of seemingly not being used outside of its intended use as an attack on Santorum (and I'm gay and hate Santorum's guts, pun intended), the fact that the intended use of the term itself (as an attack on Santorum, rather than any serious attempt to coin a neologism) is notable may well justify its inclusion here. So... on the fence on this one. The question really is, what is the template meant to be? Is it for sexual slang used only in everyday (if private/uncommonly vulgar) speech or is it about all sexual slang ever coined? I'd favor removal for the former (per WP:DUE and general BLP policies) and retention for the latter.-- ObsidinSoul 16:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I do incidentally despise Santorum too for the same reason. :-) But the fact is that since the word isn't used in a sexual context, it can't be claimed to be sexual slang by any stretch of the imagination! I don't think it can be argued that the word isn't notable as an attack on Santorum. That the attack is made through association with something vaguely sexual-ish (it's more about poop that sex, really) is a coincidence that can't be made to justify its presence on this template. — Coren (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
True. Perhaps if the template was for sexual neologisms it would be justifiable, heh. But since it's 'slang', I guess that argument does make sense. And yeah, BLP policies do come first, so no complaints of your removal from here. Can't say the same for the others though. :P -- ObsidinSoul 16:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
More about poop? How did the lube get mixed with the poop? Binksternet (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, the point of the attack was to associate as repulsive or disgusting a meaning as possible with the name of the senator. It seems clear to me that it's the "eew disgusting" factor that picked the winner rather than the sexual aspect (though there is a little of that too, certainly). My point is that it's not actually used in a sexual context, not that it has no sexual connotations. — Coren (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I guess you haven't seen the examples of usage that were in the article on June 4. The word was actually used, without mentioning Dan Savage or his attack on Rick Santorum, by several writers. The 2007 book Squirms, Screams and Squirts: Going from Great Sex to Extraordinary Sex by educational sociologist Robert J. Rubel, in a discussion of safe sex practices, tells the reader, "Be particularly cautious where this santorum goes. As previously noted, you don't want to get any fecal matter in the vaginal area. Bad safety risk." Professor and Chair of the Department of Sexual Medicine Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco, California, physician Charles Moser, noted in a 2006 article for the journal Sexuality, Reproduction and Menopause in a discussion of general terms involved in alternative sexual behavior, "The mix of fecal matter and lubricant, a common result of ass play, is santorum." Moser placed the word among "associated slang terms" with "patients' sexual activities". The 2008 book, Men on the Edge: Dangerous Erotica, a collection of fiction edited by Christopher Pierce, included a use of santorum. Jack R. Dunn's 2005 fiction work Hard has this on page 134: "She wads up the t-shirt, uses it to wipe a trickle of santorum from her ass, and throws it under the cot." James Austin's Hate Starve Curse in 2008 used the neologism.
These examples were since excised from the article but they are specifically applicable to the inclusion of the neologism in this template. They buttress its presence as examples of published slang usage. This is a slang template and it should have words that are in use. Santorum is proven to have been used, which is more than can be said for every other word in this template. Binksternet (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
The first three are bona fide, although two are by fringe publishers; the last two you mention (Dunn and Austen James) are self-published. Moser is still in the article; the other two properly published books are primary-source usage that fails WP:NEO. The self-published books have no business being cited by any standard. --JN466 22:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll probably need to qualify that requirement by adding "by sources independent of the dispute". It seemed self-obvious to me, but apparently not to everyone. Publications by LGBT activists that have not been peer reviewed shouldn't qualify to attest that the word has real-world circulation as sexual slang; and I'll be honest here and admit that the two sources I've looked up have very obviously contrived a context in which to force its use (and with very little skill or subtlety).

Wikipedia must not be a party to an attack on someone. That's what BLP is about. It's not about how deserving the senator can be (and FSM knows that there is hardly too much scorn for someone like him). — Coren (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Template now protected -- to the wrong version, no doubt. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, well with the edit after page protection. And I like that no amount of consensus can overturn a minority determination of BLP. It's that powerful. Coren says "wp:blp" -every editor must bow to that judgement, consensus can't override it (14 to 6 oppose at this posting -I'm sure the cavalry will be in soon to get that support up. Say "hi" for me at the canvassing pages). R. Baley (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I assume this template will be full-protected forever, lest consensus on the talk page be implemented? Wnt (talk) 05:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm rather curious why there are accusations of canvassing flying around. But then again, I'm surprised at the amount of people !voting on this both for and against, heh. The link David Gerard gave for the alleged forum shopping is dead. I have been following this from the beginning, as one of the editors who actually edited the template, it automatically became part of my watchlist per my preferences and I have not been canvassed anywhere. I remain neutral by choice though.
I'm also wondering why Pegging isn't in the template. It's another word from Dan Savage which actually did enter common vocabulary successfully. So if any admin thinks so too, please add it.-- ObsidinSoul 14:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
In respects to Pegging (sexual practice), its been added. Well, canvassing has been happening, mostly because the conversations have been happening for so long and so many people have become involved, its almost impossible to stop canvassing from happening, Sadads (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
It is very striking to me, however, that I saw this brouhaha about santorum on User talk:Jimbo Wales just a few days before Rick Santorum announced his candidacy for president. Wnt (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Me too. There has also been some strong sideways comments that suggest the some of the users making a big deal about this are politically aligned with him, Sadads (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
You mean, like me? An openly gay man with a very well known antireligious bent that lives in a different country than where that political campaign is taking place? Obviously I'm here to whitewash some slimy bigot's reputation and not trying to prevent Wikipedia from being used as a weapon by anyone. — Coren (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Well said Coren, it was for such honesty, neutrality and my trust in your dedication to the project that I voted for you in the Board elections/2011 - best wishes with the results of that. Off2riorob (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I think you got that the wrong way round, guys. Santorum was reported to be thinking about running, then Cirt expanded the article to 5 times its size, creating 3 templates with 300 in-bound links, misrepresenting sources and quoting self-published erotic novels, and then the shit hit the fan. +1 to Off2riorob's comment above. --JN466 21:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that there's similar issues at Template:Dan Savage that people may want to look at. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration requested[edit]

I've opened an arbitration request regarding the BLP violation in this template (as well as in Template:LGBT slang). Given that most editors here are likely to have some level of involvement, I thought it best to notify here and let people comment there as needed. — Coren (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration declined[edit]

The request for arbitration in this matter has been declined. Gacurr (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)