Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
*'''Oppose''' for just about everything mentioned above, including "ridiculous". This has nothing to do whatsoever with BLP issues--in fact, this may be closest thing to a call for censorship I've seen on Misplaced Pages. Stani, you have made your opinion clear in various threads here, and I think the consensus is that your concerns are not rooted in Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines. Time to drop the stick. ] (]) 01:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' for just about everything mentioned above, including "ridiculous". This has nothing to do whatsoever with BLP issues--in fact, this may be closest thing to a call for censorship I've seen on Misplaced Pages. Stani, you have made your opinion clear in various threads here, and I think the consensus is that your concerns are not rooted in Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines. Time to drop the stick. ] (]) 01:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' This is getting a bit silly - BLP basically means "cover it sanely and safely", not "don't cover it at all". The ongoing reliable source interest in the phenomenon means that the horse has already well and truly bolted. We Wikipedians can't change the course of history, we can only report on it. ] 03:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' This is getting a bit silly - BLP basically means "cover it sanely and safely", not "don't cover it at all". The ongoing reliable source interest in the phenomenon means that the horse has already well and truly bolted. We Wikipedians can't change the course of history, we can only report on it. ] 03:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
::Well, a clear consensus exists to assist in this Google-bomb. None of you addressed that. Note that I stated my case, and it remains unrefuted. I will not pursue it further. My opposition is on record. If it remains on record, I'm satisfied to walk away from this article. For those of you who might be thinking of RevDel'ing this discussion, I remind you that that is against policy. <font color="red">→</font>''''']]''''' 05:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Revision as of 05:19, 19 May 2011
This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
Campaign for the neologism "santorum" was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GoogleWikipedia:WikiProject GoogleTemplate:WikiProject GoogleGoogle
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage
Page is purely slander and violates various Misplaced Pages standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.55.80.148 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 22 January 2008
Agreed 100% This isn't well-known enough outside of "deviant" homosexual circles to classify as encyclopedic content. Even if a comedian uses the word, it's a one-shot deal and not a part of common jargon outside the gay activist community. 209.55.80.148 (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
It's pathetic that this is page is on Misplaced Pages. This article lowers the credibility of Misplaced Pages to that of urbandictionary.com. Does every neologism need a Misplaced Pages page? I had never heard of this use of the surname prior to seeing this Misplaced Pages page. I know practically nothing about Rick Santorum but it's clear that this page is here to defame him.Ewick12 (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Wait, you didn't know about this -- and now you do? You learned something via Misplaced Pages?? Geez, you're right -- there's something dreadfully wrong here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
The encyclopedic value of the "something" learned from this article would be vastly exceeded by an article about Santorum's ear wax, or how the mucus in his left nostril differs from that in the right nostril. If there were a few published sources on those subjects, they still wouldn't be appropriate for stand-alone Misplaced Pages articles, especially if there were already a stand-alone article about Santorum's anatomy. I'm not supporting him for president, but I also don't support this extremely crappy article. We already have the article Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality, not to mention Savage Love#Neologisms. Maybe we ought to get it over with, and put a link to this article at the top of every Misplaced Pages page, next to "My talk My preferences My watchlist My contributions Log out", since the whole focus here is propaganda, right? Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I think it's disingenuous to claim this doesn't qualify to be a stand-alone article. It's been very widely reported in mainstream media; the website Spreading Santorum is still among the first Google hits returned on a search for Rick Santorum or Santorum; Joe.My.God, a multiple award-winning blog with millions of readers, consistently refers to RS as "Frothy Mix"; the nickname was prompted by a call from a notable person; etc, etc, etc. The man, the retaliatory nature of the nickname, or the matter it describes may be distasteful to some readers, but those things are not reasons for removing articles from Misplaced Pages. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
It should be merged into one of the several existing articles that already cover it, not deleted. Or maybe it could be merged into a new article titled "Neologisms created by Dan Savage". The main reason that hasn't already been done is because some people like manipulating google hits.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
If you want to see this deleted, the appropriate venue to assess community consensus on that point is AfD. However, since such a discussion was held only a few months ago, I find it unlikely that there will be consensus to overturn it. --joe decker17:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Expanding an article about a vile attack on a living person - it's twice the size now and refs have gone from 33 to 95 - has got to be against the spirit of least of our BLP policy. My proposal, and my intention, stated right now, is to return this article to the content it had on May 9th. →StaniStani 03:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
No, there are new sections like United States presidential election, 2012, Recognition and usage, and Media analysis which shouldn't simply be deleted. Judicious trimming might be in order. --NeilN04:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
A two-sentence stub would follow the spirit of BLP protection, but I'm not proposing to spit against the wind here. →StaniStani 05:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
The BLP policy is not a blank check for deleting anything negative related to a living individual. Criticism, commentary, and even base mockery of a public figure like a Senator is protected free speech in the United States. While it would be ridiculous for anyone to try and make Misplaced Pages a platform for creating the kind of meme Savage did, it is perfectly prudent for Misplaced Pages to neutrally report on the overwhelming amount of coverage given to the topic. Steven Walling05:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
By expanding the number of key terms, adding more bio information, and linking back more references, this article has enhanced the original attack. →StaniStani 05:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Not in the least. Without Misplaced Pages, all you have are Savage's site and supporters on one side, and supporters of Santorum on the other. With a comprehensive Misplaced Pages article that demands verifiability and neutrality, the facts about the situation are presented so that people can make up their own minds about it. Steven Walling06:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
The article appears to be about a phenomenon rather than the person, and is rigidly fair - on reading it, it does not try to link the man with the term, it exposes Savage's motives and actions to criticism, presents all of the "realworld" recognition of the phenomenon and its impact in such a manner that someone can question whether the campaign was or is fair, and provides Santorum's considered reply to the phenomenon in full. There's no question that the phenomenon (whether it should be or not) is notable. Orderinchaos07:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Steven Walling and Orderinchaos said it much better than I could; I'm just chiming in. Steven Walling's optimism about Misplaced Pages's mission, that it would allow readers to make up their own mind, is farther than I'm willing to go, but the facts about how the topic is presented in the article are assessed correctly by the two mentioned editors. If they weren't, perhaps the Kerry-section should be cut from Flip-flop (politics), and Cheese-eating surrender monkeys should be deleted altogether (a BLP violation against almost 66 million living people, some of whom are probably allergic to cheese). Drmies (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
France is not a person. To return to the topic: the original attack is Google-based. By adding more key search terms to the Misplaced Pages article, and adding more back-links in the refs, more people will find the definition linked to a living person. Hence my issue with the article being expanded. →StaniStani 17:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
But the French are people, many of them living. Honestly, while I can understand a certain hesitation about the article (after all, it's pretty gross and the term was of course a low blow), that expansion would increase google hits and thus make this a personal attack or so, I don't see that at all. But to each their own. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
The fact that Misplaced Pages permits
The fact that Misplaced Pages permits a pseudo-article like this one which was artificially propagandized for the purpose of personal slander just proves the fact that Misplaced Pages itself is a bogus project that most legitimate academic institutions will not allow their students to use as source material. Very pathetic and a disgrace. The editors should be ashamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.23.183 (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
The fact that you would post such drivel is an offense to your 2nd grade teacher, Mr. 68.36.23.183! The fact is that the subject has been covered by every news source, including Fox news many times. Blame Fox, not wikipedia.--Milowent • 05:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Slander is defined as "a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report". In no way has Savage's coining said anything about Rick Santorum which is untrue. He does not allege Santorum has any personal experience with santorum, though in his explanation for coining the term he does attribute various hateful, dishonourable, and deeply offensive remarks to Santorum... all correctly.
Define "pseudo-article," and indicate how this article meets that definition. Once you are clear with your complaints, they can be addressed properly. TechBear | Talk | Contributions15:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
One thing to remember is that this article really isn't about Rick Santorum, as he's primarily a passive participant in this story. It's really about Mr. Savage. Care should be taken, and I think it has so far, to make sure that the article accurately reflects Savage's actions, motivation, thoughts, intentions, and goals since he is the primary driver in this episode. One thing to watch for and add to the article is how the general US public perceives this campaign by Savage. Do most support it, disapprove, or don't care? Cla68 (talk) 12:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I am so confused
This is such a blatant BLP violation that i'm rather shocked that there are actually users defending it. At the very least, this should be at "Santorum (term)", in order to discuss the term in the context of its use in relation to the Senator. But to primarily discuss it in the sense of a gross sexual word and then to apply it copiously to a Senator, I don't care what sources you're using, this is one of the worst BLP violations that i've ever seen. Silverseren20:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Two things. First off, I don't believe that a group of three users should be able to usurp a poll prior to that that decided to not name it sexual neologism or sexual slang. Secondly, quoting links from four years ago kinda emphasis my point. The Santorum page itself still links to this one as a neologism, not a sexual one. And, yes, while the sources refer to it as a sexual neologism, that's something that should be expressed in the article and not the title, because the article is discussing its use as a term in a political campaign and not its common use as a sexual neologism when referring to something sexual in their lives or in fetishes. This word, while decided to be defined as something sexual, is being used politically, not sexually. Silverseren20:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing in that discussion about renaming it to (term), there is only a proposal to rename it to something a bit ridiculous. So, that's completely not a support for the current name as it is disagreement with the proposed new name. Silverseren20:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
It has been moved multiple times in the past, and has been stable at this title location for several years now. -- Cirt (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There are several suggested renamings in that thread and the subsections that follow it, and I provided the reference as background data, not to take sides. In fact, you'll see if you dig through there that I have a different issue with the current name, but I've kinda thrown up my hands at the naming wars on this article. I saw someone note a 2006 and 2007 discussion, and I simply wished to add that there had been at least one more. That is all. --joe decker20:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
First of all, WP:CCC, so please lay off the stable arguments. And, I repeat, because it is called a sexual neologism, then it should be called such within the article, but you are using it in the article as a political term and it's use in elections, not its use as a sexual term in real life. If the article was about its use in the world as a sexual term, then this title would be appropriate, but, as far as I can see, it is only being used in a political campaign, which makes such a title inappropriate, because it is being used as a term. Silverseren20:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Except the article is primarily focused on the political end of the discussion and is only cursorily about the sexual element. There is no reason why the article should be at a more neutral name such as (term) or (neologism), like the Santorum disambiguation page has it at. Having it at its current title without the article being primarily about the sexual side of the term just makes it a BLP jab. Silverseren21:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I would have no objections to a move to Santorum (neologism) - however prior discussions seem to support it at this location, for rationale that it is not simply a neologism, but also a form of sexual slang, at the same time. -- Cirt (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I would just hope that IFF the article were to be moved, again, it would then NOT be moved again in the future, multiple times, and could perhaps remain stable in a static title location. -- Cirt (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd be fine with that move as well. "Sexual neologism" is a bit verbose for a parenthetical disambiguation, even if it's literally more accurate. Steven Walling21:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Proposal to stub this article to reduce or eliminate BLP violations
Expanding the article, renaming it, and all the other manipulations amount to just this:
You are solving the wrong problem! -- Dilbert
The existence of this article enhances Savage's original Google-bomb of the Senator.
Expanding it adds more text for Google to index.
Adding more information in the body of the article about the Google-bomb, reactions to it, the victim's response - all add key terms for Google's crawler to add to the PageRank score.
Tripling the references make more backlinks in Google.
Stub the article - no more than three sentences and only one mention each of Savage and the Senator, and delete all but two references. Or you are just lining up Misplaced Pages as an ally for Savage's attack. →StaniStani 22:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. 116 reliable sources indicates that this is being widely discussed without Misplaced Pages's assistance. I hear about this all the time on The Daily Show and it's frequently alluded to (though of course they can't spell it out) on MSNBC. This is like blaming the egg for the hen that birthed it instead of the other way around. Gamaliel (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose and I must add: RIDICULOUS. BLP is not a whitewash and monitoring this talk page for the latest attempt to do so and repeating "oppose" is tiring. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Oppose as a backend around AfD. Misplaced Pages exists to document notable phenomena; not to play PR to powerful politicians. Quigley (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Nothing about this article implies anything negative and false about the ex-Senator (unless quoting his own words is slander now). --Jfruh (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - As the wrong problem doesn't exist. You seem to think BLP means removing any unfair, negative info about public figures. It doesn't. It means presenting the facts in a neutral way, backed by high quality sources. Now, do you think any of the sources are questionable or do parts of the article state an opinion? --NeilN23:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose for just about everything mentioned above, including "ridiculous". This has nothing to do whatsoever with BLP issues--in fact, this may be closest thing to a call for censorship I've seen on Misplaced Pages. Stani, you have made your opinion clear in various threads here, and I think the consensus is that your concerns are not rooted in Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines. Time to drop the stick. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose This is getting a bit silly - BLP basically means "cover it sanely and safely", not "don't cover it at all". The ongoing reliable source interest in the phenomenon means that the horse has already well and truly bolted. We Wikipedians can't change the course of history, we can only report on it. Orderinchaos03:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, a clear consensus exists to assist in this Google-bomb. None of you addressed that. Note that I stated my case, and it remains unrefuted. I will not pursue it further. My opposition is on record. If it remains on record, I'm satisfied to walk away from this article. For those of you who might be thinking of RevDel'ing this discussion, I remind you that that is against policy. →StaniStani 05:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Done. Moved it to Santorum (neologism). Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)