Talk:Campaign for the neologism "santorum"/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about Campaign for the neologism "santorum". Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

"described as humorous and provocative as well as vulgar or unprintable"

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I motion for this to either be removed, or moved below the actual definition. The fact that the current introduction section describes the media response to the definition before actually stating what the definition is is just horribly poor writing by any standard. Thoughts? SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 23:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, been trying to get rid of that bit for forever. B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 23:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree as well. This could be resolved by replacing it with the definition -- which would then at least be in the first paragraph though not in the first sentence. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for first sentence change

Latest comment: 12 years ago110 comments23 people in discussion

I am proposing that this be the first sentence of the article:

The campaign for the "santorum" neologism, initiated in 2003 by journalist and gay rights activist Dan Savage in response to comments by United States Senator Rick Santorum regarding gay marriage, is an effort to associate "santorum" with the definition "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex."

It is clear and concise, and it addresses who started the campaign, why the campaign was started, as well what the campaign is for. Any objections? SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 20:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are serious objections as noted in the largely-useless rfc above. The article is about Savage's agenda against Santorum. It is not about the faux, small-s "santorum". Savage's made up word does not need to be in the lead of the article. Tarc (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

No, the article is about the campaign for the "santorum" neologism, not about Savage's agenda against Santorum. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 20:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Not even close, son. Maybe you're reading what you wish to see rather than what is actually there. It is not relevant enough to the subject of the article to place Savage's purposefully-shocking "definition" in line 1 paragraph one. Doing so gets away from providing encyclopedic content to the reader and gets closer to being part and parcel of the anti-Santorum campaign itself. Tarc (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Consensus as per previous archive discussions is that "santorum" is a neologism, and reliable secondary sources have referred to it as such, so to refer to it as a "faux" or "fake" word is wrong. The article is explicitly about the campaign for the "santorum" neologism so I strongly believe the first sentence should indicate explicitly what the campaign is for. I concede that my original edit two days ago did not address the "who" and "why" in the first sentence in addition to the "what", but my current proposal addresses this very clearly. Also, I was required to notify you on your talk page of your involvement on the Dispute Resolution noticeboard; I would remind you to remain polite as per the talk header rules. Thank you. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 22:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep your reminders to yourself, if you will. I will say it again, and as many times as it needs to be repeated; the article is about the campaign, not the word (you can look back in the articles and see that once upon a time, the article was titled "santorum (neologism). Those dark days are long past us.) We do not need to titillate the reader by putting the definition of a nonexistent word into the first line of an article that isn't about the word. The logic is stunningly simple here. Tarc (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

We agree on two things. This article is about the campaign for the neologism, and that the logic is simple. Logic dictates that we must state what the campaign is for, whether "titillating" or not. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 23:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The campaign is to promote a definition of a word, ergo, the definition is the central fact of the article. I don't like the sentence above, as it's too complex yet doesn't have enough info. But having the definition in the first paragraph instead of some waffle about the definition is just good writing, and would be totally acceptable were editors not concerned about what happens outside Wikipedia. B^e——C_ritical 02:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is the word creation the whole thing was created to attack a living person, which is the primary issue that creates us a problem with wording and weight and BLP - this desired reversal back to a more attacking version is what caused the whole original s*** storm of protest. The rewrite was designed to remove the attacking aspect from loading up in google returns - furthering the attacking aspects of the campaign. Tarc is completely correct, the weight is on the campaign and not the word - This desired revert after the version caused so much heated and divisive discussion imo is actually disruptive in itself. I can't believe this is still going on here, everyone should be off doing useful stuff instead of attempting to revert back to the creators version when the creation of this version was part of the weight of evidence he was banned at arbitration from working on such content in future. Off2riorob (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I strenuously object to this. "The rewrite was designed to remove the attacking aspect from loading up in google returns" is a huge problem IMHO. Wikipedia is not responsible for what may or may not show up in Google returns. Wikipedia is only responsible for presenting verifiable facts. Google returns should not have been a consideration when editing the lead of this article. I agree that the weight is on the campaign, but it is difficult (and disingenuous, I feel) to separate that from the word, seeing as how the word is what the campaign is for. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 13:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

We are a responsible collection of contributors, contributing to an educational; project, and that responsibility attributes us a degree of editorial control, this is especially true in regard to content in regards to living people. Attempts to revert back to the more attacking position should be left were they belong , in the past. Off2riorob (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not proposing a reversion to an old edit; I am proposing a new edit. I don't believe my proposed version has ever been the lead sentence in the past. Also as stated below, the proposal adds zero new attacks/criticism to the article; the "santorum" definition is already written. Thus I don't see how WP:BLP plays a new role with my proposed edit. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 15:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Your edit reverts at least to adding the attacking phrase to a single paragraph that will appear in the goole return therby propogating it and exposing the living person to additional ridicule through our article google search returns. This has all been discussed over and over, anyways, I am off to where I was before all the noticeboard threads alerted me that this monster had reared its ugly head again. Off2riorob (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I assert that User:SGMD1's proposal is a restatement of a topic which was already debated and that consensus has already been found. This discussion should not be happening without checking to see whether this is a new proposal. I say that it is not and that the lede should not be casually changed in this way because hundreds of people have already given input and settled on the way it is now. I do not want to see debate about whether this proposal is good or bad; that is in the archives. I would like to see a reason why the previous consensus should be ignored. Such a reason has not yet been offered. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: As I asked you in an earlier discussion, I did not find a discussion in the archives where consensus was achieved on this issue, but please link me to that discussion if I may have missed it. Furthermore (if consensus was indeed achieved) then as per WP:CCC: "Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding. Moreover, such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions." SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 14:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't even think consensus would help you much, I reckon there are multiple objections citing blp and do no harm type type - erring on the side of caution that your desired addition won't be returning to its google search result position. Off2riorob (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. No hodgepodge of local consensus that you might be able to cobble up (but even the chances of that look pretty slim here) is going to override site-wide WP:BLP policy. Whichever route you, SGMD1, choose to take this is going to wind up as a loss. Tarc (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

@Off2riorob: I am not suggesting the addition of any new attacks/criticism to the article. The "santorum" definition is already written in the lead. I don't see how WP:BLP plays a role in my proposed edit. And again, I think it is of very significant concern that the "google search result position" is a factor at all. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 15:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Well it is, in this case and in the real world. Clearly the way our article returns in millions of search results deserves a consideration in such a deliberately attacking campaign against a living person, - Off2riorob (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

As per WP:WELLKNOWN, "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." I firmly believe that considering how the article appears in Google results has absolutely no place here. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 16:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Nothing is well known and not in the article its just published in a different way to how you desire it. In regards to returns in google results in this case, I and others completely disagree with you, bye for now. Off2riorob (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:WELLKNOWN is what supports the articles existence, nothing more. Trying to use that to justify your frothy anal lube addition to the first sentence of the lead is a bit of a stretch of credulity. Tarc (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't using WP:WELLKNOWN to support the "santorum" definition in the first sentence. I was using it in response to Off2riorob's claim re: "a deliberately attacking campaign against a living person" for which it is quite relevant. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 17:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to know something, Tarc and Blue Rasberry and Off2riorob: if the subject were not offensive, would you write it the way SGMD1 is suggesting? I mean, can we at least agree that it's better writing, even if we don't agree on what's appropriate?

As a side note, what I sense on this page right now is a consensus to redirect the article, per BLP. If you're serious about BLP and harm, that's what should be done. Want to try it? B^e——C_ritical 19:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's better writing; it gives the meaning of the term undue prominence. It's defined in the second para of the lead, which seems about right; there's no reason to move it up. The article is about the campaign, not about the term itself.

I don't think the article needs to be redirected, though I don't think that would be a terrible decision. It could live as a subsection under Dan Savage, but it's also OK where it is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not to the proposal for redirection. The suggestion that there is (already) consensus for this is preposterous. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Google is irrelevant to the first sentence

Right now I'm not taking a position either way on the rewrite question, but I have to point out that the "what shows up in Google returns" issue is a complete red herring. Google doesn't even show the entire first sentence. Entering santorum into google.com from Massachusetts, the number two result is this:

Campaign for "santorum" neologism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_for_%22santorum%22_neologism - Cached

In response to comments by Senator Rick Santorum, criticized as anti-gay by gay rights groups and some politicians, sex columnist and gay rights activist Dan ...

...and that's it! Even putting the definition in the first sentence wouldn't put it on the Google return unless we literally put the definition as the very first clause, which I don't think anyone is suggesting (and which I think everyone would agree would be an inappropriate way to write the first sentence regardless of any other consideration). Only the spreadingsantorum.com website actually shows the definition in the Google return. So don't let's get bogged down in whether the structure of a paragraph contributes to the Scurrilous personal attack by degenerate gay activist Dan Savage against noble American Rick Santorum. It's not "disruptive in itself" to try to write a better sentence, all else equal. Whether we should seems to be under contention, and is a legitimate question. But let's hold our arguments to what is actually germane, shall we? ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 21:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I see, thanks I didn't think to do that research. So, everyone, taking into account that Google, and thus outside concerns, are laid to rest, what is the new consensus? B^e——C_ritical 21:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Since this google preview thing was never something I argued to be gin with, my position has not changed at all. Tarc (talk) 00:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Part of mine is and whatever Zenswashbucklert claims I remember how it used to show up in the google search return, all the attacking frothy lube shit - also they don't seem to have seen the desired alteration from user SGMD1 did indeed return the definition into the first sentence in a paragraph on its own which would absolutely returned us to the prior situation in regard to what shows in the google search returns. Thanks that the ledes been rewritten and that no longer shows in the return. Off2riorob (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

So I sense a compromise: the lead can be rewritten, so long as it doesn't put the definition in the Google result. B^e——C_ritical 01:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If that is what you sense, then your senses are a bit off. Once again, the article is not about the specific definition of the fake word; it is about the overall anti-Santorum campaign created by Ben Savage. There is no legitimate reason given to move the "frothy" definition from paragraph 2 to paragraph 1, the only thing this accomplishes is to make the article itself a part of the anti-Santorum campaign by throwing it right at the reader from the start. Tarc (talk) 03:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

There was only one purportedly legitimate reason to justify the bad writing, and that was the effect of the article on Google/the world. That objection doesn't apply to this proposal, so what else do you have? B^e——C_ritical 04:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

There was only one purportedly legitimate reason to justify the bad writing...

Facts not in evidence. Your assertion of "bad writing" is, IMHO, unfounded and blatantly self-serving. The lengthy developmental editing of that introductory by a host of interested editors and unsolicited compliments on the article improvement suggest otherwise. JakeInJoisey (talk) 07:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Except that the article was subsequently altered, with the "humorous/provocative" phrase added (to its detriment). In any event -- I opposed burying the definition and would suggest that "humorous/provocative" in the second sentence be replaced with the definition. I can live with the definition not being in the first sentence, but I think it would go well in the second. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The "humourous/provocative" phrase was added as an NPOV accommodation to those who legitimately argued (IMHO) that its omission placed a POV overemphasis on the "vulgar/unprintable" characterizations. I believe the current text legitimately reflects the reportage of RS sourcing, reads rather well and is informative to any prospective reader. JakeInJoisey (talk) 08:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

My beef is with the entire sentence, not just that phrase. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Then formulate an RFC to determine if there's any consensus for your position. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a section just above that discusses it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

There are many prior sections containing variants on this persistent theme...none of which (IMHO) establish a consensus for incorporation of the definition in the first paragraph introductory. This position keeps coming back like an old song. RFC it and then be done with it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

People thinking I'm "self-serving" should think again. I may have a POV, but it has to do with Wikipedia in general and good writing: I have no attachment to this subject, and I think the whole page should be redirected to a subsection. Nomoskedasticity said "suggest that "humorous/provocative" in the second sentence be replaced with the definition. I can live with the definition not being in the first sentence, but I think it would go well in the second." I think at least it belongs in the first paragraph, instead of characterizations such as "vulgar" or "humorous." What we really need here, perhaps, is a determination per policy of whether or not WP bases its article on its outside possible influence. That's the argument we need to have: does policy say we need to consider what our influence is on the outside world. If it does, then the current article phrasing might be about right. If not, then we need to write it better. This is an argument over basic policy, and not about consensus now or earlier, since the basic policy question was never answered. B^e——C_ritical 20:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

In this recent arbitration from August 2011 in regard to search engine manipulation and - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Proposed decision - this principal was supported, which I think is related to this article and the recent attempt by User:SGMD1 to replace the attacking phrase to a visible position the google return results. - It is an extremely serious abuse of Wikipedia to utilize editorial and structural features of the site—such as internal links, external links, and templates—in an attempt to inequitably or artificially manipulate search engine results. This is particularly so where the purpose is to disparage a living person. - Off2riorob (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

That would be if we were doing bad writing on purpose to hurt someone. Not the case here. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Attempting to alter the article in an attempt to revert back to a position that was objected to due to the resulting appearance in search engine results where the purpose or result is to disparage a living person - its got nothing to do with bad or good writing and the arbitration decision is clearly relevant in regards to the attempted revert from User:SGMD1. - Off2riorob (talk) 08:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what would be good, but the current writing is bad. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Right. Also, if you read that carefully, what it says is: don't manipulate Wikipedia to produce a search engine result (note the word "particularly"). Which is exactly what the current text is designed to do. I think it's a fair compromise with those who want to manipulate the results to be kinder to Santorum to revise the bad writing but keep it out of the results on the search engines. Per Zenswashbuckler, this should be possible. B^e——C_ritical 01:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

@Offtoriorob: As Becritical stated, the BLP decision you cited regarding manipulation of search engine results goes both ways. The proposed edit to keep the definition in the first two sentences in no way utilizes internal links, external links, or templates. Deliberately hiding the definition is the actual violation here. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 17:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Question - I came to this Talk page from the RfC list. What is the precise issue being raised in this RfC? I dont see a specific question posed above. Is the question "Should this article use the first sentence proposed in the 'Proposal for first sentence change' section"? Or is the question "Should Google results be used as a factor to decide what the first sentence should be"? The statement of the RfC should be a brief summary of the issue, ideally posed as a question. --Noleander (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The RfC question is whether Google should be used as a factor to decide what the first (two) sentence(s) should be. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 17:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

If that is the case, then this rfc rests upon a false premise. What google does or does not display in its search summary has nothing to do with placement of the text in the lead. Tarc (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Google should not be used to decide how to craft the lead sentences ... normal WP policies provide sufficient guidance. It looks like the dispute here is whether or not to include the neologism definition in the first sentence? Based on the totality of the article, the first sentences should not contain the detailed definition of the neologism, since that would be Undue weight, and just not very encyclopedic. (PS: the intro to this RfC should probably be amended to make its purpose clearer). --Noleander (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

@Tarc and Noleander: Since Google should not be used to decide how to craft the lead sentences, why does the "humorous/provocative/vulgar" sentence exist then, exactly? According to above discussion it seems that is the the entire reason why it was added in the first place - to manipulate search engine results.

@Noleander: Based on the discussion the proposal is more along the lines of including the definition in the first two sentences, not necessarily the first sentence. The proposal now is more along the lines of replacing the "humorous/provocative/vulgar" sentence. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 18:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I see no problem with including the definition somewhere in the lead section. Whether it is in the second sentence or the tenth, I have no opinion. Re: use of Google: I dont understand your question. I was saying that the choice of wording in the lead should not be determined by if/how Google will display this page in its results. On the other hand, the intention of Savage to get his neologism into Google's returns is certainly an important fact that can be in the lead paragraph. --Noleander (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason to bury the definition in the second paragraph. It's f key importance to the article. I agree that it belongs at the end of the first paragraph instead of the vague reference that is there now. Concerns about how it is going to appear on Google are unjustified. We write WP articles according to WP policies, not according to extraneous politically-motivated criteria. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

@Noleander: Well basically the "humorous/provocative" words were added, according to JakeInJoisey, "as an NPOV accommodation to those who legitimately argued (IMHO) that its omission placed a POV overemphasis on the "vulgar/unprintable" characterizations." The "vulgar/unprintable" characterizations were placed in the second sentence, according to Off2riorob, so that the definition wouldn't show up in Google search returns. So the questions are a.) whether Google search returns should have played a role in what/where text appears in the article, and b.) if the answer to a.) is "no", whether the Dan Savage definition of "santorum" should appear in its place. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 19:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe it was partly an accommodation of my argument, and one or two others, that IF we were to put the "vulgar" etc. characterizations, then we'd have to put the "humor," also. My intent in bringing it up was to get rid of the characterization, but instead it backfired and we got more characterization. B^e——C_ritical 20:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

RfC clarification

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I see no consensus for change here. Counting votes, it seems to be about even between the "no change" camp and the combined "change" camps. Looking at the arguments presented, the pro-change camp failed to present any convincing argument; the general thrust seems to come down to "I like it" and a vague wave towards WP:NOTCENSORED—I note that the article actually is currently not censored, as the definition does appear in the lead, just not in the very first paragraph. On the no-change side, I see a strong argument that the focus of the article is on the campaign rather than the definition, and an adequate explanation of how the current organization serves that focus. IMO there is room for improvement in the writing, but there is no consensus for any of the changes proposed here. Anomie ⚔ 05:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me clarify (at least as I see it) what the RfC should be asking, and perhaps SGMD1 can clarify it above: The first paragraph is:

Current: In response to comments by Senator Rick Santorum, criticized as anti-gay by gay rights groups[1] and some politicians,[2] sex columnist and gay rights activist Dan Savage initiated a campaign in 2003 to associate Santorum's surname with a sexual slur. Savage's effort culminated in the creation of a derogatory word association often described as humorous and provocative as well as vulgar or unprintable

The question is:

Should the characterization of the definition be replaced with the definition itself? Thus making the first paragraph something like this:

Possibility #1: In response to comments by Senator Rick Santorum, criticized as anti-gay by gay rights groups[1] and some politicians,[2] sex columnist and gay rights activist Dan Savage initiated a campaign in 2003 to associate Santorum's surname with a sexual slur. Savage's effort culminated in the creation of a definition for "santorum" as "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex."

(This possibility puts the definition far enough into the article that it would not appear on Google.)

Possibility #2, Becritical's version (just for contrast): In 2003 former Senator Rick Santorum stated his belief that consenting adults do not have a constitutional right to privacy, and that polygamy, adultery, and sodomy undermine society and the family. In response, columnist and gay rights activist Dan Savage initiated a campaign to associate Santorum's surname with a sexual act. Savage had his readers compete to coin a definition for "santorum," announcing the winner as "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex." He created a website called "Spreading Santorum" to promote the definition, which became a prominent search result for Santorum's name on several search engines. He offered in 2010 to take the website down if Santorum donated US$5 million to a gay rights group, Freedom to Marry.

Possibility #3, SGMD1's version: The campaign for the "santorum" neologism, initiated in 2003 by journalist and gay rights activist Dan Savage in response to comments by United States Senator Rick Santorum regarding homosexuality, is an effort to associate Santorum's surname with a sexual slur. The campaign attempts to associate the word "santorum" with the definition "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex."

Comments

I strongly prefer the ~~first~~ THIRD possibility, because the coyly veiled characterization is replaced with the actual definition. How that affects how the page hit appears on Google is immaterial and shouldn't be a concern of ours. The first option is acceptable, too. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I also object to the word "slur", and think "term" should be used instead. "Slur" is loaded POV, and is not attributed, but given in WP's voice. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No change Leave the current version. The article is best when the the characterization of the definition from secondary sources comes before the unexplained definition itself presented without context and from a primary source. The definition comes later for the sake of good writing and the benefit of Wikipedia. The influence of Google is no factor in my decision. The current version is also the product of consensus. It is hard to point to anything in particular in this index which succinctly describes how this intro came to be, but it is a version which the community settled upon and has been stable for some time without controversy. The article is not best-served by putting the definition first because the article is about the campaign, and not about the word itself. The characterization of the definition helps the reader understand the campaign; the definition does this to a lesser extent only if the characterization comes first. I do not feel that a sufficient argument has been presented for justifying change from the stable version settled upon after the last debate. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
One, two, and three are all fine with me, but not the current version, for reasons already expressed. B^e——C_ritical 21:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
No change. Blue Rasberry's comments seem accurate to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Version #3. @Bluerasberry and Mike Christie: the current version is not stable, and does not have consensus, as evidenced by the discussions on this page. As per WP:CCC, consensus can change. As for your opinion that "the article is best when the the characterization of the definition from secondary sources comes before the unexplained definition itself presented without context and from a primary source", that appears to be the primary point of disagreement. I'm not sure what the process is of choosing between two clearly irreconcilable ways of writing the lead paragraph, but several editors, including myself, feel the current revision is poorly written and is a thinly veiled attempt to bury the definition. It just does not make sense to me when editors say that this article is about the campaign and not the word, seeing as how the word is explicitly what the campaign is for. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 21:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Funny how it was always about Google till Google got taken out of the picture. B^e——C_ritical 21:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No Change - Per Blue Rasberry's analysis and the examples of secondary source treatments. Few of the sources on this story (if they elect to do so at all) elevate the actual definition to first paragraph presentation. There's a journalistic lesson there. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Include the definition in the first paragraph somewhere. Then we can actually work on making it a well crafted sentence. As long as we try and go against NOTCENSORED, it isn't going to read correctly. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and the RfC should have been about what para the def goes in. That's apparently what people care about. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Object to whatever this RFC is alleged to be about, its not clear at all what is the question here. Off2riorob (talk) 02:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this thing is not clear. Not sure what to do about it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Block the Savage flying monkeys and archive the talkpage. - and merge the nuts of this article to a couple of lines in Savage's biography. - Off2riorob (talk) 02:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The question was originally whether Google returns should play a role in what is written in the article. Since the overwhelming opinion above is that it does not, the question is now what should replace the second sentence, which according to you, was added specifically to manipulate the Google search results. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 02:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any support in the discussion for your claims . Off2riorob (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

He's correct, the question is whether to put the definition in instead of the characterizations, such as "humorous" and "vulgar." B^e——C_ritical 02:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Who is correct , about what? Off2riorob (talk) 02:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say you "don't see any support" for my claims. If you're referring to my claim that there is overwhelming opinion that search engine returns should not be a factor, then I suggest you reread the above "Google is irrelevant to the first sentence" section. ZenSwashbuckler, Becritical, Nomoskedasticity, Peregrine Fisher, Noleander, Dominus Vobisdu, and myself all support that contention. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 02:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Talking about google screwed this whole thing up. Now we have to ask everyone again where they think the actual definition of the neologism should go. Of course people don't think google should define a wiki page. Now we need to figure out how to write this article. I would say an RfC would be a good place to start, but it will be confusing because of the current RfC. Yikes. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be ok. The search index stuff needed to be addressed because it apparently was considered in crafting the current opening paragraph. The RfC now is just focusing primarily on how to craft the opening sentences and specifically what to do with the "humorous/provocative/vulgar/unprintable" phrase. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 02:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I still strongly object to any edit/revert that will place the attacking and demeaning expression back to were it shows in the search engine returns. Off2riorob (talk) 11:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The current article title is ungrammatical and inelegant. Why not Santorum (neologism), which would obviate the present issue? --Cybercobra (talk) 04:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

LOL, yes that was the original, but for various reasons it changed, see the archives. B^e——C_ritical 04:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the definition needs to go in the first paragraph. I don't like #2 (too much detail for the lead), but I'm neutral between #1, #3 or keeping the current version but putting a colon followed by the definition at the end. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 09:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No change per Blue Raspberry. Google results or no Google results the current consensus version is the best option.Griswaldo (talk) 11:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
No change per Blue Raspberry. The main effect would be to put the definition into search results that include this page. Other effects would be negligible.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
No change per all my posts. Off2riorob (talk) 12:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
No change. As certain advocates here have been told numerous times, this is an article about Dan Savage's campaign, it is not about the fake word he used to initiate it. It belongs in the lead, but absolutely not front and center in the first paragraph. Placing it there puts undue weight on the word and makes the article little more than another front in the Savage War. This whole situation is getting quite ridiculous, we hashed all this out ages ago and one loud dissenter drops by to stir the pot all over again. SGMD1 also needs to be cautioned to not undo other editor's edits as "vandalism", especially when using Twinkle as that usually leads to a revocation of usage. Tarc (talk) 12:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Your concern is noted. To explain to others, "vulgar" was added to the first sentence so I reverted it with an explanation of redundancy; when the same edit was made again, it was vandalism. I can't revert it again due to 3RR but vulgar is now written twice in the first two sentences. There was no Twinkle abuse. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 12:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I have now removed that redundancy for the second time. SGMD1, you reverted me the first time, but perhaps you didn't realize that. Off2riorob didn't engage in any vandalism here. He was restoring to this article a reliable and relevant NYT source that you had removed contrary to WP:Preserve. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, please consider that the use of "vulgar" as an unattributed characterization "in wikipedia's voice" has already been addressed and rejected via consensus discussion on that question. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Jake, that consensus decision occurred before the cited New York Times article was published, and therefore did not take into account the NYT article. Also, per WP:Preserve, I don't think it's appropriate to completely delete that (very relevant and reliable) NYT article from this Wikipedia article. See "Amid G.O.P. Din, Santorum Wages Struggle to be Heard", New York Times (October 1, 2011): "a web site ... promotes a made-up, vulgar definition of his surname".Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

...that consensus decision occurred before the cited New York Times article was published, and therefore did not take into account the NYT article.

The recent NY Times citation merely adds another RS to the already ample WP:V sourcing on the "vulgar" characterization. While noteworthy (and I have added it to the talk page source list here), consensus opinion was that, despite ample WP:V sourcing, the "vulgar" characterization must be attributed and not used "in wikipedia's voice". The current language reflects that consensus.

I don't think it's appropriate to completely delete that (very relevant and reliable) NYT article from this Wikipedia article.

The sourcing is, per consensus, already ample supporting the "vulgar" characterization. If you feel that strongly about this particular source (it IS a good AND recent cite), then cite it...but please don't change the existing compromise language. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

This is correct. B^e——C_ritical 05:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Just want to point out that option 3 is factually wrong. His statements were not about gay marriage, but about anti-sodomy laws. I like Option 2. I would be surprised if any consensus can be gained to make a change though. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point. His controversial comments were in response to the interview question "OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?" so I'll replace "gay marriage" with "homosexuality." SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 13:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

That would be better. I think its important to keep the whole thing in context though. His answer was just not to that question. But was tying back to other questions related to the very purpose of the interview which was to get the opinion of a Republican Senate leader in response to a Supreme Court Ruling that struck down an anti-sodomy law, and broadly interpreted, the court's decision could be construed to legalize all forms of sexual activity via the right to privacy. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Option 1 seems to be the best option, have the information generally stated enough, and not give too much information that it makes the remainder of the article redundant. Ampersandestet (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Strongly prefer Option 3 The article should start with Dan Savage, not with Rick Santorum. Whatever you may think about Santorum's opinions, it was Savage who escalated the conflict to what has become the subject of this article. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

No change After more thought and seeing more clearly what is really at issue, I am changing my endorsement. I would rather the article start with Savage and not Santorum, as in my view it is Savage who brought this conflict to its current level, but I see now that that issue is secondary to the tone and structure of the Intro section, and may not even be worth going through more contentious discussions. The Intro is currently quite good, in my view, taking time to properly set the context before getting more explicit. In response to SGMD1, I agree with the position that "this article is about the campaign and not the word," and I take it to mean this: To start off too quickly with the "definition," without first setting the proper context, would imply that the campaign has indeed legitimately created a word, which is taking sides and thus intrinsically POV. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It needs to be noted here that per the results of the RfC above the characterization is no longer included, thus making some difference, perhaps, as to where to put the actual definition.

Meta Comment: The preceding RFC was closed as no consensus to include. This RFC and the subsequent comments, however, is/are based upon the content existing at the time of the RFC and documented in this RFC opening. As I see it, if "no change" is judged to be the consensus, the original interim language, as stated, should be reincorporated. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

What this RfC says is that people aren't for changing the lead in such a way as to make the definition more prominent. They haven't been commenting on the inclusion of the characterizations, which is what the other RfC was about. "No change" merely means that there are no better consensus suggestions about where to put the definition, it's not an endorsement of characterization. B^e——C_ritical 02:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. The existing text, as documented, and suggested alternatives are the options offered. In a sense, this is going a step beyond the unresolved prior RfC. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

If you think it's nonsense, start a new RfC to find out, but don't try and use this RfC to answer a question it didn't ask. B^e——C_ritical 04:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Should the characterization of the definition be replaced with the definition itself? is what it asked, your protestations notwithstanding. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. Start another RfC to talk about the characterization again if you wish. B^e——C_ritical 04:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Another RfC is redundant. It's already being commented upon here. I'll await another uninvolved closing for a determination. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

No change; I agree with Blue Rasberry's comments.--Miniapolis (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Meta comment: The time allotted for this RfC has expired and the RfC bot has removed all notices. Unless there is some objection, an uninvolved closure should be solicited. JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

A second attempt to solicit an uninvolved closure to this RfC has yet to inspire a response. Any further suggestions/thoughts from more experienced editors/admins as to how to go about inspiring resolution are welcome. JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

No change --J N 466 03:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

{{Request close}}

Meta Comment - It is now 1 month since an uninvolved closure was requested. Going WP:AN with this....again. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Version #3 is the best of these three.

(a) The intense focus on Google search results is misplaced. The issue is how best to present the information for our readers, let the Google chips fall where they may.

(b) Of these three versions, the first two begin by giving background, which is a poor style choice for the introductory section. The article should start off describing the actual subject, not the events leading up to it. It's like starting the United States article by saying that, in the 1770's, tensions were building between Great Britain and its American colonies.

(c) The best way to give the reader the quick summary, however, would not be to give the text of the definition, because although that's important it's less important than other facts. Here's the version I suggested several months ago:

The "Spreading Santorum" campaign is a project by American columnist and gay rights activist Dan Savage, who, in response to comments in 2003 by then-Senator Rick Santorum, sought to associate Santorum's surname with a sexual act. Because Savage considered Santorum's remarks to be anti-gay, he hoped to embarrass Santorum. His effort culminated in the association of "santorum" with a definition that Santorum has described as a "vulgarity". As of 2011, when Santorum announced his campaign for the Presidency, Savage's definition had become a prominent search result for Santorum's name on several search engines, but had not been accepted by lexicographers as an entry in standard dictionaries.

With this version, the body of the article would elaborate on such details as exactly what Santorum said, who criticized him for it (the current version is clearly wrong in giving undue weight to the fact of criticism by gay rights groups, and burying in the later text the far more interesting and important fact that Santorum was criticized by mainstream media and even by other Republican politicians), what definition Savage proposed, etc. Also, Version #3 is defective in asserting in Wikipedia's voice that this is a "slur" -- it's more NPOV to report Santorum's opinion that it's a vulgarity, after which the body of the article can elaborate on characterizations of the definition. When(ever) the current RfC, with its emphasis on Google, is closed, I'll propose this version as a starting point for addressing these other issues. JamesMLane t c 09:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is "santorum" the word capitalized?

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.120.74 (talk) 09:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Not for the sexual byproduct term, only for the Senator who is the namesake.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

FORMER senator

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

{{editprotected}} In both the article, and the page notice, Santorum is described as a senator. He is an ex-senator who was voted out of office. While in the USA it may be normal to describe ex-senators as senators, this is a matter of courtesy, and is incorrect and misleading in an international encyclopedia. Please add former to senator.92.231.85.213 (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

He was a senator at the time of the events described. Therefore, adding "former" would be incorrect. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding "former" might be more misleading, but wouldn't "then Senator" be less misleading than it currently is? 114.186.106.210 (talk) 06:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Not really. I don't see how the current version is misleading. It does not imply that Santorum is CURRENTLY a senator, just that he was one during the events in question. There is no need for further clarification. This is the normal practice in historical writing. And, by the way, it is valid in ALL varieties of English, and actually in all languages that I know (German, Danish and Polish). I think you're over-analyzing. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Two new sources on the campaign

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Both are technically "blogs" but they are recognized in their field (search engine land) and belong to the paper of record (nytimes) respectively. And neither is about Santorum, per se, but about the campaign and his web strategy as a response. Obviously we will want to use judgment in folding them in to the article but they present valuable information and substantiate it with some evidence. Protonk (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The title

Latest comment: 12 years ago11 comments9 people in discussion

WP:TITLE still wants it to be "Santorum (neologism)." 05:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.125.104 (talk)

Your opinion is noted...and the titleing/placement of this content are, as of yet, unresolved by clear consensus. JakeInJoisey (talk) 10:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

After more than 8 years it is no longer a neologism. Kwenchin (talk) 13:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

A big part of the reason for not changing this was a failure to identify any reliable source, such as a medical terminology text or a sex education manual, which used this term outside the context of being a political campaign. Have you identified such a source? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

This ship sailed a long time ago. The article is not about the fake word, it is about how it was used in a political campaign. Tarc (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree that the title sucks. It's too long and clunky. A person searching for this article would never type this in to the search box. "Santorum (neologism)" is much better. If you object to the term "neologism", perhaps you can suggest a better descriptor. Even the single word "Santorum" alone would work (with a redirect link to Rick Santorum at the top of the page).MishaPan (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Pardon my French, but there's not a fucking chance in hell of that happening. This word does not exist as an actual word or even really a neologism. It is an invention of a political activist to usurp Santorum's name in a web search. This is what the article is on, the anti-Santorum campaign, not a make-believe word. Tarc (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Tarc. --J N 466 07:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Editors should be reminded that this "title" discussion was essentially tabled pending some resolution to more pressing issues. A major element of that prior discussion dealt with the proprieties of including Dan Savage's name in the article title. Given he is the nexus of this article's subject, it seems logical and appropriate that the article title should somehow reflect that reality. Comments? Thoughts? JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of the article title isn't to pack in every important fact about the subject. It's simply to identify the subject of the article, to help the reader find it, and (where necessary) to disambiguate. We have an article about the Theory of relativity, not Einstein's Theory of Relativity (which is blue only because it redirects to the real article). If you want to create a title with Savage's name in it and make it a redirect to this article, go ahead. JamesMLane t c 22:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't like the current title either, but its best to leave it alone until after Santorum (Senator) drops out of the race.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I would support renaming to just plain Santorum, Santorum (insult) or something better. The current title is both clunky and inaccurate. Neologism is one of those terms that gets tossed out by Wikipedians a lot because it is used in some policies but it does not apply here.DreamGuy (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Rewriting needed

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm sure this article will be under increasing scrutiny following the caucus 'win' and have zero interest in watchlisting it, but I will note that several points – including the title – have faulty or inept grammar, the worst bit being TPM quoted one way, followed by a longish (POV-phrased-as-fact) rebuttal, followed by a return to the original point with the sentence:

Sources that characterize the neologism campaign as "Google bombing", as well as sources that do not characterize it that way, describe the neologism campaign as a prank.

I'm sure that's technically correct, but it certainly (and awkwardly) implies every (A ∪ ¬A) source describes it as a prank. — LlywelynII 15:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Change to re-direct?

Latest comment: 12 years ago27 comments12 people in discussion

TBH, this article should be changed to a re-direct to Dan Savage. If, Santorum gains the 2012 Republican presidential nomination or vice presidential nomination, then it can be restored. GoodDay (talk) 06:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

No, we dont change article titles to help politicians. He iro 06:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a thought. PS: I ain't trying to help Santorum, btw. GoodDay (talk) 06:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not about helping politicians. I find Santorum's politics abhorrent. What it's about is staying within the BLP rules. BLP rules trump nearly everything on wikipedia. This term is not about any particular public figure, it's about Savage. So it should redirect to him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Then make your case here, as was done last time when the article was rewritten and moved to this title. If consensus for your view prevails, it will be moved. But someone suggesting it on ANI and you agreeing is not a new consensus and you know it Bugs. You saw how much heat this generated last time.He iro 07:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

BLP violations trump "consensus". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Point out specific BLP violations. He iro 07:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Equating a radio jock's bodily fluids with a living person constitutes a BLP violation. Talking about it beyond that jock's article constitutes agenda-pushing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If that were true, the jock would be the one committing the BLP violation, not us, we just have an article about the controversy.He iro 07:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Assuming the jock is even notable for anything besides this, his own article is sufficient to cover his self-invented "controversy". Insisting on a separate article puts its promoters here in the position of furthering a BLP violation for the sake of a personal agenda. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If it were that insignificant there would not be that many news articles on the subject. Personal agenda on the part of Savage or not, the article has sufficien t coverage to warrant an article. WP:IDONTLIKEIT still isn't a reason Bugs. He iro 08:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Its inclusion as a separate article rather than being part of the Savage article is agenda-pushing, and IDOLIKEIT is not a valid reason either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, explain what "the article has sufficient coverage to warrant an article" means. Wikipedia is not in the newsmaking business. If external sites are talking about this article, all the more reason to zap it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't get your hopes up, I obviously meant the subject of the article, not the article itself generating news coverage. Geez.He iro 08:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The subject of both articles is Savage. The agenda of some wikipedia editors is to also make it about the politician. That's where the BLP violation is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

No, the subject of this article is the act by Savage and its subsequent news coverage, google bomb effects on Santorum and his response to this particular problem has on his campaigns. It is neutral and sourced to reliable sources and does not BLP violate Ricky.He iro 08:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What "news coverage"? I never heard of this garbage until I saw it on wikipedia. It might be in "niche" coverage somewhere. If you can find anything about it in USAToday, let me know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Is it that hard to click over to the article and peruse the references or failing that, look in the talk page section immediately above? Protonk (talk) 10:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It might also be instructive to consult the five previous AfDs, the deletion review, etc. I don't think this article is in any danger of individual editors' whims. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked for USA Today, but here are a few references from other corporate media to tide you over: "US elections 2012: Rick Santorum the new star, but his 'Google problem' could yet scupper his campaign" (The Telegraph [1]); "After strong Iowa showing, Santorum still has Google problem" (Reuters story hosted on Yahoo! News [2]); "11 things you might not know about Santorum" in which #1 is "He has a Google problem" (National Journal [3] reprinted by MSNBC [4]). And those are just from this week's stories reporting the Iowa result. Protonk and Nomoskedasticity have pointed you to where you can find many, many older citations. JamesMLane t c 22:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

BLP doesn't cover this, since there is no false information about the (Redacted) Mr Santorum. Speciate (talk) 07:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This standalone article is a BLP violation, as surely as has been the continued attempts to post internet silliness about Richard Gere, and Katie Courie, to name two. The article's presence here as a standalone item is politically driven. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

[5] is international, and doesn't even mention Savage. This isn't a one-man show. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

A Norwegian tabloid with a screaming "HOMOHATER" headline doesn't exactly impress. Tarc (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Impress as what? As an unbiased source about American conservatives? No. As a non-English source noting the coining of an English word used in gutter politics - sure. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Baseball Bugs, you seem to be repeating yourself. But you also say "The article's presence here as a standalone item is politically driven." This appears to impute political motivation to people who disagree with you. Try AGF. Now, you want evidence of significance of the campaign, or of the word itself. The article has plenty, but here's another: "Le petit problème Google de Rick Santorum" (and not, you will notice, "La petite campagne Google de Dan Savage"). -- Hoary (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

There's no good reason for this to be a redirect. It is certainly a well publicized and notable event. There are plenty of good WP:RS-compliant sources. To people not in Santorum's home state this event is probably the most notable thing about the person. Most people wouldn't have heard of him otherwise. DreamGuy (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. The individual who has proposed this, User:Nyankees51, has on their very own user page that they are a fervent supporter of Rick Santorum and are proposing the merger not for objective reasons, but for a political agenda to try and make this article disappear. This is further evidence that not only should there be no merger, but this tag should be removed as it was done for political reasons.--Wikiepdiax818 (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

AingGF, that is, assuming that NYyankees51's personal politics do not have any bearing on his reasons for believing this article doesn't have its own merit, this has still been hashed and rehashed among the community many, many, many, many times. That's not an unreasonable assumption, but assuming it doesn't change the fact that this proposal is DOA. The article is notable; it's not a BLP violation; it's not taking a side in its own subject matter; and its mere existence hasn't been shown to be a per se violation of any other policies. No new arguments have been raised (no, really, they haven't - if you doubt this, trundle through the archives for several hours, you'll find them all sitting there on one page or another), and thus this proposal must be rejected now as it has been all the times before. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 22:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Title Change

Latest comment: 12 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

There is not such a thing as a "campaign" going on. Did you ever see anyone doing a campaign to name creampie a creampie? Sometimes those terms come along naturally, although I think this term is not necessarily descriptive I think it should be called either a neologism or a sex slang. So I propose to change the title to Santorum (sexual term) or Santorum (slang term) or Santorum (sex act) very much like Creampie (sexual act) or Bukkake. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

There has already been a discussion on this topic which spanned more than 100 users, many months, and what would be a hundred pages if printed. Would you please review what has already been said, such as here, and also check the discussion index here, and then while demonstrating understanding of the precedent please make your request again? I think many people are unhappy with the title, but its current version is what consensus reached. Your new ideas would be welcome especially if they really are new. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I still think Santorum Google problem would be the better title, that being the most significant aspect at present. The present title is just what the article was parked at during a period of intense, not to say fierce, discussion; the logic was to wait until the content disputes had been settled and the title would then be easier to determine. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This need to be talked over. I don't see the point of using "campaign" in the title. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"Santorum Google problem" sounds POV because not everyone would call the campaign a problem, nor does it relate only to Google, and the word "Santorum" refers to both a person and something else so that word in this title is not clear. I am listening and others are also. Can you please reference what has already been said and then expand on that? Be bold and talk over want you want talked over. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I was referring principally to the series of moves in June last year, which ended with this one in which the edit summary is "interim move pending further discussion". The discussion was ongoing at the time but really did not end with a conclusion so much as peter out as the content was hashed together. Also I note some recent press coverage of the Republican Party's candidate selection mentioning the "Google problem" of one of the candidates: the term has been used internationally in the National Post, 24 Hours (Canada), New Zealand Herald, Daily Telegraph (UK), and the Irish Independent. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

To answer Camilo's question, the article is about the campaign by Dan Savage, not about the term. There isn't much to be said about the term, as it is not really used by anyone, and it's not interesting therefore as a 'term'. What is interesting about this general subject is Savage's campaign to smear Santorum in this way, and so that's what the article is about. That's why the title of the article should retain the term 'campaign'. Changing it to "sexual term" or "sex act" or "slang" would be wildly misleading to the reader, who might assume that this term came about organically and is in actual use as a term.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, you are right, then maybe this is just a "meme". (That is another term to throw there). I am unhappy with the term "campaign" just because it sounds like the guy is going on tv shows and other places trying to convince people a santorum is what he has defined. Also, the impact of Google ranking his page so high in a Santorum search is also a direct cause for the whole thing to be so popular. Assuming his page didn't rank this high would his so-called campaign still be relevant? It seems to me this is just an internet meme that will run out of steam in a few weeks should Santorum lose popularity again. Case in point in my very POV..not happy with the word campaign. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 08:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Propose Rick Santorum vs. the Internet. Agree with Camilo Sanchez - Trying to claim that this is still a one-man campaign ignores a very important fact: this has grown way beyond Dan Savage. It's at the very least a three-man campaign by Dan Savage, Jon Stewart, and Stephen Colbert (the latter two much more for laughs than for any agenda, but despite Stewart's pledge on Wednesday night, I doubt he'll stop referencing it). But the very word "campaign" implies that a massive amount of effort is being expended, which is obviously false. Savage isn't spending money to get the word on the airwaves; he's not even using the word regularly in his syndicated column. What is happening is that millions of search engine users find Santorum's views repugnant enough to keep clicking on the harsh redefinition of his name. It's not a campaign, or even a Google bomb (which requires tons of hyperlinks and tends to be corrected/edited out by Google anyway) - it's a free choice by millions of people. Title it Santorum redefinition (meme) if you must, but there's no sense in which this is "Savage's campaign" any longer. The bird has flown the coop and I'm guessing that even if Savage got on his column next week and apologized, called the whole thing off, took his site down, and asked people to stop frothing - they wouldn't comply. Even if nobody actually uses the word to describe the substance (which has not been shown), the thing has a life of its own that I don't think can any longer be killed, even by its creator. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 22:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Please provide sources stating that this is a coordinated multiperson effort. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Point is now basically moot due to the recent move, but I thought it was a fairly clear implication that the word "coordinated" (like "campaign") doesn't really apply. Lots of people are clicking the link from search engines; the nature of the link they're clicking on is sufficiently odd and/or unique to warrant an article analyzing why they are making this choice. This doesn't constitute a campaign, and any coordination was done in 2003 by Savage himself; no further coordination has happened or is necessary for the phenomenon to sustain itself (hence my argument re: the bird flying the coop). ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 06:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

associate /redefine "santorum"

Latest comment: 12 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

The 1st sentence of the lede currently wrongly states that the campaign was to associate Santorum with Sexual innuendo. That is not supported by the source given, nor by any that I have seen. All coverage that I have read, including the source given, have stated clearly that the campaign sought to (re)define the ex-senators surname. In addition the source used (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/27/dan-savage-rick-santorum-video_n_910924.html) is from a short blog piece about a video - and I suspect has been chosen specifically for using the words "Sexual Innuendo" . That source says "You can thank author and gay advocate Dan Savage for that one. After Santorum compared homosexuality to pedophilia and beastiality, Savage called on his fans to turn the meaning of Santorum's last name into a disgusting sexual inuendo -- and it worked, as far as Google is concerned." I would suggest referencing either of these two articles which directly adress the campaign - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/04/history-of-rick-santorum-iowa - which says " Sex advice columnist Dan Savage launched a readers' competition to find a new definition for "santorum" – and the winner was "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex". Even now, the definition is among the first results for "Santorum" yielded on internet search engines". or http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/02/santorum-acknowledges-anal-sex-problem which says "In revenge for some nasty homophobic comments Santorum made back in 2003, Savage successfully used the web to turn Santorum's name into a sexual neologism that means "the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex." The site is often credited with contributing to Santorum's defeat in his 2006 re-election bid." In all cases reference is made to changing the meaning of "santorum", specifically to google. To me, redefining a word to mean something explicit is the opposite of innuendo, which is usually more allusive, and less clinical. I think that the important elements are "insult to lgbt" readers/fan competition definition and google success. Associate as currently used is not supported by the source, and should be changed.93.96.148.42 (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You can't redefine someones family name, it has no definition to start with, all you can do is to create a fantasy word meaning and say lets call this word bla bla. Its not redefining though in any way, it's association. Youreallycan (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The sources I have seen use define/redefine/change/turn. Please provide reliable sources for "association". Your opinion, while interesting, needs support from reliable sources - the current sources disagree. 93.96.148.42 (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is a source for this debate, which should not be decided on one side, but should be properly covered in the article. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/20/wikipedia_and_santorum/ 93.96.148.42 (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Concur with 93.96.148.42 ... the manner of the argument is not for decision but for presentation of the divergent notions (quotes taking precedence) ... providing that such a treatment of these nuances doesn't violate WP:No original research 70.15.11.44 (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The current usage "associate" seems to violate WP:No original research, since no source is given.93.96.148.42 (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It is clearly association, we are not bound to parrot words in externals - in fact we are requested to rewrite in our own words to avoid plagiarism and copyright problems. Youreallycan (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the IPs are probably correct here. This lead was/is designed specifically to avoid some purported effects on the outside world, rather than specifically to be as informative and encyclopedic as possible. Any move toward the sources and away from editorial assumptions and bias is good. We want to be specific as to the intent here, we don't need to say "associate." B^e——C_ritical 22:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Using words that conflict with those used in the reliable sources is wrong. If it is clearly a case of association, why can you not provide sources? As I understand it, Savage claims to have redefined santorum with his supporters to mean "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex", in protest against Santorum's views on Lgbt rights, and this claim is repeated by most sources, sometimes using euphemism. The Register wrote in 2011 " In addition to coverage in various news outlets, the American Dialect Society selected santorum as the Most Outrageous Word of the Year (PDF) for 2004, and it had turned up in multiple works of fiction." http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/20/wikipedia_and_santorum/ 93.96.148.42 (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The IPs are correct in accurately reflecting the source. The argument that this might constitute plagiarism or infringe copyright is plainly absurd in this instance, and could anyway be addressed simply by using inverted commas. Writegeist (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't go much on google returns but the results here assert associate is not uncommon, in fact it returns a lot more results. - Savage associates Santorum's name with frothy lube. Savage redefines Santorum's name with frothy lube - Youreallycan (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You can't redefine something that has no actual definition in the first place; as Butch said in Pulp Fiction, "we're American baby, our names don't mean shit". All Savage's campaign sought to do was get his small-s "santorum" to out-google-rank the big-S "Santorum". This redefinition stuff is without merit. Tarc (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Please, less OR, more reliable sources. Pulp Fiction is irrelevant to this article. If it had no definition it can still be defined :) 93.96.148.42 (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Article title straw poll?

Latest comment: 12 years ago9 comments7 people in discussion

In both this and the previous discussions on this article's title, it became difficult to gauge consensus because it all became rather lengthy, which had the effect of making everything disorganized and resulted in no consensus arising. To make things worse, there was no clear idea what, if anything, people wanted to replace the title with, or even if the current title was acceptable.

Because of this, I'm proposing a straw poll to help gauge what title people want. It is not intended in any way to be a method of determining consensus or as a substitute for discussion on the article's title. The straw poll's only purpose will be to help identify popular title proposals for this article, as discussion has largely failed to show what they are. Furthermore, I'm not going to attempt to facilitate a straw poll until other editors have also agreed that this may be a valid method of moving forward. Please leave your comments on the matter in the space below. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I propose "Gay rights campaign to redefine "santorum" in protest at Santorum's definition of marriage." However, I am unsure that it is a good idea to reopen this debate. The current title seems to be dislike by everyone, and yet to remain, which is a good sign of consensus.93.96.148.42 (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the current horrible title doesn't have a better yet. B^e——C_ritical 23:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no chance of a straw poll resolving this issue at this time. Youreallycan (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps so...but small bites at the apple can advance the discussion. For example, a question on whether or not the use of Dan Savage's name is warranted/unwarranted in any proposed title would be, IMHO, worth consideration. Perhaps we should ask? JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

A minor change, that would aid sense, would be to "Campaign for "santorum" as a neologism"93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That's true. B^e——C_ritical 02:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

What about just calling it Rick Santorum and Dan Savage? Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No, that's silly. In regards to polling, if anyone has an idea for a question, they can present it to the community here however they want, (politely, of course). Level of response is another matter. But if you want to poll, go ahead. 70.15.11.44 (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Sexual innuendo?

Latest comment: 12 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

According to wikipedia: "The term sexual innuendo has acquired a specific meaning, namely that of a "risque" double entendre by playing on a possibly sexual interpretation of an otherwise innocent uttering." I don't see how "santorum" can be said to be a sexual innuendo as stated in the lede of this article. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

What about "sex-related"? JamesMLane t c 04:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

...began a campaign to establish Santorum's surname as a sexual innuendo, IMHO, appears to satisfy both correct definitional usage AND WP:RS sourcing. However, I'd be more than happy to yield to the collective wisdom of linguists on the subject. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

[Messrs Mitchell and Webb say it better than I ever could...] Rubiscous (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

My point exactly. Considering that the source for the term "sexual innuendo" doesn't even spell innuendo correctly I'm not surprised it gets the meaning of the phrase wrong as well. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Um...you are aware that you, yourself, misspelled the word in the section title which I just recently corrected? I'll be kind and refrain from rather pointless ruminating on something more than the occurrence of a simple typo. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That always happens when you point out someone else's spelling mistake, doesn't it?:) In any case, the point remains, sexual innuendo it's not. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That always happens when you point out someone else's spelling mistake, doesn't it?:)

An inevitable consequence etched in stone. My sincere condolences.

In any case, the point remains, sexual innuendo it's not.

Having spent more time reconsidering this than I thought I would have to, I'm now inclined to agree with you (and I'll resist the opportunity to have some fun at HuffPo's expense). Perhaps "sex-related euphemism" might fit the bill. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not a euphemism (a polite or less graphic term used to obscure or soften an unpleasant reality). For example, "met his maker" is a euphemism for "died". What's "santorum" a euphemism for? I think the simple "sex-related term" would be better. JamesMLane t c 17:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree that is not really a euphemism - and I think the reliable(?) source used http://www.mediaite.com/online/angry-radio-rant-and-campaign-email-show-dan-savage-has-finally-gotten-to-rick-santorum/ has been chosen because it is one of the few that use it.88.166.32.210 (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the reliable(?) source used...

There is no record of objection to "Mediaite" as WP:RS within the WP:RSN archives that I can find. But "HuffPo", generally considered WP:RS hereabouts, is apparently fully capable of mis-characterizing the word.

...has been chosen because it is one of the few that use it.

It may be the only record of use for all I know. But the subject at issue (how to characterize the word) is rather arcane and difficult to authoritatively source other than by inference from characterizations utilized in generally reliable sourcing. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

What is wrong with " a byproduct of anal sex." as used by http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/can-rick-santorum-become-us-president-if-his-name-isnt-even-safe-for-kids-to-google/article2294581/ ? 88.166.32.210 (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Santorum's Google problem

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

People had a problem with this title before, I think because it had Santorum's name in it. I'm not convinced by such arguments myself, and thought I'd bring it up again. If you google it, even with quotes you get nearly 200,000 hits [6], and without quotes 331,000 and santorum + google gets 7,160,000 hits and 7,430,000 on Bing, with the top results being mostly RS. By contrast, Santorum + lube without quotes gets 268,000. Per WP:COMMONNAME I think we should consider it. B^e——C_ritical 03:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems a little overly specific to me - the Google/other search engine issue is certainly a prominent part of the topic but it doesn't seem to encompass it entirely. What do you think of "meme" as another user suggested above? (FWIW I don't remember why "Google problem" was rejected in previous discussions - was the idea that it was POV to call it a problem? Too colloquial? Maybe someone can enlighten us.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I like "meme," but think it should have more sources, and perhaps doesn't meet the definition as a replicator, since it actually hasn't caught on. The reason we didn't use Santorum (neologism) is people argued it wasn't a neologism because it hadn't caught on. Same with meme. Calling it "Google problem" is per the huge number of reliable sources that call it that, per WP:COMMONNAME. If it has any name in the popular culture and sources, this is it. I think it was only rejected before for fear it would add to said problem. B^e——C_ritical 05:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I can get behind Santorum's Google Problem, or even Rick Santorum's Google problem. As far as RSing the title goes, campaign is no better supported than meme or controversy, so at least we're now going to be consistent. IIRC (I may not), some editors disliked google problem on the grounds that it implied Santorum has some issue that coincidentally happened to him, while these editors felt it needed to be made clear that this article is about the Scurrilous personal attack by degenerate gay activist Dan Savage against noble American Rick Santorum. RS would also support Redefinition of santorum or Santorum (redefinition). ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 16:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The reference to "Google" is too narrow -- there are other search engines, and Savage's site shows up on them, too. Also, although numerous mainstream media call it a Google "problem", I'm not sure it is. Santorum is appealing for votes to the Republican primary electorate. With that crowd, does it cost him votes when someone searching for his name learns of his comments that provoked Savage's ire? Does it cost him votes if they conclude that he's the victim of a vulgar and defamatory smear attack by a bunch of perverts pushing the dreaded homosexual agenda? I suspect that, if anything, the whole thing may be helping Santorum, at least at this stage of the campaign. JamesMLane t c 19:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, this subject actually has a name in the RS, and that includes "Google." What you say is true, or maybe, but we're talking about a name straight from the RS here... not exact accuracy. Exact accuracy isn't necessary with naming as the examples on WP:COMMONNAME show: a lot of them are less accurate but more popular. B^e——C_ritical 21:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, User:Becritical how's it going? Wow...what mess, and I mean the whole discussion here! LOL! OK, lets recap what this is all about. In response to something Rick Santorum said in 2003 a contest was developed by Dan Savage and then a web page was created and paid for by Savage himself. Is there really any legs under this without the web page? --Amadscientist (talk) 03:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi (: Yeah quite a mess but not anything like consensus so it looks like nothing will change at this point as far as I can tell :P B^e——C_ritical 04:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Why not call it what it is...a website?

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Just use the name of the actual site, Spreadingsantorum.com. It's not going to please evryone, but is it possible that this might be something everyone can live with?--Amadscientist (talk) 04:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not gonna fly. "santorum (noun)," "santorum (prank definition)," "santorum (eponym)" or "santorum (neologism)" are not equal to the website you named. There are many articles in reliable sites which make no mention of that website. Edison (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's see what flies and what doesn't naturally, but.....if there is no mention of the website in these sources, what exactly are they talking about? Doesn't that mean there is a problem with the article and the sources? Not to stir up anything...but if this isn't about the website....what is it about? Without the site there is no reference to the entire subject.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It's about the site only as a focal point for the google bomb of all the other sites and links and mentions, and the press reaction and Santorum's reaction. The site is only Savage's contribution, which would have been nothing without all the other surrounding stuff. B^e——C_ritical 07:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Becritical: although Savage is the instigator, and the site the focus, the campaign extends well beyond Savage himself. -- The Anome (talk) 08:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, that seems fair enough.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Strength

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Some sustenance for all those engaged in discussing and editing the most discussed and edited article in the joint. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't stop wondering what that brown stuff is ...
Amalthea 00:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd say LOL, but the last time I did that I got in trouble. B^e——C_ritical 01:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Need for more technical description in the lede.

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

At the moment the lede says Savage "created a web site to promote this definition, which became a prominent search result for Santorum's name on several web search engines." Almost all sources agree that many activists have worked hard to achieve this success- it was NOT just a question of one person creating a web site, and the lede should reflect this.88.166.32.210 (talk) 01:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Problem with title

Latest comment: 12 years ago37 comments17 people in discussion

The title states that the "campaign" is regarding a "neologism", but this is not accurate. The "campaign" is regarding a slur. Suggesting someones name be used for feces and lube is not a "neologism" it is a slur. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 01:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It is a neologism that doesn't happen to reflect kindly on the original name holder well, such as a "boycott" or a "lewinsky" or any number of words which originated as someones name.He iro 01:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The difference is that boycott entered into the common vernacular. "santorum" does not exist outside of a few let's-use-it-to-be-funny fringe fictional works, while "lewinsky" only exists as a joke, not a term to use in conversation. Tarc (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

More of a smear than a slur, surely? -- The Anome (talk)

I agree with Stevertigo. "Santorum" is not a new word at all, it's a man's name. "A neologism ( /niːˈɒlədʒɪzəm/; from Greek νέο- (néo-), meaning "new", and λόγος (lógos), meaning "speech, utterance") is a newly coined term, word, or phrase, that may be in the process of entering common use, but has not yet been accepted into mainstream language" says Wikipedia. I do think it's a slur or smear, obviously so. Should we rename the article accordingly?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I do think it's a slur or smear, obviously so. Should we rename the article accordingly?

Not, I should think, without violating the spirit of WP:NPOV. There's an interesting parallel discussion just underway at Talk:Swiftboating (which might benefit from a bit more editorial circumspection). JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Re-name LGBT against Santorum, as an example. GoodDay (talk) 06:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's obviously not a smear, which implies inaccuracy as to a matter of fact (Wiktionary: "A false attack"). Savage hasn't made any false statements about Santorum. He's said only that Santorum made the "man on dog" comment and opposes same-sex marriage, assertions that are indisputably true. "Slur" is less clear because, although the Wiktionary definition is merely "An insult or slight", that doesn't really capture the negative connotation of the term. Anyway, I don't see this as even an insult, because it doesn't purport to describe Santorum. "Santorum is a bigot" and "Savage is a pervert" are insults. "Let's express our dislike for someone by using his name, not to refer to him, but to refer to something else" doesn't describe an insult.

"Smear" and "slur" are both POV. Those of us who dislike Santorum's homophobia might just as well call for using the POV word "exposé" because the whole affair exposes and publicizes Santorum's bigotry.

As for "neologism", the current title doesn't say that it is a neologism (in the sense of being widely used); it says that there's a campaign for a neologism. Given that Dan Savage would be ecstatic if this word came into common use, that's certainly true. Our article properly reports that, in that respect, the campaign has largely failed. Of course, it's always been more than a campaign to get the word into common use, so in that sense the current title is too narrow. JamesMLane t c 08:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I am astonished with the extreme degree of weakness of this argument. The term is obviously a smear, it is obviously a slur. Your argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and takes into account absolutely no pertinent knowledge of how language is used. I am sure you don't expect me or anyone else to take it seriously.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I have responded below. JamesMLane t c 19:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have put my "more of a smear than a slur" comment in <joke> tags. Sigh. -- The Anome (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I got your joke, and I thought it was a good one. I was disagreeing with Jimbo, who contended (joking aside) that the campaign or whatever we call it was indeed a smear or slur. JamesMLane t c 16:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment Didn't this argument take place six months ago? Yes, it did. It's an attack, not a neologism, smear, slur or campaign. It's answering bullying with bullying. Generally a mistake, not that Dan Savage cares. The difference is that Santorum wants to enshrine his bullying into law, which is a serious escalation. However, they don't need to be equivalent. It's still an attack. 99.50.187.164 (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who has come by an expressed themselves so far. IP 99.50... says the proper way to frame this is by calling it an "attack." I think this approach has merits, as it avoids labeling the slur with colorful terms. More importantly it avoids a false sense of NPOV by calling it a "neologism." I prefer calling things what they are, in this case calling it a "slur", but Im open to similar suggestions. "Answering bullying with bullying" - this seems true, and what's important for us is that we don't participate in any bullying regardless of whether one side wants to "enshrine his bullying into law" or not. -Stevertigo (t | c) 19:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It's delightful that there is so much new interest in this article. People whose interest is recent, however, should be aware that the current title was the result of a great deal of work, including an RfC that attracted many dozens of contributors. With that history, any proposal for change of title will have to undergo a similar process, and the results might be disappointing to those who prefer something different. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully all of the media attention Santorum is getting will create enough links to finally kill the google bomb... If its back up for discussion, I still support merge and delete. This article should not exist. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I think JamesMLanes views are way off the mark in almost every respect. Slur and smear are not POV, while "neologism" is because it lends false legitimacy to what is otherwise simply an insult. Stevertigo 22:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying there's nothing POV about an encyclopedia article that asserts a politician's detractors are smearing him? If so, would you support moving John Kerry military service controversy to the "NPOV" title John Kerry military service smear? JamesMLane t c 22:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we all agree the attack on the surname Santorum is not a smear simply because there is no false accusation being made against the politician. Slur is a disparaging word, so there's some truth to that, but the notional word "santorum" is not directly insulting to the man, just to the surname. Of course the current title captures the true situation, because Savage worked his followers in an attempt to establish a neologism; the effort was a campaign for a neologism, the neologism being designed to harm Santorum's political future. It was Dan Savage's political attack against Rick Santorum. There are a lot of things that we can call this article, but we should not settle for a word that is not clearly correct in every opinion. Binksternet (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely do not agree. It is obviously a smear campaign. It is an attempt to create a falsehood in the public mind, the idea that Santorum's views are so offensive that people commonly compare them to <>. That's the falsehood here. The public doesn't do that, even the subculture of gay people who quite properly despite Santorum doesn't do that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo, we seem to agree that "smear" requires that there be a false assertion as to a matter of fact. It's a real reach, though, to find such an assertion in an implied statement about the common use of the term. By analogy, when I see a Tea Party rally with people holding signs depicting the President of the United States made up as the Joker, I don't read that as falsely stating that he actually wears makeup or that people commonly consider him to be a villain as bad as the Joker. I read it as nothing more than "The person carrying this sign strongly dislikes Barack Obama." To say "Obama is a socialist" is a smear. The Joker posters are a disparagement but not a smear. Similarly, Savage wasn't trying to report on public opinion or on common usage -- he was trying to influence them by choosing this method of expressing his personal dislike.

Do you agree that "smear" has a negative connotation? Would you join me in opposing an article title like John Kerry military service smear or George W. Bush military service smear?

As for the title here, maybe "disparagement" would be a more neutral term. Savage was certainly disparaging Santorum. JamesMLane t c 19:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

JW, above: "Santorum" is not a new word at all, it's a man's name. "A neologism ( /niːˈɒlədʒɪzəm/; from Greek νέο- (néo-), meaning "new", and λόγος (lógos), meaning "speech, utterance") is a newly coined term, word, or phrase, that may be in the process of entering common use, but has not yet been accepted into mainstream language" says Wikipedia. This brings up various matters: word versus name, new word (= neologism?) versus (?) coinage -- and of course whether or not Wikipedia is a reliable source. (As we know, it doesn't claim to be -- and indeed the neologism article is a terrible mess.) The only relevant book I happen to have with me right now is Lieber's Introducing Morphology. I don't claim any particular significance for this book; some other editor here is welcome to present informed input from another relevant linguistics book. But anyway, "neologism" doesn't even appear in the index of this book, even though it's about word-formation. The book does however have much to say about the creation of new lexemes, though (as it's about morphology and not lexical semantics) little about the extension (whether naturally occurring or, as here, planned) of meaning of existing words/names. Within its discussion of new lexemes, it treats coinages (blivet, mung, grok, mongo etc) as a minor process (p.51). Now, "santorum" is indeed not a coinage (or anyway it isn't in this sense of "coinage"), but (putting aside both the ethics and the success of the campaign) it is a new lexeme. "Campaign for 'santorum' neologism" seems less rebarbative than "Campaign for new 'santorum' lexeme", or (perhaps better) "Campaign for new 'santorum' lemma", "Campaign for 'santorum' polysemy", etc. -- Hoary (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I would just call this page "Santorum" ... Rick Santorum isn't the same thing as Santorum the non-proper noun, and giving it a title anything but that which is is most simple and direct prejudices the opinions of anyone who clicks on the link. Like it or not, for a vast amount of people the word "Santorum" which is a byproduct of anal sex is a real word now. An article title which isn't simple and direct is, frankly, nothing but an attempt to resist the meaning of the word as it already exists in the world. Moonbug (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The previous complaint about titling this article Santorum is that Wikipedia would be duplicating the Google bomb, carrying out the intended political attack. Readers quickly typing in "Santorum" hoping to land on the politician article will instead flounder in frothy fecal funk. Binksternet (talk) 04:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

We violate NPOV if we start to make editorial decisions on the basis of what will help or hurt a particular politician. Therefore, whether a particular treatment would have the side effect of promoting Savage's goal is irrelevant. We should follow Wikipedia policies and let the chips fall where they may. In this instance, the key consideration is serving our readers. I agree with you that few people would type in "Santorum" (without more) to get information about the frothy mixture. "Santorum" should be either a dab page or a redirect to Rick Santorum. JamesMLane t c 05:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales

It is obviously a smear campaign.

JW, you are, IMHO, incorrectly conflating a "smear" with what is (again IMHO) a much more overt political "attack". A "smear", at least as I understand its use in the vernacular, must have, among several characteristics, some foundation in "truth" directly associated with and detrimental to its target in order to avoid failure and dismissal under its own weight of mendacity. Assuming the correctness of that criteria, I don't see how an attempt to create a ~~"sexual innuendo"~~ new coinage utilizing the same spelling as a notable 16:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC) surname would constitute, by definition, a "smear". It is, as I believe all would stipulate, an overt political "attack"...and "attack" should, IMHO, be reflected in any proposed title. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The Washington Post-Intelligencer recently called it a "prank definition," which suggest Santorum (prank definition), a far better description than "neologism," "attack," "campaign," or "smear." This description has appeared in websites of both the left (Democratic Underground) and the right (Free Republic). Edison (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

One newspaper calling it a prank does not make it a prank. It was a serious attempt to limit the politician's ability to be taken seriously. Not a short-term prank. Binksternet (talk) 04:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes it has been a prank definition with a long shelf life. Edison (talk) 04:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

JamesMLane wrote:

"Are you saying there's nothing POV about an encyclopedia article that asserts a politician's detractors are smearing him? If so, would you support moving John Kerry military service controversy to the "NPOV" title John Kerry military service smear?"

First of all, from the Kerry campaign, we have the new term "Swiftboating" for political attacks which are unfair and largely jingoistic. Did those swift boat veterans try to associate the name Kerry with feces and lube? No. So I don't understand what your point is there. Binksternet makes a keen distinction between "smear" and "slur."

Again, "slur," as in Campaign for "Santorum" slur, is not only not POV (its NPOV) its far more accurate than "neologism," which again, gives a false impression of linguistic and cultural legitimacy. -Stevertigo (t | c) 05:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't even know what you mean by "linguistic legitimacy". If you mean wide use within the language, then no, it hasn't achieved this, but a neologism (however defined) does not need to be widely adopted to be a neologism. Plenty of what are called neologisms are stillborn, and plenty more never get far. Or if you mean respectability within the language, then no it will never get that, but plenty of other neologisms don't. ¶ That matter aside, there's an obvious category confusion here. The motivation for the creation or use of "santorum" is irrelevant to its status as a neologism. If we were to agree that "santorum" is one or more of slur, smear (etc), or indeed that its use is one or more of repellent, puerile, political, defamatory (etc), this agreement would not affect its status as neologism. -- Hoary (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

On Wiktionary we use the term protologism to refer to words that are hoped to become more widespread but haven't yet. In a sense, they are words that are 'lying on the shelf waiting to be used'. However, Wiktionary also has a definition of santorum itself, which is cited by several permanently recorded sources (one of the criteria for inclusion), showing that it has passed the protologism stage and has entered the vocabulary, thus it is now a neologism. CodeCat (talk) 12:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Yea, I found that out up-close when I tried to delete some bogus material from the wiktionary entry, only to be told, by you, that people using a word a few times is a Usenet post counts for reliable sourcing. I know that standards can vary across related wiki projects, but I am surprised to find a project that runs with WMF's blessing that has no editorial control or content or sound guidelines to regulate its content. WP:BLP should be wiki-wide. Tarc (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Wiktionary does in fact have guidelines to regulate its content, and the criteria for inclusion are precisely those guidelines. Making any changes to them requires a lengthy process of consensus forming. If you have any issues with how Wiktionary works you should probably discuss that on Wiktionary's Beer Parlour, but the practice is that Usenet citations that meet the criteria for inclusion do count as valid citations, and have counted many times already in the past. BLP does not apply in this case because the definition of the word 'santorum' has nothing to do with the person Rick Santorum. Its etymology does show it originates in the name of a person, but then so do the etymologies of quisling, gerrymander, boycott or hooligan. CodeCat (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

"The Beer Parlour", how quaint. Instead of "no standards" I'll refer to it as "standards so ridiculously low as to be invisible", then. Christ on a crutch, it is bad enough as it is that an article exists about a fake word, we're not using junk like "I saw some guys talk about it on Usenet" to bolster arguments here. Tarc (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that is the normal international way of spelling the word, so I don't see the problem. But I'll repeat myself... Wikipedia isn't the place to discuss Wiktionary's policy because it doesn't make that policy. Whether quaint or not, that's the place to discuss things about Wiktionary. Please take it there. CodeCat (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no interest in discussion wiktionary standards there, what I have an interest in keeping their low-hanging fruit from infesting this project. Tarc (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

My point is that "slur" has a negative connotation, even more so than "insult". For example, this link is to a photo caption in Time magazine from 2002: "Iranians protest at Bush's 'Axis of Evil' slur". That was proper as a characterization of the protesters' attitude, but if I went over to our Axis of evil article and edited it to assert that Bush was using a slur, I'd be reverted pretty quickly, and justifiably so. For what Savage is doing, a more neutral term would be "disparagement", but that's still inaccurate, because it's not a smear or slur or insult or disparagement in the sense of being directly about Rick Santorum. Reacting to his homophobic comments by calling him "Rick 'Man-on-dog' Santorum", which I've seen from his detractors, is an insult, but the "frothy mixture" approach is more complex.

My point about Kerry was related to the negative connotations. Either John Kerry military service smear or John Kerry military service slur would be an improperly POV title, because it would be unfair to the sleazeballs who smeared him, and even sleazeballs should be treated fairly by a neutral encyclopedia. Our article on Swiftboating doesn't support your assertion that the term came "from the Kerry campaign" (so arguably you're smearing Kerry). In any event, terms that have achieved widespread currency, like the left's use of "Swiftboating" or the right's use of "Poverty pimp", are completely different. There's no "campaign" (or Internet meme or political attack or whatever you call it) to establish the meaning. The article is about the meaning itself, and the title is the term.

As for "neologism", you're fighting last year's battle. The article isn't titled "Santorum (sexual neologism)", which I think was one of its incarnations. People made the argument you now make, that we should not give a false impression that the word is widely used. That's the main reason it was moved to the "Campaign for" wording. That wording acknowledges the effort without implying success. It's like John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. JamesMLane t c 02:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is this so difficult? We already know how this started, who started it and the reality of the entire situation. I can't believe that even with Jimbo Wales has weighing in, we still can't come to a consensus. There is a very good way to deal with this...come on....just call it by the website name. That is the entirety of the "Campaign", "Smear' or "Slur". This just seems so easy and yet it really is a hard fought battle by many. Is there no compromise that everyone can live with? At least look at the name of the site as a possibility.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

"Santorum epithet campaign"

Latest comment: 12 years ago18 comments12 people in discussion

no consensus support

Suggest "Santorum epithet campaign" as the title. Apologies for interrupting the above vote, (I withdraw my "support" by the way). My justifications are as follows: 1) "Epithet" captures the essence of the intended campaign as a kind of insult or slur - I don't think its POV to state that the attempted "neologism" is an insult or slur. 2) "Campaign," though it has the weakness that its largely a one-man campaign, is supported by the fact that there is a website and the ongoing Google bomb. 3) Finally, starting the title with "Santorum" puts the context where it belongs - ie. a person and the actual name of that person. Regards to everyone, -Stevertigo (t | c) 04:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Support, Oppose or Suggest alternate

Comment It's pretty good the only sticking point I see is whether it has entered common usage. But common usage is not necessarily part of the definition. Maybe it's a bit of a stretch of the definition though. Not sure. B^e——C_ritical 05:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose - I believe it is legitimate to state that a consensus of opinion (and perhaps, somewhere, WP:POLICY?) holds that Wikipedia should avoid, if, where and when possible, advancing or promoting agendas of any type. Suggesting a "title" utilization of the surname of one who is a target of such an agenda suggests, IMHO, a certain tone deafness to those considerations. What impact, for example, would this suggested title have on search engine returns? Would this not elevate Wikipedia content to a higher level of prominence in search returns?

It is somewhat remarkable, at least to me, that the use of the Senator's name, the TARGET, might be so blithely suggested yet the use of the name of this campaign's AUTHOR is apparently met with considerable editorial disdain. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

So make the obvious suggestion, Dan Savage "Santorum" epithet campaign B^e——C_ritical 17:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

For me, the "obvious" title would be Dan Savage political attack on Rick Santorum. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

For you, but not for Wikipedia, so let's put it to rest now. Wasn't the claim that Wikipedia had to throw policy out the window because to do otherwise would be to further the "campaign" soundly rejected in previous discussions? As was the suggestion to include Savage in the title? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't the claim that Wikipedia had to throw policy out the window because to do otherwise would be to further the "campaign" soundly rejected in previous discussions?

Amended response after reconsideration: No, that's not my recollection at all. My recollection of prior discussions on that topic was what I stated...and which I attempted to state rather carefully. Do you disagree with the premise that Wikipedia should avoid advancing or promoting agendas if, where and when possible? Perhaps I should also have stated that it, in no way, is meant to suggest ANY abrogation of Wikipedia policy in order to do so. I thought that was a given. Apparently not.

As was the suggestion to include Savage in the title?

No, that's not my recollection at all. What I do recall is a rhetorical circus of opinions/suggestions with neither an established methodology for ascertaining consensus nor a specific consensus rejection of any proposal. YMMV. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Support - better than the current title. If people don't like capping santorum what about Campaign for santorum eponym? (or Controversy over santorum eponym)Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 14:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Sorry, I misread the proposal. I thought it was Santorum eponym campaign which I will now suggest as an alternative. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh please don't -- there's not a chance in hell you're going to get sufficient support for it while these other proposals are going on. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

No way. Read epithet. An epithet (truly or falsely) describes a person in some way, even in the 'alternative modern usage'. "Santorum" in this usage has never been presented as an actual description of Rick Santorum, and thus, it is not an epithet. Wnt (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose, move to close per Wnt, this is not an epithet and the proposed title makes no sense. Leaving all debate aside, this is not a proper use of the word "epithet". Could someone else confirm this, and if it is confirmed, could someone close the discussion on these grounds? See Wikipedia:CLOSE#Closure_procedure. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the definition of the word would be stretched too much here, or maybe make the title truly inaccurate. Close it. B^e——C_ritical 20:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Support as better than the current name Though really it should be Dan Savage coined neologisms or the like. Collect (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - The word does not define what this affair actually is. Tarc (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per Tarc. Theoldsparkle (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose and suggest early close per WP:SNOW. "Epithet" does not describe the intended usage of the word by its supporters in any sense of the definition. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose and close per WP:SNOW -- it's a misuse of "epithet". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Meta Comment - It seems clear that this suggestion is going nowhere. Per several recommendations and unless there is some objection, I will hat this discussion section as "Not consensus acceptable". JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

cquote

Latest comment: 12 years ago29 comments7 people in discussion

I would like to explain my recent addition of the cquote and its placement. There are many people who are hearing about this sordid little issue for the first time as a result of Mr. Santorum's recent prominence, and many news articles refuse to publish the text of the neologism (or whatever you want to call it). People are searching the web in large numbers to find Mr. Savage's definition of "santorum," and many of those people are landing in Wikipedia. Additionally, there are people reading about the issue on Mr. Santorum's page who are also wondering what the definition is. My guess is that many of these people have relatively little interest in digging through a long article and learning the full back story. I think we should give them easy access to the information they are looking for. If we do not then more people will be going to Mr. Savage's page for the definition, a page that is, of course, not positioned neutrally in this dispute. --Nstrauss (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe you added that quote up there in the hopes to make it visible in a Google search. This article attempts to lay out the background behind the neologism. Readers who come here are interested in just that background, not in the shock-value of the definition. Amalthea 19:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I have no interest in furthering the Google bomb. My goal is exactly what I said and nothing more, nothing less. I have elaborated my position at length on the Rick Santorum talk page and I believe you will see that I have been flexible and moderate in that discussion. Also, I believe there are many people who really are coming to this article not for the background, as you suggest, but simply to read the text of neologism itself. Evidence can be found at Google Trends, which shows a huge spike in searches for "santorum definition." As it stands, the text of the neologism is buried in the fourth paragraph and not set off, making it difficult to find. --Nstrauss (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

In light of Amalthea's revert (assuming bad faith) I am adding my proposed definition here for discussion. I propose adding the following to the very top of the lead section:

“

santorum (san-TOR-um) n. 1. The frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex.

”

^[1]

--Nstrauss (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You have got no chance at all. Adding the sexual slur at the top of the page returns it complete in a google search and wikipedia is not here to propagate such personal attacks, we avoid such as that according to our guidelines and policies, that is the reason the slur is not in the subjects biographical article at all, never mind placed in a position where it is revealed in a search engine return. Youreallycan 21:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Adding the definition to the very top of the lede section is a non-starter. ~~I agree that putting it in the fourth paragraph constitutes burial, but n~~ The current placement of the new definition is early enough that it is not hard to find, but is preceded by some context and grounding - precisely what an encyclopedia is supposed to do. Neutrality dictates that we not even seem to participate in the act of redefinition. Putting it in as the very first words on the page does a lot more than "seem." If you're still curious, please read this page. If you have constructive suggestions for re-writing the first or second paragraph, go ahead and propose them. Thanks! ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 21:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I have been for having the definition as part of the first paragraph as that would be the best encyclopedia writing. But this really is google bombing. B^e——C_ritical 21:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

How about bolding the definition or adding a cquote a little further down the article, setting it off somehow so that it is easier to find but doesn't appear in the Google search results? --Nstrauss (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It's probably unconnected but I notice User:Nstrauss has a message of thanks on his talkpage from Newt Gingrich's campaign manager. Youreallycan 21:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Now THAT is what I call a smear! For goodness sakes, assume good faith, people! I have never had any communication with anyone associated with Gingrich aside from that message. If you dig even slightly you will see that my comments on Gingrich's talk page were about fixing specific policy violations. My proposals were accepted by the community and implemented mostly by others. So my goodness, lay off. --Nstrauss (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Good faith does not turn us into blind people. Just saying, we got a lot of partisan users in this area. Another opponent of Gringich's, Mitt Romney, you wanted to add the money shot to his article and now you are here and at Santorium's blp wanting to google bomb him and add insults in as prominent a place as possible. Youreallycan 22:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

"Just saying," as in, just violating WP:AGF. Yes, there are a lot of partisan editors here, but I am not one of them. If you dig back through the Romney talk archives you will see that I made similar suggestions for his lead section as I did for Gingrich. And no, for the eleventh time, I do not "want to google bomb" Santorum. Becritical and I are trying to have a constructive discussion here... care to join in? --Nstrauss (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It's all been discussed over and over - users come to attack Santorum and we use policy and guidelines in an attempt to defend him from those users. Youreallycan 22:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

No offense, but your bias is really showing through now. --Nstrauss (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

My bias is well known and is enclosed in this Wikipedia policy about living people - WP:BLP - Youreallycan 23:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

How about having the definition as the last sentence of the first paragraph, but no cquotes, or bold and nothing that would appear in Google results? B^e——C_ritical 22:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

By "first paragraph," do you mean the one ending with "sex-related euphemism"? How do you know that it won't appear in Google? (I know next to nothing about SEO.) --Nstrauss (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Nstrauss, thank you for clarifying that you resisted Gingrich's campaign manager's attempt to recruit you to implement his suggestions. Writegeist (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually I was thinking of it more as the article used to be. My suggestion would be more like this:

In 2003, in response to comments by then-U.S. Senator Rick Santorum that were criticized as anti-gay by gay rights groups and some politicians,^[2] sex columnist and gay rights activist Dan Savage began a campaign to establish Santorum's surname as a sex-related euphemism.^[3]Savage subsequently asked his readers to coin a definition for santorum that would "memorialize the Santorum scandal".^[4] He announced the winner as "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex" and created a web site to promote this definition, which became a prominent search result for Santorum's name on several web search engines. In 2010 he offered to take the website down if Santorum donated US$5 million to Freedom to Marry, a group advocating legal recognition of same-sex marriages.

Santorum made the comments to which Savage took offense in an April 2003 interview with the Associated Press. Discussing a recent United States Supreme Court decision striking down an anti-sodomy law, Santorum said:
If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything… It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution... You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families... In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing.^[5]

In a June 2011 interview, Santorum said, "There are foul people out there who do horrible things. It's unfortunate some people thought it would be a big joke to make fun of my name. That comes with the territory." ^[6] In September 2011 he asked Google to remove the definition from its search engine index. In response, Google said that the company does not remove content from search results except in very limited circumstances.^[7]

Bolded changed text. B^e——C_ritical 22:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Becritical, I appreciate your suggestion, and I think it's certainly an improvement. I have only one relatively minor complaint, which is that I don't think the fact that Savage started with a contest among his readers is important enough to merit inclusion in the first paragraph. The first paragraph should be as basic as possible. I think it should read more like, "In 2003, in response to comments by then-U.S. Senator Rick Santorum that were criticized as anti-gay by gay rights groups and some politicians, sex columnist and gay rights activist Dan Savage began a campaign to establish Santorum's surname as 'The frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex.'" End of paragraph. (I also note that the word "euphemism" is not correct here; the neologism/slur/whatever is actually the opposite of a euphemism.) --Nstrauss (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think including the fact doesn't hurt, and we do want some padding before the definition so as to allay the concerns of those wanting to keep it out of the google results. We have to make some allowance for that per consensus. B^e——C_ritical 23:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand and support the desire to keep the definition out of the excerpt on Google. However, I would like the definition to be as high/visible as possible (while still maintaining neutrality, per Zenswashbuckler's concern). Additionally, how do we know that if we place it where you suggest that it won't appear in Google? Currently when you search for "santorum definition" you get the following excerpt: "Savage subsequently asked his readers to coin a definition for santorum that would "memorialize the Santorum scandal". He announced the winner as 'the ..." That isn't the top of the article. I think that Google sets the excerpt based on your search terms, which would make it impossible to guarantee that the "frothy" language doesn't make it into WP's excerpt. This brings us back to Amalthea's original objection, which is that the text would become visible in a Google search. How are we so sure? --Nstrauss (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I've never seen google results that contain more than about 30 words. Anyone else? B^e——C_ritical 00:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't know, but Nstrauss is right that the excerpt depends on the search query. Google for "He announced the winner as" and you'll get this article with the full definition.
But I'm not actually concerned by that, or by what comes up with "santorum definition": anyone searching with that query is really looking to find the neologism/eponym/euphemism/innuendo/whatever. But search queries that only show the start of the article like santorum alone or probably other supposedly innocent searches should not display said definition. Amalthea 00:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Which should mean that we're safe if it's more than 30 words down the page, right? B^e——C_ritical 00:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

My proposed first paragraph has the "frothy" text start at word 40 or so (depending on how you treat hyphenations) so it looks like we're ok? --Nstrauss (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably, so can you post a full draft of the actual text of your version? B^e——C_ritical 01:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Why should't the 13 word definition come up in a Google search? I am sure this has been explained somewhere, but I have been unable to find it.88.166.32.210 (talk) 03:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

There are those, such as myself, who argue that what we do here should not be in any way contingent on what happens outside Wikipedia. Others, however, say that we should take care not to do anything which might contribute to a Google bomb or bring harm to Santorum of his family. I would rather form consensus than forgo consensus on an ideological debate about whether Wikipedia is society's keeper. B^e——C_ritical 03:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

"Rick", too?

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

It appears that Savage has made good on his threat to redefine "rick" as well: Savage says here, his new "definition" of the word is 'To "rick" is to remove something with your tongue—the "r" from "remove," the "ick" from "lick"' -- thus redefining the words "Rick Santorum" completely. No WP:RS picking up on this yet, so it doesn't belong in the article right now. -- The Anome (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I suspect Campaign for "rick" Neologism will have to debut first...but ya never know. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! This article is a useful source for other things, such as Savage's statement that "the campaign is over ... santorum has been redefined". And it definitely crosses the critical ROFL/ROTFLMAO boundary when Savage mentions "unintentionally hilarious headlines as 'Santorum Surges from Behind,' 'Santorum Runs Hard,' and 'Romney Squeezes Out Santorum.'" ;) Wnt (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, and this is definitely in. It's too closely related to put in a new article; if the formal title doesn't fit it, just wait a month and it'll change anyway. Wnt (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I doubt it's going to rise to the level of needing to change the title. I've seen it mentioned/discussed in a few third-party sources, but not nearly to the point that the surname is being discussed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

word association

Latest comment: 12 years ago24 comments8 people in discussion

sex columnist and gay rights activist Dan Savage began a campaign to encourage the word association usage of Santorum's surname with a sex-related definition.

Seems like a simple explanation of what happened to me. Youreallycan 12:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

"Word association usage" is, IMHO, about as compositionally "clunky" as it gets. What, exactly, is your point here that would serve to improve upon a generic and interim...

...began a campaign to associate Santorum's surname with a newly coined and sex-related word, "santorum".?

JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thats the point its not a newly coined word at all, its not a neo and its not an epo as it is not in actual usage, it's a bit of google bombed word association. I also note that it's not just me that objects to your unilaterally reverting this in but , User:Nomoskedasticity also removed, associated and newly coined this morning. Youreallycan 16:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thats the point its not a newly coined word at all...

You seem oblivious to any consideration that "newly coined" references the time frame of the preceding text. Why is that?

User:Nomoskedasticity also removed, associated and newly coined this morning...

User:Nomoskedasticity's objection, as I understood it, was a suggested lack of clarity (emphasis mine)...

"...associate" and "newly coined" implies that there is a second term, not being named, with which Santorum's surname is being associated;...

The simple addition of "santorum" to the sentence end appears, at least AFAICS, to satisfy the point raised, no? If not, he/she is more than welcome to discuss the point further here or to amend the existing text as he/she see fit.

At any rate, the text, as it currently stands and IMHO, is a pretty generic amendment of the original semi-stable content and is based upon what I tentatively sense as a developing consensus on certain points (eg...it is NOT a "euphemism")...at least that was my intent. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You seem oblivious to any consideration that "newly coined" references the time frame of the preceding text. Why is that? - because it asserts what you assert it doesn't, which is one of my objections to it Youreallycan 17:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the (cough) clarification. Perhaps someone else can make some sense of it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Your version gives weight to the falsehood that a new word has been created. I dislike User:Nomoskedasticity's version because no one is actually "using" Santorum as a sex related term. Its a google bomb - the object is just to get it in the search engine results , its not a new word that is in general usage or even minimal real time usage. Youreallycan 17:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

"Your version gives weight to the falsehood that a new word has been created.

Assuming you are referring to "newly coined", hardly, at least per what appears to be an informed comment above (emphasis mine)...

It could also be called a coinage, on the same basis; coinage sometimes conveys the additional sense of an unnecessary or specious new word.

JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

"began a campaign to use Santorum's surname as a sex-related term" was my suggestion. This edit was not an improvement. Does anyone object to my suggestion apart from Youreallycan/OTRR? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yours works too...but mine attempted to incorporate an interim generic characterization which appears to be both desirable and under active discussion. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

We need to get rid of language which beats around the bush and plunge directly into stating exactly what we're talking about. "In 2003, in response to comments by then-U.S. Senator Rick Santorum that were criticized as anti-gay, sex columnist and gay rights activist Dan Savage began a campaign to redefine Santorum's name as a disgusting sexual act." Describe who said it was anti-gay in a later paragraph of the lead, and put the disgusting part in quotes- whatever Savage said he wanted to do. B^e——C_ritical 17:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, and also describe Dan Savage's motives (if he has ever described them). I daresay he was trying to discredit Rick Santorum; or get people to associate any thought of him with something so unpleasant that they would not consider the merits of his views. This is in contrast to the usual (?) mode of (1) describing someone's views and (2) explaining why those views are bad.

In other word, the point is not to say

Here's where we disagree with Rick Santorum: his views are anti-gay and bigoted; they violate our dignity; etc.

but rather to say

He's disgusting. Don't even think about him

Is this WP:OR or my part, or am I summing it up correctly, or what? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thats exactly correct. It's hardly an advert for Gay love either is it, the thought of looking down at frothy shit is repulsive. Youreallycan 18:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Your lack of understanding is appalling. Anal sex is not only a gay activity. This is yet another area where your limited understanding of the issue ought to disqualify you from editing the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Quse me for being old fashioned, frothy shit is disgusting whoever is looking at it. The focus of this article is directly on Homosexuality. Youreallycan 19:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, Youreallycan's comment was appropriate as an NPOV consideration, you didn't have to do a personal attack for that. Uncle Ed is correct in the analysis above, but it really might be OR. And we don't need it... If someone can find the quote of what Savage intended, that should be sufficient to put in the article and then we don't need to bother about characterizing or doing any OR. B^e——C_ritical 21:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Ed, I don't think your summary is correct. Savage wasn't trying to make any factual point about Santorum -- not even that he's disgusting. Savage was simply expressing his dislike of Santorum (and of Santorum's particular homophobic comments that sparked the effort in the first place), and doing so in a way that he hoped would embarrass Santorum. That's why it's a mistake for people to accuse Savage of defamation or to invoke BLP -- there are no false assertions of fact involved. JamesMLane t

James, that is a pretty convoluted way of looking at it. To use an analogy; "I am not saying that you are stupid, but your way of thinking is stupid, so stupid in fact that I am going to redefine your last name to mean a stupid person in protest of your stupid ideas. But to be clear I am not saying that you personally are stupid so I can't be accused of attacking you personally." Arzel (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

c 15:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC) The phrase "word association" invokes a few connotations which aren't meant in this article. But I think the verb associate is a good one. Of course that verb is already in the lede and the only awkward phrasing at the end " with a newly coined and sex-related word, "santorum""--I don't know how accurate it is to say that he was coining a new word that happened to be the same arrangement of letters as Santorum's name but it is certainly awkward. However, this section hasn't exactly offered any improvement. Protonk (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Editors appear to be interested in presenting a grammatical characterization of the word. Of all those thus far considered, "coinage" (IMHO anyway) appears to be rather generic and, perhaps, consensus digestible. It should suffice until something better comes along...or, if it's just too awkward (not my personal perception BTW) for consensus digestion, it is far from indispensable or chiseled in stone. That conversation continues above. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Really, can't we use a Savage quote about his intent instead? B^e——C_ritical 21:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Has he said outright that hates straight people who don’t agree with him, that he's so intolerant that he wants Santorum forced into silence? If I were him, I certainly wouldn't make such an announcement, as it would tend to undermine the effect of my campaign.

But Dan Gainor recently charged Savage with "hating" and "attempting to destroy" Santorum. [7] So we might be able to say what Gainor thinks about Savage's motives. Of course, I'd be happy to see that balanced with what other people think his motives are. I daresay many people who consider either man scum, consider the other man a hero. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

We should be able to use a partial quote: Dan Savage began a campaign to "memorialize the Santorum scandal than by attaching his name to a sex act..." which would shock Santorum. The full quote from which that's taken is "There's no better way to memorialize the Santorum scandal than by attaching his name to a sex act that would make his big, white teeth fall out of his big, empty head." I think it's a perfect statement of Savage's motives which we can use. B^e——C_ritical 00:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I like that. It's more meaty, and it provides food for thought without putting words into Dan Savage's mouth. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Why edit the quote? Is this common in reliable sources?88.166.32.210 (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Lube and fecal matter

Latest comment: 12 years ago28 comments7 people in discussion

The previous version of the article lede read:

"..began a campaign to associate Santorum's surname with a newly coined and sex-related word, "santorum".

This is highly inaccurate, as it claims "santorum" is actually a word that means what the homosexual activist claims it to mean. It is not, and at present, the only definition appears to be its use as a last name. I replaced the above with:"

"..began a campaign to associate Santorum's surname with "lube and fecal matter."

I sourced this to the spreadingsantorum.com website, and it is quoted accurately. Is there a problem in representing upfront and in an exactly accurate way what the activist himself promotes? Does it make the activist look bad to accurately represent what he actually says? -Stevertigo (t | c) 20:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

PS Ive been reverted once by User:JakeInJoisey and twice by User:Youreallycan. Neither has bothered to explain their reverts here. -Stevertigo (t | c) 21:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

...as it claims "santorum" is actually a word that means what the homosexual activist claims it to mean.

Not if the assumedly informed observation on "coinage" is correct...

It could also be called a coinage, on the same basis; coinage sometimes conveys the additional sense of an unnecessary or specious new word.

Combine that with the already consensus-settled question that "santorum" has not attained "neologism" status (as reflected in the "campaign for" qualification in the article title), and you have two allusions to the tenuous existence of the word in the vernacular. I don't think your objection is supportable in fact. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You claim that there is support for the "tenuous existence of the word in the vernacular," which not only is not true, (redacted ad hominem comments per WP:TALK and WP:NPA JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC) -Stevertigo (t | c) 21:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a long standing consensus objection to the edit you are making. Replacing the insult to the first para and the website address needs discussion not warring in. Youreallycan 21:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you claim there is a "long standing consensus objection" to representing the activists words accurately? Do you have sources/links to this alleged consensus? Can you summarize these alleged arguments against representing the activists words accurately? -Stevertigo (t | c) 21:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a previously rejected by consensus addition that has been edit warred in under good faith objections in violation of WP:BRD. Youreallycan 21:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You haven't answered my questions and requests for sources. Where in the consensus does it say not to represent the homosexual activists words upfront and accurately? -Stevertigo (t | c) 21:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

And why should I answer any q you have now after your disruption. Go search the talk archives. The expression is in the third paragraph where it has been sitting quite happily for some time - I suggest you start an RFC if you want to add it to the first paragraph. Youreallycan 21:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You still arent providing any sources for your alleged "consensus." The issue is simple: A homosexual activist is promoting a new definition for a person's name. What is the problem with saying what that definition is upfront? I don't believe you when you say there is consensus against such a sensible way of writing the article. -Stevertigo (t | c) 21:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS is all the rational needed to not include the linked site. WP:BLP applies on all pages. Arzel (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Is that not a straw man argument? !The entire article is due to the existence of the spreadingsantorum.com website, what you call a "self-published source". The entire article is based on it, and its related Google bomb, and naturally must reference that site. -Stevertigo (t | c) 21:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course it has to be in the external links. Standard practice. B^e——C_ritical 21:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It absolutely doesn't need to be an external link - every word that is at the link is already in the article. The rest of that blogger site is an attack external against a BLP subject. Youreallycan 21:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Really, okay I never more than glanced at the front page. Non-linked reference then. B^e——C_ritical 00:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, no one has given any clear argument against including the alleged definition in the lede. -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The blogger site is an attack site against a BLP subject, so we don't want to be linking to that do we. The primary objection to adding the disgusting name association to the lede is that we don't want to further promote the disgusting name association, as there was a previous version that published the phrase via wikipedia in search engine returns - that is the primary reason the article is about the campaign to create a google bomb name association and not primarily focused on the phrase. Youreallycan 22:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Stevertigo, I think you're correct about consensus -- there is no long-standing consensus against quoting the definition, or against quoting it early on. I partially agree with Becritical's statement above that "we do want some padding before the definition so as to allay the concerns of those wanting to keep it out of the google results. We have to make some allowance for that per consensus." There's no consensus on the underlying point: Many of us consider it improper to tailor Wikipedia articles so as to influence Google results, whether to promote or to hinder any particular agenda. The arguments made by Youreallycan in responding to you are grossly improper. Nevertheless, there's been relentless attack on any version that's seen as "promoting" Dan Savage's "agenda" or that includes "disgusting" facts early on. Hence, as a practical matter, it's not worth fighting those editors on their repeated demands for Google manipulation. JamesMLane t c 16:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Beating around the bush

(int.) Finally we get some rationale from you. I appreciate these reasons, but disagree with their logic. Let's just call a spade a spade and say, upfront, what the activist at the center of this wants the word to mean. It doesn't add to the Google bomb, and nor does it actually repeat the slur if we put it it the plain proper context of "activist promotes x definition." So your reasoning, while well-intentioned, is not sound.

The current state of the article lede appears to be a lot of beating around the bush - failing to get to the point - when there is no reason to do so. It is not until the third paragraph, after a long Santorum quote, that Savage's profound assertions are actually reported. It all reads like some homosexual activists rationale for the slur, rather than our neutral way of simply reporting the facts. -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not just my reasoning and has been supported at previous consensus - if you want to add the website and the google bomb to the lede, please start a RFC. Just add your desired addition and seek consensus here for inclusion - personally I think WP:BLP rejects your desired addition but I am a cautious editor, others interpret differently. I also support more focus on Savage's actions, as in Homosexual activist creates playground name calling rather than open a mature discussion, but there is opposition to that position. Attempts to highlight the actions of D Savage only serve to also further attack the victim. So it's a lose lose as far as BLP goes. Youreallycan 22:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

BLP does have bearing on this article, but this is not a BLP article, its an article about a slur. We thus have to report what the slur is, and we should do so upfront. After all the slur itself is what the article is about. You wrote: "Attempts to highlight the actions of D Savage only serve to also further attack the victim." This is not true, D Savage's words do nothing to impugn Rick Santorum, they only impugn D Savage. From a neutral point of view, there is no reason not to simply state, upfront, what D Savage has said. -Stevertigo (t | c) 23:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

This article is not a BLP but it is totally affected and needs to be fully considerate to BLP policy, also, this is not an article about the phrase but an article about the campaign to create an attacking google bombing phrase. If you think that raising the profile of the attack in this article doesn't further the attack on the subject we will have to disagree on that. - Youreallycan 23:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Just for the helluvit, I thought I'd run this up the flagpole...

...began a campaign to juxtapose Santorum's surname in search engine returns with a newly coined and sex-related word, "santorum".

JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Its inaccurate, for the simple reason that "santorum" is not an actual word, as used by good people in the regular vernacular. So its presumptuous at least, and probably just false. -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not how it reads. It reads that the campaign's purpose was to not that it accomplished it. It's rather good, although "juxtapose" doesn't work, the object was more to replace it on search engines. And whether the article is about the campaign or the slur itself, the slur is absolutely central. Stevertigo has a good point that the lead reads like a justification for Savage by reason of the arrangement of facts. B^e——C_ritical 01:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, seems like something worth looking at, Youreallycan 01:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Savage, even in his wildest flights of fancy, would never have even hoped for "replacing" "Santorum" hits. Now, "displacing" "Santorum" hits is quite another story...hence "juxtapose". JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there really a rule against linking to website critical of a subject of a BLP, or is it just in this article?88.166.32.210 (talk) 03:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"Newly coined"

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article lede currently reads:

"..Dan Savage began a campaign to associate Santorum's surname with a newly coined and sex-related word, "santorum".

Which again, is absolutely false. There is no "newly-coined and sex-related word," there is just an activist's attempt to slur someone's name by associating it with a definition of "lube and fecal matter." Furthermore, the campaign is not "to associate Santorum's name" with a new word "santorum" (there is no such word), the campaign is to take Santorum's name and give it a definition it does not actually have. In summary, these glaring falsehoods in the article lede give the article an entirely pro-slur character. -Stevertigo (t | c) 08:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The sentence creates an incorrect impression for sure. True, it is not exactly a word. But it is not a simple slur or association either. It is what it is, some kind of neologism in a state of partial acceptance. A second, logical, problem is that the phrase "newly coined" suggests that the term had already been coined by the time Savage came upon it, and that its coining was unrelated to Savage, both of which are incorrect. Savage instigated the coining of the term by holding an online contest, and chose a winning entry to promote. Thus, it would be more accurate to say that "Santorum" is a [term] that arose from a campaign by Savage to disparage Santorum, after Savage to exception to comments by Santorum that he considered anti-gay. The campaign began with Savage asking his readers to create a new, offensive definition, which Savage then promoted. I'm trying to untangle the logic of the sentence here, not the specific wording - so I'm using "term" as a neutral stand-in for whatever it should be called. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent move to Santorum eponym controversy

Latest comment: 12 years ago70 comments31 people in discussion

Related prior discussions:

Without expressing an opinion on the recent move of this article, I suggest someone immediately move it back. There were extensive discussions about the name and it should not be moved without a new consensus. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You really have the nerve to try to shove the whole "Campaign" bullcrap down our throats..the title is deceiving, that guy is not campaigning, nobody is pushing for santorum to be redefined except for the fact that the internet is linking to it, google search is simply ranking it high as it should, this article wouldn't even exist had not it been because of Google!. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The whole idea of google bombing is to raise up your article to the top of the search results by adding links all over etc. Clearly Savage as a gay rights campaigner lived up to the descriptor and campaigned to attack a politician that opposes all his beliefs. Youreallycan (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not a Google bomb, besides, Google has tweaked its algorithms to avoid such bombs. This is an organic ranking thing made popular by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with the word "campaign?" That's exactly what it is: a push, started and continued by Dan Savage and his supporters, to associate the word with something vulgar. And if you think Dan Savage isn't campaigning to redefine "santorum," perhaps you should re-read the article before commenting further on this page. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyone can campaign for anything to be redefined, I can campaign for the word Republican to mean the fetid smell of a dead hawk, but will it matter? No!. There's got to be something that makes the redefinition relevant..in this case a Google high ranking in results. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought I'd Be bold for the following reasons:

1) the previous title was too long and cumbersome

2) using scare quotes is bad enough in the body of an article let alone a title

3) the term santorum is more accurately described as an eponym rather than a neologism (I'll add that the critical issue concerning the term isn't that it is or isn't a neologism but that it is an eponym ie that it's named after someone. If it wasn't for that fact there wouldn't be an article.)

4) "Campaign" doesn't accurately describe the issue or that there are two sides to it. Controversy is more accurate.

Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Vale of Glamorgan moved the article to an excellent title but some other "user" reverted the move, I am reinstating the move by Vale as I find it concise, precise, accurate and formidable for the ongoing santorum situation. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You're entitled to find it whatever you want, and to express your opinion -- but in light of the extensive discussion and numerous moves that can be found in the archives, this is just about the worst article on Wikipedia for anyone to be moving unilaterally. For my part, I think using "eponym" is a good idea, and I don't like "controversy" because there's no real what-are-the-facts-here controversy, but this title may be better than anything else. My cautious approval, like your whole-hearted approval, doesn't change the procedural point. It should not have been moved unilaterally, and when someone reverted the overly bold move, you certainly should have discussed instead of re-reverted. I'd re-re-revert but I dread getting into an edit war over the title. JamesMLane t c 02:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

So what if the discussion was extensive. We are not gonna argue for months and months over an article. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I suspect we might. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Clarification The support and oppose issue here is in regards to the title Santorum eponym controversy. Example: I support the use of the title Santorum eponym controversy and I oppose the Campaign for santorum neologism --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Support Excellent move. Cheers! --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Boldness is a fair reason, but in this case there has been so much prior discussion I think it's better to start with the current version. In line with WP:BRD I have reverted; we can use this section to discuss the new name. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Leave it alone Mikie. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The rather large section immediately above this is devoted to this topic, maybe it should stay centered there? He iro 22:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Support. An actual better title than the previous. -- The Anome (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Support. It's neutral, simple and accurately describes the article content. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Support but prefer euphemism or slur - Controversy is concise. I also have some comments about the way the lede is written - in particular theres no need to beat around the bush about what the name/wannabe euphemism is purported to mean: "a term associated with lube and fecal matter" should be in the lede sentence. -Stevertigo (t | c) 01:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Support' - much more accurate name. DreamGuy (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Suggestion: a bit of clarification, please, on just what it is that people are lending their "support" to. Just by looking at the section it appears that they're supporting a suggestion to move the title back from "eponym" (not because the previous "campaign" title was better, but because a title change should be agreed to before it's made); but reading the comments suggests that the reverse: that they instead prefer to retain the new title (or some variant on it) -- though sometimes this is not totally clear. This will all become yet more confusing if/when the page is (justifiably or otherwise) moved again. So please specify just what it is that you're supporting (or opposing), as well as why. -- Hoary (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Highly Against Continuing to put words in a title that 0.1% of world population knows is a complete disservice to readers. What is wrong with simply santorum controversyPbmaise (talk) 06:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I've decided to be WP:BOLD and move the article back to its former title. Per WP:BRD, please discuss on this page before moving it again. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 08:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: given that the previous move was the subject of a weeks-long RfC, which saw input from hundreds of Wikipedians, including Jimbo, which eventually moved into a tangentially-related-but-still-relevant ArbCom case, moving it again without further discussion seems silly. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 08:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Support. Excellent suggestion, and more accurate all round. Prioryman (talk) 10:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose -- many readers will find the title difficult to understand. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose: Agree that the word "eponym" will be indecipherable to most readers. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

That has to be the most laughable excuse for a title not to be used, if that's the case then we will have to get rid of a number of wikipedia articles whose title is in Latin! ..--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely foolish. Grammar articles would have no titles at all, using that mind-numbing logic. Solution: include a link to eponym in the first sentence. 70.15.11.44 (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: Nor do I fully support the current title and am certainly opposed to the current need/formulation/presentation of this RfC. There was EXTENSIVE prior discussion/debate on this very subject that was tabled and is now archived. That body of prior deliberation should not be simply ignored by aggressive BRD editing for a specific title quickly followed by an RfC formulated in language which appears to serve only as a proxy for stopping this current "eponym" juggernaut in lieu of considered discussion. This entire approach smacks of a "rush job" precipitated by current political considerations and is, IMHO, serving only to inflame and not to enlighten. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Just to clarify -- I added the RfC tag, to put an end to hasty moves. Now that the article has been move-protected, that logic no longer applies. I agree that this discussion is a distraction and I have no real desire to discuss yet another title change, particularly when it will likely go nowhere. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  - Then I'd suggest that you rescind the current RfC as premature. If not that, then at least amend the current language so as to promote more clarity in the issue respondees are being asked to comment upon. As it currently reads, the "it" of "...it should not be moved without a new consensus" would inspire a "Support" vote from me if the "it" referred to is the "Campaign for "santorum" neologism" title...which I believe is the intent of this RfC. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
    - I would not oppose doing that. I'm hesitant to do it myself -- it's bound to piss someone off. But I certainly won't object if we take that route. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose: I am one of the 0.1% of readers who know what an eponym is, but I still had to read this heading several times to get its intended meaning. Rumiton (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You realize that 0.1% is a ridiculous exaggeration, right? Mensa members are in the top 2%, so that would be a word that only 1 in 20 mensa members know. And just why are you on Wikipedia exactly? 70.15.11.44 (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I am one of the 0.1% of readers who know what an eponym is...

Perhaps all might benefit in that regard by reading the source link provided by User:70.15.11.44. If my understanding of the rather extensive examples provided is correct, the genesis of an "eponym" lies in something directly attributable to or related to some action or characteristic unique to that person or thing that has come into a commonly understood derivative in the vernacular. It can not, IMHO, legitimately reference a derivative definition formulated purposefully, maliciously and from whole cloth that has NOTHING to do with its purported namesake. A legitimate "eponym" this is not. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Article title and the lead paragraph were subject to much discussion and RfC a few months ago, which found no consensus for a lead change, and I believe settled on the current title. Santorum essentially tying for 1st in Iowa may bring him greater media scrutiny, but that doesn't mean we trade BLP and undue weight concerns in the name of TMZ-like sensationalism. Tarc (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Cautious oppose - I think the title should be changed but as many on all sides have pointed out, the current title is the outcome of a very long and productive process to find a compromise. This is not a time for WP:BOLD. In particular we should note many newcomers to the argument, some quite clearly POV pushing, who are rehashing debates we had a long time ago, likely for the purpose of assisting with the smear campaign. The status quo may not be perfect, but it is much better than where some would have us end up if we aren't careful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The current title is not "the outcome of a very long and productive process to find a compromise", but a temporary expedient which was put in place to prevent move wars and to allow a debate to take place. I can't find any discussion which concluded with it being formally endorsed for the long term; there are plenty of occasions when people seem to have assumed that there was, but that is not the same thing at all. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The current title is not "the outcome of a very long and productive process to find a compromise", but a temporary expedient which was put in place to prevent move wars and to allow a debate to take place.

It is actually both and the interim, albeit tenuous, "stability" evidences that. What also should be evident is that "surge" BRD editing on this issue is both disruptive and non-productive. Let's get on with the conversation. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. I agree the current title is imperfect but it's better than the proposed alternative. The current title at least makes it clear that the focus of the article is the campaign, not the neologism itself, and also does not imply that the neologism has become established. As others have noted above it's also easier to understand than the proposed title. Plus I don't think "controversy" is the right word; the starting point for the article is Savage's campaign, not the subsequent controversy, though that has to be covered too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Support. Indeed, I don't think anyone put that much thought into the title. It was just a stopgap measure. "eponym" is succinct. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 18:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose and close this RFC - it's not a good time to hold an RFC about this. It's a good time to keep the title that it has been at for the recent history - as I understand it - moving an article disrupts all the currently available links to it and makes it less visible and harder to find for a while. There is also no reason to insert "controversy" into the title - it's not a controversy. Youreallycan (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. As per my comments at the previous discussion, the current title neutrally and succinctly describes the controversy (a campaign to turn Rick Santorum's name into something vulgar) without comment. While "eponym" may be technically correct, the use of the word "neologism" implies that the word has not yet entered common usage, which numerous sources have pointed out. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Support Eponym is more accurate - if the argument is we shouldn't use it because some people might not understand the word then neologism presents the same problem. Having scare quotes in the title is very bad form and the article isn't really about a campaign for a new word but around the controversy that the word in question is an eponym of Rick Santorum. Also, reviewing the earlier talk debate, it's clear that the current title was meant to be temporary and was not a permanent grand compromise. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Support Better and more descriptive name with a word that's just as unlikely for people to know. But I'd like this discussion to go the full 30 days. I don't think this should move during the key part of Santorum push/primary/wave (when he is just starting to do well). Best to sit pat with a poorer title than interfere in some way with the primary. Hobit (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment: our actions here should not take the outside world into account. Any potential effect on the primary is highly dubious, and not our concern. When you start thinking Wikipedia can affect elections and don't want to make changes that might affect them then you aren't editing on the basis of making an encyclopedia. DreamGuy (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Where were you in our previous debates? That has been my argument and few have listened. B^e——C_ritical 03:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree with the both of you to some extent. We do take into account the external world. We treat BLPs quite carefully because of the impact we can have on the real world. Is that too a bad thing? Hobit (talk) 04:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Not in the same way: we don't try to structure well-sourced facts in a particularly palatable way. What we do with BLP is to make sure we have everything well-sourced and properly reflective of the sources. What's going on here often goes beyond BLP. B^e——C_ritical 17:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. It's a campaign, not a controversy. There is no controversy. Where did you come up with that? The current title is accurate, the proposed one is inaccurate. Also, there's no reason for "eponym" versus "neologism," and "eponym" is less well known to readers. Why would you want this, so that people won't know what you're talking about? B^e——C_ritical 00:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Neologism is equally unknown. Perhaps we need Santorum's Google problem, as the news reports are calling it. That's what the main Rick Santorum article refers to it as also. DreamGuy (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Santorum's Google problem would be fine by me, but I think people had problems with that. I don't think neologism is equally unknown, and it's also obvious what it means to a log of people, you know, "new logos," whatever: I'd know what it meant even if I didn't know it, and I never took Greek. "Eponym" is very, very obscure. Anyways, that isn't even the main objection I have. B^e——C_ritical 02:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Cautious Oppose. The current title is imperfect (and yes, because of that, it was meant as interim), its imperfect, nonetheless, no better had been found before, in veeerryyy long debate and this new title is not any better. Why? per Mike Christie above me. I might like somewhat the eponym part, however please, lets focus on what IS the focus of the article. The title (and in logical extension the lead) should not imply that the santorum is somewhat really an eponym/word with the meaning Savage intended for it. That was a clever attempt from Savage and just that "attempt" to create an eponym became famous, almost legendary. So that attempt is in focus of the article. Not the word. (and looong debate did acknowledged this view point as the central one here, key argument, for the problem resolution here). So while the current title is imperfect, if you want to help and change it, please find anything better than the "campaign", and in such a manner, that it would be still clear what the focus of the article is. Reo ⁺ 04:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Santorum is a neologism, but to call it an eponym means that you're calling it a genuine word. I'm not ready to claim that much. I still think Santorum (neologism) is the logical title for this article. Adding "controversy" to the end of any article you think is "controversial" is just plain dumb - you might as well add "blue painting" to the end of any article title about a painting on a blue background. Wnt (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

... but calling it a "campaign" is OK, by that same reasoning? 70.15.11.44 (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

As I just said, that is not the title I prefer. But at least you could say "campaign" is a little more specific. Wnt (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Support in that the proposed title is better than the current title in several ways: it doesn't begin with "campaign" (making it easier to search on, no one looking for it will begin with "campaign"); it avoids the question which has plagued previous naming discussions of whether or not "santorum" is a word; and it is less unwieldy. It isn't ideal ("controversy" in particular doesn't seem especially à propos), but it's better than what we have now; let's take baby steps. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I just turned on scripting and I see Santorum (neologism) come up as an option when typing "santorum" at the search bar. That sensible title was reduced to a redirect because some people insisted it wasn't common enough to be a neologism, which I believe to the absolutely incorrect. But saying it's an eponym is saying it's even more than a neologism - that it's the thing this guy's name has come to mean as a word in the English language, like "Alzheimer disease" or "Victorian". I don't want to go that far, I just think we should get off at the right stop! Wnt (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with this, so maybe there are BLP reasons that this shouldn't fly as well. B^e——C_ritical 20:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose per User:Wnt and others. Theoldsparkle (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Support any new title without the exploitative use of easily misidentified words. Example, the uninformed voter browsing for info on a national politician's campaign might very easily misread 'Campaign for "santorum" ... '. Wikipedia is supposed to enlighten, not exploit and confuse. This is from an independent voter who knows BS when they see it. "controversy" is apropos, given this very discussion alone as reference. "eponym" is accurate. "campaign" is confusing and an isolated use in article titling on Wikipedia. "neologism" is a partial misnomer, it can be argued, but is not 100% accurate. All that being said, angry people will be angry, so we do what we must. 70.15.11.44 (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm reticent to point out that there is likely an element of the originating parties of the definition discussed in this article, and their adversaries, at play in this very poll. Unfortunately, encyclopedic principles of neutrality and fairness seem to be under attack here. The real question is "Bias or Fairness". 70.15.11.44 (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Support. More descriptive, neutral & encyclopedic title. "Eponym" is likely no more obscure a term than "neologism", so the "most readers won't understand the term" argument dosen't hold water. We have Wiktionary, y'know.--JayJasper (talk) 06:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose The term "controversy" in a title describing a subject which isn't a controversy is horseshit and I suspect more than a few editors here know it. Epoynm may be marginally more appropriate term than neologism (with the added problem that we consider words like "quisling" or "Victorian" to be eponymous and santorum hasn't exactly reached that leve) but I fear that we are allowing our disgust (or disgust by proxy) to overtake our need to present the subject neutrally by painting it as a controversy. This whole debate in all its incarnations has been a holding action against editors who want the article removed regardless of its subject meeting our inclusion guidelines at any cost. We have had a running argument over content for 9+ months and frankly we are embarrassing ourselves. Protonk (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Support This issue doesn't seem to fit the category of neologism so "Santorum eponym controversy" is more appropriate. However, I don't think there should even be a Wikipedia article about this. The only reason I know about this article is because of the Google bomb. Nobody uses the word "Santorum" as it is described in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewick12 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Meta Comment - There are currently roughly 12 Support vs. 16 Opposed and it appears this proposal is going nowhere. I propose that this RfC be closed as "no censensus". Any objections or is there a second? JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Support closing - going nowhere as regards a support consensus. Youreallycan 23:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

This RFC was recently closed, but I reopened it as the closer had previously been involved in, and cast a !vote in, the discussion. It is improper to carry out a close as an involved party; please wait until an uninvolved user - preferably an admin, for this discussion - closes. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It is improper to carry out a close as an involved party...

Actually, after reviewing the RfC guidance, there's no prohibition against the "Nominator", who would probably be a likely commenter, closing the RfC early...but I'll just concede your point and sheepishly withdraw. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Latest merge proposal

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

...is here: "Proposed merger of Campaign for "santorum" neologism into Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality". What fun we had last time -- so much that we will all delight in doing it again. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. The merger is not going to happen. It doesn't matter how many times it is brought up by Santorum's followers. The fact is that this neologism has been mentioned on so many independent media sources that it is a distinct feature of pop culture and stands on its own. After this primary campaign is finished these merger requests will likely cease anyway.--Wikiepdiax818 (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

What does "santorum" really mean?

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Note that "Santorum" probably has a real definition, probably related to saint or sanctification, but these are not noted in the Wiktionary entry. What is the actual definition of "santorum?" -Stevertigo (t | c) 03:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"SANTORI, SANTORIO, SANTORELLI, SANTORIELLI, SANTORINI, SANTORUM: From the medieval first name Santoro, derived from the Latin word Sanctus = Saint, the genitive plural form is "Sanctorum", used also to indicate the All Saints feast. Possibly connected to someone acting as a saint, or who has connection with religious things (a sacristan)" (http://www.italyworldclub.com/genealogy/surnames/s.htm)- Unsigned.

Great. Thanks. What do people think about that? -Stevertigo (t | c) 04:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting but not relevant to this article. As far as I know, the origin of the surname "Santorum" has played no role in the "santorum" thingie. That "Richard Santorum" can be read as "the strong leader of the saints" is not what prompted Savage to single out Santorum and has not played a role in any of the praise or criticism of the subject of this article. JamesMLane t c 15:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It's irrelevant and trivial in the context of the subject of this article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

A santorum is also a traditional food offering to ward off evil spirits. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a nice find. I've added it to Wiktionary. :) CodeCat (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, we just had an edit collision, I was adding that sense there too just after I posted that. Wanna help me find two more citations? ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Avoid all of it

Latest comment: 12 years ago13 comments8 people in discussion

Just looking over the above, it looks like what's needed is to avoid all forms of characterization. We need to get away from everything which causes us to put some gloss on things. To that end, why don't people propose leads that don't characterize at all, but use the sources in other ways? Here's one possibility:

In 2003, in response to comments by then-U.S. Senator Rick Santorum that were criticized as anti-gay, sex columnist and gay rights activist Dan Savage began a campaign to "memorialize the Santorum scandal [...] by attaching his name to a sex act..." which would shock the Senator.^[8] Savage subsequently asked his readers to coin a definition for santorum,^[4] and announced the winner as "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex." Savage created a web site to promote this definition, which became a prominent search result for Santorum's name on several web search engines. In 2010 Savage offered to take the website down if Santorum donated US$5 million to Freedom to Marry, a group advocating legal recognition of same-sex marriages.

Santorum made the comments to which Savage took offense in an April 2003 interview with the Associated Press. Discussing a recent United States Supreme Court decision striking down an anti-sodomy law, Santorum said:
If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything… It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution... You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families... In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing.^[5]

In a June 2011 interview, Santorum said, "There are foul people out there who do horrible things. It's unfortunate some people thought it would be a big joke to make fun of my name. That comes with the territory." ^[6] In September 2011 he asked Google to remove the definition from its search engine index. In response, Google said that the company does not remove content from search results except in very limited circumstances.^[7]

Note that the definition is far enough down in the text that it will not appear in search engine results, but not so far down as to leave the reader waiting for the main facts of the article. B^e——C_ritical 19:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Why are you using an abc news blog as a source - is more of a primary than a secondary source. Don't like the selective quotation with omissions format at all.88.166.32.210 (talk) 02:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I grabbed it from the article. This should be acceptable per WP:NEWSBLOG don't you think? B^e——C_ritical 03:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Is acceptable, but I think The New Yorker is more reliable, and that attributes the campaign to one of Savage's readers -"Dan Savage’s readers did not forget. Savage writes a racy syndicated advice column, and a month after the A.P. interview he reprinted a letter from a reader: “If Rick Santorum wants to invite himself into the bedrooms of gays and lesbians (and their dogs), I say we ‘include’ him in our sex lives—by naming a gay sex act after him.” Savage, who has a long history as a bigot-baiter and civil libertarian (he started the “It Gets Better” project), pounced on the idea. He announced a contest, and readers wrote in with suggestions: “How about calling condoms ‘Ricks’?” In the end, Savage’s readers came up with an unprintable definition. If you have not yet Googled “Santorum,” take a deep breath first. http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2012/01/16/120116ta_talk_marantz 88.166.32.210 (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I like the rewrite. It's explanatory and gets to the point, as an article lede should. Plus it doesn't contain any of the absolute falsehoods about word coinage that the current version has. -Stevertigo (t | c) 03:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I like it as well -- it does nicely avoid the "characterization" problem. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope. POV, and recites the faux "definition" prominently. Cheers - but this frothy mixture does not fly. Collect (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it just states the fact and avoids POV. The definition is the subject of the article, so it obviously cannot be avoided and shouldn't be characterized, just stated. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the new definition is the entire point of the (campaign, meme, whatever it is), not featuring it prominently would make this article either a Santorum-boosting, presidential-campaign-supporting, non-neutral puff piece, or a big fat whitewash of Savage's dastardly, despicable deed. Either way you see these things, the definition is central to the article and deserves early placement. I just can't see any alternative. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 17:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

And again, it is far enough down not to appear directly in search engine results. B^e——C_ritical 03:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

It appears that the majority of us support BeCritical's rewrite as stated above. Can someone with admin privileges please replace the current lede with the above rewrite? Thanks, -Stevertigo (t | c) 03:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The article isn't protected. Anyone can do it (though it shouldn't be me). B^e——C_ritical 03:22, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Wiktionary and its knee-jerk repetition of the santorum slur

Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments8 people in discussion

From the name of US Senator Rick Santorum (born 1958). The term was coined and promoted by US columnist Dan Savage in protest at Santorum's anti-homosexuality stance and policies. See Wikipedia:Campaign for "santorum" neologism for further information. Pronunciation

santorum (uncountable)

(sex, slang, derogatory) A frothy mixture of lubricant and fecal matter as an occasional byproduct of anal sex. [from 21st c.] [quotations ▼]

(slang, derogatory) Shit: rubbish, worthless matter, nonsense, bull. [from 21st c.] [quotations ▼]

-Stevertigo (t | c) 03:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

If you'd like to discuss improvements to that Wiktionary entry, do so on its talk page, not here. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 11:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course what they meant to say was "Santorum's allegedly anti-homosexual stance and policies". A simple oversight I'm sure. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing "alleged" about Santorum's stance. It's abundantly documented. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Irony much? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

To Robin Lionheart, both this page and the Wiktionary entry have the common problem in that POV editors, who care nothing for NPOV, and care only for their political and social activist agendas, have made efforts at these articles to promote a falsehood, and one which is intended to be highly derogatory. That is all, -Stevertigo (t | c) 06:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, there are editors who would suppress obviously true, sourced, and notable information about a significant American cultural phenomenon, because covering the matter would cast a marginal political candidate in a harsh light. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's strange that people would accuse an editor (me) who lives in the Netherlands and cares little for these American political issues and never even heard of Rick Santorum before people started removing stuff on Wiktionary of being a political and social activist just because she happens to be enforcing Wiktionary policy. I think some people are seeing the world a bit too much in black and white. CodeCat (talk) 10:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Santorum's stances are really more pro-biblical-law than anti gay, but one has to modify the assertion that his comments were anti-gay due to his own assertion that they aren't, and the vagueness of definitions, and NPOV if Wictionary has that rule. B^e——C_ritical 20:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Addressing CodeCat's point first, I agree that we shouldn't be questioning each other's political motivations here. That fails to assume good faith, and makes the editing environment more contentious. Everybody comes to Wikipedia from their own personal place, that's fine. The goal is to arrive at a good article, not to all share the same viewpoint. Regarding Becritical's point, regardless of where they come from Santorum's comments are clearly at odds with various rights that are being promoted for gays (marriage, respect for relationships, privacy of sexual relations). Even though I personally find that obvious I don't see anything terribly shocking about them. Scalia said something nearly identical in a Supreme Court dissent and nobody tried to create a crude sexual definition out of his name. Nevertheless, this article doesn't assert that Santorum's remarks are or are not anti-gay, as it's not our place to judge. Rather, it says than a number of people consider them so, including Savage. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Composition by chaos

Latest comment: 12 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

I am inclined to restore the entire lead section to the state of semi-stability that it had attained until on or about 9 Jan 2012 (with the exception of replacing "sexual innuendo" with the generic and interim "sexual act"). There has been no demonstration (IMHO) of a sustainable and consensus-based justification for the wholesale re-composition of this article's lead save for this spate of BRD-based editing that has occurred within the last 2 weeks...with the obvious result of POV perspectives being force-fed into this article's lead despite MONTHS of prior discussion on the lead content and composition. In an article so fraught with the prospect for POV-pushing, an adherence to a legitimate process of suggestion, discussion, credible consensus determination THEN followed by composition MUST be adhered to here. Right now we have composition by chaos. Comments? JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

How is what you describe different from what happens generally on Wikipedia? Sounds like business as usual to me. Anyway it's not clear to me that what existed on 9 Jan had any greater degree of consensus than what exists now. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

"Composition by chaos" is how Wikipedia works, in the absence of any strong objection to changes. Discussion-driven editing should normally only happen when there is a breakdown in consensus, as evidenced by strong objections to the status quo. As far as I can see, the changes (including mine) have been evolutionary and in keeping with NPOV, WP:BLP, and other policy, and the proof of this has been the greatly reduced level of controversy about the lede in recent weeks. Do you have any specific objections to the newer content, or evidence that recent editing does not conform to general WP policy, or specific reasons to prefer the previous content? -- The Anome (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any specific objections to the newer content, or evidence that recent editing does not conform to general WP policy, or specific reasons to prefer the previous content?

Where might one begin. That you apparently see no NPOV issues in using Savage's own perspective to characterize his campaign as nothing more than a benign "memorial" to Santorum's "scandalous" expression of opinion is...well...almost astonishing. But disputing now-existing content (whose stability is insured only as far as the introduction and implementation of the next POV push) misses the entire premise of my comment. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed that: the wording now used is "Dan Savage began a campaign to attach Santorum's name to a sex act which Savage hoped would shock the Senator", which I hope is sufficiently neutrally worded as a summary of the information from its source here -- The Anome (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

That's even worse, since nothing in the source supports the very specific assertion that Savage's (only) intention was to "shock the Senator". AV3000 (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Savage's exact words were "make his big, white teeth fall out of his big, empty head". That means "shock". -- The Anome (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It was in anticipation of this sort of exchange that I inserted the quotation: "memorialize the Santorum scandal", I think it was. Jake-in-Joisy's rendering above is inaccurate in this regard, and I suggest that the quotation be restored. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Partial quote restored. It's clear that the words are Savage's, per NPOV. I don't think we need the "big empty head" stuff: I hope it's clear to the average English speaker (or watcher of the Tom and Jerry cartoons) that "shock" is an accurate summary of those words. -- The Anome (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you can infer a person's intent from their public statement, particularly not if the statement is fanciful. If I said I wanted to create a rubber band ball so big that it would flatten Manhattan, you couldn't say that I was collecting rubber bands as an urban renewal project. In quotes it's okay, but as a weight / editorial matter it may or may not be useful in elucidating the subject. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No, but one could infer that you were stating that you were trying to create a really big rubber ball, regardless of whether your remark about Manhattan was literal or figurative. -- The Anome (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Collaborative editing does not have to be subject to an imposed process. This is working fine. I think that the word "shock" is actually not a characterization of his statement, but just a summary/paraphrase. Thus it's within our editorial prerogative unless someone seriously disputes that it means "shock." B^e——C_ritical 21:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Incipient edit war

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

May I suggest that people stop reverting the addition or deletion of the proposed external link until such time as we've settled the question (or at least until most editors grow tired and walk away)? I'd like to put the damn thing in but when the top five edits all start with Undo... that's starting to get worrisome. Which often quickly escalates to "disruptive." ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 22:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, and tho it takes two to edit war the status quo is that there is no link. Please respect that unless the community decides to the contrary, and remember there is no rush here. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Were there a "levelheadedness" barnstar to be bestowed, I'd be sending it your way. Instant gratification to satisfy a plausible POV-push du jour is hardly the editorial demeanor that reflects well on this project, to say nothing of the composition of this highly contentious subject. RfC process this discussion and be done with it, one way or the other. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, especially keeping in mind that not all admins might be so levelheaded and might regret not having seen an edit-war in progress. Please all, let the discussion run, and perhaps in time ask elsewhere for a neutral editor to come in and sort out the pros and cons to arrive at a decision on the consensus. Franamax (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

On the brighter side, if all that people can find to argue about is the inclusion/non-inclusion of the link, it's a good indication that the rest of the article is now pretty neutral and balanced. -- The Anome (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

...it's a good indication that the rest of the article is now pretty neutral and balanced.

Cough. It may also be a good indication that collective POV persistence can easily overwhelm months of painstaking consensus discussion in a New York minute. The recent assault on this article lead has transformed it into what is, IMHO, a POV travesty. My guess is that the definition itself will soon be headed to higher ground...all in the name of NPOV composition...of course. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I just reread the article from start to finish. It's neutral and entirely devoid of editorializing, although a little heavy on coverage of negative reactions and disapproval of Savage's campaign. It's also rather dry, as if we're trying hard to be dignified about an undignified subject. That makes the tone fuddy, which itself is a POV. De-linking the site would tend to heighten the sense of sanctimony or overcautiousness, like saying a bad word in pig latin in front of the children. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It's neutral and entirely devoid of editorializing...

Double cough. "Santorum scandal"? I'll retire to bedlam. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

extended discussion

Latest comment: 12 years ago31 comments6 people in discussion

Responses and discussion of User:Youreallycan's oppose comment.

Wikipedia links to a lot worse. Sorry to upset your delicate sensibilities but that is the way the world is and Wikipedia reflects it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a non-reason for much at all. Collect (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Not correct. It is relevant to point out that Wikipedia practice is to cover material however offensive to some, and that external links to official sites are no exception. Otherstuff regards using examples of bad content one place to justify bad content in another, which isn't the case here unless one is proposing that all these other subjects should be censored too because they are disagreeable, which appears to be SchmuckyTheCat's argument. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Is is normal then as the supporters of adding the external suggest, that we link to blogger sites created for the purpose of, and only carrying content designed to attack and demean a single living person that is the subject of one of our biographical articles? You really can 17:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
People here don't seem to get that this is not a biography: it's an article about a campaign. That's why we renamed it a while back, instead of deleting it. As such, the central tool of the campaign is extremely notable, and we should link to it. B^e——C_ritical 17:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
WP:BLP applies to this article one hundred percent. We are not obliged to link to such attack locations, especially when the have been created to attack and demean a single living person, and we are not obliged to assist the attack by linking to it. You really can 17:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
No one has explained how the attack is helped by the link... but we have explained how the article is helped. BLP applies to all statements about living people, but we do report on very nasty things. Our report on the Campaign for "santorum" neologism is deeply involved with the site, and we should link to it in a complete article, as we would normally in an article not so politically charged. It's really as simple as that, and linking in no way whatsoever does any harm to Santorum. B^e——C_ritical 18:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- lets be honest here - a link from en Wikipedia and all its mirrors will drive up traffic to the attack site and increases the attack on R Santorum - the site is full of demeaning attack content all specifically created to attack that single living person, the more people that read it, the greater the level of the attack. The simple compromise position is plenty - just add the link for readers to see and search for if they want to, as we have been doing for quite some time.(see - http://www.spreadingsantorum.com) Its not like the link is hard to find, its the first site that comes up if you search for the senators name - but we should not be assisting the increase of traffic to the blogger attack site. You really can 18:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Why should we be in the business of discouraging people from something we write about because we disapprove of it? By that logic we ought to remove the link to Santorum's campaign site as well because that serves to increase his web traffic. We shouldn't be assisting him either, as many Wikipedians find his comments and positions offensive. The question of disparaging one living person versus disparaging several percent of the population is a red herring, if we weighed that one the latter causes far greater harm. Again, we're not in the position of playing favorites. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
This is not the same, and it is absurd to try to make the claim. Arzel (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

R Santorum's website is not a blogger site created to attack and demean a single living person. Within wiki guidelines there is absolutely no comparison between the two. You really can 18:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Far more likely, the people who view the site will despise Savage. This is again why we should not be considering censorship of Wikipedia: we don't know the consequences. B^e——C_ritical 18:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
We are not blind - any Neutral can go there and see the attacking and demeaning content - not censored is not an excuse to link to such externals. You really can 18:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
First of all, don't be so fast to assume that everyone despises or even disagrees with Savage. The campaign works because Savage has supporters, as many people are far more offended by Santorum's substantive civil rights issue than Savage's hostile reaction to it. We don't need an "excuse" to cover a notable subject like that, we simply do. We absolutely can make comparisons between one form of offense and another, that's how to understand censorship and how it's explained all the way from classrooms to the Supreme Court. When you get in the business of forbidding content because it's offensive to you, you have no principled reason to forbid one kind of content rather than another. The "single living person" thing, again, is not a relevant distinction. That's a BLP argument and BLP is a narrow exception to our rule that we cover every topic under the sun. We could make other impertinent distinctions about it being a blog, the purpose being comeuppance and antagonism, it being in the field of politics, or the topic being sex-related, but none of those matter. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

- Many of your comments seem focused on not censored and opinions of the site being opinions - clearly not censored is lately getting close to historic, at least its no longer an excuse to add whatever attack content you can find on the www. As for opinions , any uninvolved neutral would read the site would see its all about attacking R Santorum, much of which is just simple demeaning and attacking content - this man is a (add attack comment here) - not content we have to link to or we are not providing educational information ot our readers. WP:BLP is a good reason not to directly link to a blogger site that has been created specifically and hosts content that specifically attacks and demeans a single living person - your idea that because R Santorum is opposed to same sex marriage that we shouldn't link to his webpage is unsupported completely in wikipedia policy and guidelines. We cover such attacks but we are not obliged to link to them thereby increasing traffic to them and assisting the attack - this is quite a different issue and a specific one as its far from usual. You really can 19:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. There is no support in Wikipedia policy or guidelines for refusing to link to Santorum's site or Savage's. Once we are out of BLP territory, no amount of offense taken at the site content matters, nor does the reason or mode of offense. The argument that we shouldn't let people see something because in so doing they are supporting it is a censorship argument. NOTCENSORED is a fundamental part of WP:NOT policy, a flag often waved where it doesn't belong, but here squarely on point. Santorum disparaged gay rights, then Savage attacked Santorum. That's a fact, they both did it. We cover things that happened, and those things happened. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You are confusing the two. I don't agree with Santorum, but he didn't disparage anyone. He has an opinion about gay rights based off biblical views. Savage doesn't like his opinion so he attacked him. It is one thing to disagree with someone's opinion or belief, it is an entirely different thing to attack a person for having that opinion or belief. Arzel (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Savage didn't attack Santorum for his religious beliefs, he attacked Santorum for advocating anti-gay laws based on those beliefs and for comparing gay sex to bestiality. Plenty of people are far more offended and troubled by Santorum's conduct than Savage's. They are indeed two different things, but not in a relevant way that makes it okay to give people access to one and not the other. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

That is a distinction without a difference, the point is that Savage did not create the site to debate the position of Santorum, rather he simply hates Santorum, and thus attacks him in a juvenile manner. If you seriously believe that more people are offended by Santorum's belief than by Savage's behaviour in response, then you really need to get outside of your sheltered existance. Arzel (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring the ridiculous ad hominem, that's a clearly inaccurate characterization of the site. Savage didn't wake up one day and decide to besmirch a random citizen. He's an activist for gay causes fighting what he (and many others, obviously) see as bigotry. Nobody really knows what anyone is thinking but perhaps this interview will be helpful elucidating Savage's own account of why he did it.[8] - Wikidemon (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Your position of comparing D Savages deliberate attack against a single living person and R Santorum's political position is incomparable. Notcensored is dated and recently extremely weakened - notcensored is not an excuse to add an attack site created with the single purpose and hosting content singularly designed to demean and attack a single living person. There is support in en wikipedia policy and guidelines not to link to such attack sites - clearly BLP encourages us not to and WP:EL is begging for the update - as users finding exceptions see that as a reason to add , but clearly that not the case. You really can 20:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Notcensored has not been weakened, it never was a haven for exempting gratuitous scatology from editorial discretion. Again, no "excuse" is necessary to provide external links to article subjects, we cover them all without prejudice. On the contrary, refusing to point readers to see material for themselves that we write about in an article would be a new rule. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Notcensored has not been weakened (just as an aside), and again, the spreadingsantorum.com site is basic and intrinsic to the subject. Not linking to it is to censor ourselves not because of any BLP concern, but because we don't like the content. If we have this article at all, then we should do it right, without flinching from the content, and that includes having any link which we would otherwise include were this not offensive or politically charged. People wanting to exclude the link would be better off trying to get rid of the article. This is without question the official site of the campaign for the santorum neologism, which overrides other concerns. And all BLP concerns should be directed at the article, not the link. B^e——C_ritical 21:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Not censored is not an excuse to add this attacking and demeaning blogger external that was created for those specific purposes - EL official is not an excuse to include it either. Any neutral would return the position that the blogger site is a simple personal attack against a living person. You claim its normal and usual to link to such blogger sites created for attacking and demeaning purposes but its not is it. BLP and simple cautious - do no harm editorial control reject completely the addition of this external. Your claims that Santorum attacked a group of people so its ok to add that groups attack of him blogger site is just a partisan position that cares less about guidelines and policy. You really can 21:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not using WP:NOTCENSORED. It's not appropriate here, because no one is making an argument to which it applies. Rather, we're arguing by other means. And I say it's normal and usual to link to any site which is central to the subject of any article, no matter the content. And you're getting me mixed up with someone else I think. B^e——C_ritical 22:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not mixing you up with anyone - you are User:Becritical - If as you assert, it is normal to link to blogger sites created for the sole purpose of attacking and demeaning a single living person then please link me to some of them. You really can 23:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

LOL, nobody is acting as if this is a normal circumstance. But two can play at that game: show me an article where the central focus of the article is a campaign or other set of circumstances centered on a single website, where we do not link to that website. B^e——C_ritical 23:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Its not an Internet game becritical - its content about a living person - please don't start all that lol crap. You want to focus on campaign and website, but this is all about a single living person, and that is where policy and my focus is. You really can 23:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the campaign and the individuals and this article are all focused on a single website, which is an attack site on a single living person (they all swirl around this site like a whirlpool around a drain, though there are different aspects). The circumstances focused on that site are what we are writing about, and not giving the link is just WP censoring itself. Don't tell me how to express myself. And answer the question, because it's valid: show me an article where the central focus of the article is a campaign or other set of circumstances centered on a single website, where we do not link to that website. B^e——C_ritical 00:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't give a damn about you and how you express yourself - but here WP:BLP is policy and is the focus. Please attempt to override your POV and stay neutral in regard to this BLP content. Have you got a COI in your edit history that is opposing to the position of this living person? If you have please declare it, thanks - You really can 00:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You can keep saying this is a BLP issue, but it's not. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

A comparable example where we include an WP:ELOFFICIAL that is a self-published blog dedicated to attacking an individual is on Orly Taitz, where we include a link to her official site, which is a self-published blog dedicated to perpetuating Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. As a side note, an WP:ELOFFICIAL is by definition controlled by the article's subject, so it's always going to be self-published in that sense.--Trystan (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thank you, I don't have the general knowledge to come up with that (: B^e——C_ritical 02:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

BLP policy & its bearing on this article's contents

Latest comment: 12 years ago37 comments10 people in discussion

Preemptive apologies for length.

It has been extensively alleged that this article should not contain x (where x = an external link, the property of existing, etc.) because inclusion of x would violate Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons policy. In the interest of resolving these disputes, I've taken the liberty of creating a chart of BLP policies, with shortcuts, and a short statement on the bearing of each policy plank on the article or its (prospective) contents. Many of these policies are also prudent guidelines (or resolvable to other policies) regarding all articles, not just biographies. I will therefore treat many of them as applicable here even though this is not a biographical article, but one about a (meme?) with culture-wide participation.

I strongly urge editors concerned about BLP to try to resolve those concerns here, point-by-point, so that there can no longer be any question of whether this or that violates or would violate the BLP policy. I'm sure we're all, on every possible side, sick and tired of making and hearing the same arguments again and again. So let's resolve it, in full detail. Thank you. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

- BLP states - and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. - We are all well aware that adding external links to en Wikipedia and its many hundreds of mirrors drives up traffic to such externals. Promoting and directing readers to a blogger attack site, created for the purpose of attack, that includes demeaning content, clearly is additionally harmful. You really can 23:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
You seem to be making two points, and I want to leave the BLP one aside. The other point is about a Wikipedia policy that editors should anticipate what third parties will do with Wikipedia content on their own sites, and adapt Wikipedia articles to account for the effects of what unnamed third parties will do. I have never heard of any such thing. Is this what you are suggesting? If not, can you clarify what you mean? Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a rare case - an individual case where editorial control is required - there is not clear cut wiki guideline for such rare cases. We don't need to anticipate, we know, that the linking to an external site from en wikipedia and all its mirror sites, drives up traffic to that site. So, if we add this attack external to the article it will increase traffic to that online attack. We can, and have been, avoiding that simple fact for quite some time with the old consensus - nothing presented here has overridden that long term previous stable position that was driven by WP:DONOHARM You really can 00:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should never be written in such a way as to subject its own content to the whims of the outside world. We are a pure conduit for neutral information, and we do not censor our articles for any reason whatsoever. That goes for BLPs just as much as for the rest of Wikipedia. A full and neutral treatment includes discussion of the website, and normal practice includes any official site related to our article's subject. B^e——C_ritical 02:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

As WP:HARM notes, the principle of doing no harm was explicitly rejected, because it is incompatible with our obligation to maintain a neutral point of view when writing about all subjects, including living people. Specifically, avoiding harm is not a justification to remove relevant negative information about a living person.--Trystan (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You're misreading that: "avoiding harm remains an important consideration within our living persons policy, doing no harm has been found to be incompatible with our obligation to maintain a neutral point of view when writing about all subjects, including living people." Can this harm be avoided without really reducing the WP:DUE content? Do we give the reader the name of the website? That's enough. Providing a link to the site doesn't add a jot to the readers' understanding, it just participates in the prank; something we can't do. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The contention that, by including the link, WP "participates in the prank" is absurd. it is also not our role to protect Santorum from being harmed by Savage's campaign. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies equally to Santorum and Nelson Mandela. It cannot be otherwise. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:ADVOCACY Savage is free to say whatever he wants about Santorum, but neither he nor you are free to use WP to futher his advocacy. Arzel (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

By that reasoning, Wikipedia would have no external links. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

No harmful links. You have a problem with that? Tell me one thing that a hyperlink will add to the readers' understanding. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

What does it add to the reader's understanding? It is a bit of human nature that people want to see for themselves what this is about. That's why we don't censor obviously relevant links. Readers want them; they expect them; they know they exist. We dilute our credibility by stating like some ivory towered elitist that we know better what links they should click.

The other point about harmful is absurdly errant. First, define harmful. I find it hardly likely that a major public figure with a monthly advertising budget of multi-millions of dollars such as Rick Santorum experiences any harm from a URL on a backwater page of Wikipedia. Politics are a rough and tumble field. Campaigns play dirty, very dirty. Even Huntsman had to deal with reprehensible and underhanded rumor mongering about his "black baby" in South Carolina. The presence of a URL on Wikipedia is not "harmful" to major political candidates.

Second, harmful is both a POV and OR. Where do we start defining which harmful links we are going to remove? Which objective criteria do we use? This is original research based not on actual content, but on abstract meta concepts. We aren't going there. Why are we removing harmful links but not advocate links? You want to whitewash this project of criticism but allow advocacy? That is a massive philosophical breach of our core pillar, WP:NPOV.

There may be two dozen people on this talk page. In the past, hundreds of editors have chimed in about attack sites, insult sites, shock sites, racist sites and any other kind of offensive material. Self-censorship, harm, and nebulous BLP rationales have always been dismissed when external links are clearly relevant to the subject matter. It is absurd to think six people on this talk page know policy better than the hundreds that have commented in the past. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

You don't appear to have answered my question. The actual answer is, the hyperlink adds nothing to the readers' understanding, it just saves the reader the trouble of typing the url.

You argue that linking our page to Savage's attack site isn't harmful to Santorum. If it wasn't harmful, Savage wouldn't be maintaining it, and Santorum wouldn't want it off Google's first page.

You argue that assessing harm is POV and OR. I suppose you mean it involves discernment, judgement and common sense.

You ask, which harmful links are we going to remove? Well, links to blatant attack sites is one class. Let's be clear. We're hiding nothing from the reader. We're saying, here's the website. That's our responsibility to the reader fulfilled. We don't hyperlink it. That would be failing in our responsibility to a living subject, and joining in the attack.

Regarding, "Self-censorship, harm, and nebulous BLP rationales have always been dismissed when external links are clearly relevant to the subject matter," harm is real and obvious and something we take very seriously, it's mandatory to consider it in BLP editorial decision-making. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Table of BLP policy sections

Specific BLP policies in relation to article
POLICY	SUMMARY	BEARING ON CURRENT ARTICLE
Tone	"BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone..."	Article shouldn't take glee in campaign nor denigrate it, but simply report on it.
Criticism and praise	...must be well sourced and comply with WP:UNDUE.	Article should dispassionately report on campaign; to the extent this includes disparaging remarks about people, these must be presented neutrally and vetted to ensure they really are notable.
Attack pages	WP articles should not consist of screeds or be dedicated to disparaging people.	Article should fully report on campaign without becoming part of it or part of the backlash against it.
Challenged or likely to be challenged	WP articles must be sourced reliably.	Article shouldn't use bad sources or make unsourced claims.
Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material	Badly or un-sourced material should be removed from WP articles in which it is found.	Article shouldn't use bad sources or make unsourced claims.
Avoid gossip and feedback loops	WP articles shouldn't spread rumors, or use citations to anonymous sources or those that cite WP itself.	Article should not use citations to anonymous sources or discussions of this very article, as sources.
Misuse of primary sources	WP articles should not contain original research or cite records un-vetted by media or other secondary sources.	Article should not use primary sources for information about Rick Santorum or Dan Savage, unless vetted by reliable secondary source.
Avoid self-published sources	WP articles should not cite self-published sources as to information about a living person.	Article should not use spreadingsantorum.com (or other blogs) as information about Rick Santorum, source non-quote statements about campaign to campaign's own website, etc.
Further reading and external links	Articles shouldn't link to self-published sites as if they contributed info or citations to article.	Question is whether link to spreadingsantorum.com would fall under WP:BLPSPS (as info self-published by Dan Savage or other campaigners about Rick Santorum, who is not the subject of this article) or WP:ELOFFICIAL (as the official website of the campaign for santorum neologism).
Avoid victimization	Articles shouldn't pile on every bad thing that happened to a person, nor harp needlessly on a few.	Article should not be a litany of every single time someone participated in campaign; rather should summarize and give some examples.
Public figures	"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..."	Article should not be deleted or pared down simply because Rick Santorum (or Dan Savage) do not like coverage, or do not like our coverage. Info that is well-sourced and relevant belongs.
Privacy of personal information and using primary sources	Articles should not publish personal data about people.	If campaign ever outs Rick Santorum's date of birth, etc., we should only report the outing, not what the data are.
People who are relatively unknown	Articles should stick to covering people who are actually notable.	Article should not report on every person who participates in campaign, only those who are also otherwise notable.
Subjects notable only for one event	Articles should stick to covering people who are actually notable.	Article should not report on every person who participates in campaign, only those who are also otherwise notable.
Crime perpetrators	Articles should not make suggestions, subtle or overt, that people are guilty or suspected of crimes unless and until facts (convictions, indictments, investigations, etc.) are actually reported in reliable sources.	Article should not insinuate that Rick Santorum or Dan Savage are guilty of crimes or other unsavory behavior.
Privacy of names	"Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it..."	Article should not report on every person who participates in campaign, only those who are also otherwise notable.

Policies end here. Below this point on the BLP page, other questions are discussed (maintenance, not applicable to deceased people, relationship between subject/article/Wikipedia, etc.). ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This is such bloated nonsense its impossible to reply. You really can 23:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Come on Youreallycan, don't get confrontational. It seems to me he put it in the simplest possible format, and it's very understandable, and it does require discussion. B^e——C_ritical 23:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Zenswashbuckler, thank you for this straightforward, diligent and very helpful contribution. Writegeist (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Application of specific BLP policies to this article

I suggest discussion of each policy (and how this article allegedly violates / would allegedly violate it) in its particular section. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Tone

Done, even overdone. It is abundantly clear to any reader that Wikipedia does not approve of the campaign, much less desire to participate in it. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Criticism and praise

Done. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Attack pages

Done. A well-sourced description of an attack does not equal an attack. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Challenged or likely to be challenged

Done. The threshold for inclusion of material in this article is very high due to its very contentiousness. Only the strong survive. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material

Done. See above. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Avoid gossip and feedback loops

Done. There was some concern about this page's placement in search engine results for santorum, but AFAIK this has been assuaged by the fact that we have a strongly neutral article that can't be confused with participatory involvement. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Misuse of primary sources

Done. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Avoid self-published sources

Done. No such sources are used anywhere; the only possible question is one of linking to the official site (see below). ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Avoid victimization

Done. Article scrupulously avoids making more hay than was already there. Well-documented facts are reported, nothing more. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Public figures

Done. Rick Santorum is a public figure, as to some extent is Dan Savage. Contentious information is exhaustively sourced. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

added details of "to rick" not proper IMO

Latest comment: 12 years ago30 comments11 people in discussion

I find no conceivable value to that editorial insertion, no consensus to permits such an insertion, and it again is a gratuitois insertion promoted by Savage, and not of any calue in any BLP-related article (which this has been found to be_. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It's clearly pertinent to the topic of the article, and the consensus on this page is running against the BLP argument. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the subject of the small-s "santorum" campaign. We're not writing an article on Dan Savage's overall anti-Rick Santorum agenda. Tarc (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not at all gratuitous, since it's clearly linked to, and a continuation of, the santorum campaign. (I find it clever how rick, though fairly tame by itself, makes "rick santorum" so much filthier.) And there's no consensus to permit this removal of relevant information. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It's also not "trivial" or "inconsequential". It received significant coverage in independent sources and is an obvious continuation of Savage's campaign, and thus an integral element of the subject of this article. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete relevant material. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Being reported doesn't make it consequential. Consequences make it consequential. When you've sourced some significant real impact, then it may be considered for inclusion. At the moment, it is too much like us just being a mirror for Savage's thought bubbles. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course it had consequences. It brought new attention to Savage's camapign. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Savage's campaign to make a derogatory eponym from Rick Santorum's name has been consequential. That Savage redefined both his first and last names is a detail that merits inclusion, even if rick never catches on like santorum has. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 14:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Get overyourself. Savage did nothing regarding Santorum's first name, other than to get a bunch of his followers in a tizzy. Arzel (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you please not use that kind of language here. It's not acceptable. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the subject of the small-s "santorum" campaign.

Self-evident and decisive. Fully concur.

We're not writing an article on Dan Savage's overall anti-Rick Santorum agenda.

Perhaps we should be. How's Dan Savage's political attack on Rick Santorum grab you? JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Jake, that grabs me as a bad idea for a move. It may be "self-evident and decisive" to you that rick and santorum are completely unrelated, but I and others completely disagree. In fact I would say they are intimately related, stemming from the same source (Savage) and consisting of exactly the same thing (an attempt to redefine Rick Santorum's name as something disgusting and associated with gay sex). I don't know that rick actually warrants inclusion anywhere, since it doesn't appear to be catching on as santorum may be and isn't the subject of a sustained (campaign, meme, widespread-practice-of-linking-by-totally-unrelated-people, what have you) as santorum is. But what's notable here is not that Dan Savage has made a political attack against Rick Santorum (plenty of more notable people than Savage have done that); what is notable is the nature of the attack and its persistent success in spite of both presumed search engine neutrality, and moral opprobrium from many directions. I don't know if we want to have yet another move ~~war~~ discussion. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 15:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It may be "self-evident and decisive" to you that rick and santorum are completely unrelated...

That is not my position. Please don't overstate it. My position is that Savage's attempted escalation of his "political attack" is unrelated to the specific subject this article title suggests. Now, if you wish to broaden the scope of this article to encompass any related development in Savage's "political attack" against Santorum (current and, perhaps, future), be my guest...but at least have the ethical decency to appropriately title this article to reflect what it currently masques. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:BRD would suggest that material boldly added to the article and then quickly reverted is not re-added until a discussion reaches a consensus to do so.

As for whether this should be added, how much coverage did it receive in reliable secondary sources? That, rather than our personal opinions of its consequence, would show if it is warranted.--Trystan (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

This situation is the inverse. Would WP:BRD also suggest that existing material boldly deleted from the article, then quickly reverted, is not re-deleted until a discussion reaches a consensus to do so? ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Mate, BRD just doesn't matter. It's an essay isn't it? WP:BLP is policy. You want to include that one person opined that we should all use another person's name as an obscene imperative. Nothing happened, except a smattering of press coverage. People say cruel and (in this case very) funny things about other people all the time. We're not Savage's mouthpiece.

If something comes of it; if there are significant consequences, this is the article for it. But not yet. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I included nothing about using Rick Santorum's name as a sentence. Perhaps you should argue with content I did include, rather than content I didn't. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 06:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

So, you added the "to rick" content. I didn't know. None of this is black and white, of course. It is inconsequential. But very clever. So it's tempting to include just as an example of Savage's satirical genius. But since there's been no real consequences for Santorum or his campaign, including it here looks to me scarily like helping Savage push the verb without decent encyclopedic justification. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Who, me? No, when I started editing this article two weeks ago, that “to rick” paragraph was already here. I appended a clause “meaning "to remove something with your tongue"”. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Your addition turned "rick santorum" into a sentence. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

There was no addition. The content has been there for six months, and does not explicitly discuss the use of the two together as a sentence. The content (in the stable version of the article) is there not because it's clever but because it received significant coverage in major sources in connection with the overall campaign, in other words it's noteworthy and relevant. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Robin added "meaning 'to remove something with your tongue'" so, yes, there was an addition, a clause, and it gives the reader Savage's sentence. Well, you've got some reliable sources for it, that verifies it. It doesn't make it worthy of note though. "And then Savage said" without any significant consequences, isn't noteworthy, reporting it is just being Savage's mouthpiece. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

My mistake; I misread the edit history and thought this material had just been added. BRD would favour its retention if the argument against inclusion is based on relevance, though as noted above a BLP concern would justify its removal. Though I don't see how this specific section, properly sourced to significant coverage, could violate BLP.--Trystan (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

This thread is absurd. The material is clearly relevant to the subject, covered by reliable sources (if the New York Magazine cite isn't enough, it's also covered by MSN and Fox News), and is in the article by consensus. In any other article, a later incident arising from the subject covered, involving the same participants, would be mentioned for context. The tenuous logic claiming lack of relevance to the subject, or a BLP issue, strain credulity. For one editor to bring this up is an innocent enough outlier opinion. But when the same cadre of editors who is opposing the external link and crying BLP rallies behind deleting a paragraph that has been in the article since last August[9] and is willing to incite a group edit war to remove it, this seems to be more a matter of escalation and forming sides than a serious attempt to collaborate on an article. Under the circumstances I think discussion has broken down. The article ought to be protected in whatever version it's in without prejudice to restoring a stable version later, and editors should just go home and take this up another day after they've cooled down and resolved not to edit war or operate without consensus. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm with JakeinJoisey here: the "rick" part (if it's sourced I haven't checked) is very relevant, but suggests a rename. I suggest Dan Savage campaign to redefine "Rick Santorum" Barring that, however, the information is fully relevant in this article. I object to the removal of longstanding consensus information per WP:EDITWAR. WP:EDITWAR is an essay, not policy. heh. We are heading to ArbCom very fast here. B^e——C_ritical 18:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's related to the subject and you've got some reliable sources; that doesn't make it DUE, though. It would be DUE if it had had some observable impact on Santorum; if it was being commented on in slang dictionaries. Something like that. Real world impact. Prove it's due. You have to make that case, otherwise, it fails BLP ~~and HARM~~. So, before dragging the community through that pile, I'd like to hear your case for DUE, just to be sure you can articulate a sound argument, and you're not going to waste everybody's time. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no WP:HARM, "This principle was ultimately rejected". I don't know whether it's DUE. B^e——C_ritical 20:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

...DUE, on the other hand (as opposed to relevance), is a pertinent argument. Normally, 3+ major media articles entirely about an event that mention it in connection with the subject of the article would establish weight, but perhaps this subject is so notable that we have a higher threshold. I also note that some people were unaware that the status quo included the paragraph, it was not a recent event or addition. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's not practice revisionist edit history here, one way or the other. I was involved in the previous relatively short tussle over this addition. Most everyone moved on with the addition of the content minus the actual definition BUT...like everything else associated with this article, the pro-Savage POV pushing is incessant in disregarding, save for token concessions, fundamental NPOV editing principles. The current lead composition, as compared to what existed 3+ weeks ago, is a POV abomination...and it will get worse until the editorial community gets off their collective duff and does something about it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't privy to any negotiated truce on the matter, but I suppose I could pore through the edit history again if I had to. I do observe that from last August through the present there has been a paragraph about Savage's going at it again in 2011 with Santorum's first name, and that a few days ago in the midst of the renewed debate over the link an edit war arose to remove the entire paragraph. I'd be careful about labeling a group of editors as partisans, as that's an accusation of bad faith, discourages consensus, and in any event is probably not correct. We're all free to have consistent positions on policies, some people have expansive views of BLP and feel that trumps inclusive encyclopedic coverage. Others, like me, consistently take the inclusionist position that we should unflinchingly cover all subjects, whether dignified or otherwise. That doesn't necessarily cut across lines of American party politics or gay rights. Tarc, for example, has been accused elsewhere by some as taking pro-liberal positions, but here he is solidly on the side of not besmirching an outspoken conservative. I don't know the other editors as well, but I'd hazard a guess that some of the inclusionist editors here would say the same if the target were a liberal. You'd have to, if you want to be principled about it. You can remind me of that if I ever advocate against content reflecting a public attack on a liberal politician. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Scholarly treatment

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Has this campaign been subjected to scholarly analysis yet? Sorry, I can't be bothered going through the archives. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it has. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I've read that. I mean something peer reviewed. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course. Can you be bothered to use Google Scholar? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That rings a bell. I notice we're not citing it. I'm quite capable of dredging up random citations from google. I was wondering if the editors here are aware of anything worth reading on the issue in the academic press. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomo, that article, “ShitText: Toward a New Coprophilic Style”, only mentions santorum in a single sentence in an endnote. Aside from saying Dan Savage coined the term “in honor of Senator Rick Santorum”, there’s nothing related to the campaign. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

So what now re the link?

Latest comment: 12 years ago33 comments12 people in discussion

There is a consensus for including the link. But including it would lead to an edit war. So what are the next steps people want to take here? B^e——C_ritical 18:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

As previously suggested, an RfC, first composed to the satisfaction of both positions before presentation, is the reasonable and logical approach. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

What's the mystery? The question is whether to include the link or not. It's not as if we're trying to compose text here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Jake: What would an RfC offer? In point of fact, we just went through an RfC on this. Just because it wasn't quite formatted that way doesn't mean we didn't do it. We did all the things that RfCs do. B^e——C_ritical 19:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

What would an RfC offer?...We did all the things that RfCs do.

Community wide participation in an atmosphere not quite so laden with POV-pushing. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but really, can we PLEASE find some way to speed things up? I don't want to have to wait 30 days on these simple matters. How about 3 or 4 days max? Also, let's do as you say and agree on the wording and summary information before posting it as an RfC. B^e——C_ritical 19:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomo and Jake are right but, as with the verb, can you explain how the link isn't a violation of WP:BLP, "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment"? and WP:HARM, "avoiding harm remains an important consideration within our living persons policy." You can justify harm to a living person if the content meets DUE. But, as a hyperlink teaches the reader nothing that the url doesn't, how do you justify the obvious harm that a hyperlink will do to the subject? If you can't do that, you've nothing to take to an RfC. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, the URL without the hyperlink was offered as a compromise, and rejected. Hey, even mention that there exists a website was rejected [10]. The current consensus is for the full hyperlink. I guess the question is whether the reader should be able to easily find the site, that is should we have it in an external links section. To further address your question, no one has explained how there would actually be any further harm to Santorum from our linking to the site. And if there would be, whether that harm, per the actual phrasing of BLP, is as it were "undue," whether that consideration is overridden by the consideration that Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should not be censored based on what might or might not be harmful and what external sites do. Censorship doesn't pass the snicker test to me: I don't actually think we're doing Santorum a whit more harm. And we routinely link to WP:ELOFFICIAL sites which do much more or similar possible harm, as noted above. So I simply disagree that there is any obvious further harm. B^e——C_ritical 20:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

What? The article presently says "Savage set up a website, spreadingsantorum.com ..." You have been told, somewhere in that wall above, that, obviously, Wikipedia hyperlinking to a SEOd attack site will compound the harm to the victim. If all you've got is "What harm?" you haven't a hope. You're wasting everybody's time. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The alleged harm isn't at all obvious. You can say we've been told it's harmful, but that remains to be seen. The website in question receives tons of inbound links from the main search engines, other people's web pages, and even some news sources (the Seattle Times, the International Business Times, and Mother Jones at a quick glance). The impulse that says "leave it out" is based on two unproved premises: first, that absent our linking it, the site and its search engine placement will go away (that's clearly not happening); second, that our linking the page participates in the attack (which, due to WP's use of NOFOLLOW tags, is flat-out wrong). Thus, concerns about "harm," while admirable, are nonetheless misplaced. WP's external linking policy is designed to aid readers in finding further information about their topics of research, and is followed even in cases such as Orly Taitz, where WP links to an external site devoted to attacking a living person, on WP:ELOFFICIAL grounds. Failure to treat this page similarly is a violation of NPOV. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 20:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That's very interesting. I'm going to sleep on this. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

No follow is only on this site , the hundreds of mirrors are not obliged to and many don't use No follow. If that orly tatz site (which is nowhere near as bad at the Savage blogger site which has a lot of user generated content ) is the only one you have managed to find then linking to such attacking sites is hardly common practice is it. You really can 21:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Since when do we set our editing policies and content on what mirror sites do? That is out of our control and is neither here nor there. He iro 21:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

When the link has been created specifically to do harm by google bombing, demeaning and attacking content in regard to a living subject of one of our articles. You really can 21:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Totally irrelevant. We are not in the least bit responsible for what mirror sites do or don't do, and their actions have zero bearing on WP editing decisions. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Its not totally irrelevant at all. BLP encourages us to carefully consider such situations. You really can 22:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Youreallycan. Not follow makes it (far) less harmful, but not harmless, and since the hyperlink adds nothing to the readers' understanding, including it would be gratuitous abetting of a personal attack, which violates BLP. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

@YRC: On the contrary. Quick investigation shows quite a number of official sites are linked from pages under "Individuals" and "Media" on Template:White nationalism. And if that standard of harm isn't sufficient to forbid external linking, I don't see how this possibly can be. As far as other sites devoted to attacking specific individuals go, their subjects frankly tend not to be notable, and thus don't have WP articles in the first place. I'm sure someone who's more of a news junkie than I am would be able to come up with some example besides this and Taitz. The fact that these cases are rare argues in favor of treating them the same as their closest relatives. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 21:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Such situations are not only rare - you have as yet not presented one that is similar imo - that orly tatz one is minor compared to this. You really can 22:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

(EC)That's funny, I don't remember reading anywhere in the extensive discussion above saying that that is why it should be added. We can not control what mirror sites do and we shouldn't base our decisions here on how they choose to run their websites. As stated above by another user "WP's external linking policy is designed to aid readers in finding further information about their topics of research", linking to the site does this. As soon as it is enshrined in our policies "Thou shalt take into account what everyone else on the internet does before making decisions" then we can begin taking mirror sites into the equation here.He iro 21:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Its not funny at all. BLP already encourages us to avoid harm, and err on the side of caution in regards to any additions that relate to living people. We already have a long term satisfactory compromise to this issue and users demanding to add this attacking and demeaning external should take it on-board as a satisfactory NPOV position. You really can 22:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

As I see it, the two choices are: (1) wait for at least a few more days to see how the straw poll discussion goes, and then try to assess consensus internally or by inviting an uninvolved admin, or (2) certify the existing discussion as an RfC or clone / compose a new one, and start over... on the usual 30-day clock. The original question / argument list in the straw poll, and the BLP issue chart, are neutrally presented, thorough, and do not favor either position in the debate, so someone could cut and paste those. One thing we shouldn't do is to have already-involved parties modify the article based on their personal judgment about who has consensus - that's lead to a few edit wars already. It seems like a relatively minor issue for an RfC, but perhaps that means we can decide it with goodwill and cooperation all around. If we haven't resolved the "rick" verb thing by then I would add that as a secondary question in the RFC. Meanwhile, cup of tea. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a discussion of this issue in sections above. I have no objection to asking an uninvolved admin to make a judgment as to consensus apparent there; we can even wait a couple of days (though I doubt that there will be more activity there). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't say things better than ☯.ZenSwashbuckler did above, but that position has my support. I can only reiterate that basing Wikipedia content on what outside forces do is to set a precedent which will destroy the encyclopedia. And if Youreallycan is right, I have a lot of biographies of dead people who have living relatives who might be harmed by the things we say, so they need to be cleansed. Not to mention all the harm the Vagina article has done to young minds. Notice I didn't link that. As SchmuckyTheCat said, the judgment of "harmful is both a POV and OR. Where do we start defining which harmful links we are going to remove? Which objective criteria do we use? This is original research based not on actual content, but on abstract meta concepts. We aren't going there. Why are we removing harmful links but not advocate links? You want to whitewash this project of criticism but allow advocacy? That is a massive philosophical breach of our core pillar, WP:NPOV. There may be two dozen people on this talk page. In the past, hundreds of editors have chimed in about attack sites, insult sites, shock sites, racist sites and any other kind of offensive material. Self-censorship, harm, and nebulous BLP rationales have always been dismissed when external links are clearly relevant to the subject matter. It is absurd to think six people on this talk page know policy better than the hundreds that have commented in the past." B^e——C_ritical 00:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Opinionated scaremongering alert - " basing Wikipedia content on what outside forces do is to set a precedent which will destroy the encyclopedia." - oh my god, not adding this external blogger attack site will destroy wikipedia - You really can 01:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Resorting to a sarcastic straw man argument is the final nail in the coffin of your position's credibility. Consensus should now reflect that position's demise, and the link should be re-added to the page. As I am heavily involved in this thread, I should not be the one to request this. But uninvolved editors should no longer be under any doubt as to the suitability of the edit. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 01:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I have not even started yet - the biased desire to add this attack external from POV users against careful consideration of policy and guidelines disgusts me, and their, and your, desperate desire to add it, has sadly resulted in the full protection of the article. You really can 01:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Speaking just from a general administrative/editorial standpoint, I read BLP as urging me to "first, do no harm". I don't read it as prohibiting me from considering the possible harm done by "external forces", in this case, the massive impact of en:wiki including a link, which yes, will be mirrored widely. Note that vagina is not a living person. On another note, WP:BRDP (recently-dead people) should also exist, as the possibility of equal harm exists in linking www.ImGladJohnSmithIsDead.com, only the harm is to the surviving relations in that case. Franamax (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. It's OK to use Wikipedia to harm people if you want, but we have to insist you justify it by showing what didactic or other good it will do. Obvious harm has been demonstrated. Now you must demonstrate the obvious good that justifies this harm. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

(od) I do not see the consensus, and would note that the claim of a consensus is not founded in what is meant at WP:CONSENSUS in any way. Cheers - but use of the link does not have any proper editorial consensus here. Collect (talk) 01:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The weight of considered opinion is clearly in favor of including the link. If consensus means anything beyond filibustering or declaring one's own argument best because one has made it, consensus here favors inclusion. However, only 18 people have weighed in and the discussion is fairly new. So no harm in waiting. The notion that we are harming the opinionated senator Santorum by covering the consequences of senator Santorum's opinions is preposterous on its face and hardly worth the time to consider. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus, however I do see people often confuse voting with consensus. Arzel (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The weight of considered opinion is clear, as are attempts to hold out. There's no confusion, the situation is pretty obvious. My point is that we should wait a while longer to see if others care to comment, and perhaps go to an RfC, before going to the next step of having a neutral party evaluate this. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Page protection.

Latest comment: 12 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion

In order to stop the recent edit-warring that has persisted for a number of days, I have full protected the article. I have not set an expiry for the protection. When a consensus on the matter of the disputed external link has been achieved, unprotection should be requested either at my talk page or at WP:RFUP.

Additionally, it would be helpful if the editor requesting unprotection could remind the unprotecting administrator to restore the prior protection settings. CIreland (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, were you looking for "a consensus on the matter of the disputed external link has been achieved"? It is right here though enough walls of text are on the page I can see how it would be missed. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

There has been a call for an RfC and someone seconded the call. Either a rationale for not starting the RfC should be given or someone should start one. I started the straw poll and I am not starting the RfC. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrt, don't waste everybody's time: to justify the hyperlink to the wider community, not just some editors who cluster around here, you'll need to demonstrate some significant good it does that would justify the harm, per BLP, or demonstrate that it does no harm. "Not follow" was offered as proof of the latter, but that was rebutted with "mirrors". Before dragging the community through this, can you please plausibly explain how some benefit outweighs the obvious harm? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

And "mirrors" was rebutted with "not our problem". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

If something you do predictably causes a cascade of events that necessarily results in harm, with no compensatory benefit, it's your problem. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You think the harm is "obvious" -- but could you perhaps spell it out? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Trystan spells it out nicely here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Is that it? Key point: "the consequence of including the link is to greatly increase both traffic to the site and its search ranking". If we're concerned about the LP Rick Santorum, we might want to have a better sense of consequences for him. I genuinely don't think anyone has succeeded in being specific about this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about "greatly" but it would scoot more of our readers over to the attack site (the point of hyperlinking), which is bad for the victim of the attack site, and it may, through mirrors, enhance the site's SEO, which would be contributing to the victimization, and the whole thing not only makes us a player but ~~obviously~~ apparently partisan. All harmful, to Santorum and the project. Now, what's the overriding good that necessitates this harm? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You can't come up with anything, can you? "bad for the victim" -- how, exactly? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

We also, in your words, scoot more of our readers over to Orly Taitz's attack site. We do this not because we are "obviously partisan", but because we are nonpartisan. And though mirror sites may hypothetically (though no evidence has been offered) be enhancing Orly Taitz's SEO, we bear no responsiblity to fix their sites, they do. Take it up with non-nofollow-using mirrors, if you can find any. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 06:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Those are reasonable questions. "Bad for the victim" is obviously the case, as it would increase the hits on a page that insults and mocks the victim. But I'm now asking myself "So what? It's not like Savage is making libelous statements. It's political satire. And the site pretty mush is the topic of the article."

So that leaves me with "participating in the campaign" and "appearance of partisanship." You're right, Robin, linking is not necessarily partisan, but it could give the appearance of us being partisan. Does this matter enough to justify removal of the link? Probably not.

So, "participating in the campaign." Does doing what we'd usually do - link to the site that is essentially the topic of an article - constitute taking a political stance? You probably see where this is heading but, since changing my mind is a bit like tearing off an arm for me, I'm going to meditate on this for a bit longer. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm now persuaded that we should include the hyperlink to spreadingsantorum.com in the external links section. I still oppose inclusion of the verb "to rick" because it would mean including just another nasty thing that Savage said about Santorum that had no real world consequences, and our inclusion would be gratuitous boosting of Savage's anti-Santorum campaign. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Very few people have what it takes to change their mind on any issue in public. When I see it I'm like "wow, too bad I don't know this person in RL." B^e——C_ritical 04:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC Proposal - Link or Not Link

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Editors are invited to suggest, as briefly and succinctly as possible, pro/con discussion points for community consideration in the formulation of a consensus acceptable RfC. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Why? We just had a srtraw poll, and consensus is clear. An RfC is unnecessary and disruptive. If you disagree, too bad, or take it to arbcom. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

A 2:1 split between increasingly entrenched positions is not what I would consider consensus, let alone clear consensus. Unless we can agree on the status quo (unlinked URL in article's body), or the unlinked URL in the External Links section compromise put forth below, I think a RFC might help provide some long-term stability to the issue.

I would suggest the following. Edits are welcome, particularly to the con side, which is not my own opinion.

Should Campaign for "santorum" neologism include an external link to spreadingsantorum.com? The unlinked text of the URL is included in the body of the article, but not in the External Links section.

Argument for inclusion: The site is the official site of the subject of the article (the campaign) and is discussed in the text as central to the article's subject. A reader of the article is likely to seek out the site as a further method of inquiry, which is the purpose of including an external link. While WP:BLP applies, it is not a justification for removing or curtailing coverage of well-sourced, notable, neutrally-presented criticism of a public figure. Our obligation to consider harm extends only to making sure the article is fair and neutral, not to abandon WP:NPOV by adopting Santorum's interests as our own. Our personal opinion of the campaign is not relevant; we provide external links to many other sites that we would never "promote" and are deeply offensive to many, including ones which feature personal attacks. Our NOFOLLOW tags in outgoing links mean our inclusion will not affect page ranking, and what other sites that mirror our content choose to do is not within our control.

Argument against inclusion: WP:BLP requires us to consider the harm done to living persons by the content of Wikipedia. In this case, providing a link is inherently non-neutral because it involves participation in a campaign to attack an individual. We are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of our actions, and the consequence of including the link is to greatly increase both traffic to the site and its search ranking, because we know our mirrors do not necessarily use NOFOLLOW. We can not claim neutrality while deliberately abetting Savage's personal campaign against Santorum. In comparison to this significant harm, including the link would result in only trivial benefit to the article at best. A reader interested in visiting the site is easily capable of copying the URL or searching for it in Google. The site itself is merely vulgar insult and personal opinion, and therefore not an important information resource. It is its existence, rather than its content, that is important to the article.

--Trystan (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll second the placement of this RfC with the language you've carefully crafted with the full expectation that, once placed, there may be a sudden rash of suggested RfC language amendments. There should be a small window of opportunity to do so and any suggested amendments could be submitted and considered in a "Meta Comments" section created in tandem with RfC placement. Do it...with solicitation of a "For" or "Against" response. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It's very well put. I do suggest that the table above with pro and con arguments, should be part of any new RfC. And may I put in a plea here for this RfC to be for a shorter time than usual? B^e——C_ritical 00:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I do suggest that the table above with pro and con arguments, should be part of any new RfC.

Inclusion of that table in the RfC language would, IMHO, frighten away 99% of the entire Wikipedia editor population. The suggested text is relatively concise and adequately reflects the issues in contention.

And may I put in a plea here for this RfC to be for a shorter time than usual?

An early RfC closure consideration can easily be made by the placing editor (who, IMHO, should be Trystan) if there appears to be an obvious consensus developing for either position. 30 days is not etched in granite.

I would also STRONGLY recommend against designating separate "for" and "against" sections so as to preclude any suggestion of response sequence bias. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, if they can't absorb the contents of that table, we are just doing another straw poll, not an RfC. The reason for the table is so they won't have to read the discussion. If you think that they can't even read the table, why would we do the RfC at all? No, if editors can't deal with the arguments, they best not participate. Driving away those who are merely evoting is a good thing. B^e——C_ritical 01:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I intend to give everyone who voted in the straw poll, without exception, a heads-up on the RfC. Tell me any objections now. B^e——C_ritical 01:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

One more try

Latest comment: 12 years ago86 comments17 people in discussion

After all this discussion, does anyone want to reconsider the compromise of a non-linked url like www.spreadingsantorum.com (website for Savage's campaign) in an external links section? It would save us a lot of trouble. B^e——C_ritical 03:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The incorporation of a non-hyperlinked URL in the article main body, if my memory serves me correctly, appeared to be at least an interim compromise resolution that had, also if I recall correctly, some relative stability. Whether that non-hyperlink survived until this most recent resurrection of the hyperlinking issue (and I've no interest in researching it further) is unknown to me. That being said, I've no personal problem with a non-hyperlinked url residing in the main body and no interest at all in seeing it further touted as an "external link"...which, I believe, would be contrary to "external link" MOS anyway. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying that you would not consider the compromise of having it in an External links section? Sorry, that's what you seem to be saying, just making sure. B^e——C_ritical 04:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying that you would not consider the compromise of having it in an External links section?

Yup. What I'm saying is that incorporation as an unlinked url in the text of the article main body (which is, I believe, the WP MOS preference for content anyway) appeared to enjoy a period of stability which, I'd suggest, implied at least a tenuous consensus. I'd have no objection to restoration of a non-hyperlinked url in the main body text. That clear enuf? JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

That's great, thanks (: B^e——C_ritical 04:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, that's great :) The unlinked url is still in the section #Campaign by Dan Savage: "Savage set up a website, spreadingsantorum.com, to spread awareness of the term..." It informs the reader without participating in the campaign. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see something like the following inserted into an external links section: "There is a website which exists for this campaign" or since it is already in the article text "There is a website called 'Spreading Santorum' which exists for this campaign." If there are arguments against doing either of these then I am open for more discussion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 05:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

That section is for links. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd be willing to accept that compromise if it gains support, but it seems way to strained to me. B^e——C_ritical 05:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I would call it limp rather than strained. I do not support it so much as I think it is minimally useful and I doubt anyone would oppose it. It seems like a compromise worth proposing because even if no one likes it I think it might be possible to get consensus that it is better than nothing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 06:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

There already is a consensus to include a link. There is no reason to settle for a limp compromise because of a filibustering minority. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

You do not understand the meaning of consensus. Arzel (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Consensus always means 100% approval. If one person disagrees there is no consensus. There is no consensus to include the link. There may be consensus for a compromise which is not well-liked but not opposed at all. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS absolutley does NOT require 100% approval. Of course consensus is not based on "votes" but when numbers are considered, 66% would be overwhelming consensus in an argument for deletion. It'd be on the low end of approval for a new admin. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

You are right that consensus does not require 100% approval, but you are no closer to understanding what consensus is. 66% is clearly not overwhelming, and does not even fit with the word consensus. Consensus is a general agreement among a group. I would say there is consensus that the website is integral to promoting the smear campaign, and if 90% or more were in agreement you could say that the overwhelming majority have the consensus that X. None of this matter, because this isn't even a consensus issue, it is a BLP issue and consensus cannot trump BLP. Arzel (talk) 05:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You "doubt anyone would oppose it?" It got reverted with an edit summary specifically saying it wasn't an acceptable compromise [11]. And consensus on Wikipedia does not mean full support. If you think that maybe for this discussion you should go read the policy page. B^e——C_ritical 17:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a suggestion ot help us move forward - Would an experienced admins assessment of the current talkpage discussion help, as a way of guidance in policy considerations and weight of the current consensus in regards to policy? I imagine users would chose different admins, different admins to do something like that. One I would suggest for such would be User:Sandstein. We could even go further and all agree to accept his judgement. You really can 18:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

That, or an RfC, would be fine. Another option is to make an open request for assistance on AN (heaven help us, not AN/I), and see who shows up. We do have to consider what would happen if things are declared one way or the other. Would the outcome stick and be respected? - Wikidemon (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I too think that an open request on AN for an univolved volunteer would be the best option. I don't see any point in an RfC, unless the administrator decides it's needed. I also don't see any point in waiting much longer. Everything that can be said has already been said, and we're just going around in circles now. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not trust a single user to decide this. All the way from Jimbo to, I think, members of the ArbCom, people have shown themselves to be incapable of keeping their own POV out of this subject. Perhaps 4 admins, 2 picked by each side of this, but who don't have any obvious POV. B^e——C_ritical 18:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of asking for three uninvolved volunteers, but thought that was too much to ask for. I don't like the idea of us picking the administrators ourselves. We could request politically neutral, non-US administrators. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, non-US, that's a good idea. Particularly European, as they would be less likely to be personally shocked. We don't want people who are deeply religious or something. B^e——C_ritical 19:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Or deeply anti-religious, for that matter. I think that should be specified in the request. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

They can't be gay either, or straight for that matter. We must find four well-respected bisexual administrators~ - Wikidemon (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

...who don't use lube. Point taken. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

So lets just ask User:Sandstein for a non binding assessment of the discussion on the talkpage so far, a NPOV administrators interpretation. You really can 23:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I think a open request would be a better idea. No offense to Sandstein; I don't know them from Adam. Or to you; I'm sure you've suggested them because you think they're impartial. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't support an open request. I think we should choose one - we have many admins all good at what they do, but we have a few who are well considered in NPOV closures and in interpretation of policy - imo Santstein is one of them. Does anyone have another suggested admin? The fact that their comments will be more for non binding guidance than closure allows us plenty of room for more discussion after. You really can 23:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't know Sandstein from Adam, but perhaps there are some among the "include" crowd that do, and also trust their judgement. As for a non-binding opinion, I don't think much of that. It would be basically just another non-adminsitrative opinion in the discussion, and one that was essentially canvassed. If, God forbid, it turns out that Sandstein is not impartial, one way or the other, the results could be quite nasty. And even if he is truly impartial, there may be participants in this discussion who still think otherwise and make a stink. Too big a risk for a non-binding opinion, which isn't what we're looking for anyway. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

If we are concerned about our ability to get an objective decision on this particular contentious fact set, perhaps it would be constructive to instead seek to plug the gap in policy/guidelines that it highlights. If we were to propose something like "Should 'sites that attack living persons' be added to WP:ELNEVER?", it might be easier to build a consensus on the issue in the abstract and then apply it to the facts.--Trystan (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think a policy clarification would be a good thing. It's such a rare situation - its almost completely unknown in the millions of wikipedia articles that sites are created only to attack a living person and that editors want to add it. You really can 00:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think that a blanket statement like that would ever be accepted, due to the fact that any site that voices any criticism whatsoever of a living person could be described as an "attack" site. Even if it were to be accepted, there would be lots of bickering over what sites qualify as "attack" sites, and what sites don't. For example, Santorum's own official site would qualify as an "attack" site, since he attacks both Obama and Gingrich on it. The same could probably be said of any other politician's or political party's site. Furthermore, I myself would not characterize Savage's site as an "attack" site, and I'm sure I'm not alone. It's primarily defensive in character, and a response to an unprovoked attack by Santorum, one that was far more vulgar and offensive than what Savage came up with. The furthest I'd be willing to go is that it's a "counter-attack" site. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you consider you are able to overcome your feelings of being personally attacked by R Santorum's comments allow you to be NPOV in regards to this discussion? You really can 00:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes - there are pages and pages of chat threads there - anyone that has a blogger account can upload stuff and add demeaning and attacking comments and content. You really can 00:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Dominus Vobisdu wrote:

"Furthermore, I myself would not characterize Savage's site as an "attack" site, and I'm sure I'm not alone. It's primarily defensive in character, and a response to an unprovoked attack by Santorum, one that was far more vulgar and offensive than what Savage came up with."

People, its comments like these that serve only to reveal our own personal biases. If we can refrain from making such comments, or if we can simply recuse ourselves from participating here just to promote our own POV, then things might run more smoothly. We have a nice policy called NPOV, let's all please read it. -Stevertigo (t | c) 00:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Robin Lionheart wrote on the Wiktionary entry talk page[12]:

"It has real world usage in my circle of friends. Once we were playing a game of French Toast, and for a while our leader's standard of comparison was "santorum on a stick", so santorum got used repeatedly that night. Regardless, santorum has sufficient usage to meet Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion."

Again, these types of comments only reveal the biases of the editor, and thus disqualify the editor as acting out of POV rather than out of fidelity to NPOV. NPOV is our prime directive, we should all be familiar with what it means. -Stevertigo (t | c) 01:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in real life, my friends and I have referred to that frothy substance as santorum. What bias do you think that anecdote conveys? Why, specifically, do you think it would disqualify me from writing from a neutral perspective? ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I like Youreallycan's Idea of getting something into policy, but fear that Dominus is right that it wouldn't work, and unless it did then it wouldn't solve our problems. I have no dog in either fight here, since I don't have strong feelings about gay rights and I don't think Santorum is more than a small side show. But surely the comment of "man on dog" in the context of gay sex is just as vulgar as the santorum definition. So, if the policy tweak idea won't work, what else? I don't think we can trust a single individual. B^e——C_ritical 01:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

@Stevertigo: I agree that our personal opinions of Savage's campaign are irrelevant and not really helpful to share. Though I feel it would be fair to point out that, in addition to the examples you list, there has been a fair amount of open disgust and moral opprobrium expressed by those opposing inclusion of the link. This is equally unhelpful for determining a neutral approach to the article. Nor is bringing in editors' comments from other sites into this discussion, and then condemning them as inappropriate, particularly constructive.--Trystan (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see much of that at all Trystan. Aside from the pro-slur activism, I see people here with a legitimate dislike for using Wikipedia (and Wiktionary) as a soapbox to promote their dislike for Rick Santorum. NPOV is the issue here. We report on the slur and the googlebomb from an objective point of view. -Stevertigo (t | c) 01:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

When your side is composed entirely of reasonable people trying to neutrally enforce policy, and the other side is composed entirely of activists trying to push a POV, it may be time to step back and make a renewed attempt to assume good faith. One could just as equally condemn the activists who want to delete content we would normally include in order to protect Santorum's interests. It wouldn't be any more accurate, or helpful to achieve consensus.

Both sides have good (and good faith) arguments based on differing interpretations of existing policies. And I think both sides are having some difficulty divorcing their opinions of Savage's "slur" (or should that be "political expression"?) from reaching a neutral consensus.--Trystan (talk) 03:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all I don't have a "side," except for neutrality. So naturally I have the problem of typically, not always, being in the company of "reasonable people trying to neutrally enforce policy." I understand that there are also POV editors who have sought to sanitize the article in certain ways, but I am not one of them, nor am I suggesting that we sanitize the article in any way, so it cannot be said that I'm on their side. But neither am I on the side that thinks someone's immature attempt to smear/slur someone's name should be promoted, either in the company of friends, or here on Wikipedia. -Stevertigo (t | c) 04:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Is describing the subject of an article as immature and saying it shouldn't be talked about by private individuals really compatible with a neutral approach? Not that it isn't an entirely reasonable view to hold; editors are allowed to have opinions on the articles they edit. But we have to set them aside and approach all subjects dispassionately.

We can not, of course, use Wikipedia to promote this (or any other) subject. And promoting a site that attacks a living person would be a clear BLP violation. My question would be, under what circumstances does linking to a site constitute promoting it? Presumably everything we link to receives increased traffic and, via our mirrors, a search engine bump. If that constitutes promotion, there is a lot we shouldn't be linking to. Certainly not white supremacist forms or birther conspiracies, probably not politicians or activist groups.--Trystan (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Robin Lionheart wrote:

"Yes, in real life, my friends and I have referred to that frothy substance as santorum. What bias do you think that anecdote conveys? Why, specifically, do you think it would disqualify me from writing from a neutral perspective?"

First of all, I don't actually deal with "that frothy substance" at all, so I have no need to reference it. But I suppose that may not be the case with you, and so I do understand therefore that you and others may feel there is some need to create a word to give reference to some fundamental part of your universe. But here's the problem: Typically a word is created when there is a concept without a name. Hence there is need for a word to reference that concept, and a name/word is created (and formed in accordance with the sound patterns of a given language). That was not the case with this word's "coinage." It was not promoted out of a need to give a name to an important concept, but out of a particular activist's desire to make someone's name into a slur. Furthermore, looking at the Wiktionary article's entry, we have a case where activists are promoting that the word "santorum" be used in the place of "shit" or "crap" without the distinction of lube, etc. How many different words do we need for "shit" or "crap?" "This is not a dictionary" is one of our original principles, but this also is not Urban Dictionary either. -Stevertigo (t | c) 04:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of behaviour at Wiktionary

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You best be careful Steve. I have been permanently banned from Wiktionary for removing the secondary definition, without a warning I might add, and no explanation on my talk page from the admin. The activists over there have no time for disent or discussion that doesn't conform to their ideology on Wiktionary. For thost that think WP can be oppressive, Wiktionary has it beat hands down. Arzel (talk) 04:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Arzel, Your block log entry's explanation was "Vandalism". Other editors have discussed your disruptive edits and offered explanations for your ban on your Wiktionary talk page. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

HA! That is rich. I removed the unsourced definition twice, with an edit comments both times. Exactly HOW is that disruptive? The second removal was after reading the very strange rules for inclusion and saw that the reason for inclusion was original research by one editor. I was banned while I was editing the talk page to discuss. I also added that Savage was a Gay activist, which was removed as well. Explain that one to me. Is that vandalism? The only rational reason for removal is pure ideological POV pushing. If that same approach was taken on WP, then there would be no editors left. So forgive me if I have no respect for Wiktionary at this point in time. Arzel (talk) 06:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I can see you wish to air your dirty laundry in public, but this talk page is about a Wikipedia article. Let's take the discussion of your Wiktionary edits over there. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 06:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Dirty laundry? Um -- Robin, you arem by Wikipedia terms, a "heavily involvd admin" on Wiktionary, and your oposts here should thus be disregarded concerning your own specific acts on Wiktionary. 06:55, 28 January 2012 Robin Lionheart (Talk | contribs) changed block settings for Arzel (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 year (account creation disabled) ‎ (Vandalism: in santorum. Reducing Azrel's sentence from permanent ban to our next lowest option, "1 year".) is not a neutral act on your part. [13] [14] (actually more than thirty edits for the one word) show that you are an active editor on that word, in fact the most active editor on that word, and had this occurred on Wikipedia, (that is the most active editor on an article acting as an admin on the article, and banning a user without warning for daring to edit the article at all) The "editor" "admin" who initially banned Arzel was also "involved" with three edits. [15] etc. ArbCom would likely find your acts sufficiently unacceptable. You are an editor on the word, you imposed a block based on support of your own edits on that word, and you now opine here that Arzel was properly banned by you because he disputes your own edits on a topic. Sorry if I assign your posts here about Arzel remarkably little weight. Collect (talk) 13:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You have several misconceptions about these events: The only edits of mine removed by Arzel's three purges at Wiktionary:santorum (twice deleting all citations and the second definition, and once deleting just the second definition and its citations), were two edits adding data like ISBNs and URLs to said recently-restored citations. When I commented here about him airing his dirty laundry, he was still permabanned by another admin (whose one and only edit to santorum, at that time, was reverting Arzel's vandalism), and I was opining that he was properly banned by them, because he deleted material added by other editors to that word. Then, after my comments on the affair, I stepped in and reduced his ban duration. And none of this is germane to this article. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

And all of your other many edits on that article do not make you "involved" by the Wikipedia standards? And your block was not by an "involved admin" by Wikipedia standards? And yet you berate him here for his "sins" at Wiktionary? Sorry - you are involved in far too many ways to make such dicta here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Arzel was permabanned by an admin who was not "involved" by Wikipedia standards (which do not apply to Wiktionary). Do you presume that bias against Arzel led me to improperly act in his favor, reducing his ban? It's moot now, anyway, he's been pardoned. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The reason I removed those is because they were sourced to google groups and message boards. I still cannot see how that qualifies as a reliable source to show usage. And to call that vandalism is simply rediculous, and a personal attack on me. Arzel (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Possibly your first offense wasn't. But not your third strike. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I created an explanation for editors wanting to make changes to the Wiktionary article at wikt:Talk:santorum. Please read it carefully before taking any actions on the article. CodeCat (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, well you and your cohorts feel it easiest to just ignore over there. I would say it is like talking to a brick wall, but then you expect a brick wall to completely ignore you. Arzel (talk) 07:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Speaking from the outside, I would support Youreallycan's suggestion of asking one uninvolved admin to make a non-binding summary. I see no reason at all that shouldn't be Sandstein. They are well versed in policy and I would trust them to decline if they had any significant bias. Ya'know people, arguing about how to ask for the "right" admin or "choose up sides" among neutral admins is pretty lame, it's a non-binding comment fer cryin' out loud. And it might give you some insight, whether you each agree with it or not. I have very close to zero contact ever with either Yrc or S, and I have no idea what S would say, but I think this is a very good idea. Franamax (talk) 05:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Not Sandstein. I don't trust them. B^e——C_ritical 07:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your heavily-involved opinion. Do you trust these 13 active editors more? That's where this seems to be heading unless there's a little less picking of teams here. This bears the signs of an "intractible dispute between editors", you can't even agree on how to ask for outside help. Franamax (talk) 07:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

YRC is a determined partisan in this discussion, and if he is suggesting Sandstein then it's a sure sign he expects Sandstein to take his side. If we're going to get admin input here in a way that will help us get some closure, then it should be an admin suggested/chosen by someone who isn't invested here. Franamax, perhaps you could be of assistance: that is, perhaps you could approach another admin whom you would expect to be able to judge the existing discussion in a dispassionate way. Don't turn it into a discussion here -- the last thing we need is extended discussion of whether your choice is appropriate (we'll end up needing an RfC for it...). Naturally what we need is someone who can summarize and discern the conclusion of the existing discussion, similarly to an AfD (where the closing admin is not !voting). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

LOL! "Partisan"? Not! He is, admittedly a strong proponent of WP:BLP but I have never heard him be called "partisan." That epithet is one of the last refuges of arguments when a person does not have consensus on his side - when there is no factual basis for the charge, it is like rain on a sheet of polished glass, and of no value. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea actually what User:Sandstein would say, he often surprises me but his closures are respected. He is however as I am aware with no known bias in this area and a person that is determinedly NPOV and policy driven in his closures.User:Ironholds is another person I am reminded is very experienced in policy and a respected NPOV closer. You really can 10:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

In the interest of getting this resolved, I'll second User:Ironholds. I agree that he is both extremely experienced and well-respected. That's one endorsement from each "side". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Cool - yes, this is not a win lose situation , we are obliged to work this out one way or the other with as little drama as possible and get the article unprotected. You really can 11:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Great. The sooner we get this taken care of, the better, as far as I'm concerned. Suggest contacting Ironholds in 24 hours unless there are any objections. I don't think we'll come up with anyone else soon that could be endorsed by both "sides", and the only alternatives I see are an open request on AN, or letting this go to Arbcom. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding names: Arthur Rubin and Malik Shabazz (assuredly not in cahoots with one another), and Jclemens and NewYorkBrad (hopefully able to keep the verbiage down and not have it be a frothy mixture). I am suggesting pairs of names, and not with any intent of them being on any side at all. Collect (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to see what Ironholds says. B^e——C_ritical 16:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Me, too. I'm putting the kibosh on Jclemens, though. He and I were on opposite sides of an RfC once, and it was far more contentious than this one is. I was surprised afterwards to learn that he's an administrator and Arbcom member. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hm, the user does have a couple of userboxes identifying strongly held opinions that may lead to a dispute which I think rule him out. You really can 18:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Risker (talk · contribs) (Arbitrator) generally makes sense. She has a very good, and balanced, understanding of BLP. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Addition. 04:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have an objection to asking Ironholds? From his userpage, he looks like the ideal, in that he's not religious, not against gays but probably, my guess, not for Savage's campaign, and I think it is a plus that he is familiar with the law. Legal reasoning would give a good grasp of how different forces are to be given balance in reasoning. I didn't think that we would find anyone I'd be willing to take a chance on, thus my request for multiple reviewers. But I'd take a chance on this. B^e——C_ritical 18:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as I stated above. I would have no objection to a one of three but his strongly held views would imo rule the user out as a single commenter. We could always add the request when we ask to please recuse if they have strongly held views in regard to issues in relation to R Santorum or D Savage. You really can 18:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Per Nomoskedaticity's comment above, I have already contacted the admin I would pick for this and they are willing to do it. I did consider asking Ironholds too, but went with my first pick. Franamax (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

That's great -- much appreciated. This is certainly better than having it arranged via nomination here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Kind of strange. I mean, what this looks like is an attempt to do an end-run around the consensus process. What do others think? B^e——C_ritical 20:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Well it seems to be fine. - Finding someone willing to do it is a good start, because these things can be thankless tasks. You really can 20:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The mandate would be to summarize the discussion, provide policy guidance, and suggest ways forward. The various parties on this page seem to be hopelessly deadlocked to me, so sooner or later you're going to have to ask for outside help (or have it thrust upon you). I don't want to ask my "mystery guest" to begin if they are just going to get screamed at, so I'll wait for a few more comments. Franamax (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Becritical's comment was unfortunate (particularly before it was reduced). I see no evidence at all that Franamax's contributions to this page are anything other than "procedural", and at this point I think we're much better off with an admin chosen by a manifestly neutral party. Anyone who does any screaming should be dealt with under the heading of "disruptive". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Commenting on a redacted post is of limited benefit to drama reduction. No one is being "dealt with as disruptive" either - we are working together to resolve this dispute one way or the other. You really can 21:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

If you have a "mystery guest" who we will all be able to accept- fine. But if you think they will have a chance of being screamed at, please don't try to undercut the process. I didn't think the process we were going through was in any way improper. It seemed as if both sides of this argument were attempting to come up with editors who were neutral. Suddenly saying you are going to bring on an editor whom only you know is, well, very strange. So no offense, you surely see how it looked. B^e——C_ritical 21:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all, Dominus and Robin Lionheart have yet to answer my comments above. Second, I don't understand this idea of finding someone to arbitrate here. Is it because it seems hard to find consensus? One way to find consensus is to discern which people have a POV and which do not. Ive done some of that here, and we should continue this work at Wiktionary too, as there seems to be some entrenched POV there too. See my comments on that talk page: [16]. By identifying which editors have POV in mind more than NPOV, we can move on toward making an article which doesn't contain fundamental flaws in its approach. -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The only people who have a POV are the ones who disagree with me. If you know what I mean. Look, in my view the discussion/straw-poll above is clear, almost 2 to 1 in favor of including the link. Those in the 1 category refuse to accept this as consensus, so as Franamax says we have an apparently intractable dispute. Getting an uninvolved admin to contribute an outcome here -- akin to a close for an AfD -- might help move things on. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Steve, you didn't answer my question above, about how you discern POV. Earlier you quoted a comment I posted to Wiktionary, where I described my friends and I using the term santorum in real life, as a comment that would "reveal the biases of the editor, and thus disqualify the editor as acting out of POV rather than out of fidelity to NPOV". I asked you, "What bias do you think that anecdote conveys? Why, specifically, do you think it would disqualify me from writing from a neutral perspective?" ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

We should probably stop talking about POV- unless it becomes more of a problem. I redacted my own remark within seconds. B^e——C_ritical 16:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I can see why the minority in favor of link removal might want to have a single "unbiased" administrator make a binding call on the matter of link inclusion, but the correct procedure is for imlementation of an RFC. The minority has already managed to successfully "lock" its preferences into the page, I note. This needs to be reversed expeditiously — it's a form of system-gaming. Carrite (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- As I understand it, the admin view won't be binding (certainly not permanently). Anyway, we have a straw poll above (where you have now also contributed), and the point would be to have someone discern the conclusion evident there. You might note that I'm among those calling for this, and I'm not part of the minority. (For the record, the numbers there are currently 14 - 6, favoring inclusion of the link.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

There's something absurd about this. We've got the name of the site spreadingsantorum.com up there on the page - it barely matters if it's linked. But it should be referenced properly from the References section, cite web template and everything, and that includes a link. We should also have an "Official link" to the website from the External Links section for completeness. But while my preference for these extra links is relatively weak, there's no point in "voting for a compromise"; it doesn't really improve the consensus. Wnt (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(od) Read WP:CONSENSUS and note that it is not a "vote" but reaching a compromise if possible while strictly following Wikipedia policies (that is, votes can not abrograte policy). In the case at hand, there is a reasonable belief that WP:BLP is violated by a proposed addition, and thus it requires far more than a "vote" at the very least. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Get on with it

Latest comment: 12 years ago58 comments10 people in discussion

The straw poll made it obvious what the consensus here is. We don't need some outside editor to come and tell us. So, what are the ways forward? RfC? I think dispute resolution is stupid: no one is going to change their minds, all compromises have been rejected. Unless people want to go to an RfC, we might just as well put the link in the article. If that doesn't work, it is a matter of editor behavior, that is, blockading consensus in the name of BLP. If we do an RfC, it should have a preset time limit much less than 30 days. If there isn't an RfC, we should go directly to ArbCom. No reason to spend loads of time on this. Anyone got any other options? B^e——C_ritical 00:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:CONSENSUS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay then, so do you want to put the link in the article, or shall I? Cheers. B^e——C_ritical 03:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes - bump it up as you feel - we have gridlock here and could use some policy clarification. What happened to the uninvolved admin, has that been rejected? You really can 16:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

We could get an uninvolved admin, I think we got derailed by the "mystery admin" thing. Do you want more than one? I would agree to Ironholds, but not sure everyone would. But realistically, do you think that if he said the consensus was to put in the link that the problem would be solved? B^e——C_ritical 17:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that a simple head count consensus is acceptable - We need a a NPOV policy driven assessment of the discussion on this talkpage. I don't know who the mystery volunteer was, but I do think his assessment would have been beneficial - Why is this blogger external link not in the article after years of existence? The answer is not - because there is more users that want to include it than don't. You really can 17:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The answer is that consensus has changed: before there was no consensus to put it in, indeed consensus against. I was a lone voice of reason in the wilderness then :P Do you like Ironholds? B^e——C_ritical 18:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with that position - my position is that interpretation of policy in relation to the consensus in this, and that, and all the discussions over the last four/five years has not changed at all and that is why the link is still not in the article then and now. Ironholds, yes I see him as a quality administrator but as I said above - the user has clear and strong opinions displayed on his userpage that imo if you were to ask him , with the caveat, if you hold strong personal opinions in relation to D Savage or R Santorum to please recuse, he would likely not take up the chalice. You really can 18:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request, perhaps? The straw poll indicates 14 people favoring inclusion, 6 people opposing; there is also Anthonyhcole, who indicates a change of mind and now favors inclusion. Normally this would be entirely sufficient for implementing an edit on a fully-protected page. Of course, with edit request, we take our chances -- any admin can answer it -- so perhaps it's not the right approach. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Have it done, and then if the admins wheel war, or if anyone dislikes having the link, I believe it is necessary to take it to ArbCom. Alternately, a community-wide RfC. But those tend to draw so much noise from editors simply repulsed but having no real policy arguments, same as with the AfDs on this article. B^e——C_ritical 19:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Neither of you have any idea of what consensus is; on top of that this is not a consensus issue, it is a BLP issue. This is not a race, let the process work itself out and go work on something else. Arzel (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Although the exact setting is fairly unique, this is fundamentally no different than any other disagreement over policy interpretation and content, both of which are consensus matters. Policy is not up for debate, but interpretation of policy is something that we do on every page, constantly. Normally we would expect editors to work it out among themselves, and take a dim view of obstructionist tactics like edit warring, wikilawyering, assuming bad faith, and so on. As the term consensus is used on Wikipedia, there appears to be a consensus that this is not a BLP issue, and a further consensus that as an editorial matter we should stick with convention by including a link to the website that is the subject of the article. A vocal minority of editors disagrees and brings up policy and editorial arguments for their position. Both sides argue that policy and consensus are on their side, and the minority seems content to edit war the article to the point of page protection to keep the status quo. Under the circumstances, making an edit that is certain to provoke a reversion is a pointless escalation. So there appears to be a stalemate. There are dispute resolution means available (including some opportunities for reconsideration), so that's the sensible way to deal with it. Those means will eventually produce an answer that will disappoint one side or the other, or both. At that point the result gets declared, and we're expected to respect that decision whether we agree with it or not. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

If an edit request results in an edit to the page and the page remains protected, there won't be a reversion. Additionally: there is now an additional !vote for inclusion] at the straw poll. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Understood, but making an edit to a protected page is a use of the tools, so it's tantamount to an administrative ruling on where consensus lies and whether there is a policy prohibition that would trump consensus. Normally the protection is just used to stop edit wars and calm discussion, not to enforce the "right" result. I note that the currently protected version also omits a paragraph about "ricking", which was the subject of a new dispute and edit war. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure this is not a path that's open to us? The edit request template produces a box that reads (in part): "This template should be used only to request edits to fully protected pages that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus." With 18 people now favoring inclusion and 6 opposed, I'd be surprised if the discussion here could be read by a neutral party as anything other than consensus. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, on further consideration, Wikidemon is right about the edit request. If I were an admin I'd certainly consider it out of line. So, what's next? If this were a close issue, there would be more excuse for spending a lot of time at DR. Are there any fairly expeditious paths to take? B^e——C_ritical 21:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Ask User:Sandstein to close it with a total mandate of acceptance of his judgment - I have no idea what he will say or even if he would be prepared to close and add the link if that was the close. You really can 21:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

No. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Why not? You have to have a reason. Arzel (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Are there any fairly expeditious paths to take?

The proposed RfC...designed to solicit a much more broad Wikipedia community consideration, I'd suggest particularly so in matters related to disagreements as to the pertinence or implementation of BLP policy. And just what is so all-fired unique to this controversial edit that mandates an "expeditious path" anyway? Is the sky falling or sumpin'? If the RfC had been implemented when its use was first broached, it would have been halfway home by now. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

What's fairly unique is this: we have a consensus. We have editors blocking it ready to edit war. Allowing this to go on for a month, as with the usual length of an RfC, is just rewarding such tactics, which is all-too-often what happens around here (and then there would be ArbCom). I know you're one for proper process, so you'll understand why I don't like it. B^e——C_ritical 21:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want to bump it straight up to Arbcom I will second your report - If you assert it is no longer a content dispute and you allege some users are edit warring against consensus and obstructive you can take it to Arbcom as they don't judge content disputes but you appear to be asserting it is something else - You really can 21:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I would, but they demand diffs, and there aren't enough. Don't you think? B^e——C_ritical 22:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Your comments seems to warrant it - just go make your report and lets get it over with - the blogger link has been kept out of wikipedia for over five years, although users have repeatedly attempted to insert it to multiple articles, and clearly that is some kind of issue. Perhaps - opinionated users violating NPOV and users claiming a BLP exception for an external - start with that - I will support your opening and there will be time for us to present diffs as evidence, usually ten days. You really can 22:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Eh, I've observed ArbCom enough to think that it wouldn't work properly. But if you want to file, I'll support you on the basis of needed policy clarification of (1) just how far we take the idea of eliminating harm per BLP and (2) whether external sites may dictate what content we put in articles. Policy clarification is within their prerogative. B^e——C_ritical 22:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I am happy with whatever keeps the blogger, attack, google bombing external out of the article and the whole project. You really can 22:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

So, if the link gets put in, you will revert it back out? B^e——C_ritical 23:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Its not about me, is it > - I am unable to answer vague questions - I have alluded, more than once here ...? to my position that a policy driven assessment and an experienced and respected NPOV closer would be required for any close is my preference. You really can 23:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, well it looks like neither of us really think this is currently ripe for ArbCom, so hopefully an RfC won't take too long. B^e——C_ritical 00:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

After you mentioned Arbcom in three contiguous posts I thought I should support you. Policy and guidelines already keep this attack blogger site out of en wikipedia without the drudgery of a months RFC.. You really can 00:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think an RfC is the surest and most straightforward way to resolve this. ArbCom could take the case but I doubt they will, as they would see it primarily as a content dispute. No harm in asking, I guess, but for now nobody is behaving badly and admins aren't abusing any tools. Now if some of y'all could start misbehaving or harassing each other we might generate a case. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

But what is to stop people like YRC from declaring -- whatever the results of the RfC -- that there's "no consensus" and then resuming the edit-war to remove the link? We have a perfectly clear result on this talk-page -- how will an RfC be different in terms of providing resolution (assuming, for example, that the weight of opinion is similar)? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It's unlikely that it will have a different result than you describe. However, that's when we can go to ArbCom, and also they can clarify policy, if we can give them a clearcut question. And this is the reason to expedite the RfC, we don't want a process which will likely only lead to a blockade to take forever. I would suggest 3 days or a week for the RfC unless there's no obvious consensus. I'd like to get an early close established beforehand if possible. I also want to try and make sure it's not just voting, but that's difficult. B^e——C_ritical 07:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Just some thoughts. I'd oppose a rushed RfC or a mandated early close, though would accept an early close if the closer/s deemed it appropriate once the RfC is under way. There are two disputes: the verb and the link. Shall we ask for comment on both, separately, in the same RfC? (I'm against one and for the other.) The RfC could ask: "Should the article link to spreading santorum.com in the external links section?" and "Should the article mention Savage's proposed new meaning for "to rick?", with an agreed summary of the issues. Can we decide on a closer/closers ahead of the RfC? (Maybe ask them to watch the proceedings and redact any incivility and off-topic content?) If yes to the last, can everybody throw a number of names up and let's see if there's consensus on one or more candidate closers before we approach anybody. I propose Risker (talk · contribs) and NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) if they could be persuaded (and I know they've both got a lot on); and Manning Bartlett (talk · contribs) whom I don't know well but is making sense on ANI at the moment. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

If this is the direction we're headed: the two issues absolutely need to be dealt with separately, and the EL needs dealing with first (the "rick" business was raised after the EL discussion was well under way). Also: No to NW, but the other two are fine. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Although I'm not an RfC expert, my impression is that the participants don't get to stipulate any special rules or schedule, or appoint the closer. We just go through the process. The best we can do is try to make as clear and neutral a setup as possible, and encourage the discussion to stay on track and not devolve into name calling, procedural wrangling, or tangential issues. The "rick" thing ought to be covered too in the name of efficiency but multiple issues and multiple outcomes ought to be delineated carefully beforehand because otherwise it's hard to tease the real issues out of the inevitable slew of comments and endorsements. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I confess I haven't read the RfC policy, but I've participated in a couple. I'm not bothered whether the two disputes are dealt with concurrently or in sequence. It's a shame we can't choose our closers; it seemed like a good idea to me. And having them impose WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK would be great. I'm so sick of these brawls.

I completely agree that beautifully, concisely composed expositions of the various positions represented by the editors here would help. I think Tristan's made an excellent start here.

If we could come up with a trio of editors that we all respect, I'd still like to hear their views before putting it to an RfC. What do you think? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I support ArbCom. Arzel (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

They usually prefer a dispute to go through RfC first. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Manning Bartlett, there's a section above on the RfC, with a nice summary already written[17]. Re closers, Risker might be fine. We will be able to tell a truly biased close. Or, if the close just says "Yes most people want the link, but BLP trumps them," or the more likely "Yes most people want the link but (Frummmmmm hummmm hummmm mmmmmmm rrrrr......) there isn't a consensus," then that's a case for ArbCom clarification or policy clarification. The link needs a separate RfC. I agree on hearing the opinions of editors first... but let's hurry up about it, since it probably won't do us any good. B^e——C_ritical 17:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

So far as I know there's never been consensus not to include the link, including the link is appropriate per WP:EL, and there's consensus to include it now. We don't need arbitrators or some ad hoc star chamber to tell us that. Wnt (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

But we can't get the page unprotected so we can put the link in, and then see if anyone edit wars and then go to ArbCom. So what to do? B^e——C_ritical 18:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I really wish you people would stop saying there is consensus when there is not consensus. Arzel (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do you say there isn't a consensus? B^e——C_ritical 19:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Because there is no consensus, and it is getting quite annoying that you can Nomo keep crying that some people are blocking consensus. Some of us have serious concerns about BLP issues in that the website you seem hell bent on including is nothing more than an attack site. It serves no value other than to further the attack on Rick Santorum. All pertenant information from that site is already included in the article, and I and others feel that the only reason some are so hell bent on including the link is to further promote Savage's smear campaign against Santorum. Arzel (talk) 06:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you have concerns, which the community has addressed and rejected as valid but inadequate. That's the consensus process. You have the right to accept the current consensus, or to seek a wider consensus, but saying it isn't consensus is just refusing to acknowledge the fact. Acting on such a refusal (by edit warring for example) would be disruption, which is why we could take it to ArbCom. Read this. B^e——C_ritical 06:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no current consensus, and it is clear that you have no idea was consensus is. Arzel (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

In an AfD with 18 people voting to delete and 6 people voting to keep, an admin would inevitably close it as consensus to delete. The problem here isn't lack of consensus as that term is implemented at Wikipedia; the problem is lack of a useful process for these circumstances. This will be dealt with. 143.210.79.229 (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

BC and the IP editor (who forgot to log in?) are right. This situation arises often in BLP and also NONFREE. Consensus is what the community decides, including community decisions on how to apply policy in a given situation. Edit warring in support of a personal minority interpretation of policy is a form of disruption that can require administrative intervention. Edit warring under claim of BLP is like shooting someone in self defense, not something you want to do if you can avoid it. If you happen to be right it's an exoneration, but if you're mistaken in your judgment you go to jail. Wikidemon (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll add that this is right as well. "It's a BLP problem" only works when there's a widely shared view that there's a BLP problem. When that view is rejected by the community, a small minority is not somehow exempt from the requirement not to edit-war. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

So there's a consensus that there is a consensus. The choice is between: unprotect ---> insert link ---> ArbCom (if edit war) and RfC ---> insert link (maybe) ---> ArbCom (if edit war). That right? What shall we actually do? I have a feeling some people don't really want to proceed with the RfC option. B^e——C_ritical 18:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec with comment immediately below) I would say it's unprotect --> insert link --> edit war (likely) --> AN/I --> SNAFU versus RfC --> insert link (likely) --> edit war (unlikely) --> editors blocked. ArbCom isn't going to decide whether the link should be in or where consensus lies, they can only decide whether it's a decision for the community to make. An RfC, by contrast, can decide all of these. We don't have to agree to an RfC (though that would be nice), someone just has to do it. Another thing mitigating against unprotecting before consensus is made official is that it's almost certain to lead to an edit war, and nobody from the unprotecting admin on down to the people making those threats ought to be precipitating an edit war. People can opt out of an RfC if they want, it just means they lose their chance to be heard. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay. B^e——C_ritical 18:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

(od) We can not use WP:CONSENSUS to violate WP:BLP. The concept that a majority can decree that the minority is wrong is not found in WP:BLP nor is it found in WP:CONSENSUS, so tthat argument fails mightily. The choice is either to violate WP:BLP or to follow it. I suggest that this is not a "choice" at all -- we are obligated to follow the requirements of WP:BLP. Cheers - and let's drop the "we will all spend years before ArbCom" arguments! Collect (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not the consensus. The consensus is that the above minority interpretation of BLP is invalid. You are arguing that your interpretation of BLP trumps consensus. B^e——C_ritical 18:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Per the advice here from the admin who protected it, I am proceeding with an RfC. At least that way we can expect someone to "close" it -- something that unfortunately wasn't forthcoming with the straw poll and discussion above. I believe strongly that it should deal only with the EL question; trying to discuss two contentious issues at once will prevent gaining clarity on either of them. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Per the RfC proposal discussion above, I am reverting this highly contentious, unilateral composition and placement of an RfC independent of consensus acceptability of the language it contains. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

No you're not. I do not require consensus to start an RfC. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

^ {cite web|url=http://www.spreadingsantorum.com//%7Ctitle=SpreadingSantorum.com}}
^ Cite error: The named reference Brewer was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Frances Martel (July 21, 2011). "Angry Radio Rant And Campaign Email Show Dan Savage Has Finally Gotten To Santorum". Mediaite. Retrieved January 10, 2012.
^ ^a ^b Savage, Dan. "Savage Love: Bill, Ashton, Rick." The Stranger, May 15, 2003.
^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference USATodayApril232003 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b David Edwards (June 9, 2011). "Santorum hopes Google will do something about 'filth on the Internet'". Raw Story. Retrieved July 24, 2011.
^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference Burns was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Dwyer, Devin. "Rick Santorum's 'Google Problem' Resurfaces with Jon Stewart Plug." ABC News, May 10, 2011.

[1] {cite web|url=http://www.spreadingsantorum.com//%7Ctitle=SpreadingSantorum.com}}

[Brewer-2] Cite error: The named reference Brewer was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Mediaite072111-3] Frances Martel (July 21, 2011). "Angry Radio Rant And Campaign Email Show Dan Savage Has Finally Gotten To Santorum". Mediaite. Retrieved January 10, 2012.

[sl031503-4] Savage, Dan. "Savage Love: Bill, Ashton, Rick." The Stranger, May 15, 2003.

[USATodayApril232003-5] Cite error: The named reference USATodayApril232003 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[RawStory06-09-11-6] David Edwards (June 9, 2011). "Santorum hopes Google will do something about 'filth on the Internet'". Raw Story. Retrieved July 24, 2011.

[Burns-7] Cite error: The named reference Burns was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[8] Dwyer, Devin. "Rick Santorum's 'Google Problem' Resurfaces with Jon Stewart Plug." ABC News, May 10, 2011.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]