Talk:Campaign for the neologism "santorum"/Archive 6

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 1

←

Archive 4

→

Forgotten by the media?

In the "Readers contest" section, one sentence begins, "As Rick Santorum's anti-gay comments were forgotten by the media"... This seems misleading or POV to me. Who are we to say that the media forgot about Santorum's remarks? I suggest that the clause be reworded to something like "As general media discussion moved on from Santorum's anti-gay comments".

(By the way,if this were an unprotected article, I'd have made this change without discussion, per WP:BRD, but even though I'm an admin and could make the edit myself, I figured that in this case it was better to get some feedback first.) --Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

"As time passed and the mainstream media shifted focus onto other stories," how's this? -- Avanu (talk)

I would just omit the word "mainstream" from that. The implication of the sentence is that the average person had forgotten about Santorum's statements because they no longer saw news stories about it. The average person gets their news from mainstream media. That's a tautology: it's mainstream media because most people watch it. (What, we think our readers would get confused and think Savage did this because the alternative press got quiet? Seems silly.) Besides, in the minds of our more left-leaning readers, the phrase "mainstream media" may carry a negative association from its overuse as a pejorative by a certain political candidate who, herself, is employed as a commentator by what is (if you go by percentage of viewership, rather than ideology) the most mainstream media outlet going. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

(well, I didn't say lamestream media.... then you would KNOW I'm losing it.) -- Avanu (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

"As general media discussion moved on from Santorum's anti-gay comments" seems fine to me. (The article got locked after a lone editor blanked it three times [1][2][3] citing BLP. I think that the policy may need some tweaking to prevent it being used in an overtly disruptive manner.) Gacurr (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I've made that change, which should be uncontroversial compared with the larger discussions related to this page. --Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Templates and BLP

This article has been listed at a number of templates e.g. Template:Sexual slang and Template:Dan Savage -- until very recently when it was removed on the rationale that there are ongoing discussions as to whether it is a BLP violation. Could someone please point me to those discussions? The talk page here certainly hasn't come to the conclusion that this article is a BLP violation (yes, some people here take that view, but it's clearly a minority view), and I'm not aware of other discussions that say including it in templates is a BLP violation. (If the article itself isn't a BLP violation, then I'm not sure how having it in templates could be a violation.) If there are discussions elsewhere about this issue, I'd be grateful to know where so that I can participate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

They're back. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

No, they're not: [4], [5], [6]. ??? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure it out. I know "santorum" isn't listed in the templates any more, and I've cleared all my caches, but I still get them at the bottom of Santorum (neologism). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

"View source" (bottom of article) to see why. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahah. Thank you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Back to my question. Are there ongoing BLP discussions elsewhere? Note (here) that an admin even edited the protected Template:Sexual slang to remove the article from the template on BLP grounds, apparently unaware of the discussions on this page. If there are ongoing discussions elsewhere, we should try to resolve them -- but I can't find any. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The history of the templates that include this article is as follows:

On 10 May, Template:Dan Savage was created, [7]
On 11 May, Template:Political neologisms was created, with this article included, and added to about 120 articles [8] (that template has since been deleted, deletion discussion)
On 15 May, this article was added to Template:LGBT slang: [9]
On 15 May, Template:Sexual slang was created [10], comprising about 120 general, LGBT and pornography slang terms, including this one, and then added to these 120 articles

The effect of this was to add about 250 in-bound links to this article. Yesterday, User:Flatterworld pointed out at Jimbo's talk page that there were a lot of unrelated articles linking here, and described this as a particularly noticeable effort "to create as many separate (and carefully named) articles as possible, and as many templates as possible to link them". User:Coren judged this an egregious BLP violation, and the rest seems to have followed from there. --J N 466 12:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

What this shows is that some Wikipedia editors are as hellbound as Savage is to promote the word usage as much as possible. Perhaps it won't be long until this aspect of the affair is addressed. Tarc (talk) 12:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for collecting that, Jayen. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there a common link/thread among the editors who appear to be supporting the use of Wikipedia for Savage's campaign? If so, it should be put on the table. Cla68 (talk) 12:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been following this mess a bit off and on, and it has become a gargantuan stain on Wikipedia's credibility. Personally my politics couldn't be farther from Santorum's, and personally I'd be happy to see him out of politics altogether, but I am completely dismayed by the manner in which the encyclopedia has been thoroughly gamed for political purposes. Tarc is right. I hope that someone might finally look into these shenanigans for what they clearly are. We need to set a precedent here that Wikipedia will not be the pawn of political activists trying to Google bomb their opposition into defeat. And by the way, how on earth does this qualify as a notable "neologism? If there is a topic of note here its the google bombing campaign, and that is it.Griswaldo (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I can say no more than repeat what I said 8 days ago on the BLPN. The intervening time has confirmed my original thoughts. John lilburne (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well said, John. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

As someone who has been supporting the removal of the term from the sexual slang template, and continuing to have this article, I think you are not appreciating that other people can have legitimate opinions that genuinely disagree with you. I disagree with the people who want the term on the template, that doesn't make them part of some broad conspiracy to promote this word. Please remember that legitimate disagreement can occur. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it is plain this article has been, by accident or design, search engine optimised (which is funny on one level) but don't see that as a problem. The problem is it is a poorly written, wrongly named, egregiously over-long article. If this article were well-written and accurately named, that is, if it were not a discredit to Wikipedia, I'd be OK with it being at the top of Google. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is the Senator's name mentioned anywhere in this article?

It is disingenuous to claim that this is an article explaining a sexual term and then to mention the former Senators' name. I believe that it demeans Wikipedia and all of its editors to do so. All information about the former senator and any other person who might have this name should be removed. It is not done this way in any respected encyclopedia. Mugginsx (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The senator is the person who the neologism is named for. Jarkeld (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but I respectfully disagree that it is necessary to state the former senator's name and would go further to say that it is a cheap attempt at criticism toward this man at the expense of the dignity of the Wikipedia contributors. Just my opinion. Mugginsx (talk) 15:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're trying to say that this violates WP:BLP, I think many agree with you. As far as the definitions for this word, they are as follows: 1. Surname to many people 2. Shorthand for 'social conservative' 3. gross fecal mess

Several editors have said we need to refactor the article to be about the exchange between Dan Savage and Rick Santorum rather than making a psuedo-dictionary page. -- Avanu (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Any subject can be "over intellectualized". It is a tried and true way to make the incredible credible and the unworthy worthy. It shouldn't even deserve discussion in Wikipedia. I have seen many more deserving articles summarily deleted for less. As someone who has defended Wikipedia to many intellectuals who would like to see it done away with, I am appalled. Again, just my opinion for what it is worth. Mugginsx (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration requested

I've opened an arbitration request regarding the BLP violation in Template:Sexual slang (as well as in Template:LGBT slang). Given that most editors here are likely to have some level of involvement, I thought it best to notify here and let people comment there as needed. — Coren ^(talk) 15:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikitionary Definition

Hopefully not opening a can of worms, but I have updated the Wikitionary article to reflect all three meanings. By the way isn't Wikipedia *not* a dictionary? In other words, why do we have a dictionary article here (and not a record of the event)? -- Avanu (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

An excellent question.Mugginsx (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

For a while now, my feeling has been that the definition of the neologism should be in Wiktionary, and the story of how the neologism came to be and remained noteworthy in the press for years is sufficiently notable and encyclopedic to merit an article. The current RFC overreaches in that it requests no redirect from the current article's name; that's functionally a deletion, it would break links from many external sites, and I don't see where policy would justify it. So, I have to oppose the RFC as it was phrased. Also, while Wiktionary is the right place for the definition and a brief etymology, I don't think that it would be the right place to put the full story—the press firestorms, the enduring controversy, the impact upon Santorum's various campaigns. That belongs here. I think that policy supports having this as a separate article, to avoid WP:UNDUE in the senator's bio page. I think all this could be done in a way that is neutral in tone and doesn't lose useful information. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The contention has also been discussed above. As for the changes made at our sibling project, Wiktionary has distinct uppercase and lowercase words. See the entry for johnson. Then see Johnson. While it may be amusing to define santorum as a surname, it is best to revert those edits, Avanu. Gacurr (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Tom Morris, 13 June 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The third paragraph of the lead section currently reads:

According to the 2006 edition New Partridge Dictionary

Please substitute the following which is more grammatically correct:

According to the 2006 edition of the New Partridge Dictionary

Thanks.

—Tom Morris (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Done 狐 Déan rolla bairille! 12:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santorum (neologism) (4th nomination)

There's another AfD started- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santorum (neologism) (4th nomination). Note that since the article is protected it has not been linked to on the page itself. It may make sense for an admin to do that. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This AfD is premature and distracting. It needs to be postponed AT LEAST until the RfC is done. -- Avanu (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

AfD was closed by SarekOfVulcan pending ArbCom and RfC outcomes. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I updated the Article Milestones box above. However, the {{ArticleHistory}} template won't accept speedily closed as an option; the closest option that fits was speedily kept. I wanted to mention that here because I'm sure someone will complain. As the template is locked (and far beyond my template skill), it's not something I could fix. It's absolutely not that I'm trying to mislead anyone! If the template can be updated, or there's something I'm missing, I'm all for fixing it. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the restrictive language (specifically "pending ArbCom...outcome(s))" of this speedy close. While editorial focus on the RfC might certainly be accommodated by delaying an AfD nomination until the RfC is closed, a subsequent AfD shouldn't be precluded by potential ArbCom action and, in fact (given whatever AfD determination), might be an integral element (and perhaps a determinative one) in this current dispute resolution. Given the largely expanded focus that this issue is generating in the WP editor population (its potential consequence for real time politics probably motivational), the failure of yet another AfD nomination is, IMHO, no longer a foregone conclusion. I believe User:SarekOfVulcan should reconsider the closure language. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The closing language was meant to be descriptive, rather than prescriptive. I'm not going to change the language, but I'm unlikely to close a 5th AfD that has community consensus to run. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The last 3 AfDs should guard against opening a new one too soon, not any closing comments. I'm unaware of any burgeoning interest in removing the article, especially given the consistent rejection of renaming/merging/etc. requests on this talk page (and elsewhere). Protonk (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite

After stripping away all the content (half of the article) that was just establishing notability and trying to demonstrate that the term has been adopted by some (a handful); and removing background info already covered in Rick Santorum; and deleting ==Political impact== (that simply demonstrates there was no measurable political impact) we're left with

In May 2003, syndicated columnist Dan Savage, offended by then U.S. Senator Rick Santorum's comments on homosexuality, ran a competition among his readers to find the most appropriate meaning for the word "santorum," and created a website that featured the winning definition: a mixture of fecal matter and lubricant sometimes produced in anal sex. Due to the high number of other sites that link to it (see search engine optimization),^[1] since 2004 Savage's "definition" page has consistently been at or near the top of Google, Bing and Yahoo! search results for "Rick Santorum" and "santorum."^[2]^[3] In 2011 Santorum commented, "That'll take care of itself over time and if this campaign takes off and we decide to do this my guess is we'll have lots of other things that will transplant things like that. [...] I'm sure [the media] will be writing a lot of things and there'll be lots of links to other things that will far supersede some nasty people that are trying to be crude."^[4] In 2009 Santorum's campaign website had 5,000 inbound links, compared to 13,000 at Savage's "definition" website.^[5] Though it has received some media coverage and the American Dialect Society selected santorum as the Most Outrageous Word of the Year for 2004,^[6] Savage's neologism has failed to gain wide usage.^[7] I've updated this below at #Condensed version of the article --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

My thought is that you're jumping the gun. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The RfC, above, is proposing a radical reduction in the size of this content. I thought it would be useful to see what that might look like. I don't seriously expect a string of "love it!"s to follow :) I've just made a small change. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to say that that reads like a good lead paragraph, and I would like to know alot more. It would be very unfortunate to remove so much communicative information from the article when I still have questions after reading your new trim. If this is how you would treat most topics in our encyclopedia, I imagine all of our featured articles would be stubs too, thats very unfortunate Sadads (talk) 08:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Glad you like it, Sadads. I genuinely think most of what I removed was pretty irrelevant. What are the main points you think are missing? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The nuance of how the word could possibly have become so popular, which your paragraph hardly even alludes to, and a more careful analysis of how the word is actually effecting Santorum. I agree we could cut some of the sections in this article in half, because they have been structured as defensive structure against afds, but really, this case is fascinating in the way that news and other groups have commented on the effects and Savage's techniques to choose the word and spread it are an interesting case study in utilizing web media. Seriously, there are some very interesting things about how this word was developed, that lend a lot of light on how the word was a successful attack on Santorum which is fairly unique in recent politics for it's longevity in impact despite not being commonly used. A trim as you are suggesting is far too radical, but would be a great summary paragraph for related articles to link to this article as the main, Sadads (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

"how the word could possibly have become so popular". Citation needed. You are aware, Sadads, aren't you, that the one good source that commented on the popularity of the word, the Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, states that "the term is the child of a one-man campaign by syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage to place the term in wide usage. From its appearance in print and especially on the Internet, one would assume, incorrectly, that the term has gained wide usage." --J N 466 10:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that typing "santorum" into Google News and reviewing the vast number of articles that return—or, perhaps better yet, "santorum google problem"—would show that the word is being very widely discussed. One could say it's even popular, as in "(of political activity) of or carried on by the people as a whole rather than restricted to politicians or political parties" (New Oxford American Dictionary). Sure, it's not in "wide usage". As others have mentioned above, if it were in wide usage, it wouldn't be a neologism, it would be a word! Did the whole world just start using the word "sandwich" after the Earl of Sandwich slapped meat between slices of bread? One morning, did all of Britain wake up and decide that today, the act of using an electric vacuum cleaner would be called hoovering? Do you remember the day you got the bulletin that henceforth, you would instruct someone to search the Internet by using the verb google? The argument "The word isn't a word or even a neologism because one person coined it and the whole world doesn't use it, and therefore it is not notable" depends upon one completely ignoring the way in which words are inducted into the English language. The phenomenon is fairly well documented,[11][12] and the life of santorum appears to be following that arc. So far, the article seems to be doing a good job of covering the neologism's ascendance at the hands of Google and the press. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't you think what's being discussed in the press is Savage's Googlebombing campaign, and its effect on Santorum? I ask myself – if there weren't the Googlebombing aspect, would sources comment on the word? I don't think they would. The campaign is news; the word isn't. Applying linguistic criteria, the Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English didn't list it and explained why; and that dictionary is full of genuine neologisms. Perhaps the word will make it, but we don't have a crystal ball, and we shouldn't in my view be actively promoting it. --J N 466 21:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I too like the paragraph, but I feel such a lengthy explanation, along with the crude definition, does not belong in a main BLP article, but in the Santorum controversy article, linked from the main BLP article. Drrll (talk) 09:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Mmm. It is getting a bit long for Rick Santorum. I've added something about search engine optimization. If that's inappropriate, revert. Sadads, I agree this is notable and interesting. But I also believe the article is egregiously long and believe we have to avoid doing harm while making the notable and interesting points available to the reader. I'd like to know how Savage got those 13,000 incoming links. Did he invite his readers to link to the page? I'll reread the stuff about impact on Santorum and his career, later. I'm going out now. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Should be given as much prominence as the "Miserable failure" google bomb on GW Bush. Lets not forget that as a result of that Google censored their search results. Thus it has more impact on society than this fecal stain is ever likely to have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John lilburne (talk • contribs) 10:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

So, the impact of this thing should determine the degree of prominence we give it. Sounds reasonable. I'm not sure it's had any measurable impact, actually. I'll reread that section later. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

While it is said above that "there was no meaningful political impact", compare the actual article text:

"Whilst Santorum was contemplating a campaign for the Republican nomination for President in 2012, the high Web search engine ranking of Savage's site in searches for his name was seen as a potential roadblock.^[ref] CEO of ReputationDefender Michael Fertik who specializes in helping individuals with such issues commented, "It's devastating. This is one of the more creative and salient Google issues I've ever seen."^[ref]"

That's the kind of stuff you'd be hiding under the whitewash. Wnt (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

If so Then That's what the article should be about. However, such comments are CRYSTAL BALL GAZING, there is no evidence that it will affect his chances, or that he will even run, or that if he does run that it will have any impact. Please don't use armchair punditry as evidence of worth.John lilburne (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Our main problem per some of the comments above, is that this article is purported to be about a word... but is about a political situation and campaigns. It would be much more viable as renamed to something about a campaign. That's where we ought to focus I believe, in order to leave this behind and get back to writing a good article. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The media has long gone beyond the coverage of the campaign though, and has been focusing more and more on the existence of the neologism, Sadads (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Then all the justifications for keeping this based on political relevance are crap then. And as we've already seen the use of the word as a neologism is like wise crap, it hasn't caught on, and its existence is purely as a google bomb. John lilburne (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, if that's true it's still such a significant situation that we need the article Santorum (Google bomb). One way or the other, something here deserves space on WP. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

We already have that over with the "Miserable failure" and "French military victories" and a host of other google bombs. At issue here is why this one is being singled out for special treatment. John lilburne (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

[Lost edit due to the attempt to rename] Probably because this was intended -and I think in fact became- more than a Google bomb, if I understand the term correctly. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Wnt, I agree it should have reliably sourced information on the impact Savage's action has had on Santorum's career. But it should be based on more than one person's opinion. Santorum says it's not a problem (he would), and Savage speculates (reasonably) that his activism may be used by Santorum to advantage "Those mean gays are picking on me." Savage said whether it contributed to Santorum's last electoral loss can't be measured. No doubt, in time, an impact, if there is one, will become plain and be reported in reliable sources. But it looks like it is too early. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The source ([13]) cited in the article is not Dan Savage. True, Mother Jones, though widely respected, is not particularly neutral on political matters, and in the interests of fair and thorough coverage I might tweak the wording slightly now that I think about it. Wnt (talk) 23:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for uninvolved sources

As a kindness, would someone list here independent sources that appear not to be involved in the campaign, and that have used "santorum" as a word? Not sources that discuss it, but sources that actually use it with no reference to Dan Savage.

I'm requesting this because people are voting to oppose a merge on the grounds that the term is used. But I think this is based on a misunderstanding, so we really need to nail it down with crystal clarity. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

List of independent/uninvolved sources that actually use the term

[not including self-published material]

Moser, MD, PhD, Charles (October 2006). "Demystifying alternative sexual behavior" (PDF). Sexuality, Reproduction and Menopause. 4 (2): 86–90. doi:10.1016/j.sram.2006.08.007. Retrieved May 22, 2011.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Robert J. Rubel; Phd Rubel (September 2007). Squirms, Screams and Squirts: Going from Great Sex to Extraordinary Sex. Nazca Plains. ISBN 9781887895644. Retrieved 12 June 2011. Publisher: [14], [15]
Christopher Pierce (5 June 2008). Men on the Edge. STARbooks Press. pp. 6–. ISBN 9781934187289. Retrieved 12 June 2011. Publisher: [16], "The Leading Small Press Specializing in Gay Literature"
Example
Example
Example

Discussion

This is a source that uses santorum as a word independent of the politician or campaign, but it is not in context. Are you looking for uses of the word in context to mean the definition from this page ("...mixture of...")? That would seem to be a call for primary sources. Gacurr (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Your link is a "word of the year," but not an example of use. People are arguing that the word is actually in use, independently of the campaign to coin a new word. So I would like to compile a list of uninvolved sources that actually use "santorum" in context to mean "that frothy" etc. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Could you correct your use of "secondary sources" in the initial post? Gacurr (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing, SV. Gacurr (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of three sources that use the term in its new meaning, without mentioning Savage:

Moser, MD, PhD, Charles (October 2006). "Demystifying alternative sexual behavior" (PDF). Sexuality, Reproduction and Menopause. 4 (2): 86–90. doi:10.1016/j.sram.2006.08.007. Retrieved May 22, 2011.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Robert J. Rubel; Phd Rubel (September 2007). Squirms, Screams and Squirts: Going from Great Sex to Extraordinary Sex. Nazca Plains. ISBN 9781887895644. Retrieved 12 June 2011. Publisher: [17], [18]
Christopher Pierce (5 June 2008). Men on the Edge. STARbooks Press. pp. 6–. ISBN 9781934187289. Retrieved 12 June 2011. Publisher: [19], [20], "The Leading Small Press Specializing in Gay Literature"

There is also a self-published free e-book that uses the term (Dunn), and another self-published book by Austen James. All five were cited, with quotes, in the article at one time. Presently, only Moser is in the article.

Note that per WP:NEO, all of these are primary sources in the context of a neologism. --J N 466 17:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

NEO also says this about what we need to support an article on a neologism:

"To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms..." (emphasis added)

With the confusion as to primary and secondary sources in the initial post, I do not want this thread to leave a mistaken impression about what is being found here or its purpose. Gacurr (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2011

If it is going to be used it would be in online porn stories. ASSTR has a mere handful of such uses. Obviously being ASSTR they are all self published, but I think it points to the fact that the word is not widely used. John lilburne (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "santorum" appears to have little non-campaign use and would support a rename for accuracy (Santorum neologism campaign seems like the logical option). However, I think this thread is a bit of a red herring; many of the oppose votes above seem to me to oppose the merge not because of its proposed renaming, but because of its proposed deletion of most of the content on Savage's notable campaign. As many others have pointed out on here, it's a shame these two proposals were brought simultaneously, but hopefully once the smoke clears from the proposed deletion, we can talk about a more accurate title for this article. Khazar (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm concerned about how this line of discussion seems to be leading. I see a logical issue: If the argument is "having an article about a neologism, or the campaign that created a neologism, is unacceptable unless it can be proven the word is in widespread use"—which itself begs the question regarding the definition of neologism, in my opinion—then how does it make sense to limit "widespread use" to only those sources we qualify as WP:RS for the purposes of citations? A word could be in "widespread use" among actual people for quite some time before it is used in formal literature or academic papers. Show me, for example, the academic paper analyzing the word cuntlick (in the pejorative noun sense) and its spread throughout society, or the news articles showing it being notably used in the mainstream media. Sure, there's a fair number of Google Books results, but most are from small presses of the sort that would be quickly dismissed as insufficient for the purposes of the present argument. Yet could any American make a successful argument that the term is not in widespread (albeit not daily and not in polite company) use? Yes, it would be difficult to argue that cuntlick deserves an article. It'd be insane to claim it's not widely used.

If the question is What sources should be used as references in the article? I think this is a fair discussion. But I hope no one conflates that with the question How can you justify using the word neologism to describe the term santorum? as that is a different kettle of fish. That latter question based on one interpretation of one definition from one dictionary, and even if I thought the question had serious merit, I don't think the answer needs to meet WP's publication standards to be valid. Frankly, the attempts to reframe the argument as "it's not even a neologism" alienate me from the the-article-should-probably-be-renamed camp. Especially because RSes use the term "neologism" to refer to santorum, so the entire debate seems like OR to me. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I actually can see the "shorthand for social conservative" claiming a lasting spot in usage, while the more prurient definition stays in very restricted use, if at all. Really either one has yet to prove they will maintain a lasting hold, like normalcy or polka dot. -- Avanu (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe create a new section to discuss that definition and so we can get more sourcing behind it? So far you're the only one using it on this talk page. Gacurr (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

This distasteful situation can, I think, be simplified by deleting the article altogether and if the original editor thinks there is anything about Santorum that he wants to say, let him say it in the biographical article of either Santorum or Savage with the same good taste that is required by ALL Wikipedia editors instead of insulting the intelligence of everyone by attempting to make them think that his remarks are just an "example of the definition of neologism". It is thinly vieled attempt to use a prestigious project such as Wikipedia to make an ugly smear, nothing more. I repeat, it denigrates the entire project and I do not understand how it continues to stay in when countless other articles are deleted every year. No deep discussion needed here in my opinion. Mugginsx (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You've said this several times, but you haven't explained how your opinion should sway the consensus that has survived three previous deletion discussions, and the opposition to a functional deletion contemplated by the current RfC. Do you have a compelling argument to make, or a constructive alternative to suggest, other than that you don't like it? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

As to a constructive alternative - it is deletion with a possible mention in one of the biographies I mentioned. As to how to sway the consensus, I probably do not have sufficient technical experience yet on wikipedia. I do hope however that others of you that are more experienced, and who agree with me will give it your best shot. Further, if I can help in this way or any way you recommend, I will pursue it. Mugginsx (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Mugginsx, if you have a look at the boxes at the top of this page, you'll see one that mentions "Article milestones". Expand it, and you'll see that the idea of deleting the page has already been raised three times going back to 2006, and three times the Wikipedia community has not found consensus to delete it. After three deletion discussions, it's unlikely in the extreme that a fourth would be successful—at least, not without some novel, utterly compelling reason. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is neither novel nor compelling. Personally, I'd recommend working to improve the content instead. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Though I did agree above that I thought it would be better in Wiktionary. Perhaps that is the best I can do for now except to wish you all luck and to read and learn more. Mugginsx (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the argument is "having an article about a neologism, or the campaign that created a neologism, is unacceptable unless it can be proven the word is in widespread use". As far as I am concerned, the campaign is evidently notable, irrespective of whether the neologism is notable or not. Whether it requires an article to itself, or could be better covered as part of the general controversy, is another question. But a neologism becomes notable for Wikipedia, as opposed to Wiktionary, if there are secondary sources writing about it and attesting to it having become part of the language. Cuntlick will be notable and deserve an article in Wikipedia if and when there are such sources; until then, it may deserve a page in Wiktionary, but not here. The above exercise is simply to look into the argument that it's a widely used neologism. You're right that neologisms may occur more often in spoken language than written language, but even cuntlick (spelt as a single word) has more Google Books matches than santorum, and we don't have an article on it. --J N 466 20:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we're agreeing here about notability. I'm just worried that some may get hung up on whether or not the word is a neologism or not by their definition when it doesn't matter for purposes of policy... and it's just plain picayune to debate whether to call it a neologism in the article. Especially if we do all sorts of OR to "prove" it. Let's focus on identifying which references are clearly keepers without bringing neologism into it? Probably more productive. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, probably more productive since I'm betting we could get consensus for a rename. I would be more interested in a discussion of which sources are not acceptable for an article on the campaign. That would give a head start on re-doing the article. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Would it be too soon to go forward with a spin-off article on just the campaign? I know I do not support getting rid of this article, nor do a large number of editors who have spoken above (also see the archives). Over time the campaign article would seem likely to grow to the appropriate size and questions about sources for it could be handled there. And over time, I would expect, this article would improve and become shorter given the existence of a new spin-off article to handle the campaign subject matter in depth. Gacurr (talk) 23:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well it certainly might be a good idea to do a sandbox article on the campaign. I would guess we'd start out with the text of this article. Other people think this is a good idea? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on something at #Condensed version of the article. I know it looks ridiculously small, compared to the existing version, but I contend it is the existing version that is ridiculously fat. Feedback would be much appreciated. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Did anyone really take a look at the Rubel "book" which is cited above? Reading the "writers wanted" page for the publisher, Nazca Plains Corporation, it sounds a lot like Lulu or other publishing-on-demand companies, without the front-loaded cost to the author.[21] Explicitly urging writers to recruit five of their friends to buy the book from Amazon and give it five-star ratings (to attract the attention of wholesalers) is not the hallmark of a reputable company. Horologium (talk) 19:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree; that too is borderline self-publishing. --J N 466 15:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Toward finding a consensus before ArbCom finds one for us

I would like to encourage folks from both sides of this debate to re-examine their positions and their !votes in the pending RfC, to see if it is possible to help the closing admin find some consensus.

Support votes: If there is some part of the proposal that you find disagreeable, or that you are not insistent upon, please consider amending your !vote to make that clear.
Oppose votes: If there is some part of the proposal that you would consider, either as posed or in principle, please consider amending your !vote to make that clear as well.

As I have noted on the ArbCom case page, as I write this I see the !vote count being 54 support, 73 oppose, and 10 other. At a glance, that makes this look like a quagmire. But I believe that, if you look at parts of the question, there is more common ground than there first appears. Looking only at the !vote statements, and not subsequent statements, I see

63 !voters support, or could be persuaded to support, a rename of the article
49 to 51 !voters support merging the article into another article
60 !voters support, or could be persuaded to support, some degree of rewrite of the article
49 to 51 !voters support moving the article without a redirect from the current name
Five !voters would support deleting the article outright
Two !voters support TROUT ALL (well, three, I could go for that as well)

(I don't guarantee the numbers add up perfectly. I'm on Wikipedia because I'm good with words, not numbers. And remember, those numbers do not reflect position shifts in later freeform discussion.)

It seems to me that while a 45% "support" !vote suggests no consensus, a 50% "would support rename" !vote suggests more common ground than one might think. If, after all this discussion, you re-read your position statement and find that you're more open to alternatives than you said, please consider amending it so that we can reach a consensus. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

per your request:

First Choice delete outright
Second Choice merge (I think the Savage, or Savage Love article would be the proper choice if acceptable)
Third Choice move to a more proper title
Fourth Choice actually I did have fish for dinner tonight, so I'm good. :) — Ched : ? 03:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I recommend folks try to work their preferences into their support or oppose !vote in the RfC proper, just so as to make it easier for the poor closing admin... If nothing else, we should open a fund to buy some anti-inflammatory drugs that work well for a cramped scroll-wheel finger for whatever brave soul takes the job! // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 04:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

LOL at the fund drive. I have to call it a night, but feel free to move if you wish; otherwise I'll move and reformat tomorrow night. Cheers Macwhiz... and good luck with this effort. — Ched : ? 04:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's good to reframe and narrow the discussion, in hopes that a consensus will emerge. However, I dispute the notion that "no consensus to delete" plus a bevy of editors who won't accept that result equals quagmire, breakdown of process, made every effort to resolve and now have to run to Arbcom, etc. That would be yet another failed deletion attempt. Across the encyclopedia we have AfD and other proposals that end up as "no consensus". Having said that, every article can use improvement, and surely this article's title, focus, wording, etc., can be improved. I've already put in my 2 cents so I won't repeat here - Wikidemon (talk) 06:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Macwhiz is right, and editors clarifying their stance on individual aspects of the proposal can only be of help. For reference, apart from this article, the controversy is presently covered at

Format Note: Not being well-versed in text formatting, this was no mean feat appending the suggested summary edit to a prior comment (and an "asterisk" breaks the numerical chain). The following gets the job done...

#:First Choice:

#:Second Choice:

#:Third Choice:

JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I recommend simply reading the talk archives and past deletion/merger debates. There is a consensus, but it isn't the one some people want. Protonk (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard of it, but someone asked for an impartial opinion.

Well I'd never hear of this at all - I saw someone ask for neutral point of view on the article, with no comment made, I perhaps foolishly followed it.

General thoughts on this page

Neologisms don't generally get wikipedia articles - they sometimes get wiktionary articles
Controversies do generally get wikipedia articles - they don't get wiktionary articles
There apparently exists an article Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality.

I'd suggest this neologism is basically non notable (as I've never hear it said anywhere) but anyone who has the skill (and a login on wiktionary - which I don't) should boldly make a Wiktionary article which says something along the lines of the following.

Proto Wiktionary article

Santorum a vulgarism, meaning blah blah blah ....

First Coined

by whoever, whenever as a result of Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality (with some interwiki tech pointing at that article)

Etymology

Derived from the name of 'who ever the person is'

Conclusion of thoughts on this page

A wikipedia page on the 'word' Santorum - is about as encyclopedic as a wikipedia page on any other word, if someone were to create a list of English profanity (similar to the Finnish_profanity article - then this word could have a place there.

This article as it stands has the title 'Santorum_(neologism)' suggesting it's about a word (which would be non notable - or should be inwiktionary). Which means that I feel the article should either be renamed or merged into an article with a sensible title. and this one Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality does look like a good candidate.

So I'd suggest an admin take all of this article and all the talk page and stick them as a subsection of the Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality article and it's associated talk page.

Apologies that I've tagged this as a minor edit - but I don't have any interest in the subject, and this way I'm excluding it from affecting future SuggestBot results. EdwardLane (talk) 11:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Edward. Would you consider adding this suggestion to the above RfC? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

"It's not notable because I've never heard of it" -- how adorable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

We have plenty of articles on words. DICDEF is a non-issue as far as this article goes. We don't need to keep re-hashing this stuff every time someone new comes to this page. Protonk (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Quoting Sam Black on why anyone trying to protect Santorum readers from simple truth are wrong

Quote:

" BLP derives from core content policies of accuracy and sourcing, together with content neutrality. Lying behind it is the knowledge that if content does not match these policies, it may do harm; but content that fully meets them may also lower the reputation of a BLP subject. If it does, that's because of what's happened in the real world. We describe the real world. Some of the contributions here are getting dangerously close to saying we must deliberately distort the world we see and report because some people can't be trusted to be told the truth. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)"

There you go. Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The most important distortions of our policies were made here in this article: mispresenting a dictionary as saying the opposite of what it was actually saying, quoting self-published erotic novels, an erotic novel from 1971 (!) that misspelt sanctorum, an "alternative crossword" book and a "geek limerick contest". Perhaps you should have seen what this article looked like two weeks ago. --J N 466 21:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

One would think that Sam Blacketer would be more sensitive to the nuances of BLP handling, given their own history with Wikipedia. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that the quote lay dormant for ten days before someone picked up on it. It was made in the context of a contention that WP:BLP is principally motivated by not doing harm. I don't really see what the inaccurate newspaper stories about my assistant's connection with me really have to do with it, since I haven't actually made any objection under WP:BLP grounds to any article. I do, however, object to the appearance on any project page of my user name with the real name of my assistant, which is clearly against a policy for which there is no "it said so in the Daily Mail" exception. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If your comment is addressed to me, I have no idea who your "assistant" is or what their name may be. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

My assistant is the person who assists me by pushing the keys on the keyboard in line with my thoughts, for as I am only a literary pseudonym I need someone to do this. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The neutral-party opinion from the No Original Research noticeboard agrees that the correct way to deal with a source is to "say what they said, and nothing more". It is hardly surprising that when some people insist the word is not used that people then go find examples of use. Two weeks ago the article looked not too different. Perhaps it was less palatable to a political campaign back then, with a definition of the subject in the first sentence. Gacurr (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

That the word has been bandied about a bit in an echo chamber of like-minded Santorum-haters is not proof that it is a word with legitimate usage. Show me that it has entered into the common sex lexicon of a good ol dirty sanchez, then we'll talk. Tarc (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Had to look that one up. It is a good thing that our encyclopedia is not suppressing the entry of distasteful subject matter (and, of course, it is policy). I wonder how people with the surname Sanchez feel about the association? With regards this article, santorum is a neologism. Attestation of wide use is not important. Secondary sources that cite the word are what matters. We have those in abundance. Gacurr (talk) 23:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You have nothing of the sort. What you have is the perpetuation of a clever google-bomb to get "spreadingsantorum.com" to outrank "ricksantorum.com". Anyone who thinks the word has any more meaning than that is either delusional or a party to the attack to begin with. Tarc (talk) 23:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, you're coming perilously close to commenting on the contributor instead of the content with these comments. Baldly stating that anyone who doesn't share your view is delusional or a member of a conspiracy doesn't help sway anyone to your side, and can't help but provoke resentment. Regardless of the outcome of this whole thing, wouldn't it be better for the tone of the discussion to reflect well on the community, especially with ArbCom's attention on everyone? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Call me party to the attack then. What I see is a mix of arrogance and myopia. The word "santorum" has taken up a meaning without wikipedia and now that the meaning exists we mean to change it by renaming or altering the article. What makes us think it is ok to be party to the conversation let alone in control of it escapes me. Protonk (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Santorum is Cyberbullying

A version of what I posted earlier at the discussion on User talk:Jimbo Wales#Santorum (neologism):
Dan Savage is responsible for the It Gets Better Project, aimed at gay kids who are bullied, including in cyberspace, by those who think they're wrong/different/whatever. That project got a lot of deserved support. Now Savage is bragging about the success of his efforts to cyber-bully Rick Santorum because he's wrong/different/whatever. Hello? Bullying is wrong. Period. If you don't agree with Santorum's views, and many (I would hope most) of us do not, surely there is a better, more rational, more adult, more respectful way to point out that he's wrong. At Wikipedia we're expected to Assume Good Faith and not resort to nasty attacks. So why should we be party to an activity seeking to glorify the opposite through cheap and sleazy SEO tricks? The category the article belongs to is [[Category:Cyber-bullying]], and the article name should reflect that. I would also suggest the article do a 'compare and contrast' of the two Savage projects.

I suggest reading Dan Savage's 24 September 2009 column, third section. It's not (yet) referenced in this article, but imo it certainly makes a compelling case for showing Savage's determination to continue and increase the cyber-bullying in connection with the 2012 campaign. And back in 2009! (I just found the article through googling - I was trying to find Savage's more recent statement: "When we told him about the nascent campaign to fix Santorum's search results, Savage said, 'We'll just have to redouble our Google bombing efforts.'") Following is a clip, bolding mine:

So I'm looking for a few folks who want to torment Rick Santorum by following every twist and turn of his sure-to-be-disastrous run for the White House on SpreadingSantorum.com. (I may dip in every once in a while and post myself.) It would be labor of love—read: a nonpaying gig—but you'll have the satisfaction of knowing that you're driving Rick Santorum and his supporters absolutely batshit (batshittier?).

--Flatterworld (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

~~Well, I personally don't support this if it is a serious suggestion, and if it is just a joke, well, I guess its supposed to reflect some kind of deserved reward, but~~ honestly I would just prefer we all be able to have a sensible article about this whole affair and move on to other topics. -- Avanu (talk) 00:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry entirely misread what was being said above. Tired I guess. -- Avanu (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

See paradox of tolerance. We need not all find it obvious that Karl Popper was simply and obviously "wrong"; whether Santorum is significant enough to warrant intolerance of the intoletant is not a question a Wikipoll should deal with.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Once again, I thought I was being clear and obvious yet apparently I wasn't. We are talking about renaming the article. The article isn't about a 'neologism' (astroturfed or not), it's about a cyberbullying attempt. To be accurately descriptive, the article name should reflect that. The cyberbullying is the primary focus, the word is simply the vehicle to achieve it. The only 'intolerance' involved is to point out that Dan Savage is showing intolerance, same as what he's accusing Rick Santorum of doing. Savage upped the ante by enlisting the help of his readers and supporters in what he called a 'Google bomb', claiming Rick Santorum 'deserves it'. Judge, jury, executioner. If we're going to have an article about this, and I have no issue with that, let's call a spade a spade rather than pretending this is some 'neologism', an actual word which is in actual use. At this point, it's not. Perhaps years from now it will be, perhaps not. We don't do fortunetelling here, we wrtie articles about what we know at this point in time. At this point in time, it's a cyberbullying attempt. (btw - dictionaries wait until they're certain a word is actually a widely-used word before they claim it to be one, and for good reason - to avoid this sort of 'non-word'.)Flatterworld (talk) 06:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Given the concern over BLP issues here, I'm a bit disappointed (but not surprised) that people are going to ignore BLP issues when it comes to Dan Savage. So let's be clear: Claiming someone is a "Cyberbully" is both OR and a BLP issue. Claiming it repeatedly on multiple pages is not helpful. If you want to claim that that Savages actions are "cyberbullying" that should be reflected in the article, then find sources that call it that. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Are you trying to exemplify WP:KETTLE? If so you have succeeded like a real champion. Aiding the real life attempt of a columnist to equate a politician;s name with excrement is not a BLP concern of yours, but someone saying that the campaign to do so equates to cyberbullying on a talk page all of a sudden is? I've seen it all.Griswaldo (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, aiding such is a concern. At the same time, I'd like to balance that concern with the fact that we have a lot of reliable sources talking about the claim itself. That doesn't mean one doesn't care about the concern. However, and this is a very big however, there's an extremely large difference between something which is well-sourced and something that is not. Making actual accusations about a BLP is a whole other kettle of fish than neutrally reporting on what reliable sources have said. And being concerned about the coinage while loudly and on multiple pages declaring that Savage is engaging in "Cyberbullying" is the height of hypocrisy. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, WP:KETTLE.Griswaldo (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I quoted Savage himself, even included bolding, so to claim it's OR and BLP is ludicrous. Flatterworld(talk) 16:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

No, your assertion is a textbook example of WP:SYNTHESIS. You say "Savage said this, and that", and cite it. Then you assert "'This and that' is cyberbullying", with no reference to back it up. Finally, you synthesize the two by claiming "therefore Savage is cyberbullying". It's not a valid argument for content inclusion in Wikipedia. If you can find a reliable secondary source that states, flat out, "Savage is conducting cyberbullying", you might have a case, but you haven't posted one. I personally doubt that you will find one, because there is a difference between zealous partisan reporting (which is what the Savage quote you posted describes, and please note I say this without making any value judgement on reporting of that kind) and cyberbullying. Fox News routinely engages in zealous partisan reporting, but no one is credibly asserting that Fox News is a cyberbully. It's entirely possible that you could make a claim that Savage engaged in cyberbullying with other evidence, but asking his readers to report fully on the campaign just isn't good evidence for that assertion. It's not bullying to merely imply that a person's political campaign is likely to be so self-damaging as to bring angst to the politician, which is what Savage seems to be doing in this quote. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Based on your reply, it appears you couldn't be bothered to follow the link to Savage's 2009 column, which I provided. If you have the time to post such a 'reply', then surely you could have found the time to first read what he wrote IN FULL. I provided a CLIP. That's all - a CLIP. If you had questions about what he was referring to, you should have read what he wrote IN FULL. If you want a definition of the word 'cyberbullying', you can try a dictionary and/or Wikipedia's article on cyberbullying. It is NOT a requirement that I define every word for you, nor is it original research to use a word you don't happen to like being used in connection with Savage. Your partisanship is getting way out of line here, and your attempts at 'wikilawyering' are absurd.Flatterworld (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I have read the article, which doesn't contain the term cyberbullying anywhere. You propose to categorize the article as cyberbullying, but you would reach that through original research and synthesis, rather than citing a proper source. Rather than discuss the merits of the proposal, you have now turned to accusations of partisanship and wikilawyering. That's not precisely civil behavior. I am open to the idea if you can find a source, but this sort of response can only make me less so. //⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Clearly we're not going to make any progress here. First you demanded a definition, now you're insisting that's not enough, all the while claiming you're 'open' to the idea. I have seen NO evidence of that in ANY of your comments on this topic, and my patience is at an end. IF you had googled the word, THEN you would have found, at government site, "Creating websites, videos or social media profiles that embarrass, humiliate, or make fun of others."Savage created a website. It was intended to embarrass, humiliate, AND make fun of Rick Santorum. Are you really going to argue that's not true? After Savage himsself has declared, loudly and clearly, that that was exactly his intention?Flatterworld (talk) 04:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll repeat here some of what I just commented on the ad case page. You have ask yourself, what if was your name on the top of the Santorum (neologism)‎ page? What if your child had to go to school to face laughter at the great joke your family's name has become. Are we letting it slid because it is just one politician, one name, one family and so many other people will enjoy the article?Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This argument is a bad one. By that argument we can't have material about any word with negative connotations that some people have as a last name (to use examples from people I know, Weiner, and Cox would be obvious ones). Trying to make this be about the children is an appeal to emotion that has no grounding in logic, precedent or policy. JoshuaZ(talk) 13:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not an argument. It is a consideration. It should be kept in mind. The creation of the word was emotional attack; logic, precedent and policy had nothing to do with it. To apply logic, recognize precedence and form policy we need to see this for what it is. It is an attack; we should avoid participating in it. It is unnecessary to put this article where it can do harm, so lets put the essential information where it does less. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not an emotional but an ethical argument, similar to Primum non nocere. It is also about Wikipedia being used by activists to harass a BLP. For comparison, look at all the accounts that showed up to edit the Tea Party movement articles and caused all sorts of problems, but then disappeared shortly before and after the elections. We've had long, drawn out discussions about how to handle this, and the only thing people can agree on is the time of day. The best way forward is to change the user sign-up process, and encourage people to declare their COI from the beginning. That way, we can build on a trusted relationship and acknowledge editorial expertise, while at the same time, giving the user the choice to remain above board rather than to draw it out of them in repeated, continued conflicts and dispute. In my experience, most people want to do the right thing, and it doesn't matter if they are with Bash Back! or Young Republicans, they would declare their COI if Wikipedia requested it from them.Viriditas (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent idea. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

So, we expect that people who don't reveal their COI voluntarily in a talk space will answer honestly a question about COI when they sign up? Perhaps we should demand an oath, to ensure that new editors remain loyal to the Pillars. If that fails, we can create a Wikipedia Un-Civl Activities Commission to investigate the offenders. (Seriously... doesn't this just amount to assuming bad faith from the first moment?) // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You have missed the point. The first thing we have to do is create a culture of encouraging people to reveal their COI when they sign-up. Currently, we have a culture of "do whatever you want" instead of, "reveal your COI and we will respect your expertise". One of the major complaints we hear about Wikipedia culture, is its disdain for experts. This solution addresses that problem. When I say we will "respect your expertise", I'm saying that more effort needs to be made to get self-acknowledged experts and people with an admitted COI involved in the process. We can surely benefit from an expert on politics providing, let's say, a non-binding review of a political article. When you can get people involved in a way that they find enjoyable and draws on their potential and experience, asking them to reveal their COI becomes an asset. Viriditas (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't see it the way you meant, and I apologize for that. Having a better idea of people's expertise would be a positive thing. I still worry that it would be prone to being gamed (no lobbyist is going to put "paid lobbyist" down), and that less-enlightened editors might try to turn it into some kind of litmus test. But I definitely agree that Wikipedia's ultimate success depends on drawing people into the things they're interested in. There's much to draw on there from self-determination theory—Richard Ryan, co-founder of that school of psychological thought, was one of my professors at the University of Rochester. Intrinsic motivation works best: people do better when they do something they (think they) want to do. That's Wikipedia editing in a nutshell. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. This isn't the appropriate place to hold the discussion you are trying to have. Additionally, your suggestion that your own speculations, opinions, and comparisons be added to the article goes against Wikipedia's policy onoriginal research -- you need to cite people making the argument you want; you can't simply make that argument yourself and insert it into the article. If you want to argue over the topic or present your own arguments, there are many forums to do so elsewhere on the internet; Wikipedia is not one of them. --Aquillion (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- We are discussing if the title is correct and if the article should stand alone or be merge. To do that we must discuss what it is. From WP:BLP lead section: ". . . and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." and also says "This policy applies to BLPs, . . . and to material about living persons on other pages." There are lots of opinions flying around on this page. It is not original research to look at the issue and say what we think it is on the talk page. If we were discussing if an article was patent nonsense would you require us to cite arguments that it is patent nonsense? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

For comparison's sake, Death panel was an attack suggesting Barack Obama didn't have much concern for the lives of the elderly or disabled. It was also selected as the American Dialect Society's most outrageous word of the year. I don't think that by documenting it, though, we're participating in it. Jesanj (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"Death panel" is a good example of recentism—lipstick on a pig. Historically, it merits a condensed, four paragraph mention inpolitical positions of Sarah Palin, but nothing more. We really should not have that article. Unless the word is chosen as the Word of the Year, it really isn't that notable. The American Dialect Society chose tweet as Word of the Year for 2009, not death panel. They also chose Dracula sneeze as the most creative. I've read the death panel article and its summary in the political positions of Sarah Palin parent article, and I don't see how a separate article is needed. Viriditas (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

No, online advocacy and cyberbullying are the not the same thing. Cyberbullying implies some things like stalking and harassing, and also that the victim is helpless and usually innocent or undeserving. I don't think it gets applied regularly to public figures who are the targets of negative campaigns, or to online advocacy campaigns generally. Moreover, cyberbully is a pejorative label and therefore something to avoid per WP:LABEL. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You haven't read many sources about cyberbullying, have you? But your 'reasoning' does evoke memories of old rape trials: "she wasn't some innocent virgin", "she asked for it", "what can you expect if you enter a public place like a bar alone"? Ready to bring burkhas to the US, Wikidemon? Because your 'logic' isn't any different, it's insulting and demeaning of everyone who believes in democracy, public service, and the right of individuals to not be unfairly harrassed for their beliefs, whatever they might be. Savage has every right and one could argue responsibility) to inform his readers of Santorum's views, and the likely result if he were to be elected. Savage is acting like a capital-E ejit if he and you) believe that extends to this sort of nastiness. I would like qualified people to run for public office. There have been fewer and fewer over time, and the usual reason is, "Why should I subject myself, my family, my friends and relations to the nasty attacks some people now consider "fair game" - when the topic is (purportedly) legislation? I have NO idea why you're making excuses for uncivil behavior, particularly as a volunteer for Wikipedia.Flatterworld (talk) 02:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You're normally fairly rational and levelheaded about things, so please think twice then think again before getting personal like that and pulling the reducto ad rape card. My point holds. One whose "beliefs" include denying civil rights for a class of people and equating their sexual relations to bestiality has arguably removed themselves from the realm of civil discourse as it is. Whether such a politician deserves to be vilified or not, the invectives thrown at them in public discourse are not cyberbullying in any commonly used sense of the word. You're free to lobby for your own new word definitions if you wish, but Wikipedia follows the sources, it does not lead them. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Your point does NOT hold. Savage and the rest of us have every right and responsibility to condemn Santorum's views. That is no justification for cyberattacking him through the petty and offensive equivalent of playground name-calling. Creating a special website and encouraging everyone to view that website (whether they were looking for anything remotely resembling it or not), and ridiculing the person as opposed to the person's views is indeed an example of cyberbullying. And we at Wikipedia would be remiss if we didn't point that out. No one who signs up for public office is signing up for that. Nor should they, no matter what their views. No one anywhere 'deserves' that. (And jftr, Santorum stated that he was NOT equating homosexual relations to bestiality, but stating that was what the BILL, as written, did. I still don't agree with his views, but neither do I agree with a witch hunt or lynch mob based on truthiness. (As for 'following the sources', please reflect that that entails more than robotically repeating whatever anyone happens to say. And perhaps the definition of cherry-picking.) Good night, and good luck.Flatterworld (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's put it this way. If you punch a smaller kid in the nose when he's trying to get to school, that's bullying. If you punch a fanatic in the nose who's running at you with a machete, not so much. Wnt (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice strawman. Dreadstar ☥ 03:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Wnt, you may well see him as a machete-wielding fanatic, but I see him as some guy mumbling to himself and waving his arms on the subway, going on about the end of the world, or some young child insisting the Tooth Fairy exists because his mommy said so. No, I'm not tempted to punch either one. No, I'm not worried either is going to be elected President next year. (You might remind yourself that Santorum's own constituency kicked him out.) No, I don't believe most people in the US agree with either one of them. They both deserve some compassion, same as everyone. Would I stoop to bullying them? Throw a name-callling tantrum? Of course not. The actual beliefs are the issue worthy of discussion, not some deluded individual. Gandhi was right on many things, MLK was right on many things, Savage has been right on many things - but not this one. This isn't a case of 'self-defense' or 'pre-emptive attack' (I'm not sure which one your example is intended to evoke), this is bullying. It's a personal attack. That's what bullying is - it's not dependent on whether or not the victim can or will defend himself, (although that has much to do with the 'success', or lack thereof, of the bullying). An attempted crime is wrong, whether or not it's is, or was even likely to be, successful. Look. This has gone on since 2003. It's one thing to understand why Savage reacted the way he did, it's quite another to condone it and let Wikipedia be a part of it. You may believe all's fair in love, war and politics - but I don't. This Lee Atwater-Karl Rove school of 'campaigning' needs to end. Flatterworld (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Somebody must be responsible for enacting all those anti-gay laws, banning gay marriage, prohibiting equal rights and discrimination protection based on sexual orientation. A U.S. Senator decrying the voiding of a law that makes gay sex illegal because it's comparable to legalizing bestiality and child sex abuse is not an uninvolved bystander expressing their viewpoint. They're a participant. Votes on gay issues will come before the senate. Editorial indignation over the issue isn't really relevant to constructing the encyclopedia, and may be misplaced. The article already mentions a few third party reactions. Many people obviously support what Savage did, and many who don't support Savage would not consider Santorum the victim in the affair. Some obviously think Savage is off base, or an agent of everything wrong with the nation. For his part Santorum claims to be brushing it off. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and that's why some of us are arguing the issues instead of wasting time on a juvenile attempt to ridicule someone's name. Santorum hasn't been a Senator since January 2007. All he CAN do is talk, because he hasn't been a participant' for over 4 years - he was fired from the job, presumably for being such a wingnut. Wnt claimed some sort of imminent threat, and that's why I disagree. Still, the point is how to name the article, and how to describe Savage's actions, the reactions to them, and so forth. 'Misplaced editorial indignation' sounds like you're claiming the end justifies the means and anyone who supports gay rights should automatically cheer at wahteer Savage says or does, no matter what. "My Savage right or wrong?" Not true. The laws are being changed and will continue to be changed, but not because some former Senator was made an object of ridicule on a personal levelas opposed to ridiculing the absurd laws. For some reason, you either can't or won't acknowledge the difference between issue advocacy and a personal attack. Flatterworld (talk) 08:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

"Santorum" is certainly bullying, but due to media coverage such as on The Colbert Report it has permeated culture to a much greater extent, and it is notable nonetheless. A such, many people use the term in a non-politically charged manner. In other words, it has become part of the vernacular. It is no longer merely a campaign.Mnealon (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Google is not the only search engine in the world

Yes, i haven't been following the unbearable amount of discussion about this article, but noting the provisional name change toSantorum Google problem, I would note that santorum the sexual term is the top result in every search engine. I'm sure Microsoft would not be happy with the new name. Nor Yahoo. Not to mention hugely popular non-English-centered search engines like Baidu. All of which, since a time even before Wikipedia was prominent, featured santorum the sexual term as their top results.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r22:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, tough titty says the kitty, as the saying goes. "Google" has become synonymous with internet searching, much as "Xerox" became a verb meaning "to photocopy" back in the day. I think there was an absurd attempt recently to craft a BLP-like protection for corporations, but that idea was thankfully smothered with a pillow. (boy, I'm full of colorful verbiage today, it must be summertime). Tarc (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, I am pretty sure Google would have a problem with us using it like that. see Genericized trademark andGoogle calls in the 'language police' (BBC June 2003)- they lose their trademark rights if they don't police against use like that.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 22:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I worked at Xerox for a while. During orientation, you had the usual: How to record your time, don't commit sexual harassment, here's how to access your 401(k)... and Thou shalt not use Xerox as a verb. Really, that commandment was as big a unit as the unit on sexual harassment. I'm not saying it isn't a bit late for that, but inside the company they sure take it seriously. You'd get a reprimand if you said you were going to go xerox something, or use a xerox machine. You could go use a Xerox brand xerographic copier. We may laugh, but yeah, these companies take it seriously, to avoid losing the legal protection of that little Xerox™ or Google™ trademark symbol. Google has a writeup on it: [22] //⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nor, I suspect, would Google be happy to have its search ranking be called a problem. A website about a term is supposed to be shown at the top of results. Gacurr (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Tough itty bitty snitty kitty titty. That's what the sources call it. If we call it something different, it's not because Google doesn't like it. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

A search on santorum "google problem" returns 16 results in Google's news archive. It does not seem to be all that commonly used in reliable sources. Gacurr (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Funny, but google searches don't determine what we call an article here at the Wikipedia. But as this certainly isn't your first account here, I'm sure you don't need a Wiki-rule/guideline refresher. Tarc (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is supposed to. Gacurr (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Consensus did. Dreadstar ☥ 00:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Only two editors mention this title, specifically "Rick Santorum's Google problem", in the 148 !votes of the RfC. The RfC does not provide evidence of consensus for the present title. Gacurr (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You need to re-read Wikipedia:Consensus, just because "only two editors mentioned" the title doesn't mean WP:CONisn't satisfied. Numbers are only meaningful in a very limited way. Dreadstar ☥ 01:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's very meaningful here to note that, because of the way the RfC was framed, there were many possible alternatives that weren't the focus and that therefore received virtually no attention from editors. One cannot plausibly claim a consensus existed for (or against) one of those alternatives.JamesMLane t c 01:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, RFC's are not that restrictive and this rename was definitely a potential outcome of this particular RFC, as I previously stated above. [23][24]. So yes, it's perfectly plausible to 'claim' consensus. Moving forward from here is the key. Dreadstar ☥01:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

If you could show us the consensus for the present title in the RfC, I think the matter could be put to rest.Gacurr (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

If you could move forward, as I suggested above, that would be the best course of action. Consensus for a rename was perfectly clear in the RFC, and this rename fits all Policy requirements. Continued agitation over this will be problematic. Dreadstar ☥ 01:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Dreadstar, you're correct that this particular name was a potential outcome. There were others. I consider the word "problem" to be POV -- was there a consensus that I'm wrong and that it's OK to call something a problem? We don't know, do we, because the community wasn't asked to address that question, or any question relating to this suggested title. If you're upset about "[c]ontinued agitation", I suggest you bring your complaint to the people who want this information expunged from Wikipedia or at least obscured. They've brought multiple AfD's, started multiple threads on the article talk page, called for merger, called for renaming, started a discussion on the admins' noticeboard.... In light of all this, I see no moral authority to a demand that I suddenly shut up just because the current status is one that happens to be pleasing to you.JamesMLane t c 06:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand, I'm not necessarily advocating keeping the current name permanently, just that the changeis per consensus, and the next step would be finding a better name - if there is one - and rewriting the article. Continued griping over the current name isn't helping anything; so moving forward is what I'm recommending, not going backwards to the original name. And no worries, I'm neither upset nor happy...just middle of the road today. :)Dreadstar ☥ 15:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the BLP gods determined that "Santorum's Yahoo problem" was too blue. Protonk (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- How about "Santorum Veronica problem" ? Hubba hubba! Tarc (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

If anyone starts a rename discussion to Santorum Google problem (other search machines are available) I think I might well shoot them. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

LOL BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That points the way to Santorum search engine problem. Or longer: Rick Santorum's website is lower than Spreading Santorum's website in search engine results problem. Gacurr (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Follow the sources, per Policy. Additionally, I see Googlebomb but not Yahoobomb or whateverbomb. Dreadstar ☥ 00:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I have more of a problem with "problem", which is POV. What about something like Santorum (search engine campaign) orSantorum (search engine issue)?JamesMLane t c 01:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- I could support those. I prefer campaign, myself. I could also see Spreading Santorum (search engine campaign). // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I just commented in the section above, but I'll repeat anyway: we should not use a name that makes it unclear whether "Santorum" refers to the politician or to the word or to the substance. We must use a title that makes it clear we mean the word"santorum". Wnt (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I would go for something like Dan Savage santorum neologism controversy but what do I know :)...--Threeafterthree (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
"Santorum's google problem" doesn't really characterize the whole campaign--and search engines other than Google have very little to do with that. Dan Savage is not just trying to manipulate search results (I don't think the original "coining" of the term mentioned Google at all), but trying to create an association between the senator and his "definition" more widely. I vote for Spreading Santorum, and, well, anything that doesn't talk about search engines. If the article really is going to be narrowly tailored around the "google problem" aspect of the controversy I think that would break NOTNEWS; news articles can be about "Santorum has a google problem" but encyclopedia articles have to cover the whole topic. 146.151.96.113 (talk) 02:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think we need to be advertising a website like that. This article is now purported to be about thenotable campaign, the core of which is a googlebomb and is indeed supposed to be a "problem" for somebody. The topic is already described here,here andhere. What's so special about this article? That's what needs to be defined, and then named accordingly. Dreadstar ☥ 02:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not unusual that the title of an article is not a perfect fit for the article contents. Usually we make the title a little over-specific, and the article contents describe that subject plus some broader implications. Not every encyclopedic subject has a single precise name, particularly where the subject relates to social constructions and language. Take another difficult subject,Native American name controversy. That article is basically about whether to call the indigenous groups in the Continental United States "Native Americans", "American Indians", "Indigenous people", or whatever, including issues of history, identity, etc. That article could be improved to be sure. But I don't think anyone doubts that it's an important encyclopedic subject. Yet there's no 2-5 word title that sums it all up. For this article, the crux of the subject is the sequence of events and resulting cultural phenomenon by which Santorum's name was applied to a vulgar subject by those who oppose his political agenda, thereby causing him grief. There is no easy or exact way to say it, but arguably the search engine thing is somewhere near the core of the issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't use the word "problem," and also that we shouldn't be advertising Savage's site, as we would be withSpreading santorum. And the IP is probably right that the google problem isn't the totality of what we would cover. There are several acceptable titles... we just need somehow to generate one which people can compromise on. Given the tone here, I don't think that's going to be a problem. Dreadstar, you're arguing about an issue that to me is third down the list: first, rename. Then, rewrite. Then, see if we have a standalone article. If we have something that can reasonably be merged, then we merge. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 06:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, under the current circumstances, rewrite/rename is first, then see where we stand. I was just consolidating that with what I'm seeing in other articles and summarizing what my overall view is. Dreadstar ☥ 15:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's absurd to say that "Spreading santorum" is advertising Savage's site. You want to see ads, just look at the video game names that come up on the Main Page every third day! A name like that would be just a description of a literary work. I don't actually support that name because the article shouldn't be about the website, it should be about the word and the campaign that made it a word. But to dismiss it that way is a basic error. Wnt (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

And I say it's absurd and disingenuous to claim it's a word; and yes, it would indeed be advertising if we named it after the website - video games be waxed. Is the website notable? Is the purported word notable? What's notable? The campaign? Savage? Santorum (person)? I think notability is clear, it's all about Savage and Santorum (person) and the resulting attack/insult googlebomb is just an add-on...and not notable enough for its own article. Dreadstar☥ 19:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

"Google bomb"?

From the first line of the article I think we have a problem here:

The Santorum Google problem is the result of a Google bombing campaign by American advice columnist Dan Savage in response to controversial statements regarding the US Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas made by then Republican U.S. Senator Rick Santorum from Pennsylvania.[1][2] (my emphasis)

Ugh, I can't get the references to copy correctly. But they don't seem to support Savage's campaign being a "Google bomb".

The first one is this article from the Philadelphia Weekly:[25]. No mention of Savage conducting a "Google bomb" and in fact no mention of Google at all.

The second is Media literacy: keys to interpreting media messages by Art Silverblatt. [26] Viewable only in snippet view at google books; Santorum gets a few results, but "google bomb" gets no results (maybe if I could see more of the book I would see something more relevant).

Google is not really emphasized in the pre-2006 articles referenced here; whereas only the most recent article are about the Google problem.

The problem here is that it's not clear that Savage is first and formost trying to manipulate search results, per se (though I'm sure he finds that a welcome byproduct of his campaign), but rather trying to manipulate Rick Santorum's public image more broadly. A somewhat different situation than "miserable failure" and George Bush. 146.151.96.113(talk) 03:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

okay, if you want to get picky the "Google problem" itself may be the result of Googlebombing. Though personally, I don't think an article about a "Google problem" makes much more sense than an article about Mitt Romney's health care reform problem or the like. 146.151.96.113 (talk) 03:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. I don't think this was originally a Google thing; I think it was an effort to make a new word, which was promoted wherever possible (including Google). Wnt (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it was an effort to make a new word in which case it has been a dismal failure. John lilburne(talk) 16:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Not at all! I think it has entered fairly widespread usage. Yes, it's something of a niche term, but, for example, around400 times more common thanporphyrogene according to the unreliable estimates from Google. (Though yes, some proportion of those are actually about the senator. ;) ) There's no doubt that porphyrogene is a word. Wnt (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Google bombing is a bad way to refer to this. Though there are some sources that mention it this way, and even a recent quote by Savage about redoubling such efforts, it actually is not an example of a Google bombing. The origin of the word ishere. And a shorter definitionhere. Getting "miserable failure" to point to George W. Bush as the top search result is the archetypical example of a Google bombing. Getting "santorum" to point to the Spreading Santorum website is run-of-the-mill website promotion, even if very successful in this case. The target website is both about santorum the word and also about [Rick] Santorum, the politician. But, like LeVar Burton says, you don't have to take my word for it:

"[santorum] isn't a Google bomb, it's straight SEO. Here's the difference. With a Google bomb, you're causing someone else's site to rank. With SEO, you're promoting your own site. So spreadingsantorum.com is promoting themselves for [santorum], which isSEO."

Gacurr (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point, I like the clarification. --Reo ⁺ 17:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Observation on article traffic statistics

ust curious, so I checked out. Observation on article traffic statistics for Rick_Santorum and the neologism page (before renaming and after)

Santorum_(neologism) 221 000 views for last 30 days as of 17th june. (trafick stoped after renaming ie till 16th)
- Santorum_Google_problem 105 views for last 30 days as of 17th june. (trafick starts after renaming the 16th)

The disamb: Santorum 12 189 views for last 30 days as of 17th june.

Politician: Rick_Santorum 234 000 views for last 30 days as of 17th june.

Interesting

And if you go just few weeks back, few months ago... the trafic really was low Reo ⁺ 17:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It does show that people are interested in santorum (neologism) about as much as Rick Santorum, about a 5% difference. Go back to March of this year, prior to the so-called optimization of the article, andsantorum (sexual neologism) leadsRick Santorum by about 25%. Gacurr (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Campaign_for_%22santorum%22_neologism it got 432 hits yesterday. Santorum got only 131; Santorum (neologism) got 1100 hits; Santorum_Google_problem got another 1100 hits, but that means it got them from Santorum (neologism). Because any hit to Santorum (neologism), which is redirect must lead to the hit of target.

Rick_Santorum got 2300 hits

Taken together, it seems only very small amount of people is coming to this page (Campaign for 'santorum'...) directly or through Dab page in Wikipedia. Most people came here because of the Google ranking. When title changed to google problem, the trafic came down a little.

--Reo ⁺ 21:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Background should be trimmed

The background section gets into reactions from a bazillion people about Santorum's comments. This is the topic of a distinct article, named at the top of the section; it should only summarize that article. Nothing should be deleted without making sure that it is present in the other article, but we shouldn't keep all that stuff here. I think I'll have a hack at this myself. Wnt(talk) 17:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, here's the diff of what I did (plus someone reverting me in the lead, sigh): [27] and the content going to the other article (plus AnomieBot, by far my favorite of all Wikipedia bots ever made) [28]. Wnt (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Bemused comment

When I previously searched for "santorum" on google.com to see what this was all about, http://www.spreadingsantorum.com came first,Santorum (neologism) came second, and Rick Santorum came third. This is still the case. You can verifyhere that all three pages have a Page rank of 5. This has not changed with the renaming, presumably because it takes some time for Google to adjust its index. What has changed, however, is that now Campaign for "santorum" neologism is the fourth hit, even though its current Page rank is "N/A". In other words, as a result of the renaming, the present article appears twice among the top four Google hits.

Obviously, the effect is going to disappear once Google has updated its index. At that point the article will have to be renamed again, then again, and so on, until the elections are over... Or we could try and see if by renaming the article more quickly we can create about four more top hits for the present article and push the senator's website off the first page of Google hits.

Incidentally, some of the things with a Page rank of 4, i.e. coming immediately after the top 4 hits (except for the news hits that are slipped in between), aren't really better, as they include http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=santorum and the Mother Jones article on Rick Santorum's Anal Sex Problem.

Oh, and does anyone have the faintest idea why Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality has a Page rank of 0? I didn't even know this is possible on this site. Even my sandbox has a Page rank of 3. Hans Adler 08:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Interim redirects for the interim name

jftr, I have fixed the single and double redirects (other than User, Talk, and other Wikipedia articles) to point to the current name. Perhaps some were due to a bot error, but I did notice ~~User:badmachine~~ someone had changed some after the bot had fixed them, as he apparently preferred they direct to the earlier 'Santorum (neologism)'. User:badmachine created quite a few new redirects. I left those (although imo they should be reviewed) EXCEPT for his creation of Santorum campaign. I changed that to redirect to the (much more likely) Rick Santorum presidential campaign, 2012, as I really doubt most people would be using the term to search for the 2003 Savage "neologism" contest, or anything connected with that. Quite honestly, I had other things planned for this morning other than cleaning up after his 'tantrum'. Talk pages are one thing, Wikipedia pages more often used by the public are another. Let's not make Wikipedia into a laughingstock. Flatterworld (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

jftr, my contribs speak for themselves. some are good, some are not. Flatterworld has 15x the edits that i have, so im positive he can out-wiki and out-wikilawyer me, this is no reason for him to attack me as he did above, and on other pages related to this subject.-badmachine 20:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

How did the AP interview BEGIN?

This is really more of a question regarding Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality, but a lot more people read this talk page, and it might affect how the lead here unfolds. A while back someone had it as being an interview about Catholic Church scandals, but apparently that too was just another question brought up incidentally.

Does anyone know how exactly did the interview of Santorum by the AP started? We have a reliable source, one of hundreds of copies, which gives "an unedited excerpt" of the interview. [29] But what were the circumstances that brought Santorum to be interviewed by the AP that particular day? What was the first question or issue that headlined the discussion? Wnt (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, here's the edited section, but I still can't find the full thinghttp://web.archive.org/web/20030602131319/http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/04/22/national1737EDT0668.DTL

Note, the reporter was the first to bring up the Catholic Church scandal, and the first to bring up homosexuality. Rather than focusing on the argument that Santorum was making, which is that before 2003, the US believed in a stronger right to regulate private behavior, later news pundits focused just on the homosexual part of the comments. After Lawrence v. Texas, the Court said the State no longer had the right to regulate private behavior unless there could be a specific harm shown to the individual. Like protecting children from incest, for example. Santorum's argument was that once the state lost this right, people would feel that any behavior in private would be acceptable, whereas before, the State could look at certain behaviors and attempt to regulate them.

Dan Savage's reply to all this was to say 'OK, you think our behavior is disgusting and by extension think we are disgusting. So let's show you something disgusting to remind you of how you make us feel when you say that.' And so the battle ensued. --Avanu (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to rename, redirect, and merge content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result of this discussion is Keep as a separate article, but.... The topic is clearly notable and worthy of an article. However, serious biography of living person concerns have been expressed. The discussion above is frothy, and contains many repeated arguments. We should not count votes; rather we should weigh the force of reason. My view of the community consensus is that we should not allow our encyclopedia, which is the world's encyclopedia, to promote a vicious personal attack. To prevent that harm, a number of editors have pointed out that a renaming would be helpful. The arguments above are not convincing that the article needs to be named "Santorum (neologism)". In fact, several editors have pointed out that the sources cited in the article seem to dispute whether this is a bona fide neologism, or something else. If the status is disputed, it is logical to choose among the less harmful and more descriptive titling options.

The consensus, backed up by many online news sources, is that this phenomenon is a "Google Problem" or if we want to be more technically correct, but less accessible to the reader, a Google Bomb. As a matter of community consensus and policy, the article is now renamed Santorum Google problem. The content of the article may need adjusting, but that's for you all to do, not me. Editors are encouraged to make productive changes. I am going to reduce protection to semi as it's about to expire in less than 24 hours. Please avoid edit warring, as I and others will be watching and may block edit warring editors, even if they do three or fewer reverts in 24 hours.

Consensus may change and discussion is always welcome. This renaming may be an interim step while discussions are ongoing. However, due to the potential harm to a living person (and their family), I find that this step should be taken without further delay. This action is therefore a BLP enforcement, as well as a discussion closure. Jehochman ^Talk 19:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: I've copied Jehochman's closure here from below. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

{{|tlp|rfctag|pol|bio|hist|lang|media|soc|rfcid=DBC2EEE}} Should this article be renamed (to something like Dan Savage campaign), condensed to one or two paragraphs, the contents merged into a new subsection of Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality, and the new title (but not the old one) redirected to that subsection? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The issue for anyone coming to this without background knowledge, this is the situation: in April 2003, a U.S. senator, Rick Santorum, made some remarks about gay sex that many found offensive; see Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality. In response, a columnist, Dan Savage, asked his readers to invent a definition of the word "santorum". The winning definition was: "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex". There was an effort to spread the use of the word. A single purpose account [30] created a Wikipedia article about it in August 2006, originally called Santorum, [31] now Santorum (neologism).

In April this year, it was reported that Santorum might be a presidential candidate in 2012. In May, this article was expanded fivefold to over 5,000 words, and added to three new templates, which were in turn added to scores of articles. That triggered this discussion as to whether it should continue as a stand-alone article, or should be renamed, shortened, and merged into Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 08:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments

(no threaded replies in this section)

Support

Support proposal. There was an attempt to equate a living person's name—and the name of his wife, children and other relatives—with anal discharge. That the attempt was made is well-sourced, and we should address it in the article about the controversy. But by creating a separate article about the word, we're contributing to the Google bomb issue, and taking a side editorially. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 09:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Support. ~~WP:Neologism says, "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept."~~ (I may be stretching the meaning here) There are no ~~such~~ serious academic sources in that massive list of references. The egregious overreferencing here is an effort to compensate for that fact with WP:OR. A lot of the article consists of mentions that some commentator had commented on the controversy (see #bloat). This event, the Google bombing and attempt to coin a new term from an enemy's name, can easily be covered in a paragraph or two of Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality, or Rick Santorum (see #Proposed rewrite). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC) Updated --13:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I doubt you think that the American Dialect Society is not a serious academic source. We mention them in the article. There was also a publication in their journal, American Speech, that covers their "Most Outrageous" word of 2004 finding. doi:10.1215/00031283-80-4-406 Jesanj (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
What does that article you cite actually say about the word, in terms of its adoption, as opposed to it being part of the Savage prank? My online access to American Speech stops at vol. 79. Other sources have been seriously misrepresented in Santorum (neologism). Until a few days ago, this article said the Partridge Dictionary of Slang covered "santorum," deceptively implying it endorsed the word. When another editor got hold of a copy it turned out the Partridge editors expressly declared the term not notable, just an "attempt" at coinage, and declined to include it in the dictionary's alphabetical listing. American Speech may well have "covered" the word but what it says matters. Please post an extract of what it says about "santorum" in a new thread at the bottom of the page. 125 references looks impressive but look more closely than simply counting references. The prank is notable, the word is not. (No more threaded replies in this section, please. See above.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Support The current position gives undue weight to a political campaign. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 11:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Support I think we're giving far too much space to what is really a fairly obscure subject overall. It looks like too much recentism to me--not to mention possible issues with the campaigning/BLP etc. Qrsdogg (talk) 12:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Support per my previous statements. If a separate article on this were retained at all (which isn't my preference), it ought to be titled correctly to make it clear that it is about a campaign to create a neologism, and be rewritten succinctly, with its poor sources and quote farms removed. --J N 466 12:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Support and limiting to existing paragragh at Public reaction and criticism section of the Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality article.--MONGO 12:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Support due to the unique nature of the relationship between the mode of political attack used by Savage and the unwitting aid a huge article about this same subject with many spiderable links brings →Stani Stani 13:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Support - The journalist's attempt to manufacture a controversy against a politician he doesn't like is probably newsworthy enough to be worth a mention somewhere, sure. But, once again, the word itself does not exist as a legitimate sexual neologism...sources like the motherjones one above are about the entire episode, not treating the word itself as something notable... it does not warrant an article on the term itself, only a mention of the controversy around its creation. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Support. This is the best way to avoid contributing to the political attack while still reporting on it. alanyst 14:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Support as SlimVirgin said, we are taking sides politically with this article, joining forces with an avowed political opponent of Santorum's (Dan Savage). The material in this absurdly long article can be described with a few paragraphs. Drrll (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Support. Wikipedia should not have an article asserting that Rick Santorum, or any other person, is synonymous with human excrement. There is negligible evidence to support the claim that this manufactured "neologism" has any significant use or notability except in association with the politically motivated campaign to publicize it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Support unduly large article about a political attack. Wikipedia is not a google bomb assistant. Clear BLP issues as Slim says,attacking a living person and by default his whole family. Off2riorob (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
If it's sourced, it's not a BLP issue. BLP doesn't say we can't have negative articles, or negative information. It says that that information has to be well sourced. and it looks like from the 125 sources, that it is indeed well sourced.--Crossmr (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Support BLP violations and probable 'coatrack'.(olive (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC))
Support (placeholder) — Ched : ? 16:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC). The bulk of my views are stated in previous threads, and many of my fellow editors have stated my personally held beliefs in a more eloquent way then I could hope to. While the malicious efforts of Savage may be somewhat notable, I don't believe this current effort is the proper way in recording the situation. I still view the entire concept (as it is displayed now), as a WP:ATTACK on a WP:BLP. There are also simply too many WP:NOT issues taking place here as well. While I hadn't thought of the "Coatrack" issue first, I agree entirely with that viewpoint as well. Many of the oppose editors do bring valid arguments to the table; however, I agree entirely with Slim Virgin's approach here. — Ched : ? 07:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Support; Wikipedia should not be a party to willful attempts to attack someone. That we are now so visible and "important" that we can now be used as a weapon should be discouraged. — Coren ^(talk) 17:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Lukewarm Moral Support - It is unfortunate that the coinage of this word comes with so much political baggage and that discussion about the article appears to have often been coloured by personal beliefs. The deliberate association of someone's name with something that most people would find unpleasant and the spreading of that neologism seems to be a topic that has received a fair amount of discussion in reliable sources, it is also something that Wikipedia readers would expect to find covered here. I haven't checked the size lately, but at one point it was over 10,500 words and stuffed with misleading quotations and farcically poor sources. I support pruning the article down to size that is more in keeping with the sensitive nature of the subject and would not object to renaming to clarify that this article is about the coinage of the word, not the substance, but I suspect that any attempt to merge this into a related article will only further inflame political passions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Support - This COATRACK needs to be chopped and burnt. John lilburne (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Strong support - What I particularly appreciate about Slim Virgin's approach - and I think that many of the no votes are missing this element - is that she's not talking about censoring or removing the information but rather talking about balance and a proper encyclopedic presentation. First, it is a fairly straightforward application of the spirit of our usual solution to WP:BLP1E to write about the event rather than the person - we routinely omit the name of the person from the title of an article. This is particularly true when, as in this case, we are talking about the victim of a nasty slur. (Please set aside whatever feelings you may have about the Senator and his views, the point is that whether anyone may feel that he 'deserves' it, he is still the victim of a nasty slur and we have to be careful to take every possible measure to report on the event without promoting or furthering it.)
What we need to do is address the harm that is being caused here, and by harm, I mean harm to Wikipedia. We all - quite rightly - work hard to be taken seriously by the world, and we do so by taking our responsibilities seriously. We have tools available to us to manage this situation so that we report faithfully to the world without furthering the attack. Measures to be taken include (a) renaming the article after the event, not the word (which is a person's name) - "Dan Savage's verbal attack on Rick Santorum" would be a good first cut - the point is that this is not a neologism in the usual sense - it's an attack (b) making sure that the 'snippet' that google uses is one which will immediately let the reader know that this is not a word that has arisen naturally in the culture and actually used by anyone, but rather a clever modern political attack tactic. Google's results can be studied to determine the best way to do this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Support per Jimbo Wales SOXROX (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Strongly support reducing this to as inconspicuous coverage as possible on the grounds that it breaks BLP and is grossly insulting and misrepresents a deliberate coinage designed to attack a living person. (Imo it should be deleted altogether, but that's not the question.) Gamaliel's assertion, "we are not perpetuating an attack, we are documenting an attack," is patently false. The article absolutely perpetuates the attack and does definitely not identify it as an attack on the Senator. The only appearance of the word "attack" is in a nasty quote from Savage: Savage commented, "I'm a little conflicted because he's trying to play the Sarah Palin victim card and saying [in weepy voice] 'Look how they attacked me. I'm just a poor defenseless US Senator who was trying to take this man's child from him, and make sure gay sex and straight masturbation remain illegal ... and they made fun of me. Including this page undermines all that WP aspires to be. Yopienso (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
{E/C} While I'm fixing the bolding and italicizing, I'll back off just a tad and say I do see this should be included on a page about Savage or some such. We may as well show his viciousness. I'm not a deletionist, and since it happened, tell the world. Just don't glorify it or help Savage attack Santorum. And thank you, Jimbo Wales, for your input: I agree 100%. Yopienso (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for another add-on. To clarify and augment my reasons for strong support:
1. WP:BLP 2. WP:NOTE 3. WP:NEO --Yopienso (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Support per Jimbo. Cla68 (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Support. Do I have to give my reasons again? This is a case where Wikipedia is not reporting the attack, Wikipedia is participating in the attack. It's an abuse of the rules based around the loophole that the article doesn't say that Santorum did any bad things, ignoring the fact that there are other ways to harm a living person than by claiming they did something. I would not only say to get rid of it in its current form, I would also say that we need to fix BLP so as to close this loophole. We may need to mention the event somewhere, since after all it has happened and been reported upon, but we need to do so in a way that's consistent with the concern for human dignity that underlies BLP. Ken Arromdee (talk) 23:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Support for all the reasons that Jimbo Wales gave. Presenting "santorum" as a neologism that is actually used by speakers as the article defines it instead of presenting the word as what it is (a semi-clever attack by someone in the media on a despicable politician, and one that has been brought up again by someone else in the media) just looks silly and maybe even intentionally misleading. Moving a full account of this to the article on Rick Santorum would preserve the information within the context of his career and his statements. Jackal59 (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Note to the closing admin: Jackal59 has made only 16 edits to Wikipedia. NickCT (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Support. The article isn't about a neologism, it's about a political incident, and one that caused a flurry of news reports a few years ago and now is only relevant in that we continue to make it show up in Google searches. No doubt it deserves to have some space on the encyclopedia, but no one is arguing its notability as a word, since the word hasn't come into common usage; it's notable as a political event and as such deserves space in Dan Savage's article, in Rick Santorum's article, and in the article on Rick Santorum and homosexuality. Isn't that enough? — chro • man • cer 11:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Strong Support, per Jimbo's comments above, and my earlier comments on this. It’s just not a proper neologism, it is clearly not “in the process of entering common use,” like, for instance, ‘laser’. It’s merely an attack word, an insult thrown at a person (and as SlimVirgin points out, the person’s entire family) and it has only a very narrow use. There is no evidence of widespread and growing adoption of the word. The notability of the term is so limited, that a standalone article on it just becomes an attack page, containing WP:OR violations, and is a WP:BLP violation.
Further, the article itself isn’t about the word; it’s about a much larger issue – the campaign waged by Savage against Santorum’s anti-homosexual stance, so the article is not named correctly. If it’s just about the term then it needs to be greatly shortened – and if that happens, it won’t be able to stand on its own merits and will be merged with other Santorum/Savage articles. If it’s about the campaign, then the title of the article is incorrect and needs a name that properly describes the content. Right now, the article is being used as a coatrack for an attack page on the person, Santorum.
I only checked the first 30 references and found 7 sources that don’t even mention the purported topic of the article, the neologism: [32][33][34][35][36][37][38] Those sources violate WP:OR in this article, because they are not “directly related to the topic of the article”, which purportedly is the term. I'm sure there are more references in the 95 remaining sources I didn't check that violate OR, and probably in the other sources in in the first 30 that aren't immediately available online, as well.
I think it bears repeating that what we’ve apparently done here is a forced elevation of what is basically an insult and internet prank to the level of an encyclopedic article; something which is normally limited to the purview of tabloid sensationalistic journalism. Either make it about the campaign and title it accordingly, or limit to just the 'term' and cull 95% of the article and merge it. I think SlimVirgin's proposal strikes exactly the right balance. Dreadstar ☥ 17:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Support The term is not in general usage. Compare with actual words based on people's names: dunce, quisling. What is notable is that Dan Savage was able to create a campaign that pushed his pseudo-definition to the top of internet searches. We should not become part of the story. TFD (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
~~Strong~~ Support (See my amendment bellow) (except redirect issue) per Jimbo Walles and others. ~~The only thing,~~ where I am not sure relates to the new title (but not the old one) redirected to that subsection? sentence, I do not fully copy it's intended meaning. If that supposed to mean, that Santorum_(neologism) should be just deleted (as implied by some coleagues here), then I do not agree with this (sub)point. If anyone would search on his own this word combination (which I highly doubt), then the link would have some relevance. If he would search for in reflection of the previous existence of the article, then I believe, that to break the links is unnecessary evil, anyone who is searching for, should be able to find it (although the content is moved). - Save the redirect.
If there is doubt wheter Jimbo's argument were wrong, then I recomend just to play a little with google to find how widelly used the term is. You can find it actually only exclusivelly with the Dan Savage himself. I did never happen to find the word in the form of it's intended meaning. This is OR, I know, but quite helpfull just in establishing correct article name, not it's content. Wikipedia should not create a reality (by coining the term), it should merelly describe reality as is. (the title implies reality about the widespread usage of the term, and does not address the phenomenon itself in the article) --Reo ⁺ 13:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Reflecting uppon discussion bellow, together with my observation stated above - I do prefer just renaming the article, so it reflects on WP:BLP1E and WP:NEO. The event-centered article with event-centered title would be notable, sourced and just fine with BLP.Reo ⁺ 08:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Support The creation of the term is obviously intended to slur politically. The article should be about how the word was created as a political slur and its place should reflect that. Will we allow the academic intentions of Wikipedia to be undermined every time someone makes up a new word. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Support Were it not for the surname association, this hideous conceptualization would effectively disappear from the face of the earth. While my preference would be for deletion by editorial consensus (IMHO both a correct and WP-supportable editorial judgement), I support whatever WP measure(s) might be suggested by those more familiar with the Wiki process to mitigate any perceived WP support for this odious campaign and whatever disreputable fallout it might entail for this project. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
First Choice: Delete...not a neologism

Second Choice: Merge JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Support It's not Wikipedia's purpose to be a tool for manipulating google search results. Really, there needs to be a rule about it. There's a rule for everything else. Let's be honest about this folks, this article was created with the specific purpose to slander Santorum because a few people disagree with his politics, not describe a supposed neologism. I don't understand why this is not deleted outright. There simply is nothing informative or necessary about having this article. Not only that, this is potential fodder for a lawsuit. Nodekeeper (talk) 11:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Support I don't believe that the word is actually in significant use per its "definition". I also concur in particular with the comments of Jimbo and Dreadstar. LondonStatto (talk) 07:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Support There is no reason to have two articles when one article, with a neutral title, will sufficiently cover the issue. Despite the googlebomb attempt, there is no widespread use of the neologism for its supposed definition, as what is describes doesn't need a single-word definition. Verbing a political candidate's name is seldom anything more than a politial ploy, and we can cover the issue without furthering the machinations of a campaign to smear a living person. Horologium (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Support Per Jimbo and Dreadstar. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 17:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Support Cacophemism not in common usage. Zero references in the New York Times which I consider a mark that it is not a term in remotely common usage. Collect (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Support The campaign is notable, but the term isn't—because it's not in common usage. The vast majority of references are using the term only in the context of the Googlebombing campaign. First Light (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Support Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, much less a dictionary of intentionally slimy neologisms designed for googlebombing purposes. We don't need a dedicated article for Obummer or Obamateurism, and the same goes for this article. That said, I have every expectation that this article will remain as it is because NPOV is frequently a joke at Wikipedia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Support I see this as a relatively simple content organization change. Half of the content here already exists in the target article anyway, so condensing the content currently here is hardly "disappearing" anything. Getting this content into the context of the larger event arc is good for the content of both articles as well, and what's good for the content is good for Wikipedia.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Strong support per Jimbo. The BLP implications here are very concerning, we are not an arm of Mr. Savage's media conglomerate. - Haymaker (talk) 04:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Support When the media runs a story on this issue, that particular publication is dead within a few days (comparatively few people will find and read the story a month or a year after its publication). At Wikipedia, the situation is different: an article here is a permanent record near the top of Internet searches, and anyone named Santorum will find this article. Yes, the event needs to be covered, but that should be done in such a way that does not make Wikipedia part of the attack—the encyclopedia should not be used as a Google bomb amplifier. Johnuniq (talk) 07:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Strong support per Jimbo. Not a neologism. Not in common use. Lionel (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
This "neologism" is nothing more than an aspect of the senator's biography and in particular his political activity; and most probably (I'm not very familiar with US politics) a relatively minor aspect. Dedicating a long article to it makes this, ah, frothy matter appear much more important than it probably is, in violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP: "BLPs must be written conservatively ... Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints". A merger therefore appears appropriate for now. Should the word retain encyclopedic significance after the senator's political career is over, or in another context, it can then be made the subject of an article again. Sandstein 18:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Strong support per Dreadstar, Ched Davis and Jimbo. Just because something is on the internet doesn't make it notable.BarkingMoon (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Support with particular agreement with Coren, Jimbo, Dreadstar & Sandstein.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Support So some guy called Savage, who I've never heard of, hates some other guy I don't give a damn about. Savage pretends that the other guy's name means a by-product of sticking his quigley up someone's cirt and gets his friends to play along with it. Pathetic. This is real playground stuff, and you'd get suspended for it. The vast preponderance of uses of the word are merely about the campaign and this article is part of that campaign. Dingo1729 (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Support. It's an incident, it has coverage, it happened. That said, it seems a blatant COATRACK and it seems like a WP:SOAPBOX for folks who want to drive Savage's issue home. -Sangrolu (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Support - in main, per the reason given by SlimVirgin. While the existence of the attempt is obviously not in dispute, the word isn't a neologism and definitely not in common use. Ale_Jrb ^talk 22:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Support - fail to see a demonstration that this is in "widespread" usage. Nothing in the article itself shows it as in enough widespread and continuing usage to rate it being under the neologism title - compare to Soccer mom which IS in widespread usage., and which documents said usage with a lot less verbiage. Since most of this article is concerning the actual campaign to try and get this term into common usage, it better fits there. The BLP issues are just icing on the cake for moving it. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Support – Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a means to exacerbate backpage name-calling, which is what is exactly happening here. You now have the media pointing everyone to this article because the high amount of Google Juice^TM this article attracts. Frankly, I don't see this as much as adherence to whatever policies we have as it is to whether or not we are exercising some common sense – the latter in which I have seen a sore lack of as of late. –MuZemike 05:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Support – We don't do neologisms in general, and specifically ones that appear so badly to violate WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, and WP:ATTACK. I see little evidence that the neologism itself is notable, although the campaign/controversy itself is. Having this as a standalone article therefore would be a redundancy and risks content forking. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Support Per every other person who has realized that there is no notable neologism here, and that by having this article, in its current state we are simply pawns in a political game perpetuating a nasty attack against another individual.Griswaldo (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Support. That this is even a debate points out a fundamental problem with Wikipedia. Nobody anywhere uses this term in the course of their daily conversation. It is purely about engaging in an attack on the former Senator. If Wikipedia wanted to extricate itself from the controversy, we could use the NOINDEX tax to remove the page from Google I'm under no delusion, though, that Wikipedia has any ability to do the right thing with respect to attacking living persons. --B (talk) 02:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Support: The fact that this article exists is inclusionism at its worst. While I'd personally rather not give any attention to Dan Savage's attack campaign at all, I accept that something such as this has attracted enough media attention for a mention of it somewhere on Wikipedia to be defended. Therefore, pithily summarize the incident in neutral fashion and include it elsewhere. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 09:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Support The word itself is not notable. The spat might be notable. Creating this as an encyclopedia entry has less to do with informing readers than it does carrying the water for a particular viewpoint. The original intent of the words author was to do exactly what wikipedia has done. Dan Savage should be covered. Wikipedia does not need to be the foremost outlset for his wishes and desires. Covering his word creation is rather like covering each of his columns in a separate article and calling his view definitive on the subject of the column. I like Dan but each of his works is not notable unto itself. --DHeyward (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Support per SlimVirgin, this is just shoddy wiki-activism and not encyclopedic in the least. V7-sport (talk) 22:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Support This is simply ugly and vulgar, with no attempt at fairness or objectivity. It is this sort of juvenile, hateful nonsense that undermines Wikipedia's creibility. Don Williams (talk) 07:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Support a merge to Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality as this is one response to it, or at worse rename this article to be about the sub-controversy "Savage memorialization of the Santorum controversy" John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Strong support If WP:BLP has any meaning, Wikipedia needs to stop helping Dan Savage savage the ex-senator. CWC 15:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Strong support As has already been pointed out, the article in its current state has Wikipedia participating in the attack, not simply reporting on the attack. Reading this article makes it clear that the topic is Santorum (the politician) and not some encyclopedic coverage of a sexual by-product. According, the topic should be merged and truncated as proposed.- Abatolola (talk) 18:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Note to the closing admin: Abatolola's first edit was made after this RFC was opened, 10 edits in total.--Noren (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Strong Support - reducing this to as inconspicuous coverage as possible on the grounds that it breaks BLP and is grossly insulting and misrepresents a deliberate coinage designed to attack a living person. Mugginsx (talk) 11:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Support - Support merger. But oppose "condensed to one or two paragraphs" because that limitation seems a bit arbitrary: if the material is well-sourced, it can be included in the merged article, although WP:Undue would limit the detail to a reasonable amount. Also, disagree with eliminating the "Santorum (neologism)" redirect, since the redirect may help readers during the Search process. --Noleander (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose: there's no rationale provided to explain why this change is needed or desirable, and I think it's undesirable, not least for deletion of large amounts of useful content. That content offends a number of people, but that's not a reason for deletion. The sources demonstrate its usage, easily satisfying WP:N. The idea that by documenting this we are participating in a campaign somehow is barely comprehensible, let alone persuasive. The entire proposal runs counter to the notion of building an encyclopedia. On process: since the proposal essentially amounts to deletion of the article as an article, it ought to go through AfD -- and I surmise that the reason it hasn't been proposed this way is that there have been three previous AfDs. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Per reasons given by Sadads, and also the argument given in my posts on WikiEN-l here and here. How Google ranks our article is not our concern. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose for the same reason given in the above requested move, and also for this rather more fundamental reason: This is an encyclopaedia with a neutral point of view. We cannot endorse a political criticism of Rick Santorum made through an offensive criticism, and nor can we take the view that such a criticism should be rejected. Nor can we endorse the view that this mode of politics is either legitimate or illiegitimate. The proposal invites us implicitly to say that it is illegitimate as a mode of politics and/or that the criticism is vitiated by its offensiveness. That amounts to endorsing a point of view and breaks one of the three core content policies. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose per my reasoning above in discussions. We have alot of sources and a lot of commentary from news sources on the word itself or focusing on the word, sometimes getting to the point of even dropping the idea of Savage having ever been involved in the creation of the word. Because the commentary, especially since the nomination of Santorum for the presidency, focuses on the word, the word should be the centre of our article, Sadads (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
oppose there is no reason for such a large amount of content from such a large number of very reliable sources over such a large span of time that has survived numerous AfD proposals and other attempts to remove it should be wiped away. The continued forum shopping regarding this article is approaching absurd AND disgusting.Active Banana (^bananaphone 13:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
In addition if this were such an obvious case of BLP violation, then someone would have had the balls to actually stand up and delete it per "removed immediately and without waiting for discussion".Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Article should remain Santorum (neologism). The word itself is the article topic; it got past Dan Savage pretty quickly and became a Google bomb. It's bigger than Dan Savage's original campaign. Binksternet (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Strong oppose As a general principle, fallout is not Wikipedia's concern. I note articles like this and this. The two sentences on the term in his biography underplay the notability of this term to his life, and this lack of coverage amounts to censorship. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 13:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Essentially agree with comments by Sadads diff, Active Banana diff, and Binksternet diff. There were three attempts to get this article deleted through WP:AFD — all three failed. There were multiple "proposals" to essentially disappear most of the content of this article, with plenty of notice given and discussions across multiple forums — those proposals failed to gain consensus. From a preponderance of prior discussions, recent and old, AFDs and "proposals", the community supports keeping this article, and not disappearing its content from Wikipedia. -- Cirt (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
oppose Prior consensus not to change. Article is reliably sourced and is of clear importance enough to have its own article. We're ot taking political sides: if someone elsewhere on the political spectrum had a word associated with them that got this much attention we'd have an article on that too. Having a shortened article is also a non-starter- once we've got an article, having a shorter article doesn't help in any way other than to remove sourced information (does one think that an article that is about an unpleasant coinage somehow becomes better if the article is shorter?). JoshuaZ (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. I'm disappointed how many editors above seem to be citing the concerns of fallout for the Santorum presidential campaign rather than encyclopedic concerns about the article's notability. This has numerous reliable sources and is clearly notable in its own right. It may be an offensive campaign, but it exists and has been widely covered, and there seems to be little dispute over that. Suggesting that we should hide it deeper within Wikipedia to change Santorum's Google results does not strike me as a legitimate reason for a merge and deletion of content.Khazar (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I could, however, get behind a proposal to rename or reframe this article as some have proposed here, rather than essentially deleting it per SlimVirgin. Khazar (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
~~Strong~~ Oppose. This "controversy" has been discussed to death on this page, at BLP/N [39], and in other places at other times. Those who take issue with this article, but cannot make a compelling policy-based argument for its deletion or rename, seem to be taking a policy shopping approach: If it can't be deleted, let's rename it without a redirect, which is virtually the same thing. Renaming the article as proposed would make it harder to find: the current title is the most correct short summary of its contents—see WP:PRECISE. It is a distasteful topic, but it is a notable one, and it has survived repeated attempts [40][41][42] to delete it. Finally, the proposal flies in the face of WP:TITLECHANGES: "In discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is 'right' in a moral or political sense." Heck, adopting this proposal would flout most of WP:TITLE. Given WP:NEO, I could get behind a proposal to refactor the article away from the neologism and toward the controversy, with an attendant rename to reflect the new direction, but I do not think that deleting the article entirely is appropriate. As the proposal on the table would be essentially indistinguishable from deletion, I still have to oppose it.// ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC) The closing rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gore Effect can equally be applied to this RfC. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose I personally think the balance things are at now is about right - a solid, referenced article presenting both sides of what appears to be an unusual and notable story. The fact is our readers already know about it - they would be aware of perhaps a more crass version of the story and, I think, would be inclined to a measure of sympathy for the guy upon reading all the facts. As I said before, Wikipedia can't change history, only report on it - and I'm entirely in agreement with Macwhiz above. Orderinchaos 15:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - quite unnecessary, and leaning too much to the supportive point of view on BLPs, rather than neutral. Is also, functionally, a proposal for deletion that is not on AFD - David Gerard (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - as per several previous failed attempts at decontenting or deleting this article. This "deliberate coining" is definitely notable. Also, seePolicy Shopping. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. How many times do I have to type oppose this month? It's nice that this discussion is finally centralized, but I think that it will simply move onto another forum after this. This is the worst case of forum shopping I've ever seen. Editors are unwilling to make the distinction between attacking Santorum and recording notable attacks on Santorum documented by 132 reliable sources. We are not attacking him, we are not perpetuating an attack, we are documenting an attack, and that's what we should be doing because that's our job, to document the world through reliable sources. It is not our job to protect Santorum from the world or the news media or Dan Savage. That's not what BLP is about and it would stretch BLP far out of its intended shape to make our job the world's slander and libel police. It's like the famous photograph of the dying girl and the vulture. We didn't starve the girl, we didn't put the vulture there. We just took the photograph. You might find the photograph distasteful, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT does not equal BLP. We already have articles documenting fabricated attacks on living individuals, so there's no reason to delete this one beyond irrelevant personal distaste. Gamaliel (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose: both on practical grounds and on procedural grounds. The "attempt to create" a neologism is past; the neologism has already entered sexual slang independently of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia's documentation of certain subjects, sexual or not, is not an endorsement of them. To the contrary, effectively deleting this article—without the safeguards of AfD—to ingratiate ourselves to a polarizing former politician is taking a side for that politician's antigay polemics. Neutral and complete coverage of notable topics, as this article represents, is Wikipedia's most primal purpose. Quigley (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Merge The dead controversy which erupted when the Senator indicated that homosexuals were child rapists and dog molesters (an attack we participate and lend weight to by ignoring WP:FRINGE and BLP implications) is a different and less notable topic than this active attack. The article needs proper editing. But the coinage, the meaning, the length of the campaign, the dialect society note, the political implications, and responses to this campaign by the Senator are encyclopedic topics. The center of this article is a campaign, not a neologism. A better title would indicate that. --99.38.149.170 (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Note to closing administrator this IP address has made only this single edit- — 99.38.149.170 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Off2riorob (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Notability seems adequate for a stand-alone article. Current title consistent with WP naming conventions. The existence of a neutrally-worded, well-written article on a notable neologism implies neither endorsement nor condemnation of the neologism's usage on the part of Wikipedia. Rivertorch (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Strong oppose. Given how recently similar proposals have been rejected by the community, this RFC is, itself, inappropriate. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose for the how manyteenth time this month? This is the most common disambiguated name, so it does not need to be renamed. Length is not an issue, we should document to any reasonable length as long as the sources support it. I am particularly tired of the forum shopping, canvassing and repeatedly asking essentially the same questions. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Strong oppose - Oh, bloody... not again. How many times do we need to have this same conversation? Stop flogging this horse, it is dead. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 22:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. The article is noteworthy.76.231.29.54 (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Note to the closing administrator - this IP address has made only two edits to the wikipedia.— 76.231.29.54 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - Off2riorob (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. It's already out there, and I think this is an appropriate way of covering it. User:Blueporch, 5 June 2011. —Preceding undated comment added 01:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC).
Oppose. The current name is fundamentally accurate, while the proposed alternatives are invariably clunky and poorly-worded. The basic fact is that this is a real neologism at this point, not merely one event; what this proposal really amounts to is a backdoor AFD for an article that doesn't really meet any criteria for deletion. Wikipedia has the responsibility to ensure that its articles are accurate, verifiable, noteworthy, and encyclopedic, but it is absolutely not encyclopedic to try and use Wikipedia to delete an extant neologism from existence simply because its existence is potentially offensive. I see nothing new or useful proposed here that hasn't already been extensively discussed before; the fact that he's running for President doesn't fundamentally alter any of the points made in the many times this article has been discussed in the past. --Aquillion (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose – Should Hooverville be merged into Herbert Hoover? Protecting a person's reputation from neologisms that are documented by experts outside of Wikipedia isn't our job. If merged, then POV-pushers would find it easier to minimize coverage of this term in favor of the other events on the Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality page by claiming that the neologism is given undue weight in comparison to that article's other sections. Merging will result in a tremendous lost of information. Most other points have been covered above, so per the other "oppose" !voters above. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. What this amounts to is tht many Wikipedia editors find the subject distasteful. They would like to remove the article entirely, as witness the repeated AfD's. Failing that, they'll try to belittle it by retitling it. (Before anyone accuses me of not assuming good faith, I suggest you go and read the comments by some editors, as I've been doing for what seems like years now.) I could see putting the article back at Santorum (sexual slang), where it was for a while. The alternative Santorum (Googlebombing) doesn't quite cut it, because Googlebombing is part of what's going on but not all. I would be open to sensible suggestions. A title that doesn't use the term itself, however, is clearly not in keeping with the general rule that we use the most common name for something. Here, most people would think first of "Santorum", not "Savage", so the only question is the best way to disambiguate. JamesMLane t c 05:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. The obsession of Wikipedia with BLP policy has grown from an odd lump into a dangerously malignant tumor. No one can seriously deny nowadays that Wikipedia is a hidebound bureaucracy, in which biographical articles - at least, those about wealthy or Western subjects - are reduced to Pollyanna versions that ignore things broadly published in the news. Now we are at the stage where every week the cancer looks for somewhere to spread - whether it's proposals to delete Commons pdfs or Wikisource texts or to extend BLP to neologisms or corporations. Every pillar of Wikipedia has been toppled by the all-devouring BLP, which even claims the right to defy consensus. All this goes on as if in complete ignorance of our long-held attitudes on any other sort of article, where we want to simply speak the truth. Few here ever seriously entertained tearing up good articles to avoid offending someone with an image of Muhammad or because we're worried about what some teenager might be up to after he reads about acetone peroxide. Yet here we are, watching a full-on panic about the effect of a Wikipedia article about a neologism that topped the Google searches for Santorum's name long before the article was started. We have to face the facts here - somehow, for some particular reason, Wikipedia as a community has been taken over by too many people trying to control and manipulate what the information does to the public, rather than to free the information, and it is in a downward spiral out of control - and I am no longer optimistic that it can recover. Every possible kind of censorship will be imposed sooner or later, until Wikipedia loses all credibility and falls apart. Everything that happened to Encyclopedia Dramatica will happen to Wikipedia, including, one hopes, its attempt at resurgence. We need to oppose ideas like this, but we have to be realistic - we're only slowing the course of the disease, giving the patient a little more time. What we need to start doing is to prepare to fork the project deliberately, establish a full-scale mirror with complete history and live editing, so that as little as possible is lost in the transition. I hope that there is more for the future of Wikipedia than just sociological analysis of why it all came crashing down. Wnt (talk) 07:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose, an article well-sourced reliably with no synthesis cannot be a "BLP violation". Santorum (neologism) is not an issue for wikipedia -- the issue to consider (outside wikipedia discussion) is why reliable sources are covering the phenomenon so fervently. We cannot change the reliable sources' reasons for reporting this, and as well, we cannot change what we "report" because we do not report; nothing originates here if the guidelines are followed and that seems to be the case for this article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 08:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose I see no policy-based reason to remove most of the content of the article (and yes, trimming it to one or two paragraphs or merging somewhere else would require most of the content to be deleted). It has been established that this is a notable piece of political campaigning. WP:BLP is not a licence to delete all negative information about a living person, especially when this information is objectively presented and well sourced. If Santorum was marginally notable then the situation would be substantially different, however he is unquestionably a public figure - a former US Senator and Representative and a candidate for the US Presidency. It is true that in many cases we should avoid documenting attacks on people in order to avoid perpetrating those attacks, but this principle is not universally applicable and if it was we would have to remove all negative information about living people. WP:BLP itself gives an example of a situation in which a defamatory allegation about a living person belongs in the person's article. The subject of this article is a neologism: Wiktionary defines the term as A word or phrase which has recently been coined; a new word or phrase and notes that neologisms are not used by a substantial proportion of the population, so by including "neologism" in the article we are already indicating that it is not a word in general use. If it was in general use the title would have to be something like Santorum (word or Santorum (anal sex). The current title of this article meets WP:TITLE and most of the proposed alternatives don't so I see no reason to move the article either. Hut 8.5 12:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Kneejerk Oppose, WP:NOTCENSORED and stuff. --M4gnum0n (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose strongly, principally on WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED grounds. This neologism has had extensive 3rd party coverage, especially on the effect of the coining of the neologism on the senator's election chances. The title is apt - this is an article about a notable neologism. I don't think either a rename or any significant reduction in content is warranted here. To be honest, I don't think BLP really applies here - the word is not being used to suggest that the senator is homosexual (quite the contrary), nor (as far as I have read it) that he shares any characteristics with the substance described. WJBscribe (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Strong oppose the article is about the term. The fact that the term was made to attack someone is irrelevant. We do what the sources say, anything else is original research. --Guerillero | My Talk 18:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Strong Oppose As I have argued previously, it is not a BLP violation to describe extremely verifiable events about a public figure like a politician. We cannot sweep under the rug an event which dozens of reliable sources have covered for years. Without Wikipedia comprehensively treating this subject in a neutral, verifiable fashion, all that's left are the various arguments by those stridently for or against Savage's act. Removing, drastically reducing, deleting, or redirecting this all has the same effect: removing useful information from the attention of our readers who depend on us for fair treatment of controversies just like this one. I for one will not support that disservice to them. Steven Walling 19:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Strong Oppose: I don't care whether you're a homophobe like senator santorum or a homo-lover(?) (Leviticus 20:13 rejecter?), the term is extremely notable. The proposed change is not going to help Sen. Santorum one iota, the other santorum pages which are attack pages will become all the top search results, and you will only harm sen. santorum further by trying to diminish easy access to our consensus product.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 00:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. It's a topic and is sourced as such, as is George W. Bush military service controversy. That Santorum is again (considering?) running for office is beside the point. In regards to Jimbo Wales's argument, which brings up a valid point, it seems to me that the name has become the issue, so to speak--as it did in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, which makes little sense without the president's name in it. I'm somewhat saddened to say 'oppose' since some very valued editors present cogent arguments, but I can't help but think that this is a result of the way politics are done in the US, and the WP article reflects this. To say that the article itself was created and/or expanded, which I read in and between the lines in some comments (not yours, SlimVirgin--let me hasten to add that) to destroy the senator's long shot at the nomination or the presidency does not strike me as in the spirit of our project: it does not assume good faith. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
OPPOSE: oh, this again. notable subject, well sourced article, and has gone through all the hoops to stay titled just as it is. Badmachine (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - despite its etymology, this word is as valid as any other, as the sources clearly demonstrate. It names an (unfortunate) sexual phenomena. I find support for making this solely about the politician baffling. -Kez (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose We shouldn't be worrying about politics when editing the wiki. Our responsibility is to document notable phenomena neutrally; if readers and other people choose to misinterpret what that means, that is their own fault. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose I will be very sad if Wikipedia censors this article basically out of squeamishness. This neologism may have been invented and initially promoted by Savage, but it has gone way beyond that and is no longer just about him. The other week Jon Stewart, on the Daily Show, in the middle of a report told viewers to "Go and Google 'Santorum'. I'll wait." Page views that week topped 70k. This is a notable phenomenon no matter what its origin - and no matter if it makes some Wikipedians uncomfortable. --MelanieN (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Strong Oppose: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an SEO agency. The word has entered common usage and other wiki projects (like wiktionary) link to the article. Ptelder (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Note to the closing admin: Ptelder has made very few edits, and before this ~~none~~ just one since August 2009. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
~~Note to the closing admin~~: The statement above concerning Ptelder's editing history is false.[43]--Noren (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
~~note to closing admin~~ SV's statement is almost true. Between this edit and Aug 2009 the user has made exactly one edit. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Strong Oppose: This article isn't Wikipedia's fault - it's the fault of a phenomenon in American culture. The word has gained a real place in sexual lingo. This is proven by the article's ability to survive numerous previous deletion / merge attempts. Santorum isn't hurt by this article's continued existence, because the creation of the word happened so long ago. Because of that, this article is barely an "attack" article. This article is encyclopedic and Wikipedic. Keep it. If you don't you're flirting with a dangerous kind of squeamishness. Oh, and SlimVirgin, I know you'll probably try to do {{spa}} on me. Don't bother. I've only made a few edits with this account, but I've been using, reading, and editing Wikipedia (amongst other wikis) for several years. I only just got involved enough to make a "legit" account because I heard about the travesty that you were perpetuating. Proverbtalvin (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Note to the closing admin: Proverbtalvin has made very few edits, and none before today. --J N 466 22:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Per Proverbtalvin. (at least the remarks before the "Oh, Slim...".) I am not sure if I have the requisite number of edits to meet the suffrage requirements. Like Ptelder, I have a bit of a gap in my edit history between 2008-relatively recently. My cross-wiki contributions tell a different story though. Thenub314 (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Multiple independent sources have noted that this is looking likely to be a problem in the 2012 presidential campaign; it's no longer appropriate to treat it as a minor incident in 2003, as a merge would do, or entirely about Dan Savage, which renaming would do. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. The article is well sourced and about the Neologism itself, which is no longer within the bounds of Savage's original efforts. In regards to BLP, this article is not reporting anything false about Senator Santorum.Naraht (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose: notability and verifiability are clear, with substantial mainstream press coverage. -- The Anome (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - Though this kind of "manufactured" notability makes me uneasy, and though I'm sympathetic to a lot of the "google bombing" arguments from supporters, I'm going to have to oppose here. Manufactured notability is notability none the less, even if we think the notable subject is in poor taste. Additionally, I think I'd agree with Tom Morris's "How Google ranks our article is not our concern". NickCT (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - While it is absolutely clear that Wikipedia should not itself be the forum used to create such a neologism or to promote obscure terms or political campaigns, once a linguistic campaign, political or otherwise, becomes as notable as this one indisputably has become (attracting continuing widespread commentary over 8+ years from multiple reputable sources), then a neutral Wikipedia article on the subject becomes appropriate, however unpalatable the subject. Wikipedia cannot be held back from neutrally describing widely reported cultural/political phenomena merely from fear of promulgating the subject matter (see e.g. Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy for a relevant parallel). Nor would I support a merge with the article on the 2003 incident, as this neologism campaign has clearly outlived that particular incident. I could support a move to Santorum neologism campaign or similar, separate from content changes. (Regarding shortening the article, I don't think it is appropriate to prescribe an article length by fiat, e.g. limiting it a priori to "one paragraph" or "one subsection". Rather, if there are specific items or sources that should be removed, those things should be discussed individually rather than deleting content en masse.) — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - If Bush Derangement Syndrome, with a total of 19 references, gets its own page, this, with 125, ought to as well. If, instead, Wikipedia decides not to chronicle recent coinages, then what business do we have claiming to be a relevant, up-to-date online encyclopedia? Also, the "WP participation in a googlebombing" argument is a red herring - some majority or plurality of searchers are clearly curious as to how the word came about, else this article would be much further down the rankings. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 20:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
On another note, holding out for a "golden source" as some editors have advocated is a case study in going out to the docks once the ship has sailed. Santorum has no mention, for example, in the New York Times other than as the man's name; here are some other neologisms with sourced WP pages (at varying levels of needing work) but no usage in the alleged Paper of Record: ~~camwhore~~, bluecasting, photowalking, jihobbyist, greenography (full disclosure: this one looks like a terrible advertisement, and it may need deletion itself - that's another issue though), neuroarthistory, Partido da Imprensa Golpista, accountable autonomy. Maybe they should all get deleted, merged, or redirected, for their own reasons - but their numbers suggest a counterweight to the theory that an NYT mention is necessary to demonstrate common usage. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 21:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Moving toward consensus per below ArbCom preemption thread:

First Choice: Keep as is

Second Choice: Rename article (keep current title as redirect). I'd suggest Santorum culture-jam campaign, Santorum neologism campaign, or Rick Santorum and the Internet. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 15:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose We didn't make this up, nor are we promoting it, as it is not an obscure neologism, it's a very well known one. The Google bombed site is already number 1 whether we move this article or not. We shouldn't make up contrived names when there's an obvious and common one available, merely to avoid offending some hypothetical reader's moral sensibilities. Gigs (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose per Roscelese and the spirit that Wikipedia is not censored. If this were 2003, a merger might be appropriate, but it's 2012 and the neologism hasn't faded away. Imzadi 1979 → 23:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. I could see the point if this term was genuinely new and not eight years old and still kicking. I think this has reached the point where Savage couldn't make it go away even if he wanted to. The term has genuinely entered the language. The fact that some may not like the term or like the way it came to exist is irrelevant. It's here. It's queer. Get used to it. Henrymrx (t·c) 06:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Per all or most of the above, including but not limited to Wikipedia is not censored, notability and verifiability are clear, and we shouldn't be worrying about politics when editing the wiki. Our responsibility is to document notable phenomena neutrally. He iro 07:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Jimbo raises a valid point in that efforts must be made regarding living people to respect the integrity and privacy of the individual, especially in cases involving negative or controversial content. That said, given that coverage has since expanded beyond Dan Savage's original promotion of the word, it seems silly to remove Rick Santorum's name from the name of an article which directly involves him as part of the controversy. I would be open to supporting a name such as Santorum neologism controversy, but a change to something which doesn't include the word "santorum" feels like self-censorship, and we're better than that. elektrik SHOOS 15:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - per above. The term exists, and has taken on a life of its own far past Savage's initial campaign. A look at my userpage should reveal my obvious biases in this particular situation but they have nothing to do with my opinion on this matter as it relates to Wikipedia policy. Like it or not, the word is here to stay, the concept exists, and its notability is evidenced by mentions on The Daily Show amongst others. → ROUX ₪ 17:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose We did not create the term. And to believe that because we document the term we are responsible for spreading is a dangerous, slippery slope. The article can certainly be improved but whitewashing it because we disapprove of the existence of the (independently-notable and widely-documented) term is unacceptable and unbecoming of a neutral encyclopedia. I might feel differently if this were a particularly vulnerable subject that warranted extraordinary care and protection but he is an internationally-known public figure. I might also feel different if we were discussing a false accusation or assertion that readers might mistakenly believe but that is clearly not the case here. ElKevbo (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose We dont select winners and loser. The term has become widespread and its existence and cultural background are excellent encyclopedic topics. -- ۩ Mask 20:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Per Cirt.—S Marshall T/C 21:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Persistence is not consensus, even if one of the attempts eventually flies under the radar so that only the proponents comment. There are more people who know what santorum is, than there are who know who Santorum is. My spell-check recognizes santorum but not Santorum. It's a word, with a history notable enough for encyclopedic coverage. Supporters of Santorum should stop using WP to try to advance an agenda. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose However it was created, the term has taken on a life of its own. Goodwinsands (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose For BLP reasons we should stick to our normal standards on this one. Firstly, people have come to expect Wikipedia to cover contentious matters neutrally and fairly, if we decide to delete our article on something that doesn't make it go away any more than deleting Malaria would stop people dying of that disease; Deleting or "merge without redirect" if you prefer euphemisms would merely leave the coverage to more partisan sources. Secondly if we bend our processes to delete this article we risk having the Politician involved being accused of subverting Wikipedia to cover up something unpleasant, and no I'm not accusing those who support deletion of being in anyone's pocket - but I fear if they succeed that will be the off wiki reaction. Ϣere SpielChequers 07:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment You appear to be opposing a proposal that is not being made. LondonStatto (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Nope. Merge without redirect is a fourth AFD attempt in all but name. Ϣere SpielChequers 16:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose, per user:ElKevbo, user:Roux, user:Henrymrx, user:Stevenj, user:Jayen466, user:Rivertorch, and others above who say that the word is used to legitimately describe something which can be the byproduct of anal sex without having any political meaning. Regardless of how this word came into use, it is now its own word for a concept which is necessarily discussed now and was not discussed 10 years ago. The acceptance of homosexuality and anal sex is recent. Ten years ago, there were not gay characters in the majority of American TV shows and movies as there are today. Anal sex was much less discussed. Straight people also are having more anal sex than at any other time in history. Society had a need for a word to describe aspects of anal sex, and as there was no word for this there was a ideological vacuum which needed to be filled. Jimbo is right in saying that this word was a "clever modern political attack tactic" but the available sources give strong counter evidence to his unreferenced assertion that "that this is not a word that has arisen naturally in the culture and actually used by anyone." The word is now an indispensable part of America sex education and is immediately used when people ask one of the most basic questions about human sexuality: "How does anal sex work?" Sources exist which use this word in sex education. To merge this article is to break Wikipedia policy for no BLP benefit with the side effect of promoting sex phobia and to necessarily demand the article's recreation as more time goes on and the word's usage spreads even more. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose for the same reason I opposed a renaming, opposed a merging, and any other of the attempted to take another bite of the apple. We have BLP standards but none of them speak to a need for a presidential candidate to be free from his past stupidity. Protonk (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
oppose this is amply notable and remarkably sourced. Removing sourced material from wikipedia is tantamount to vandalism. We do not pass judgement we observe and report HominidMachinae (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Strong oppose - too often Wikipedians act as if we are a court of public opinion, as if an article's existence is a stamp of societal approval as opposed to our purpose, as a documentation of some aspect of humanity. Whether any of us think "Santorum" as a noun in this context is appropriate or not has no relevance here. As the numerous citations show, 'Santorum' has stuck in the popular culture as a neologism for what this article describes, and it is up for us to explain it to a public that knows exactly what it means. It is not up to us to offer a POV that we find it distasteful that this whole neologism has happened to a particular individual, and so we prefer to paper over it with a larger context. The neologism as it stands just is, like it or not. People use it and look for it specifically. Our business is documentation, not judgment on the issues of the day and how they evolve. The only way we keep to wp:ENC is to keep this article here, or else we are expressing opinions about our discomfort, and not whether a topic has wp:V, which is our standard, and this clearly meets it. --David Shankbone 05:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose' Article is appropriate and BLP concerns are unfounded. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. BLP was written to protect lesser-known individuals, not well-known politicians. Suggesting both a rename and a merge in one go amounts to BLP-hyper-sensitivity. Rami R 17:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Wikipedia covers the world as it is, not the world as it ought to be if people didn't engage in politics. As things are there is a specific distinct social phenomenon, neologism, and political activism -- an encyclopedic subject -- centering around opposition to a prominent US Senator's (and now Presidential candidate's) anti-gay politics. That has taken on a life of its own and the term is used and its meaning invoked without necessarily being relevant to the life and times of the Senator or Dan Savage, the person who helped coin it. Just as the Streisand Effect took on a life of its own (one uses the term and deals with the subject without necessarily referring to Barbara Streisand) and therefore shouldn't be merged and redirected to the part of her article dealing with the original event, people talking about Santorum are talking about the larger issue of gay politics in America, and perhaps occasionally (within the community) about the actual literal meaning of the word. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Amazing how you can easily say this has nothing to do with Mr. Santorum when it is his last name. The Streisand Effect isn't a grossly provocative word, it is describing something far less negative. Not on the same level. -- Avanu (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
You're missing the argument. Distinct doesn't mean unrelated. It means that there are two identifiably different things. Streisand Effect is a good example there because it has a lot of parallels, a neologism arising from a public figure's unpopular actions that is now used to refer to other things. Of course it calls Streisand into mind, it's hard not to think of Barbara Streisand when someone mentions the Streisand Effect. But it's used when the subject is not Streisand at all but rather a comparable situation involving other people. I'm proposing that Santorum is used to reference things other than the Senator. That one is a more objectionable subject than the other (arguably, opinions might vary) is an orthogonal issue. So is a bigger issue that you don't raise, that one was deliberately created to malign the person whereas the other may or may not have been but does have that effect. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose It seems that the push to remove Santorum (neologism) is being driven by partisans of Rick Santorum. While Dan Savage's word-coining stunt was obnoxious, the word has taken on a life of its own. To merge the word's article into a political article about Rick Santorum is to take Mr Santorum's side in this contest of wills. Arguably the decent, humane side, but a side nonetheless. Maintaining the two terms as separate is probably the more appropriate path, for an encyclopedia that seeks to describe rather than to prescribe. NPOV. Ventifax (talk) 02:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose, the fact that Rick Santorum might find this embarrassing is not the point. The fact that it seems to have taken hold and been reported upon and used wisely under this name is the point. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC).
Oppose. The term now has a life of its own unrelated to its original author. The proposed new title is misleading as it implies that the word is only known as a part of Dan Savage's campaign. Ruslik_Zero 13:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:V and WP:VNT. It is not our remit to editorialize or white-wash notable topics discussed in verifiable third-party sources because we find them distasteful. TotientDragooned (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose It's notable. It's well sourced. I do think the Gore Effect AfD (especially the close) is relevant here. Yes this is "worse", but I really don't see a BLP problem that can't be solved by writing a well-balanced article (which this is at the moment). Hobit (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- I've no objection to a reasonable rename however. Coining of 'santorum', Santorum neologism controversy, and Rick Santorum's Google problem both seeming like a solid choice. The article is about more than the neologism. Hobit (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose per this shirt. --Travis Thurston+ 00:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
'"Oppose"' because the neologism has entered general use (independent of the political situation). (I'm rarely here now, due to illness, but as a linguist this one bothered me enough to struggle through typing.) Clytie (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Maximum oppose and ban all political operatives who continue to push their agenda here. Merrill Stubing (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. We are not in the business of relieving American politicians of their embarrasments; why does it matter whose ox is gored? We have articles on Dave the Chameleon, a direct attack on a living politician (actually in office), openly invented and sponsored by his political opponents; we have articles on chink and nigger, both attacks on millions of living persons; we title them thus, as what anglophones call the subjects. Is the proposed title what most people call the subject? The absence of a redirect is particularly troubling; readers who meet a santorum joke should be able to get to this page.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. I started another article for a neologism/attack and "Most Outrageous Word of the Year" as judged by the American Dialect Society (2009): death panel. I considered naming the article Death panel lie or Death panel myth because I thought I may be legitimizing the attack with the short and simple title. But we're advised to be natural and concise, so I relaxed. Yes, in this case, the last name of someone has been redefined as the attack. But, it's also worth noting that the definition of santorum doesn't suggest that Rick Santorum would do any specific negative action. In contrast, over at death panel, Sarah Palin's definition suggested the President of the United States didn't care about the lives of the elderly or disabled. That's quite a vicious personal attack in my opinion! But I don't think the appropriate course of action is to merge and delete that article's content. In short, were here to document what reliable sources say, ugly or not. Jesanj (talk) 01:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. This seems like a good article, and as much as the origin of the term makes me nervous on BLP grounds, I think there is significant encyclopedic value in covering it on its own. The part of the proposal to not redirect the current article name strikes me as particularly silly, considering the number of inbound links to it from the media. Rjm656s (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. The proposal is to get rid of the article on the neologism santorum, under the subject name. Less than 6 months ago, the article, with the same name (but slightly longer disambiguation term), was put up for deletion. The result of the AfD was keep, as should be the case here.Gacurr (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Other

In Between. Agree article should be shortened to a few paragraphs. Disagree that there is any need to merge it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Rename but don't abridge. I've had to think hard about this issue, because, to an extent that is unusual on Wikipedia, both sides of the debate make very compelling arguments. Like some editors who support the proposal, I think there are problems here with recentism. More importantly, I think that Jimbo and others make a very important point about how the page might affect how the public views Wikipedia. It makes us look like just another website repeating the overheated trash of the moment. On the other hand, I also strongly agree with editors who oppose the proposal on the grounds that Santorum is a public figure who got into this (and got his family into this) voluntarily, that Wikipedia is not censored, and that there is more than enough reliable and independent sourcing for the page. So I'm coming down somewhere between "support" and "oppose". Like many opposers, I am strongly against removing the information in the page. Don't shorten it. But looking at Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality, that (or a similar title—there are less kludgy word choices than "regarding") is more encyclopedic than the title here, while remaining true to the concept of keeping the most likely search name up front. That other page is very thin, compared to this one, so it's a matter of perspective as to which would be merged into which. Effectively, I would merge the content of the other page into this page, while retaining most of the content of this page, and use that other title instead of the title here. The result would be an article about the controversy, treating the neologism as a very prominent part of that controversy. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I want to make a note here that my comment, directly above, was made before the comments were moved into three sections (support, oppose, and other) and numbered. The rationale in the edit summary for that move was to make things easier for the closing administrator. I'm fine with making things easier (if less fine with making it look like a vote). But I'm not fine with making it easier to disregard the comments that wound up in this section. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Merge to the article in Wiktionary, where it belongs. See Wrong place section below. Flatterworld (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
It's more than just a word with a simple definition. There's history, contention, and drama behind it. A Wiktionary article won't do the subject justice. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
As I said, read the section below. And learn what etymology means, as that's one of the purposes of dictionaries. Real dictionaries that is, not children's dictionaries. Flatterworld (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't find any need to repeat how the opposition responded to your suggestion up here. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Merge to Rick Santorum and homosexuality, Rick Santorum homosexuality controversy, or some similar title. I more or less agree with Tryptofish above. I have serious questions regarding using only the last name of the individual in the title of the existing article, which is also, effectively, maybe a back-handed assertion of the neologism. There is a question as to how much weight we should give etymology in a lot of articles, and as I have recently seen there are a lot of etymological dictionaries, which could be used to assert that any number of words in them might be sufficiently notable for separate articles here as words. Personally, I don't know if that is necessarily a bad idea, but I very much think that this particular page is not the place or occasion where such a discussion should begin. John Carter (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
an editor has proposed an interesting alternative at the Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality talk page. "Talk:Santorum (neologism) is debating a merge into this article. That seems inappropriate, given the relative notability and coverage of the term "santorum" vs. this event from 2003. I'm proposing that we merge this article into Santorum (neologism), instead.24.177.120.138 talk 22:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)" -badmachine 21:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
by the way, i think this editor has raised a very interesting point... why is this article to be merged to the santorum controversy article instead of the other way round? it seems like the santorum controversy was instrumental in the creation of this neologism, which has one of the most interesting etymologies of any english word that i can think of. -badmachine 22:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I personally think that the correct place would be Rick Santorum and homosexuality, with maybe a redirect or other link to it, and a subheading clearly about the Santorum neologism. That to me anyway seems the most neutral approach. Like I said, there are, at least potentially, possible articles about words based on the etymological factors, but I very seriously doubt that at this point that is necessarily sufficient for a separate article. John Carter (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
TROUT ALL How many times are we going to have to walk over this festering sore of contention? Some people think that it's not appropriate for this article to exist for any reason, others think that it's perfectly fine just the way it is. I represent a 3rd (or 4th) viewpoint of "Stop trying to sollicit my viewpoint about this article". I think I've seen 6 or 7 notifications in various locations about people trying to move the article, people trying to rope a uninvolved admin in for a closure consensus, people trying to flood the consensus so that they can get their way. Judging by the reasoning, I'm thinking the move/rename is going to fail. I ask all primary contributors to this discussion (and administrators) to impose a 6 month moratorium on move/deletion discussions. Hasteur (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
second. :) -badmachine 01:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment - my preference is to keep the article title as is, but if we were to rename it, the title should be "Rick Santorum's Google problem", which is how the media refers to it. --David Shankbone 06:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Rename but don't abridge, per Tryptofish. I think the article title is misleading, and should be changed; the main subject here is the controversy and its consequences, not the word itself. The only reason my vote isn't a support is because I don't think we should be removing well-sourced material.. the media made this a topic, so it's a topic. Mlm42 (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Rename/refactor The problem Wikipedia faces with this article stems from conflict between different policies, between WP:BLP and WP:NOTCENSORED, between WP:NPOV and WP:TITLES. The case is unusual because Wikipedia is made a participant in the ad hominem attack by virtue of the article itself. I think an imperfect solution is approach the title of the article and refactor it in such a way as to avoid defaming the political figure, yet covering the controversy in a neutral and uncensored fashion. To do this, we should WP:IGNORE conciseness in the article title. The other point to consider is that it appears there are two things going on: the neologism and the controversy. Something to consider is whether one is really separable from the other, by how much, and which has greater notability. Judging from this section below[44] it appears the notoriety of the neologism apart from the controversy is limited. To be clear I am not saying the neologism has no notability, only that its notability is relatively limited when compared with the controversy. Therefore, it is the controversy that should have an article, and the neologism itself should have a section within it. Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Rename The subject is far more notable for Mr. Savage's campaign than it is for its supposed meaning. Thus the article should be primarily about the campaign, which in fact it is. Unfortunately, the title suggests otherwise. I suggest renaming the article to something like Coining of 'santorum'. The information contained in this article is both well-sourced and germane to that title, so it should not be merged withRick Santorum. Similarly, this is not a BLP issue unless we ourselves are giving undue weight to the attack on Mr. Santorum. In this case, I believe the title does so by legitimizing, and thus throwing Wikipedia's weight behind, the campaign. We should merely report on it, not support it. The rest of the article seems fine, but the title should be changed to reflect that the article is about the campaign, and not the supposed neologism. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Further expanding on my point, I'm fine with renaming the article to reflect the phenomenon, and perhaps rewriting so that it is fully related to the new title. I oppose merging or deletion, as the subject (the phenomenon of the deliberate coining and the extent of its use) is notable and well-sourced enough to warrant its own article. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Threaded discussion

To emphasize the point on process -- by proposing not even to have a redirect from the current article to the merge destination, this proposal is in fact a deletion discussion. And yet we don't see an AfD. I wonder why that is. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Possibly because the proposal is more complicated and more specific than the simple deletion of this article. But if you wish to set up an AFD, then presumably you are free to do so. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 11:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: Please note that prior to the RFC tag being added to this discussion, the community was given notice of ongoing discussion at this talk page through links from eleven (11) WikiProject talkpages, multiple threads at WP:BLPN, a post to WP:AN, a template for deletion discussion, three (3) prior WP:AFD debates, and other Wikipedia pages as well. -- Cirt (talk) 06:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Neutrally worded notice of the RFC placed at WikiProject talkpages: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Google, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet culture, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages. If editors think of other related WikiProject talkpages to notify, feel free to use my matter-of-fact wording from the notices already given. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 06:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
It's a fine mess.--MONGO 14:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Some of the comments above refer to the large number of sources in the article. Ninety percent of this article is simply justifying its own existence in terms of notability: "this commentator commented on the prank", "that commentator mentioned the word". When you strip away all this AFD-proofing, what's left of any encyclopedic value could be boiled down to a few lines. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

@ --Anthonyhcole's " what's left of any encyclopedic value could be boiled down to a few lines. " would you like to put up an sample of what that would look like for discussion? Active Banana (^bananaphone 14:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

That will have to be done at some point, Active Banana. But it's late here and I'm tired. I'll have a go at boiling this down to its essentials when I'm back online – if someone hasn't beaten me to it.

Done at #Proposed rewrite. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

- Note also that some of the sourcing documenting purported usage is poor (incl. self-published novels, a book of alternative crossword puzzles, a "geek limerick contest" on a satirical geek website, etc.), and as discussed above, I am concerned that some of the sources may not have been represented accurately. For example, until earlier today the article stated,
  - The 2006 edition of The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English cited santorum as an example of "deliberate coining".
- Upon looking at the source, it turns out the Partridge dictionary did not list the term at all, but discussed it briefly in its introduction:
  - "An example of deliberate coining is the word 'santorum', purported to mean 'a frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex'. In point of fact, the term is the child of a one-man campaign by syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage to place the term in wide usage. From its appearance in print and especially on the Internet, one would assume, incorrectly, that the term has gained wide usage."
- The dictionary states in the introduction that it tries to avoid entries of "intentional coinings without widespread usage", and the term does not have an entry in the dictionary, nor can I find a mention of it in the 2007 and 2008 editions. This non-existent entry in Partridge was earlier put forward as a key argument demonstrating the term's linguistic importance. What is notable here is the campaign, not the word. If a separate article on this were retained at all, it ought to be titled correctly to make it clear that it is about a politically motivated campaign to create a neologism, and be rewritten succinctly, with its poor sources and quote farms removed.--J N 466 14:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  - While I disagree about renaming or merging the article, and I disagree on the need to drastically shorten the article, it does sound like this particular source quote is misleading and needs to be revised. However, while Partridge is informative, I'm not convinced it's definitive, and I wouldn't rely upon the inclusion or exclusion of a word in Partridge as sole evidence of notability. For that matter, has there never been another word that gained use because of the efforts of the one person that coined it? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- The argument that "this article is overlong because it has too many citations to mere uses of the word" strikes me as particularly disingenuous given that this is an article about the word and its creation. Compare that argument to the method used by the Oxford English Dictionary, widely considered to be the definitive lexicon of the English language, for determining what words they include in their work: [45]. "The OED requires several independent examples of the word being used, and also evidence that the word has been in use for a reasonable amount of time." If one picks a definition in the full OED at random, one will readily see that much of the entry consists of quotations and references to uses of the word, establishing that it is a word in widespread use. What a Catch-22 we would set for ourselves: You can't have an article about a new word without proving that it is notable, but you cannot cite references that establish the notability of a word, or discuss the genesis of the word. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  - Well said. Binksternet (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
    - First of all, we are not a dictionary. Dictionary compilers cite primary sources; we strive to base our articles on secondary sources. And some of the primary-source examples are very poor. A self-published free e-book, another self-published book, a Gonzo Crossword, and a geek limerick contest (they themselves call it that) entry that does not actually use the word, but names the person, Rick Santorum. The centre of gravity of almost all cited secondary sources is the campaign, not the word. --J N 466 16:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
      - I knew the "but it's a primary source!" argument would come up. Primary sources are acceptable in some cases, and I'd certainly argue that etymologies are a good case for their inclusion. Their usage is, or can be made, consistent with WP:PRIMARY in that they "make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." Tracking the usage of a new word—which is basically what etymology is—consists of citing places where the word was used. Citing a primary source to establish that the source used the word is pretty much unassailable on those grounds—although yes, obviously editors will have to take care to walk the line in doing so.
        While we may not be a dictionary, that's no reason why we shouldn't let the best practices of prestigious and respected dictionaries inform our decisions. As for the "centre of gravity" of the sources: the word was coined in response to the actions of a political figure. Of course many of the sources are going to be related to a political campaign, because that's what the man who inspired the word does for a living. If we set a criteria that articles related, but not directly about, politicians must not use sources that are ostensibly about their political campaigns, how many other articles must we eviscerate? It would be like saying that articles about doctors can't use sources that are mostly about medical research. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
        The problems I see in this specific case are original research and due weight. Due weight is established by secondary sources -- in this case, linguists writing about how a word entered the language, and citing notable examples. Having such secondary sources gives us a basis for writing about it. That's not the case here. What happened here -- a Wikipedian scouring the web for primary sources that use the term, and then listing them in the article -- is something quite different. It is original research, and it has come up, among other things, with two self-published novels, a Gonzo Crossword and a geek limerick contest. And misrepresented one good reference, the Partridge Dictionary of Slang, which made precisely the opposite point -- that this was the child of a one-man campaign, not a widespread term, and therefore not suitable for inclusion in their book. There are no secondary sources justifying our giving weight to these examples. We should be guided by secondary sources, not original primary-source research. --J N 466 16:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

- - Macwhiz, I don't think anybody made the argument that "this article is overlong because it has too many citations to mere uses of the word". I made the point that a lot of the article consisted of mentions that some commentator or other had commented on the controversy or the word, which is different from instances of someone actually unselfconsciously using the word. Here are the examples I found, on one run through the article, of citations that add nothing to the article but "so-and-so mentioned the controversy":

Citations of commentators referring to the prank

- - - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review columnist Dimitri Vassilaros wrote critically about the term's formation...[16]
    - Philadelphia Daily News journalist Dan Gross described the usage of the term as, "Possibly the longest-lasting pop-culture reference to Santorum".[17]
    - Catey Sullivan of The Antioch Review likened the phenomenon surrounding the term to that of "subversive political activism" of advice columnist Ann Landers.[18] (twice: once in the lead, once in the body)
    - Rachel Kranz and Tim Cusick's 2005 book Library in a Book: Gay Rights provides a glossary of terms relevant to the gay rights movement, and in the entry on "Rick Santorum" notes: "His remarks particularly angered gay columnist Dan Savage, who began a campaign to associate Santorum's name with an unpleasant byproduct of anal sex."[65]
    - The paper, titled "Natality in the Private, Public, and Political Spheres: When Santorum Becomes santorum", dealt with the impact of new media on various spheres of influence.[74]
    - In his 2009 book And Then There's This: How Stories Live and Die in Viral Culture, author Bill Wasik identified the term as a form of sexual slang, noting, "his surname was turned into a sexual slang word, which a Google search for his last name today - long after he lost his reelection bid - still returns as the number-one result."[75]
    - In the 2010 book The Simpsons in the Classroom: Embiggening the Learning Experience with the Wisdom of Springfield, authors Karma Waltonen, Denise Du Vernay cite the santorum phenomenon in addition to "truthiness" as part of an exercise for students where they are encouraged to invent their own words and then experiment with them.[77]
    - Rick Santorum discussed the santorum phenomenon in a February 2011 interview with the publication Roll Call.[9]
    - In a May 12, 2011 interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, journalist Brian O'Neill observed that the phenomenon is referred to as "Santorum's Google problem".[11]
    - The Inquirer described the Savage coinage and other references to Santorum in The Sopranos and Veronica Mars as illustrating his name's evolution into "cultural shorthand ... for social conservatism."[81]
    - The regional gay newspaper Bay Windows said in August 2006 that Savage had "succeeded in turning [Santorum's name] into an oft-Googled slang term."[82]
    - The Human Rights Campaign included the full definition in a reprint of an item from Gay City News.[83]
    - CEO of ReputationDefender Michael Fertik who specializes in helping individuals with such issues commented, "It's devastating. This is one of the more creative and salient Google issues I've ever seen."[61]
    - In February 2011, the political newspaper Roll Call wrote an article on his "Longtime Google Problem"[9]
    - In a 2004 article, The New York Times commented, "... recent Google bombs have sought to associate President Bush, Senator Clinton and Senator Rick Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican, with various unprintable phrases."[112]
    - The word appeared in discussion in college newspapers of Harvard University,[113] ... and the University of Michigan...[115]
    - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review columnist Dimitri Vassilaros wrote critically about the term's formation in a March 2006 article, and characterized it as "hate content" and "too vile to print in most newspapers".[16] Vassilaros wrote of Savage, "It was created by a very liberal advice columnist in the alternative media who does not hide his hatred for Mr. Santorum."[16]
    - Tucson Weekly movie reviewer Jim Nintzel wrote in a satirical piece in April 2006 that he introduced the word to comedian Rob Corddry of the satirical news program The Daily Show, noting that "Despite his high-ranking position as a member of the media elite, Corddry wasn't aware of this important linguistic development."[117]
    - The Daily Show referenced the term in its July 12, 2006,[118] December 11, 2006,[119] and May 9, 2011 episodes;[120]
    - Stephen Colbert of The Colbert Report called attention to the term in a February 21, 2011 broadcast,[121][122] and subsequently in an April 25, 2011 episode.[123]
    - Linkins commented critically regarding the nature of the activism by Savage, "as far as malicious internet pranks go, Savage's was a pretty effective one. What's not discussed is that its overall cultural importance peaked years ago".[5]
    - Steve Peoples of Roll Call wrote, "Dan Savage sought to mock Santorum’s comments on homosexuality."[9]
    - In a February 2011 article, Stephanie Mencimer of Mother Jones magazine characterized the activism by Savage in coining the word as an act of "revenge".[8]
    - Juli Weiner characterized the former Senator as "Google bomb victim Rick Santorum", in a March 2011 article for Vanity Fair.[124]
    - Salon journalist Tracy Clark-Flory wrote of Savage in March 2011, "Rest assured, he is still the same delightfully droll and impudent man who brought us the term 'santorum.'"[125]
    - On May 9, 2011, Jon Stewart of The Daily Show mentioned the term without defining it and then told the puzzled portion of his viewers to google it.[126] When guest Keira Knightley appeared for her interview, she admitted she had googled it backstage and now felt "like [her] innocence has been taken away."[127][128] Jon Stewart's mention of santorum on his May 9, 2011 program caused the word to be one of the most queried search terms on Google the following day.[129][130][131]
    - Michael Grunwald of TIME magazine commented, "you may have noticed that Santorum has a hilariously obscene Google problem, created by gay activists who objected to his anti-gay comments."[132]
    - Marcia Segelstein wrote critically of the phenomenon in a piece for the Christian news magazine World.[133]

- - This is a significant portion of the article.
  - On the matter of instances of actual usage of the term, rather than references to the prank, there are a few cited in the article, and there shouldn't be any. A dictionary uses examples of usage to make the meaning clear. This article uses examples of usage to say "People are using the term. It's making its way into the language." That point can be made if a reliable source, that is credible and likely to be based on actual evidence of some kind other than some dude's opinion, says it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a deadline for this RFC. I don't know if there's a standard duration for such things, but it seems that at least a week is needed to get adequate community input, and anything longer than two weeks is probably not going to attract much new input. Any objection to setting a deadline of 19 June 2011 00:00 UTC (two weeks plus change) for comments? I also think an uninvolved and experienced editor should then be found to evaluate the results of the RFC and formally close it. Thoughts? alanyst 14:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The usual thing is to leave things open for one month if needed, but comment usually dries up before that. Two weeks sounds reasonable, though I think we should play it by ear because consensus may become clear before that. Then look for someone experienced and uninvolved to close it, an admin if the tools are needed. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The thing we're going to have to look out for is "support because of fallout." People seem to think that WP is supposed to be concerned with results. But we don't care if it ruins his life or political career (to be extreme) so long as we are adhering to our NPOV and sourcing policies. Looks like the article needs work, but I think that we should be more concerned with fighting censorship, which is probably the only reason this article gets only two sentences in his biography in spite of the probability that it's much more notable to him than that. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 16:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

We certainly do care if it ruins his life or political career. BLP is based around the principle of not hurting people or doing things to demean them. If we violate that principle while still adhering to our NPOV and sourcing policies, then the NPOV and sourcing policies are wrong. They have loopholes in them. "We're literally following the rules" is not a good excuse for a BLP violation--it just means the rules need to be fixed. Ken Arromdee (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It's completely wrong to say that BLP is based around the principle of avoiding harm. BLP derives from core content policies of accuracy and sourcing, together with content neutrality. Lying behind it is the knowledge that if content does not match these policies, it may do harm; but content that fully meets them may also lower the reputation of a BLP subject. If it does, that's because of what's happened in the real world. We describe the real world. Some of the contributions here are getting dangerously close to saying we must deliberately distort the world we see and report because some people can't be trusted to be told the truth. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The use of the word "attack" in many of the supporting comments interests me. I perceive a few viewpoints on this article:

The Wikipedia article was created to attack Rick Santorum and equate his name with excrement.
The Wikipedia article does not attack Santorum directly, but it perpetuates an attack upon him and thus should be deleted.
The Wikipedia article does not attack Santorum; it documents the notable act of a third party that has been widely reported and is notable under Wikipedia's policies, in a way that doesn't violate any Wikipedia policies that would require its censorship or deletion. That act may be perceived as political satire or as an attack, depending chiefly upon one's political point of view and personal moral beliefs.

I don't understand the first viewpoint; if the article is "an attack" on Santorum, it has to be a deliberate act. WP:AGF aside, I don't think this is the case. The article does not seek to make the man's name synonymous with excrement; it describes the notable attempt of someone else to do so, which is an important distinction. The second viewpoint has somewhat more merit, but it amounts to WP:CENSOR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT in my opinion, because there's nothing in Wikipedia policy that has been successfully cited so far to justify the deletion. (That's my opinion, and the opinion of the last three attempts to delete the article.) The idea that Wikipedia can perpetuate an attack by reporting facts troubles me, because it's so egotistical. If Wikipedia were not the top Google listing for "santorum", are we sure that someone else's website describing the word in far less even-handed tones would not be? That all of the anal lubricant angst of the campaign is our fault for compiling what others have written? Is that a slippery slope we want to go down? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The central problem is that the article is fundamentally false. It asserts that the supposed neologism is notable in that Santorum's name is commonly/regularly used as a reference to human excrement. There turn out to be no valid references supporting this claim. There are a great many references supporting the claim that Dan Savage has created a prominent campaign to do this, and has successfully Googlebombed the term, but there are no reliable, independent secondary sources cited to support the claim that the use of the "neologism" itself is notable. The primary source citations of the term are grossly inadequate, no more than a half dozen sources over eight years, at least half in self-published material of little or no significance. Without genuine, reliable sourcing showing use of the term independent from discussions of Savage's campaign, the claim that the "neologism" is notable as a term fails, and the article in the form fails WP notability standards. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, renaming with a redirect might be appropriate Savage Santorum campaign or something. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 17:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Lol, or Savange–Santorum campaign. We should get the opinion of everyone over at the Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/dash_drafting RfC! 24.177.120.138 (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

What do you think the chances are that those opposed to this proposal would be opposed to it if the originator of such a campaign had been someone like Rush Limbaugh and the campaign was against one of Limbaugh's political opponents? If Limbaugh starts a campaign to promote his regular reference to Barbara Streisand as "B. S." and urges his fans on to fan the flames should Wikipedia dutifully comply to help him out in his campaign by putting up a "B. S." article that references Streisand? Having a WP article on it and a Google-bombing campaign would undoubtedly lead to reliable sources covering the phenomenon. Drrll (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

And so Wikipedia should have the article. Cut and dried case. What editors would actually do in that situation is a different story (; BE——Critical_{__Talk} 17:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Drrll, your comment is somewhat disingenuous. In previous discussions to which you've been a party, I've mentioned the specific actual (not hypothetical) example of John Kerry military service controversy. Like this article, it reports on activities by opponents of a U.S. Senator. One big difference is that it reports on lies that were told about that Senator, whereas this article doesn't make any factual assertions about Rick Santorum that have been seriously disputed. (He actually made the comments that irked Savage.) Thus, our Kerry controversy article, unlike this article, is reporting on lies and thus bringing the lies to the attention of more people. Nevertheless, I, as someone who supported and voted for Kerry, have cited that article as an example of the correct application of Wikipedia policy. We report on the world as it is -- even on the people who tell lies about a decorated veteran, and even on the people who use vulgar sexual terms to mock an adversary. I'll also add that I'm extremely irritated at the frequency with which some Wikipedians make comments like yours, and insinuate (or flat-out assert) that any disagreement with them must come frm editors who disdain WP:NPOV or who are ignorant of WP:BLP or who don't care about the project or who have an anti-Santorum political agenda. JamesMLane t c 05:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

JamesMLane, while my scenario is hypothetical, it is certainly plausible. It's already part-way there, since Limbaugh, like Savage, regularly associates a political opponent's name (Streisand) with shit. The Kerry article, while also involving attacks against a political opponent, does not associate Kerry's name itself with something as terrible as excrement. Yes, it is conjecture that I think that many editors (certainly not all, about which I should have been clearer) would have a different position if the ox-goring originated from a person they disdain, against a person they admire, rather than the other way around. Drrll (talk) 06:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You're certainly correct that the Kerry article isn't a direct parallel to this one. The Kerry article reports on flat-out lies that were told about Kerry. In many countries he would have been able to win a defamation lawsuit about the statements quoted in our article. (American law provides a high degree of protection to people who make false statements about elected officials.) Thus, our article gives greater currency to lies about Kerry. By contrast, no one has pointed to any lies about Rick Santorum that would be squelched or even given less currency by the deletion/merger/renaming/whatevering of this article. Compared to the swiftboating of John Kerry, the use of Santorum's name in a nondefamatory way is minor. As for Streisand, if some Limbaugh nastiness about her gets the level of attention that's been given to "frothy mix", start the appropriate article. When the deletionists come howling for your head, or at least for deletion, please drop me a note on my talk page so I can prove my integrity by opposing deletion. JamesMLane t c 03:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflicts) The background information summarized in the introductory wording of this RfC seems a bit off. Specifically, the statement that Santorum "made some remarks about gay sex that many found offensive" [my emphasis] is misleading to those arriving here with no knowledge of the topic and potentially prejudicial to the outcome of the RfC. Despite later, ineffectual attempts to split hairs, Santorum, speaking publicly and as a public figure, made indefensible and patently offensive remarks disparaging to gay people. That is why many were offended by what he said, and that is why the forum shopping and far-fetched scrabbling to concoct a policy-based reason to decimate this article seems unfortunate. What this really seems to be about is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. In a sense, I don't like it either; I can imagine parallel situations involving much less culpable public figures with far lower profiles, and it's a bit creepy. But WP isn't censored—or it shouldn't be, anyway—and there's no reason to bend over backwards to sweep a notable topic under the rug. Rivertorch (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It also seems to be a little bit incomplete in failing to mention the three previous AfDs in which the community consensus had prevsiously been polled. Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

And it also fails to mention that BACK IN FEBRUARY months before the expansion of the article in May at least 3 reliable sources had all already been discussing "Santorums google problem" Active Banana (^bananaphone 05:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It does however from my experience of the anyone can comment project seem to be in such emotive involved situations that it is required to revisit the same issue multiple times to get the correct outcome. Off2riorob (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

True it doesn't give enough background, but the main problem is it forces several different proposals into a single RfC. It's essentially deletion is disguise, where less radical proposals might gain more consensus (at this time). People don't like it, therefore say it violates BLP even though it's obviously well sourced. They have the point that the neologism doesn't deserve its own article, but the campaign does. Then they propose deletion in disguise instead of renaming to something that fits the content. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do support your proposal just to consider a rename also as a side issue to run concurrent. There are BLP issues resulting from the undue enlargement of the article. As you can see from the project wide discussion and the multiple objections from many experienced contributors. IMO the large expansion of this article when there was clear opposition to that was a disruptive action and that action by a single user is responsible for all of this disruption and divisiveness of the project. Off2riorob (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you think renaming and pruning out any BLP violations would get consensus, then maybe you should propose that. I tried an RfC on that though which people didn't much like :P. I don't now the details, but I don't see why it was being disruptive to do what he thought was right... WP eventually adjusts if things aren't right and you can't tell beforehand. For all Cirt (he's the one, right?) knows, his article will stay as-is. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Disruption and divisiveness wikipedia wide was/is the outcome of the undue expansion of the article. As there were objections right from the start and it has been mentioned here that the expansion was a reaction to the opposition to the article I fail to see how anything other than project wide disruption could have been foreseen as the outcome. Off2riorob (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC).

Delicious carbuncle has about the same sentiments regarding pruning and renaming. I suppose a lot of people do, but consider this proposal too radical. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) since when should expanded coverage of the topic by reliable sources (as happened last month regarding the subject of this article) not result in more coverage within the article? Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

In situations exactly like this. Off2riorob (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

How convenient. It strikes me that, were it not for all of the policy shopping, forum shopping, and canvasing engaged in by the editors who didn't like the repeated consensus achieved on this page, the brouhaha wouldn't have become a "project-wide divisive disruption." 24.177.120.138 (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Here you are again - you seem to be going around in a similar manner from article to article - WP:Youlikeit is just a reflection of yourself. When I see users like your contribution history it makes me want to get Jimmy's open environment by the throat and squeeze it very hard. Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Allow me to suggest you take a wikivacation, then, because that sort of attitude (and ad-hominem attack) is neither productive nor welcome here. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I suspect Rob is expressing a widely held view. Your constant insulting, snarky, sleazy commentary, like reducing the opposition to WP:I DON'T LIKE IT, pollutes the atmosphere here. Everybody else is capable of conducting this potentially divisive discussion with politeness and sensible argument. Cut the goading and try your hand at rational debate. This is a difficult issue, requiring subtle thought, and your attitude just doesn't belong here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Please stop making personal attacks. You're undercutting your own credibility as an editor, not mine. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Its a bit rich complaining about a personal attacks whilst arguing for the retention of an article that is little more than a personal attack. John lilburne (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

If that opinion were universally held, this RfC wouldn't be this long. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea how generally true the assertions above are that many editors want to move or reduce the article because it is distasteful, but in my case that is not my reason. It is distasteful, but so are many WP articles. I am ignoring them because they aren't malicious. (Not BLP violations.) Also, I only just heard of this today or yesterday, right here at WP, and was appalled that we are contributing to Savage's savaging. You can see here that WP is the unwitting dupe or possibly the willing accomplice of the activists: Using a network of cross links and by driving up “clicks,” the activists have succeeded in keeping their definition at the top of search returns. This is just a political trick because Santorum is considering a bid for the presidency; note that the site that comes up first on Google was last updated in 2004. This is old news Jon Stewart is kicking around. Yopienso (talk) 07:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The article may have problems, but external fallout is not Wikipedia's concern: there are lots of subjects which we "promote" in this way which shouldn't be promoted. If Wikipedia were to be concerned with Google, it would entail a basic restructuring of the encyclopedia. Also, how exactly can this be about BLP? No one is making statements about Santorum. We're just reporting on a social phenomenon (read sources), which is what we do. Since Wikipedia is not making claims about Santorum, and at least some of the sources are good, is there any basic problem? Jimbo's reasoning was very flawed, but he says "What we need to do is address the harm that is being caused here, and by harm, I mean harm to Wikipedia." He doesn't say "harm to Santorum." Renaming to make sure the reader knows that the neologism is the product of an attack might be in order, but Wikipedia "promotes" any number of nasty things by being first in search results, and we should not consider restructuring the whole approach of the encyclopedia or making this an exception. As JoshuaZ said below, our articles are usually more neutral and thus, as in this case, we are probably making the attack less effective. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 14:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that links on Wikipedia to other web pages aren't counted in search engine ranking calculations, so we're not being used to help with the prominence of the Savage page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The idea that "no one is making statements about Santorum" is just taking advantage of a rules loophole: we have many rules about statements, but the ones we have about other things are often expressed in generalities. The article harms Santorum without having to make statements about him. A campaign to associate him with shit doesn't make statements--the constant juxtaposition of his name and shit is harmful by itself regardless of whether the statements concerning him are accurate or even if they exist at all. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Article title does not reflect the phenomenon

Sorry for creting new section, but it is very long to edit, it barelly goes through my broadband and my point is the accuracy of the name

Seeing through all the comments voting for oppose, it seems to me, that Many seems to argue from the point of opposing the censorship, but that many are somewhat missing some points. (IMHO). The problem I see with this article is not generally with it that it is overly offending and is so against BLP as many are so worried. The problem is that it creates the virtual reality beyond the actual reality. I do not write about the content of the article, the name of the article is my main issue.

I basically believe, that the phenomenon should not have this particlular title, I can basically see that this phenomenon happened and is more or less noteworthy. To merge it in the abovementioned article seems just fine, but I might even agree on this original article, - under the condition, that the title would be more preciselly descriptive in regards the phenomenon (That means to rename the article). Well, is the word combination Santorum_(neologism) really the right title for this phenomenon? I tried google out at least one instance where anyone would use the word really in it's new meaning. Some images (not that I would be delighted, if I would see one) for instance or anything in the talk of LGBTs etc would be fine as a proof..

What do I mean by this? Just that, the word itself is absolutelly not noteworthy et all (as in WP:NOTE) per se, it is not really used; and even if it would, the word itself would normally belong to the Wictionary, not to encyclopedia. This would be not encyclopedic content et all. What might make it noteworthy for encyclopedia, is the relationship between the new word with it's intended meaning with the personality of the said senator, his scandalous remarks and all the story around him and Savage. That makes it noteworthy (IMO). The fact of word being created is true and the publicity of the fact is true too. But the word itself has no importance per se (in itself), it is the phenomenon around the process which is notable. So why would be Wikipedia just the wehicle to promote coinage of the term beyond the reality? Wikipedia should not create virtual reality, it should reflect and mirror the reality as it exists. And this point is valid not only regarding the content of the article (- where here in the article, it is sourced, it reflects the reality more or less), but it is valid with the article title as much, if not more. One must deliberatelly balance the usage of the term -intended by someone to be coined, when he is using it here as article title, that he does not codyfie the in the reality above the reality. Already now, the google links show of, that Wikipedia creates it quite a bit. This is the point, where the article clashes with BLP (IMHO) and where it clashes only. But it is problem regardless the BLP. It brings the reality further, it creates its own version of reality. It is coining the term as if it would be reality, exactly as Savage intended (and that would be fine form Wikipedia wiewpoint, if he succeded), so Wikipedia seems like wehicle to bring the offence further, whithout backing, but Wikipedia is also lacking in duing good job as enyclopedia in generall (

In my opinion, redirect should not be deleted, but this article should not stay under this name. The name implies more then then there is. The subject of article which is notable is the phenomenon of creation the neologism as means of retaliation whithin political, sociological debate and ensuing debate. If there would be more then one phenomenon connected to the word "santorum", then let's name the article "santorum", there would be legitimate reason for bringing the more sotries under this one paperclip, under one name which is common for those stories. But as it is now, the name is not the most fitting, it implies something, which is not and by impliing it is becoming part of the real world quarell between the two. The Santorum and Savage.

See also policy parts:Non-judgmental descriptive titles (and Wp:NPOV#Naming)

If you argue that santorum might be non neutral but common name (see wp:POVTITLE), it would be true, if really common, ironically I see it rather as non-neutral uncommon name. The common name or search combination for the phenomenon would rather be close to Santorum's 'Google Problem'. --Reo ⁺ 18:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the common name for the subject of this article, the word santorum. The part in parentheses is to disambiguate it from other names. The encyclopedic notability of the word, if not sufficiently attested by secondary sources reporting on the original coining, is confirmed by the American Dialect Society in 2004 designating it as the most outrageous word of the year.[46] Thus, the word is encyclopedically notable on its own and for what it means. It is an appropriate subject for an encyclopedia article given that we do not censor. To rename nigger to word for black people controversy is not neutral, despite what that word means. Santorum is the neutral (and correct, common, and concise) way to refer to this notable word. Gacurr (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Gaccur, well, right, some of the notes you brought might be contributiong to the debate, but I already adressed them all above. So please, do not present them as if I did not. For example:To rename nigger to word for black people controversy is not neutral, despite what that word means - I do not do that, I would understand your concern, but I addressed it even before you did write it, see the last two paragraphs, see the links.

I did argue, that the story is about event, it is notable because of the event and this is reason why the title is wrong. That is why the title is not descriptive, because the subject of the article is not the word. it ithe event around it. See above please.

Your conclusion ADS.... thus.... notable ... is too strong. It is basically source of the existence of the word, but not for its usage or importance or notability. --Reo ⁺ 10:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Dan Savage is the source of the existence of the word. The American Dialect Society recognizing it[47], in point of fact, gives the word an encyclopedic notability. The subject of the article is the word. Much like there is a lot of stuff going on in and around the life of a certain politician that goes on that politician's page, there is a lot of stuff going on in and around the life of this word. Like the former, where those things go under his name, in this case these things go under this name. As for nigger, you suggest in your last paragraph that santorum is non-neutral and want a new name that is a phrase to substitute for it. The example was meant to show that we keep words that might be perceived as inherently non-neutral as the title of articles about those words. It also shows we can have an article about a word with sections covering "etymology and history", "usages", "popular culture", "cultural controversy", and so on, without it being a problem. Gacurr (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

or to use a more direct analogy - if Wikipedia had been around in WWII, would Wikipedia have had an article quisling or would it have been Churchill's verbal attack on Quisling? Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

In case there was any remaining doubt, ANI has already weighed in that Santorum is "an offensive slang term",^link as evidenced by the block demanding rename of User:Santorummm in 2006. Wnt (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't say I get that out of the linked ANI discussion. It looks to me like the name was challenged under WP:REALNAME, specifically, "Do not register a username that includes the name of an identifiable living person unless it is your real name." One editor made the assertion that it was "an offensive slang term"; the assertion was challenged in the next reply, and that's the only mention of "slang term" in the discussion. Nothing in that discussion appears to set any precedent for santorum being "an offensive slang term" by administrator mandate, or even consensus; you can't have a consensus from a minority of one. For that matter, is it even kosher to assert that administrators have the authority to declare a word "an offensive slang term" and therefore forbidden in any context? Even if it were "an offensive slang term" in some official capacity, that's no bar to it being an article title: see WP:CENSOR. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

STRIKE COMMENT, APPRECIATE YOUR FEEDBACK MAC. THANKS. -- Avanu (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

How is this appropriate commentary? Gacurr (talk) 04:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly the question I'm asking as well, Gacurr. -- Avanu (talk) 05:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

As dispointing as it is, a few editors now have asked me how the above comment from 03:38, 8 June 2011 is not breaching WP:CIVIL or WP:ETIQUETTE. I hope it is obvious, but let me clarify. It sort of ruins the whole reason for doing it to have to explain, but rather than give people ammo to derail the conversation with AN/I's, I'll explain. My fellow editor, Macwhiz said "Nothing in that discussion appears to set any precedent for santorum being "an offensive slang term" by administrator mandate, or even consensus; you can't have a consensus from a minority of one." How someone actually finds there to be no consensus for this term to be offensive escapes me. Even its main promoter, Dan Savage, finds it offensive. So my question to Macwhiz is, how does it feel to have it applied personally to you. Sometimes we find that people are more willing to express sympathy for others when they 'walk a mile in their shoes'. This is the hope I have for the discussion here. We have a lot of editors saying this term is perfectly fine, doesn't violate BLP, doesn't violate NEO, etc. But yet if I try to use the same words on another editor here, as expected, I get several complaints in short order. Why is there a double standard? This is the thing I'm trying to get people to visualize. For some reason many of our editors can't. Thanks. And just to be clear, my ugly words above aren't meant as a personal attack on Macwhiz, I don't have any personal animosity toward him, but are to be seen as an aid in teaching us something about how ugly those words are. -- Avanu (talk) 06:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

So, in summary, you were being offensively uncivil to make a WP:POINT. That's inappropriate. You need to stop, now. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 06:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll show you the same thing I recently showed Heiro:

A commonly used shortcut to this page is WP:POINT. However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate it, which is the only type of behavior which should be considered "POINTY". It is worthwhile to study the above examples, to gain an understanding of this guideline's purpose.

You need to understand the difference between making a point and disruptive editing. The productive purpose being sought here is that Macwhiz and other editors make a connection between the article we're discussing and how repulsive the concepts are that the article discusses. Why don't you give Macwhiz a chance to weigh in before getting too high on the horse? -- Avanu (talk) 06:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You're being uncivil to make the point that this article is uncivil. Sorry, that's pointy by definition, your misleading quote notwithstanding. Your best next move is a strikethrough. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:POINT is about Wikipedia rules, not just making points in debate. To quote again, "When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, enforcing it consistently." In other words, WP:POINT isn't the point here. -- Avanu (talk) 06:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Look, saying that "WP:POINT isn't the point" doesn't make it so. Frankly, I think Wikipedia could do with a lot more comparisons between some editors and fecal matter on Talk pages, but precedent and policy disagree with me, and you too. I'll leave it to the editors with registered accounts to explain why, in short words that you can understand. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 06:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, admins have too much power already, they're like judges. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Avanu! That was unnecessary WP:DISRUPTPOINT on Wikipedia:Etiquette, especialty, writing under the paragraph, where ⌘macwhiz had comments on whether Santorum is or was considered offensive slang term - You came there to demonstrate how offensive it could be (out of context). How that is not POINT? You should avoid such a procedure even just by common sense and indeed also, because it is flagrant POINT.

You are killing the discussion here. --Reo ⁺ 07:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Sadly those who find calling a fellow editor these sorts of things seem all too often willing to defend these same terms being applied to Rick Santorum. He's a public figure, so in the United States, he is less able to defend against that kind of thing, but hopefully we're not trying to fool ourselves here into believing these words aren't offensive. So the question is how willing are we to admit that and what will we do in that spirit to make sure we improve this article? -- Avanu (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Avanu, you are the one calling a fellow editor "these sorts of things". Gacurr (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said in the explanation below my comments, it wasn't a personal attack, but trying to demonstrate the negativity of the words we're discussing. I don't think Discussion is being killed or disrupted, we have a LOT of editors who are trucking along with comments and input, but I don't want people to fool themselves by thinking this term is not offensive and negative. We have a responsibility to do our best on an article like the Santorum one, we affect real lives here, not like the article about Twinkies where no one gets hurt, we can potentially do incredible damage. We're not simply talking about one man's life anymore, but his children and anyone else who happens to have the same last name. The way we frame the article here at Wikipedia has a lot to do with how this is perceived in the world. People turn to Wikipedia for reliable information and look at Wikipedia as a reliable source itself. Simply playing fast and loose and without regard for how our actions work in the larger society is irresponsible and reckless. Again, its not a personal attack, just working to help others understand this more deeply. -- Avanu (talk) 08:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Context is important. I was not asserting that it was not offensive to call Rick Santorum santorum... although I would point out that only those who have never in their lives declared any politician to be a lying sack of shit should be throwing stones in this particular glass house. No, what I was saying is that the previous poster's assertion that ANI had established a precedent for santorum being an inherently offensive slang term had no basis in reality. In other words: ^{[failed verification]}.

This is a talk page; you can say what you want here... although obviously, if you go beyond some bounds of community behavior, you can expect some degree of ostracism. I'd be within my rights to complain about your uncivil behavior. If, however, the national media picked up on your outburst and thirteen years later was still talking about it, chances are there'd be a Macwhiz's talk page problem with Avanu controversy page on Wikipedia. If it were well cited, I wouldn't be objecting to it. I probably wouldn't like it, but... well, I think the British expression "it's a fair cop" says it best. I mean, we're worried that the santorum article is somehow affecting Google's PageRank. I wonder if the amount of activity on this linked page isn't having more effect. A Streisand effect. Anyway, there's a huge and obvious difference between the act of hurling an epithet at someone, and documenting how someone making a satirical political comment about a politician has been noted in almost every reliable daily news source there is over a span of more than a decade—just as there is a difference between how one might feel about using an epithet to describe someone, and correcting an attempt to bolster an argument by citing a reference that just doesn't support the argument. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 11:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

On further reflection, it occurs to me that if one's argument is "comparing a living person to excrement is an unpardonable offense and therefore unsuitable for Wikipedia", attempting to advance that argument by comparing a living person to excrement on Wikipedia tends to invalidate that argument completely. If it's an Unforgivable Curse, then by using it to advance an argument, hyperbole or not, surely one would expect to be punished for the civil disobedience. On the other hand, if one then claims "but it's different, because I was doing it to make a point," one then implicitly admits that it is not an Unforgivable Curse, and that there are indeed cases where it is appropriate to use the curse—such as using it to make a point. (Is that not, after all, the reason behind most political satire?) For this reason, I'm disappointed that Avanu chose to elide, rather than strike out, his initial comments; it seems to me they illustrate an important logical catch in the argument. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Threshold for Notability?

One thing that bothers me in the support comments above is that it's not clear what threshold this article would need to clear to achieve notability; the implication of some (though not all) comments appears to be that Wikipedia will never allow this article regardless of the number of references in reliable mainstream sources. As another editor above pointed out, Krauthammer's neologism Bush Derangement Syndrome is a standalone article with far fewer cited references, and far less projected impact. Just yesterday, in contrast, CBS ran a piece arguing that the neologism campaign was the biggest factor in Santorum's presidential campaign being "widely considered a joke": [48]; the sentiment was echoed by less prominent sources as well.[49] [50] [51]

An honest question to Jimbo and other editors who seek to delete most or all of this content--what would you consider the threshold of news coverage before Wikipedia is allowed to substantively cover this subject? Or do you see us as never being allowed to deal with it in depth regardless of the media attention it receives? Khazar (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I missed on my first look that the CBS piece was a reprint of a Nation article and not a new piece. Apologies, and please disregard my comment above. Khazar (talk) 15:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Is the word actually in common use?

It seems to me that the fundamental question that needs to be resolved is whether or not the word is actually in common use - or whether it's just referred to as "a word invented by X that means Y". If the word is actually in common use, then the article is probably appropriate (just barely). If not, it must be merged/renamed as per the proposal. And if we're not sure, we should merge/rename under the general principle of Do No Harm. LondonStatto (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

From the long discussion I diged out, that it can be considered actually to be somewhat in use, but the use is quite marginal. Some primary (but not secondary) sources with the use of the word (quotations) are to be found here: Talk:Santorum_(neologism)/Archive_3#Examples_from_literature. So , well such an answer does not cut it on either side... It is in use... but is such degree of use significant? I would agree on the application of principle of Do No Harm as you say Reo ⁺ 00:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The matter of "common use" is not a standard for any Wikipedia article, so your question is irrelevant. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 00:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It is quite relevant, as it goes to the heart of what the article should actually be about; the word (which is manufactured and not used in real-life), or the controversy of its creation and propagation. Savage invented it to google-bomb, that is all. Tarc (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Savage invented it and then it spread to the culture writ large. The fact that one man initiated something does not suddenly subtract all notability, otherwise I suspect many or even most of the topics covered here would need to redirect to a paragraph on the page of their originater. -- ۩ Mask 00:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Did it spread to "the culture writ large"? This is what I am trying to determine. Evidence would be useful. LondonStatto (talk) 01:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The only relevant question for deciding whether or not a topic has an article in the Wikipedia is, "Is the topic notable?" As it stands now, there are 125 citations which, as best as I can tell, meet the requirements for being reliable sources. I dare say that the question has been answered, irrefutably and in full. Whether or not the word is in "common use" is irrelevant. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 01:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You have, I regret to say, spectacularly missed the point. Do those reliable sources use the word as a word, or do they just refer to Savage's invention of the word? The word being in common use would validate the article being about the word - if it's not, the article should be about the campaign. LondonStatto (talk) 01:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

And you seem to be deliberately missing the point. The topic is noteworty and there is an abundance of reliable sources attesting to the topic's noteworthiness. That is all a topic needs for inclusion in the Wikipedia. Whether a particular word is in common use is irrelevant. Is it your assertion that the article for Quisling should be renamed or removed solely on the grounds that it is not a word in common use? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 01:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice example - "Quisling" is, indeed, in "common use." 3 usages in the NYT in the past 12 months at a quick glance (more than 1000 overall in the NYT excluding the eponymous Vidkun), found in every major dictionary, and so forth. You prove the case, thank you very much. Collect (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not dispute that the topic of Savage's campaign is notable. What I dispute is that the neologism is notable. The one does not necessarily imply the other - only the neologism's being in common use makes the neologism notable in itself. LondonStatto (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. Per WP:NEO: "to support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." No where does it say that a neologism must be in common use to be notable, and, in fact, any argument for the notability of a neologism based solely on its common usage would be OR. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Blindly quoting a part of a policy without reference to the actual situation is completely unconvincing. Are the sources about the word or are they about the campaign? I strongly suspect the latter - in which case, the term has no notability of its own. LondonStatto (talk) 03:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Upon further review, you have missed the point of the line you quote. That point is that use of the term is not sufficient for an article. That a term is discussed by reliable sources is, however, not sufficient for an article - especially when it is better covered elsewhere; in this case, what notability there is derives solely from the Savage campaign. LondonStatto (talk) 03:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Any argument based on your "suspicion" about what the sources say is a non-starter. Why don't you go read the sources, answer your own question, and then try again. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 03:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Because some of them are inaccessible to me. I could check 124 sources without a result and it would still not be proof. I have a very strong suspicion that the sources are all about the campaign because no-one has yet quoted a source that is not about the campaign - something that would be trivial if one exists. LondonStatto (talk) 04:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with ip24. Is it a neologism? Yes. Is it in widespread use? Irrelevant. Is it notable? Yes. That its notability is a product of Savage's campaign is irrelevant. Does it deserve a stand-alone article, and if so, what should it be named? Still deciding. But arguments against notability and whether it's a neologism fail. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You lost me. I agree that there's notability - just that the notability derives solely from the campaign. If the word deserves a standalone article, that would imply it had notability independent of the campaign. Thus if you are "still deciding" if the word merits a standalone article, then you are "still deciding" if the word has notability of its own. LondonStatto (talk) 04:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Is it a neologism? Of course not, thats the whole point. As another ediotr pointed out, are folks really out there saying "wow, look at all that santorum coming out your ass man"? I don't know, but sources that say that the word is starting to be used widely or at all would be helpful. Anyways, carry on. --Threeafterthree (talk) 04:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Why should we accept your opinion that santorum is not a neologism over the opinions of the American Dialectic Society, the editors of Neologism in the Lexical System of Modern English, the National Communication Association and other professional lexicographers who say that it is? Did you even bother to look at the many citations for this article? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 04:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

That's another question, Threeafterthree. Whether it's in widespread use has already been established by the most R RS we have, Partridge. It's not. But that's irrelevant to the question of whether it's a neologism. By all the definitions I've read here and at Onelook it's a neologism. This topic has many elements - the term, the campaign, Spreading Santorm and probably others, we need a more nuanced argument about which of these should be the name.

I don't see the relevance of the forces behind a thing's notability to whether it reaches our notability standards, which it does handsomely, LondonStatto. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Um -- the source you aver gives it as a word specifically opposes the idea that it is a word suitable for listing. Specifically it says:

From its appearance in print and especially on the Internet, one would assume, incorrectly, that the term has gained wide usage."

Partridge thus does not list the "word" as an entry! Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't tell if you're addressing me, Collect but, if you are, you've misunderstood me. I said, "Whether it's in widespread use has already been established by the most R RS we have, Partridge. It's not." That is, it's not in widespread use. But that doesn't mean it's not a neologism or oughtn't have an article. It is a neologism by any definition of "neologism." Whether or not it has an article depends on whether there have been books or papers written about it, (per WP:NEO), and the answer to that seems to be "not yet." --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies here - I rather think we are agreeing <g> The word is a "cacophemism" clearly. Collect (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe NEO is saying you need reliable secondary sources and using books and papers (about the term) simply as an example. Gacurr (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

As an example of what, Gacurr? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I see "secondary sources such as books and papers about the term" as examples of the quality of sources required, distinguishing them from general media commentary. I read it as saying serious, rigorous sources. I might just wander over to NEO and check out a bit of the talk page history. Maybe the intent is made clearer there. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

They picked two out of the long list of possible SS so that they could then contrast it: for example, books and papers about the term, not books and papers that use the term. The sentence would have become overlong if they listed all the various reliable secondary sources that are available. Gacurr (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

As an example of secondary sources (such as books and papers about the term), as contrasted with primary sources (such as books and papers that use the term). Gacurr (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. It's fairly active there, so I've left a request for guidance at talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Please feel free to directly edit my request there to more accurately reflect your view, if I've got it wrong. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I posted "As an example of what?" before I noticed your 14:44 post. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought you had just misplaced it. Feel free to place it between the two comments I made together. Gacurr (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't make it any less dorky.

I'm beginning to see your interpretation as more likely. Let's see what happens at talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Damn shame if I'm wrong. I thought that was going to save us all a lot of haggling. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

For at least the fourth time, I agree that the term reaches the notability standard. However, I maintain that the notability derives directly from the Savage campaign, and since it would be silly to have two articles on one thing, it would be best to be renamed/redirected as per SV's proposal (BLP1E is instructive here). LondonStatto (talk) 04:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wrong. Any sane interpretation of Wikipedia policy holds that the word is a neologism, as it's been described consistently as such by reliable sources. Whether or not people use the term is irrelevant (although it's eerie how close you just got to quoting me last night.) 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You can argue, 24. Do it without the ad hominems. Please redact the "sane" and this comment, and we can move on without drama. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't read all the citations, since there are so many, but again, it seems like the majority of them are in reference to the creation or campaign, ect. The "controvesey" is most definitely notable, but my reading of wikipedia's definiton of neologism made me think of words that have been created and are on there way to common usage. After reading the other defintions of neologism, I am not so sure. Anyways, I understand that it really isn't about how widely the word is used, ect. Thanks, --Threeafterthree (talk) 05:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Decline to redact. I stand by my characterization of interpretations of Wikipedia policy holding that this word is not a neologism by virtue of it's common use or lack thereof as not sane. Quoting sanity, "a person is sane if they are rational," and you can draw your own conclusion about people who would make such an irrational interpretation of policy. Also, please don't make veiled threats of drama in an attempt to silence those that disagree with you; it's inappropriate, and does nothing productive to further the dialogue. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 05:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

interpretation of policy? Do you mean interpretation or definition of the word neologism rather than policy? Anyways, no biggie. --Threeafterthree (talk) 05:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)ps ip, I think Anthonyhcole is in agreement with you but was trying to ask you to be civil in you response, but I'll let him speak for himself...--Threeafterthree (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

First, it might be an issue of IQ, which is conceptually distinct from madness, so you may be hurting the feelings of those who are simply stupid by characterizing them as mad (there is a hierarchy), but, mainly, as you definitely know, addressing the man, rather than the argument, muddies things and enervates your otherwise potent arguments, diminishing your chances of persuasion, which is what we're trying to do here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Characterizing an interpretation as insane is distinct from characterizing a person as insane: only the latter is an ad hominem attack. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

As the number of sources has been cited as an argument, note Dreadstar's comment above: "I only checked the first 30 references and found 7 sources that don’t even mention the purported topic of the article, the neologism: [5][6][7][8][9][10][11]". If you scroll up, he provides links to those sources. --J N 466 10:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Apologies if this has already been pointed out, but in a recent piece Richard Kim, executive editor of The Nation, said that Santorum had "become the target of a Google bomb, led by gay columnist Dan Savage, that successfully redefined “santorum” as a substance most straight people probably didn’t know existed and most gay men never thought to name, especially not in honor of a Republican US Senator". Not a citation of the word's use, perhaps, but a point about the apparent utility of the word. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Move to close RfC

I move that we close this RfC (or at least give a clear timeframe, e.g. 2 more days, to close it). Like the multiple AfD requests before it, given the magnitude of the oppose responses it seems overwhelmingly unlikely ever to gain a clear consensus in support.

The upper bound on Wikipedia:Requests for comment is 30 days, but that seems like clear overkill here, and prevents other useful discussions from going forward, like the possibility of a clearer name for the article (separate from content changes).

— Steven G. Johnson (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It has only been open for four days, so closing it would be premature. Mention was made when it started of keeping it open for two weeks, depending on whether comments dry up before that. One of the benefits of RfCs is they allow the heat to go out of a situation, and allow people to think without so much emotion. Closing them after a few days defeats that part of the purpose. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The RFC can stay open for thirty days. There is clearly a valuable discussion resulting out of it and although there may not be a consensus there could still be a close either way imo, more time is clearly required. Off2riorob (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

- Besides which: there's still hope! Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  - You may not realize it at this precise moment but you've lost this one ;-> John lilburne (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Moved comment: @Stevenj. Thanks for considering and acting on closing your RfC so quickly, easily, and politely. Yes, per above."Mention was made when it started of keeping it open for two weeks, depending on whether comments dry up before that." Discussion is still very active so until at least it peters out nothing new should be added to confuse the already complicated issues.(olive (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC))

Thanks, I didn't see the comment about a 2 week time frame. Probably the right metric is not whether discussion dries up (this article will attract active discussion for the foreseeable future), but when voting dries up. Voting has already slowed from what I can see, but this can be revisited in a few days. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thirty days is fine too. Discussion and votes are interconnected. As long as people are talking they may also be making decisions and voting. Within reason, we don't need to rush this. And I can't see the use of half measures or of interim kinds of solutions which would likely mean the discussion will come up again... and again.(olive (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC))

Sure, discussion and voting are related, but since we can look at voting directly there is no need to use discussion as a proxy to infer whether people are making decisions. And no matter what decision is made, discussion on this issue is going to continue for the foreseeable future, since people have been arguing about this for years now. Ending the discussion permanently is a fruitless goal, not achievable by any RfC. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, way too early. And just to be clear, Consensus isn't a headcount, the "magnitude" of numbers is meaningless, one editor can have consensus over a thousand if Policy and common sense is on that one editor's side. 30 days is fine. Dreadstar ☥ 18:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The reason why there is an RfC in the first place is that there is a difference of opinion about which side policy is on. If the policy implications were undisputed, questions about this article would have been settled years ago. (If the vote count is truly "meaningless" and to be ignored anyway, then we might as well close the RfC.) — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

When comments start to dry up, we can ask an uninvolved admin to decide when to close it, and what the consensus is. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You're claiming that the magnitude of the votes "unlikely ever to gain a clear consensus in support", I'm just saying numbers are irrelevant in consensus; and this RFC cannot be closed just because the numbers look a certain way. Dreadstar ☥ 19:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. Policy concerns may trump a consensus, but a single editor cannot achieve consensus over the objections of a thousand. You're correct, though, in stating that "consensus isn't a headcount"-- in determining the existence of a consensus, the closer will need to take into consideration the fact that this article has survived quite a number of previous attempts to rename, merge, and outright delete it. I would argue, actually, that even if the numbers supported the action proposed by this RfC, consensus would still be against it. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Support. No legitimate policy concerns have been raised which would justify the de facto deletion of the article as proposed in the RfC. Most of the support votes above are based on dislike, outside concerns such as Google results or "harm" (which is not our concern as mere reporters of social phenomena), or concerns which can be addressed by further editing or renaming the article (such as concerns about how widely the word is used or original research). The RfC discussions have made clear what actually needs to be done, and it's time to move on. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I would not be averse to allowing a rename while the RfC is ongoing, if there is consensus for it; the RfC will then essentially be about the merge and redirect proposal only. --J N 466 19:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

But new editors here would not know that the concerns of many of the support voters had already been addressed. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Has the article been renamed? No. Until then, there's no reason to even consider closing the RFC early; there are legitimate concerns around WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:V, which I think fully support deletion as the article currently stands. After a rename has been successfully accomplished, we can take a closer look at the article's contents to see if it meets all WP policies. But until then, at the earliest, the RFC needs to run its full course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreadstar (talk • contribs) 19:28, 8 June 2011

??? The present RfC is not about a "rename" only. It is about deletion of the article and replacing it with a summarized version in one subsection of another article. It is this en masse deletion of content that many editors are objecting to. The whole point of closing the RfC is so that we can have an RfC on renaming only (after which content changes can be discussed separately). As Critical points out, this may clarify the discussion since a number of editors (though not all) in the current RfC have concerns that seem centered on the article naming. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

RFC's aren't that limited, a rename is also a potential outcome of this particular RFC. There's no need to close this one out and start a new one. Yet. Dreadstar ☥ 19:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that it would be difficult to infer a clear consensus for a rename only from the current RfC, because that is not the proposal that people were asked to comment on, and the discussion is so long and varied. Yes, several of us mentioned liking a rename possibility in our comments, but it is impossible to accurately gauge support for a rename from scattered comments mixed in with discussion primarily centering on deletion/merging. That is why a separate RfC would be much clearer, but we have to agree that this one is closed first. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Right. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

That's what a good closer is supposed to do, accurately gauge each and every comment. If editors are talking rename, then that would be critical to what the closer decides. And there's plenty of rename comments above. Plenty of delete and merge comments too. This really needs an excellent, uninvolved closer. Dreadstar ☥ 20:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this. The point of finding someone very experienced to close is that they will look at the comments, look at the numbers, decide when to close the RfC, interpret consensus, and suggest a way forward. We therefore really do need to find someone with experience of complex closures, and perhaps more than one person. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to support this, but only because of the rules and customs around RfCs requiring more time. However, if it would do any good, I would urge Slim to withdraw the question that's out there and break it into the separate proposals. I think that the current RfC presents at least three questions as a bundle, and that bundle is unpalatable to many, even though individual components of it may be acceptable. Because it's such a large discussion, it will be difficult to ever claim that there was truly consensus for any positive action from the outcome: there will always be folks who don't realize they didn't have to !vote for the whole thing, and they may feel confused and disenfranchised. The core questions—Should the article be deleted? Should it be renamed, and if so, with or without a redirect? Should the article be stubbed or drastically shortened?—may be somewhat interactive, but not interdependent, and I fear the existing RfC implies that they are interdependent. I think that, whatever the outcome of this RfC, the outcome of one that didn't bundle these questions would be different, possibly less contentious, and probably more palatable in the end. I'm also a bit worried that, if this RfC runs to its close, gets a no-consensus finding, and is then restated as individual questions, some may try to claim it's a second bite of the apple. (See the Trout proposal.) I think that would be unfortunate, and would waste a lot of consensus that has been hashed out below. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:IAR, this is a WP:SNOW keep case but by all means, continue the discussion and let everyone vent and try to reach an understanding. By SNOW I don't mean there's an overwhelming consensus to keep, but rather that there's a snowball's chance that deletion would be a stable outcome. There's a slight chance that an administrator would do the deed, but then all hell would break loose and melt the snowball. Either way, melted snowball. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

This isn't by any standard a SNOW keep. Forty five editors have so far expressed concern, several referencing BLP, and support a merge and rename; and several in the oppose and "other" sections support a rename. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I would say SNOW would be a vast misrepresentation especially since the RfC wasn't even asking for deletion. To quote: "Should this article be renamed (to something like Dan Savage campaign), condensed to one or two paragraphs, the contents merged into a new subsection of Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality, and the new title (but not the old one) redirected to that subsection" -- Avanu (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Avanu, I think the concern is that the proposal is functionally identical to "Delete the existing article and Create a new one, with a subset of the content, under a new name" because of the caveat that the old title should not become a redirect. However, I don't think SNOW applies, because there's still room for the closer to find consensus for an intermediate result (possibly "Rename article to ___, with a redirect from the old name, and Reduce the citation-farming", is one not-outlandish result that comes to mind). // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Closure

The result of this discussion is Keep as a separate article, but.... The topic is clearly notable and worthy of an article. However, serious biography of living person concerns have been expressed. The discussion above is frothy, and contains many repeated arguments. We should not count votes; rather we should weigh the force of reason. My view of the community consensus is that we should not allow our encyclopedia, which is the world's encyclopedia, to promote a vicious personal attack. To prevent that harm, a number of editors have pointed out that a renaming would be helpful. The arguments above are not convincing that the article needs to be named "Santorum (neologism)". In fact, several editors have pointed out that the sources cited in the article seem to dispute whether this is a bona fide neologism, or something else. If the status is disputed, it is logical to choose among the less harmful and more descriptive titling options.

The consensus, backed up by many online news sources, is that this phenomenon is a "Google Problem" or if we want to be more technically correct, but less accessible to the reader, a Google Bomb. As a matter of community consensus and policy, the article is now renamed Santorum Google problem. The content of the article may need adjusting, but that's for you all to do, not me. Editors are encouraged to make productive changes. I am going to reduce protection to semi as it's about to expire in less than 24 hours. Please avoid edit warring, as I and others will be watching and may block edit warring editors, even if they do three or fewer reverts in 24 hours.

Consensus may change and discussion is always welcome. This renaming may be an interim step while discussions are ongoing. However, due to the potential harm to a living person (and their family), I find that this step should be taken without further delay. This action is therefore a BLP enforcement, as well as a discussion closure. Jehochman ^Talk 19:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Was this new name really the one with greatest support? Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Per my reading and weighing of reason and evidence, yes. But feel free to start a fresh discussion about the best name. After a few days I will check back and gladly re-move the article if a different consensus appears. Jehochman ^Talk 20:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

If anybody feels that the grammar or capitalization need to be adjusted, please ask any admin to do that. Santorum's "Google Problem" or Santorum Google Problem, or something like that is essentially equivalent and within the result of my closure. Jehochman ^Talk 19:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments and complaints about the closure

Please leave all complaints here, rather than on my talk page. Many thanks, Jehochman ^Talk 19:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for a wise decision. Yopienso (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I have to say I am surprised. The proposal does not mention "Google problem" as a possible rename and, reviewing the !votes, only one editor makes this suggestion (and one other editor in the Other section) (both of these editors say ""Rick Santorum's Google problem"). On whether this is a neologism, our encyclopedia's own article is instructive: "A neologism (/niːˈɒlədʒɪzəm/; from the Greek νέο-, néo-, "new", and λόγος, lógos, "speech", "utterance") is a newly coined term, word or phrase, that may be in the process of entering common use, but has not yet been accepted into mainstream language. Neologisms are often directly attributable to a specific person, publication, period, or event." I do not see a consensus, in any way, to rename the article to Santorum's "Google Problem", or variation thereof. I am genuinely surprised with this result. Gacurr (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Is this a neologism or a political campaign? That seems to be the crux of the dispute. Both sides seem to agree that Rick Santorum has a "Google Problem", and those exact words are used in many of the sources cited. Determining consensus in a complex mess like this often requires reading between the lines. Jehochman ^Talk 20:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- It is not a neologism, it is a smear campaign revolving around a fake obscenity. It has no legitimate or wise-spread use as a word, that is the crux of the issue. The target title is a little awkward, but leagues better than what it was before so I am appreciative of a positive first step towards closure on this mess. Tarc (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- No way this is a neologism, any attempt to describe it as such is either an uninformed opinion or sheer disingenuousness. If this is “in the process of entering common use", then I'll be a monkey's uncle and Jupiter as well. Why not. Dreadstar ☥ 23:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't find this resolution credible. It's not even clear that there was a consensus for a rename, much less for this particular name which had almost no discussion around it. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the criticisms of this purported "closure". How can there be "consensus" for an alternative that was barely discussed? If it had been taken up seriously as a proposal, I would have commented against it. It's blatantly POV. This matter is a "problem" only from the perspective of Rick Santorum and people who might support his candidacy. My point of view would be better reflected by something like "Santorum (Google accomplishment)". Of course I don't think that either of these titles would be in keeping with NPOV. I had mentioned "Santorum (Googlebombing)" as a possibility -- it's at least neutral, although still not all that good because the matter goes beyond Googlebombing. Also, I don't accept the implication in the ES ("Don't revert without substantial community discussion and consensus") that one editor can make such a decision and thereby render it virtually immune to change. "Be bold" doesn't mean "Be imperious". JamesMLane t c 21:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Any title that suggests a form of "Santorum" as a word is a non-starter as far as I'm concerned. Tarc (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
As this comment shows, this action has not settled the controversy; those who supported the RfC are not content, and will presumably continue to prefer a move. (It is not clear to me what relevant title would not suggest Santorum; but that's not my problem.) So much for the arguments from convenience.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
On the other hand, this seems to me an utterly arbitrary choice, imposing an unsourced POV on what the subject consists of; the most neutral description of the subject seems to me to be the coined lower-case word santorum (which presumably needs disambiguation). This should be reversed forthwith. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The closing admin's job is to read consensus, and several people within the support and oppose sections did suggest a rename without a merge; and that suggestion was made elsewhere on the page at the same time. So I see this as a reasonable compromise, and the title is an accurate description of the issue and contents of the article. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
"Several people" is not a consensus. A more reasonable closure, in my opinion, would be to close the RfC and recommend a new RfC to discuss possible renames of the article only. That way we could have had a focused and clear discussion about renames, separate from deletion/merging, and it would have been possible to to gauge whether there is a real consensus around any particular renaming possibility. The current result, in contrast, seems like an mere external imposition rather than any clear "result" of the RfC. When was Jehochman appointed as king? — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Quite so. It might also have been possible to build a consensus on a neutral rename, although it is clear that there would have been dissentients from any title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that Jehochman is in no way acting as a monarchical despot. This renaming may be an interim step while discussions are ongoing. However, due to the potential harm to a living person (and their family), I find that this step should be taken without further delay. This action is therefore a BLP enforcement, as well as a discussion closure. Jehochman has performed a necessary stop-gap measure in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Yopienso (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

No, as poionted out below, he has demanded consensus to overrule his unilateral closure. This is inappropriate conduict, and sshoulc be dealt with accordingly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree more or less with SV on this one. We now need to discuss what the title and focus of the article will be. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
No complaints. I don't necessarily agree but it was well considered, will have a good result, and is certainly within Jehochman's discretion, which we ought to respect. So maybe I do agree. We can fine-tune the name, and definitely fine-tune the article, it's just a temporary step that addresses the firmest objections to the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Good close, fully support. Dreadstar ☥ 22:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Good close indeed. Thanks to Jehochman for grasping the nettle. --J N 466 23:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this close respects the consensus above at all. I know arguing as much is fruitless, however. Protonk (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I think there was no real consensus on the deletion (though it was leaning keep and we keep NC deletions anyways) but there was reasonable support for a rename. I'm not sure this is the rename we should have, but as the closer states, that is still up for the community to decide. This was my ideal outcome (other than the exact name) and I think a non-unreasonable reading of the situation. Hobit (talk) 02:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hobit, you write that, "as the closer states, that is still up for the community to decide." Alas, what the closer actually stated was, "Don't revert without substantial community discussion and consensus." Thus, it's for the community to decide only in the very limited sense that, of many contending opinions, the closer has elevated his own to the status of a default, which, he insists, must be the outcome unless there is consensus (well, actually, it would even need "substantial" consensus) against him. If there is no clear consensus, then his view is, for unexplained reasons, the privileged one. At least, that's how I read Jehochman's ES on the purported closing. I'd be delighted if your interpretation were the correct one, but if it were, Jehochman could have simply started a sub-thread seeking consensus on his preferred name. JamesMLane t c 07:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The new name is bullshit for two reasons: 1. It's POV. To declare it a problem describes it as inherently undesirable. 2. The campaign was not confined to Google or the Internet. From the beginning of Savage's request to readers until many years later, the issue appeared offline in print and on television. This move is a disgrace to Wikipedia's neutrality and basis in fact. The BLP policy does not mean we swing the encyclopedia to have a default negative attitude to any issue which may reflect poorly on someone, especially when it's a public figure like a politician. Steven Walling 04:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Numerous media sources from the US right, left, and center have discussed the "Google problem" of Santorum's campaign. Santorum himself has discussed it as an obstacle. IMHO, it's a fair stop-gap title. Khazar (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Good close, the name is probably only temporary till we have a better one. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 07:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Good close. Thank you Jehochman: this article is about the fact that Savage got "Santorum is a piece of shit and lube" to float to the top of search engine results for "santorum." Though, I think we're still groping for the title that best captures that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I have mixed feelings on the outcome, but in the end I'll say I have to applaud Jehochman for making an effort to apply a stop-gap measure that may lessen some tensions and allow editors to move forward. — Ched : ? 08:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Good close. I thank Jehochman. The title stands a good chance of being changed some more, and it's best if that now happens following thoughtful discussion and vetting. Getting away from the poorly-sourced "neologism" title is a good thing. What is particularly important is that this decision decreases the likelihood that ArbCom will have to open a drama-laden folly of trying to dictate a content dispute solution to the community. Better to keep the drama, I mean discussion, here in the community where it belongs. What Jehochman did was grown-up and commendable. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Good close, and thanks to Jehochman. Khazar (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)