Talk:Campaign for the neologism "santorum"/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Lower case first letter in title

I can't see any talk page or archive discussion that concluded that the {{lowercase title}} template should be applied to this article, and there is no rationale to be found at WP:CAPS or MOS:CAPS. I am removing the template. Please discuss here before inserting it again. ^Bongo_matic 05:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It was originally inserted diff, by Rememberway (talk · contribs). I happen to agree with it, but I will defer to the outcome of discussion here about that. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Most words that are written in lower case have encyclopedia entries that appear capitalized, so what's the rationale (note that I'm not disputing that the term itself is uncapitalized, a la Talk:Santorum (neologism)/Archive 1#Lower case initial letter)? ^Bongo_matic 05:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

In all secondary sources I have come across that discuss the term, the vast majority of secondary sources use a lowercase letter to refer to the neologism. -- Cirt (talk) 05:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

That isn't subject to dispute. The word is introduced in the lede in lower case, and referred to in lower case throughout the article. Compare apple, which is a word used in lower case, introduced in the article's lede in lower case, and has a capitalized title. ^Bongo_matic 05:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah okay sure, good example. I defer to your judgment. :) -- Cirt (talk) 05:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

In many discussions, when the the term is introduced as "Santorum (neologism)", or if people see the title without grasping the concept, they will continue to refer to the term as Santorum (the surname) and not santorum (the sexual term). If BLP concerns trump all rules and policies, as some people on this page seem to think, then we can certainly make an exception to the manual of style for this clarification. Quigley (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yea, we hear this term all the time in real life (/end sarcasm). to be perfectly blunt here ... this entire article and it's continued discussion reminds me of a 7th grade boys locker room discussion of a playboy mag. Should we suspend all our BLP rules for this? ... Pffttt ... too late, seems we already have. Whatever .. you kids have fun with your "naughty words". — Ched :  ?  06:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Attacking fellow editors as "you kids" and arguing that an article ought be deleted due to having "naughty words" is a non-starter. —Bill Price (nyb) 14:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Tell ya what Bill ... naaa .best that I don't. — Ched :  ?  05:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

New discussion at BLPNB

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Santorum --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Examples from literature

The following passage from our article,

Santorum has received utilization in fiction works, including the 2005 novel Hard by Jack R. Dunn,

<ref name="jackrdunn">{{cite book|first=Jack R.|last=Dunn|year=2005|title=Hard|page=134|quote=She wads up the t-shirt, uses it to wipe a trickle of santorum from her ass, and throws it under the cot.}}</ref>

the 2006 work The Stepdaughters by Rod Waleman,

<ref name="rodwaleman">{{cite book|first=Rod|last=Waleman|year=2006|title=The Stepdaughters|page=146|quote=Mark fucked his wife with slow, sure strokes that seemed to the panting Valerie to penetrate her more deeply than ever before. At each descent of the pouncing big prick into her sanctum santorum, Valerie thrust upward with all her strength until the velvety surfaces of her rotund naked buttocks swung clear of the bed|isbn=1-59654-370-1}}</ref>

and the 2008 books Men on the Edge: Dangerous Erotica edited by Christopher Pierce,

<ref name="christopherpierce">{{cite book|first=Christopher|last=Pierce|year=2008|title=Men on the Edge: Dangerous Erotica|page=38|quote=Then, one of them broke ranks and rammed his blood-lubed fist straight up my ass and twisted hard, pulled it out and licked the santorum clean.|publisher=STARbooks Press|isbn=978-1934187289}}</ref>

and Hate Starve Curse by Austen James.

<ref>{{cite book|title=Hate Starve Curse|year=2008|publisher=Broken Science Press|page=30|first=Austen|last=James|isbn=978148235028|quote=Any residents not burned alive in the fires or drowned in the flood will be made to drink a mixture of bodily fluids typically deposited in on the streets during Mardi Gras until death. The mixture should consist of (but is not limited to) sweat, snot, urine, saliva, tears, vomit, sexual fluids, and feces and santourm.}}</ref>

strikes me as an OR-ish use of primary sources. There is no secondary source commenting on the term's inclusion in those works, and we wouldn't usually go and try to find, list and quote every single work that has used a neologism. Moreover, the occurrence in "The Stepdaughters" seems to be a typo for "sanctum sanctorum". Reading the chapter, the character is most definitely engaged in vaginal, not anal, sex. There is also a typo in the last quote, santourm. --JN466 19:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the OR. Yes, primary sources, but in a way that seems consistent with WP:PRIMARY. You appear to be right about a typo -- but isn't it WP:OR to come to that conclusion? (Anyway that's a hell of a typo -- I'd love to see a secondary source take note of that one.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Waleman's book was first published in 1971. --JN466 19:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Very good point, illustrating how weak the scrutiny given to the sourcing in this article has been until now. It also doesn't really use the term "santorum," but misspells the Latin phrase "sanctum sanctorum." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The book Hard by Dunn is a self-published, free e-book. [1]. [2].--JN466 20:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

"Broken Science Press", the publisher of Hate Starve Curse, seems to have published exactly two books, both by Austen James: [3][4]. --JN466 20:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

STARbooks Press is a bona-fide publisher of gay literature. --JN466 20:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You can hardly blame Cirt for including that false usage of santorum. They probably got it from the santorum entry on Wikiquote. Oh, wait... yes, you can blame Cirt, as they also created that page... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done — I have gone ahead and taken the initiative myself to voluntarily remove Dunn 2005 diff and James 2008 diff, per above. -- Cirt (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

On what justification? Nomoskedasticity points out that the use of Dunn and James is correct by NOR policy. "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." That the specified primary sources use the term is a straightforward, easily verifiable description of fact. It is not original analysis, synthesis, or interpretation. There is no legitimate justification to remove Dunn and James. And I would like an explanation for why Jayen466 even mentioned that STARbooks Press is a "bona-fide publisher of gay literature". Is this more gay-baiting along the lines of Corbin Fisher? Quigley (talk) 05:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Quigley, I removed Dunn and James because of the above discussion, and because I was uncertain if self-published sources were noteworthy enough in this situation for inclusion. However, if consensus is different, they may be added back. Perhaps a compromise would be not to mention them directly in the article, but instead include them as a footnote or endnote? -- Cirt (talk) 05:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is inconclusive, happened in a very short span of time, and requires serious meditation on manners of policy, and not just opinion. Therefore, I think you have acted too quickly upon the drastic opinions of a few, especially when it comes to removing neutral, sourced information, and adding anti-Savage opinion. It would be prudent to wait a few days before making any major changes to this article, so that all interested parties may weigh in. Also, it is quite disturbing to see a flood of POV-unbalancing edits with no edit summary or rationale other than "per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is not an argument or a policy. Consensus is not him or him and another person; consensus takes time to form. Quigley (talk) 05:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, part of compromising is to try out some ideas from multiple parties - and also in the process making it somewhat likely that no single party is fully pleased with all parts of the end result. -- Cirt (talk) 06:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Trying out an attempt at compromise idea as mentioned above, retaining two of the removed cites, as footnotes diff, without emphasis on direct mention in main article body text. -- Cirt (talk) 06:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't take recourse to self-published sources and free e-books to demonstrate usage. The STARbooks ref at least has a bona fide publisher (although it's still a primary source, and no secondary source has commented on the use of the word in that book). --JN466 13:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Glad we can agree to compromise on the Pierce 2008 book. Would still like to hear back from Quigley (talk · contribs) regarding the latest attempt at compromise. -- Cirt (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Ebooks are not a "recourse" by any means. It is to be expected that a term popularized in the first few years of the last decade would see prodigious use in ebooks as well as in paper books. We are, after all, writing an e- and not a paper encyclopedia. Cirt, I'm not clear on what you regard as the "latest attempt at compromise". If you are referring to this edit, then I do regard it as a compromise, and not as an invitation to Jayen466 to continue to subject this article to death by a thousand cuts. If you are referring to some later edit, then be specific and use diffs. Quigley (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Quigley, you were right about what I was referring to, diff. -- Cirt (talk) 02:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we are still "twice removed" from good sourcing here: firstly, we are citing primary sources using the term, rather than secondary sources pointing out that these sources use the term, and secondly, we are citing self-published sources by unknown authors. I am prepared to entertain the STARbooks reference, as that is a publisher with a track record, but including the other two is undue. --JN466 02:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

That is a reasonable compromise, I should think. But perhaps in addition to that, we could move the 2 sources proposed to be removed, to the Further reading sect. -- Cirt (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Lead sentence

A suggestion to change the lead sentence, which is displayed as part of the Google search result, has been made at BLP/N. Interested editors are invited to comment there. --JN466 20:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought it should be discussed here, not there. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done, I have implemented the above suggestion, see diff. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

 Not done -- Cirt, please stop rushing to implement every suggestion someone makes; it has been proposed for discussion, so let it be discussed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, no objections, more discussion is a good idea with regard to this particular change. -- Cirt (talk) 01:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the attempt to shift the discussion to BLPN, and also to Jimbo Wales' talk page. By polling both of these forums, whose opinions regarding these matters are known to be deleterious to this existence of articles like these, those editors who are in the minority on this talk page are shamelessly forum shopping to get the results they want. As for the proposed change, it refocuses the article to give undue prominence to Savage and to obscure the meaning of the neologism, gratifying the political sensibilities of the editors rather than the utility of the readers of this article. Quigley (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Quigley, I believe your attack on SlimVirgin for forum shopping (if I read that first diff correctly) and your characterization of this dispute as political in nature amount to a failure to assume good faith, and I request you reconsider your words and strike through your accusations. →StaniStani  07:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Your accusation of personal attacks is itself a personal attack, and your demand for a retraction is inflammatory. In fact, the whole premise of this so-called dispute is a giant assumption of bad faith that implicates anyone who has ever edited this article; it is the bold and anti-encyclopedic claim that by documenting a phenomenon that we are somehow participating in it. Between this deplorable idea and the relentless attacks on the personal motivations of User:Cirt for expanding this article, any good faith that might have survived the beginning of this discussion has been dried up completely. Quigley (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

When ya all interested parties have had your little bit of fun, and moved on to the next thing - this "article" will be deleted/redirected with a minor merge - as it deserves to be. You should consider what the founder of the project thinks about this article - see here - Off2riorob (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk)

Mr. Wales ceded his benevolent-dictator-for-life role back to the community some time ago, and now has the status of a constitutional monarch. Although his opinion is important, community consensus is more so. -- The Anome (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Such activist opinionated alleged community consensus as this one are destructive to the projects goals and ambitions regarding NPOV and encyclopedic educational content and does nothing but demean and diminish the project - clearly this article is supported by lots of LGBT editors - they are not representative of the silent majority at all. Off2riorob (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

And how would you know that? The silent majority are, by definition, silent. Claiming to be the voice of the silent majority is a claim anyone can make: it's unfalsifiable. -- The Anome (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I at least can recognize a vocal minority supporting its self interests without consideration of the neutrality and goals of the project as a whole. Off2riorob (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Really? From what do you draw your conclusion that the other participants here are "LGBT editors"? -- The Anome (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Users interests are easily revealed through their edit history. Also imo as a neutral user with the projects neutrality and BLP issues in mind - no one would support this bloated attack unless they were "involved" in some small manner - Off2riorob (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Really? Tell me, am I, in your opinion, a member of this presumed LGBT cabal? -- The Anome (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I am speaking in regard to the overall picture not in regard to specific contributors. If you have an association with the gay activism I would appreciate it if you declared it. Off2riorob (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope. No connection with gay activism at all. As you can see from my editing history, my interests are mostly computers, mathematics, physics and geography. Nor am I involved with U.S. politics, on either side. -- The Anome (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

You know, I could just as easily make the opposite bad faith argument. Behold. Is EVERYone opposing the great and noble efforts of persecuted minority Dan Savage members of the right-wing extremist homophobic establishment in this country? You're just a fan of Rick "Man on Dog" Santorum!!111!! Stop the gay-bashing hate speech!!!!eleven! Yes, that was meant to be read sarcastically. Can we stop trying to poison the well and stop throwing accusations of bias around? Henrymrx (t·c) 22:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

My point is exactly that throwing around terms like "LGBT cabal" or "silent majority" is futile, and we should take personalities out of this and consider arguments on their merits alone, without making assumptions about the motives of other editors. -- The Anome (talk) 22:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

"LGBT cabal" - you are the person that said that - it is your expression. Off2riorob (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't you think this article is a bit bloated and unduly attacking of a living person? Do you think a single paragraph might be more than enough? Do you think it needs expansion? Off2riorob (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the bloat is a direct result of the many attempts to delete it on policy or decency grounds, as its proponents hammer home the point that it meets WP:V and WP:N and strive ever harder to achieve strict compliance with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP policies. If its presence here hadn't been objected to on just those procedural grounds, this never would have happened, and this would have been a much smaller article. See Streisand effect and unintended consequences. -- The Anome (talk) 22:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

So you agree it is bloated, good a point we can agree on. - I suggest anyone here reads it completely to get a real feel for exactly how bloated it is. I am surprised at your suggestion that the article has been expanded because of users procedural objections to it .. and I don't think doing that is a correct beneficial thing to do for the project either. Users are objecting to my expansion of this article so I will expand it as much as possible to defend it ... Off2riorob (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob: But that's exactly what has happened. I agree that it might perhaps sufficed to be half of its current size; but deletion was never going to fly. The process of fighting its mere existence has resulted in a massive blowback in the other direction. Welcome to the Internet, where things like this happen. I'd stop digging now, if I were you. Perhaps in a few years' time, the article can be reduced in size as its relevance becomes historic. Or not, as the case may be: it's entirely possible that Savage's one little word may end Santorum's chances for the presidency, in which case this will be -- almost absurdly -- confirmed as being one of the most significant stories from this political cycle. -- The Anome (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not digging much.. - I am proud to speak up against the massive expansion of this article by User:Cirt. This specific issue is important but whats more important is to bring attention to user Cirts similar issues at multiple locations and work towards bringing the users contentious editing to the communities attention and to have them restricted. Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, just for clarity, I should explain that that was an allusion to the expression "When you're in a hole, stop digging", coined by the British politician Denis Healey. -- The Anome (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

"no one would support this bloated attack unless they were "involved" in some small manner" - so it seems you are talking specifically about every single editor who disagrees with you. Tell me, how am I "involved"? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Only you know, how are you involved? Off2riorob (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

So you are assuming that every editor that claims neutrality is lying? Wow, Sadads (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow to you too - please don't put words into my mouth. Off2riorob (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Sadads isn't far off. If I say that I'm not involved then how do you reconcile that with your statement? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Apologies if I offended you, but your most recent comments suggest that the entire reason you are here is because an assumption of bad faith on Cirt and anyone that defends his position here on this article. I agree he is impolitic sometimes, but he certainly isn't a malicious editor and that doesnt mean the rest of us are in cohoots with him or marching to the same tune as the articles content, Sadads (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - If you say you are uninvolved that is your busyness - I didn't say you where involved. What position do you take in regard to the currant article and its size at present is a more relevant question you could answer. Off2riorob (talk) 23:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I am picking up that there is some resistance to suggestions to delete the article but less objections to the fact that the article is clearly overlarge , undue and could be easily trimmed to half its size - users should focus more on the actual content. - rather than feeling defensive and supporting as a knee jerk. - It is fine to say - I support this articles existence but it is imo overly large and undue. Off2riorob (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you could make a start by assuming good faith on everyone's behalf. I can see where you're coming from, and to some extent I share your concerns and that of those other editors that oppose the existence of this article in its current form. But Cirt's point of view, and that of those who agree with him/her also makes sense to me, and, in the balance, and the peculiar circumstances here, I think Cirt's point of view makes marginally more sense than the other; and I'm clearly not alone in that conclusion. Given that Cirt's edits very strictly adhere to Wikipedia's rules on editing, and is clearly not malicious, I think the result is a foregone conclusion. I suggest everyone cools off for a bit, and stops pushing for a few months, and works solely on polishing and updating the article, rather than attempting to expand or shrink it significantly. The significance, or lack of significance, of this word will become clearer over the next few months. -- The Anome (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob said it himself: this article is a merely a pawn in a group of editors' campaign "to bring attention to user Cirts similar issues at multiple locations and work towards bringing the users contentious editing to the communities attention and to have them restricted". And if this weren't clear enough disruption in and of itself, he now speaks boldly about what Jayen466 only alluded to—some LGBT cabal that protects this page, despite the fact that a majority of editors on both sides of this dispute (including Cirt, The Anome, and myself) do not have LGBT-focused editing histories. The incontrovertible fact about santorum is that its use has expanded beyond Dan Savage's webpage, and its enrichment of the English language has been well-documented in reliable sources. The (lack of) significance of the word, if our concern is for the man who denies civil rights, has already been demonstrated: the word played no quantifiable role in Rick Santorum's losing his Senate seat, and the man is a fringe and unlikely candidate for U.S. president. But this article is not about the man; it is about the term, which belongs now not to one man or one woman, but to the global community of English-language speakers. As a result, the full and separate coverage is not undue; it is the summation of Wikipedia's goals, and it is a necessary hedge against the lie that the word has no independent currency outside of the person and the event that lead to its coining. Quigley (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't actually find the word well documented as a word separated from the campaign. Looking at the examples we give in Santorum_(neologism)#Recognition_and_usage, we have a limerick in BBspot's "Geek Limerick contest", which runs,

The Internet is a great forum;

We can mock people when we abhor 'em.

And if you don't believe

What the web can achieve,

Then just Google our dear friend Santorum.

That's the person, not the neologism.

Similarly, the Partridge Dictionary of Slang reference is not actually the alphabetical dictionary listing of English slang words, it's in the introduction. What does it actually say there, when it describes the word as a "deliberate coining"?

Kranz and Cusick mention its coining in the context of the campaign. Roger's Profanisaurus belongs to an adult humour comic. Neologism in the lexical system of modern English is a Ukrainian self-published master thesis. [5][6]. Gunn is a misquoted footnote; he actually refers to Savage's coining of the term, and attributes it to him. Then we have two self-published novels, one properly published book, and then Gonzo Crosswords (!). Rubel looks okay, Moser too; those seem actually the only good references of that lot. --JN466 03:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The natality paper seems like quite an intelligent discussion, though it appears to be a student paper. Wasik is fine, though of course it covers the campaign, rather than the word. Next, we have the Purity Test, whose full title is, The Purity Test: Your Filth and Depravity Cheerfully Exposed by 2,000 Nosy Questions. Then we have a book on the Simpsons, which mentions Savage's coining the term, and lastly a quote from Savage himself. My impression is that this is pretty much every last instance of the word editors could find. --JN466 04:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The research is somewhat difficult, with regard to coming up with the appropriate search terms to find uses of santorum but in usage of the neologism term itself. It is likely additional usage exists. -- Cirt (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Would you have a source quote from Partrdige? --JN466 04:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, we could include that. -- Cirt (talk) 04:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

No, what I meant was, could you copy the context in which the word is mentioned in the book here on the talk page? As for the search term difficulty, santorum + sex, santorum + anal, santorum + shit will probably weed out a lot of false positives. ;) --JN466 04:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Partridge 2006 — "An example of deliberate coining is the word 'santorum', purported to mean 'a frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex'. In point of fact, the term is the child of a one-man campaign by syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage to place the term in wide usage. From its appearance in print and especially on the Internet, one would assume, incorrectly, that the term has gained wide usage." — keep in mind this was from back in 2006, however, I would be willing of course to include the full quote on the article page, if that is suggested. :) -- Cirt (talk) 04:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Is it listed in the alphabetical section, or is this the rationale why it was excluded from the alphabetical listing? --JN466 04:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe it is, but like you I would be guessing as to why. -- Cirt (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I meant, what precedes the passage you quoted? Is it an explanation of which types of words are not included in the alphabetical listing, and why? (For reference, Google Books does not find any mention of the word in the 2007 and 2008 editions.) --JN466 04:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

They write that they tried to avoid entries of "intentional coinings without widespread usage". -- Cirt (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. In that case I think you ought to revisit the relevant passage of the article, to bring it more in line with the source. --JN466 04:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done, I have taken the initiative to voluntarily implement this suggestion into the article, diff. -- Cirt (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you. I've added a little more of the context we discussed above [7]; it's an authoritative source, and its view is good to have. Thanks again for your cooperation. --JN466 05:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

This edit diff, is a bit of WP:NOR, we should not be stooping to guessing as to why something is not included, or looking through dictionaries and mentioning all dictionaries that do not list a term... -- Cirt (talk) 05:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

From what you said above, I understood that they said they tried to avoid entries of "intentional coinings without widespread usage", and then gave santorum as an example, saying "An example of deliberate coining is the word 'santorum', purported to mean 'a frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex'. In point of fact, the term is the child of a one-man campaign by syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage to place the term in wide usage. From its appearance in print and especially on the Internet, one would assume, incorrectly, that the term has gained wide usage." Did I misunderstand your explanation above? --JN466 05:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Your edit appears to be WP:NOR. It is reading into the source, instead of simply stating it. Due to the controversy involved, best to stick to direct quote from that source — which is what I have done, already. -- Cirt (talk) 05:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

But the reason they mentioned it, specifically, is as an example of the type of word they chose not to include, isn't it? --JN466 05:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

No, that is not directly stated in the source. That is an assumption. -- Cirt (talk) 05:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Could I ask you then to post here the entire intervening passage, from the place where they state they "tried to avoid entries of" "intentional coinings without widespread usage", to "An example of deliberate coining ..."? That would be much appreciated. Then we can look at it together and determine if my edit went beyond what the source said. --JN466 05:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry but there is a lot of text in the entire intervening passage. -- Cirt (talk) 05:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. I thought the two statements you cited were in relatively close proximity. Could you at least give us a couple of sentences before and after each? I.e.

• before and after the sentence where they say they tried to avoid "intentional coinings without widespread usage", and
• before and after "An example of deliberate coining is the word 'santorum', purported to mean 'a frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex'. In point of fact, the term is the child of a one-man campaign by syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage to place the term in wide usage. From its appearance in print and especially on the Internet, one would assume, incorrectly, that the term has gained wide usage.".

I just would like to understand the point the introduction is making there. --JN466 13:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you find a moment to provide the source quotes I asked you about? --JN466 21:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: It is quite unfortunate that the tone has degraded in this sect. It started out above with a good faith discussion about compromising. In fact, the very original purpose of this particular sect has been resolved already, see diff. -- Cirt (talk) 03:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI - another forum where this is being discussed

• User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Rick_Santorum

FYI - another forum where this is being discussed. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• It looks like this issue is going to keep being raised again and again, until Santorum's very long-shot candidacy ends.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Milowent, it seems that Macwhiz (talk · contribs) would tend to agree with you about that, diff, diff. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal similar to above proposal, on another forum

• Note: Proposal similar to above Talk:Santorum_(neologism)#Proposal, now proposed at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Rename_and_reorient_the_article. -- Cirt (talk) 04:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be the season to forum shop. I wonder what goes well with santorum and heels? And is it on sale? Active Banana (^bananaphone 23:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Active Banana, that is unfortunately an accurate assessment of one of the problems with resolving the repeated discussions and proposals of a similar nature, across multiple pages and forums. -- Cirt (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Lede

I'm not at all convinced that there's a consensus for the change to the first sentence of the article recently implemented. Although User:Jayen466 claims there was "6:1:1" support for the change at WP:BLPN#Lead sentence, that's a misleading ratio, as only 8 editors participated. Simply put, this article is about the word, and we're burying the lede because some forum shopping editors cried BLP. But this is no more a BLP issue than Dyke (slang), and the current opening is about as ridiculous as "The Model-T was a product produced by Henry Ford's manufacturing company in response to market pressures and an emerging middle class. In 1908, it became the first of its kind to be produced using interchangeable parts and assembly lines, and in 1927 the 15 millionth Model-T automobile was manufactured by Ford Motors."

The point is that I oppose the recent change, and I intend to boldly revert unless I'm clearly in the minority on this talk page. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I would point out that there is already a sect on this talkpage for that proposal — but unfortunately its tone has degraded in the quality that various editors chose to refer to one another. So perhaps you are correct to start a new sect here on the talkpage to discuss your objection to the recent change. -- Cirt (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

tl;dr. Time to stop bickering and start !voting. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 03:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

---

• Note: I commented about this proposal once already, diff. I have no strong objections to it, neither would I object to the prior wording — I was the one that first took the initiative and voluntarily made the edit to implement it diff, later restored again by Jayen466 diff. But if there is consensus among editors from the community for the change as it stands — and it would help to resolve some of the ongoing issues and come to a good faith compromise about the start of the lede, that is a good thing. :) -- Cirt (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support This article is about the coinage of the term. An event. It is not an article about the substance, santorum. The present opening sentence is appropriate. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

  Bzzt, sorry, wrong, you must be thinking of Coinage of "santorum". This article is about the neologism "santorum," which is a word. The most important fact about a word is the meaning of the word. Who coined it comes later. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

  I don't like you. You're rude to people and can't argue and you fill up all these pages with your half-formed, one-eyed childish blather. You're inserting odd formatting and preemptively closing discussions and making no sense at all. You're, in short, disruptive. Your behaviour here is toxic. Learn some manners or go away. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

  I don't think whether you like me is relevant to this discussion, and I don't think that your personal attacks are a very compelling argument. Please comment on content, not contributors. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 07:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Note: Given the precedent set by User:Jayen466 at WP:BLPN, I intend to call this one in about 17 hours time. If you're going to WP:CANVAS for !votes, better get started. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support As Cirt and I have just established above, according to the Partridge dictionary of modern American slang and unconventional English, which is a reputable reference work in this field, "In point of fact, the term is the child of a one-man campaign by syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage to place the term in wide usage. From its appearance in print and especially on the Internet, one would assume, incorrectly, that the term has gained wide usage." They consciously did not include it in their alphabetical listing as they try to avoid entries of "intentional coinings without widespread usage". The revised opening sentence is in line with that. As for my having made the edit, a 6:1 consensus in favour of a BLP-related change at BLPN, with one abstention, is a sufficient mandate, given BLP policy's presumption in favour of the BLP subject. I would have been happy for the discussion at BLPN to have remained open longer, but Nomoskedasticity, who had previously reverted Cirt, closed it as resolved. --JN466 04:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

More recent sources acknowledge the term as a form of sexual slang. 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not a BLP issue. You're giving that source undue weight. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 07:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Rename, summarize, and merge

A consensus seems to be developing in various places (e.g. here and here) that this article ought not to exist, or that it ought to be summarized and merged into the controversy article, then renamed and redirected.

Cirt, is that something you'd be willing to support and work on? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 05:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Um...that isn't the consensus forming at the first of these links you gave us ([8]) and it appears that a significant number of users object on Jimmy's page as well, though that discussion is turning more towards a turn to WP:COATRACK. Neither forum is projecting a clear consensus for a merge, delete or summarize. This is why forum shopping is problematic, the conversation has now forked in different places, Sadads (talk) 05:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

See above comment, on this talk page, by Active Banana, diff. -- Cirt (talk) 05:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

My reading of the way consensus is changing is that the more people comment, the greater the consensus will be that we should rename and merge, at least. So my thinking is let's get it done.

Cirt, you could condense what you wrote into a summary-style one paragraph for the controversy article, then we could think of a name for this page (Dan Savage santorum campaign, for example), then redirect that title to the summary-style section. That covers all our needs—readers will see the redirect, will read the sources, will read the context—but without Wikipedia appearing to be involved in spreading the meme. That strikes me as a reasonable compromise. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 05:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, in the recent comments no-one who is defending the notability of the topic feels that the entire article should be squashed, but rather we feel that it should be trimmed and refined, that has been the major concession as of late. The recent turn has by no means pointed towards merging or renaming. Most other comments that conceded points have been associated with forum shopping or the return to arguments based on bad faith. Anyone else reading the recent comments like SlimVirgin? I would also like to point out that many users, like myself and most of the people who commented on the two closed proposals to do what you want to do above have not been commenting on the other pages, probably because of the fact that this is forum shopping, Sadads (talk) 05:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I can make a good faith comment here, and agree with you that the article page Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality should be expanded with additional secondary sources. But that should occur in the future, irrespective of the resolution for this page. :) So far, to date, no editor has made efforts to improve and expand that other page. -- Cirt (talk) 05:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Please stop forum shopping. The "consensus" on Jimmy's talk matters fuck-all compared to the discussion that went 2-1 against this proposal not halfway up this very page. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 12:40 am, Today (UTC−5)

• comment This entire topic has been spread across so many articles, talk pages, template discussions, user talk pages. and such that I have to wonder if perhaps a centralized discussion in the venue of an WP:RFC is warranted? I'd suggest that given the strongly divisive viewpoints, and the breadth of this topic, that something be centralized, and listed at WP:CENT. Considering how polarized the subject has gotten, perhaps we could even request that once an RFC has been expedited, an experienced "Crat" close the discussion with some finality. Just a thought. — Ched :  ?  06:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• There's an RfC above, Ched, but listing it centrally is a good idea. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Sigh .. you're right Slim. Perhaps I'm just getting too old for this. It's just that the entire debacle seems so very wrong in my view. In fact, I even posted in that thread. I guess I'd just like to see a single page where this entire ordeal could be gathered together, and some semblance of order could be found here. For so many years I have avoided such these things, and yet I got drawn into this mess. Perhaps a new day will avail me with a bit more wisdom and fortitude. — Ched :  ?  07:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Ched, it is a good idea to post to WP:CENT, but it was also the right move by SlimVirgin to have the central location for the ongoing RfC be located at this talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 07:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that a central page would be a good idea, but I'm not sure we should open up another forum at this stage. If this RfC is posted widely enough, it might draw enough people in. I did try adding it to CENT but was reverted. [9] SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 07:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I posted neutrally worded notices to a bunch of talkpages of related WikiProjects, so hopefully that will give wider notice, to the existence of the RfC. -- Cirt (talk) 07:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• comment it amazes me every day. Just when I think I've seen the utmost irrationality, I run across editors in completely opposite camps who work together to achieve a compromise and find some sort of consensus. No wonder I keep coming back to this nuthouse. :) — Ched :  ?  08:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Restarting the RfC

The RfC above is a mess. It was added on top of an existing discussion with a different proposal. The RfC asks for comments on a different set of options. The newer responses will not be compatible with the older ones. There's no reason to do this at this stage -- the existing discussion has lasted for a week, the consensus is clear. Any outcome that fails to respect that consensus at this stage will have no legitimacy. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It's the same proposal. Rename, merge, redirect. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 08:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Megadittos. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
• I agree the conflicting proposals are a problem. There is a need for an RfC, though. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• What are the conflicting proposals, Anthony? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 08:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• One is the original proposal simply to rename and make this a sub-article of Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality, which I endorse; the other is to rename, redirect, and merge content, which I'm coming round to. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• I can't see any difference. Jayen suggested renaming this one, and merging it into the controversy article, with a redirect from the new title. That's the RfC proposal too. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 09:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean now. Jayen was going to leave this as a stand-alone. Sigh. This whole thing is such a complete waste of people's time.

We could start a new RfC, but my goodness. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 09:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It's only turning into a waste of time because some people aren't happy not getting their way and keep pushing it despite consensus repeatedly going in a different direction. The way to stop wasting people's time is to stop wasting people's time. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

This needs to be reviewed by a wider cross-section of the community. And I'd like to hear the opinions of more senior and experienced editors. How about this:

Proposal: that this article be renamed Dan Savage campaign, condensed to one or two paragraphs, merged as a section into Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality, and the new title redirected to that section?

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

You mean as a brand new RfC? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 09:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess. I could go round to those projects notified by Cirt and redirect them to this new RfC. It's a bit messy but can you think of a better way to go? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Who here isn't senior and experienced enough for you, Anthony? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably better not to do that. If we were to start a new one, I would simply revert my edits to the old one, including the header, and move the new one (with the same header as now) lower on the page; keeping the same header would mean we wouldn't have to change the posts elsewhere, or the RfC pages.

But I don't think we can justify having two going at the same time on the same page. I've asked Jayen for advice, and linked to this discussion, so perhaps we should wait for him to comment, as he started the first discussion. I'm sorry if I've messed this up. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 09:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Cool. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I reverted my edits to the discussion, so the IP's closure of it is back, and I've restarted the RfC lower on the page. It's not ideal, but I can't see a better way forward as of now. It's the same header as before, so people's posts about it elsewhere needn't change. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 09:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you to Nomoskedasticity and Anthony for pointing out that I'd misinterpreted the first proposal. I wouldn't have noticed otherwise. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 10:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"It's only turning into a waste of time because some people aren't happy not getting their way and keep pushing it despite consensus repeatedly going in a different direction. " Was this an uncomfortable assertion that you'd prefer not to address? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The more it's discussed, the more consensus seems to be changing, because uninvolved people are now commenting. At least, that's how it seems to me. When there's evolving consensus, it makes no sense to shut discussion down. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 10:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Criticism removed

• I added some criticism to the article diff — this was removed by 24.177.120.138 (talk · contribs), diff.
• I think it is a good idea to add in some criticism from secondary sources, to provide some balance to other sources that comment upon the phenomenon from other viewpoints. -- Cirt (talk) 05:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I have made an attempt at compromise, as the above user's edit summary complained about addition of the quote. I added back the source, without the quote, diff. -- Cirt (talk) 05:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Eh, okay, sure. I think most/all of the "Media Analysis" section should go, tbh. It's not called "List of opinions about the controversy surrounding santorum-the-neologism", after all. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I have taken your suggestion into consideration, and I have trimmed down the size of that sect. -- Cirt (talk) 07:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing issues

I'm looking at some of the sources and there are problems. Two of the references cited do not support the assertion "A web page defining the term as such, created by Savage, became a top search result for santorum in 2003, unseating the Senator's official website on many Web search engines at the time and including Google, Yahoo! Search and Bing in 2011." More seriously, the reference "Rick Santorum ha un problema con Google". Il Post (in Italian). www.ilpost.it. September 8, 2010. Retrieved May 11, 2011.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link) cites this article and so appears to be a violation of WP:CIRCULAR. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The limited reference to Wikipedia doesn't mean that the whole article is unusable. The part about donating $5m has nothing to do with Wikipedia, so I've restored it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you substantiate the claim the "the part about donating $5m has nothing to do with Wikipedia"? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

1. That article cited is from 8 September 2010
2. The Wikipedia page prior to the recent expansion diff, did not have that info in it.
3. That info was not obtained from this Wikipedia page.

Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment

• Comment: I have given this some thought, and I have decided to take a break from editing and watching this article for a while, and I will respectfully defer to the consensus of the community with regard to ongoing discussions. I realize that the topic is a controversial one, and the secondary source coverage is only a few years old. Perhaps as time passes, additional sources will analyze the phenomenon from multiple viewpoints, maybe even including academic scholarship. I wish the best to all who continue to stay involved with editing and discussion of this topic. -- Cirt (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing RfC

As there has been a lot of back-and-forth discussion on this page during the last couple of days, it seems worth pointing out to new editors arriving here that several screen-worths up on this page there is an ongoing RfC: #Proposal_to_rename.2C_redirect.2C_and_merge_content. --JN466 23:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Wrong place - belongs in Wiktionary

Based on what I've read above, the information should be moved to the Wiktionary article. It's a made-up word, and that's all it is. There's a news component to its history (Savage) but basically the existing article is about its etymology. As such, it belongs in a dictionary rather than an encyclopedia - and certainly not in the Rick Santorum article. Flatterworld (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I trust we'll see a similar proposal shortly at Google (verb) and Spoonerism, among others? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that people actually use this "word"? TFD (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I use it regularly. That's really not relevant, though. Are you asking for reliable sources asserting that the word is in use? 24.177.120.138 (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether "santorum" is used or not is irrelevant. The neologism is discussed in reliable sources.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

A neologism that isn't used is not a neologism. Thus whatever sources are discussing it as a neologism are wrong in fact. John lilburne (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not based on what is right in fact, but on what is verified.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

That allows us to have articles on tarot card readings, religion and other such subjects, but should not be extended into any old nonsense that happens to be sourced to some otherwise reputable source. If a journalist cannot distinguish what is a neologism, cannot fact check whether the thing they are describing is a neologism, then they cannot be a reliable source for the thing being a neologism. Otherwise we might just as well allow blog posts, comments on USENET and, recordings of people around the water-cooler, to make there way into the article. John lilburne (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No because those are not reliable sources.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Lots of things are discussed by reliable sources, but that alone doesn't make them encyclopedic. What do you have against Wiktionary and etymology? Flatterworld (talk) 23:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Now you're arguing against the WP:N of the article. Please review the core content policies and try again. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Unlike the word "truthiness", which Stephen Colbert cleverly coined as a way to show the inherent dishonesty in so many areas of today's society, the word "santorum" was crafted simply because Dan Savage didn't like what Rick Santorum had to say about Lawrence v. Texas in the overturning of Texas' sodomy law. If you ever watched the full video of the discussion (as I did), you would see that Santorum didn't seek to focus on the sodomy stuff nor to make a specific statement regarding homosexual behavior, but was asked by a reporter to give comments on it. A few comments that were barely different than thousands of others apparently somehow made Santorum not only worthy of attack, but worth attacking on the most base levels and comparison to fecal matter and lubricant.

Now we see that Wikipedia is serving the goal that Savage had in mind by giving credence to the idea that this is a real word used by people. How many of our "reliable" sources show this word in use? Is it used as a joke by political pundits? Or is it used to really convey meaning when discussing anal sex? BLP does not only mean reliable sources covered something (That is what WP:RS is for). It means that we take care not to turn Wikipedia into a gossip column or place to titillate. We give space to all viewpoints, and that starts with the Title we choose, and runs throughout the article. As written, this article only serves the malicious purposes intended by Dan Savage when he set out to attack a political opponent. -- Avanu (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Those are some fine opinions. Too bad they've got no bearing on how this article should be structured or titled, unless you can back them up with facts. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

!Facts aren't the problem. BLP concerns are. Wikipedia uses reliable sources, but the *way* we use those is important to the article. We have a ton of reliable sources, but I'm strictly talking about BLP here. -- Avanu (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You're correct, in part: I should have said "unless you can back them up with reliable sources." BTW, this isn't a BLP issue. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello again, BLP calling. That's the real issue and pretty much ONLY issue here. -- Avanu (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Really? When did "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes a byproduct of anal sex" become a living person? 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You have no 'facts' to support this as being a 'neologism', you have misinformed journalists at best, who for all we know may have got it as being a neologism from this very article. What we do know for sure is that those that declare words to be neologisms have specifically said that this is not one. John lilburne (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

{ec}I don't need facts to support this being a neologism, I've got reliable sources, e.g. CNN. Your characterization of the journalists who report on the neologism as "misinformed" is an opinion statement that has no bearing on the reliability of those sources. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

IF any of you had followed the link I provided to the Wiktionary article, THEN you might have looked at the discussion there AND noticed that the second section is about instances of actual and claimed usage. Surely someone here is interested in actual facts. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Flatterworld (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope, this is Wikipedia. We're interested in WP:V and WP:RS. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Look kid, lots of people are making good points here. Verifiability and Reliable Sourcing are VERY important, but they are the beginning, not the end. We then look at BLP and whether the material is encyclopedic, etc. It is obviously verifiable and sourceable, but there is more to consider. -- Avanu (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Look, kid, don't condescend to me. This isn't a BLP issue. This has been settled forever. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Obviously not, since a LOT of editors believe it *is* a BLP issue. -- Avanu (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

How's that saying go? "You can have your own opinions, but you..." 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Who knows? -- Avanu (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't care whether we're serving external goals or not, as long as we're working under our rules. If the word is not a real neologism, then that just means it's the campaign that's noteworthy here, so rename and move on. I don't think it's a BLP issue either. We don't ignore a notable sourced subject because it's nasty to someone. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

BLP requests a unbiased treatment of the subject. How does the presentation of this article currently fit that criteria? -- Avanu (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this article a Biography of a Living Person? No. These are facts. You're just stirring the pot. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a BLP, it's about a word/campaign/whatever. BLP would apply if statements were made about Santorum rather than reporting on the affair, or bad sources used to spread derogatory statements about him. Are you saying we are giving a biased treatment of the sources, or using bad sources? Perhaps, but that's a tweak, not a basic problem. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it is difficult to understand how a person's last name is biographical. The IP user above makes the mistake of not seeing the biographical content here as well as using the term "facts", which is to be avoided on Wikipedia. As others have repeatedly said, we deal in what Reliable Sources say, not "facts". To Becritical, this is biographical because it is at its heart an ad hominem attack on Senator Rick Santorum, essentially comparing him to the "frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex". While I agree that public figures are less protected by US law from attack because of free speech rights, that doesn't diminish policy concerns here at Wikipedia. -- Avanu (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

To continue, since this is ad hominem, and essentially attacking the person rather than the issues, it should strike even the most casual reader that this is inappropriate to focus on it in the way this article does. Wikipedia is not here to carry the water for political sides or causes. We're here to provide encyclopedic information. -- Avanu (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No one's denying this is an attack, but documenting an attack is not an attack. Now, maybe we need to merge it to the homosexual controversy article, rename it, whatever. But the RfC above was about totally destroying it, which doesn't seem right given the sources. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's be clear about this stuff.

• This is not about a "Google bomb". Dan Savage is one of the great humorous - and sometimes serious - columnists of the age, and I distinctly remember reading about this not long after it came out. It was political commentary, it was election news, it had a life of its own back when people didn't trust search engines to find every single thing they might be interested in.
• This is a neologism. Some people do use this word in conversation, not literally, but figuratively, more or less as an alternate to "bullshit". Look up "bunch of santorum" -rick on Google, for example. No, those aren't reliable sources, but this isn't really a reliable-source kind of word. It still is a word now, however unconventional its manner of conception.
• This is about politics. Obviously. It's not just the word in the dictionary, but how the word was made and is used and affects political life. People don't want to admit there's a living person involved because BLP has become a black hole - yet coverage of WP:WELLKNOWN political figures is supposed to be free from censorship. Whereas in practice, I feel like this is coming up because of the possibility of some 2011 political role for Santorum. I feel like this is only one tiny part of a Wiki-wide campaign we're going to be seeing to censor and spitshine every article about a Republican. Wnt (talk) 00:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that this *isn't* a Google Bomb. People who think that weren't paying attention back in 2003. While technically neologism means a new word, I also agree that in spirit this is a neologism because the last name of the senator wasn't as commonly known. I also agree with you that this is political. Sadly, I must disagree that just because it is political it means that those who want to change its presentation here in Wikipedia are somehow politically motivated. Personally, I feel that 99% of the candidates who run for office have no business being in office at all. But as Alton Brown says, "that's another show". The object being described is pretty gross (for political effect). Santorum the man made a comment, and so rather than engage on a discussion of the issues, Dan Savage engaged in character attack. This isn't the sign of a civil and intellectual society. If this article were presented differently, it would be fine. But let's be honest, it is about a living person, it is about their biographical information (aka last name), and it is clearly an attack. The question becomes where do we draw the line with BLP on this issue, not whether it is BLP related. -- Avanu (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

So as I understand what Wnt is claiming, it's that the etymology of each and every word belongs in an encyclopedia (Wikipedia), just because at some point in time it's been 'discussed by reliable sources'? Most people are aware that dictionaries provide more than just the current definition of a word. They're expected to include its etymology. So why are you so against putting that in Wiktionary? Surely you can clearly explain your position on that instead of goingoff on some tangent. The title of this section is Wrong place. That's what we're discussing: the proper place. Flatterworld (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Words with a political cargo go beyond mere etymology - as does this article. For example, nigger, chav, and wanker. Wnt (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm gobsmacked. If you truly think those three words, with their long history of use in politics and elsewhere, are somehow equivalent to a word some shock jock made up as a specific attack on one politician...well, there's simply no rational discussion possible. You've made up your mind, I'll no longer try to confuse you with facts. (And based on your flippant comment about etymology, I doubt you've ever read any entries in the unabridged Oxford dictionary, either.) Flatterworld (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought words with a long history would make the issue clear. But to find you some shorter ones I just looked up 4chan and found lolcat, rickrolling, and pedobear; also LOL can be mentioned. Of course the "politics" of these words is less clear; yet as social memes, they carry some related implication of social viewpoint when used. Wnt (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Rick tosses his hat in the ring

For those who may not usually follow politics in the news, but are participating in The Great Santorum Froth-Up above: One point of debate regarding the relevance of this article has been whether or not Rick Santorum would run for the US presidency in 2012. That's no longer crystal-ball gazing: This morning, on Good Morning America, Rick announced his candidacy. [10] I'm not saying this necessarily changes things; just that it may factor into some peoples' decision-making process. (I'm using "Rick" to identify Rick Santorum, even though Wikipedia custom is to use his last name, just to avoid unnecessary confusion with the term santorum.) // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

There never was any doubt: why else would this article suddenly become an issue after laying fallow for so many years? I would not be surprised to learn that the many new editors complaining about violations of BLP have IP addresses that match the ex-senator's campaign. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 20:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Please either strike or verify your allegation. (I would not be surprised to learn that the many new editors complaining about violations of BLP have IP addresses that match the ex-senator's campaign.) You should not make such statements here unless you can document them. It is certainly not true of me, and it's the "Oppose" list that's sprinkled with editors who have been inactive or are SPAs. Thank you. Yopienso (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

i see no allegation here. i wouldnt be surprised either. -badmachine 21:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It's entirely obvious, but since you can't see it, I'll restate it. He's alleging that editors who have not previously edited this article or its talk page belong to Rick Santorum's campaign. Yopienso (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The only assertion I made above was that the sudden interest in this article, and the many vigorous attempts in the last few weeks to censor this article, were due to Santorum's impending declaration as a candidate for President in 2012. Who has been involved in those attempts is supposition, nothing more.TechBear | Talk | Contributions 23:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that has changed is that the bollox that the website would affect whether he stands or not, can at least be seen as WRONG. We can also say that those RSs that were making those comments is equally likely to be WRONG on any other aspects regatding this topic too. The upshot is that for several days this article has contained nothing but SHITE as far that is concerned. We still have an article full of CRYSTAL BALL GAZING on all the other political aspects of the nonsense. John lilburne (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, when you say CRYSTAL BALL GAZING, are you referring to speculation about the prank's impact on Santorum's career? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly there is no way that any of the RS quoted can have any inkling into the impact on his career on way or another. To do that one would have to question those that vote for or against him whether the campaign had any effect on how they voted. To crystal ball gaze myself I'd say that the fact that he's annoyed the gays will play well with his constituency, but I doubt it will gain him any votes nor lose him many. Most people don't care who someone lives with or has sex with. All the commentary is just filling column inches, chattering away on TV and radio, pretending to be knowledgeable, pontificating one way or another. One would have thought that having witnessed previous political speculations people would have wised up, to the fact that it is nonsense through and through. John lilburne (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Good call! Wouldn't want to confuse people into thinking Santorum_(neologism) was running for president. Politics in Washington are dirty enough as it is! Lara 21:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

My, that's amazing! Who would ever have guessed that this drive to "improve" the article would be so tightly integrated with a political campaign? Purely coincidence, I suppose. But somehow I suspect Kremlinologists may find that watching Wikipedia over the coming months to see which articles are up for censorship is a better way to predict the primary campaign than any other tool in their arsenal. Wnt (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation

The former dab page Santorum has been moved to Santorum (disambiguation) and Santorum now redirects to Rick Santorum. "Rick Santorum" is now the primary topic at the dab page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

This is American biase creeping in because outside of the US ( well in the UK at least), Santorum refers to the neologism as the politian is unheard of. Shouldn't Santorum direct to the disambiguation page? I think so. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have sources for that claim? If so, that would be a good argument for keeping Santorum itself as a dab page rather than a redirect. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

As the person who moved the dab page, I was asked to comment here. No, this is not American bias. The idea that most people outside the US have not heard of Rick Santorum, but have heard of the attack phrase, is not credible. Even if it was true, there's no reason to discount American readers' familiarity. In any case, the attack phrase derives from the name of the politician. In fact, all three of the entries on the disambiguation page relate to the politician; he is fundamentally the primary topic. And finally, from a BLP point of view, it makes no sense to type in the last name of a politician and get a page emphasizing an attack phrase based on his name. The dab page can be found from a hatnote at the top of the politician's article, so nothing's been hidden. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

That seems completely reasonable. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

See also Talk:Santorum#Expanded_rationale. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Entire so called article is conjecture, is total opinion and pushes an agenda...if this site is supposed to be for "educational" purposes, this is a prime example of what not to do... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.138.74.36 (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

We're working on it. Stick around. Tell us what you think might help. To get a feel for the issues presently on the table, have a look at some of the discussion above. Welcome! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Not the purpose of Wikipedia, but welcome anyway! 24.177.120.138 (talk) 06:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo's comment

The RfC says "condensed to one or two paragraphs," and that seems to me to be something we should decide during the editing process. Isn't predetermining the outcome tantamount to deciding WEIGHT without a full consideration of the sources? Merging without a redirect ("the new title (but not the old one) redirected to that subsection") would break all links on the internet. So, it's basically deletion while saving two paragraphs max. Just the sources I know about would likely need more than two paragraphs to properly explain. So I can't help seeing this as functional censorship. Renaming, pruning, and then as a separate issue discussing merging to Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality with a real redirect seems more appropriate and less drastic. Since the issue is old, ongoing, and reported in multiple reliable sources, we may ultimately decide it deserves its own article. This RfC jumps the gun on a lot of issues. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo also presupposes that an article objectively describing the neologism is more deleterious to Wikipedia's reputation than what will effectively appear to be content censorship in the face of increasing media coverage. I think he's wrong on that one. The idea that the article is damaging to Rick Santorum may or may not be true, but in either case it's wholly irrelevant. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that I'm uncomfortable deleting large amounts of content from reliable sources (which a reduction to a single paragraph will clearly do) for the perceived protection of a public figure, especially one that's chosen to put himself in the public eye by running for president. Renaming the article is reasonable, I think; but Jimbo seems to be muddying the issue by talking about renaming while at the same time giving "strong support" to a proposal to delete almost all the content here. The removal of sourced content on Santorum's behalf looks worse to me for Wikipedia than allowing Wikipedia to report it. Khazar (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"It's sourced content" is not a mantra that can be invoked to justify including any material. BLP sometimes requires that sourced material be removed. Ken Arromdee (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

In very limited circumstances, generally to protect privacy or the like. Nothing like that sort of situation is going on here. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a BLP issue. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a related problem: Jimmy (although by far not the only person here) seems to think that this article is contributing to some sort of attack on Santorum. Here's the problem with that: At present the current top hit for Googling "Santorum" is Savage's website. Then this link and the actual Wikipedia page for Rick Santorum. Of the remaining pages on the first page of Google hits, more than half of them are about this neologism and its connection to the Senator. The fraction of those is even higher for the second page of Google hits. So even if this article disappeared completely the entire problem for the Senator would still exist. So, even if one thinks that we should take into account the actions of third party websites, and we think that this subject is actually a substantial problem for the Senator, and think that that problem is in some way distinct from the problem created by any other Wikipedia page related to an individual being politically problematic, one still has the problem that removing or reducing this content will no impact on the problem in question. Indeed, having this neutral article discussing the phenomenon in question probably helps matters in that it makes the senator appear fairly well over the whole thing, and if does much at all, makes Dan Savage appear badly rather than Rick Santorum. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

JoshuaZ, your argument is a sensible one, but is the number two Google result (our article) really neutral? It is interesting to compare the article now to the article as it was before Cirt started expanding it. Read over the article it was then. Note the sections entitled "Web activism" and "Political impact". Note especially the quotes from Savage himself in those sections. Now read the lede in the current article - one paragraph about the basics (including a very perplexing reference to Savage offering to take down his website if Santorum gave a significant sum of money to a charity that one can assume Santorum does not support); one paragraph which appears to be designed to suggest that Santorum is not bothered by the term; and a final paragraph which is a collection of usages of the word and not a summary paragraph at all. Where the earlier article reported Savage's actions in what might be seen as a negative light (large by quoting Savage himself), the current version is very pro-Savage. If you believe that a neutral article would have a full three paragraphs of "background" which is already covered in a separate article, you must have a very different view of neutrality than I. Ask yourself what the reader needs to know to understand the formation of this neologism. See the four sentence background in the earlier version. I have made the point elsewhere that this article is simply an extension Cirt's long-running anti-Scientology advocacy, as Savage is a vocal opponent of Scientology in his blog. Based on past experience, one would be wise to look closely before making any assumptions about neutrality. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The entire claim that this has anything to do with the fact that Savage has written some anti-scientology stuff is ridiculous. Lots of people don't like scientology, and Savage has simply written a small amount about that. That claim was discussed to death on ANI already and pretty close to no one found that claim plausible. Bringing it up yet again doesn't help matters. As to your claim about the lede, I agree that the comment about the charity offer would probably make sense to not be in the intro (it isn't important enough to be there). And the example uses are maybe not necessary. Those are both inherently stylistic issues stemming from what should or shouldn't be in the intro. They have close to zero to do with neutrality. They also aren't terribly relevant to the issue of the RfC which isn't about the intro length. Please stop focusing so much on Cirt. I know that you and he have past issues. That's not what is relevant. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Joshua, I am not sure how we can judge neutrality except by looking at what is and is not included in the article and what is or is not given prominence. On that basis, I think your comments about the lede are misguided. You seem to have glossed over my other points to chide me about my comment regarding Cirt's editing. We can pretend that this article expanded itself by magic, but that simple fact is that a single editor brought it to the state that has garnered so much discussion. You are welcome to dismiss my contention that this is related to Scientology, but recall the Daryl Wine Bar, which had a similarly indirect connection. Let me draw your attention to User talk:Cirt#A concern wherein another editor suggests that Cirt's edits regarding Dan Savage may be overly promotional. I am not alone here in pointing a finger (even though it is both impolite and impolitic). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

So to be clear, all you are arguing for is a return to the earlier introduction? If so, I don't have any particular objection to that. The fact that another editor (in a very large project) happens to agree with you is both besides the point (almost everyone on the ANI thread clearly didn't agree with your position) and not terribly relevant- Cirt frequently picks a specific topic and then writes a series of articles that are all related, sometimes only tangentially. This is a good thing. He's an extremely productive editor. Seriously, spend time focusing on your strong points, because this is just coming across as a paranoid vendetta. I'm not going to discuss the claims about Cirt further. They are unproductive. If you think that there's a problem start a user RfC. Otherwise we're done on that matter. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If you think I am suggesting that we go back to the introduction in the earlier version, you have misunderstood me. Since I don't want to misunderstand you, can you explain what you mean by "a paranoid vendetta"? Although I reject the implication, I think I understand the "vendetta" part, but the "paranoid" part makes no sense to me. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo notes that WP routinely writes about the event, rather than the person. True enough, but in the case of an article about a neologism derived from someone's name, it would be pretty hard to "omit the name of the person from the title". At its root, the article is about the neologism, and beating around the bush by renaming it Dan Savage's verbal attack on Rick Santorum is problematic for several reasons:

• It doesn't describe the topic of the article but rather what precipitated the topic of the article. (Perhaps we could redirect Battle of Ypres to Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand while we're at it.)
• It assumes that Savage has made only one verbal attack on Rick Santorum to date—unlikely—and will make no more in future. (If he does, we'll have to rename it Dan Savage's first verbal attack on Rick Santorum. Or perhaps Dan Savage's verbal attack on Rick Santorum that led to an unmentionable neologism.)
• It contravenes all five bulleted points at Wikipedia:Title#Deciding_on_an_article_title. In other words, it flies in the face of policy.

Now, all that might be overridden if WP:BLP were really at issue here. But is it? WP:BLP says:

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.

Basically, what we have here is someone (Rick Santorum) who, as a former United States Senator and putative presidential candidate, is among the most public of public figures. He's not a public figure by accident; he chose to run for elective office. Repeatedly. He's not a controversial public figure by accident; he chose to make controversial statements in his capacity as a public figure. Repeatedly. That the controversy such statements sparked took a novel form which many find objectionable shouldn't somehow give us license to employ a novel interpretation of WP:BLP.

One more point: Jimbo says that "santorum" isn't a neologism "in the usual sense...a word that has arisen naturally in the culture and [is] actually used by anyone". Our own (rather stubby) Neologism article describes a neologism as "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." In other words, neologisms don't arise "naturally"—they're invented—and they're not necessarily "actually used" by many people yet. Reliable sources strongly suggest that "santorum" is a neologism, and a notable one. If we make our coverage of that verifiable information harder to find and less comprehensive, how is that helping our encyclopedia? And what kind of precedent is it setting concerning our willingness to help whitewash the reputation of any politician who makes ignorant, hateful remarks that come back to bite him later? Politics is ugly. We're not encouraging its ugliness here; we're simply reporting on it. Rivertorch (talk) 06:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Rivertorch, the problem with what you quoted "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it" is that it leaves out a substantial portion of the BLP policy as well as this being about more than something being a part of an article, but this 'attack' is the *entire* article. The item being defined is not something that readily was looking for a definition i.e. "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex". The idea that this is used as a literal definition is laughable. Its real use is to serve as an ad hominem attack on Rick Santorum personally, and to attack those who are perceived to hold certain beliefs in common with Rick Santorum. It is not simply a definition or neologism, but a pre-existing word that is being used for a complex purpose. Wikipedia policies regarding Biographical material on Living Persons asks us not to serve as a source for titillation or gossip, and WP:Avoid_neologisms asks us not to become a vehicle for the causes of others, but both ask us to strive for a balance in coverage of encyclopedic material. -- Avanu (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, now there you make a compelling argument for me. Not the BLP claim; I still haven't seen anyone illustrate how the article violates BLP specifically, rather than appealing to what it should or could mean (cf. truthiness). No, the WP:NEO argument is a good one. That policy has been around a while, and it's definitely on point. So now, I agree that this article as an article about a neologism is on very shaky ground. However, I'm not convinced that the article should go away. I'm still with the camp that thinks our position in the Google search ranking does Rick Santorum a favor: a fair article that details the controversy is a counterweight to Savage's number-one-ranking page for the term "santorum". So, can we refocus the article on the controversy, and come up with an accurate name for the result? The first thing that comes to mind, given the overwhelming prevalence of the term in the citations, is "Rick Santorum's Google problem with the term santorum", but I see a ton of problems with that title... // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't do him a favor. Just because an article fairly reports the facts doesn't mean it can't do unjustified harm to him. Helping to spread the meme does harm to him, even if only accurate statements or no statements at all are made about his involvement. The article harms him in a similar way to how an article having 200 lines of "Rick Santorum is a poopyhead" would harm him. Such an article would not be doing him a favor even if it had several long paragraphs about how he really isn't a poopyhead; articles cause harm in ways other than being factually inaccurate. 208.65.88.213 (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

How about Santorum neologism controversy? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

That would work for me... // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well done for finding WP:NEO, which is on point. Ideally, I would like to have Savage's name in the title (e.g. Dan Savage santorum neologism controversy), as it is his campaign, but we are definitely moving in the right direction. As it stands, the article violates WP:NEO, which is policy. --JN466 17:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well said Rivertorch. I agree with you: Jimbo is confusing alot of issues in his statement. It looks like hasn't actually explored all of the nuance of some of the arguments in support or in opposition of these changes. The fact that, now, the word has taken a life of it's own beyond the campaign would make it disingenuous and POV pushing to include Savage's name amongst the title. If anything, our treatment of the neologism in our article makes it easier to see how the neologism, though a neologism, is the product of something very complex that is not in the best interest of Santorum, and is not just a google bombing campaign but something that has been perpetuated by many people beyond Savage, including the current press, Sadads (talk) 08:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

And I am not even sure that he has actually read the article if he thinks it was a "verbal attack". Active Banana (^bananaphone 10:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

From Wikictionary:

1. Of, or relating to words.

It does not necessarily mean "spoken out loud".

Now will you please stop this canard? Ken Arromdee (talk) 05:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo is just another editor. His comments are welcome but they should only hold the weight their argumentation can carry. Protonk (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Jimbo is not "just another editor". 24.177.120.138 (talk) 03:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but he does make a point of putting his extra power on a shelf and using his undeniable authority responsibly. For the purposes of discussion, his arguments are just those of another (highly respected) editor, not The Handed Down Commandment of The Wikigod. He has neither omniscience nor infallibility; just a really huge benefit of the doubt. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I certainly hope you're correct, and that we're not just twiddling our thumbs waiting on an office action. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)