Talk:Campaign for the neologism "santorum"/Archive 10

Wider RfC?
Anyone want to further advertise the RfC? This is a prelude to proposing that we already have our result. Yes, I want to push it, I've been very clear that in my opinion this shouldn't take as long as some RfCs. If anyone thinks that further advertising will change the results, let's advertise. If anyone thinks that leaving it open will change the results, let's hear that argument. Be— —Critical 19:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Allow the RFC (as its hotly disputed) to stay open for a longer period, a month - there is no deadline - if you allow the RFC to run its correct course, rather than rushing to announce the outcome and close it yourself, the outcome will be stronger. - advertise it. You shouldn't also be declaring the outcome.    You  really  can  19:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not. However, there is no reason to allow a small cadre of editors to hold up the process for over a month, when consensus has been reached.  Do you, as the minority in the RfC above, want the RfC to be advertised further?   Be— —Critical  19:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I would - where has it been advertised ? It doesn't seem to be showing as an RFC as I would usually see it, and it should be added to centralized discussion and I can't see it there? As yet I have not had chance to read the recent discussion and I will get to that tomorrow.   You  really  can  19:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's at the top here that's all I know. This discussion touches on links, NPOV, and other things, so those noticeboards at least.  Be— —Critical  19:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems out of process for an RFC to not advertise it and attempt to close it fourty eight hours after opening. I will look more tomorrow -   You  really  can  19:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? It's advertised at the list of RfCs (as per the link Becritical offered you), where RfCs are usually advertised.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I was just wanting to know if the minority view wanted to advertise it even further. The point being to be able to propose that the RfC be closed without anyone saying that we didn't have a firm result.  Be— —Critical  19:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @Becritical, correct me if I am wrong, the RFC has only just been opened.
 * @NomoskedasticityThe discussion should be advertised as many neutral locations as possible - I feel this is something the wider community deserves to declare its position on. It seems it only stabilized there 24 hours ago after some alterations - as I said, suggestions to close now are extremely un-beneficial to discussion.   You  really  can  19:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You wrote "It doesn't seem to be showing as an RFC as I would usually see it" -- that didn't make sense, it appears at the list of RfCs exactly as one would expect. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well - you seem to have objected to and removed the notice from WP:CENT - diff - its like you don't want the community to opine -   You  really  can  20:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not at all -- as my edit summary says, WP:CENTNOT policy doesn't allow it and I suggest that you find more appropriate places to advertise it. A bit of AGF, perhaps? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Pot meet Kettle. You lost any GF when you tried to get the locking admin to insert the diputed link during the process.  This is not a content dispute.  It is a BLP dispute.  I see no problem with a centralized discussion.  Arzel (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What? Perhaps a diff is in order...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The idea of trying to push this to a close so quickly would not look like a good faith effort to let the process run its natural course. There is no rush, and to rush will throw the whole process into dispute as an improper attempt to influence the outcome of an RfC and would likey result in Arbcom. I would also like to remind Be and Nomo that the is not a vote. The closing admin will have to decide if this action is a violation of BLP regardless of the number of people that comment one way or the other. Seriously, BeCritical, what is your rush? Do you care about WP policies or is your goal to simply get the link included as soon as possible in any way possible?Arzel (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Right now (20:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)) this RfC is at the top of Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law. I would say that other categories this article might fall under are Media and Culture. Those arguing that including the link fails BLP might also claim this would fall under Biographies; it utterly fails Technology since the SEO question has been put to bed. Then it's possible the "rick" question (once we get to it, please don't think I'm trying to jump the gun here) should be added to Language. Now it seems to me a modicum of caution might be warranted about possible over-advertising, but I consent to whoever else's notice other editors wish to bring this, and I won't accuse anyone of forum-shopping. ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  20:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The natural course of the process would have been to insert the link per the poll discussion. RfC's don't have a set time period.  And it is only natural to expedite this RfC considering the circumstances.  And again, there is no "rush," but neither should a small cadre of editors be able to block this link for over a month.  So let's close it as soon as possible when it's reasonable to assume that the community has spoken.  Be— —Critical  20:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Question: if, as those in the minority keep reminding us, the number of people on either side is irrelevant and all that matters is the closing admin's judgment on the BLP question, what would be the purpose of leaving the RFC open for a lengthy period of time? The only reason I can see to leave it open longer is for more people to comment, but the number of commenters doesn't matter, right? Is the hope that on the 29th day, someone new will come in and make a much more convincing argument than anyone else before him? Personally, I think seven days would be plenty and it's unlikely there'd be any game-changing developments between the eighth day and the 30th. Theoldsparkle (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. Be— —Critical  21:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no harm to leaving the RfC open for the normal 30 day period and ensuring wide participation. Closing it early fans the fire of people who would dispute the legitimacy of the process.  One hopes that if the discussion remains and is closed by a respected, uninvolved administrator, people will abide by the result whatever it is, even if they don't approve. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you think it would be seriously possible to claim bad process at 7 days given the extent of the consensus? Be— —Critical  23:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, any closure before the RfC Bot is fixed is going to be met with resistance.The Bot doesn't seem to want to add the topic to the list, and you can't manually fix the list since the Bot will come back and remove the fix. As it is, it is not even a true RfC since there is no general request for comments. I have a note off to Chris about the bot. Hopefully he can fix the problem.Arzel (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course. But we're talking about a week here.  You don't think the bot will get fixed soon? What do you mean about no general request for comments?   Be— —Critical  23:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the RfC Bot keeps removing the listing from the RfC page there is no general notice that the RfC even exists. Most people came here because you informed them based off their previous involvement.  If you don't want a future edit war then just let it work out.  Constantly harping about closing early or trying to push the process along faster does not appear to be a good faith effort of the process.  There is no hurry, so I don't see what the big issue of waiting for the process to work itself through.  Arzel (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, when I said seven days would be adequate in my view, it was under the assumption that the listing would be fixed soon. I agree that the RFC should be fully advertised as appropriate for at least most of that seven days. But I still see no reason to keep it going further than that, and the only argument to do so has been "What's the rush?" Well, by that logic, we could leave it open for sixty days, or six months, or a year, or more. There's no "rush"; a "rush" would imply a desire to end the discussion when there's still a good reason to leave it open. What's being expressed is a desire for action when there's no apparent reason to delay it (and, coincidentally I'm sure, the only people arguing for delaying action are also those who want to maintain the status quo). "RFCs are usually 30 days" is not a good reason for why this RFC should last 30 days if, after 7 days, both positions have been fully argued, the relative number of supporters for each position is pretty clear, and neither side can suggest what other information we need for a resolution. Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a better gauge would be an RfC duration predicated upon whether or not the RfC is still producing editor comment. Perhaps, after 7 days, no responses in 48 hours might be a reasonable indication that the RfC has produced all the comments it is likely to elicit. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not illogical, except that what we keep hearing, from the people who are objecting to an earlier close, is that it doesn't matter how many people comment anyway. So I would personally be okay with using that parameter, but I am going to point out that it doesn't make a lot of sense when combined with the ostensible expectation that the closing admin is just going to say "No, you can't include the link because it violates BLP and that's all there is to it." Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Frankly, were I to have my druthers, I'd much prefer to canvass the entire population of WP designated Admins for a mandatory expression of opinion on this question and let their collective wisdom decide. Now THAT would be an RfC I'd PAY to watch. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that would be interesting. Unless someone seriously thinks that after 7 days "something" is going to change, I don't see what objection there would be to closing. And the RfC has been properly listed since last night.  Be— —Critical  18:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Bot
The bot did not include the proper text at Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law, and fixing it caused the bot to delete it. Someone with deeper technical experience needs to fix this, and the text should be as here. Be— —Critical 20:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I tried to add it to the BIO page, but the bot simply repeated the POL submission. I have notified RfCBOT (Chris).  Arzel (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have simply re-submitted the RfC in it's entirety. That should work. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request
In the second reference at the end of the lead paragraph, please disambiguate The Stranger to The Stranger (newspaper).-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  20:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Seems straightforward enough, hopefully there's no controversy over whether The Stranger is actually a newspaper or something. :) Franamax (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This was done by The Anome. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually it was done by me, but Robofish nuked my comment (now restored). The Anome caught the other two further down, which I've just now reformatted. Franamax (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Another edit request
To whoever answers the request above: while you're at it, could you restore the mergeto template to the top of this article? I only just noticed that a (thoroughly sensible) proposal to merge this article with Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality has been ongoing since January, but someone removed the merge template from this one. Robofish (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh my, there are two of these articles? The tag was removed here by an involved editor. The merge discussion is still active and has not been closed by a neutral party. The normal period for an RFC to run is 30 days. Thus I have implemented this request. Given the level of acrimony on this issue, I would suggest that involved editors refrain from "closing" things, and seek outside assistance instead. Franamax (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This merger request has been proposed at least three times before, and has been struck down each time. It's not going to happen. That last few times it was proposed, the tag was removed because of the snowball rule. --Wikiepdiax818 (talk) 06:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All quite interesting but not particularly relevant, as I did not judge the merits of the merge proposal, only its existence. Whether the proposal succeeds or fails, it is currently active and the notice tag here should not get sideswiped by the latest edit war. Franamax (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think your comment "Oh my, there are two of these articles?" speaks pretty clearly as to your view of the merits of the merge proposal. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it speaks to my assessment of the potential for edit-warring and endless bitter argument. I have very little interest in the subject matter. Franamax (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In view of your restoring the removal of the link from this talk pages and your earlier threat to block anyone who pointed to a sub-page of the site during the discussion, you do seem to be siding with the camp that claims this is a BLP matter, one of the main questions that will have to be decided by the RFC's closing administrator. This particular proposal is related to the edit wars that resulted in article protection (the editor requesting that the proposal be restored is also involved).  This article has survived five deletion attempts and several merge attempts as it is, and the latest probably won't succeed either.  No point trying to find the WP:Right Version here, probably best to stick to uncontroversial edits until the BLP matter is decided. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not siding with anyone, I'm being prudent and procedurally correct. A BLP concern has been raised with live-linking to the website. Live links are not needed for the purpose of the discussion, so I have removed them while the discussion runs. It is within my mandate as an administrator to respond to BLP concerns by removing material until the concern has been assessed. And by doing it as an admin, I prevent edit-warring, also within my mandate. My actions can be reviewed at AN/I any time (where incidentally, you can also edit-war to your heart's content, though probably not for long). In the case of the merge tag, I am just restoring notice of a current discussion, as outlined in the procedures for requested merges. I have no opinion at all on whether the articles should actually be merged, that would require actually, you know, reading them and stuff. Franamax (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Where did Franamax threaten to block people for linking to what?? Be— —Critical 19:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably any one of these times: . That's going back about 800 edits in just the last two weeks here, people sure seem to have a lot of opinions on this subject. Franamax (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks. Be— —Critical  19:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Do I detect a bit of pique, Franamax? I'm not opposing your actions, I don't edit war, and there's no reason to question your neutrality on the outcome of this dispute.  I personally think the merge proposal should be closed in due course rather than simply deleted.  Regarding the link in the article: we're in an RfC, there will be an administrative close, people ought to respect the outcome if handled fairly and work through channels if not, and that's that.  Nothing that happens in the meanwhile is a big deal because this will all be resolved.  I'm just observing that your use of administrative privileges favors one side of the dispute, and that you made a disputed edit to a protected page in support, giving the appearance of being non-neutral even if that's not your intent.  If avoiding edit wars were the only goal you could have accomplished that just as easily and no less correctly by threatening that anyone removing links from other editors' comments would be blocked, or better yet, that edit warring on either side will not be tolerated.  Yet you sided with an extreme, and disputed, interpretation of BLP, which appears to be on the losing end of the RfC: that a notable website that we and the major press have covered is so toxic that we can't link to it even in the course of talking about it.  Yes, it is necessary to link to things to talk about them.  To argue otherwise is absurd.  If that were the case why do we even have links?  The IP's argument here was very different before you gutted it.  That's taking sides, not following an administrative mandate.  - Wikidemon (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If there's pique there, it's that I was already supposed to be out on a hiking trail when I made that post, but it would only be pique at myself for getting distracted instead of getting out of breath. It is almost inevitable that any admin action will "favour" one side of the dispute. Semi-protecting an article favours the editors with accounts. Full-protecting favours whoever had the determination and numbers to war the longest. Closing an AFD as delete favours the deletionists. You may say I sided with an extreme interpretation, I may say (and do say, since that was my thought process) that I acted in a prudent fashion, until BLP issues could be resolved. I believe that acting prudently is also within the mandate of an admin. As far as the necessity of linking for the purpose of this discussion, I watchlist this page, the Help desk, the New contributors' help page, Editor assistance/Requests, VP/T and RD/S, RD/C and RD/M - I have not seen any editord asking how to get to any website that isn't coloured blue, not for the last 2 weeks and not for as long as I can remember, so I discount your assertion for the particular case of this page. As to gutting an IP editor's argument, that editor was free to return and reformulate it if they were committed to editing here; and I used the wording "removed", which clearly indicates that something may be found in page history, where you will note no revdeletions. Now I definitely have seen editors not understanding this, but it's always quickly resolved by someone pointing out the "View history" tab at the top of the page - so no-one is prevented from viewing the original ergument. Sorry, I don't see where you're going with this. Franamax (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's just make sure to get the RfC gets closed expeditiously, and everything here will be unimportant details. Be— —Critical  05:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I went hiking too, didn't cross my mind until I got back. Truly, this isn't worth missing a tree for :)  I accept that you're impartial and attempting to act so, but claiming that links don't matter because people can use google or page history to find missing links takes us to a faraway place.  Obviously, they do.  That's why we have links.  More importantly, after five deletion attempts and several merge attempts, best not restore a merge proposal under cover of article protection.  A truly evenhanded approach would maintain calm and not weigh in on the matter up for discussion.  Where I'm going is to urge that you not get drawn into siding with one side of a content argument or the other.  Best not to jump the gun on that, a decision will come down soon enough.  - Wikidemon (talk) 06:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Still a few weeks before the birds start coming back here in force, that really decorates the trees up good. :) Please don't conflate the proposed necessity of a live link in the article itself, which is the subject matter of debate here, with the necessity of a live link in the discussion on including the live link in the article. For the purpose of avoiding a BLP concern, and assuming reasonable competence among editors wishing to comment here, I honestly don't see damage being caused by using a plain URL instead. And again on the merge tag, it is an ongoing discussion which is generally noted as such on affected articles. Can you point me to a guideline clause which says when such notices should be removed, which contradicts my interpretation? The tag I restored says "discuss this", not "support this". What side am I supporting by restoring a notice of a discussion that has not been closed yet? On the contrary, if I anticipated the eventual result and declined the request, I certainly would be favouring one side. Franamax (talk) 08:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikinews link
Wikinews recently published an article regarding this subject. Please add to the article. Cocoaguy ここがいい 02:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's not. Wikinews is not a reliable source, and the article itself appears to be poorly written, and worse, written from a pro-slur POV (it calls the slur a "phenomenon"). Even its title, "Santorum neologism gains prominence during US election cycle" is obviously POV, as it suggests the slur has gained "prominence" (implying legitimacy) and it has no real connection to the "election cycle" except to (again) imply some kind of legitimacy for the slur. Wikimedia projects do not exist to give undue voice to fringe groups, their biased opinions, and their tacky quests for legitimacy. -Stevertigo (t | c) 04:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps one can say with some cirtitude that this suggested 14:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC) administratively inserted edit is likely to be rather contentious. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I did it before reading the talk page and only afterwards drafted my response below. I did it because as a Wikinews reviewer and admin, I saw that the story had been published and per ordinary practice, we routinely add cross-wiki links. Personally, I don't see anything particularly contentious about it at all. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I did it before reading the talk page...
 * Please explain how your edit reflects concern for (or even cognizance of for that matter) the "fully protected" template mandate (emphasis mine)...
 * Please discuss any changes on the talk page; you may use the template to ask an administrator to make the edit if it is supported by consensus.
 * JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Because adding inter-wiki links is uncontroversial maintenance. There are 3,250 to Wikinews, 73,455 to Commons categories, 1,995 to Wikibooks. Given that such cross-wiki links are supported by the existing consensus of "yeah, we do it on every other article", I don't really see adding it as particularly a big deal. I still don't. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Above reasons for noninclusion are unconvincing. First of all, editorial decisions about neutrality are up to Wikinews editors and reviewers. All Wikipedia policy/guidelines/meta-space advice has to say is "Wikipedia encourages links from Wikipedia articles to pages on sister projects when such links are likely to be useful to our readers" (Wikimedia sister projects). It is quite self-evidently useful: it allows readers to see a snapshot of news about this issue.
 * Reviewers at Wikinews have decided that it adheres to the project's own editorial guidelines, which include NPOV. It was reviewed by Pi zero, who basically reviews by the book and has never really shown favour or fancy to particular topics or editors as far as I can tell.
 * Prominence doesn't imply legitimacy. To quote prominence: "The state of being prominent: widely known or eminent". Key word: "or". Widely known or eminent. Seems pretty widely known: that's why it's an issue for Mr Santorum. Let's see: no connection to the election cycle? Check the sources on the Wikinews story: there are stories directly tying the issue as it affects Mr. Santorum to his performance in the Republican primaries and caucuses.
 * Cross-project links are rightly given wide latitude: we link to Commons categories even though the photos contained therein may violate BLP or the descriptions of those photos may not match up with NPOV. Wikinews stories often contain original reporting, which goes against WP:OR. Same with Wikiversity. Wikibooks contains instructional manuals which are both a violation of WP:NOT and possibly a violation of both WP:UNDUE and NPOV (OMG, the existence of a Wikibook on how to learn Swahili kind of implies that we ought to learn Swahili). With Wikinews, we can do something radical... let readers decide for themselves what to think about the story. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Umm, Tom Morris, I suggest you self-revert here and let discussion proceed. If I'm reading this right, you acted despite a clear objection to the editprotected request, and you are declaring this "uncontroversial" based on your position "as a Wikinews reviewer and admin"? Please reconsider and instead just make your case for inclusion here on the talk page, as an ordinary editor of this website. Franamax (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Then you've read wrong. I acted before I saw the talk page, then I saw the talk page and responded to the editprotected. I have made my case above. I won't self-revert, but feel free to revert per WP:BRD. I expect the discussion will be as enlightening and worthwhile as all previous discussions on this topic have been. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your edit as you suggested. In future, please investigate the circumstances when editing a full-protected page (which I believe turns a different colour in the edit window for everyone, not just me). Me, I find the discussion a little lengthy, but my presence here is not as part of the discussion, so I'm spared much of the need to respond to point and counterpoint. It sure is a long discussion though. :) Franamax (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Franamax, you currently have something like 23 posts on this talk page. This one, despite the disclaimer at the beginning, leaves no doubt as to your own perspective on the issue we have been discussing.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems that you have remarkably little access to my mental states (which is good!), as I've argued myself back and forth on this a few times now. I took advantage of that recent hike to reduce down the principles based on all the comments I've read here and my own understanding of policy. There are two deep ones yet, which I haven't gone right down into. Also, I'm not sure of exactly how to weight each point. Anyway, I'll put you down as a "no" for me being one of the three to close the discussion. Franamax (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To be honest, it sounds here like you are giving *very* thoughtful consideration as to how you might !vote above. This is admirable.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why thank you for that nice and backhanded compliment. I have no intention of !voting, did you miss my post(s) above where I mentioned how little I care about the topic (or whatever broad swath of topics this is part of)? Thank you for your distrust though. :) Franamax (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * For Pete's sake. There's a Wikinews page that is inarguably related to the topic of this article. It is inarguably standard for a Wikipedia article to link to a related Wikinews page when such a page exists. If you think the Wikinews page is biased, go to Wikinews and make or propose changes to that page. Arguing that Wikipedia should not link to Wikinews because Wikinews is biased is not reasonable. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah crap. I totally agree that this should be uncontroversial, but, well, ... hmm. My first reaction was Oh come on, it's just a goddamn news article, and a short precís''-type one at that. What the hell's the problem now?'' Then, I looked at it and I can see how it might look (to someone opposed to either the existence of this article in general, or the proposed - RfC'd - external link specifically) like a bit of an end run around the RfC. While the Wikinews piece doesn't swing non-neutral in the body, it does directly link to the spreadingsantorum website, using the description: Spreading Santorum, official website created by Dan Savage to document the spread of the phenomenon. I can see how there'd be good faith objections to this presentation. On the other hand, there's really nothing wrong with linking Wikinews per se. There may be the seeds of a discussion here about Wikipedia insulating itself from the unsavory business of linking such dastardly things, and one layer of Wikimedia comparmentalization being insufficient isolation for Wikipedia. But that's way the hell beyond the pale for this page here and now. This is all by way of me announcing my intention to edit the Wikinews EL section to eliminate the words document the and of in the hope that this action forestalls a big tizzy on this page (and frankly because NPOV seems to require it). I believe this should be sufficient to justify keeping the Wikinews link (and nothing above suggests otherwise). ☯.Zen Swashbuckler  .☠  17:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Before the discussion on this goes much further, I'll suggest reading here and looking again at the proposed link. I can seek further clarification on this if editors feel it necessary. Franamax (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I can seek further clarification on this if editors feel it necessary.
 * Clarification on the exigencies involved in a WP ARBCOM sanctioned editor utilizing Wikinews to arguably promote the vilification of that related BLP would be, IMHO, most welcome and entirely appropriate...if not mandatory. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * English Wikipedia's ArbCom has absolutely no bearing on the operation of Wikinews. If you believe any Wikinews editor has failed to adhere to Wikinews policy, Wikinews' ANI equivalent is that way. Enwikipediathink is discouraged. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sheesh Franamax, can you tell us instead of making us read a whole ArbCom case :( ? Be— —Critical  18:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that was one of the shorter ones, as I remember. :) I suggest only reading the page I linked, and the links contained in the body if you feel inclined. That page alone is sufficent for me to consider this a controversial edit, considering the page history of the link being considered for inclusion. I saw the edit request when it arrived and was waiting (I figured 24 hours or so) for further comments here, to assess consensus on what to do from the regular editors here, taking it at face value. Precipitous action on the part of another led me to look a bit further. Franamax (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) Supposing Tom's objection is moot (I don't for a second, but what the hell), it still remains to be seen what the objection is. "ARBCOM sanctioned editor utilizing Wikinews to further promote the vilification of a BLP" - This has not been established. If you are asking, "Should we determine if this is in fact what happened," then yes, that's a reasonable query. Nothing I see in the Wikinews piece suggests that's what happened, but on the other hand I'm just one person. I invite a detailed summary of how it "promote [s] the vilification of a BLP."   ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  18:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This has not been established. If you are asking,...
 * Please see "arguably"...and yes, I am asking. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, missed the second edit. Thank you for clarifying.  ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  18:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps some further clarification in terms of defining the issue? Per the ARBCOM imposed sanction, does the incorporation of a link to a Wikinews article primarily authored by an editor who is...
 * ...prohibited from editing articles that are substantially biographies of living people if, broadly but reasonably construed, (i) the articles already refer to politics or religion or social controversy; or (ii) his edits introduce to the articles material about politics or religion or social controversy. However, Cirt is permitted to edit other articles that refer incidentally to such living people providing (i) the focus of the articles is not substantially biographical and (ii) his edits are not biographical in nature.
 * ...constitute an introduction by that editor of associated BLP content by WMF proxy? JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll make explicit the key to this line of inquiry: does the authorship on a different project by an editor sanctioned here, automatically render the content of the crosslinked article (and thereby the crosslink itself) tainted, regardless of the fact that it was reviewed and approved by a Wikinews administrator, and actually linked here by a WP admin? We seem to be skirting a number of lines here. I'm not convinced that such third- or fourth-hand involvement renders the Wikinews piece unfit for crosslinkage. ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  19:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, presumably we should have a wikinews link, an external link, not keep trying to delete or merge the article or slap it with dispute tags, and in general cover this as we would cover any other notable piece of web content. However, that's a decision the community is trying to make right now. The question of the day is whether we should conduct business as usual with this article, or instead avoid inclusion of certain objectionable things that we would cover if they were not so offensive to some.  In that context seemingly routine procedural and style edits become contentious.  Thus, as I argue above regarding re-inserting a disputed merge tag, it's best to simply avoid use of administrative tools to change the article if there's a good faith objection.  The closing admin will presumably rule on whether we can take a landslide of support for including something as consensus to include it, or whether the strenuous objections of the minority establish a lack of consensus, or our fundamental content policies forbid the content regardless of consensus.  - Wikidemon (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Summarizing one of the arguments.
If we consider the neologism campaign as a work of political satire, the question of whether or not we should link to the neologism campaign's official website is resolved much more simply (cf. Beck v. Eiland-Hall, for instance). The question then becomes, at what point does 'satire' become 'defamation'? What is the difference between "mocking" and "bullying"? Stephen Colbert said brutal, vicious things about multiple living persons at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner in 2006, and yet we link not only to full transcripts of his speech, but to audio and video of the incident.

I think we can all agree that Mr Savage's campaign is based on his desire to respond to the opinions and beliefs propounded by a national politician. Where do we draw the line as to what is reasoned and reasonable response?

What counts as an "attack" ? Is making fun of someone's last name an attack? Mr Savage's name is already something of a pejorative, and we certainly know that a word can have multiple meanings. What qualifies Mr Savage's campaign as an attack? DS (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is (as your post implies) a judgment call -- which is why the argument "It's a BLP violation!!!!!" can't work as trump here. Some would like it to work that way, but your post helps show why it can't.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What qualifies Mr Savage's campaign as an attack?
 * Perhaps even more to the point, how does Wikipedia define an "attack page"? From WP:ATTACK...
 * An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject.
 * Need we go on for some further interpolation/sourcing? JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not our place to make those distinctions or judgments, because that is inherently an exercise in censorship and POV. If someone in the real world decides to do something stupid, or great, or destructive, and the world decides that it is notable, then with few limited exceptions and subject to all kinds of rules and editorial discretion, we provide encyclopedic coverage of the thing.  - Wikidemon (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Emphasis on "encyclopedic," something that's increasingly hard to come by in the absence of any Wikipedia policies against puerility. Yesterday the Main Page featured Cartman Gets An Anal Probe.  Somebody suggests we aspire to a something more highbrow and somebody else promptly starts going on about "censorship."  It doesn't occur to the libertarians who dominate Wikipedia that this all amounts to a deep-seated bias against social conservatism.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A classic! Time for some Youtube... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And today WikiNews' Main Page hosts "art" featuring Santorum's head, praying hands, and a dildo. Perhaps someone can explain why positioning Wikipedia in the information market as a shock site serves the project better than aiming for authoritative status.--Brian Dell (talk)
 * (returns from youtube) that was a great one, especially the part where the aliens apologize to the cows! Too funny.  I can't speak for the politics of the featured article crew, they're a funny hyperactive lot that often ends up at ArbCom, but inclusionism is not a biased exercise, it means we include conservative subjects and liberal subjects and everything in between or otherwise.  Social conservatism is a worthy subject too, in case anyone wants to bring The 700 Club up to featured article status.  South Park happens to be one of its critiques. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be pleasant (though I'm not holding my breath) if we could avoid wasting time on arguments rooted in glaring logical errors. WP:ATTACK refers to Wikipedia stuff (articles, talk pages, user pages, etc.).  Spreadingsantorum.com is not an "Attack Page" in these terms because it is not part of Wikipedia.  Conflating these things does nothing to enlighten anyone here.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "It doesn't occur to the libertarians who dominate Wikipedia that this all amounts to a deep-seated bias against social conservatism"
 * No, because American social conservatism doesn't share the same values that Wikipedia does. Wikipedia isn't biased to Thai, Russian, Chinese, or Muslim conservatism either. While you can expect articles to treat these subjects neutrally, you can't expect the views of those subjects to bias the meta of the project. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * The ex-senator himself described it as making "a big joke out of my name" - and most sources use the word joke to describe it, I think.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"Santorum" is essentially a non-existent substance
Despite being an homosexual, Dan Savage evidently has little experience with actual anal sex, as there is no “frothy by-product.” The anal sphincter is ordinarily very tight and has a “squeegee effect” upon the penis, allowing very little lube to come out afterwards, and almost never a trace of fecal material. Whatever has been deposited inside almost always remains inside until expelled in a subsequent and ordinary bowel movement. Dutchman Schultz (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Savage says santorum only exists by accident or if you're doing it wrong. This point has nothing to do with improving the article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * I think it is, or could be relevant, as it bears on whether the campaign is a serious and mean attempt to ruin Santorum's life hatefully, or to make fun and cause him to be an object of derision in a more light-spirited way. This fact points toward the latter.  If it doesn't actually exist generally, then that gives the campaign an extra level of humor, since Santorum and his followers wouldn't know that it doesn't exist, which bears upon the notion that law makers don't know what they're regulating.  So yeah, it's relevant, and especially relevant to the judgment as to whether the link is to a hate site or a joke site: we all know that people are reacting to the RfC above based on their feeling about such things.  Be— —Critical  06:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's clearly the former. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And I think it's clearly not. The site engages in little more than juvenile name-calling, and does not advocate violence against Santorum, or stripping him of his rights or otherwise maltreating him. Nor is there any libelous content whatsoever- namecalling is not libel by a long shot. And to put things in perspective, it's positively G-rated compared to Larry Flynt's Campari ad parody about Jerry Falwell. In fact, the site and the definition are extremely mild and innocuous in comparison to Santorum's own pronouncements about gays, which is what triggered Savage's response, after all. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's still making news, however. - Dravecky (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm unclear how the OR and SYNTH that this section consists of has any bearing on the article. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler  .☠  15:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It pertains to the question of whether the article should contain a link to the website that Mr Savage began for his neologism campaign. DS (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That claim is understood by way of the fact that this section exists. What is still unclear is what effect the existence or non-existence of the substance has upon Santorum, his presidential campaign, Savage, his column, the "campaign for 'santorum' neologism," search engine results, or anything else that this article discusses. ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  17:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think the parody question is terribly relevant, but the comparison between Wikipedia's coverage of Flynt's Falwell ad and Savage's Santorum website is quite close. Flynt, upset with Falwell's moralizing about sex, published a fake interview in which Falwell describes losing his virginity to his mother in an outhouse.  The Supreme Court ruled that emotional harm intentionally inflicted on Falwell by Flynt is not a compensable damage due to free speech concerns.  Savage, upset with Santorum's moralizing about sex, published a fake definition of Santorum's name involving a fictitious bodily fluid.  In Savage's case we don't even get that far because unlike Flynt's ad, spreadingsantorum does not make any claims of fact about Santorum.  But if it came to it, harm to Santorum is neither here nor there when one person is expressing his opposition to another person's politics.  We have an article about each of the political attacks.  That's much of what politics is, one person deliberately trying to discredit another to hurt their public standing.  We're not the Supreme Court and Wikipedia isn't required to avoid censoring everything that passes as free speech.  But for our own reasons we do try to avoid censoring content on the mere basis of being offensive.  For what it's worth we do have not just a link but a reproduction of the Flynt ad in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell.  Flynt died in 2007 but the image was there without opposition (as far as I can tell) before his death.  You could make most of the same arguments there, as with most BADSITES we would want to remove, that it's not necessary to see it in order to understand the subject, that letting more people see it achieves the creator's intentions, and so on.  - Wikidemon (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It’s not “fake”, but a veritable definition now: santorum has several years of independent usage conveying Savage’s meaning, particularly in erotica. And Dutchman’s “almost never” ≠ “fictitious”. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't being precise. The similarity is that both Flynt and Savage published outlandish made up stuff by way of associating taboo sexual practices with people they viewed as hypocritical moralizers. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, it ought to be renamed
Yet again, I see a reliable source calling it Santorum's Google problem. This is THE name for it, and should be accepted per WP:COMMONNAME "Wikipedia...prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." Tell me how the current title meets the requirement that "Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by." The current name was supposed to be temporary, and it's a title made up by Wikipedia editors. Tell me how it meets the conditions of Recognizability, or Naturalness. In Santorum's Google problem we have "a simple and obvious title... [which] put[s] the interests of readers before those of editors." In short, the current title is a violation of our naming policy. In case anyone thinks there is some bias in this name, NPOV says "If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased." The case for changing the name to Santorum's Google problem is so strong, in fact, that the burden of proof is on those who do not want this title, if there are any. Be— —Critical 18:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Works for me. The source presented by Becritical is hardly the only one.  I doubt there are many sources for "Campaign for santorum neologism".  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Wait, we don't name articles according to the slang used in newspapers. We name articles by choosing the most descriptive terms - "Google problem" is simply vague and non-descriptive. Yes it has certain merits, namely that the slur has largely been promoted via Google bombing, and that Google thinks preserving the effects of Google bombs is some kind of principle. Yes there are weaknesses in the current title, but its preferable to something vague. -Stevertigo (t | c) 05:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "we don't name articles according to the slang used in newspapers" Yes we do, read the policies. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  05:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * to me, it seems like titling this article that way promotes google over other search engines. this article was titled santorum (neologism) for a very long time until someone decided to claim that it is not a neologism at all and renamed it. -badmachine 07:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * “Santorum's Google problem” would be a misnomer; it's also a Bing problem, etc. If we did go with that name, I’d prefer “Santorum's "Google problem"” and not limiting our scope to Google. And in my opinion, nine years isn’t long enough for a word to stop being a neologism. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and to take the COMMONNAME example, Snoop Dogg promotes the career of Calvin Cordozar Broadus, Jr. To give you another, better example, Rick Santorum promotes the political career of Richard John Santorum.  I'm sure there are many more and better examples.  This is what we're supposed to do. We could use the quotes.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  19:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As WP:RNEUTRAL says "[i]n most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term." That's already the case as "Santorum's Google problem" redirects to what is substantively a Dan Savage campaign, not some problematic Rick Santorum initiative.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure how that applies. COMMONNAME is policy, what you cite is a guideline. WP:RNEUTRAL notes what often happens, but COMMONNAME says how titles should be picked.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  19:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The status quo is that "Santorum's Google problem" is the redirect and "Campaign for "santorum" neologism" is the title. You want this reversed.  WP:RNEUTRAL, however, says "more latitude is allowed" concerning possible non-neutral language for redirects.  This suggests that unless you're angling for a fight the more contentious (in terms of neutrality) language should be the redirect and the less contentious language the title, ie the status quo.  That said, given that the DAB page that the hatnote on "Rick Santorum" currently directs to will likely be deleted with the hatnote directing straight to this page, should the hatnote on "Rick Santorum" direct to "(Rick) Santorum's Google problem" it should become more obvious to the editing community that there shouldn't be a hatnote at all to "Rick Santorum" since "Main articles:..." are section or chapter hatnotes not article hatnotes.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don't know much about those mechanics. I don't care about fights, a fight or lack thereof shouldn't be a consideration in writing an encyclopedia.  I just think we should use the common name per policy.  I also don't care if there is a hatnote on the main Rick Santorum article, and I doubt that should be a consideration.  Am I misunderstanding something?   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  20:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If the case for having a hatnote to the whole Rick Santorum article becomes substantively weaker by retitling to "Santorum's Google problem", that suggests that your retitling proposal creates a more substantive issue than just a naming convention question. Is this article primarily about Rick Santorum's issues or is it primarily about Dan Savage's issues with Rick Santorum?  If the former then I would agree with a retitling.  Absent this sort of inquiry your characterization of the question to consider here is too narrow.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Some people might like it if there weren't a hat above the Rick Santorum article. But I don't think we really have to consider the things you mention.  We're explicitly instructed not to by policy. Names are supposed to be common, not strictly descriptive or NPOV.  And this subject definitely has a common name.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  21:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As has been said multiple times before, "Santorum's "Google" Problem" (for whatever permutation of quotation marks) is passive, inaccurate and implies a meaning neither the text nor the sources convey. Obviously this discusion is being recapitulated above, but we should recognize that COMMONNAME and NPOV (and our sensibilities regarding content and presentation in general) variously coexist and conflict. We have to balance the expectations of one guideline against another. We shouldn't be visualizing this discussion as a series of trump cards played atop one another. Protonk (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We're not looking for perfect neutrality in names. No one is arguing it's a perfect name, it's just the name of the subject, and we need exceptional reasons for rejecting it. I haven't see such reasons.  Rather, if I recall, COMMONNAME was not really discussed as the major policy we should consider.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  04:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Not only is it not just Google, but, especially in the current context of the Republican primaries, it's not even clear that it's a problem.  The whole thing highlights Santorum's opposition to gays, and that opposition is a big part of his current appeal.  That some media outlets find this a convenient shorthand doesn't make it neutral or accurate.  Is there any RS that goes beyond chuckling at Santorum's discomfiture, and specifically avers that the purported "problem" has lost him more votes than it's gained him?  My guess is that it's helping him rally the bigots, who are a not inconsiderable portion of the Republican primary electorate. JamesMLane t c 05:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Dang... all these true statements which are utterly irrelevant to the question. This last is original research.  This is it's name.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  06:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, its name is "SpreadingSantorum" or "SpreadingSantorum.com". That would be an appropriate article title, under the neutral application of general Wikipedia rules.  Unfortunately, a large number of editors won't accept such a name, for political reasons, so that's out.  "Santorum's Google problem" is a term used by some sources but that doesn't transform it into the actual name of the subject.  (By analogy, "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" gets 2.7 million hits.  "Obamacare" gets 11.6 million hits.  Our article is still properly at the former rather than the latter because the former is the real name.)  Now, given that the correct real name is unavailable because so many editors object to using it, we can certainly consider the alternative of using a media catchphrase that's common (but by no means universal).  Its media use is a factor in its favor.  To my mind, though, it's not enough to overcome the problems.  The original research would come in us asserting, as fact, that this is a problem for Santorum, based on nothing more than some journalists' desire for a catchphrase. JamesMLane t c 11:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the site name would be good, but it's not as popular: "santorum's google problem", with the quotes, gets About 169,000 results, and spreadingsantorum.com gets About 10,100 results. Also the site name would limit the scope of the article way too much.  And I don't know what factors would influence the Obamacare issue although it seems quite different and may be subject to precedence on Wikipedia.  If NPOV doesn't apply strictly to names, then OR wouldn't either, would it?  Anyway, it just seems to me that people are not making arguments based on policy here, but reaching for other things because of political reasons as you say.  I wish there were some pushback on that.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  19:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Per JamesMLane. The history of this topic predates the current American GOP presidential contest by several years. Renaming the article to "Santorum's Google problem" will only reflect accurately the current news media spotlight on the GOP race. The Google problem title ignores the topic's history.WP:RECENT might apply here? BV  talk 22:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This would be a good argument, but is't factually incorrect, as the name predates the presidential race. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  23:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead text for article rename
The only change is "These prominent results became known as Santorum's Google problem." If someone wants a more traditional style of defining the title first, please say so. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical 01:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The lead is POV

 * Becritical, why lead with the "big white teeth" comment? Its tertiary to the topic. -Stevertigo (t | c) 05:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The only thing changed from the current lead is "These prominent results became known as Santorum's Google problem."  That lead is not my preferred version, but we should discuss it in a different section.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  05:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think (but I'm not 100% sure) that the "big white teeth" quote was added because there was disagreement about what Savage was actually trying to do (shock Santorum, or whatever) so it was decided the most accurate thing was to quote what he said his goal was. Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * An even more egregious POV transgression is the first paragraph allusion to a Santorum "scandal". The purported mitigation of this blatant POV composition (was anyone else aware of Santorum being involved in a "scandal"?) was the rather underwhelming concession to "compromise" by placing Savage's characterization in quotes.  That's the type of editing that purports to represent NPOV "consensus" building/editing in a contentious atmosphere created, IMHO, in tandem with a perceived improvement in Santorum's political gravitas.  I've no intent, however, to pursue it further here given all the irons in this current fire. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The body of this article already quotes Savage's claim that policy statement(s) by Santorum constituted Santorum's involvement in a "scandal" and Savage's desire to see teeth fall out of an "empty head." The question is why this is so important it needs to be repeated word for word in the very first sentence of the article.  If truly so notable perhaps a paraphrase could be used for one of the two incidents on the order of Savage hoping that the teeth would fall out of the "empty head" of the grad school educated lawyer.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not necessary. See my suggestion here.  It was added merely to avoid using the word "shock."  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  19:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not add illustrations for clarity, and to brighten up the page?
I think it would really help the article look better. For example there is this photo - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rick_Santorum_official_photo.jpg - but I am sure there are better ones! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Time to close the RfC
It's been 6 days since the RfC was properly listed, so it looks like it's about time to request a close. What's the consensus on this? Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical 04:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The numerical trend is clear and extremely unlikely to change, and all arguments that are ever going to be made already have been. In fact, this is just a rehash of the long straw vote that preceeded it. Close at will, as far as I am concerned. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Lately, from memory, the ratio of exclude to include has been shifting from nearer 1:3 to near 1:2. If I'm right, the first ratio may represent the higher number of already-involved or interested editors, likely to vote comment early, compared with the views of disinterested voters who will turn up in a trickle over time. If that's what's happening, it would probably be valuable to leave this open another couple of weeks, as the later voters contributors may be a more representative sample. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Votes, eh? I salute your fairness, but it's supposed to be about arguments.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  05:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol. Yeah, but as Dominus said, not likely anything at all will change, don't you think? You really think someone will come up with a killer argument?  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  05:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither of us knows what may come up. The last thing you want, though, is claims of illegitimacy, due to a rushed close when it looked like support was shifting. Just let it run. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There will be claims of illegitimacy anyway from the die-hard Santorum supporters, and as BeCritical said, hoping for a "killer argument" is not a reason to protract an already protracted process. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a highly contentious RfC with very experienced editors on both sides. I agree it's highly improbable a strong exclusion argument will emerge. All the more reason to leave it open to prove the point. Closing it early gains nothing, and looks out-of-process, unseemly, and panicked. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (u/d) I've been watching comments get added on both sides at a rate of 1 or 2 per day after the initial flurry. For the most part, they add an indivdual assessment of the competing priorities and seem to represent more "outside" views. Why not wait until the RFC itself has been inactive for (say) 3 days? Since presumably the main participants are still agreed on seeking an outside closer or closers, that would be a more compelling argument on the necessity for a close. Franamax (talk) 06:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Franmax, what you say would be reasonable if this were a vote. But not if it's about argumentation.  What we have here is the kind of disruption that Wikipedia allows, which is an article closed down by a minority who can then  cause the process to go on for weeks and weeks.  They have made editing cease.  We should not allow such disruption.  No one can legitimately argue that the RfC has any logical reason to continue.  A couple more opinions or single-edit users won't help.  If they force us to go to ArbCom, then we should do it without waiting forever for arbitrary points (such as three days without a vote) that no one thinks will change anything.   One side of this argument has already said that consensus does not matter.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  18:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope -- it is that consensus can not override WP:BLP which is quite a different matter. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So, let's request a close. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  20:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) Same thing. Whether BLP applies or not is, in this case, a judgment informed by the closing administrator's understanding of policy as well as the policy arguments made by the participants here.  If the closing administrator is persuaded that BLP applies we have a definitive outcome that including the link is not permissible.  If the closing administrator concludes that it is not a BLP matter and that editorial consensus is to include the link, that is the outcome.  Subject to any normal review process of course.  In either case, further edits against that outcome could be reverted, enforced by administrative action if necessary.  The losing side is entitled to stomp around and vent, but as far as the article page is concerned they can either move on or take their argument to block review.  We involved parties cannot convincingly declare who is right or wrong, just that there's a difference of opinion.  But it's already clear that the weight of reasoned argument here -- by which I mean the majority of people who weigh in with clearly stated reasons -- is that there is no BLP violation and that the link ought to be included.  There aren't any major new arguments, few people are changing their opinion, and the balance and tenor of discussion has not changed as the circle of participants has slowly expanded over time.  That itself is a useful result, and does not argue for closing early.  - Wikidemon (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't you have that slightly wrong? Interpretation of BLP requires consensus.  That's not for the closing administrator to decide, unless it is absolutely obvious that consensus is against policy, which is not the case here.  I don't see any difference between this and a normal RfC.  Also, you apparently make an argument for closing early in your last lines, then say "does not argue for closing early."  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  20:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Bc, I can only reiterate my comment, that by and large the people adding indications are including reasons which reflect their relative weighting of the policies at play. You are correct that an RFC is not a straight-up vote count, it should reflect strength of argument (as opposed to loudness of argument) for each option. So long as editors are still adding considered opinions, my feeling is that these will be informative to the closer(s). You may be frustrated that other editing is stalled while this process continues, but I would suggest that it is to your benefit to allow time for consideration, as the result will be more "bulletproof" that way. Let's assume that the RFC gets closed in favour of your own preference, would you rather have coninuting objections afterward that you rammed through an early close, or would you rather be able to point to a fully-compliant process? From an encyclopedic perspective, a week or two is not a whole lot of time. Franamax (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I will bow to whatever consensus is here, of course. But as far as the complaints, when you have editors who have already stated they won't honor a close which doesn't favor their views, it really doesn't matter.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  22:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Will this RFC ever be closed? I, and I'm sure a lot of the rest of you who participated, would like a formal result now to put this matter to rest (hopefully) once and hopefully for all.  He  iro 22:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Some people here would have it run till early March. I think it should be closed now. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  23:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation page up for deletion
See Articles for deletion/Santorum (disambiguation) (2nd nomination). Josh Parris 06:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Unprotect
Is there any reason this article needs to be protected? Unprotect with the threat that anyone who puts in the link before the RfC closes will get blocked for disruption. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical 01:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a lot on the table here already. Once this RfC question is settled, I will be pursuing the POV objection I previously raised as to the current composition of the lead paragraph...and I will apparently have to get in line. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, so can we unprotect? You note that my original was better, and could be reworded as the section below.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  06:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You note that my original was better,...
 * "I" note? I've noted nothing of the kind. What I have noted is my perception that "collective POV persistence" has prevailed in "overwhelm(ing) months of painstaking consensus discussion"...and that deliberative NPOV editing in this same frenetic and contentious atmosphere is probably impossible. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And I note the previous POV pushing to create non-neutral characterizations of Savage's campaign. That's what the current lead avoids, and any changes will have to avoid the former mistakes.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  19:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Reword of lead to avoid all POV and characterization
This leaves off the quotation which some see as POV, but still avoids all characterization. The word "attach" would be problematic, except it is Savage's own statement of intent. Some thought there was a problem with saying Savage meant to "shock" from Savage's statement "that would make his big, white teeth fall out of his big, empty head," but I am not of that school of thought. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical 06:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe "embarrass" or "discomfit" would be better than "shock". The uncertainty suggests that the best course is to stick with quoting Savage verbatim and let the reader decide how to characterize his intention. JamesMLane t c 05:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * We don't know why he did it, and any attempt to characterize his inner motivation or intent is both speculative and likely POV. It's not clear that he intended to do anything to Santorum, more likely he was showboating for his own supporters.  The problem is that he obviously didn't do it for the reasons he said he did it, something about teeth, as he is using colorful political speech.  That's why we quote his specific words in the first place, to give a sense of his public statement on the subejct, while voiding interpretation in favor of letting the reader decide.  We could remove his introductory statement that he was reacting to the scandal, as the thing he is reacting to is an objective fact we can report.  - Wikidemon (talk) 05:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure, but I think people are objecting to the "scandal" quote more than the teeth? But basically, I agree, we should avoid characterization, and would prefer that option if it's going to get support (: Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  06:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Short message from the admin that protected the page.
Towards the end of January I protected this article in order to stop the edit-warring over the inclusion of an external link. Following that, I also gave advice to Nomoskedasticity in response to an enquiry at my user talk page, suggesting an RFC to determine a clear consensus and implying that, following such an RFC, editors edit-warring against consensus would be liable to be blocked. At the time of the protection and advice, I was only superficially acquainted with issues in dispute and was, I believe, an uninvolved administrator by any reasonable definition of that term.

However, since that time I have, naturally, followed the debate on this talk page and have inadvertently formed a strong opinion on the issue. Although I have made no edits that would lead another editor to believe that I am involved, I know myself that I am no longer neutral concerning this matter.

Consequently, in contradiction to what I posted at the time of the protection, it would no longer be appropriate to ask me to unprotect the page; such requests would be best directed to WP:RFUP. Obviously any other actions that require an uninvolved administrator, such as closing the RFC or blocking edit warriors, should also be directed elsewhere. I am sorry for any inconvenience or additional bureaucracy this might cause.

CIreland (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your input and admin actions on the article. - I would be interested in what opinion you have formed, but perhaps you prefer to keep that private - anyways - regards to you -   You really can  19:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're an honorable admin, thanks (: Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  19:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Should it prove at all difficult to find an admin willing to close (in favour of the majority opinion), I would suggest that this would raise some further doubt about the merits of the majority view. If you are an admin who finds the minority argument more persuasive are you going to want to close against that view? I see it analogous to coming across a large room where there is a politician addressing a crowd and a loud heckler in the back. Of course the people hostile to the politician are going to howl about censorship should the heckler get anything less than his own competing soapbox. But I suspect neutral observers would be concerned about the effect on constructive discourse.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It Is What It Is
Regardless of the final decision on naming the article, or clarifications of the scope of it, the spreadingsantorum.com must be linked. The fact that Santorum even has a "Google problem" or whatever you want to call it is itself notable. In a nutshell, there is the Ejaculation video (NSFW) controversy all over again. In the end, the consensus is going to reach the same conclusion: you can't have an article and then fail to provide the most basic information about the subject, simply because someone has objections to the motivations of Wiki editors, media contributors, people with opinions, ... this takes us from "will no one think of the children" to "will no one think of the Santorum?" BLP is an asinine argument against inclusion because being mocked by sophomoric memes is probably one of the least hazards of being a professional politician. If Santorum, didn't want to be offended, he shouldn't offended; this is not to pass judgment on Santorum or justify Savage's actions but to simply acknolwedge what is obvious, that Rick Santorum is a free acting adult, and to an extent, he is the author of any troubles he may have in this matter (not Wikipedia). This is no different than the dire warnings placed in the WP:PROUD. Santorum, and people who, respect, and deeply care about Santorum as a human being, including his wife and campaign director, are not entitled to be unhappy on Wikipedia about this article. They can be unhappy outside Wikipedia that the article is in Wikipedia, but within Wikipedia, the article remains because Wikipedia would suck more without it than with it. The matters worth discussing are: There is no question in my mind whether the article deserves to be included, and there is no room for discussion on whether an article on something should include the most significant website on the entire website related to the something. Wikipedia is not "abetting" the campaign or promoting the neologism; this community is noting important fact. It is Santorum himself who deserves the credit for his notoriety, and Dan Savage who bears the moral weight of any unjustified harm he may have done to Mr. Santorum. The cat is out of the bag. The milk has been spilt. It is what it is. Pawsplay (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The scope of the article (campaign versus memetic status versus trend of reporting on the subject)
 * Style issues
 * Name of the article (taken from the two previous criteria)


 * Agree with Pawsplay. Dsetay (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This argument would work if this wasn't a BLP. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ... or a repeat of the very subject of the RFC, above. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Generally agree, and NYyankees51 I guess it works then because this isn't a BLP. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  20:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the declaration in External links that "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link," imply "room for discussion"? Even if, with no small indulgence, we deem the site at issue here to be providing "neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding" (to quote again from External links), it still does not follow that there is "no room for discussion" about whether to link because some sites are on the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist and others have "a copy of a work in violation of its copyright" and hence are not to be linked to regardless, even if an "official" site.  As an aside, it is less than obvious that we have an "official" site here anyway for the purposes of ELOFFICIAL since that policy says "Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself" and Savage's site here seems to say a lot about Rick Santorum and very little about "itself" when "itself" is distinguished from an official site for the Dan Savage article.  I'll grant that some seem to believe that Rick Santorum should be spammed or worse anyway because they believe he deserves it.  "[T]his is not to pass judgment on Santorum," says Pawsplay, after he just does so by claiming that Santorum "offended."  I'll grant that he offended Pawsplay and Dan Savage.  That doesn't mean he offended Wikipedia.  I would think that if Pawsplay et al were not trying to politicize this, they would not be advancing arguments that claimed that Santorum "offended."  I may believe that Santorum did not offend but I have not been claiming that in order to argue for what Wikipedia should do.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The justifications of common sense and following the guideline are provided by pointing out that the site at the end of the link is the subject of the article. You may disagree and claim the justification is incorrect or outweighed by other considerations, but the burden of providing one has clearly been met.  Now the spotlight is on you to say why not, which is what the discussion is all about.  The guideline discussion about neutral, accurate material, being about the subject of the article, being an official site, etc., all address links to sites that are about the subject of the article, which is not the case here.  This site is the subject of the article.  Like most websites, spreadingsantorum does engage in a good deal of talking about itself in its many blog posts and comments, but we don't need websites to be vast "about this website" self-references in order to cover them, that would be absurd.  We link to LinkedIn, Craigslist, or Facebook not because they talk a whole lot about LinkedIn, Craigslist, and Facebook, but because they are LinkedIn, Craigslist, and Facebook. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That is the most succinct statement of this situation I have yet seen.  He  iro 02:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If "the site at the end of the link is the subject of the article" I would think this article would be titled with the name of the website it purports to be about, use the website infobox, be found in the "Internet properties established in [Year]" category, etc. It's been argued as much that this article is about an attack on a politician as it's been that it's about a website.  It could also be argued that this article is about a neologism, in which case I'd ask what is the point to directing the reader to a website that - as far as the neologism is concerned - merely repeats the definition found in the article, if not to generate traffic for Dan Savage's blogging?  Why isn't what's being called for here being applied to the former Pennsylvania Senator's current political rival?  Google the last name of a certain former Massachusetts Governor and after the news feed the top three links are Mitt Romney's Wikipedia article, his official site, and... a website that not only isn't linked to (live or non-live) by Wikipedia but doesn't even have its own Wikipedia article!  This despite coverage in TIME, MSNBC, New York (magazine), etc.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The wrong infobox and categories for a website? You want an Alexa rank, a launch party, and an article in techcrunch to prove there's a website there?  I think the notability of the site has been established.  Good spot on this other Internet craziness.  I just tried to register spreadingobama.com but somebody already has it.  Why oh why didn't I think of that earlier?  If the copycats get completely out of hand we may eventually create a more general article about the whole spreading-X phenomenon.  Whether this article gets merged in or stays separate, and how we handle external links, is TBD.  In the meanwhile, once this article goes off protection it's probably worth adding a note about the derivative websites.  A number of our articles about Internet memes contain a section covering parodies, derivatives, mash-ups, etc.  There isn't a whole lot of precedent but you may want to look at List of scandals with "-gate" suffix.  - Wikidemon (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Notice of redirect discussion at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Frothy mixture. Since the Frothy mixture redirect targets this page and this is an area of strong opinions, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Josh Parris 01:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Romney
Is the fact that googling Romney has a similar effect worthy of note? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.97.19 (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It may in the future. Note WikiDemon's comment in the above section about derivative parodies. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Not until it attracts a fair amount of non-ephemeral coverage in reliable sources, as Santorum's has over the years. Otherwise, it's just another flash in the pan. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I see the usual suspects over at WikiNews have this on their front page. I call attention to this in order to remind editors that there's an observer effect at work here such that the idea that the phenomenon can be "covered" by Wikipedia without driving the phenomenon is something of a fiction.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggest Hiatus
There is already an editing block on this article and it is unlikely that any major new information will emerge, or, God forbid, someone will actually try to improve the article over the next year anymore than they did last. No one is happy with the title or a thousand trivial things about the article. I suggest administrators leave that editing time stamp on the page or at least wait until Rick Santorum's presidential campaign is over before editing is allowed. Every one of us can just bite our lips and deal with it. There's too much disagreement over the most basic of issues, and that's unlikely to change in a charged political climate where there couldn't be a consensus that the sky is blue. There's a million other articles on this website that editors can argue about in the mean time. If there is some major development that is clearly, clearly related to the topic (Rick Santorum comments on it or Dan Savage takes down the related website, etc.) then the discussion can be reopened. Dsetay (talk)
 * Actually, we have consensus on at least one issue. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  18:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. There's a slow yet inexorable march towards an eventual semblence of consensus, though it may not feel like it sometimes. Six months ago we couldn't agree on whether or not this article should exist at all, which has been largely settled. Adopting such a defeatist attitude is exactly why it wouldn't ever change. Remember that Wikipedia is and likely always will be a work in progress.  elektrik SHOOS  (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It is no way conceded by the opposition that this article should exist, those advocating that position have gone away. It should be merged or deleted - I see Jimbo made a recent attempt to revive that debate. The editors of this article still fail to see the damage this article does to wikipedia as whole... That position to delete or merge is no longer considered because those advocating it are no longer participating in the ridiculousness of this article. That is how you are gaining "consensus" - not because opinions have changed but because the opposition gave up. I note there is no editors from the faction that opposed this article for years that are still commenting here (except Jimbo). My position is summed up on my user page if anyone is interested. This article started as part of the google bomb, undeniably, and for years included lies and falsehoods, and only after a major push by dozens of wikipedias top editors was it even brought to some level of acceptability - over the screams and howls of many of the editors still participating in this crazy debate. And the editors who participated in those policy violating edits have never been disciplined and continue to edit to this day. Those facts are brushed over and ignored. Meanwhile these editors have completely and hypocritically deleted similar articles using the same arguments advocated for the deletion of this one!!! I digress.. Who am I to question "consensus".. hahahah &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 14:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well said. This talkpage and the articles existence at all are a reflection of everything that is wrong about en wikipedia and the fact that its policies and guidelines are too weak and are unenforcible against large numbers of persistent POV editors.   You really can  14:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is an unfortunate reality that ideology too readily trumps WP:POLICY, even among an admin corps upon whom we rely to enforce both the letter and the spirit of this WP project's principles. Most will simply not step up to the plate. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Jimbo too, apparently. He's been known to weigh in, as here, on the side of ideology and avoiding offending American conservatives as opposed to encyclopedic coverage of notable events.  - Wikidemon (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There should be more awareness of "meta" concerns here like the "chaining" of highly contested consensus decisions. Suppose two-thirds favour having a full paragraph on this in the BLP.  Then two-thirds favour having a a full article (this one).  Then two-thirds favour a live external link to what isn't just a vulgar heckler's site but a deliberate ambiguation campaign that aims to subvert the purposes of tools like Google and Wikipedia by creating "knowledge" that overwrites existing knowledge.  Critical to the argument for taking each additional step is the fact the last step was taken.  But 2/3 x 2/3 x 2/3 equals just 30% support, despite a series of RfCs concluding there was consensus for the outcome at the end of the line.  As another has suggested in this thread it's also likely that those on the minority side of a decision are more likely to move on to other topics than stick around to contest the next step.  The vote for the global blackout on January 18 was actually a (narrow) minority but it was billed as an overwhelming consensus because there was an overwhelming consensus for sort some of action and then, within that, a strong consensus for a blackout and then, within that, a consensus for a global blackout.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think this holds. The people opposed to having a paragraph are still opposed to linking to the site - I think it is pretty clear that some of the more vocal parties in opposition have not abandoned us.  Likewise the blackout vote was about a pretty specific proposal, not just a general do-something. Wnt (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Referenced in an official Rick Santorum television commercial?
I have heard there is a television commercial being run that references this issue. Would it be appropriate to mention that here? Ashail P (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Would it be appropriate to mention that here?
 * Probably not, but it will be anyway. Might be quite an interesting ploy from the Santorum campaign at that. As to the consternation of some who might generally delight in Santorum's discomfiture, perhaps we'll soon learn just how Savage's sludge trafficking is going to play in Peoria. I'd venture not so well...but that's just my .02 JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, well I probably won't stay involved with this issue, so I'll leave it to others to decide what to do with it. Thank you for your reply! Ashail P (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the recent campaign ad you mentioned and it is already receiving some press regarding that issue. BV  talk 16:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The Huffington Post suggests the ad "references this issue" but there's no evidence the creator of the ad, or for that matter less partisan and more upscale sources, would agree.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Quit messing with the archiving...
...if you don't know what the heck you're doing. We now have an empty Archive 10. Can someone who KNOWS what they're doing please restore this talk page (and prior existing archive structure) so we can re-institute whatever reasonably determined archiving setup is appropriate here? JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look too messy - the bot will still be looking for and adding to archive nine as its no longer full - I will request housekeeping deletion of archive ten as it may confuse the bot.  You really can  14:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks (and while you're about it, some "housekeeping" on your "sig" would probably be in order as well, ;-) JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please let me know what is the issue and I will correct it?   You really can  15:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, clicking on your sig sends me to pinklandia...
 * I would have pursued this on your talk page but I can't get there. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * done - You  really  can  15:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * done - You  really  can  15:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I set the archiving to seven days (it was ten, that is not a huge change) because this page, a half a megabyte of text that is less that seven days old, is too unwieldy to edit. This page has too much noise and talkback and is now so big it shuts out participation for technical reasons. Some of the largest blocks of text are in subsections that are stale by a month, but the bot only archives sections. The best thing to do is mark off things like the old straw polls (we have an RfC) as finished; they still attract drive-by comments. Manually archive several small sections and then call for the RfC to be closed on WP:AN. Doing nothing isn't an option, the size of the page shuts out participation. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Sounds like a plan - close the RFC and ask WP:AN to close.  You  really  can  15:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The straw poll and some of the other prior and contemporaneous discussions are all pertinent to the RfC, so it's messy to let the bot archive before the close. The poor admin who reviews the RfC is facing a mighty wall of text. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

edit protected request
I see no need to keep the vulgarity on the disambiguation page for this. It is triggering vandalism alerts. Thanks.Jobberone (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Umm... you're on the wrong page. Post on the disambig talk page. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion influenced by editors' personal political views?
Senator Santorum is a prominent politician who people have different opinions about. The "santorum" campaign is an opposition to Santorum's political views and is highly controversial. One should therefore assume that personal political views have an influence on some editors' editing and commenting. I recommend all editors with strong views about Santorum or Savage to try keeping a cool head and adhere to a neutal POV. Paolo Napolitano  10:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not the problem. I strongly oppose Santorum, but don't believe that this attack page deserves as much coverage on Wikipedia as it is getting.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Is the Santorum neologism slander?
The Santorum neologism is clearly a slur, and its associated campaign is certainly a smear campaign, but is it slander? Another term for slander is "defamation" - clearly Savage's intent with the slur is to cause damage to Santorum's name and reputation. -Stevertigo (t | c) 19:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * From the article: "...published in some fleeting form..." -- so, no. Of course, even if it were, it would certainly be notable slander.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe my Google School of Law degree informs me that "slander" is verbal, "libel" is written. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Defamation, which covers both libel and slander, involves making damaging false claims which are implied to be factual. Neither statements of opinion nor mere vulgar abuse constitute defamation.--Trystan (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not libel, according to the US Supreme Court (Hustler Magazine v. Falwell). Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the question of libel was decided at the District Court level in Falwell v. Hustler Magazine. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Re factuality: Santorum is in effect presenting a false definition for the word "santorum," is he not? And he's doing so in order to cause damage to Santorum's reputation, no? The Hustler/Falwell case dealt with free speech and parody, not entirely related to Savage's campaign to turn Santorum's name into a slur - literally dragging his name through the shit. I don't think Hustler/Falwell applies, because that case had to do with a single cartoon for which the contained assertions were never actually asserted to be actually true, merely lampooned. Doesn't Savage assert that 'santorum = feces and lube' is true? -Stevertigo (t | c) 19:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * True?? As parody, perhaps.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The District Court was very clear about this very point. The assertion, even if knowingly false, cannot be considered libel if a reasonable reader is unlikely to believe that it is true. No reasonable reader would ever believe that "Rick Santorum is a frothy mixture..." is literally true. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That is, even if the statement is taken as intended to be a statement of fact, which no reasonable reader would assume. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is much point in us developing our own legal opinion on this point. If we have reliable sources that address the point, we could canvass them and add what they say to the article. Here is a legal article that discusses it, but unless there are more (and from more established sources), I don't think it warrants mention.--Trystan (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There's no allegation that Rick Santorum actually transforms himself into a frothy mix of fecal matter and lubricant or that such a mixture actually becomes Mr Santorum through some profane form of transubstantiation so I don't see how the use of the word in the way suggested by Mr Savage could actually be slanderous or defamatory. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

But we have editors here - Robin Lionheart for example - who openly claim to have used "santorum" according to the definition Savage promotes. What's worse, Wiktionary even lists a third definition for "santorum" that just means "shit" in general. This goes beyond lampooning. In the Hustler case, there was never an intent to suggest the cartoon was anything more than a cartoon. Savage and his site assert themselves to reflect linguistic reality. -Stevertigo (t | c) 20:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The redefinition is way over the top. No reasonable person could seriously infer that Savage believes Rick Santorum literally consists of a frothy mixture of lube and feces. This is clear parody, not actionable defamation.  The only thing that might make it actionable would be if Savage claimed that Santorum the man regularly causes or emits santorum the substance, and nobody has claimed that.  ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  20:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a huge difference between "santorum is a frothy mixture..." and "Rick Santorum (the person) is a frothy mixture...". No reasonable reader would assume that Savage intended the latter, at least as a statement of fact. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Besides, the point is moot. Without a court decision, we cannot state that Savage committed libel, even if reliable sources opine that he has, because libel is defined by law, not by popular use. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Dominus, I agree with your last point that only a court can actually state for certain that a certain speech is libel. On your other points though, you are way off base. I'm not suggesting that people are confusing the real Santorum with "a frothy mixture." Im suggesting that associating Santorum's name with an alternate definition, and doing so repeatedly on the internet, asserting that the alternate definition has truth in it, it serves to defame Santorum - exactly Savage's stated purpose is it not? -Stevertigo (t | c) 20:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Savage clearly intended to do Santorum harm, as he has every right to do under US law. Just as it was Larry Flynt's stated intention to destroy Falwell's reputation. Savage's actions still don't meet the definition of libel, though, as no credible statement of fact was involved. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Understood. But clearly there is some defamation going on - Savage in essence is asserting the alternate definition as a 'credible statement of fact'. -Stevertigo (t | c) 20:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Savage never made a credible statement that Rick Santorum, the person, is a frothy mixture. No reasonable reader would believe he had. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

No, of course it’s not. Like I explained to you on Wiktionary, slander entails making false claims about someone in order to defame them. The definition of santorum makes no claims, false or otherwise, about the ex-senator. It merely names something unpleasant after him. (However, you falsely accusing Dan Savage of the crime of slander actually could be slander.) ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Robin Lionheart wrote: "However, you falsely accusing Dan Savage of the crime of slander actually could be slander." - Are you accusing me of slander? -Stevertigo (t | c) 21:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources that state or opine it is slander or defamation? - if not then what article improvement is this about? You really  can  21:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if there were reliable sources opining such, we could not mention it without a court decision. They are merely opinion. This discussion is moot and has become forumy, and should be terminated.
 * @Stevertigo: I'm leaving some reading material on your talk page. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Are there not a number of notable opinions which may merit mention in the article? -Stevertigo (t | c) 21:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The ONLY opinion that counts is the Courts. Other opinions on this matter are completely irrelevant. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You can all rest assured that this has been thoroughly discussed previously, and it is not defamation. No more discussion is needed. However, at this point rather than bring it up on the talk page anymore, take it directly to the authorities... I'm not sure, would that be the board? Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical 21:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No one is going to "rest assured that [x topic] has been thoroughly discussed previously." If it has, fine, show us the links. If it hasn't then no harm done. - Stevertigo (t | c) 21:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's been brought up so much that it would be nice to have a lawyer answer the questions so we don't have to keep going over it. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  21:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyway it really wouldn't matter if Savage's actions amounted to defamation. Acts of defamation can be notable.  We then simply need to work out how to write about them.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But the word 'santorum' itself doesn't come with a label; it is no normal sort of libel or defamation against one person, but at best a "blood libel" against every Santorum in the world.  (Actually, reading the article, that isn't meant in the sense I thought - in any case, my point is, it is like saying something false about an ethnic group, except, it's absurd to think people would believe that about Santorums in general) Wnt (talk) 11:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)