Talk:Campaign for the neologism "santorum"/Archive 8

Link to the Savage website
Why is there not even the standard token link to it, or even the name of the URL anywhere in the body of the article? Our role is to be neutral, not arbiters of what is or isn't in fact out there in the world. I have re-added it. There needs to be either an external link OR the name of the website. We can no more defer in favor of Santorum than we can in favor of Savage here. Merrill Stubing (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * See above Protonk (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's whitewashing and censorship, of course. Speciate (talk) 04:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a travesty. It's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please, please, just do not ever make me laugh about brown splat. Please. Pleeease.  (ok, I know I promised no more attempts at jokes..but...damn...ack! :D) Dreadstar  ☥  21:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we really need a link to an image of brown splat. I don't think so.  If you think it's so important, then just copy the image (with definition overlay) and put it in an infobox for the article's lead.  Nothing could say more, eh?  Dreadstar  ☥  21:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In case you haven't noticed there are some very nasty pictures on Wikipedia, and some who staunchly defend them. Even though I know policy is on their side (relevant nastiness good, gratuitous nastiness bad) I really don't mind seeing them gone.  You know, having a right to free speech is a lot more important then exercising it all over the place.   - Wikidemon (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I um, think I'm aware... . The point really is that a link to the site adds nothing and merely links to a self-published attack site in a WP:BLP.  My contrast to NFCC is that the article itself describes the subject without having to have an image or link to an image. Completely unacceptable.    Dreadstar  ☥  22:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. There are debates all the time over NFCC about whether a picture is necessary or not if a thing as been described.  People are so passionate about it and seem genuinely unable to believe that the other side gets it, so I'm beginning to think that some people are just visual thinkers and others are verbal thinkers.  Personally, seeing the Santorum site itself definitely changed my opinion about it.  In an abstract sense if you just hear the words you almost have to give it to the guy Savage for getting away with something so clever and effective.  But no words could prepare me for just how icky, stupid, and childish that web page is.  I'm not sure that it informed me or gave me a better understanding of anything, but it did change my opinion... which is some test of information right?  We're in a funny position where I would not choose to link to that site because I don't think it's really required.  However, I don't think censoring (I know, loaded word, sorry - we could call it something else) links on BLP grounds because they're offensive is a winning argument.  That's where it's a lot like free speech.  You have a right to say something totally obnoxious, but that doesn't mean it should be said, just that it shouldn't be prevented by those in authority.  I don't think Wikipedia should have that link (or that ejaculation video).  But if some people are fighting for it and the best I can come up with is that I don't want it because it's nasty, that's hard to argue.  - Wikidemon (talk) 00:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify my stance, no image is necessary. I think my last comment on this may appear quite the opposite.  No link to the site is necessary either, since the site is merely a poor pictoral representation of the subject - and a purely attack site that violates BLP.  I mean, if it's even a subject.  Which it isn't.  It's silly.  And gross.  Dreadstar  ☥  04:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That can't be tolerated. We need to link to the important primary sources discussed in the text, no matter what they are.  We should link to Nazi sites if we're writing an article about Nazis.  Dan Savage is just writing politics, little different than millions of other political references all of which are nasty to the other side. Wnt (talk) 23:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. You need to see a brownish blob on a white background in order to better understand the googlebombing agenda of Dan Savage.  Tarc (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Visitors would be curious about why everyone is so upset about the website. If you can't meet their demand for information by providing a link, then you could provide a visual (screenshot) for their minds to digest. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "digest"--phrasing! ;) Protonk (talk) 01:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear about something: the website Fair Use photo is still an open question. The system was gamed quite successfully by removing the photo against consensus, locking the article for seven days, and waiting for the orphaned Fair Use image to be automatically deleted, but of course any of us can quickly upload a new Fair Use photo for the article.  Any delay we've made in restoring the image should not be interpreted as agreement with this tactic. Wnt (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do we need a copyrighted image? Surely some clever, inventive editor here can make thier own image.  Just a matter of consensus then.  Do we really, really, really need an image of...that.  Do we? Dreadstar  ☥  04:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait, so if I created a free photograph of actual santorum as a by-product of my own anal sex with another person, are we seriously saying that would be more acceptable here under policy than a link to a cartoonish graphic on another site? If so, we're all deranged and policy is wrong on some fundamental level. Merrill Stubing (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. As for the explanation, I'd say a little from column A and a little from Column B. Protonk (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

What is the explanation given for the massive deletion?
I see that Slimvirgin and a few others recently made a huge deletion of content from this article, reducing it from 66k to 16k:



Before proceeding any further with the dispute - what is there about all that content that was supposed to be wrong? Can you go over bit by bit what the changes are and why? Wnt (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I could try to explain it but it would take a lot of angels and a lot of pins. There was a lot of surplus stuff, and poorly organized, so SV rewrote it with most editors' approval or acquiescence.  Likely she cut out parts she disapproved of, but as a whole the article seems vastly improved to me.  - Wikidemon (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we can go back and forth about small content things, but overall the article seems much better w/ SV's edit. Protonk (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The speculative political stuff has gone, and the article is no longer reminiscent of Jabba the Hutt. John lilburne (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sometimes a shorter article is a more effective form of communication. (Those who don't like this article might consider reflecting on SV's revision in those terms...)  On balance even I think the article is an improvement.  But if something essential has been lost, then one can restore it (and argue for retention if the restoration is reverted).  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I also was going throught the two versions and hard time to find anything important, which would go missing. I think that it is generally agreed here, that anyone can go for himself and bring back any omitted source or statement. And just defend it a bit here. I mean, this is really much moe clearer frame upon which the article may stand. No bloat. Most all omitted things were repetions of the same thing second time or third time or ... .Each having it's own selfimportant sentence. ... Very difficult to digest.R e o + 16:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have just added back the most important part of the deleted material, namely, the fact that there was a political impact, according to many sources.  I don't think that is any minor detail, but the ultimate measurement, the explosive warhead, of the entire campaign, without which the significance of the article is lost. Wnt (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Assuming consensus agreement for inclusion (which I support) JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC), this will also help fill a similar void in the Swift Boat article. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't followed that article or any controversies about it, but it does look like it is short on measurements of the campaign's success. Wnt (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That isn't 'political impact', it's just more 'reception', piling on every negative comment that can be found. Dreadstar ☥  17:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is notable, relevant, and well sourced, and belongs in the article. Some of the sources like the person from ReputationDefender are not expressing personal reactions at all, but merely commenting on the outcome of the tactic.  It is intentionally misleading and POV for Wikipedia to conceal the fact that the campaign had substantial success. Wnt (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * But it's not concealed, there is already a paragraph on that in the reception section. BE——Critical __Talk 17:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * While I know there was political impact, that section went far beyond that; it was unfocused and repetitive. It added nothing but more attack.   Dreadstar  ☥  17:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see any attack. Commentators saying the campaign was effective... how is that an attack?  Why is it wrong to include any kind of detail? Wnt (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * While I know there was political impact...
 * Having now read the excised material (and anticipating some substantive content on "Political Impact"), I can't agree with Dreadstar's observation. While a strong case for "Political Prattle" as a title is probably well-made, I saw nothing (as Dreadstar earlier observed) but conjecture, supposition and a single reference that MIGHT be characterized as "Impactful" (but even THAT'S a stretch). Was there no authoritative WP:RS sourcing suggesting that Savage had something more than anecdotal "Political Impact" on Santorum's election loss? I didn't see it. "Political Impact", pending provision of something substantive, is a large blank space. Sayonara to it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with detail per se, but reading the section, everyone is saying that there might or might not have been an impact, and what may or may not have an impact in the future, and that it might help him or hinder him- and that sounds like a parody but it's not. Given that there is nothing there but speculation on what might or might not have been, along the lines of "he would have lost anyway but it can't have helped him" I don't see a need for it.  It's bloat.  It has no "enduring notability" per WP:CRYSTAL. However, it should be summarized as in "Commentators speculated that Santorum's google problem may have contributed to his defeat in 2006 against Bob Casey, and also speculated that there could be both positive and negative impacts on his future campaigns."  That's the most needed. BE——Critical __Talk 19:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well you won't here me complain about that characterization of the section, the political section was really quite awful. John lilburne (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * By 'attack', I'm referring to the appearance and presentation of the material. A repetitive unfocused list of negative statements, full of conjecture and supposition supporting a section heading "Political impact" has the appearance of just being an attack platform. I'm sure it wasn't meant as an attack, it just had that apperance to me. I probably should have left that out, since it may be unclear and just the way it impacted me when I read it.  Dreadstar  ☥  15:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And yeah, "While I know there was political impact" comes from well outside the content of that paragraph/section; and is adequately covered elsewhere. Dreadstar  ☥  17:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

RfC/U
Further in part to editing at this article in May and early June, and this month's request for arbitration related to it, please see Requests for comment/Cirt. Best, -- J N  466  13:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

"Widely regarded" as homophobic? - WP:V?
This assertion is troubling. While the characterization "homophobic" was certainly made and is well-sourced JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC), "widely regarded" is a vague qualifier subject to several interpretations. Are we really, instead, saying "widely reported" or "widely held" within an entire population or within a defined segment of the population? On what basis can the qualifier "widely regarded" be justified under WP:BLP considerations? And what of WP:NPOV? Where does that come in here?JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Widely reported would be the most accurate I think. I personally feel that Santorum was only trying to make a point about the 4th Amendmen and that the overcharacterization into hugely anti-gay remarks was unwarranted. Somewhat anti-gay, sure, I'd buy that, but I wouldn't have painted Santorum as being "out to get" anyone really. -- Avanu (talk) 23:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, well I wrote a much better -IMHO- version of the lead above that got no response (sob). BE——Critical __Talk 23:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. Concise.  That's the whole article in a paragraph. :) -- Avanu (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I simply take "widely regarded" to mean, "many people hold the view that". "rick santorum homophobe OR homophobic OR homophobia" returns just over half a million results, so I'd say that's pretty widely held. But I'm fine with saying "widely criticized as" instead, which is more descriptive and easier to defend. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I dunno. "Widely" anything is such a vague, ill-defined descriptive that I think, if it's to be incorporated (especially under WP:BLP), that it (or any) expression on the purported breadth of concurrence with that onerous invective should be  carefully composed and adequately sourced...perhaps with attribution.  I'm all ears here. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the drive to be descriptive "homophobic," "vulgar" etc. is totally misguided and unnecessary. BE——Critical __Talk 01:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, too vague and unsupported. "Anti-gay" is more precise than "homophobic".  Santorum is unquestionably opposed to the pro-gay position on a number of gay civil rights causes.  Many people do consider it homophobic to take that position or argue for it, but "widely considered" suggests more than that.  That's said differently than the "vulgar" comment - Wikipedia doesn't say Santorum is homophobic, but rather than some people perceived the comments that way.   The reason the anti-Santorum sentiment is relevant is that it explains why Savage says he did it, and why it caught on to the extent it did.  - Wikidemon (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Needs a WP:RS that to support the "Widely regarded" as homophobic claim, I have added Citation needed to see if someone can provide one. I am aware that you should not nominally use Citation needed in the lead but as the claim is not made elsewhere it can not go in the body. Mtking (talk) 02:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Reworded very slightly and added a ref from another Santorum article. -- Avanu (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a good ref, yet doesn't say anything about homophobia unless I missed it. BE——Critical __Talk 05:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No it does not, this is unmistakably a WP:BLP issue, so am going to remove the claim until a source is found. Mtking (talk) 09:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, how's this? -- Avanu (talk) 09:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you actually check the source to see if the word "offensive" appears ? It does not so need to find a better source. Mtking (talk) 09:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "under fire by gay rights groups and some Democrats", article goes on to show the following in order to highlight its meaning:
 * "Santorum, R-Pennsylvania, was questioned about his comments at a town hall meeting by a 23-year-old man who identified himself as 'a proud, gay Pennsylvanian' and said he was offended by the remarks --
 * "'You attacked me for who I am .... How could you compare my sexuality and what I do in the privacy of my home to bigamy or incest,' the man asked Santorum."
 * Now, you can complain that the word "offensive" doesn't appear verbatim, but the man said he was "offended", and last I checked we were writing an encyclopedia, not fifth graders plagiarizing our way through class. We do have minds and as long as its not synthesis, using a different word isn't the end of the world.  Get a grip people.  Wiki-policy says sentences must be verifiable, not "verified".  Is there any doubt that the sentence as written is true to the sources we have had?  (Please review[])  There's nitpicky and then there's this crap that we keep seeing.  Let's work on moving to the next paragraph and get this thing done, instead of crapping our pants over every tiny word choice. Sorry for the irritation, but really come on. -- Avanu (talk) 10:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Avanu, the issue here (at least for me) is not about the use of "offensive" as an appropriate descriptive of critics' perception of Santorum's comments. I, for one, have no problem with its use. I am, perhaps erroneously, assuming that "homophobic" is/was adequately sourced. However, what motivated this discussion was the unsupported use of "widely recognized" as "homophobic". The source you suggested, while not supporting use of "homophobic", specifically identifies "gay-rights groups and some Democrats" as the source from whom this criticism emanated and speaks directly to the "widely regarded" issue. If language suggesting a more broad base of criticism is introduced, it needs to be WP:RS sourced.
 * Also, the sequence of attribution as noted in the CNN citation is of some import. While I could be wrong, I'm highly doubtful that "some Democrats" were first to engage this issue. It's just not the MO of politicians to do that. JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I changed it a little more to de-emphasize the timeline aspects. -- Avanu (talk) 11:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Evidently I failed to make my point. The criticism by "gay-rights groups" (per inference from CNN's language) preceded (and, IMHO, most likely motivated) criticisms expressed by politicians. However, having now read your cites below and noting the Snowe & "Log Cabin" criticisms, utilizing "some politicians" as opposed to CNN's "some Democrats" is, perhaps arguably, more appropriate. I will edit accordingly. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

More sources
http://articles.cnn.com/2003-04-24/politics/santorum.gays_1_senator-santorum-inclusion-and-compassion-gop-senate-leadership?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

"Discrimination and bigotry have no place in our society, and I believe Senator (Rick) Santorum's unfortunate remarks undermine Republican principles of inclusion and opportunity," said Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, according to a statement from her office.

http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20030421apsantorump1.asp

We're urging the Republican leadership to condemn the remarks. They were stunning in their insensitivity

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-23-gop-gays-usat_x.htm

Patrick Guerriero, executive director of the Log Cabin group, says Santorum's remarks were "particularly hurtful"

http://www. freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/898247/posts

His comments on Monday ignited a firestorm of criticism from some Democrats as well as gay rights groups, a number of whom demanded an apology.

In addition, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) called on Santorum on Tuesday to step down as chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, the No. 3 job in the party's leadership. A DSCC spokesman called his comments "divisive, hurtful and reckless."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/02/national/02GAYS.html

Mr. Santorum, who has infuriated gays by likening homosexuality to incest and bigamy...

http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com/node/39367

In response to these statements, more than 200 protesters took to the street, bearing signs and chanting phrases that ranged from "Racist, sexist anti-gay, Rick Santorum go away" to the more direct call for "No more hate."

-- Avanu (talk) 10:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It would take an extraordinary leap of right-wing partisan hackery to not label him as homophobic under policy here. Merrill Stubing (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We can't label him as homophobic, we're not the judges of that (and I doubt that many if any reliable sources pronounce judgment in that way).  More likely, we can say that he (or his remarks) were objected to as homophobic, offensive, anti-gay, or whatever (we should choose the most precise, inclusive, and prevalent one).  I'd say that "firestorm of criticism" is journalistic shorthand for "I'm too lazy to describe exactly what it is".  Simply noting that someone was criticized is a little imprecise.  - Wikidemon (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The funny thing is, that people are insisting on using labels. We're arguing over the sources of those labels, but why aren't we considering not using labels? BE——Critical __Talk 13:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand. The point is that we shouldn't use Wikipedia's narrative voice to state things that are matters of judgment, opinion, values, etc., i.e. X is Y, where Y is a loaded word that goes beyond a mere factual assertion.  Things like racist, homophobic, offensive, ugly, vicious, nasty, or in more a more prosaic context, surprising, unexpected, regrettably, etc.  There's always an implied Z in the equation.  According to Z, X is Y.   Or Z believes X is Y.  Wikidemon (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Right I agree, so I don't understand why we need to be using descriptive things, like "vulgar" or "homophobic." Why go on with this attempt to source and use language like that when there doesn't seem to be much need for them at all?  It's not that I mind being reverted, I just don't understand why . Do we really need to say it's vulgar when we give the definition?  Maybe we can pretty well source "homophobic" to CNN ("play on deep-seated fears"), but that reaction is the most we need.  "Vulgar" etc. isn't necessary when the definition allows the reader to judge.  The current lead is weaseled in order to accommodate judgments. (I won't be able to edit for a day or so, BTW.) BE——Critical __Talk 15:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Remind me again of why we need this article at all? From the looks of it, the content in other articles covers the subject quite well.  Dreadstar  ☥  17:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I prefer using "anti-gay" to "homophobic" here. "Homophobia" comes via the peculiar doctrines and viewpoints of psychology, speaking about fear when what is intended is clearly an ideological hatred. Wnt (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If there's adequate WP:RS sourcing supporting use of "anti-gay" in some fashion that directly relates to the subject of this article, I see no problem using it. However, without contextual sourcing, I'm not even clear as to how it would be incorporated. As a criticism of Santorum? As a criticism of his specific remarks that were purportedly the genesis of Savage's campaign? How? JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

On the labels question, my take is that the most important thing is neutrality and fairness to both sides. Here are three versions of the lead paragraph:
 * Biased one way (this is the current wording as of this writing):
 * "American columnist and gay rights activist Dan Savage initiated a campaign in 2003 to associate the surname of then-Senator Rick Santorum with a sexual act. Outraged by Santorum comments that were criticized by gay rights groups and some politicians,[1] Savage's effort culminated in the creation of a derogatory word association, regarded as vulgar by some observers."


 * Here's the same text but spun round to be biased the other way:
 * "American columnist and gay rights activist Dan Savage initiated a campaign in 2003 to associate the surname of then-Senator Rick Santorum with a sexual act. Outraged by Santorum comments that were criticized as homophobic by some observers,[1] Savage's effort culminated in the creation of a derogatory word association, regarded as vulgar criticized by some conservatives and other commentators. (Note: amended with stirkeout and insert because I forgot to make it as biased as it was supposed to be.)"

In each case, the favored side is described in neutral terms, and the basis for its criticism is stated. In each case, the disfavored side is pigeonholed (with the subtext being: special interest! agenda pushers! you should ignore their rants!) and the basis of their criticism isn't even mentioned.

My suggestion: Do each side the courtesy of a brief neutral statement of its position; don't pigeonhole either side or try to characterize the lineups (there can be more detail about this, about who supported each side, in the body of the article).


 * Neutral version::"American columnist and gay rights activist Dan Savage initiated a campaign in 2003 to associate the surname of then-Senator Rick Santorum with a sexual act. Outraged by Santorum comments that were criticized as homophobic by some observers,[1] Savage's effort culminated in the creation of a derogatory word association, regarded as vulgar by some observers."

The repetition of "some observers" isn't elegant but it keeps the neutrality intact. "Commentators" might be better but I think it has too much of an implication of "opinion columnists or TV talking heads" and so is inaccurate. Also, I don't feel strongly about the distinction between "homophobic" and "anti-gay".

As for BE Critical's point about not using these labels at all (at least not in the first paragraph), that would also be neutral and would be acceptable to me. I suggest using both rather than neither because there seem to be many editors who strongly desire that the criticism of Savage be in the first paragraph. If it is, we should balance it. JamesMLane t c 18:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Having looked to the online Merriam-Webster for "homophobic" and with some slight interpolation for "anti-gay" utilizing "anti-semite", I believe there's a valid case that might be made for treating the two terms as synonymous. However, appropriate and adequate WP:RS sourcing for either is, of course, mandated. That's my position right now. I'll be interested to hear the position of other editors on this (eg Wnt). JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * These definitions echo my feeling that homophobic = "fear of" and anti-gay = "hostility to"; to me fear and hatred seem to be different emotions. Though it's true that the sources quoted above seem to use "hurtful" or "insensitive" more than anything.  But if we were to choose one word to summarize them, then I'd prefer the latter. Wnt (talk) 07:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * After reviewing one of the source links (p.68) and with some additional reflection, I'm inclined to agree that "anti-gay" (maybe "anti gay rights"?) appears to be the more appropriate descriptive here...and on several counts not the least of which is an apparent lack of WP:RS support for "homophobic" (which I had earlier, perhaps erroneously, assumed to be a given). "Homophobic", as sometimes utilized in today's vernacular has, perhaps, been co-opted as a rhetorical, word-of-choice epithet to be legitimately hurled, with little or no consideration or consequence, at perceived opposition...quite similar to "racist". JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a social construct so I don't think it's anything one can understand completely by reasoning through it. Agreed, as commonly used it isn't about phobia but hatred, bigotry, and discrimination.  No doubt there's a component of "if you're against us you must be a bigot".  On the other hand there has been vast and pervasive hostility to gays in many (most?) parts of the world throughout history.  If you closed your eyes, pointed in a random direction, and cried homophobia you'd probably be right.  But in a way that's meaningless.  Just a few years ago the idea of gay marriage, allowing or even mandating equal insurance, inheritance, tax, family leave, adoption and parenting, and immigration treatment for same sex couples, would have seemed outrageous to most.  Santorum's position on the sodomy laws would have been in the mainstream only ten years before.  Didn't Justice Scalia write a dissent that went more or less along the lines of Santorum's comments?  Asking whether Santorum is a homophobe is kind of like asking whether John Wayne was sexist.  Mabye by later standards.  All that digs too deep for what's really a rather superficial instance of name calling.  Santorum was and is squarely on the "anti" side of many gay rights issues and chimed in with that opinion just as the Supreme Court decided a landmark case.  That irked a bunch of people, notably Savage.  - Wikidemon (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with any attempt to analyze these terms to decide which one is more accurate, because I don't think we should assert as a fact that any of them is a correct description of Santorum. It's POV to say he's homophobic, anti-gay, or bigoted.  For purposes of this article, the question isn't what Santorum really is, but what he's been called.  As JakeInJoisey pointed out, this source supports "anti-gay" and I'm inclined to go with that.  It would not be POV to say "anti-gay rights" but it's not relevant here.  If Santorum, like a zillion other right-wingers, had simply said he was opposed to allowing same-sex marriages, it would scarcely have been a news item.  Of all the anti-gay rights politicians, Santorum was singled out because his comments went far beyond that, to be so harshly derogatory toward gays. JamesMLane t c 18:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's be precise here. Speaking for myself, I'm not interested in "analyzing" anything. I AM interested in insuring that this article content accurately reflects WP:V, WP:RS sourcing. Whether "homophobic" is POV or not is irrelevant to that consideration. I initially had no WP:RS concern (and expressed none) with SV's utilization of "homophobic" assuming (perhaps erroneously) that it was, generally speaking, the epithet of record reflected in WP:V sourcing. Likewise with your subsequent suggested use. However, it appears now that "anti-gay" more accurately reflects that sourcing than "homophobic" and is the only consideration that should concern us. If anyone wishes to advocate further for the use of "homophobic", they should present WP:RS sourcing specifically supporting its employment.
 * As there appears to be consensus on "anti-gay", I'll edit the text accordingly. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We've followed different paths to the same conclusion. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I should also add, in deference to the edit suggested by JamesMLane, I am totally opposed to what, IMHO, amounts to some quid pro quo deletion of notable "facts". However, neither am I suggesting that any solid consensus has yet to be established on that question and it unfortunately appears that considerable editorial attention may currently be focused elsewhere. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Recent edits did improve it, stating "by gay rights groups and some politicians" instead of "some." We should work on "regarded as vulgar by some observers," which should also be quantified at least to some degree.  More important, we have a lead which puts Savage's actions first, in spite of the fact that Savage was reacting to Santorum.  We should keep things in chronological order.  As it now looks, Savage initiated the whole thing, and that's false. BE——Critical __Talk 23:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You'd have to be brain-dead not to understand the who, what, when, where, how and why after reading 2 relatively short sentences as now composed. Santorum wasn't the prime mover behind the subject of the article anyway and that's of considerably more import than getting hung up on some compositional "timeline" gymnastics in order to improve language that will confuse nobody. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be confusing to someone who didn't already know what went on. "Framing" a subject like that is done in writing, but this is an encyclopedia. The campaign was a response, so put the instigating factor first. We need to get the NPOV aspects right, but we also ought to be decent writers. Without significantly changing any wording:

During an interview in April 2003 with the Associated Press about moral relativism and the Catholic Church sex abuse cases, then-Senator Rick Santorum argued that consenting adults do not have a constitutional right to privacy, and that certain acts—specifically polygamy, adultery, and sodomy—undermine society and the family. His remarks were criticized as "anti-gay" by gay rights groups and some politicians. Outraged by Santorum's comments, American columnist and gay rights activist Dan Savage initiated a campaign to associate Santorum's surname with a sexual act. Savage asked his readers to coin a definition for "santorum", announcing the winner as "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex". This was regarded as vulgar by some observers. Savage created a website called "Spreading Santorum" to promote the definition, which became a prominent search result for Santorum's name on several search engines. He offered in 2010 to take the website down if Santorum donated US$5 million to a gay rights group, Freedom to Marry.

This rewrite accidentally shows how unnecessary the current reference to vulgarity is.

Parts I would take out:

During an interview in April 2003 with the Associated Press about moral relativism and the Catholic Church sex abuse cases, then-Senator Rick Santorum argued that consenting adults do not have a constitutional right to privacy, and that certain acts—specifically polygamy, adultery, and sodomy—undermine society and the family. His remarks were criticized as "anti-gay" by gay rights groups and some politicians. [In response] Outraged by Santorum's comments, American columnist and gay rights activist Dan Savage initiated a campaign  to associate Santorum's surname with a sexual act. Savage asked his readers to coin a definition for "santorum", announcing the winner as "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex". This was regarded as vulgar by some observers. Savage created a website called "Spreading Santorum" to promote the definition, which became a prominent search result for Santorum's name on several search engines. He offered in 2010 to take the website down if Santorum donated US$5 million to a gay rights group, Freedom to Marry.

So, while I don't condone Savage by any means, I do think that Santorum's remarks were an attack by a powerful person against a group of people. As such, it's not right to write the article with the timeline rejiggered. It's like starting an article on WWII by saying "In 1944, the Western Allies invaded France, while the Soviet Union regained all territorial losses and invaded Germany and its allies. Previously Germany had..." I don't think there was any intention of making Savage the greater focus, but that's what happens here... especially with the word "initiated" in the first sentence. BE——Critical __Talk 00:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The campaign was a response...
 * ...and happens to be the SUBJECT of this article. Your apparent compositional dismay that Savage's name might, somehow, appear first in such a treatment is somewhat bewildering.
 * ...so put the instigating factor first.
 * Perhaps you can take some measure of compositional solace in the fact that Santorum's SURNAME is in the TITLE (yet another aspect of this imbroglio that has yet to be resolved). JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, so I'm right in my sneaking suspicion that the reason things are out of order is that people feel Santorum should be protected? I agree that the article title may need more work. You're right that the campaign is the subject, but in reality you could say response (or counterattack) by Savage to Santorum's remarks.  The campaign is a response, and you first have to say what is being responded to.  If the article were titled counterattack by Dan Savage on Rick Santorum, would we not need a description of the attack first? BE——Critical __Talk 02:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Critical, after offering...
 * I do think that Santorum's remarks were an attack by a powerful person against a group of people.
 * ...it might be prudent to forego any further venting of your "sneaking suspicions" about editorial intent, especially in referencing composition that appears, thus far, to be progressing nicely towards consensus. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure... um, actually I don't know at all what you mean. It seems to be obvious that Santorum attacked gays and the right to privacy.  You don't have to be supportive of gays to see that.  Savage attacked Santorum. BE——Critical __Talk 03:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Critical, please refrain from further posting while under the influence, both now and in the future, JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I rather think one beer doesn't count except as a semi-humorous self-deprecating aside. At least that was my intent.  I still don't know what you meant, except I imagine you feel I revealed a POV.  But I think I merely stated the obvious, that attacks were made by Santorum, and Savage attacked in return. I'll let you guess at how many more drinks I've had since. BE——Critical __Talk 03:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Moving on, this entire lead "timeline" rationale is, IMHO, not only novel but laboriously contrived and strained.
 * Please re-familiarize yourself with Lead Section from the WP guide, with particular attention to (emphasis mine) ...
 * "The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: 'What (or who) is the subject?' and 'Why is this subject notable?'"
 * and...
 * "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence..."
 * JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Santorum did not initiate the campaign, the subject of this article. What Santorum initiated is clearly documented here and here; what Savage initiated is documented here and is in this article.  Santorum did not initiate this campaign; he initiated the political comments that caused Savage to initiate this campaign.  Logically, one cannot say that Santorum initiated this campaign, Savage clearly initiated this phase.  This lack of clarity on beginnings, causes and effects is one of the reasons this article should not even exist, the subject is better served in the articles I linked to above.  Dreadstar  ☥  02:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I'm not saying you're wrong. To me that issue, whether the article should exist, was always a later part of the process after the sources and other issues were settled.  But the way we come to that determination is by writing this as the best article we can.  As such, we need to give sufficient context, and thus we need to first describe the instigation for Savage's campaign (may not be making sense, slightly inebriated).  BE——Critical __Talk 02:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

JakeInJoisey writes, with reference to my proposed wording, that he is "totally opposed to what, IMHO, amounts to some quid pro quo deletion of notable 'facts'." I haven't proposed deleting any facts. I expressly said that those details could be included in the body of the article. It's just a question of what belongs in the introductory section. When a U.S. Senator compared gay sex to "man on dog", some people were outraged, including but most definitely not limited to gay rights groups. My objections to saying in the second sentence that critics were "gay rights groups and some politicians" are: (1) it's not particularly surprising or notable that gay rights groups would object to such a statement -- it's much more notable that Santorum was criticized by his fellow Republicans, and giving the gay rights groups such prominence is undue weight and conveys a strong suggestion that this was a special-interest reaction; (2) this is going into detail about who criticized Santorum before we've even gotten to the subject of the article, which is not who criticized Santorum but what Dan Savage did to express his criticism of Santorum. The current wording just strikes me as giving high priority to marginalizing Savage's viewpoint.

As for the ordering of the information, one problem we have is that the article doesn't start the way most articles do, with a sentence in which the article title, boldfaced, is the subject of the sentence. We could approximate that with wording like this, which uses Savage's own name for his effort (but without boldfacing it):

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

This version begins with a reference to the subject, thereby taking events out of chronological order, but immediately puts the subject in its chronological context. In addition, it relegates to the body of the article all the opinions that other people have expressed. Instead, it highlights the two key opinions, those of Savage and Santorum.

By contrast, the current wording isn't focused on getting the reader the important information as quickly as possible. As I noted, it gives prominence to third-party opinions. It puts a tangential reference to the Catholic Church scandals ahead of giving key facts about the campaign's outcome (search engine success, dictionary failure). It doesn't even mention until the last paragraph of the entire article Santorum's announcement of his Presidential campaign, which is one factor that would help many readers decide whether they want to read the full article and which should therefore be in the introductory section.

Everything I've suggested dropping from the first paragraph could be included later in the introductory section or in the body of the article. JamesMLane t c 05:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Not half bad... it grows on you. I mean, I don't particularly like it, but it solves a lot of problems and doesn't introduce any major problems except a lack of immediate detail.  Cut the ", but had not been accepted by lexicographers as an entry in standard dictionaries."  We would need details immediately after that in the next section, but hopefully we wouldn't characterize.  BE——Critical __Talk 05:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, its fairly good -- and encyclopedic too :) -- Avanu (talk) 06:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed to your suggested edit on grounds already addressed and others not yet addressed. However, I'll defer further comment until such time as the breadth of editorial opinion is significantly expanded. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed to this version as well, for several reasons; the main reason being that this article is not going to be renamed anything 'spreading santorum', we've been through that and it's been rejected. The wording here leads directly to that.  I think the current lead is far superior in describing the subject of this article, the campaign.  Dreadstar  ☥  15:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I'll just say what I want to say here, which is that the writing sucks, and we ought to forget our own feelings and what we think others might feel, and write about this like it was any other subject. It would look very different if we did. BE——Critical __Talk 19:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Culling first section
Okay, what does this have to do with NPOV? I didn't change anything, just made it more encyclopedic by eliminating direct quotes. BE——Critical __Talk 21:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please post your suggested edit here so as to facilitate comments. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

In an interview with the Associated Press on April 7, 2003, Santorum discussed the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal in relation to liberalism and relativism. He argued that moral relativism involves the acceptance of any adult consensual behavior in the privacy of people's homes, even if the behavior might otherwise be regarded as deviant, an attitude that he believes leads to an unhealthy culture.

He said that while he had no problem with homosexuality, he did have a problem with homosexual acts because they undermine society and the family. He argued that if people have a right to consensual sex in their homes, then they also have a right to bigamy, polygamy, incest, adultery, and everything else. Santorum said he was arguing against any relationship other than marriage between a man and a woman, the basis in his view of a stable society: "That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be." The interview triggered an angry reaction, including from gay rights activists. A spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee described the views as divisive and reckless. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 21:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My request was for your suggested edit(s), not for a cut and paste of the entire section from which any interested editor must grapple with deducing your proposed changes to the existing text. Please provide a specific before/after or recommended deletion for each suggested change to facilitate discussion...and one at a time if you please. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * JakeInJoisey, please read my original post in this thread, where I give the diff. And please explain your edit summary, where you say my edit was not NPOV. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 23:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't change anything, just made it more encyclopedic by eliminating direct quotes.
 * Really? Here is the original content relating to the context in which Santorum expressed his views on "acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships"...
 * "He said that, while he had no problem with homosexuality, he did have a problem with homosexual acts: 'As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual.' He continued: 'We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family."
 * Now here's how that same content is paraphrased and presented after your suggested edit...
 * "He said that while he had no problem with homosexuality, he did have a problem with homosexual acts because they undermine society and the family."
 * Your edit is POV because it excises content demonstrating that "homosexual acts" were only one of several "non-heterosexual" acts about which he was referring and would suggest to any reader unfamiliar with this issue that his comments were directed specifically at homosexuality...which is balderdash and, I'd suggest, inherently POV. There's more, but that should suffice. (and, BTW, your assertion that you "didn't change anything" but only "removed quotes" is balderdash as well). JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * We can fix the text like this:


 * He said that while he had no problem with homosexuality, he did have a problem with acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships because they undermine society and the family.


 * Please tell me what other POV you see so it can be fixed. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 00:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me see if I understand this. You want ME to help "fix" your undiscussed POV edits so they become NPOV palatable? Is that it?
 * Here's a suggestion. Read, again, my response above. SHOW us what you deem to be problematic and your suggestion for improvement. We'll take it from there. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My suggestion for improvement is my edit. I edited it to eliminate direct quotations and improve readability.  You said it was POV, so I asked you how it was POV.  You told me part of what you thought was POV, and I fixed it.  Now I'm asking you what else you think is POV.  I'm asking you to edit collaboratively with me.  BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 01:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I will be delighted to edit collaboratively with you, but from a decidedly different perspective. The current text, as written, is already the product of considerable "collaborative editing" not the least of which was SV's re-write (and whose composition skills are rather well-respected I'm coming to understand).
 * Please advise what you find to be problematic in the current composition and how you propose to rectify it. A before/after comparative on specific content (not the whole enchilada in one bite) would be much preferred. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What "different perspective?" I think I'll allow for the input of other editors before bothering with this further. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 01:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What "different perspective?"
 * I'm laboring under the assumption that content in SV's re-write was quite purposefully included with a sharp eye towards both thoroughness and NPOV. I'm unclear as to what motivates your efforts...conciseness? NPOV?...what? To "eliminate direct quotations"? To what purpose? Better "readability"? By eliminating content with NPOV consequence?
 * I think I'll allow for the input of other editors before bothering with this further.
 * Music to my ears. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, conciseness and readability are the basic reasons for my edit. It's an encyclopedia.  Where do you see other encyclopedias written with that many quotes?  We do have to pay some attention to actual writing in addition to NPOV. SV is good, but no one is perfect.  She did a good first take on revising the article. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 02:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

For other editors: the reason for the edit was to eliminate quotes which didn't look very good in printed form, providing a quick readable summary of what Santorum said. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 04:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Archiving Parameters
I have reverted an edit lowering the archive trigger to 5 days and restored the original 10 day which had also recently been adjusted. It should be no secret to any editors recently participating in this article discussion that, with the advent of a particular RfCU and another BLP/N yet to be resolved, participation here has dropped off the scale low. A holiday weekend will likely discourage participation as well. 5 days, given the current circumstance, is likely to archive temporarily dormant discussions that have yet to be resolved. If you're motivated by some rationale to tinker further with the archiving, PLEASE discuss that rationale prior to execution. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Burying the lead
SlimVirgin has undone a perfectly reasonable edit of mine, naming the actual website in the third section, by claiming that its inclusion as a footnote is the way to go. I posit that undoing this edit is wrong because it is censorship, political hackery, and what is called "burying the lead". Also, "Spreading santorum" is funny, satire, and inextricably related to the idea of both "a frothy mix of lube and fecal matter" and to of the idea of spreading the neologism. I have not looked, but I'll bet that this is supported by secondary sources. Finally, it is a potential alternative title to the whole article. I would like to find consensus on where in the article it is appropriate to include the name of the website. Choices include (please notvote for as many as you desire): Speciate (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The title of the article
 * An infobox
 * The lead paragraph
 * The "Savage campaign" section
 * Footnote
 * Wherever the sources lead us
 * I think some of these complaints are a bit hyperbolic. I'm also unconvinced that the website url needs to be in the lede. Protonk (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It certainly looks like an appropriate edit, and it would seem like the site needs to be in an external links section (unless it falls afoul of some other rule; I'm not an expert in links). I'd like to hear from SV on this. The lead currently reads "He created a website to spread the definition, which became a prominent search result for Santorum's name on several search engines.[4] Savage offered in 2010 to take the website down if Santorum donated US$5 million to a gay rights group, Freedom to Marry.[5]"  That seems like an appropriate place to have the name of the site.  I hadn't realized that this information had been left out.  BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 19:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think, it should be there somewhere. I would prefere 'The "Savage campaign" section', but I can understand, those who would prefer the lead. It will help the wikiBombing effect, but in this instance we can not help it, for this is crucial part of the story. (Just let's write it plaine, not as link) R e o + 20:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * wikibombing? Is that what we are calling it now?  Hah. Protonk (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah see the essay going through it's birthe: wp:SEOBOMB R e o + 00:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh wow. Wonders never cease. Protonk (talk) 02:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It definitely should not be a link, just written out as spreadingsantorum.com. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 20:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should not be an inline link. Speciate (talk) 00:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Reo On and Speciate; let's name it in the campaign section, in plain text. -- J N  466  14:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * In the introductory section, I would give the name -- "he created a "Spreading Santorum' website" or the like. In the Savage section, we could either just repeat that name (with the URL in footnote) or give the URL in text. JamesMLane t c 21:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Spreadingsantorum site link
We should remove the website from the footnote too, because it's self-published. BLPSPS says: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject ..."

It also says: "External links about living persons, whether in BLPs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs, and when including such links in other articles make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy. ...  In general, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or violate the External links guideline." SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 14:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. Protonk (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And I've reverted your edit which removed the link. I'm highly skeptical of the policy creep involved with BLP on this article and I feel removal of a link like this should require a bit more discussion. Protonk (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Slim is correct. Per WP:BLPSPS and WP:ELBLP, we shouldn't link to it. -- J N  466  14:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The site is part of the article subject! It isn't as though we are linking it in order to make claims about Santorum (The BLP concern) or linking to it in a gratuitous or non-germane fashion (the EL concern). Protonk (talk) 14:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Protonk, it does not matter. Linking to the site simply fails policy. This article is nothing special; we would not link to self-published sites with derogatory content about living people in other articles either. -- J N  466  14:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We have secondary sources that discuss the site if people want to look for it, but it's a policy violation for us to cite it directly. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 14:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I can't agree to that. How, exactly are our hands so tied that we can say "Savage started a site, spreadingsantorum.whatever" but can't bring ourselves to link to it? Protonk (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There's actually some precedent for that. I wish I could remember the example, but I think there are some pages where we mention a site but don't link to it for COPYVIO or BLP reasons, or maybe because it contained malware. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That is understandable, but such an absurd state should be the edge case and not the norm. Protonk (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There's an interesting archived discussion [|here] about the old Encyclopedia Dramatica site, I'm wondering if that's what I was remembering. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the problem with appealing to BLPSPS is that the BLP policy is written assuming that the subject of an article is a person. Where we allow BLP to govern articles with non-living subjects, we need to be mindful of the implication this holds for the policy. Protonk (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the article is about the campaign to attach Santorum's name to the product of a sex act, omitting the primary vector of the campaign doesn't make much sense. We're not using the website as a source, we're listing it as encyclopedic information. This is clearly not a policy violation. Trying to shoehorn it into Rick Santorum would be, though. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * BLP is not a whitewash policy. The link should either be used as a reference, listed as an external link, or both. It is information a reader would look for in the article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * That's a strained reading of BLP. BLP restrains Wikipedia as an encyclopedia from doing harm to living people.  It does not preclude Wikipedia from covering instances in the real world where harm is done.  - Wikidemon (talk) 15:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've opened a discussion at BLPN here. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 15:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, you opened a discussion on the BLPN talkpage. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well spotted. :) Discussion now at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. -- J N  466  16:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Vulcan logic always struck me as being full of snark. :) Dreadstar  ☥  18:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Leave it out. Hell, it isn't even a real website, just a URL-squatter that redirects to blogspot.com.  There is nothing of value to link to. Tarc (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you go to http://www.spreadingsantorum.com/, or a misspelled version? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know how to spell, thanks. :) All that's there is the brown stain image, a definition, then a link to a blog.  The blog has nothing to do with the small-s santorum subject matter, but rather it is a compilation of all things big-S Rick Santorum.  I don't see what purpose linking to the site serves, other than to jack up blog traffic. Tarc (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Since that site is above this article on a google search I suspect a single nofollow link will be pretty insignificant in changing their traffic or search ranking, leaving the fevered speculation of a few wikipedians aside. Protonk (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. As of now, we not only don't link to the site, we don't mention its name.  Whether you feel BLP requires removal or not (I say no), there's another related question: should it be there in the first place?  On the one hand it is a service to the reader (I use that term loosely) to link to the site we are talking about - that's what links are for.  But just how important and relevant is it to the article?  I just googled around, and to my surprise, most of the sources that describe these events do not mention the name of the website.  Even the book we use to source the information about the creation of the site mentions it only in a footnote.  I think the sources are telling us that the issue can be fully described without invoking the site itself, or put another way, that the actual site is not noteworthy.  Maybe they have their own equivalent of BLP or are trying to keep things clean.  The site has not been updated since 2004, so there isn't a whole lot to see there.  I don't know what to make of it, but I do think this factor mitigates against having the site name in the article.  - Wikidemon (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Allow link – Per SchmuckyTheCat. The website doesn't violate copyrights, and it doesn't engage in illegal activity. The website played a major role in the campaign (guess you've settled on calling it that). If this article describes a Googlebomb as some of you have stated, then not mentioning the website ranked first in Google results is silly. This is useful material for readers. It's Wikipedia's task to be neutral, not kind. If you're unwilling to link to it, then at least mention its domain name. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Do not link per part of the BLPSPS policy and common sense in WP:SEOBOMB case. I do not share all opinions with SlimVirgin in this case, for I do think, that the spirit of The BLBSPS  is meant to prevent self published and firly biased abovementioned sources to act as referencies, even if for slightest thing (and naturally it was hardly thought that they could be used to anything else). But in this instance, we are talking about link to subject of the article, not link to some reference, the spreadsantorum think is wehicle for the campaign and subject of description, not just reference to prove something. Nevertheless I believe, that the latter parts fairly apply here :
 * (BLP)
 * I believe that to be linking to that particular page, we woul be linking to a page, which in itself is by definition high-caliber attack page (being in contradcition with spirit of BLP).
 * And furthemore such a link is in contradcition with another BLP paragraph: WP:BLP. You all know: This case is notable for massive and successfull SEO of attack page, and you all know to link just to that attack page is to directly participate in and furthening the victimization of Santorum the man - directly and inderectly alike. Whatever my stance is or is not in relation to that politician, I do not support Wikipedia to be an wehicle for outside change. We report about the reality, we are not supposed to take part in changing the reality. In this absurd case it means = to link to attack page = to link from second highest ranking page to the attack page which strives to be the best ranking page. It is very strong support in ranking. R e o + 17:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You must be confused about how Wikipedia handles external links. Wikipedia uses nofollow tags on all links in articlespace. This means that links placed on Wikipedia pages don't affect search engine rankings.  elektrik SHOOS  18:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Leave the link The title of the article is, "Campaign for..." and you don't want to allow a link to the website that started the campaign. Seriously? Stop wikilawyering and just take a step back and look at that sentence. It doesn't make sense, at all. This article is NOT about Rick Santorum, it is about the campaign (as it has been retitled). So stop stretching BLP to cover this article, and use some common sense. Angryapathy (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The BLP/N post has been archive automatically due to lack of discussion. I'll leave interpretation of the response open to someone more neutral, but I can hardly imagine anyone could interpret that discussion as an endorsement of complete refusal to link. Protonk (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Questions about the propriety of the archiving of the legal discussion
Where is the discussion about the legal status of this article and all of the discussion on that topic? How dare the editors take out information they do not agree with?

They should be blocked.Mugginsx (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It wasn't deleted, after no one posted in it for several days it was archived. It's in archive number 7.  Talk:Campaign_for_%22santorum%22_neologism/Archive_7.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * PARTS of discussions NOT archived are still here. Sentences are taken out which change the tone and tenure of the discussion. Archiving is taking discussion IN TOTAL not simply sentences one does not agree with.
 * Further, there was no valid reason to Archive. The discussion is far from over and it is not as if there is a space limitation to worry about. Mugginsx (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Mugginsx, my inclination is to assume you are a bit confused as to what transpired BUT...if you are alleging that archives/archiving has, in some fashion, been manipulated, evidence of that allegation in the form of "diffs" is the way to go. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC) The archiving is done by bot based on the amount of time since the last edit. There are space concerns due to the fact that that at a certain page length there are dificulties with page load times for people without high end computers. So when no-one has talked about the matter for days the bot automaticaly moves it. If though you feel there's more to say you're free to restore the thread from the archive. I took a look and couldn't see any deletions within the section, however it's all in the page history so if you can point out a specific diff of someone deleting info it'd be easier to see if something impropper happened.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I do not have the energy. I am sick of this entire article and the attempts to justify it.  I brought out a valid point on Wiki's legal policy and many editors agreed.  Anyone who checks the records can see that there was no reason to archive.  A few days is not a long time between edits.  I have seen discussion pages go for months without automatically being archived.  What you say may be a new policy, I am not trying to make this personal to you but I stand by my opinion.Mugginsx (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Different pages use different archive settings. On a page no one edits frequently, there may be no need to archive at all. However this page had a huge amount of edits. Check out the longest article page KB wise on wikipedia List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. On my fairly high end work computer it took a good 20-30 seconds to load. If we took all the edits just from June and left them on one page it would be about twice as long as that monstrosity pun intended of a page. Imagine trying to load that on something like an Iphone. Again, a section that is bot archived can be brought back to the front page if there's more to say. If you want I can even do it for you.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I accept your explanation. I am usually open-minded but I am so annoyed with this article I am ill-tempered.  I do, however, believe this it is a possible legal issue, but only if Santorum decides to sue and he has said so far that he has no intention of doing so.  At any rate, it will only affect the editors of the article, and they have been warned. Mugginsx (talk) 19:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Mugginsx, with my degree from the Google School of Law duly noted, Santorum's window of opportunity for a libel suit probably closed a long time ago. The statute of limitation for libel appears to be 2 years in most, if not all, state jurisdictions (which appear to be controlling). JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My dear Google Barrister JakeInJoisey, that would be two years from the date of the last edit of the editor or editors he sues. Also, since the Internet information crosses state lines, it would probably be a federal violation, but I am not sure about that.Mugginsx (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Beg pardon. I misunderstood your statement as referencing Santorum v. Savage instead of Santorum v. Wikipedia et al.JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you read the Wiki guidelines that I put somewhere on the archived page, Wikipedia would not be sued. It would be Santorum v. (EDITOR OR EDITORS NAMES).  It is the way that Wiki is set up.  But for rare exceptions, Wiki does not take responsibility for its editors.   Mugginsx (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * HERE IT IS :  http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/Legal_Policies#Defense_of_Editors - look at section entitled DEFENSE OF EDITORS. I have to sign off now to go to an appointment. Mugginsx (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, there's no legal liability for Savage, Wikipedia, or Wikipedia's editors under a defamation theory. If you'd like to learn about the First Amendment and the opinion / truth limits of defamation law, or if you don't believe they apply here, there are better places than this page.  You are not going to get an outcome via discussions on this page that the article will be deleted over legal concerns.  We've had that discussion.  - Wikidemon (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Kindly do not try to intimidate me. You do not know the outcome of this article anymore than anyone else.  I venture I know more about the First Amendment, libel, slander and defamation than you and a fair number of editors.  My sole intention was to use Wiki's own policy and guidelines to inform editors.  People can and do sue all the time and other people must hire lawyers to defend themselves.  If the case is eventually thrown out as "frivolous" at some later point in time - the defendant has still had to hire a lawyer and has still had to spend an enormous amount of money in the process.  Again, my only intention was to warn people within Wiki's own guidelines and that is exactly what I did.  If this article is meant to be it will be.  I have seen your work on many worthy articles.  I cannot for the life of me understand why you want anything to do with this one - but it is your choice. Mugginsx (talk) 11:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Muggins, you are the one trying to intimidate people with what borders on legal threats. That's something that could get you blocked. Gigs (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously you do not comprehend the difference between an informed observation and a threat. If you had bothered to read what came before this you would see that I referred people to Wiki Legal Policy out of concern and consideration.  Since I have no basis to personally sue, nor would I be so inclined to do so if I did, I do not know what you talking about, and I dare say, in this particular case, neither do you.  Please read before you comment. Mugginsx (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Anybody can sue anyone for anything. This article poses no more "danger" than a few hundred others in that regard. We do not warn editors to self-censor because they could be sued. Do you have any other issues or can we close this thread? It isn't doing anything to improve the article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * I have some mutated sea bass with laser beams on their heads that are also rather ill-tempered. I wanted sharks instead but those damn environmentalists blocked me. So don't think you're the only one with problems here -- Dr. Evil (chat with me) 14:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My Final Word: See Signpost, 9 May 2011, Heading: Billionaire trying to sue Wikipedians; "Critical Point of View" book published; World Bank contest; brief news.  Incidentally Gigs, I found it on your website.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gigs  The article is also here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-05-09/In_the_news  I guess you missed reading it. As far as I am concerned you can close the thread SchmuckyTheCat.  I have said all that I intended to say on the matter.Mugginsx (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * When I actually read these stories, the common thread in all the reports seems to be that both the WMF and individual internet providers are telling the billionaires who go libel shopping in Britain that they are free to take their souvenirs and use them for anal sex toys. Think about it: Wikipedia is standing up to billionaires and not only defending free speech in general but its contributors in particular.  And winning!  That's something we should all be very proud of and grateful for. Wnt (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wiki removed the questionable material. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-05-02/In_the_news That is not winning.  That is avoiding the lawsuit in a very sensible way.  That is taking away the legal issue of a lawsuit against Wikipedia - not necessarily the editors.  Having said that I am proud of Wikipedia, but for different reasons.  Read better Mugginsx (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Based only on what I read in the Signpost aticle, this seems like an utterly craven and despicable surrender on the part of the Wikimedia Foundation. The incident shouldn't be used as a springboard for yet more censorship.  Here's my message to Rick Santorum: If you're contemplating a lawsuit, I insist on being included.  You won't even have to get a court order to get WMF to disclose my identity.  Unlike most Wikipedians, I edit under my real name.  Have your lawyers shoot me an email (the link's on my user page), and I'll give them my home address so they can serve me with the summons and complaint.  Ready when you are. JamesMLane t c 17:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Bring it on"?? This is getting ludicrous; WP isn't your personal Soapbox or Battleground.  Cut the crap.  Dreadstar  ☥  19:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL, I don't think calling someone on their shit by putting yourself in the line of blanks is crap. Rather, it's in the tradition of standing on your rights and morals which the world greatly needs in order to have a truly civil society.  And yes, things like santorum  and Santorum's freedom to attack the right to privacy both exist within the range of a civil society as we know it, and always have. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 20:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's total crap and violates WP:NOT. The purpose of this talk page is not to be challenging the subjects of our articles.  It's crap.  Ludicrous crap and doesn't belong here.  At all.  Dreadstar  ☥  20:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Dreadstar accused me of violating several rules and then quickly closed the thread. Sorry, Dreadstar, I don't accept your self-arrogated right to prevent me from responding to your attack.  As for the substance, I wasn't using this page as a soapbox for my opinions about Santorum.  This thread was about the alleged danger of a lawsuit.  I was expressing my disagreement with the idea of worrying about litigation -- my comments and edits, at least, haven't come anywhere close to the line of what might be actionable.  My comment was therefore relevant to this thread.  I also disagree with your statement that "This is getting ludicrous."  This has been ludicrous for quite some time, beginning at least a couple of AfD's ago. JamesMLane t c 04:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Significant improvement
I've been doing other things for the past several weeks, and when I just popped in to see how the article is looking, was pleasantly surprised at how improved it is. The tone is professional and clear. Yay! Yopienso (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

+ Yay " me too! I actually have the page on watchlist and happen to see the talks here everyday, but for a long time I cannot see my presence to be important in any way. Those of you taking part in the debate here are way good and profesional and you all together push in right direction. So I would like to thank You all! R e o + 21:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Add my praise here as well. The editors acting to improve this article have done a tremendous job. The work remaining is important but minor relative to the state of what this article could have been. Hopefully at some point folks will look past their views that wikipedia shouldn't have an article like this at all and take pride in the article we have. Protonk (talk) 07:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Lewinsky (neologism)
A comparable article was created and speedy deleted. There's a discussion at Deletion review/Log/2011 July 2.  Will Beback   talk    23:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Note: Deletion was overturned, then article was listed at AFD. Aside: Not sure these are quite that clear-cut parallel, either. There's a big difference between a star-struck intern gossiping to a "friend" and getting dragged through the mud by mass media and scandal sheets alike for a few years, and a sitting U.S. senator talking on the record to a reporter and getting targeted by a large number of people who see themselves as members of a sustained political protest. But whatever. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler  .☠  15:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, sweet canvassing. A "comparable" article. Sweet, and totally BS. Dreadstar 23:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * With respect, I think it is a near perfect comparison. The article originally linked a public figure with a sexual connotation.  It, too, was about a living person. Further, in the Deletion review log for Lewinsky neologism you seem to agree that this (Santorum) article is also a BLP violation. ( Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 2#Lewinsky (neologism). Line 11 ).  Mugginsx (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is a perfect example. Someone's last name being used as sexual slang. I would like to point out that I actually noted this in the archives before, that it was a perfectly similar item. Except unlike this topic, the term is actually used by the public. Without hunting for sources, I've heard it on multiple TV and radio programs. It was popularized in a similar fashion - by Rush Limbaugh. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 13:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Zen, I suggest to you that might be considered a difference without a distinction. Mugginsx (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Since that is a definite possibility, and since we cannot settle that question amongst ourselves, I've argued for edits and actions based on policy rather than the morals, and put my (perhaps snarky, in which case I apologize) personal opinions under the radar. People can take either side of that question in good faith. The issue we can settle empirically is whether the events themselves are notable and well sourced. (Or were you talking about one deletion discussion vs. the other? :-) ) ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  16:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds fair enough. It is noteworthy that some of the editors who voted for deletion in the Lewinsky article on a BLP violation are advocating for this one. It is disingenuous in my opinion.  Look, in this country the gay population is protected and, considering how few people believe what Mr. Santorum believes on this subject, he has about as much chance of becoming President of the US as Donald Duck.  Why keep this shabby article?  It, in my opinion, dimishes us as Wiki editors and is a BLP violation. Mugginsx (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Edits regarding Rick Santorum's response
Explaining my recent edit to the paragraphs discussing Santorum's response: I've only been keeping a very distant eye on this article's development, so I apologize if this wording change is more controversial than it appeared to me at a glance. My initial motivation was to edit the article's third paragraph so it didn't simply repeat verbatim 80 of the 170 words included in the "Santorum's response" section. The sentence about Google didn't seem so important that it was necessary to include it in the intro to the article.

As I was attempting to condense that third paragraph, I checked the cited source and noted that a) "it comes with the territory" was a quote from Santorum and should be in quotation marks, and b) the text of the source didn't match what WAS in quotation marks in the article. I can't watch the video from my current computer, but it seemed to me like there was no good reason not to simply use Santorum's words as they're written (i.e., "foul" vs. "vile" seems like a judgment call but I can't see how it changes the meaning of the article to use one vs. the other, nor to omit the "unfortunately" at the beginning of that phrase). Again, my intention is not to begin, prolong or provoke any huge discussion; I'm just acting in the hope that this minor improvement (in my eyes) is not a big deal. Revert it if I'm wrong. Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nicely done. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 16:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Please discontinue archiving discussion just because you disagree with them
Please discontinue this random archiving. It is beginning to look as if it is being used to discourage valid conversation and should be reported as vandalism. Mugginsx (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please explain to me how: (1) discussing whether or not this article might be libelous over and over again is in any way helpful to improving it; (2) linking to the deletion discussion of an article which is at best tangentially related to this one (on a page that couldn't possibly attract unbiased editors) is not canvassing; and (3) continuing to discuss said page is in any way helpful to improving this article. Please also review WP:FORUM.  elektrik SHOOS  (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Libel was not discussed per say. We do not have to explain to you specifically what we think. You are not the sole decider as to what is helpful or unhelpful. We have not violated any rules, we have used sources within Wiki to explain what we are saying. I believe you may have misued your administrative tools. Your explanation does not validate archiving, to my mind, because, at this point, deletion is still an option. Mugginsx (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't see the relevance to the article. The discussion wasn't archived, merely hatted.  The link is there and the comments are there for anyone curious.  But nothing about the Lewinsky discussion relates to improving this article. Protonk (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm also not an administrator. On talk pages, discussions can be hatted/archived by any uninvolved user who believes they are not of relevance to the page. There are actually only certain types of discussions that can only be closed by administrators, and that's only when an admin-only action such as page deletion is necessary.  elektrik SHOOS  (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Deletion is also not an option in the near future, as noted by the recent RfC and three deletion processes that all closed with clear consensus to keep the article. Save an office action (which almost never occurs) or some sudden giant shift in viewpoint by a majority of editors to this page, this page stays.  elektrik SHOOS  (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit of intro paragraph
I've swapped around the order of the first two sentences in the intro paragraph, and then merged them into a single sentence and tweaked the wording very slightly for better flow. I don't believe this should have made any difference to the meaning of the paragraph, so I hope the edit is non-controversial. -- The Anome (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I can see that "by ... by ..." is perhaps not optimal, but it's natural. However, I understand the reason for reverting that part of my recent edit. Can we do anything else that's better than "Outraged by Santorum comments..."? -- The Anome (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec)Eh...mense a mense (.it?). The close proximity of "by" and "by" doesn't do much for me at all and "controversial" (given the subject matter) seems like an unecessary accentuation of the obvious as well as, perhaps, slightly POV in that it might just as easily qualify Savage's antics/product as well. I mean I could live with it I guess, but I believe the prior is better. Perhaps others can comment. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've now changed it to "In response to comments made by Rick Santorum..." which avoids "by ... by ...", and also has the advantage that it loses the word "outraged", which I think was overwrought for an intro sentence. -- The Anome (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In the interest of letting sleeping dogs lie, while not particularly enamoured of "outraged", it was utilized (as I recall) as a consensus-acceptable characterization. If the dogs start barking, your shoes please, not mine. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

NPOV
I think this article, after having been hammered every which way from all sides for weeks, now meets, or very nearly meets, Wikipedia's standards for WP:NPOV. I therefore propose that the POV tag at the top of the article now be removed. I'd be interested to know what other editors think about this. Any takers? Any disagreement? -- The Anome (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The current version of the article is biased to disparage Savage and his campaign, but I don't care one way or the other about the tag. When the article concerns a flashpoint issue like this one, the tag is comparatively unimportant.  JamesMLane t c 04:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is there no effort to reduce the attacks on Savage and his campaign? Why have we allowed right wing operatives to skew this in favor of Santorum over other parties? Merrill Stubing (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Attacks on Savage? Where?  I don't see it, and I support removing the tag. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is pretty poor as it stands. It basically reads as "Savage got pissy so he did this terrible thing".  It's strewn with weasel words and leaves out massive chunks of the story.  The re-write swung the article from being arguably supportive of the campaign to actively attempting to protect Santorum from it, neither of which is what we're supposed to be doing.  I'm going to take a look at fleshing it out and making it more neutral. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Both of your tags reference content whose notability for the lead paragraph is already under discussion and whose inclusion is, as yet, unresolved by clear consensus. However, the current language, which you apparently object to as "weasel wording", reflects an interim and compromise product of ongoing discussion and was quite purposefully chosen to that end. Nor is a lack of "specificity" or "vagueness" here precluded by WP:WEASEL (emphasis mine) ...
 * "Phrases such as these present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint."
 * WP:WEASEL addresses the introduction of unintentional or inappropriate non-specificity, NOT intentionally formulated compromise language. Any consensus-supported "vagueness" in the lead composition can be immediately mitigated, if not eliminated, by the provision of appropriate sourcing (if necessary) and then expanded in the main body to a degree of specificity that satisfies consensus.
 * Your participation in the ongoing process towards consensus resolution of your tagged issues will be most welcome. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Use of Santorum and Savage images
Soon after the radical expansion of this article, I started a discussion about the use of images in this article. In my opinion, the images add nothing to the reader's understanding of the issue. Following the addition of an image to Lewinsky (neologism) and a subsequent discussion, the images of Savage and Santorum were removed. To put it simply, my position is that if we can place an image of Rick Santorum on the article about the neologism santorum, then we can place an image of Monica Lewinsky on the article about the neologism lewinsky (although I would prefer that neither article has images). I would like to reach consensus about images on articles about sexual neologisms so that we don't have to keep rehashing this.

Given that the main articles are linked, the addition of Savage and Santorum images do not assist the reader (but may introduce BLP concerns), and should not be included. edited due to comment on my talk page Changed "replaced" to "included" for clarity, as suggested. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC) I higlighted the "should not be included" to bring to the generall attention to the subject of approval or disaproval. The title of section tells us "Use" of article and it seems some ore confused. R e o + 16:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - as proposer. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Savage? Perhaps. Santorum? No way. On a general BLP principle that less in that regard is more. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - not sure about the pictures of people, but an image of the website page at http://www.spreadingsantorum.com/ would seem to me to be a clear case of fair use for the purposes of news reporting and critical comment. -- The Anome (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * oppose Remove all images - First off, the Lewinsky article is facing near-certain deletion in about 3 days time, rendering that aspect of the discussion moot.  But even if it wasn't, we don't edit in a "if you have this there, then I can have that here" manner, as it smacks of an WP:OTHERCRAP type of weak justification for one's actions.  As for images here, I don't think we should use either one, but if the Savage Fan Club really want him here, then whatever, but Santorum is definitely out.  As for an image of the website, that was already tried and deleted.  It isn't even a "real" web site per se, just a brown MS Paint-created stain graphic that redirects the user to Savage's blog. Tarc (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You may be confused. Did you mean "support"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The way you phrased this was rather awkward, so I'll just skip the nomenclature completely. Tarc (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur, and it's still a bit problematical. Suggest substituting "incorporated" or "included" for "replaced"
 * Comment The topic of this article is a campaign, not a neologism. We spent what seemed like a lifetime here a few weeks ago establishing that subtle point. Certainly it is utterly inappropriate to illustrate an article about a sex act with a picture of a living person. But this is an article about an event, involving two grown up men, both serious political players who have voluntarily entered public life. These are importand differences, so your argument based on equivalency fails. There may be good grounds, in its own right, for not illustrating this article with pictures of the two leading men in the drama, but you'll need to annunciate them, the argument from analogy doesn't work. Personally, I don't like the pictures being here. Hell, I don't like the article being here. But all we have is policy, and you'll need to frame an argument using that if you want to delete them. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the title, this article is also about the neologism (not the referent substance, but the word itself). Here is part of what I said in the original discussion which is linked above "The images in the article do nothing to improve the reader's comprehension of the topic at hand. The very same images are included in the biographies of Savage and Santorum, if the reader is interested enough to click through to those articles. Since this is largely related to a word, the images seem purely decorative". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * not a vote - the pictures inclusion, is unnecessary to understand the word, readers can click on the internals. The less of this article there is the more policy compliant it gets. I note - the current version is down to twenty percent of the expansion that User:Cirt created. -  Off2riorob (talk)
 * leave the images in: the article you cite as an example is an article about a neologism that is widely accepted apparently. this article as it is currently titled is not about the neologism, its about the campaign, and the images add value to the article in that way. if the article was titled santorum (neologism), the images should not be included. -badmachine`
 * The article is also about the neologism, no matter what title it is given. The title should not determine whether or not it is appropriate to include an image, the content should. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support removal of Santorum's image. No strong opinion on the Savage image. -- J N  466  20:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Maintain Dan Savage image, but Rick Santorum's image is less relevant. This article is basically about something Dan Savage did.  Much as it might amuse me to make a two-image gallery of Santorum and santorum, I can't actually say it makes an encyclopedic point. ;) Wnt (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Both images are fine. Protonk (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes, we need to just use common sense
WP:Use common sense

Might make silly arguments a little less so. -- Avanu (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Silly" tho they may be, that's where we're at here. There are several disputes that would benefit from a much more broad editorial input. You might consider contributing there rather than drive-by editing which is sure to raise the temperature level. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You might consider not phrasing my edits as 'drive by' also. I've participated quite a bit in discussions on this page, as have something like 200+ editors. -- Avanu (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You can edit as you please Avanu but, as for myself, I wouldn't change a semicolon without first broaching the suggested edit in talk. However, on re-consideration, "BRD" (is it?) seems to be a popular, in vogue approach as well. Whatever floats your editing boat. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Culling The first paragraph lead (More)
IMHO, the first paragraph of the lead serves quite well as a concise summary of all the most notable aspects of this subject and consideration should be given to deletion of paragraphs 2 and 3 which redundantly expand on those notable aspects already incorporated in the main body. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds acceptable, but really to do that we need to get rid of some of the mealymouthed stuff, like "derogatory word association" and "regarded as vulgar by some observers" For instance, say "Outraged by Santorum's comments that were criticized as "anti-gay" by gay rights groups and some politicians.[1] Savage tried to embarrass Santorum by creating a word, "santorum" which meant a byproduct of homosexual sex.  Savage's definition became a prominent result on search engines for a search of Santorum's name." BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 21:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Critical, your position on disapproval of the first paragraph is quite clear but irrelevant to this topic. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC) If you want to pursue it further, you already know where that discussion resides. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Then I object to taking out the rest of the lead, because I do not think that, without modification as stated above, it adequately summarizes the article. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 21:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're free to object as you see fit, but objecting to the removal of redundant, unnecessary lead content unrelated to your first paragraph objections appears to be more spiteful than substantive. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I just gave you a constructive suggestion as to how it might be fixed so removal would be possible. I'm beginning to think that collaboration with you is impossible.  You seem to want me to do all the work. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 01:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've stated my opinion against the "vulgar" bit above, and I'd say that your text sounds like an improvement. Enough meaningful material has been taken out of this article; why not shave some hemming and hawing? Wnt (talk) 02:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * On reconsideration, the success of the campaign as demonstrated in Google search results is something that is, IMHO, probably first paragraph notable. Perhaps...
 * "Outraged by Santorum comments that were criticized as 'anti-gay' by gay rights groups and some politicians,[1] Savage's effort culminated in the creation of a derogatory word association, regarded as vulgar by some observers, that attained search engine prominence when 'Santorum' is queried."
 * JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The "criticized as anti-gay" clause sticks out and isn't directly relevant to the sentence it's in. Savage was outraged because he himself regarded the comments as anti-gay (or homophobic), and created the site out based on his own opinions.  The fact that gay rights groups and some politicians agreed with him only affects things indirectly, perhaps that gave him the confidence, and that establishes that he wasn't crazy or acting alone in feeling that way.  Likewise, that some observers regard Savage's efforts as vulgar reflects their commentary on the event, it isn't the event itself.  - Wikidemon (talk) 05:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So how would you write it? BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 06:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The "criticized as anti-gay" clause sticks out and isn't directly relevant to the sentence it's in.
 * Strongly disagree. It directly identifies and qualifies "Santorum comments" as having been denounced as "anti-gay" with that criticism emanating (in its origin) from "gay rights groups" and "some politicians" (with at least 2 reliable sources in, what I assume to be, earlier reports specifically citing "Democrats"). This is a fundamental fact, broadly noted in WP:RS sourcing and indispensible to an accurate presentation of the "what", "when" and "why" of this issue and appropriately placed precisely where it is compositionally warranted.
 * Savage was outraged because he himself regarded the comments as anti-gay (or homophobic),...
 * That is what he purported and it is already noted.
 * ...and created the site out based on his own opinions.
 * Please. If you're suggesting that he woke up one morning, ignorant of all that had previously transpired save for the Santorum comments themselves, and spontaneously elected to create the site independent of ANY other considerations, IMHO you strain credulity...or have I misunderstood the point of your observation?
 * The fact that gay rights groups and some politicians agreed with him...
 * As one who previously advocated for the importance and relevance of "timeline" considerations, you appear to have misconstrued "timeline" aspects of the "who did what and when". You will, of course, correct me if I'm wrong, but it was Savage who appeared to be capitalizing on the fertile ground already tilled by "gay rights groups" and "some politicians", no?. That created a highly political environment and soapbox ready-made for Savage's opportunistic exploitation/elevation of the issue. Comprehending that is, IMHO, critical to an understanding of the "why" and "how" of Savage's success and is HIGHLY notable.
 * Likewise, that some observers regard Savage's efforts as vulgar reflects their commentary on the event, it isn't the event itself.
 * It IS a WP:RS characterization of the product of the "event itself", highly notable for numerous reasons already stated elsewhere and almost embarrassingly understated (IMHO) in its current qualification (much to the discredit of this project). JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As I've previously explained, one objectionable part of this version is the way it pigeonholes those who criticized Santorum. What was notable about the reaction to the "man on dog" comment wasn't that it was attacked by gay rights groups or even by "some politicians", but that it was criticized so widely, even by some of Santorum's fellow Republican Senators, which is quite unusual.  Note that this wording evidently gave JakeInJoisey the false impression that the political criticism was only from Democrats -- an understandable error on Jake's part, given that the current wording is so eager to pigeonhole and denigrate Santorum's critics.  By contrast, the opinion about vulgarity isn't attributed to "conservative commentators and others" but merely to the neutral "some observers".


 * The context here is Savage's action. He considered the comments anti-gay.  Of course there were other people's opinions, and of course Savage knew about them, but that's tangential to this article.  No one has explained why other people's reactions to Santorum's comments need to be discussed in the second sentence of the article, before we've even told the reader about the actual subject of the article.  (I understand the point of mentioning Santorum's controversial statement early on, but describing the reactions to it can be left to the body of the article.)  Similarly, instead of saying that "some observers" regarded the definition as vulgar, we can quote Santorum himself to that effect.  That would eliminate the strong bias in the current wording.


 * If there's a criticism that Savage acted opportunistically, as Jake contends, that can be covered in the article. Giving that criticism more prominence than the basic facts about what Savage did, however, would definitely be POV. JamesMLane t c 04:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You've raised a point on the attribution of "criticisms of Santorum's comments" which, IMHO, warrants further consideration with an eye towards plausible improvement (the Salon cite was particularly helpful in documenting the nature and breadth of specific GOP responses) but also some comments/observations/assertions with which I'll, by now anyway, take obvious issue. However, to better facilitate reaching consensus on a plausible improvement, can you suggest alternative wording to "some politicians" that would more accurately reflect the breadth of criticism without unduly inflating or misrepresentating that breadth of criticism which an unqualified use of "widely held" might easily suggest. Overstatement is just as objectionable (perhaps moreso in this case due to WP:BLP considerations) as understatement.
 * BTW, as this topic has now morphed into a continuation of an earlier and ongoing debate, I am amending the section title to reflect that fact and will re-introduce the "culling" consideration only upon consensus resolution to the first paragraph composition. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've already suggested a couple of alternative wordings. Here's a slight improvement that I suggested before (but now with "anti-gay" instead of "homophobic"):
 * "American columnist and gay rights activist Dan Savage initiated a campaign in 2003 to associate the surname of then-Senator Rick Santorum with a sexual act. Outraged by Santorum comments that were criticized as homophobic by some observers,[1] Savage's effort culminated in the creation of a derogatory word association, regarded as vulgar by some observers."


 * A better improvement would be to get the secondary points (other people's opinions) out of the first paragraph entirely, and cover them only in the body of the article, leaving the first paragraph free to describe what the principal actors said and did:
 * "The 'Spreading Santorum' campaign is a project by American columnist and gay rights activist Dan Savage, who, in response to comments in 2003 by then-Senator Rick Santorum, sought to associate Santorum's surname with a sexual act. Because Savage considered Santorum's remarks to be anti-gay, he hoped to embarrass Santorum. His effort culminated in the association of 'santorum' with a definition that Santorum has described as a 'vulgarity'. As of 2011, when Santorum announced his campaign for the Presidency, Savage's definition had become a prominent search result for Santorum's name on several search engines, but had not been accepted by lexicographers as an entry in standard dictionaries."
 * That latter version was favored by Avanu and me, tepidly favored by BE Critical (with the deletion of ", but had not been accepted by lexicographers as an entry in standard dictionaries"), and opposed by you and Dreadstar, so at this point it appears to have more support than the current wording. JamesMLane t c 18:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've already suggested a couple of alternative wordings.
 * Those are not suggested alternatives for improving "some politicians" as a source of criticism, but rather eliminating identification of both it and "gay rights groups" as the original sources of the criticism (and specifically "Democrats" in 2 of the earlier sources). That the source of that criticism WAS specifically identified in at least 2 articles already cited argues for its notability. Further research, if necessary, will probably reveal more of the same. Without that qualifier, any interested reader would be clueless as to from whom and how broadly those criticisms were expressed, an ignorance for which you appear to be strongly advocating.
 * Your offer of concurrence in the use of "anti-gay" in lieu of "homophopic", apparently inadequately, or perhaps even totally, unsupported by sourcing, is somewhat...well...underwhelming.
 * As you are apparently unable or unwilling to suggest a more appropriate wording for "some politicians" independent of other considerations, "some politicians" will have to suffice, at least for the moment.
 * As to your "real-time" head-counting if it's head-counting to be (a rather purposeless exercise in the face of current participation here anyway), the evolution of the existing text has been, while tedious, both NPOV and generally consensus-supported save for this ongoing "vulgar" debate. Despite that unresolved issue, 2 uninvolved voices recently made unsolicited and complimentary remarks as to the product this process has thus far produced. Your proposed edits that would effectively delete content you apparently perceive to be critical of Savage raises POV issues that warrant considerably more editorial attention than a holiday weekend will afford. Head-counting while most are barbecuing (both at home and, perhaps, at the RfCU) ain't gonna cut the mustard...or shouldn't anyway. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You write of "an ignorance for which you appear to be strongly advocating." To the contrary, I have repeatedly said that specific information should be included.  Most recently, in the very post you're purportedly answering, I wrote that we should "get the secondary points (other people's opinions) out of the first paragraph entirely, and cover them only in the body of the article...."  So your contention that I'd leave the reader ignorant is a flat-out falsehood.  (In an article that's attracted so much more heat than light, you should be especially careful not to misstate other editors' positions.)


 * We're talking about what would be in the second sentence. Apparently, to some people, it's really really really important that, if this scurrilous article must exist at all, it should at least take every opportunity to denigrate Savage and defend Santorum.  That includes giving a false impression that Santorum's critics were only special interests and political opponents.  Under the established principles of writing an introductory section, characterizing Santorum's many critics is clearly not more important than giving a summary of the actual subject of the article, that subject being the campaign undertaken by one of his critics.


 * There's certainly no reason to take it as given that characterizing all the other sources of criticism must take precedence over explaining the "santorum" campaign.


 * I don't understand your comment about my "offer of concurrence" as being "underwhelming". I said early on that I didn't feel strongly about "anti-gay" versus "homophobic".  You were among those who preferred the former, so I went with it.  Why is it even an "offer" as if I were making a concession and expected something in return?  Why do you single it out as "underwhelming"?  Your gratuitous remark seems to do nothing to facilitate reaching consensus.


 * Speaking of consensus, I love this part: "As you are apparently unable or unwilling to suggest a more appropriate wording for 'some politicians' independent of other considerations, 'some politicians' will have to suffice, at least for the moment." In other words, I haven't persuaded you, so JakeInJoisey, newly appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Wikipedia, has ruled against me?  Sorry, Jake, you don't get to decide unilaterally what suffices and what doesn't.


 * Your sneering at my "head-counting" might make sense if I had emulated the boldness of some of the pro-Santorum POV editors, and gone ahead and implemented my change. I haven't.  Perhaps naively, I continue to try to work within Wikipedia's established processes, although they've been so often violated in this article and violated in the specific case of calling Savage's definition "vulgar".


 * Finally, I did not read Slim Virgin to be offering her rewrite as a carved-in-stone version that could not be changed. If she had made any such outlandish claim for it, she would have met with widespread criticism.  She did a wholesale rewrite.  It necessarily involved quite a few specific points that people didn't address in detail in commenting on it.  You seem to be trying to set up a situation in which your preferred version has some mythical "baseline" status, so it can't be changed without consensus, and so you (alone or with a handful of allies) now have the power to veto any changes to the article.  If that's your view, we're headed for more time-wasting of the RfC/RfAr variety.  How about you just stick to the merits and explain to me why any characterization of Santorum's other critics, whether or not it inaccurately focuses on gay rights groups and whether or not it omits his Republican critics, must be in the second sentence, when those people aren't even opining about the subject of the article? JamesMLane t c 03:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for my break in, looking from afar and after a long break: those tiny changes (atributions) in the lead are all about the first impression of the reader: whether it was deserved or more or less undeserved complication in the Santorum's life. To leave it out is giving different impression then not, both versions are IMHO subtly insuanating some side message (who is more the victim). It is hard to avoid. I knew, that any competent editor here would know about it, but I wanted to point it flatly out. (Maybe just too flatly for such an subtle change in meaning, sorry for that)

To the point I think that: the remarks were criticized as "anti-gay" by gay rights groups (quite heavilly) and some politicians (not so heavilly - but to some extent from politicians of all worldviews). It is hard to put in consistent formulation. Both parts are of it are notable (If are to leave out just part it lets dominate the other one; if both are present it is quite wordy). I have not pattent to wisdom how to balance them the best way. --R e o + 09:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No need for "sorry". Your observations (as are ALL) are not only welcome but necessary to an establishment of consensus. They also speak directly to the original intent of this topic, conciseness and NPOV accuracy in the composition of the lead sentence, lead paragraph and the lead itself.
 * Per WP:LEAD...
 * "In general, the emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject."
 * As a step towards resolution of a single aspect currently in dispute, and with a stipulated proviso that NOTHING is "in granite", perhaps first defining a most basic question might facilitate both comment and resolution...
 * "Question: Do attributions as to the source of the criticisms directed at Santorum's comments warrant inclusion in the lead paragraph?"
 * Towards that end, perhaps a before/after comparison (utilizing existing text) may be helpful...
 * "No: Outraged by Santorum comments that were criticized as 'anti-gay', Savage's effort culminated in the creation of a derogatory word association, regarded as vulgar by some observers."
 * "Yes: Outraged by Santorum comments that were criticized as 'anti-gay' by gay rights groups and some politicians, Savage's effort culminated in the creation of a derogatory word association, regarded as vulgar by some observers."
 * JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Question: Do attributions as to the source of the criticisms directed at Santorum's comments warrant inclusion in the lead paragraph?

 * Yes - It suggests (quite accurately) that the breadth and source of the voiced "criticisms" are both quantifiable and identifiable, both aspects regarded as noteworthy in WP:V, WP:RS sourcing already cited and examined. A prospective reader will be considerably more informed with the inclusion of this brief attribution which can be expanded as appropriate in the main body. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No but I think formulating a poll about this fragmentary issue is a bad idea, and of course the presentation of alternatives is bogus. As to the alternatives: The criticism was from "gay rights groups and some politicians", as would be expected, but the real news is that the criticism was also from comparatively neutral sources and even from some of Santorum's fellow Republican Senators -- a departure from party unity that's highly unusual, especially in light of the strong terms that were used.  Also, Jake's formulation of the alternative he dislikes features an ungrammatical dangling clause.  As to whether to put this right up front at all: The article is about Savage's campaign.  That's what a lengthy RfC decided was notable, overriding those who wanted to keep the article at the "neologism" title and overriding those who wanted to delete the article entirely.  Therefore, the focus in the first paragraph should be on the campaign.  There was long-standing discrimination against LGBT people in the United States; beginning with Stonewall, there was a reaction to this prejudice in the form of activism for gay rights; Santorum disparaged this movement with his "man on dog" comments; his language was widely criticized by many people; one person in particular who disliked it was Dan Savage; because Savage was outraged, he launched the campaign that's the subject of this article.  We can't give this whole background in the second sentence.  That Olympia Snowe accused Santorum of "bigotry" is less important to this article than that Dan Savage was angered.  The other stuff can be included after we've told the reader what the campaign was. JamesMLane t c 17:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As to the alternatives: The criticism was from "gay rights groups and some politicians", as would be expected, but the real news is that the criticism was also from comparatively neutral sources and even from some of Santorum's fellow Republican Senators...'
 * Just HOW these attributions/qualifications might be incorporated is premature and irrelevant to the question. The question is WHETHER incorporation of these attributions/qualifications appropriately enhances the lead paragraph in a manner that reflects NPOV, notability, accuracy and improved reader comprehension. If a consensus response is "No", then any subsequent question of how to appropriately present the information in the LEAD paragraph becomes moot. One step at a time. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

........ the remarks were criticized as "anti-gay" by gay rights groups and different politicians..... ........ the remarks were criticized as "anti-gay" by gay rights groups and variety of politicians.....
 * It depends hah, ha sorry :), I just imagine that you might think, I wish to be some clever one to you, or something to try to go between you guys. But not. I really think this way: about NPOV - If the atributions are balanced, as to reflect the reality, then their inlcusion is an improvement. If there will be problem to reach such an balanced formulation to reflect it: then it is better without them. At the same time: I think it is close to be balanced, but it feel just little off. Somehow, maybe if the "Some politicians" would be replaced with "different politicians" (or something in this direction; to point out the variety of politicians involved, but not to overstate it).


 * @ JamesMLane - yes, it is about the campaign (the event), (I wouldn't exactly say, that it is exactly Savage's campaign, or maybe I wouldn't say "campaign" is right word for it either, but I see what you mean, and I agree with the spirit of it). In fact the most and foremost notable think is that Santorum's name appeared so high up in the search-engines in such an unflattering light. The subject of the article is that fact together with the events leading directly to that result. To incorporate or not to incorporate those attributions - those are decisions how far back in time it is worth to go in one sentence, and how complex grasp of the situation we are able to give to the reader in one go. Not only the attribution, all the other parts of the lead are explanations of the previous events, it's just onother editorial decission - where it is necessary to make the cut (in the retrospective). My opinion is, that if well formulated, then this part is good and important enough to be part of the lead. R e o + 21:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

As I've attempted to stress here, "how" is premature to a resolution on "whether". That being said, NPOV presentation of almost anything is rather easily accommodated by appropriate wordsmithing. For example, "...from both parties" immediately comes to mind as a starting point as does the plausibility of paragraph restructure (if necessary) to enhance readability. Point being that appropriate language can ALWAYS be formulated to consensus satisfaction and should present no obstacle (or even concern really) in reaching your determination. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

This question is still open and more editorial comments/observations would be greatly appreciated. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

DISPUTE - NPOV - Santorum interview
Paragraph 3 concludes the section as follows...

"He said he was arguing against any relationship other than marriage between a man and a woman, the basis in his view of a stable society: 'That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be.'[2] The interview triggered an angry reaction, including from gay rights activists.[3] A spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee described the views as divisive and reckless.[4]"

A source already cited (I'll assume there are more) notes that criticisms of Santorum's comments were hardly unrebutted. NPOV, IMHO, mandates not only noting those voices in opposition but also quantifying/qualifying, in some manner, both the breadth and source of the criticisms lest the reader be left with the impression that Santorum and his comments were not only undefended, but universally criticised (also false).

The following content is also problematical... "The interview triggered an angry reaction, including from gay rights activists." "Including" from gay rights activists? Doesn't the sourcing we've seen (to include the one cited above) suggest that it was from "gay rights groups" that the original criticism emanated? Comments please. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That sentence once included "Democratic politicians", then "Democrat and Republican politicians", and it was changed to the simpler phrasing now. It can probably be rephrased to express reality a little better. -- Avanu (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As an interim correction, it is my intent to use the existing language from the lead to be changed, perhaps, later pending resolution of already ongoing discussion...
 * "The interview triggered an angry reaction from gay rights activists and some politicians."
 * JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A related discussion in that regard is already underway, but what of...


 * "Conservative activists came to the senator's defense, however, rebutting the charge of gay bashing and casting his remarks as principled opposition to gay marriage."


 * and...


 * "The White House expressed its support Friday for Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, who has been under fire by gay rights advocates and Democrats for critical comments he made about homosexuality."


 * Is ignoring those rebuttals NPOV? JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Upon a review of existing article content prior to the SV re-write, the sole surviving citation in the Santorum interview section relating to the sources of either criticism or support for Santorum's comments is the opinion of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. This appears to suggest that, at least as currently composed, neither quantification nor identification of those sources was particularly noteworthy. Assuming that to be the case, I'm at a loss to understand how, under WP:NPOV consideration, only 2 identified critics (one quoted) managed to survive that winnowing process. Comments, please. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

"....while conservative activists saw them as a 'principled opposition to same-sex marriage'." JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is my intent to add the following text to the existing content in order to correct the POV imbalance...
 * Sounds good if you can source it well. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 04:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it's the same source that sources about half this article (slight exaggeration for effect). JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As there is apparently no objection, I'm incorporating the revisions above into the article, removing the dispute tag and designating this dispute resolved. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

"some observers"
I suggest we remove the words "regarded as vulgar by some observers" from the intro sentence. This is a good example of a WP:WEASEL term -- if "some observers" exist, we should name some, and provide cites; if not, we shouldn't put it in at all. I believe the word "derogatory" in the preceding part of the sentence is quite adequate, and the term's vulgarity is self-evident to everyone, Savage, Santorum, and the reader included, and doesn't need mentioning further. -- The Anome (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Anome, there are currently 2 open disputes and one open question directly related to your observations. Your voice would be welcome there as a step towards consensus resolution. Until those issues are definitively resolved, any edit such as the one you suggest is provocative if not incendiary...but edit as you see fit...and "Weasel Words", if consensus agreed upon, are perfectly acceptable. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for that -- I was unaware of those, and thought the edit was uncontroversial, as I would imagine that supporters and opponents of both Savage and Santorum could surely agree on the (entirely deliberate) vulgarity of the epithet -- the remarkable thing would be anyone who didn't feel it was vulgar. If you provide links to the relevant discussions, I'll happily wade in. -- The Anome (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure...Here, here and here (which I recently removed as the tagger has thus far been unheard from in discussion towards resolution). JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I second The Anome. That part of the lead needs to be removed, and he stated the reasons well. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 01:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * IMHO, your interpretation of WP:WEASEL as some mandate for specificity is erroneous and is being discussed in a designated dispute section below. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree. Jake is manufacturing policy in support of his own POV, and overly dominating this discussion. I'm boldly going to remove the phrase. There's consensus to do so. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 05:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

DISPUTE - "Who" tags in lead paragraph
Content in the lead paragraph has been objected to by the placement of 2 tags. Editors are invited to comment here. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * These tags raise objections as to the presentation of content whose notability for incorporation in the lead paragraph is currently under discussion here and here. Since resolution of these discussions might render these issues of content specificity (or lack thereof) moot, these tags, IMHO, should be withdrawn pending resolution of the more fundamental issues involved. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Heh, well I see someone came along and saw the same problems I did. Leave the tags till the problems are fixed. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 06:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Then you will need to edit accordingly as I've removed the tags due to editor non-participation in discussion attempting to resolve the issue (see above). JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. I've made multiple suggestions as to how these problems can be fixed.  My edits, such as this and suggestions on this page, are more than sufficient to indicate a good faith dispute. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 00:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Per a determination here...
 * "In general, good sources can certainly satisfy a who objection."
 * I have appended a single, IMHO RS, citation to both the referenced main body and lead content. A question is now pending to hopefully resolve the question as to reliable sourcing support and WP:UNDUE considerations and will be followed by hopefully a consensus resolution as to incorporation in the lead. Pending resolution of those 2 questions, I suggest temporary deletion of the content in dispute AND your objection. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Redirect under discussion
Editors here may be interested in this discussion which proposes to change Santorum to redirect to the dab page instead of to Rick Santorum. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

DISPUTE - "Weasel Words" Article Tag
Please discuss here. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * IMHO, "Weasel Words", or the lack of "specificity" or "vagueness" (eg. "some politicians", "some observers"), while probably undesirable in most instances, are NOT absolutely precluded by WP:WEASEL (emphasis mine) ...
 * "Phrases such as these present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint."
 * WP:WEASEL addresses the introduction of unintentional or inappropriate non-specificity, NOT intentionally formulated compromise language. Any consensus-supported "vagueness" or "non-specificity" can be immediately mitigated, if not eliminated, by the provision of appropriate sourcing (if consensus demands) and then expanded in the main body to a degree of specificity that satisfies consensus.
 * As far as I am aware, the presence of any vagueness or non-specificity in this article is intentional, interim and consensus supported though they may be qualifying content whose WP:UNDUE consideration is yet to be resolved. Given that, this tag is currently inappropriate and should be removed pending resolution of content issues. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This looks like wikilawyering to me. The language in WEASEL you are quoting is there to explain why we shouldn't use a phrase like "some observers" because it damages article quality. Protonk (talk) 01:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. But I'd then appreciate your thoughts on why the word "can" is utilized to qualify "deny". JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Can" doesn't qualify "deny" in that quote. The statement is a warning, not a grant of permission. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 05:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Can" doesn't qualify "deny" in that quote.
 * Ridiculous. Of course it does. It suggests a qualified possibility (Phrases such as these...can deny the reader...) as opposed to an actuality (Phrases such as these...deny the reader...). JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The statement is a warning,...
 * It is decidedly not, advocacy for that interpretation notwithstanding. It is a guidance designed to promote further editorial consideration as to potential language and article improvement.
 * ...not a grant of permission.
 * Actually, it IS a "grant of permission" in that it allows for a WP legitimate use of non-specificity assuming WP:V and consensus consideration finds them acceptable and appropriate in specific instances.
 * Interested editors are invited to talk:Manual of Style where this is being discussed. JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There are just a lot of ways to rewrite the lead (my own example) which don't require weaseling. What we lack is editorial agreement. Since there is absolutely no necessity for the weaseling, that means WP:WEASEL applies here. This also applies to the rest of the article: I've almost never seen any reason for weaseling: it's just bad writing, and usually hides an agenda of some sort.  That's why it's frowned upon. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 02:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * What would be remarkable would be someone who didn't think the term "santorum" vulgar (i.e. "coarse", "unrefined", etc.); it compares a person and (frothily diluted) shit. I think both Savage and Santorum, and their supporters and detractors can agree on that. Unless we can find a significant number of WP:RS that say it is not vulgar, we should either say that it's vulgar, without qualification, in much the same way that we say the earth is round or water wet, or we should skip the mention of vulgarity entirely, and just let the word "derogatory" and the clear reference to feces below do the work for us. The campaign itself, of course, is not vulgar at all: it's entirely knowing and sophisticated. -- The Anome (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree it's obvious (within a certain cultural context) but prefer to just let the information speak for itself without characterizing. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 19:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. Given the above, I propose either that we remove the words "regarded as vulgar by some observers" from the intro sentence, or that we do both that and change "derogatory" to "vulgar and derogatory" at the same time. I believe either of these changes would be reasonable, in that they state nothing controversial, and at the same time resolve the WP:WEASEL issue. Does this seem reasonable? If so, which of the two would people prefer? -- The Anome (talk) 10:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The Anome, an issue in this topic is whether "Weasel Words" is a guidance or a mandate for removal or modification. IMHO, the use of a "Weasel Word", when incorporated as a consensus-acceptable contextual accommodation can be perfectly legitimate. Wikipedia itself is, more than likely, replete with examples. Before we progress into specifics as to the merits of this article-wide (not section) objection tag, we need to reach an understanding on that point. Do you believe that WP:WEASEL presents a guidance or a mandate for modification or removal? JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, it's the verifiability policy and WP:NPOV policies that provide a mandate. If it's non-controversial that it's vulgar (and I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary), then we can just say it, as a fact. If there is significant opinion otherwise, we should give a cite that supports it (but see also WP:UNDUE). Finally, if there's full-on significant controversy, we go into the whole routing of full-on NPOV "he said/she said" citation and balancing. The problem with this kind of weasel-wording is that it makes the statement as if it was attributed per NPOV, but then refuses to actually give a source, satisfying no-one. -- The Anome (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Anome, I'm failing miserably to communicate. The issue in this topic is "some observers", not "vulgar". It's the "some observers" that is being objected to. "Vulgar" is the anchor.JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. "Some observers" is indeed the issue. I don't mind much whether "vulgar" remains or goes (it's self-evident to the point where it's unnecessary; if a scatalogical insult isn't vulgar, nothing is) but the "some observers" has to go: it suggests a minority opinion, and I can't see any evidence that any "observers", still less any citable reliable sources, have asserted that the term "santorum" is not vulgar. -- The Anome (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Some people here are misusing "vulgar". Vulgar speech is the common speech - old, simple English words like "piss" that people thought were fine to use in the Bible before they stopped using them to look aristocratic.  And a scatological insult can be delivered without vulgarity - "he's thinking with his other head", "she is as flat-bosomed as a schoolboy." Nay, in truth scatology requires a study of feces; "his essay was a blot of excrement thrown against his family escutcheon", perhaps. Wnt (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * While correct, that usage of the word "vulgar" is not the most common meaning of the word in current usage. "Vulgar" is a word with several different senses: the one I have in mind here is "Making explicit and offensive reference to sex or bodily functions; coarse and rude". See http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/vulgar -- I've just checked my paper copy, and the definition on that page is the same as given in the New Oxford Dictionary of English, which also marks the older usage as "dated". -- The Anome (talk) 08:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that yahoo are using the word to mean common speech John lilburne (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, but what does it mean to say "explicit" reference? Reference that is too easily understood, perhaps?  Because the word is so common?  To put your example to work, I would wager that Yahoo does not throw people off for saying "he's full of santorum".  I don't even think there's a question about that - they won't, which is a real world example of the fact that it is not vulgar. Wnt (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My problem here is, if the word "vulgar" is not necessary to writing the article, why are we arguing over it? I honestly don't know whose agenda it promotes, but it must promote someone's or else people would just agree to eliminate it instead of arguing over it?  That said, "vulgar" is obvious.  BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 12:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You correctly note that the question of "how" and "where" is totally premature as is a "Weasel Word" objection (the point I've been TRYING, quite unsuccessfully, to make here). There are superior questions to be resolved whose resolution MIGHT render this entire "Weasel Word" debate MOOT. Please see the topic I created which can conceivably address this ENTIRE issue (at least as I see it) in a logical progression towards clear consensus resolution (comments/observations most welcome). JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll second Jake's request to scroll back up here to resolve a much easier question, which would obviate this entire thread and thus save people time and energy. ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  19:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll second Jake's request to scroll back up here to resolve a much easier question, which would obviate this entire thread and thus save people time and energy. ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  19:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've posted a query on the MOS (words to watch) talk page to hopefully inspire editor input from editors who may be more versed in issues related to this discussion. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're manufacturing a dispute. If there's a reliable source for the claim that the neologism is "regarded as vulgar by some observers", cite it and we can move on to talking about whether it's appropriate for inclusion in the lede. (Hint: it's not.) If you don't, then it fails WP:V and needs to be removed anyway. You're just trying to distract people from the real issues with a semantic red-herring. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * IMHO, there exists in this topic (see Protonk comment) a difference of opinion as to WP:WEASEL interpretation. I am soliciting outside informed opinion, per standard Wikipedia process, on that question. Towards that end, as I've received no outside, uninvolved response as yet to my question. I have reposted the question to the MOS forum where it will be more likely (I'm advised anyway) to generate attention and response. JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have removed the tag as the placing editor has been, thus far, a non-participant in talk as to identification of specifics and resolution. Editor's who might wish to re-instate the tag will please participate in active discussion by both designating specific instances and suggested remedies. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I think in its current state the article lacks (arguably 100%, YMMV) weasel wording. My two biggest concerns were the lack of citation for "some politicians" and for our possible editorial characterization of the word as "vulgar." Without those problems, I don't see any major issues with the article.  ☯.Zen Swashbuckler .☠  14:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Zenswashbuckler, similar to the "vulgar" issue, the "some politicians" language is also subject to resolution of a superior consideration which could render it moot. I have attempted to attain some consensus as to that issue here, unfortunately producing little editorial input thus far. Your opinion there would be welcome if you're so inclined. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Per a determination here...
 * "In general, good sources can certainly satisfy a who objection."
 * ...non-specific language (eg. "some observers") is perfectly acceptable where there is consensus agreement and the language is supported by "good sources". JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As there appears to be no further debate on this issue and apparently no interest in re-tagging this article per a WP:WEASEL objection, I am marking this dispute "resolved". JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No progress, pointless discussion, and a broken system
I thought I'd drop by to see what was going on. Here you guys are, a month later, debating this topic daily, and in one month, less than 40 words of this 1442 word article have changed. . For one month, after debate by some of this site's most prolific editors, this article has yet to be brought into an acceptable state. The basic disagreement about words, the title, etc, all remain. The only consensus is that there is no consensus. If this is not proof that this community is unable to effectively and quickly deal with anything, and that in some situations our processes are not workable, then nothing is. Meanwhile, and laughably so, the same editors who argued vehemently against the deletion and merging of this article, supported and succeeded in deleting the the article Lewinsky (neoglism), using the very same arrangements that were sited for reasons for deleting this article. What hypocrisy. So I again express my sad disappointment with a large section this community, and sadly bring to your attention that in the last month you have achieved pretty well nothing as far as this article goes. Wasted effort. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 17:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Charles, as I assume you're well aware, events attendant to this article have sucked most of the editor air from this talk page. Instead of cursing the darkness, please consider re-lighting your candle. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Having editted here for many years, and having an excellent understanding of this community and its processes, I would humbly submit to you, that it is impossible to make progress on this article. The only way articles and disagreement like this one even have a chance of resolution if arbcom intervenes. They have refused. I have never seen a controversial article of this nature ever be peacefully put to rest by the participants without an outside party forcing an end. One side will eventually quit paying attention to this article, and the other side will have its way. Otherwise, it will never change and this debate will go on forever. I would suggest that is why most of the longer term editors have already quit paying attention. Thats just how it works here... Sad but true. Our consensus based system only works when there are clear majorities. When there are not, the status quo stands, even if that status quo is terrible. There are many examples of this throughout wikipedia, WP:RFA is a great example. A majority of editors has said it is broken for six years or more, but no one can agree how to fix it. So it stays broke. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 18:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, when you are trying to edit an article carefully instead of taking an axe to it, it's a more painstaking process. Sorry we haven't crafted the article the way you would have, but that's the price of non-participation, I guess. As for 'lewinsky,' it makes no sense to spout accusations of hypocrisy - while you're not exactly comparing apples and oranges, you are comparing fresh fruit with compost, as you would realize had you read the deletion discussion.  ☯.Zen Swashbuckler .☠  18:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Understanding that you do not regularly participate in editting, I will let you find out for yourself that I am right. :) &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 18:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Charles Edward, this is why, in real life we have war. Lewinsky was a different animal, however. I think there has been some very slow progress on this article: we'll see.  BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 20:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the article has been in a relatively acceptable state since SV's rewrite. The remaining dispute is between editors who feel the article shouldn't exist and therefore don't want to settle for a middle ground and editors who just want the article to represent the sourcing.  There isn't really room for "split the difference" compromise between those two sides so we have pitched discussion on small issues.  In effect we have something like the narcissism of small differences.  But to be perfectly honest if you want to write about how the progress on this article is some sort of slight to wikipedia generally, just write it on your blog.  We don't need more sections on the talk page devoted to how disappointed you are. Protonk (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article is much improved since SV's rewrite, my comment is referring to the progress since then. And my position has not been for the complete deletion of this content, but for merging it somewhere more appropriate. But, as one example to point out the lack of progress, for over one month, the editors here have been unable to determine if the proposed word is or is not "vulgar". How ridiculous is that? Your limited involvement in content building is the reason I opposed your RFA years ago, so I commend you for your increased participation. I will concede you are probably right though, and to echo the sentiments of another great editor, it is not fair for me to consider a website ran by children (minors) to be able to enforce any kind of ethical standard amongst an anonymous community of editors who have no incentive to behave ethically. And it is inappropriate of me to point out that our community far more frequently in deadlock, decay, and decline than in past years. In conceding your point, I will digress and comment no more. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 13:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that this revision of the article is pretty much as good as it is reasonable to expect -- balanced, well-sourced, and limited to a straightforward telling of the facts of the matter as reported by reliable sources, without extra pro- or anti-Santorum (or pro- or anti-Savage) spin. In my opinion, the fact that the central point of contention arguing about just one remaining point -- the "regarded as vulgar" wording -- indicates this point has been reached. Since the widespread reporting of this topic, and the numerous failed AfDs, eliminate the possibility of deleting this article, I believe the next battle will be, as stated above, a contest between those who argue (for whatever reason) that it's not worthy of an independent article, and those who think it should be kept.

By the way, I like the reference above to the narcissism of small differences: I've long been aware of the concept, but I didn't know it had a name. -- The Anome (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * An interesting concept that is, but related to this discussion it is not. FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A concept that really applies to the above is agree to disagree. FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Categorization
I was amazed an hour or so ago to find that this article was only in a single category, "Dan Savage". I understand that the subject matter is minor, but WP articles are typically categorized rather generously. Neologisms normally fail to fascinate me, and this one is no exception -- but among neologisms, surely this one has about as much [Wikipedia-style] "notability" as they come. I made the (to me) obvious additions of the categories "Words coined in the 20th century" and "2003 introductions".

It then occurred to me that its AfDs etc etc suggest that various aspects of this this article might be controversial. I pinpointed this edit in June, in which three categories were deleted: "American political terms", "Sexual slang", and "American political neologisms".

Now, one approach would be to say that, whatever this article may have been about in the past, it is now about a (minor) political campaign, and not about a neologism; ergo, it should not be in any word-related category. But this is very obviously not how categorization in Wikipedia is done. Take for example today's FA, Definition of planet. A definition of [whatever] is not a [whatever]; to say it is would be a [non-Wikipedia] category mistake. But the article is within the categories "Planets of the Solar System" and "Planets", and I think rightly so.

The summary for the edit that removed the categories talks of an agreement in the talk page. The talk page archives are very long and I did not read them; but I did search for "categor" and found nothing relevant other than an argument (about which I haven't yet formed my own opinion) over whether or not to add the category "Cyber-bullying".

I return to the three deleted categories: "American political terms", "Sexual slang", and "American political neologisms". The third makes the first redundant, but I suggest readding the second and third. (True, the denotation is not political, but the motivation is political: again, adding this category seems to me to be fully in line with normal Wikipedia procedure.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you should were right to go for it (: BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 03:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

PS Other categories worth some thought are Category:Cyber-bullying (mentioned above), Category:Internet vigilantism, Category:Feces (which includes the dictionary article "shit"), Category:Political campaigns (while there are such categories as "Category:XYZ political advocacy groups in the United States" these seem to require groups or parties; I can't see anything like "Category:XYZ political advocacy in the United States"). There's also Category:Abuse, but this seems to be psychological and legal rather than merely rhetorical: Category:Defamation might imply a court case and an admission or verdict of guilt; a pity there's no "Category:Vilification". -- Hoary (talk) 06:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've added some categories. -- Hoary (talk) 00:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"Navel Gazing"
Please discuss here before restoring this content. We need to be very careful indeed when adding self-referential information to these types of current event articles. Finkelstein wrote that quote in his personal blog, rather than on a journalistic site; hence I don't believe this reaches the WP:RS threshold. Likewise a quote from Jimbo's talk page is not appropriate content for an article unless reported by a reliable third-party source. The most we could possibly include would be the Metz quote, and I'm not sure the Register piece warrants inclusion here (it being the only reliable source I've seen that discusses Wikipedia itself in the context of santorum.) You could argue for its inclusion under Reliability of Wikipedia, but unless other sources discuss it, it doesn't belong here. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler  .☠  20:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Register is a third party source for the Finkelstein and Wales quotes, something you conveniently failed to mention, like POV pushers usually do. But given the heightened standards, I've deleted some more text that seems to have no secondary coverage, like the Moser passing mention and the filler text on the mere existence of Snidow's student paper. FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The Register has always seemed to me to be less than reliable, but we could take it up with the RS noticeboard. If judged reliable, it might merit inclusion since Wikipedia is certainly part of the drama. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 21:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The material under discussion is accurate -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

First Name Too
I was going to just add this to the article, but having seen the controversy (although I don't understand it - it's just reporting a fact), I decided to come here first. Dan Savage has threatened to redefine "Rick" if Santorum attacks gays during his presidential campaign - see this blog post, which links to Savage's video. Should this be included on this article? Absconded Northerner (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * For years, this article was about the neologism "santorum." Certain editors were quite insistent about rewriting the article to be about the campaign against Rick Santorum. So making mention of Savage's announced campaign against Santorum's first name seems like a perfectly reasonable addition given the article's refocus. I dare say that not mentioning it would indicate a non-neutral point of view in violation of Wikipedia standards. TechBear  &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 12:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The source is a blog, and nothing has happened yet. When something happens and reliable sources mention it, then we can put it in the article. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 17:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Referencing Savage's threat to Google-Bomb "Rick", Mediaite offered...
 * "But after a while, being vulgar and silly stops being a viable attention-getting mechanism for serious causes..."
 * JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"Considered vulgar"
I really like what the current revision of the article has done with the "considered vulgar by some" wording. The new formulation is well-sourced, more extensive, and more informative: far better than the previous wording. Kudos to all involved in making the changes. -- The Anome (talk)
 * That didn't last long, did it? FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Both of your comments would be appreciated in the ongoing attempt to consensus-resolve the underlying dispute on this issue. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sex abuse cases
Why does this belong in the lead?:


 * "In a segment of an April 2003 interview with the Associated Press in which Santorum's views on moral relativism and the Catholic Church sex abuse cases were explored,"

It seems like context which is irrelevant or at least not necessary in the lead. It could be reduced to:


 * "In a 2003 interview Santorum asserted that consenting adults do not have a constitutional right to privacy, and..." BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 15:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That issue was addressed here and the content was part of Slim Virgin's re-write. That's not to suggest it couldn't or shouldn't be re-addressed, but it's clear, at least to me, that the remarks made by Santorum be placed into the context which inspired those remarks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * IOW there's no reason except SlimVirgin's assertion, which isn't supported by anything. Thus the question. You seem to give SV's version some special status, but it actually has less status than if it had been arrived at by consensus process.  BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 16:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * IOW there's no reason except SlimVirgin's assertion...
 * No, I gave you my rationale above. A reader is better informed with the remarks placed in the context in which it was provided. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't give a rationale. You gave an opinion "but it's clear, at least to me, that the remarks made by Santorum be placed into the context which inspired those remarks" without a rationale.  So I'm still looking for a reason that this text should be included- how is the reader better off?  What does it add to the reader's understanding?  How is the Catholic Church relevant here?  I don't see it at all. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 15:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article mention the role of Wikipedia in spreading the neologism?
I was just looking at this article, and I was wondering if we're avoiding the elephant in the room here: the fact that Wikipedia played a large part in popularising this neologism (and still does, given that this page is a high Google result on searching for 'santorum'). I know we're supposed to avoid self-references, but this is one article that I would say actually should mention itself. This article in The Register provides a good summary that can be used as a source: There's also Seth Finkelstein's blog here, and this article[ ] which notes 'At the moment, a Google search for “Santorum” calls up the Wikipedia page devoted to the “sexual neologism” ahead of the Wikipedia page for Rick Santorum himself.' Surely this is worth mentioning here? Anyone else have any thoughts? [[User:Robofish|Robofish]] (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, I only just noticed the bit at the top of this talk page which notes 'This page has been mentioned by several media organizations.', and gives various additional sources, such as this Slate article: On that basis, I think there are very strong grounds for mentioning Wikipedia in this article; the only reason it hasn't been done yet seems to be to avoid (further) embarassing ourselves. Robofish (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly, IMHO, a plausible addition. Without considering the outcome of likely debate under WP:POLICY (name yer WP: poison), perhaps it would be beneficial for you to compose a suggested edit, how/where it would be incorporated and present it here for consideration? JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh, coming back to this with a cooler head and re-examining the sources, I don't think there is quite enough there to support a Wikipedia mention after all. I did try to formulate a possible sentence to add, but doing so made me realise that the role of Wikipedia in this story wasn't as important as I'd thought. Never mind. Robofish (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see any clear statement - other than Seth Finkelstein's report of what people here are saying - that Wikipedia is actually "playing a large part" in this. Since the neologism was up to the top of the Google rankings long before the article was started, I rather doubt it. Wnt (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There isn't enough sourcing to support Wikipedia's impact on the spread of this neologism because Wikipedia had no role in spreading this neologism. I'm genuinely curious why people think that the wikipedia article is somehow responsible for a significant change in the popularity of use of the neologism or the links to Savage's website. Protonk (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Making this article about itself would create a dangerous recursion loop that could make our readers go insane, or worse... Metal.lunchbox (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Should the information about "Santorum's views on moral relativism and the Catholic Church sex abuse cases" be included in the lead of the article?
As opposed to the body of the article. Some people seem to think this is necessary context even in the lead, while others may believe that it is what Santorum said that matters in a brief summary. Perhaps this is because the relevance is not made clear in the text but known to editors.

Yes or No BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 18:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 *  Yes  No - ...context which is well-stated. However, while I don't believe it need be presented in the lead, it is certainly warranted for inclusion in the main body. Slim Virgin, apparently, felt differently...as may others...and you should consider re-phrasing your posed question in terms reflected by the guidance of WP:LEAD. I answered your question based on how it was presented. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I made it a little clearer I'm talking about the lead and not the body. I agree it should be included in the body. Does that change your answer? BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 02:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it does. I don't believe the "context" is required for the "lead" but can be more appropriately presented in the main body of the article. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the lead is now confusing. The context of the interview is not analysed by secondary sources, and secondary sources do not connect the Catholic Church to the effort to smear Santorum and neither should Wikipedia. Speciate (talk) 03:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No The article is about the purported neologism and the campaign to promote the neologism, not an article on Santorum as a person. Collect (talk) 13:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No: Unfortunately, this is one of those articles with a talk page much longer than the article itself. We need to lose the POV; I think the information cited is more appropriate for the Rick Santorum article.--Miniapolis (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes -- if very briefly. elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 23:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you tell us your reasoning? Wikipedia doesn't work by voting.  BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 23:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If it is brief -- a few words -- then the problems of the lead organisation can be dealt with. Its mention won't make the lead confusing; the lead is confusing for other reasons. elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 23:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm yes that's true, but really I'm trying to find out if the text actually does any good. If it doesn't, it should be taken out.  And also, what about the lead is confusing? BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 23:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Moser paper
Let's see: Moser has spent his entire academic career (Ph.D. studies and thereafter) in the non-accredited Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality (listed by Quackwatch ). His 2006 paper has 2 citation in Google Scholar, an abysmal amount for a medicine paper, a highly cited field. And none of the citations cite his paper for his passing use of "santorum". FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, this edit claims that SRM is a peer-reviewed journal, but I don't see evidence of that. It appears to be a magazine, one of the many in the CME industry. FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I took it out. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 22:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with leaving it out, but I do note from FuFoFuEd's second link "After the manuscript is submitted and passes the initial review for topic appropriateness, it will then undergo peer review by a member of the editorial board or designated specialist."). Don't know the journal, have no opinion or data on it's reliability, just noting what it says. Best, --joe deckertalk to me 05:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Portraits
In this revision I've added portraits of Santorum and Savage to the respective sections in which their views are discussed in detail. I hope other editors will agree with my opinion that this is both appropriate and improves the article. -- 188.28.149.154 (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have removed the Santorum photo per this archived question. If you wish to to further discuss its placement in the article, please consider doing so here. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

santorum definition
ZACKITY (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)ZACKITY Just because some gay rights activist decides to get someone to put a definition on the word "santorum," doesn't make it so. The word "santorum" is, actually, an ancient Irish word that is defined as "land promised to the saints." Demeaning someones name, although hilarious, is childish and should be considered public and/or political terrorism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZACKITY (talk • contribs)


 * -- The Anome (talk) 12:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, the mere fact that Savage made the definition does not in itself make it significant. However the popularity of said definition does.  And you fail your own etymology lesson.  Rick Santorum's surname is Italian, not Irish. --Saforrest (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Soliciting RfC Participation
One of the most contentious subjects in the evolution of this article has been the debate on whether or not characterizations of Savage's definition warrant article and lead inclusion per WP:POLICY. While we have tentatively reached consensus on WP:V, WP:RS and WP:UNDUE, the final question on WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD still requires significantly more editorial input before any credible consensus can be established. Please afford some consideration and comment so we can resolve this debate to a clearly consensus-supported closure. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, there were significant points raised in that section which should be considered before answering: to summarize, "vulgar" is not the only characterization. "Humorous" is also used, and how would we WEIGHT the different characterizations? We may need a separate question on "Considering the drawbacks, do we really want to use characterization?" Be— —Critical __Talk 16:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

lede
Look, it makes no f'ing sense to describe the definition as "unprintable" in Wikipedia's authoritative voice (even with citations), only to go on and quote it in the next paragraph. WP:LEDE wants the definition in the first paragraph anyway, since that's what the article is about, so I've boldly restored it. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The article is about the overall controversy, not a word that does not exist. Tarc (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The IP is right that the definition should be in the first paragraph of the lead. Resistance to this proposition has never been justified.  The controversy is first, the definition second, and those two most important facts should be in the first paragraph. Be— —Critical __Talk 22:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support of the proposition is only justified by editors' personal bias. Again, this article isn't about the word itself; that ship sailed long, long ago..  It can be mentioned what the faux definition is later in the article, it isn't relevant to the lead. Tarc (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course it's relevant to the lead. It's the most relevant and important information in the article.  That's true whether the article is about a campaign, as I argued, or about a word.  Be— —Critical __Talk 23:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The definition is in the lede. It is in the second paragraph of the lede. It is in the fourth sentence in the article. I don't understand what the dispute is here. 23:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, just that the IP wanted it in the first paragraph. I happen to agree, but it's not really a major issue. Be— —Critical __Talk 00:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sense and consensus
JakeInJoisey, please consider what you are reverting to when you revert changes. If a valid edit has been made, it's much more in line with WP tradition to discuss before reverting. In this edit, you returned the article to a seemingly nonsensical state. Please don't automatically revert. Be— —Critical __Talk 21:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the phrasing got messed up in this edit. I would suggest it be phrased as:
 * In a segment of an interview with the Associated Press on April 7, 2003, Santorum asserted a that there is a relationship between the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal and liberalism and relativism. He argued that moral relativism involves the acceptance of any adult consensual behavior in the privacy of people's homes, even if the behavior might otherwise be regarded as deviant, an attitude that he believes leads to an unhealthy culture.


 * I don't have a problem with the suggestion above. I did have a problem with your edit...which I reverted. It needs to be clear that the "interview" wasn't focused solely on that segment topic. JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll put it in later, I have only seconds now (possibly). TTYL (: Be— —Critical __Talk 20:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

"Consenting adults" links to a disambiguation page
but the article is semi-protected, somebody fix it please. --78.142.89.224 (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Fixed, with what I hope is a more natural solution than editing this article: the term "consenting adults" refers to sexual consent in almost all contexts, so I've made a redirect and disambiguation for it. -- The Anome (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Quotebox suggestion
I suggest that the quote, currently in footnote #28 from The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English: "An example of deliberate coining is the word 'santorum', purported to mean 'a frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex'. In point of fact, the term is the child of a one-man campaign by syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage to place the term in wide usage. From its appearance in print and especially on the Internet, one would assume, incorrectly, that the term has gained wide usage." be placed in a quotebox to the right of that section of text. The quote does a good job of summarizing the entire issue. Cla68 (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Cla68 (talk) 04:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Continued campaign
Why was this text removed? It seems appropriate at first glance anyway. Be— —Critical __Talk 04:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess I'll restore it unless there are objections from currently active editors. Be— —Critical __Talk 21:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No legitimate reason (IOW based on wiki policies) was given for deleting or shortening it. At Wikipedia we don't mention that something exists without also stating clearly what it is, and we also include the context. We don't force people to go on-line to what may become an obsolete URL. We provide the content right here. It's all documented in reliable sources, so it should indeed be restored. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree.  Wikipedia is not an agency to disseminate all the wisdom of Dan Savage whenever he chooses a target.  Suppose he decided "Jimbo" should mean something sexual -- does that mean we should include that as well?  Nope - that is not the proper function of an encyclopedia.  It may be a proper function for a Savage flack. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Depends on whether there are reliable sources covering it. We don't make the news, but we should follow the news. Wnt (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Collect, if it weren't properly sourced, you'd be right, but Wnt is correct. We report what reliable sources say, without any regard for the feelings of the subject or their adherents here or elsewhere. We don't engage in whitewashing here, and this doesn't violate any policies or BLP. Although this could be mentioned in the lead, I'm content with leaving it in the body as is, but not a censored version. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Please note the article title - it is about a "campaign" to make a "neologism" notable. Clearly Savage simply saying he is creating another "neologism'  neither makes it notable in itself, nor does it make it particularly relevant to this article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The information is relevant to this article because it touches it in several ways, including that it's another re-definition of Santorum's name, by Savage, for the same reason; it's part of the same series of events, too. Just because it's "Rick" not "Santorum" doesn't make it irrelevant here. And who are you calling a "Savage flack?" Be— —Critical __Talk 01:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Wnt is correct that we should "follow the news". What this is, however, is an (yet another) attempt at making something more prominent than it really is by exposing it on Wikipedia out of proportion with its actual notability.  It is "making the news" in the worst possible way.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't understand: if there are good sources, how is it out of proportion? It's just a short paragraph, giving a sense of the current state of things, so is it UNDUE?  How would you represent these new sources?  Be— —Critical __Talk 04:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Coren, please provide a wikipolicy explanation for why we shouldn't document what reliable sources say. We're not doing it using OR, unreliable sources, or even glorifying it or editorializing about it. It's simple documentation, IOW the very least we do. Anything less and we have failed to do our duty as editors.


 * If you've been following what's been happening here, you'll see blatant and unwikipedian attempts by slightly experienced editors (far less than either of us) to whitewash/censor this matter by failing to document it properly. That's not allowed here. We're using reliable sources to document what's happening. The rest of the vast amount of sources aren't used because they are blogs and other activist websites. While it's problematic that by ignoring them Wikipedia is failing to live up to its stated goal of documenting the sum total of human knowledge, we are still doing it to a sufficient degree using the reliable sources which do mention this matter. I'm fine with that, but to then seek to eliminate that mention (eliminating the RS tip of the iceberg) is totally unacceptable. (Notability isn't a valid criteria here.) You're very experienced here and know all this quite well. Please don't lend your support to the unwikipedian activities of a couple partisan editors. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the best way to protect against undue weight is to include every reliable source you can find in the article, giving each a little snippet of space to tell us what's important. Unfortunately that model hasn't been followed for this article, which was cut back far beyond what I'd like; as a result, the paragraph here supported by three sources sounds like it's a little long by comparison.  In truth, I would say it was one part presented at the proper length and level of detail.  In any case, that paragraph can be trimmed down a little without great harm - shorten the quote to the bare dictionary definition, perhaps combine a few other sentences.  But cutting it out altogether is the wrong decision and gets us nowhere. Wnt (talk) 07:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Wnt has some good points. If it's shortened, a place to do it would be to leave out the quoted example of how the term can be used. That isn't absolutely necessary. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Wnt, what has been excluded which is well sourced? Be— —Critical __Talk 18:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Coren's advice is incisive
Coren strikes me as being quite incisive in reminding us all that verifiability is not the sole or overarching philosophy/guideline that editors should consider. There is of course NPOV, which makes it clear that a sense of proportion is expected to be part of common sense judgement (NPOV); there is no ‘Wikiabacus’ of 'guideline correctness' that applies to judgement, else it would be doctrine, not judgement.

But in that regard, ask yourself what the relevance of this article will be to all Wikipedia readers, and, separately, to all non-American Wikipedia readers, in one year, two years, five years, ten years. I suspect that in a couple of years anyone looking back on this will recognise most of it as idle gossip and contrived (beat-up) journalism. A simple test here might be to calculate the ratio of non-American to American sources, and to apply that ratio to reducing the word count.

Santorum, by being a public figure status, is a notable person, and maybe so is Dan Savage, but the sniggering reportage of the neologism campaign clearly is the campaign, including the obsessive re-statement of every silly comment about it here. In other words, this is what journalists and commentators do when they have nothing worthwhile to report or pontificate on, but is it Wikipedia's role to breathe life into a contrived media beat-up? That sort of thing strikes me as far more appropriate for a blog than for Wikipedia.

My own evaluation would see the bare bones of this article incorporated into articles about Santorum and Savage, with this article becoming a short stub, or even just a disambiguation re-direct.

Alas, I already know that if Santorum were named or alluded to on a Simpson’s episode, someone here would work out a rationale for including mention of the Simpson’s episode as well. So be it. Just don’t y’all pretend this article isn’t monstrously skewed, or that y'all don't know where Coren's coming from. Regards, Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk  04:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You assessment is completely right in my opinion. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 12:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure it's right, it's just not WP policy. When this whole thing blew up a while back, I repeatedly invited those arguing against having this article to get their views into policy.  No one took me up on that effort.  So now, per WP policy, we have to have this article.  See WP:NTEMP.  Be— —Critical __Talk 17:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This community would never allow that to be entered as policy. It would be futile attempt. Any attempt for real reform or improvement around here always gets squashed. The operations and policies of Wikipedia have not substantively changed for at least 7 years. Its destroying itself, slowly and steadily. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 18:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Correct t'community here is more conservative and close minded than your average talibanesque, creationist, teaparty, koran burning, numbskull. John lilburne (talk) 06:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. And maybe.  But is that a reason for selectively subverting the rules we have? Be— —Critical __Talk 19:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * BeCritical, I don't get your meaning. What is not WP policy?  Or should I ask why it is Wikipedia policy to have this article underpin the Savage campaign?  As for selectively subverting policies, every time any administrator enforces an arbitrary (unpredictable) interpretation of policy or guidelines, what we have is precisely a selective subversion.  For better or for worse, Wikipedia policy is exactly what some narrow group of editors decides in a talk page like this one, not what we argue about in the policy talk pages.  Reference to actual policy and guideline wording only ever occurs when someone wants to beat someone else over the head with a stick, usually right after they run out of eloquence or rationality in rebutting changes they don't agree with.  Regards,  Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk  00:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What I meant was, WP policy has nothing against the inclusion of an article like this one, but some editors nevertheless tried to get rid of it, even Jimbo. I wanted to get rid of it, but not without any justification.  There was plenty of policy justification for keeping it: it has sources, does not violate BLP etc.  But it doesn't belong in a "real" encyclopedia.  So, in order to prevent what you say "Wikipedia policy is exactly what some narrow group of editors decides in a talk page" I argued to keep it.  Be— —Critical __Talk 01:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And that argument is, quite frankly, horseshit. Wonks around here scream about policy policy policy when it furthers their aims to do so, not out of any greater interest in the Wikipedia itself.  This article was created and perpetuated to assist in an online campaign to smear a living person.  Thankfully since that time it has been somewhat diverted to more covering the smear campaign itself rather and less about a word that never existed, but it is still somewhat of an embarrassment to even have it at all.  If the improvement of the encyclopedia is hampered by rules, fuck em and get the job done.  That is what WP:IAR exists for, to cut past the rule-gaming. Tarc (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

And that argument is just as invalid. We are continually confusing our disdain or revulsion for the campaign itself with some duty to sanitize anything related to living persons. Sources cover the subject. The article has survived multiple deletion debates. We aren't just permitted to include the information, our missing as a neutral source for information requires us to cover it. To do otherwise is to admit we won't cover subjects which make us uneasy. That's it. Eventually we need to stop rehashing the same arguments. Protonk (talk) 03:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Right, which is why it might actually be impossible to change the rules to make articles like this go away. I couldn't think of any way to change the rules which would not have detrimental effects overall.  I nevertheless supported an attempt at change, because I didn't know what people might come up with. Be— —Critical __Talk 04:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a worthwhile conversation to have. I think BeCritical has nailed it on the head, and that is the exact source of my own frustration. This article is generally acceptable, per policy, as it currently exists. But its one of those topics that just.. does more harm to our image than good. (I know that others will disagree with that statement) And it is extremely frustrating that there are editors who do not acknowledge that or see the damage an article like this causes to the project. Unfortunately, there is no easy way to craft a policy to guard against such article, not without fundamentally altering our core policies, which will never happen. The current way articles like this can be treated as they should (deleted and merged in my opinion) is for community to be able to determine it by consensus on a case by case basis - which is equally impossible given the polarization of the issues in debates like this. And therein lies the great paradox. Wikipedia is failing (in its mission), and there is not much that can be done about it because the community is always deadlocked. This article is the proverbial banana peel. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 15:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not acceptable to have the Wikipedia be a party to the campaign, masquerading as yet another "keep ,its notable!" article. Y'all can delude yourselves into thinking we're simply providing neutral coverage of a news event, but some one us know otherwise. Tarc (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to realize no one is arguing with you. Be— —Critical __Talk 00:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Pardon me for dissenting. I think Tarc is putting a proposition that is entirely contradicted by any argument that policy forces us to keep this article.  If I'm right, Tarc is saying that it is spineless editors hiding behind policy who maintain the existence of slander pieces like this because they are too timid to say: 'Enough already.  Sound judgement, not policy, dictates that we remove this article, and any others like it, for the good of the project, and as a matter of rational rejection of any wikilawyering about keeping it.'  Moreover, policy actually supports the exercise of judgement and the abandonment of all rules when sound judgement about underlying principles should prevail.  Isn't that what 'ignore all rules' really means?  In what other encyclopaedic work is yellow press titillation a justification for an article?  Regards,  Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk  00:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but that undermines consensus. Be— —Critical __Talk 00:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How is it possible to undermine consensus with a sincerely held and cogently argued opinion? Moreover, what's wrong with undermining a consensus that is plainly odious?  Say, for example, there were consensus among a bunch of editors that I should be killed, outed for some imagined or real crime, have all my edits reverted, etc, would that consensus not be worth my while opposing?  And yours?  Before you tell me that my example is extreme, I know that.  But not so long ago in Western societies you were indeed subject to the most monstrous persecutions based on real or supposed social consensus.  Remember the roasting 9/11 'conspiracy theorists' got, or the appalling persecution faced by victims of McCarthyism in the US?  Or the Guildford Four in the UK?  The only way the rotten, barbarous consensus views that underpinned these shameful events was broken was by someone speaking out to say: 'This is bullshit.  This is not who we are or what we're about.'  If that is undermining consensus, I'm all for it where I judge it to be appropriate, and this article is exactly where that is so.  Regards,  Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk  00:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, undermining consensus by argument or rhetoric is different from actually going against it. What you're talking about is changing consensus. Be— —Critical __Talk 01:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's gratifying to know I'm on the side of the cherubim, not the dirtbag troublemakers. Wait ... did I get that the right way 'round?  Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk  23:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol. Well if you could make blanking the page stick, more power to you.  People tried that, I think, and SlimVirgin tried "deletion by other means."  But I think that absent consensus we either we need to find a way to change policy or accept the nature of WP as it is and decide as editors whether we can live with that or not.  There were editors with plenty of courage to say "Enough already. Sound judgement, not policy, dictates that we remove this article, and any others like it, for the good of the project'" but absent consensus and policy, they did not prevail.  Also, it seems to me to be the lesser road to do things on a piecemeal basis for which we can't formulate policy.  If we can't formulate policy for it because such a policy would have detrimental effects, maybe that's because it's better for the overall encyclopedia to have these articles, even if there are local negative effects.  Maybe we should question our own judgment if we can't really say that we're adhering to the categorical imperative.  Or maybe you can come up with a way to formulate such a policy?  Be— —Critical __Talk 00:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, what am I to do here? I should assume good faith, right? So I can’t say that you represent a corrupting influence, BeCritical, but I can say some other things.

The rules for getting rid of this page do indeed already exist, and they have less to do with the ridiculous notion that any article at Wikipedia has ever embodied any consensus rather than a tacit agreement among a handful of dedicated editors. Consensus, in its ordinary meaning, could not be construed as an agreement among three to 20 editors, of maybe 40,000 active volunteers (0.0005% or less). As such a ‘Wikipedia consensus’ signifies nothing other than an informal conversation. So when discussing Wikipedia consensus, let’s also be honest about what it is: a temporary agreement, often achieved by stacking a small group with like-minded zealots, and finding numbskull administrators who eschew judgement in favour of deterministic interpretations of philosophies and guidelines as hard and fast rules. This kind of thing is unrepresentative of the notional Wikipedia community as a matter of statistical fact, not opinion, and even more so of the Western (English-speaking) world. But it’s what we’ve got.

My point is that you cannot expect me to call it consensus as if it were, and you cannot expect me to respect it as if it deserved that estimation.

Perhaps more fundamentally, you can’t be serious when you talk about rules as if you didn’t know that politically aligned groups aren’t famous for making any set of rules work in their favour. That’s actually how consensus in the world works: people act behind the scenes to extort, bribe, cash in favours, and influence others by all means necessary to say they agree with a particular point of view.

This article is the brainchild of some lefty activists, and has been maintained by likeminded people against all common notions of neutrality or relevance to anyone who’s not a lefty (no disrespect for lefties, it’s just you ain’t the sole proprietors of wisdom or knowledge). This may be the current flavour of political thought in Chicago, or the US, but it’s hardly a fixture in the sum of human knowledge as respected by the principles that bind together the disparate elements of Western civilization. So, what I’m left with here is that Wikipedia is what it is, warts an’ all. And this article is a particularly unpleasant wart.

You will note that my displeasure about the existence of this kind of excreta has not been translated into presumptive ‘vandalism’. And you may care to note that I am at least a little active in Wikipedia policy discussions. However, if you thought that I should therefore remain silent here and not call the zealots precisely that, or refrain from agreeing with even abruptly dismissive statements about the folly of what is being done here, you misunderstand my motivations entirely. So long as zealots can hide behind ‘consensus’, and any other bullshit interpretation of Wikipedia rules, I can poke fun at their arguments, dismiss their solipsisms, and work to hang them by their own ropes.

As an aside, I have actually read Kant’s Kritik der reinen Vernunft (vols 1 and 2), Kritik der Urteilskraft, and the Kritik der praktischen Vernunft, all in the original German. When you speak to me about categorical imperative I confess my bias that I regard any such mechanistic, deterministic romanticism as being precisely the underpinning of the kind of tyranny it did actually spawn. I will not look on Wikipedia philosophies and guidelines as if they are categorical imperatives when plainly they can and are being ignored and traduced every day by editors and administrators alike.

So, when you, BeCritical, and a whole bunch of others, tell me how things ought to be in the Kingdom of Amerika, you’ll just have to excuse me when I turn away to clear my throat and suppress visibly rolling eyes until I’m able to act like a 14 year old kid using too many caffeinated drinks again. Regards, Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk  01:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Can I ask what the good would be of having an encyclopedia that didn't attempt to explain why a serious U.S. presidential candidate is the target of such a remarkably bitter attack? As I see it we can either dispassionately try to chronicle what is going on, or we can ignore it and hope it goes away without making a huge splash. I don't think ignoring it will make it go away, both because of the Internet's infinite memory, and because one of the participants, aided by thousands of people plus major media, doesn't seem inclined to let it. I think we're therefore better off letting readers know the story and where they can read about it further if inclined, rather than leave them in the middle with megaphones in both ears. Am I missing something? ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  03:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Zen, why is it so difficult to understand that the here and now is not indicative of what actually matters? Will he be a serious contender when it matters?  The only way to know that is to wait and see.  The entry for Santorum is just as likely to be that he lost the nomination election to become a drunk loser as it is that he won the nomination and went on to become President.  The only notable features here are about whether he won or lost the nomination and the presidential election.  To chronicle every little fart in the process of getting there is such obvious narcissism that only Americans can't see it, particularly because the behind-the-scenes moves cannot be reported until they are part of a layer of secondary reportage.  Moreover, as a matter of undisguised personal judgement, Santorum was never a serious contender, just because of electoral math: there aren't enough American morons to make it so.   Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk  03:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry in advance if tl;dr. An undisguised personal judgment first: the notion that "there aren't enough American morons to make" a terrible candidate President was disproved yet again eleven years ago with stunning global consequences. You're paraphrasing precisely what everyone I knew at the time said about the candidate who finally did get elected (or "elected" if we're being honest). But that's an aside. Ultimately you are correct that the Pyramids will crumble into dust and any particular person only warrants the attention of history if s/he happens to do something historic, which Santorum has not. And you probably have a point about Americocentric narcissism driving an appalling amount of content inclusion on Wikipedia in general and on certain pages in particular. Actually, the longer I write this edit the less sure I am about the necessity for this article and many with even less historical import. Stop me if you've heard this before. I think you're basically correct that "an encyclopedia" would lack this article, and would lack a hell of a lot of other articles that nevertheless exist; but because "anyone can edit," there is an ocean of stuff that doesn't matter because WP:V is so open-ended and WP:NOTE is so democratic. But in any Great Purge items like this ought to be among the last ones culled: OTHERCRAP is a flawed argument to keep stuff, but there is a minor point there too. If we have an article called List of minor recurring characters in Star Trek: Enterprise, but relegate coverage of the as-yet most-successful-ever googlebomb (or whatever it is) to a couple of sentences on the main players' pages, that is worse (less encyclopedic) than the current state of affairs (which at least has ambitions toward comprehensiveness). If a whole slew of things is jettisoned, though, this I guess could be among them without ill effect.
 * Apologies for long-windedness. Anyway, you've given me something to think about. Thank you for that.  ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  15:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

"You don't seem to realize no one is arguing with you. Be——Critical__Talk 00:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)"
 * I realize that in this thread - but should any one of us actually take the step and attempt to merge or delete this article, we will be immediately rebuffed and large numbers of editors will descend on this page to give the other side majority "consensus", and the attempt will fail - just like other (five?) times it has been tried. Consensus trumps almost all policy in our system of government, so what can be done? Nothing. Even a well crafted policy, that was actually accepted by the community, would be ignored when consensus demanded it. Our policy is not broken - the judgement of our community is. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 14:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a point, that a policy might be ignored. To stick it would have to have special powers like BLP. Be— —Critical __Talk 17:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Charles, would you care to offer us your advice on what to do? I have been beating my brains out and have come up with no solution (yet). Infuriating though all the cautions about the bogus rules here may be, they can be and are enforced by the namby-pambys.

Zen, yes it may be that I am presenting synthesis, but it's easier for a foreigner to remove himself from the emotional attachment to Tammany Hall, and I really can't function when I try to think like I was someone else. You have been fortunate, since the 1960s, that your conservative presidents have been men surrounded by good advisers. Kennedy was a fool, but Nixon and Reagan turned out to be men of vision and foresight who spared us all the awful solitude of death by nuclear winter, eh? Shame that the Bush guys fucked it all up. Regards, Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk  22:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Back to you, Charles


 * Haha! :) I do love political satire, and would seem you have an excellent grasp of it. So what can be done? In a word - nothing. We can do nothing, except continue to advocate our positions. Until a majority of the community comes to see the error of its ways, and recognize the damage an article like this causes, nothing can change. We could write a policy, just us, but the majority would come along and change it eventually. We could merge or delete this article, but the majority would come here and revert it eventually. Only the foundation is able to create the super-sticky policies like the BLP policy - and they have refused to intervene in this matter. ArbCom could theoretically create such a policy, but it never has in the past, and it also refused to intervene here. So, in the many attempts to have this article dispatched, multiple AfD's failed, multiple RfA's failed to produce a consensus or lead to a workable policy proposal, administrators themselves disagreed about what to do and therefore did not take admin action (other than to protect deplorable versions of the article from editting at times), arbcom refused to hear the matter, the foundation refused to take a position, and even Jimbo (who initially supported the removal of the article) failed to enforce his opinion. And why did all of these institutions fail? They failed because consensus had already been arrived at in the opinions of those institutions, and they believed consensus favored keeping this article (even in its deplorable state). They further believe that Consensus trumps all. To make a difference, consensus has to change, which means either large parts of the community have to change their mind, leave, or get outnumbered by a growing number of new opposing editors. None of which are very likely given the editorial decline going on. So, embrace fate. Articles like this drive away quality and expert editors, thus speeding the decline towards collapse. (It is a measurable loss too, but no one dare's measure it. I would suggest this article alone has decreased featured article creation by 7% annually. I can show you how to calculate that if you are interested.) Once crisis comes, what is left of the community, or the foundation, will be forced to make reform or watch what so many of us have worked so hard on for so many years be destroyed. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 12:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't even think our policies need changing. Neutrality already demands that our coverage be proportionate with with the actual coverage "out there" and this entire incident rates coverage in Dan Savage and, maybe a quick mention on the senator's article pointing at the former.  The whole point being how ultimately relevant this campaign is to both protagonists (i.e.: not very). I remain convinced that this article's very existence is improper: it gives exposition to a campaign the aim of which is to give exposition.  The only reason it hasn't been deleted is because there are a number of people (though I suppose not all) who support its existence for the same reason they support the campaign itself.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you mostly. Must it goes back to same issue - consensus trumps policy and everything else. If a majority of the community favors a bad thing, we get a bad thing. And the community has consistently favored a bad thing in at least SEVEN attempts to have this article removed over the course of several years. There have been at least five AfD's and two RfAs, in which hundreds of editors participated, including many of the most prolific editors in the community. Policy is not broken, the community's judgement is. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 13:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, one can cover side issues in their own articles without reference to WEIGHT, so long as there are enough sources to support the content. When writing a separate article, we don't need to consider WEIGHT, only NOTABILITY.  Just a technical point.  I would support merging this article, but paring it down seems to be opposed.  Be— —Critical __Talk 04:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Bizarre citation
What the heck is with the textbook cited at the beginning of the last paragraph, about the search expert distinguishing between a Google bomb and redefinition? Does the textbook say that Talking Points Memo published this page? And then... at the end of the paragraph we link to the page published by TPM? If we were going to have a cite there, why not cite TPM there instead of this textbook that (maybe?) says what TPM did? It's really bizarre and confusing. (I'm going to take out the textbook cite if there's no explanation or fix offered.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 02:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There's also the fact that that paragraph doesn't really seem to fit under that heading ("Santorum asks Google to intervene" or something like that) -- the paragraph has nothing to do with Santorum's request for intervention. (I see now that both these points are the result of changes made today -- I suggest you keep working on it, because this... this is not a good thing, the way it is now.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

(Undent) The cited book says TPM is a liberal blog. Why remove a source you haven't looked at?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Because a) it's clearly wrong as it is, because as it is, it's citing that a blog post was made three days ago, and b) I can't fix it because I don't happen to own that book, so if no response was made here (which is essentially what I meant by "if there's no explanation or fix offered") I would have no way of knowing what it was intended to cite. If it's supposed to back up the "liberal blog" part, then it should follow the word "blog"; as it is, it appears to be the source of the phrase "according to the liberal blog TPM." Theoldsparkle (talk) 03:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have now made this correction. Theoldsparkle (talk) 03:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable sources tag
I tagged the article for unreliable sources, since there are several references to alternative newspapers (4 to The Stranger and 2 to The Philadelphia Weekly) and a blog (Talking Points Memo). Given the warning that appears whenever editing this article about following BLP guidelines, the following language from the lead of WP:BLP applies: "Be very firm about the use of high quality sources." I don't see how that alternative newspapers qualify as a "high quality source" for a BLP. And most blogs don't qualify as a reliable source for any type of WP article, unless they are a part of a news organization that is a reliable source. In addition, there are additional questionable opinion sources for BLP-related articles, such as The Raw Story. Drrll (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's put this in context, shall we? What matters about sources is whether they are reliable for verifying the text they support.  Are you genuinely questioning whether Sullivan said what he was reported to have said by Talking Points?  Does The Stranger really seem unreliable for verifying what Dan Savage (of all people) has had to say about his santorum campaign?
 * If you want this to be taken seriously, I suggest going beyond slapping a tag on the article and quoting some policy text. If you have any genuine concerns about the sourcing of particular points, by all means tell us what they are.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel exactly the same way as Nomoskedasticity. Please comment.   Blue Rasberry    (talk)   17:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Nomoskedasticity. This article has references from ABC, CNN, NY Times, Politico, The Economist, and The Washington Post. This article absolutely does not warrant a reliable sources tag. Are there specific statements in the article you think are not properly sourced? If so, feel free to delete them or cite them properly. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 01:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As the person who added the TPM reference, I would point out that it's very reliable, not an average blog (having won a Polk Award ), and it added information that couldn't be found elsewhere. I definitely disagree with the first assertion that the article's references are not reliable. Seleucus (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:BLOGS is commonly misinterpreted to preclude sources that are in a blog format, when in fact it says that self-published blogs are not reliable sources for most content; see WP:USERG. WP:RS is commonly misinterpreted to create a line dividing sources that are always reliable from sources that are never reliable, when in fact, as Nomoskedasticity notes, different sources are reliable or not for sourcing different statements. I'll be reverting the tag shortly if you don't respond, unless someone else beats me to it. Lagrange613 (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * TPM is not the most reliable source out there, especially since it self-identifies as left-wing, and is reporting here about a politician, and is quoting some unknown non-notable guy named Sullivan. I'd remove it, but at least we should describe the source inline, which I've done.  Also, I've shortened the Sullivan quote by removing this sentence: "At [t]his point there's nobody who could not argue [Savage’s definition of santorum] is not a definition in a lot of quarters." This sentence was already paraphrased, plus it's a nightmare to read (it contains a triple negative, after all).Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed that the Sullivan passage was confusing. I just paraphrased it some more to make it clearer. His interview serves a pretty useful role in this article, though: it provides a potential explanation for why Google decided that this was not a Google bomb.  By the way, Sullivan has his own Wikipedia page which has been around since 2006, which is 5 years before the TMP interview. So TMP is likely not alone in finding him notable. DarwinPeacock (talk) 01:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding that Sullivan page. I hadn't noticed it at the disambiguation page.  While Sullivan now seems more notable than he did before, I think that a more neutral source would have addressed an obvious question: even if the Santorum prank isn't technically a "Google bomb", why would Google counteract some types of pranks and not others?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

(Undent) Regarding the blog "The Stranger", it's self-published by Dan Savage, right? WP:Blogs says: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." It would be better to not use this source, for statements by Savage about Santorum (who certainly qualifies as a living person).Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * See The Stranger (newspaper). --173.11.81.217 (talk) 06:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * See Savage Love. Somehow "Savage Love" didn't get mentioned in our footnotes, but that's where the material appears.  While perhaps not a blog, "Savage Love" seems to be a primary source, and WP:BLPPRIMARY applies: "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Savage Love" is only being cited to back assertions about what Dan Savage said in "Savage Love". It's reliable. Lagrange613 (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you agree it's a primary source? Primary sources are not acceptable to back what's said in primary sources.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If it is true that ""Savage Love" is only being cited to back assertions about what Dan Savage said in "Savage Love", then it is definitely a reliable source. Be— —Critical __Talk 18:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. If Dan Savage's column is being used as a source for what Dan Savage said, then there's no problem.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the primary source (Savage's column "Savage Love") is a primary source that's not being used here to augment any secondary source, but rather is being used so that anything Savage says about Santorum is fair game for this article, whether it's covered by a secondary source or not. Anyway, it's been nice chatting with you folks, and I'm off now to more neutral territory.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That could be a problem. I haven't reviewed the article recently so I'm just speaking theoretically here. Be— —Critical __Talk 20:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not see a problem. Dan Savage published through a syndicated national column which appears in hundreds of newspapers.  That is not self-publishing.  The Stranger is not published by Dan Savage; he is the editor of that paper but it is still a product of its own media entity.  The self-published issue is completely separate from the primary source issue, though. Could someone point out the specific statements which are being said to be sourced only from primary sources?   Blue Rasberry    (talk)   14:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the specific statements is this: "There's no better way to memorialize the Santorum scandal than by attaching his name to a sex act that would make his big, white teeth fall out of his big, empty head." It's from Savage Love which is Savage's column in The Stranger. The column is used here as a primary source about another living person.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If it would make you feel better, we could add a reference that would count unequivocally as secondary: . Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomoskedasticity, please use ABC instead of the primary source. The recently-added stuff from Daily Kos also needs to be replaced or removed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and swapped in the ABC source that Nomo found.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What should the information from Daily Kos be removed?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   03:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect statement?
"Unlike Google, search engines Bing and Yahoo have been presenting the offending links second behind Santorum's web site.[40]" I don't do edits on Wikipedia because I dont want to get into edit wars,and I dont fully understand all the rules. With that, I am SUGGESTING someone change this sentence as it is incorrect. Not only can you do a quick search yourself to see it to be false, I have a link that says as much. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/26/1020217/-Anti-gay-group-attacks-Google-with-frothy-mix-of-lies-for-Rick-Santorum?detail=hide — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.62.147 (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not present information because of it being correct; it presents what reliable sources state. There are sources which say what you say and sources which say the opposite.  I left the source which was already there, added another, and then added what you just asked to be added.   Blue Rasberry    (talk)   13:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Should the article assert as fact that the term is "vulgar"?
In the thread above, there was a long discussion in which several of us stated the reasons not to assert as fact that the term is "vulgar". There were edits to the article in which other terms were used. It said "sex-related" at the time Slim Virgin substituted her rewrite -- a rewrite that had taken the prior "vulgar" but that didn't reflect any of the subsequent discussion or edits. When I changed this one word to the version that had been in place before Slim Virgin's substitution, it was reverted.

So, what's the deal here -- the whole Wikipedia process of discussing on the talk page, and edits trying different versions, is irrelevant? Maybe it's because those of us who don't want to see the whole article deleted are among those editors who, in the opinion of some, are never to be taken seriously again, so everything we do can be ignored.

I just can't understand why, on what's probably the most contentious article in Wikipedia at this time, people feel free to so egregiously disregard process. This attitude is unhelpful, to say the least.

Do we need to run a separate straw poll just on whether to call this "vulgar"? JamesMLane t c 21:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Vulgar's not a good word for it. If by "vulgar" we mean that the term is offensive or nasty, that's poorly sourced, imprecise, and POV.  If by vulgar we mean involving body functions, that's an oddly archaic phrasing and could be mistaken for the first meaning.  Either way, no go.  Sexual, sex-related, even derogatory all work without the POV.  I wouldn't hold up SV's other changes on account of this one issue, but at this point I don't think there's consensus to call it "vulgar", something we can address now or later.  - Wikidemon (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * @Wikidemon, how is it derogatory? That would be POV it seems. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Vulgar and sex-related do not have the same meaning entirely, nor do they have the same force when used in a similar way. IMO, vulgar is much more precise here because the definition provided on Savage's website is offensive to almost everyone, even those who are amused by it or otherwise support the attack on Santorum.  What do the sources say ... and no I don't simply mean what did Savage say he set out to do/  Savage does not get to dictate whether or not the definition he picked for santorum is "vulgar." So what do other sources say? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * @Griswaldo, How is it offensive? That seems POV as well, but I agree that we should mirror what RS call it. --Threeafterthree (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * One of Flatterworld's (now stricken) messages above includes a couple dictionary definitions, "Lacking sophistication or good taste; unrefined", and "making explicit and offensive reference to sex or bodily functions; coarse and rude". Another online dictionary has further definitions (I paraphrase some): "Crudely indecent", "deficient in taste", "marked by a lack of good breeding; boorish", "Offensively excessive in self-display or expenditure", "spoken by or in the manner of the common people", "associated with the common masses".  The fact that there are so many definitions and it is not clear which one is meant here makes the word imprecise.  Some things they all have in common are that they are: (1) negative; (2) statements of judgment and opinion; and (3) for the most part, expressing that something is offensive.  Not that it has offended, but that we judge it to be offensive.  - Wikidemon (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the use of the word "vulgar" in the article is a bit archaic and confusing. I imagine that SV meant vulgar to mean as related to bodily functions but at least two editors just in this section have interpreted it to mean "offensive".  It seems to be a case of false precision.  One connotation of the word is directly matched to the intent of the text but many other connotations can be inferred without much trouble, clouding the meaning. Protonk (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Vulgar is the correct word to use. I don't see it as being POV it adequately describes the 'earthy humor' of the joke. As for being 'offensive' wasn't that the point of it? John lilburne (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course that was the point of it. I am, quite frankly flabbergasted by the continued efforts here to make a subject that was intended to be offensive and intended to have negative consequences into something "neutral."  WP:NPOV is not a policy that demands us to describe things in a manner that is more neutral than they actually are.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * NPOV requires the same level of neutrality no matter what the subject matter. We're not trying to paint either Santorum's anti-gay statements or Savage's response as either wonderful or terrible.  We're simply saying what happened.  If anybody is going to call the other vulgar, disreputable, offensive, etc., in the article it would have to be an attributed statement of due weight by someone relevant to the situation.  It's not Wikipedia's job to take offense.  - Wikidemon (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely one doesn't leave one's common sense at the door when entering this site, are we supposed to believe Santorum should be thanking Savage for google bombing him in such a complimentary manner? John lilburne (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, according to the last sentence in the article, yes. Protonk (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strange! It doesn't read as if he's saying that Savage is make complimentary comments about him, quite the reverse. John lilburne (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikidemon as I stated already, we should go by what the sources say. However, if someone's intent is malice or to attack someone else, and that is reported in reliable sources we certainly report it here.  If the effect of something is to offend people, and again that is reported in sources we certainly report it here.  That is what saying what happened is about after all.  You appear to want to change our policies when it comes to reporting the effect that something has on people, claiming that by stating such things a normally reliable source becomes unreliable.  Say what?  I don't think so.  No one has said that it is our job to take offense, so please spare us the straw men.  It is also not our job to advocate for our personal political POVs.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're invited to read it again at your leisure. Protonk (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Current policy (and common sense) dictate that we can't state value judgments about things as facts. If a reliable source contains opinion, that does not mean we  adopt that opinion.  You're missing something extremely obvious, that face you every time you read any source.  Some parts of the source are analysis and assertions of fact, which the source serves to validate.  Other parts of a source are not assertions of fact and with those we don't try to pick potatoes out of a cornfield. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I'm not missing anything. You're wildly wrong if you think there are bright lines between what you seem to consider assertions of "fact" and "value judgments." If it is normative, within a given society, to consider a certain type of word "obscene" or "vulgar" then that is itself a social fact. You might say that calling boxing a "violent" sport is a "value judgement," but to most people it is a simple statement of fact.  That violence is a part of boxing, can be considered factual if reliable sources repeat the claim.  The same goes for vulgarity or obscenity.  Everyone will not agree (and indeed that's true about everything), but the social norms dictate how we classify expressions like these.  There is nothing contra policy in that view either, since social norms will also be reflected in reliable sources, and here at Wikipedia we count on those sources first and foremost.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 04:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The proposition you're arguing is an extreme one not embraced by the encyclopedia. As far as I know Wikipedia does distinguish between facts and opinions, following the sources on facts, and reporting opinions as such.  There are many fuzzy and uncertain lines in the world but that does not preclude making distinctions.  We certainly don't elevate social norms (whose social norms would we choose?) to to a pronouncement that some things are objectively obscene and others not.  If the weight of reliable sources says that something is a social norm, and it is relevant and of due weight, we could report that it is a social norm.  That's as far as we go.  - Wikidemon (talk) 05:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do reliable sources describe it as vulgar? Tarc (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources say a number of things, but to the extent they voice opinions about how crude and unsavory something is they are not being reliable. We can source the fact that someone has an opinion, but we don't look to sources for an opinion for Wikipedia to endorse.  - Wikidemon (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Really. That seems to be quite the 180° from what you...and I, for that matter...say when we argue to keep the "conspiracy theory" aspect of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories in the article.  Reliable sources describe it that way, so the Wikipedia does as well. Tarc (talk) 23:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the bigger issue than hypocrisy (because honestly everything is a bigger issue) is the myriad opinions available and the necessity of choosing only one word. The worry is that editors may characterize the campaign as "vulgar" and then seek support in some sources.  Which they will find because vulgar is among the words used by sources to characterize the campaign.  I don't know of a complete solution to the problem, but we ought to acknowledge it. Protonk (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No hypocrisy at all. You'll find that I consistently oppose and remove words that express opinions about things.  When Wikipedia says that something is sad, fortunate, worrying, surprising, unexpected, unknown, unfortunate, perplexing, confusing, shocking, etc., it's got to go, because those are all expressions of opinion.  Calling something a conspiracy theory is not a statement of opinion (and if it were, it should not be in the encyclopedia).  It's an analysis about the nature of the thing.  It is a defined term that the thing fits.  No, we do not use reliable sources in that way.  Sources verify facts, they do not endorse opinions.  - Wikidemon (talk) 03:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If we use the word "vulgar," it has to have a reliable source. What reliable source are people proffering? BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 04:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

My primary complaint about the use of the word "vulgar" in the lede is that it violates "show don't tell". If, in the proper course of the article, we explain exactly what was meant by santorum, then the reader may judge for themselves whether or not that is "vulgar", "obscene", "hilarious" or some other adjective. It serves no useful purpose to announce an opinion on the nature of the neologism at the start of the article. Protonk (talk) 04:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh now I get it we should present 'santorum' as if it was pretty much like 'slut', 'twink', 'dildo', or 'chickenhawk'. 07:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by John lilburne (talk • contribs)

@Protonk and Wikidemon. My primary complaint is that you all seem to want to remove a layer of meaning from this term by erasing it's classification and social function. This term was meant to be obscene. Savage himself said: "There's no better way to memorialize the Santorum scandal than by attaching his name to a sex act that would make his big, white teeth fall out of his big, empty head." What kind of sex-act would do such a thing? A highly obscene one would. Savage got this right, and the manner in which "santorum" functions to elicit all of the reactions it gets is as an obscenity. Whether people laugh at it, are offended by it, or are angered by its existence they are so because it is an obscenity. That is a basic social fact, and not simply a matter of "opinion" or a "value judgement." Language does not exist in a vacuum, it exists within a social context. Sanitizing the presentation of an obscenity by calling it something else does our readers a complete disservice because it damages their understanding of what this term is. I'm sick and tired of these arguments which sound like Wikilawyering to serve an ideological purpose to me, as opposed to arguments which aim to help our readers understand the subject matter.Griswaldo (talk) 11:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You understand the difference between calling a word an "obscenity" and saying something is "obscene", right? If someone bumps their head and yells "shit", they're yelling an obscenity.  However, they're not saying anything obscene.  "Obscenity" is a specific class of word that can be objectively defined, and "vulgarity" is a similar but perhaps broader category.  Both can be ambiguous because they have other meanings as well that are defined by community values.  It's not wikilawyering to say we shouldn't write articles from the point of view of the values of one community or another.  - Wikidemon (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you going on about now? Please consult dictionaries before making claims about the meaning of words from now on please because it will save others the wasted time and the frustration.  The Oxford English Dictionary defines "obscenity" thus (emphasis added): "The character or quality of being offensively indecent, lewdness; an instance of this, esp. an obscene expression.  If a word is an obscenity it is an "obscene word."  If someone is yelling an obscenity they are by definition saying something obscene.  The community in question, is the global English speaking community, for which we write and from which we get most of our reliable sources.  The issue at hand is not about "values" but basic "comprehension." That entire community understands a word with a meaning like "santorum" to be an obscenity.  How individuals in the community feel about obscenities, or how they feel about that obscenity is irrelevant.  They understand that it functions in a manner that is lewd and offensive to others.  Indeed it wouldn't be funny to anyone if it didn't, it would offend anyone if it didn't, and it wouldn't anger anyone if it didn't.  I'm sorry for calling your failed attempts at sophistry, "Wikilawyering," maybe there are better descriptors.  Now I've repeated myself once again.  Go ahead and have the last word.Griswaldo (talk) 13:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Obscene" has a specific legal meaning in the states. That is what Wikidemon is getting at.  I don't worry too much about using words where the connotation is benign but a denotation may be a term of art, but amidst all the constant complaining that the article itself represents some legal liability it doesn't hurt to be cautious.  On other lines I think you are getting entirely too worked up about this.  Don't be "sorry" for calling out Wikidemon, just resist the temptation.  You aren't going to "win" (neither is he) and all that will happen is fatigue will set in for the rest of us--if it hasn't already.  Please play a part in toning down the rhetoric rather than ratcheting it up. Protonk (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) You may be right about what he meant, but he never made that clear. 2) In US legal usage "obscene (acts)" and "obscenity" are synonymous (see Obscenity), so either you are wrong about what he meant or again Wikidemon doesn't know what he is talking about. 3) As the obscenity article makes clear the legal rationale for what is or is not "obscene" is the same as the socioliguistic one - social normativity.  I may very well be worked up about this, but what I'm worked up about is keeping the encyclopedia from the taint of real world political mudslinging.  I think getting worked up about protecting our reputation as a reliable, neutral and informative reference work is something that more people around here could stand getting worked up about.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And another critical component of the legal definition of "obscenity" is the fact that there are very few broad "social norms" for what is considered obscene speech. I'm not interested in getting into the difference between "obscene" and "obscenity" (I doubt there is much daylight between the two terms), but the fact remains that we should probably steer clear of any terms which have obvious legal meanings.  And please, please understand that those of us on the other side of the debate care deeply about wikipedia's reputation as a neutral and reliable reference work.  We (or at least I) feel that the use of BLP to gut or delete otherwise neutral and factual articles is a direct impingement upon the encyclopedia's reputation for neutrality and fairness.  Consequently you might understand our frustration with the drumbeat of comments coming from a purported moral high ground.  A better answer is to try and engage as dispassionately as possible. Protonk (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that we ought to look at the subject we are covering dispassionately, but what we should never do is to fashion non-neutral subjects into neutral sounding ones. The current discussion is not about deleting or gutting the entry. In fact, ironically perhaps, it is about keeping an additional phrase in the entry because it provides additional information.  What really frustrates me is hearing people argue that we shouldn't be removing valuable information ... unless its information of a certain kind.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The current discussion is a proxy fight over the tone of the article, I'll agree with you there. It is also nearly meritless (the dispute itself over the single word, not the discussion).  But I'm not so blind as to imagine that all of the words spilled on this talk page are about adjusting tone in order to match a "non-neutral subject".  I'm also totally uninterested in the preservation of information.  What matters in cases where BLP clashes with other guiding principles of the encyclopedia is that we have the courage and honesty to engage in a serious discussion about how best to weigh our competing moral imperatives.  In this case that means fighting over the content (and yes, existence) of the article.  Unfortunately that means getting into small disputes like this because the alternative is simply ignoring this page and hoping for the best only to return weeks later to find that those folks who stuck around to fight the small battles won the big ones by default because everyone else gave up. Protonk (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (ecXn) I know this subject pretty well. As a matter of definition there is a difference between obscenity or vulgarity as shorthand for a dirty word, and the notion of something being obscene or vulgar meaning to be being outside of the pale of human decency (or as Protonk just pointed out, legality).  Calling something "obscene" or "vulgar" in the latter sense is an expression of contempt or disgust.  Protonk's observation is an interesting one.  Why are we spilling so many words over the abstract question of whether we can use loaded words like "vulgar" or "obscene" to describe the subject of an article, when (AFAIK) nobody has even proposed a reliable source for the description?  I think it is a matter of tone, and a problem with SV's otherwise excellent rewrite.  By starting off calling Santorum a vulgar neologism, the article adopts the point of view of an unspecified community whose norms are offended.  It sounds like starting an article by saying that Gilbert Gottfried is a "rude" commedian, Katy Perry is an "annoying" singer, or eating chicken with a spork is "unacceptable" manners.  - Wikidemon (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that "sex-related" is more accurate, as the primary sources for the beginning of the campaign clearly state that was the goal. "Vulgar" is an opinion that was later hung on it.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "primary sources for the beginning of the campaign clearly state that was the goal", is the POV of one significant view, we need to cover all significant views. Not just what Savage purportedly claims. Dreadstar  ☥  22:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Use our sources properly (primary source never says 'vulgar'), secondary sources might

 * May 15, 2003 (a reader suggests an idea)


 * I'm a 23-year-old gay male who's been following the Rick Santorum scandal, and I have a proposal. Washington and the press seem content to let Santorum's comments fade into political oblivion, so I say the gay community should welcome this "inclusive" man with open arms. That's right; if Rick Santorum wants to invite himself into the bedrooms of gays and lesbians (and their dogs), I say we "include" him in our sex lives--by naming a gay sex act after him.
 * (signed) Sex and Rick Santorum


 * Minor quibbles aside, SARS, I love your suggestion. There's no better way to memorialize the Santorum scandal than by attaching his name to a sex act that would make his big, white teeth fall out of his big, empty head.


 * May 29, 2003 (another reader comes up with The idea)


 * While I agree with the spirit of naming something objectionable (to him) after Rick Santorum, I think it should be a substance, not an act. I would never want to "santorum" anyone I liked. What a turnoff. Instead, I think it would be better to name some kind of sexual byproduct after him.
 * (signed) Wipe Up That Santorum, Anal Pokers


 * June 12, 2003 (Dan Savage announces a winner)


 * ....Since people don't discuss santorum even with people they've covered with santorum, getting the word into general use is going to be tricky. I'm willing to do my part, however: Please send me your santorum-related questions and/or santorum-related memories and I'll do a column or two on santorum. This will not only help to get the word out and into general use, but also help break the silence about santorum.

(the preceding is an unsigned comment) I have found multiple sources calling this term vulgar - including one we use in the article already. The lead of the huffington post article is "Nothing more vulgar than Santorum himself", which indirectly implies that, though less vulgar, the term itself is vulgar nonetheless. Besides that, a host of less reliable sources call it vulgar. Here is another reliable source that directly calls the term vulgar, ,. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 12:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * None so far. The first source does not call the term vulgar.  The second only uses the word vulgar by way of quoting this article.  The third contains the word only in a user comment, and the fourth is a user-submitted editorial and thus not a reliable source.  - Wikidemon (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict: that's what I was going to say. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 13:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate any considerations on the following...
 * ...but a "Primary Source" DOES say "vulgar"

Per WP:Primary (emphasis mine) ...

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully." "...and..." "Deciding whether primary...sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages."

This article is already replete with cited quotes from both Savage's attack and his victim...and rightly so. Under what WP:POLICY should the victim's widely reported and, as far as I can see, UNCHALLENGED observation,

"The Internet allows for this type of vulgarity to circulate."

...be considered non-WP:RS or non-germane to a consideration of whether "vulgar" is an appropriately supported characterization after provision of a third-party WP:RS citation utilizing that characterization as well? JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In other words, you propose to state Rick Santorum's claim, as fact, in Wikipedia's voice, in the lead. How neutral. Please don't do this again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Bob Casey Jr., who was running against Santorum in Pennsylvania, returned Savage's campaign contribution, citing Savage's "vulgar" comments on his Santorum website as the reason. (Philadelphia Inquirer). Casey's comment was also quoted in the Washington Post, and in the Pittsburgh City Paper ("Larry Smar, spokesperson for the casey campaign, says that controversial and vulgar content in the column and on Savage's anti-Santorum Web site, www.spreadingsantorum.com, led to the decision to return the contribution.") Savage quoted it in his blog: "Casey to Savage: You're Vulgar!"  and again here:
 * In the Philadelphia News again, the following day, "The Casey people decided that accepting money from the not always tasteful Savage who has a vulgar anti-Santorum Web site would cause more trouble than it was worth." |DN&p_theme=realcities&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=1132B479C4939D98&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM.
 * One of the judges of The American Dialect Society wrote, "The Most Outrageous category is tricky; we never agree whether it’s the word itself that’s outrageous (typically for having some vulgar element, as in 2003’s winner, cliterati, for ‘prominent feminists’) or the concept (as with 2002’s neuticles, ‘false testicles for neutered pets’). This year the strongest contender was santorum, defined (and heavily promoted) by sex writer Dan Savage — in a campaign to besmirch the name of right-wing Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum".
 * The Register the other day spoke of Savage's "web-centered campaign to establish 'santorum' as a vulgar neologism".
 * The Communist People's World said: "Dan Savage's contest among his readers to create an alternate definition for "Santorum"- the results are too vulgar to print here ..."
 * If there is one thing the Communist party paper, Casey and Santorum agree on, it's that Savage's campaign is vulgar. I'm not saying it's the only word we can use, but vulgar is certainly used by sources across the political spectrum. -- J N  466  16:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In other words, you propose to state Rick Santorum's claim, as fact, in Wikipedia's voice, in the lead.
 * No, I'm proposing that WP:RS sourced content be appropriately incorporated into this article. I'm also suggesting that utilizing the characterization "vulgar" is supported under WP:POLICY. A WP:RS secondary source utilizing the characterization "vulgar" in referencing Savage's attack has been provided. That secondary source happens to mirror Santorum's widely reported (and, as far as I can see, undisputed) characterization of Savage's attack as "vulgar". That observations by Rick Santorum, as a "Primary Source", are not admissable (which was asserted earlier in this discussion) is simply, IMHO, wrong and demonstrably disregarded by a slew of QUOTES from both progenitor and victim. WP:PRIMARY does NOT preclude citing Santorum's observations so long as it is supported by the provision of "a secondary source". With that requisite proviso having been satisfied, Santorum's observations should be considered WP:RS legitimate and germane under WP:POLICY. That leaves us with "common sense and good editorial judgement" as to Santorum's (or Savage's for that matter) observations assuming both are legitimately categorized as "Primary Sources"...but I'm not confident that's valid here anyway.
 * As to...
 * How neutral.
 * I'll simply observe that your ardor for WP:NPOV is rather conspicuosly MIA inre Santorum's lead characterization as a homophobe. Attribution of "vulgar" (which appears to satisfy your WP:NPOV sensitivies inre "homophobic") can be just as easily accommodated. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Here are some mentions of the term being obscene:, , ,. I'm sure there are more.Griswaldo (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Obscene" or "obscenity"

How about "obscene" instead?
Perhaps "vulgar" isn't the best term to use, but "obscene" appears to be a pretty popular descriptor, and is perhaps more accurate and less confusing all around. Thoughts?Griswaldo (talk) 04:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The sources in the above section all militate for using the word "sexual" which I tried and was reverted. "Obscene" is the same as "vulgar" unless it can be sourced... I looked at your link but didn't see anything RS, it's only Santorum talking again, same as with "vulgar."  Did I miss something there? BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 06:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Obscene has a distinct legal meaning as well and the neologism's definition probably doesn't meet that. -- Avanu (talk) 06:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is good. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 06:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I too don't think that 'obscene' should be used here particularly as it has a legal meaning. The correct word to use here should be 'vulgar' as that carries the correct meaning, and 'sex-related' is simply a euphemism, it could well refer to 'condom'. John lilburne (talk) 14:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur. Here is obscene in a RS to o. I think we are parsing the English language a little too thin here. Vulgar's definition fits the topic. ITS not POV, its reality. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 15:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Obscene is a completely inappropriate word for it. It has a specific legal meaning which does not apply to it.  I see no problem with vulgar.  If you were to ask Mr. Savage and Mr. Santorum (as representatives of the main opposing views) and a random sample of people on the street (reading the definition to them) whether it was "vulgar"; I think you would get complete agreement that it is. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The Vulgar vs Sex-related Debate
People keep missing the point. The sentence as worded is telling us the INTENT of Dan Savage. Unless you are a mind reader, or unless Dan Savage says "vulgar" himself, then his own words and his readers' words say "sex act" or "sexual byproduct". Sex-related is a fine merge of the two. They do not say the word vulgar. It may be vulgar, or be considered vulgar, BUT you must change the sentence if you use the word vulgar. Like so: "American columnist Dan Savage initiated a campaign in 2003 to create a neologism using the surname of Rick Santorum, whose definition is now widely considered to be vulgar"

You can't just call it vulgar because the sentence says "Dan Savage initiated a campaign in 2003 to create ..." This phrasing DIRECTLY relates to the intent that Dan Savage has. And so by referring so closely to the intent, we must go by what the primary source says. -- Avanu (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Avanu, if you really want to describe the word based on Savage's intentions then you are OK with replacing "vulgar" with this description: " ... a sex act that would make his big, white teeth fall out of his big, empty head." So we would end up with something like this:
 * American columnist Dan Savage initiated a campaign in 2003 to create a neologism using the surname of Rick Santorum, which would equate "santorum" with a "sex-act" intended to make Rick Santorum's "big, white teeth fall out of his big, empty head."
 * Now, I don't agree that Savage's intentions have any special claims to how we describe this term in the first place, but since you do maybe my suggestion is one you'd back? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't see what the issue is here. Savage clearly intended to create a vulgar definition, so that's what he did. It's not only "sex-related," which might include things like "nice, big, wet kiss." SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 18:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have made an edit to the lead which will hopefully address Avanu's concern. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I cannot fathom why people, who have argued NOTCENSORED would suddenly want to substitute a euphemism for what the Savage did. ""There's no better way to memorialize the Santorum scandal than by attaching his name to a sex act that would make his big, white teeth fall out of his big, empty head." That is clear statement that Savage's intent wasn't to be create something that was vulgar. John lilburne (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I think you are venturing into WP:Synth with perhaps a dose of WP:TRUTH as well. I've seen no sourcing suggesting Savage's "intent" was creation of, specifically, a "vulgarity" and you can't just make that leap...nor is it necessary. There is adequate sourcing to support the characterization of his attack's by-product as "vulgar"...attributed if consensus demands. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:LEAD is very clear, it is an introduction and summary of the article's contents, it doesn't matter what Savage's statement was or Santorum's for that matter, it should accurately summarize the article and all points of view per WP:NPOV, 'sex-related' is vague and unclear, what is intensely clear to any thinking human being on the planet (as reflected by multiple reliable sources) is that it is vulgar, and was meant to be vulgar, otherwise there would have been no impact.  We're not limited to just Savage's puported, whitewashed so-called "intent" per some of the editors here.  Come on, folks, at least have the nerve to WP:SPADE this thing if you really think its existence is justified.  Dreadstar  ☥  18:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me that it's vulgar, but I suppose that I'm among the editors trying to use Wikipedia to further a political point, and among the ditors who aren't to be taken seriously, so adding "not a thinking human being" is just one more personal attack on a page that's rife with them. But if, in your view, it's "intensely clear", then presumably you mean it's clear from the text of the definition.  We include the text of the definition.  Therefore, adding "vulgar" gives no new information to any reader who's a thinking human being.  By the way, our article on Enema uses the phrase "fecal matter" -- is that article vulgar? JamesMLane t c 03:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * 'Vulgar' seems to me to be a pejorative description ('obscene' even more so), one which ought to be avoided under WP:NPOV. Why not just say "sexual neologism"? That has the benefit of being accurate and concise. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Seems"? It is a decidedly pejorative description and one which, in all liklihood, Savage would delight in. Less so some contributors here. It is also precisely accurate and WP:RS sourceable...which should be the salient point here. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Pejorative"? I'm sorry, Sam, have you seen the actual article?  "Pejorative" describes the thing from start to finish.  And I have to say that "sexual neologism" is totally inaccurate, doesn't meet WP:V or any other policy requirements, it has no benefits whatsoever.  Dreadstar  ☥  19:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I have zero problem with the term 'vulgar' being applied to this term. I think it is an accurate description of the term.  The problem is when we say that Dan Savage's intentions are to create a "vulgar" word.  Show us proof that Dan Savage sees this as vulgar and I'll support the change to say that, otherwise, we are stating that we clearly can read his mind and know his true intentions. I think from Dan Savage's statement, we can imply that he meant it might be shocking and MIGHT be vulgar to Rick Santorum, but Dan Savage is a guy who is comfortable discussing ass poo in a public setting and does not necessarily find this vulgar.  Our word is telling the reader what Savage's intent and thoughts were.  We can't know these for sure unless he says something. -- Avanu (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That doesn't match what WP:LEAD says, and is just a red-herring. Quit trying to attribute what the lead says to a POV, it doesn't work. And besides, what you're claiming doesn't match the current lead.  Dreadstar  ☥  19:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I was speaking in terms of my original point. I can't make my comments match anything in the 'current' lead exactly, since it changes. -- Avanu (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Try to keep up, eh? :) Dreadstar  ☥  19:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Avanu, your original point was acknowledged and a change was incorporated into the text to reflect your concern. Unless you or anyone else has some further concern on this topic, how 'bout we hat this and move on? JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we have it pretty much accurate at this point. It might need some tweaks for flow, but otherwise this looks like an improvement that meets everyone's concerns. Good job all. -- Avanu (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL! "improvement that meets everyone's concerns", yeah right, that comment made me snort milk with laughter! And if one of you, even one, associates that with 'santourm', I will track you down and end your pitiful existance.  :D  Dreadstar  ☥  20:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is necessary again to remind everyone that we have a neutral point of view. The article cannot endorse a point of view. One of the points of view it cannot endorse is the one that says Dan Savage was wrong to apply the name 'Santorum' to something that then-Senator Santorum was intended to find offensive. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to remind anyone, that's my very point, Blacketer. Read again.  Dreadstar  ☥  20:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It might need some tweaks for flow...
 * Quite frankly the current composition makes me cringe (sorry Dreadstar) but I'll resist the compulsion to re-write as long as I can. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I totally agree it's a bit too...um...'wordy', but that can be easily fixed if the POV wars will calm down. The whole fracking thing makes me cringe, so no worries.. :D  Dreadstar  ☥  20:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And...no. Dreadstar  ☥  20:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As you've restored my earlier edit, I must commend your compositional acumen. Can we hat this now?JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, whatch'all think of the editing I just did to the lede? Although I've argued against "vulgar" above, I think it fits in nicely as a "vulgar word association" (thanks to whoever thought of that phrase) to which Santorum objects but shrugs off.  You could replace "vulgar" with "offensive", "obscene", "sexual", whatever, it's all about the same.  "Sex-related" sounds odd in this exact phrase, I'm not sure why.  - Wikidemon (talk) 23:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is looking very good. -- Avanu (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, whatch'all think of the editing I just did...
 * Well, as you would apparently have a benign, perhaps even heroic, Dan Savage acting in behest of the oppressed against that homophobe Rick Santorum, need you REALLY ask? JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * All that from moving one phrase from the first paragraph to the fourth? This drafting exercise is like a scene from 1776.  - Wikidemon (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sit down JakeInJoisey? JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of the piddle twiddle bit. Actually, I was looking on YouTube scenes where they're marking up the document or voting on compensation for the dead donkey.  We Wikipedians would make a good Continental Congress.  I love that musical.  - Wikidemon (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, here it is, if you'll forgive the likely copyvio. John Adams' experience is a lot like working on Wikipedia's political articles. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hehehe...that's a good'n indeed. With the pt having abated to a dull roar here for the moment, I'm yielding the floor for the evening. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Quit trying to whitewash the lead, Blacketer. The campaign's beginning, the contest, culminated in a vulgar (sourced!  Obvious!) word association.  Dreadstar  ☥  20:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources are from people who take the view that Dan Savage's actions were worthy of censure. The phraseology you want should be removed because it endorses a particular point of view, and I do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec - addressing Dreadstar) Please don't accuse other editors of whitewashing things. Perhaps you don't mean it that way, but that is often interpreted as an accusation of agenda-driven editing.  I don't think there's clear consensus to use the word "vulgar" to describe the word.  It's in there because SlimVirgin added it as part of her rewrite, and her rewrite is so good that most everyone has accepted it as our new baseline for the article.  The fact that "vulgar" is sourced means we could choose to cherry pick that specific adjective, but it is a matter of editorial discretion and that word doesn't quite hit the nail on the head for reasons that have already been voluminously discussed.  "Sexual" or "sex-related" is much more neutral and precise.  Nevertheless, if consensus settles on keeping it, I have no strong objection at this point.  IMO the word is acceptable as it is, just not ideal.  But you know what they say, consensus is the optimal solution that leaves everyone only slightly displeased, right?  - Wikidemon (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, you're right, I don't mean it that way - as an accusation against another edtior, retracted. Thanks for pointing it out, WD!  Dreadstar  ☥  16:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources are from people who take the view that Dan Savage's actions were worthy of censure.
 * From "Infoplease" ( emphasis mine )...
 * "Savage took the winning entry and, as a malicious prank, succeeded in an effort to spread the new slang term 'santorum' through the use of internet search engines (a 'Google bomb'). The definition, far too vulgar for polite conversation, became a top search result..."
 * This is an "encyclopedic" treatment worth emulating. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I like your ideas, JakeinJoisey, you've got some good edits here; I like this version. Bottom line is that I can't see removal of "Vulgar" (or its like) from the article's lead section, it won't ever be acceptable to me. If not vulgar, then find a better word, but "sex-related" just won't cut it and is the POV of only one side of this.  Dreadstar  ☥  22:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

@Blacketer, the phraseology that this is Vulgar, matches the very definition of the word, and summarizes views of secondary reliable sources on the subject. "Sex-related" is definitely POV wording and totally whitewashes the subject. Dreadstar ☥  22:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, add "prissy" to the list of publications that use "vulgar". What's POV about sex-related?  Is it not related to sex?  Failure to add a POV opinion is not itself POV.  We try not to use encyclopedia's for sources because they're tertiary because we have no insight into their editorial judgment, which in Infoplease's case seems to err on the side of prissiness.  In fact, per WP:NOR it would be a policy violation to use InfoPlease for an evaluative / analytic claim that the word is vulgar: Articles may make analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source.  If we do want to emulate them we shouldn't take that passage out of context.  They're not reporting that the word is vulgar or that it is improper to discuss it among gentlepersons - they just did.  What they're saying, using a somewhat prissy and fatuous figure of speech, is that they refuse to print the definition because it offends them.  All we can take from that is that the online encyclopedia Infoplease withheld the definition from its article, considering it too offensive to print.  We'd need a third party source for that, and it's not terribly relevant because they're a relatively minor publication and not a party to any of the events.  - Wikidemon (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Sex-related" violates NPOV for many reasons; first because it is clearly the statement from only one POV, and in no way represents the views that the definition is 'disgusting', 'repulsive" or even the 'less vulgar' choice that Reliable Sources call it? And yes, it may be "prissy" that news sources won't print it, but why is that?  Because it's fracking well vulgar, that's why.  What exactly is not vulgar about it?  Here's a good test, go see how far you get with a 5th grade class, one of you take a subject like eating bugs or something else like that, the other take describing santorum.   See who ends up in jail or lynched.  Find a better word than Vulgar, eh? "Sex related" just doesn't cut the mustard.  (no another visual!! nooo!) Dreadstar  ☥  22:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The better question is why in the world would we want to emulate Infoplease? Protonk (talk) 22:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Dreadstar, calling it "sex-related" doesn't express the opinions of anyone saying that it isn't offensive, it's just not expressing an opinion. If you wanted to present contrasting opinions you could say that Savage's campaign succeeded in creating an association of Santorum's name with a definition that is sort of vulgar, and sort of potty-mouthed, but on the other hand not a big deal.  Anyway, you're not arguing that "sex-related" is non-neutral, you're arguing that failure to include "vulgar" is non-neutral.  Across the encyclopedia I find that arguments of the form "include my adjective or else you're just whitewashing the truth" are usually not winners.  - Wikidemon (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * (after several ec - addressing the hummorful Dreadstar) Come on, come on!  Please don't accuse other editors of bad faith here.  You're just swinging the Savage (my new term, for trying to get a rise out of people on the Santorum page).  In any event, we have some occasional sources that use the word "vulgar" but for the most part they are voicing their own opinion in doing so.  The above dictionary definition (one among many) shows just why vulgar isn't a good word to use.  Let's go down the list:
 * 1(a): generally used, applied, or accepted - no, and I don't think people would assume this
 * 1(b): understood in or having the ordinary sense <they reject the vulgar conception of miracle - ditto
 * 2: vernacular - slight possibility of confusion this is what we mean, vulgar is a quaint word for vernacular
 * 3(a): of or relating to the common people : plebeian this must be a Britishism or archaic way of being dismissive, as modern authoritative sources do not put down the lives of the Hoi polloi this way
 * 3(b): generally current - I'm not familiar with this usage, must be infrequent
 * 3(c): of the usual, typical, or ordinary kind - as the above, seems infrequent / archaic
 * 4(a): lacking in cultivation, perception, or taste : coarse - a value judgment, and a significant risk that readers would think it's what we mean to say
 * 4(b): morally crude, undeveloped, or unregenerate : gross - a moral judgment, and a significant risk that readers would think it's what we mean to say
 * 4(c): ostentatious or excessive in expenditure or display : pretentious - a common usage, but clearly not what we mean
 * 5(a): offensive in language : earthy - the first half may be exactly what we're trying to say, but it's a POV judgment to call something offensive. Who is it offending?  Not me.  Not the Wikimedia Foundation.  To use vulgar in this sense we would have to explain the context of who finds it offensive, and if we did that we might as well say it explicitly
 * 5(b): lewdly or profanely indecent - ''the first half, the lewd part, also may be what we're trying to say, but if that's the case it's definitely POV. The definition of Santorum is definitely lewd, but is it so lewd as to be indecent?  That again is a value judgment.
 * So, again, the word suffers from ambiguity (multiple definitions fit, and we do not give enough context to say which one we intend), and alternate definitions make us seem either judgmental or sanctimonious. I have no problem saying that the term is bodily, excretory, carnal, lewd, sexual, or that it was intended to shock and offend, or that it did in fact offend people.  But Wikipedia is not in the business of passing judgment about what's offensive and what is not.  - Wikidemon (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The incorporation of "vulgar", with qualification and/or attribution if consensus demands, is just as easily accommodated as was "homophobic", nor are "sex-related" and "vulgar" mutually exclusive. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Good point. You could say that it is a "vulgar sex-related" term, or that [x publication] called the sex-related term "vulgar".  However, the sentence immediately prior contains the word "sexual act" so it would be redundant.  In fact, I've just tried combining the two sentences to avoid being repetitious. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw your edit (GACK!). Please refresh your recall of the discussion that started this entire section discussion.
 * I'll post a suggested edit here shortly that will hopefully make some progress and you can whack away at it at your leisure. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Point taken, sorry. That sentence is so ungainly there.  It repeats the sentence before with a couple extra words added, but time-wise it's out of sequence and it just doesn't express things clearly, the question of the word "vulgar" aside.  - Wikidemon (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * First attempt...
 * "In a response to comments by Rick Santorum widely regarded as homophobic, American columnist and gay rights activist Dan Savage initiated a campaign in 2003 to associate the surname of then-Senator Rick Santorum with a sexual act. This effort culminated in the creation of a sex-related, regarded by some observers as vulgar, word association."
 * Not sure how "ungainly" is evidenced but tweaked a bit to eliminate some phrasing.
 * As to your "time-wise" observation, you have not yet (AFAICR) broached that subject in talk. I understand your premise and totally disagree with it but it's just going to further clutter this thread discussing it here. Plz post it elsewhere if you don't mind. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry. I didn't properly digest your "redundancy" comment. I agree...and I'm not quite sure how to resolve it without a bit more thought. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Separating the two adjectives in that way is kind of difficult to parse. How about removing the second instance of "sex act" - people will remember it from the sentence before. W'll have to fact check and justify saying that Santorum's comments were "widely" regarded as homophobic, or that "some" regarded Savage's definition as vulgar. It's probably the other way around, a few people were bothered by Santorum's comments and a lot of people were bothered by Savage's efforts. You can't equate the two because Savage isn't running for President and Santorum isn't writing a gay-friendly alternative press sex advice column. But we should reflect the facts on the ground as they say. Do we have sources on how prevalent and strong people's opinions are, and is it worth indicating that in the lede? BTW, maybe you should start a new section with your proposal, or else just go for it and see if it sticks. I think we've talked so much that fewer people are reading anymore. Also, it's the weekend... a good time to gain consensus by default, bad time to get lots of comment. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps elimination of the redundancy (which is really being promoted as an alternative to "vulgar") might be more palatable given the addition of the attribution/qualification for "vulgar"? And, yes, "widely regarded as homophobic" is probably going to be problematic as well...but I, for one, am tableing that for now (though it was recently raised in an edit which I reverted simply to try to establish better interim focus). Anyway, my last attempt for the evening...
 * "In a response to comments by Rick Santorum widely regarded as homophobic, American columnist and gay rights activist Dan Savage initiated a campaign in 2003 to associate the surname of then-Senator Rick Santorum with a sexual act. This effort culminated in the creation of a word association regarded by some observers as being vulgar."
 * Perhaps others might suggest some improvements. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A few further thoughts. The word santorum isn't considered vulgar, it's the definition that offends some people.  But the definition itself isn't vulgar - other than using "lube" instead of "lubricant" it uses formal language.  It's the thing being defined.  But what's so vulgar about this particular bodily fluid?  Everybody has bodily fluids, and they're just that.  Some are unpleasant, as this one apparently is.  Nobody likes it.  But what business do we have saying that a body fluid is offensive?  What bothers people isn't that someone mentioned a bodily fluid, but that someone equated the Senator with a body fluid - something considered a grave insult in most of the Western world and I would assume some other places as well.  I understand that in the middle east throwing a shoe at someone is a horrible insult, perhaps worse than calling them a body fluid.  In some countries accusing a person's mother of being a sex worker, or comparing women to various animals, is a big offense.  It might help to try shifting perspectives here, as Wikipedia tries to maintain a global perspective and not let the mores of its host country or even the English speaking world as a whole color its account of things.  Suppose we were in a hypothetical Middle Eastern locale, and instead of a campaign to redefine Santorum's last name Savage lead a campaign to vandalize all of Santorum's campaign materials with an image of a footprint across the forehead, to the point where Santorum's image was equated in people's minds with the heel of a shoe.  Would we, as some are urging us now, say something like "The effort lead to a vulgar association" because that's how most people felt about it?  Or would we simply say that it lead to an association with a shoe, something that many considered offensive?  - Wikidemon (talk) 23:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * We've had several much better lead sentences. This "vulgar" stuff is ridiculous.  Vulgar means common.  Saying "I need to take a shit" is vulgar, because refined little young ladies and gentlemen don't use the word that has been traditionally applied by common uneducated peasants.  It's all a prestige game, trying to cover one's common breeding.  Now a neologism can never be vulgar, by definition, because it is not part of the common speech. Wnt (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's just crazytalk, Wnt. Dreadstar  ☥  02:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You are such a dainty little soul. Common, in this context does not mean 'everyday' but instead refers to 'low taste, coarseness, or ill breeding'. In a conversation around the dinner table one is as unlikely to hear some one announce "I had santorum running down my leg last night" as one is to hear "I ate blumpkin pie last night'. Both uncommon, both vulgar. John lilburne (talk) 07:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I would hazard to say that including 'shit' under 'sex-related' is a POV. Not everyone links the two together like that.  Dreadstar  ☥  02:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, stand-alone 'sex-related' in the lead as a descriptive summary is POV because it merely parrots what Savage said; in order to satisfy NPOV, the lede also needs to cover the other view, which is Santorum's view that it is vulgar. There's no better, sourced word to express and summarize that view, is there?  Dreadstar  ☥  02:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The whole POV discussion is off track anyway. People who speak English understand that the definition is vulgar and/or obscene.  This is a matter of basic comprehension.  Some people find obscenities funny, others offensive.  More commonly people find obscenities funny in certain contexts and offensive in others.  Yet, people still understand what an obscenity is.  For instance, the humor, when one finds an obscenity funny, in fact hinges upon this very understanding.  When a term, or in this case a definition, transgresses normative notions of decency, morality, or decorum it becomes obscene or vulgar and yes people get this.  Everyone who is part of this debate gets it.  If you can recognize the function of this definition you've got it, and you've provided another piece of evidence that this is an obscenity.  Just because the obscenity doesn't offend you directly doesn't change what it is.Griswaldo (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In any other environment and given the choice of all words thus far considered, "vulgar" would be (IMHO) stipulated by all sides as precisely the right word to characterize the subject-at-hand. In the sourcing that has thus far been examined, where the source actually elects to characterize the subject, "vulgar" appears to be the word of choice.
 * And what of "homophobic"? Is this a characterization so dominant that it actually warrants "widely regarded as homophobic" with ZERO expression of what might be considered an opposing view? Surely those views were expressed? Are the sources for "homophobic" expressing the source's view or predominantly echoing that of the proponent's view? And where are the voices of the WP:NPOV acolytes inre "homophobic? Cue crickets. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

There is, IMHO, unwarranted, excessive, distractive and, in the final analysis, irrelevant opinionating being brought to bear on this issue. While it can be legitimately argued that the use of "vulgar" as a characterization is, in most cases, a subjective assessment predicated on one's own perspective, OUR consideration for inclusion must be based upon whether or not utilization of that descriptive is adequately supported in WP:RS sourcing. If so, under WP:POLICY, we report it as a "fact" with attribution/qualification as needed and as appropriate by consensus, not as a gratuitous POV insertion subject to deletion via WP:NPOV consideration.</P> For those objecting to its incorporation, your resolution lies in either the inadequacy of WP:RS sourcing supporting inclusion OR the provision of WP:RS sourcing either disputing that characterization or providing an alternate characterization, and not in lieu of "vulgar" but in addition to vulgar. Dem's da rules. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Negatory on all the recent points there! My reading comprehension is okay, at least I'm happy with it, and I don't think the word "vulgar" fits because is carries a whiff of prudishness and moral judgment. Certainly not "obscene", which is a silly and prissy to think of this kind of potty talk.  I would not use either word to describe the phenomenon in explaining it to an interested reader new to the subject because they cast Wikipedia's voice as a non-neutral narrator.  Savage's definition of santorum is what it is, and readers can make up their own mind how offended they feel about it without our assuming the normative role of instructing them how to feel.  There is absolutely no policy requirement to say everything that can be sourced.  Sourcing is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for including things in the encyclopedia.  After passing verifiability, BLP, MOS, and a host of other policy and guideline filters, is our job as editors to use judgment to decide what is relevant, encyclopedic, and of due weight.  If we have 100 sources on this issue, with 3 mentioning (once per source) that they consider the term "vulgar", an equal number saying "obscene", one mentioning that you can't describe it in polite company, and a whole range of hemming and hawing with other idiosyncratic language they use when writing about uncomfortable subjects, the resulting panoply of adjectives is a not particularly germane point.  We may choose one term or another, and I don't especially object as it is not a huge issue, but vulgar is not the best term.  It's unnecessary to qualify either "homophomic" or "vulgar" with the obvious counterpoint that not everybody feels that way.  Santorum's comments offended a lot of gays and people who support gay rights, something that is relevant because that's what set this whole thing in motion.  What's relevant about Savage's definition isn't that it's intrinsically offensive, but that it succeeded in getting a rise out of some people Savage meant to offend and perhaps some he didn't.  - Wikidemon (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You are quite correct in at least one regard. I did neglect to mention that jury nullification...er, make that editorial discretion...is always a viable safe harbor for exclusion. However, I'd think long and hard before encouraging Savage to try on those "vulgar" gloves. This time they'd fit to a tee.JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The funny thing here is that "This effort culminated in the creation of a vulgar word association" could be taken out entirely without any damage to the lead. Let the reader see the definition and decide for themselves. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 17:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually the more amusing thing here is the irony of this WP:NPOV hand-wringing to shelter an epic defamation ("the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex") from being egregiously maligned as "vulgar"...a characterization in which Savage himself delighted. Beam me up Scotty.
 * As to:
 * ...vulgar word association" could be taken out entirely without any damage to the lead.
 * Yeah, right.
 * "Dan Savage campaigns against homophobe Rick Santorum in creating an uncomplimentary name association."
 * That about do it for you? Certainly not for me...and certainly a misrepresentation of reality to the reader.
 * FWIW, here's another shot at it that addresses some ongoing concerns. Bring on the slings and arrows...
 * "American columnist and gay rights activist Dan Savage initiated a campaign in 2003 to associate the surname of then-Senator Rick Santorum with a sexual act. Outraged by comments made by Santorum which were widely regarded as homophobic, his effort culminated in the creation of a derogatory word association, regarded as vulgar by some observers."
 * JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Very nice, Jake! Dreadstar ☥  20:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Scotty needs to set the filters to eliminate weasel DNA. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 21:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I still do not believe the word is vulgar, not as a matter of "defending" something, but just as a matter of fact. Nor is it a "dirty word", even more broadly defined, or "swearing", as improperly used.  For example, if a kid overheard by a prudish middle school teacher says something is a bunch of bullshit, he's liable to be harassed; but if he says it's a bunch of santorum?  I don't see them saying he "swore".  This made-up word from the internet should be safe to say wherever "feces and lube" is safe to say. Wnt (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

"American columnist and gay rights activist Dan Savage initiated a campaign in 2003 to associate the surname of then-Senator Rick Santorum with a sexual act. Outraged by comments made by Santorum which were widely regarded as homophobic, his effort culminated in the creation of a derogatory word association, regarded as vulgar by some observers."

Suggest:

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

See? No need at all for this argument. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 23:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think this is very good, but I suggest one change. The people pushing "vulgar" have mentioned Savage's motive.  They apparently want to make clear that this wasn't intended to be complimentary to Santorum.  It's clear enough to me already, but we can accommodate their concern without the POV "vulgar".  The full "empty head" quotation from Savage is too long for the introductory section, though it should certainly be given verbatim later on.  A neutral and concise summary of that quotation is "embarrass".  Thus, I suggest ending the second sentence as follows: "initiated a campaign to embarrass Santorum by associating his surname with a sexual act." JamesMLane t c 04:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The people pushing "vulgar"...
 * People "pushing"? Hmmmm. Would they be those editors advocating for inclusion of factual and WP:RS sourced characterizations on the product of Savage's effort?
 * They apparently want to make clear that this wasn't intended to be complimentary to Santorum.
 * On the contrary, your musings as to someone else's editorial rationales notwithstanding. That Savage's "intent" was to produce something uncomplimentary inre Santorum is well-sourced and rather obvious. That the resulting product attained a level of vulgarity that actually warranted comment in WP:RS sourcing is both factual and highly notable in its own right. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It's somewhat disingenuous of you to argue about Savage's intent, as if I were trying to conceal it. The actual text of my suggested change is to make express that Savage hoped to embarrass Santorum.  As for this endless invocation of "reliable sources" because some publications have used the word "vulgar", many of us believe that "vulgar" is inherently a statement of opinion rather than an objective fact.  Is the term "fecal matter" vulgar?  Is the term "anal sex" vulgar?  I think there'd be people on both sides of those questions.  If "vulgar" states an opinion, then there is no such thing as a reliable source that establishes it to be true -- only a reliable source that establishes that the opinion was expressed.


 * It's also somewhat disingenuous for you to insist that the comments about "vulgar" are notable. I've said that I have no problem with including a report of Santorum's own comment referring to "vulgarity".  I could see including reports of third-party condemnations of Savage along the same lines.  The important reservations are (1) we report these opinions without adopting them (just as we wouldn't assert as fact that Santorum is a homophobe or a bigot, though we can report those opinions), and (2) this level of detail doesn't belong in the first paragraph.  After all, doesn't the definition itself give the reader all he or she needs to determine whether it's vulgar? JamesMLane t c 09:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It's somewhat disingenuous of you to argue about Savage's intent,...
 * "Argue" about? I am, in fact, ambivalent about how Savage's "intent" has been thus far portrayed or, for that matter, how it might be portrayed assuming WP:RS sourcing. The current text, "...a campaign in 2003 to associate the surname of then-Senator Rick Santorum with a sexual act" is the product of deliberations that introduced this sub-topic and in which you expressed no opinion. Raised initially by Avanu, it was apparently resolved to his/her and to most, if not everyone, else's satisfaction.
 * Your suggested edit, ostensibly to "make express (sic) that Savage hoped to embarrass Santorum" is, IMHO, not only trite and obvious to the nth degree but likely both unsupported, understated and arguably the product of WP:SYNTH in your formulation anyway.
 * ...as if I were trying to conceal it.
 * Huh? Just how you might perceive from my comments that I expressed or even harbored the thought of anything of that nature eludes me JamesMLane.  I'll not entertain it further.
 * ...many of us believe that "vulgar" is inherently a statement of opinion...
 * As do I and about which I have already concurred.
 * ...rather than an objective fact.
 * It can be both. In this instance, characterizations of "vulgar" from WP:RS sources were/are made and are factual.
 * Is the term "fecal matter" vulgar? Is the term "anal sex" vulgar?
 * Nope. Nor are "the", "frothy", "mixture", "of", "lube", "and", "that", "is", "sometimes", or "byproduct" vulgar. However, "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex" was characterized as "vulgar", is adequately WP:RS sourced and, IMHO, eminently appropriate and accurate.
 * I think there'd be people on both sides of those questions.
 * Interesting observation. However, assuming you were even able to present appropriate and adequate WP:RS sourcing supporting contentions that the definition was NOT "vulgar", it would only support an edit suggesting that "opinion was mixed as to vulgarity of the definition".
 * If "vulgar" states an opinion, then there is no such thing as a reliable source that establishes it to be true -- only a reliable source that establishes that the opinion was expressed.
 * We state "facts on opinions" regularly and per WP:V I believe.
 * It's also somewhat disingenuous for you to insist that the comments about "vulgar" are notable. and this level of detail doesn't belong in the first paragraph
 * IMHO, the rhetoric being brought to bear by those who would exclude "vulgar" speaks rather loudly (and quite ironically) to the "notability" of this characterization. It needs to be included...and duly noted in the lead if this article is to reflect an accurate treatment of this subject.
 * The important reservations are (1) we report these opinions without adopting them...
 * Your concern has already been addressed by qualification/attribution of the characterization.
 * After all, doesn't the definition itself give the reader all he or she needs to determine whether it's vulgar?
 * How individual readers perceive the nature of the definition is irrelevant to a consideration on the relative weight and notability of how it was perceived and expressed by reliable sources. That's what we're about here. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What's proposed here is to state an opinion, that santorum is a vulgar term, not a "fact on opinion" that as a matter of fact source X called santorum a vulgar term. The former isn't mandated by policy, and no content is mandated by policy as this is a volunteer project.  Rather, policy tells us not to use articles to voice opinions because they aren't verifiable facts and may violate NPOV, but that we may describe an opinion if we can source that it exists.  As of now, I would say that the fact that some view the term as "vulgar" isn't of due weight, but the fact that the definition was meant to embarrass and offend, and in fact did so, is the heart of the matter and belongs in the lead.  Are there secondary sources that describe the opinion of some that the term is vulgar, or offensive, objectionable, whatever?  That would be a good starting point.  - Wikidemon (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue of adequate WP:V, WP:RS sourcing will probably be addressed shortly in a consensus question but now is as good a time as any to commence that deliberation via the submission of secondary sourcing for consideration. As Griswaldo has already listed sourcing for "obscene" in a dedicated section, I'll create an in kind section for "vulgar" where editors can submit sources for WP:V, WP:RS discussion/consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Humor and good cheer break
I know WP:NOT but we've all worked so hard here, and I have a new suggestion. Why not just call it "nasty"? As in, crazy nastyass honey badger nasty. (caution: semi-safe for work, your eyes may bleed) - Wikidemon (talk) 02:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making me feel better about all my previous attempts at humor. I feel much better now.  Thanks.  Many thanks.  And you know what, Jackals do it too.  Honey badger don't care, it just smacks the shit out of the cobra.  Yeah.  Ok, back to tv.  :)  Dreadstar  ☥  02:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing for "santorum" definition characterization
Editors are invited to submit suggested WP:RS sourcing and/or comments for the following... JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Obscene" or "Obscenity"


 * "Roll Call has gotten comment from former senator and potential presidential candidate Rick Santorum, regarding the trouble he can have from people searching for his name on Google, only to run into the invented obscene term created by sex columnist Dan Savage." TPM


 * "And if you did look it up, you may have noticed that Santorum has a hilariously obscene Google problem..." Time


 * "As most people know by this point, the top Google search result for Rick Santorum is an obscene sex term..." Business Insider


 * "...ensuring that the first result of a search for "Santorum" is a definition for an obscene sexual by-product." New Statesman


 * "Unprintable" or "Not Fit to Print"


 * "Other recent Google bombs have sought to associate President Bush, Senator Clinton and Senator Rick Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican, with various unprintable phrases." New York Times


 * "The result is unprintable and certainly not safe for work." Time


 * "Former GOP senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania is plagued to this day by the unprintable sexual meaning sex-advice columnist Dan Savage gave Santorum’s name in 2003." Washington Post


 * "The winning definition—unforgettable and unprintable..." Atlantic Monthly


 * "The winning entry is far too graphic to be reproduced in a family newspaper..." The Independent JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "Vulgar"


 * "...Google, whose search engine gives top billing to a Web site that promotes a made-up, vulgar definition of his surname." New York Times


 * "The Casey people decided that accepting money from the not-always-tasteful Savage, who has a vulgar anti-Santorum Web site..." Philadelphia Daily News (as cited by Dan Savage)


 * "And after [ former senator Rick ] Santorum linked gay sex to bestiality, your (sic) turned 'santorum' into a neologism so vulgar..." Huffington Post


 * "He even popularized a new definition for “santorum,” which is so vulgar I can’t possibly repeat it." The Globe and Mail


 * "Perhaps the widest ranging and poetically just reaction was in Seattle Stranger columnist Dan Savage's contest among his readers to create an alternate definition for "Santorum"- the results are too vulgar to print here..." The Peoples World


 * "Instead, they found an encyclopedia of risque digital parodies, many with names and content too crass to publish in this newspaper. The less vulgar include..." The Concord Monitor


 * "With an eight year history behind Santorum's problem, the vulgar definition has been there on top for years now."  International Business Times


 * "But after a while, being vulgar and silly stops being a viable attention-getting mechanism for serious causes..." Mediaite


 * "...Savage added, referencing the vulgar neologism Savage himself concocted back in 2003." The Daily Caller


 * "The definition, far too vulgar for polite conversation..." Who2? (see also Answers.com and Infoplease.com
 * JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Consensus Resolution? - "Vulgar"? Meta Discussion
Break is over. This is, I think everyone can agree, an issue that mandates clear consensus resolution and we need to get on with that business. IMHO, several related questions remain to be clearly consensus-resolved and should be approached sequentially with an eye towards eliminating distractive and tangential bickering and establishing just where consensus ends and dispute begins...then resolving via question or RfC...

1. Is the characterization "vulgar" so self-evidently appropriate that it can be reasonably stipulated by consensus approval? If so, it's an appropriate adjective not requiring sourcing/attribution/qualification and we can then pursue discussion with yeas/neas as to its appropriate use and where. If not... 2. Does the sourcing for "vulgar" rise to satisfy consideration under WP:V, WP:RS and WP:UNDUE as a legitimately supported "fact about opinion" for article inclusion? If not, end of issue. If so... 3. Does the characterization "vulgar" rise to satisfy WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD notability considerations for presentation in the lead? 4. Does the characterization "vulgar" rise to satisfy WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD notability considerations for presentation in the lead paragraph?

I'm also wondering if enough editors even give a crap about this anymore to make ANY attempted consensus resolution feasible or credible. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * My position on this is that these questions are going to be raised. Because people are going to raise issues, we have to source words like "vulgar."  The sourcing on "vulgar" seems weak.  It's not at all necessary to use such a characterization.  Because it's not necessary, we shouldn't do it.  I of course admit that the vulgarity is obvious, however it would only be necessary to characterize it in such a way if we weren't going to let the reader make up their own mind by telling them the definition for santorum. Since we are, there is no need to characterize.  BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 19:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am attempting to construct an approach towards clear consensus-resolution of this issue that is NPOV and will afford all editors the opportunity to express their views. What would be more helpful at this point would be observations on the format/effectiveness of the approach I suggested. Are you comfortable or uncomfortable that the series of questions would afford you the opportunity to fully express your views on this issue? JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I would say no on question 1, and start looking for refs to support an answer either way on question 2. I wrote out the following sentences originally intending to put them in a new sub-section of the Weasel Words section:
 * I think the reason we keep dwelling on "vulgar" is because wihout that assertion, there is no need for weasel wording at all. The "some observers" or whatever it turns into, should follow the same basic rules as the other "obviously vulgar" words with WP articles. Fuck, asshole, cunt, and bitch all say something like "This word is used as or considered to be a vulgarity or insult," some of them with supporting/quoting refs in the lede to support that statement. Where the lede merely summarizes, there are refs in the article body to sources that say the words are vulgar/insulting/whatever.  Shit asserts, "The word shit is highly offensive," but that ref-less edit was made just this past May by an editor with a red-linked user page who has exactly 23 total edits, and Shit directly contradicts it, again without a ref. I would revert the lede myself except that that could be seen as POINTy if not COI.   So unless there's a quote someplace, I think we need to go with The Anome's suggestion slightly above (edit: way below) to skip the mention of vulgarity entirely, and just let the word "derogatory" and the clear reference to feces below do the work for us.
 * That removes the need for sourcing, which removes the need for weasel words. ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  19:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Problem is there are MANY (to include myself) who are of the opinion that the sheer vulgarity of the definition is part and parcel of its "notability". There ARE "quotes" that have already been offered to establish WP:V, WP:RS legitimacy for that "vulgar" notability and others that find it so offensive as to render it "unfit to print". While I appreciate your response, let's table, at least for the moment, jumping on to #2 as there are editors (such a The Anome below if I correctly understand his/your? position) that strongly believe #1 (or a variant thereof) to be the appropriate resolution. Let's get it argued out and be done with it one way or the other. I'd like to try posing that question in as NPOV a fashion as I can muster to see just where we stand consensus-wise. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As we got into below, before being directed here, I don't believe for a minute that Yahoo, which (theoretically) prohibits vulgarity, would (theoretically) TOS someone for saying that something is a bunch of santorum. There are many scatological terms, but to be clear:
 * {| class="wikitable"

!Vulgar !Not Vulgar
 * shit
 * faeces
 * turd (sort of)
 * excrement
 * crap (rarely)
 * dung
 * santorum
 * }
 * Why on the right? Because all new and unfamiliar words start out on the right. Wnt (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh? Why are you inserting discussion here that is unrelated to this thread? Strange. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought it would be clear, but my point is, certain organizations try to make "vulgar language" something you would get in trouble for using. "Santorum" is not among such terms.  Anywhere you can say "feces mixed with lube" (which is not vulgar either), you can say "santorum".  Therefore, santorum is not vulgar. Wnt (talk) 05:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's hardly "unrelated to this thread." It is one answer to Question #1 of this section, and therefore integral to the discussion. I'm inclined to agree that santorum is not "self-evidently" vulgar, and therefore if we characterize it as such, we require attribution. ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  13:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * }
 * Why on the right? Because all new and unfamiliar words start out on the right. Wnt (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh? Why are you inserting discussion here that is unrelated to this thread? Strange. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought it would be clear, but my point is, certain organizations try to make "vulgar language" something you would get in trouble for using. "Santorum" is not among such terms.  Anywhere you can say "feces mixed with lube" (which is not vulgar either), you can say "santorum".  Therefore, santorum is not vulgar. Wnt (talk) 05:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's hardly "unrelated to this thread." It is one answer to Question #1 of this section, and therefore integral to the discussion. I'm inclined to agree that santorum is not "self-evidently" vulgar, and therefore if we characterize it as such, we require attribution. ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  13:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Criminy, why is this SO hard? I'm trying to solicit consensus agreement on a suggested PROCESS to reach consensus agreement, not to commence arguing each point. If there's general agreement that my suggested approach MIGHT be worth pursuing, then I'll start that ball rolling. I'll ask again then, do the series of questions adequately afford editors an opportunity to fully express views on the various aspects of contention in this "vulgar" issue? Simple. Please respond. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So sorry - I was under the impression we'd answered "yes" to that simple question within seconds of its asking. Apologies for jumping forward. ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  14:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Zenswashbuckler, if past is prologue, we may find progressing beyond Step 1 to be considerably less consensus-clear than you might anticipate but, if not, we can then dismiss and move on.
 * In any event, your response to my question would be greatly appreciated. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe this series of questions adequately (I might even say exhaustively) represents all possible facets of the "use of 'vulgar' in article" issue. And if it doesn't, someone will point it out... :-Þ  ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  16:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Exhaustively" is good and exactly the type of criticism (pro or con) I'm soliciting ;-)
 * And if it doesn't, someone will point it out...
 * Of THAT I'm certain...and a bridge to be crossed if and when reached. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Jake, I'm not clear on exactly what process/structure you had in mind, but it doesn't seem to be working. Let me suggest instead that we focus people's attention by getting more specific, addressing the language of the paragraph rather than more general concepts.

In prior discussions, I've seen four basic approaches to "vulgar" in the lead paragraph:
 * 1. State it as fact, without attribution.
 * 2. Report the fact that Santorum referred to the definition as a "vulgarity". The opinions of others would be included in the body of the article but not in the first paragraph.
 * 3. Report the fact that one or more persons other than Santorum called it "vulgar". (If there's a consensus for this approach, then we can get into the fine points of describing the "some observers".)
 * 4. Omit the characterization from the introductory section, with opinions about "vulgar" reported in the body of the article.

I think that #1 clearly won't get much support. Many of us consider this characterization an opinion, not an objective fact. On the other hand, while I'd be content with #4, it seems that a substantial number of editors are insistent that this characterization/criticism be featured prominently, even before we give the actual text of the definition (the information that would let readers judge for themselves whether it's vulgar).

As between the remaining options, I favor #2 -- quoting Santorum. While it's very strange to be reporting opinions about the subject of the artticle before we've even given the basic description of the subject, Santorum is at least one of the principals. His opinion is more notable than that of various self-appointed commentators. The wording I suggested above, which attracted more support than opposition, presented the opinions of the principals rather than third parties: "Because Savage considered Santorum's remarks to be anti-gay, he hoped to embarrass Santorum. His effort culminated in the association of 'santorum' with a definition that Santorum has described as a 'vulgarity'." That eliminates the weasel-wording problem. Also, it gives Savage's own opinion, thus eliminating the current text that misleadingly characterizes the criticisms of Santorum.

Let's see if asking people to choose among these four options helps clarify the discussion. JamesMLane t c 17:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Jake, I'm not clear on exactly what process/structure you had in mind, but it doesn't seem to be working.
 * Before further discussion, that shouldn't surprise you or anyone else as I've not yet even posed the first question. I'm soliciting opinions (pro and con) as to the suggested process. However, it IS interesting how anxious everyone appears to be in getting out of the starting gate. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As to your suggested approach...
 * 1. Essentially the same as my #1 but perhaps better described as a consensus-acceptable adjective in "Wikipedia's voice" as some prefer to reference it. In essence, support for unattributed/unqualified use in language such as "...vulgar derogatory definition"
 * 2. Way too restrictive (to say nothing of prejudicial). Many of us contend that sufficient WP:V WP:RS sourcing has already been presented that satisfies WP:UNDUE for a considerably more broad-based characterization than solely that of Santorum himself and is indispensible to an argument for consideration under WP:UNDUE for inclusion in the lead paragraph. That assertion mandates testing for consensus opinion. However, there is nothing that would prevent you from offering your view for consideration once the "breadth of opinion" is resolved under WP:UNDUE.
 * 3. Cart before the horse...and probably doomed to failure anyway. If a more broad-based supported characterization were deemed to be consensus-unacceptable, Santorum's voice alone would never survive consideration under WP:UNDUE,WP:NPOV for the lead paragraph which is at GREAT issue...however, essentially echoing my thoughts on a premature but eventual "Weasel Word" issue which should be a cakewalk to resolve.
 * 4. Already addressed commencing with my #3.

JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Favor #2 though #4 would also be acceptable to me. JamesMLane t c 17:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If there's no further comment, my intent is to shortly post question #1 for editorial comment. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have amended the sequence of questions to reflect the need for main body inclusion before consideration under WP:LEAD. Comments? JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Given the responses thus far, my intent, without further objection, is to close question #1 as a clear consensus "No" after 7 days. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Having revised the proposed question language, editor criticisms/comments/suggestions as to the current language is solicited. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Without further criticisms/comments/suggestions, I will shortly post question #2 for consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In the discussion of question 2, several editors have offered comments relating to WP:NPOV considerations. I concur that those considerations are appropriate and need to be addressed as well. I have amended the question sequence to address those considerations should a consensus "Yes" prevail on question #2. Comments please? JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Without further objection, I'd like to close question #2 as a "Consensus: Yes" with 3 yes, 3 "sort of", and 0 No votes. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * We have arrived at, IMHO, the heart of this dispute. I have amended questions 3 and 4 (if needed) to encompass both WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD considerations. Comments on the question language are solicited and appreciated. Without further criticisms/comments/suggestions, I will be posing the question soon. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * A reference was made within the RfC as to closing question 3. Approximately 20 editors were active participants in the extensive debate on this subject preceding this attempt at consensus resolution (see above). Of those, only 2 have thus far elected to respond. IMHO, I see no pressing need to close this RfC before affording those (or any) editors every opportunity to further contribute and, hopefully, develop a stronger, more credible consensus on this subject. RfC's can run for 30 days and the time already invested in this issue, IMHO, argues for letting this RfC run its full course. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Can the characterization "vulgar" be used "in Wikipedia's voice" (eg. an uncited/unattributed/unqualified "...vulgar definition") in characterizing Savage's "santorum" definition?
Yes or No? JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No. WP articles on even the "obviously vulgar" profanities have attributions where they state the words are vulgar, insulting, etc. It is even possible that (while unpleasant and appetite-wrecking) the word is not even vulgar but rather clinical (see Wnt's discussion above).  Even denying these points, however, for an issue as contentious as this one, it still behooves us to be as careful as possible in making sure assertions and characterizations are well supported.  ☯.Zen Swashbuckler .☠  15:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No per Zenswashbuckler above, and per BE Critical's point a couple weeks ago: "Let the reader see the definition and decide for themselves." If it's as obvious as the proponents have claimed, then stating it adds nothing to the informational content of the article.  I'll add that the formulation of the question is poor: The issue isn't whether the characterization can be stated in Wikipedia's voice, but whether it should be.  There's no reason to do it here when we can use a verbatim quotation from one of the principals, Santorum, calling it a "vulgarity". JamesMLane t c 15:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Vulgarity is by definition a subjective concept, so the determination of what is vulgar is a question of opinion and not an issue of fact. To state something as vulgar is to endorse an opinion, and core content policyWP:NPOVrequires that opinions are not stated as facts. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:DONTBEATHIRDGRADER - Under the Wikipedia Policy for Verifiability, I present the following quote "Take care to avoid plagiarism and breaches of copyright when using sources. Summarize source material in your own words as far as possible; when quoting or closely paraphrasing a source use an inline citation, and in-text attribution where appropriate." We aren't 3rd graders writing a paper who don't know how to think or write (hopefully).  We know that dozens of reliable sources have negatively characterized this word, and some, including its own creator, have used the word "vulgar".  There is nothing wrong with summarization in the Lead Paragraph.  What else do you suppose the lead is?  Vulgar is sourced, other negative characterizations are as well, no one disputes that it is a vulgar term, get over it, move on, and work on some other part of the article, and stop misinterpreting policy as one that promotes plagarism. -- Avanu (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ...no one disputes that it is a vulgar term,...
 * A bit more clarity please? If you're referring to this forum, I believe several editors have done just that. If you're refering to the presentation of reliable sourcing, I've seen nothing thus far that would serve to dispute the characterization as unwarranted but rather sourcing either offering a negative characterization or no characterization at all. Assuming that to be the case, it's also quite plausible, IMHO, that sources who might be considered supportive of Savage's efforts would likely be disinclined to even suggest that Savage might have no qualms about the employment of a generally accepted "vulgarity" in his campaign. In fact, IMHO, it could be legitimately argued (and possibly adequately sourced) that, were it not for the highly "vulgar" nature of the definition, Savage's campaign would not have attained the success it did.
 * But back to your point. Is the apparent lack of RS sourcing that might serve to dispute an uncited/unattributed/unqualified JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC) "vulgar" characterization germane to this question under a WP:POLICY consideration or is editor opinion on its alleged "subjectivity" and "POV" more WP:legitimate and WP:persuasive? JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I should have said, it is indisputable that Reliable Sources have said not only the word "vulgar" itself, but even its main supporter, Dan Savage, has used this word. To use it in the lead is supportable and in line with sources, even if not *ALL* sources used this specific word, the intent is more than clear. And to be even more clear, I don't care if we use the word 'vulgar', I just think this debate over whether to use it has gone on for far too long and a decision should be made one way or the other. The endless debate on that is silly. -- Avanu (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI, I've amended my remarks above to better state my question in light of the topic question. I don't think it should impact your response, but I wanted to make note of my clarification.
 * ...a decision should be made one way or the other.
 * In progress. Here. Now. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No, we shouldn't do anything subjective in Wikipedia's voice. Besides, this has gone on long enough: if there is this much talk about it, we shouldn't use it as it's obviously controversial and therefore needs a source, and also because it's NOT NECESSARY not necessary.  (And no I haven't seen any good third party sources, maybe I missed them). BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 14:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No. It's gratuitous editorialization. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 05:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Becritical that the word isn't necessary, but I have a problem with what I'm seeing as editors who feel that they can't say anything except *exactly* word-for-word what our sources say. This is completely contrary to policy. We are not plagiarists, but editors. This came to a ridiculous head recently when an editor said that we couldn't mention Santorum was *absent* from a source because the source didn't say it (the slang dictionary thing). My belief is that we need more editors to weigh in on this because it seems clear that the editors who have weighed in so far don't have a concrete understanding of the difference between unfair editorialization of a source versus summarization. In the lead paragraphs especially, we have to do more summarization than anywhere else in the article. After all, it is supposed to embody the concepts of the entire article. What is especially disappointing is that we have more than enough sources for this word being characterized as "vulgar", even its godparent, Dan Savage, yet somehow editors are getting caught up in an idea that isn't even in line with Wikipedia policy. As I said at the outset, I don't care if we use this word, but let's at least have a debate that is in line with policy. -- Avanu (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I see how advocating for a value judgment in Wikipedia's voice is in line with policy. Surely it's better to summarize along the lines of "...is widely seen as vulgar..." than to seem to agree, whether that's the intent or not, with one side of a political dispute? Simply saying that the word is vulgar would constitute a subtle WP:SOAPBOX and a slightly less subtle NPOV violation. I don't think coming down on the side of caution on summarizing-versus-editorializing is overzealous, or in any way misinterpretive of policy. We need to be very careful on a page this visible about maintaining a rigidly neutral voice.  ☯.Zen Swashbuckler .☠  17:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No, generally, though I am upset with myself for supporting the original complaint as the debate has metastasized into an unmanageable sprawl around a single word. On top of that, the discussion has obscured the fact that the article itself has become relatively well sourced and neutral (due mostly to SV's rewrite).  However the work vulgar has a strong negative valence and it is clear to me that we need not repeat it in wikipedia's voice. Protonk (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, because the term is, in its most commonly used senses, either a judgmental or somewhat quaint / antiquated one. Calling something "vulgar" is saying that it's base or offensive.  Nothing is offensive to Wikipedia, as Wikipedia does not take offense.  Wikipedia can only say that certain people took offense, or characterized it as offensive.  In a second dry sense, vulgar just means of the masses, physical world, or material / bodily (although it does carry some disapproval of these things).  That usage is a bit stuffy and makes us sound dowdy.  Even if there are other uses of the word that are encyclopedic, the fact that most readers would take it to mean one of these two makes it unsuitable for our purposes.  - Wikidemon (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The consensus here is clearly "No". So as to save us further needless debate, I'd like to close comments with a "Consensus: "No" tag and move on. Any objections or can I get a second? JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Seconded and closed. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler .☠  02:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

====Does the sourcing for "vulgar" rise to satisfy consideration under WP:V, WP:RS and WP:UNDUE as a legitimately supported "fact about opinion" for article inclusion?==== JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Please note: a selected list for consideration is hyperlinked above. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Please note: This question references "article inclusion" NOT "lead inclusion" which will be addressed accordingly if and when necessary. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes or No? JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes - The sourcing for a negative characterization of the definition whenever a characterization is offered is overwhelming. Among those, "vulgar" is the most appropriate as it also clarifies the rationales behind both "unfit to print" and "obscene". JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. I would say a good half of the various newspaper / reporting sources use the word vulgar to describe the definition of the word. Summarizing, perhaps even in the lede, plus some form of attribution in the body, would be orthodox for this article. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler .☠  19:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ...plus some form of attribution in the body...
 * I agree. Please see this edit which, I believe, satisfies all Wikipedia considerations for main body inclusion. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Would it be nitpicking if I argued for phrasing the sentence The definition itself was characterized by many observers as "obscene", "unfit to print" or "vulgar". instead? While all three of these characterizations appear fairly widely, few if any commentators use all three. But that is a very minor point and if it stays as is I am fine with it. ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  16:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, screw it. It's fine the way it is. ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  16:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sort of. I believe they satisfy RS and weight, but fail on grounds of POV and just plain encyclopedic tone.  We can verify and reliably source that people called it a vulgar term, and that people took offense, that it was meant to offend, etc.  All of that is of due weight and an important part of the phenomenon.  We just can't say in Wikipedia's voice that it was vulgar, as I argue above.  - Wikidemon (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If a word or phrase is qualified or attributed, it's no longer "in Wikipedia's Voice"...and "NPOV" becomes an editorial presentation consideration once WP:V, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE is satisfied. Your concerns will be subsequently addressed and your answer, it seems, should be "Yes" to this question, no? JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This section seems to be a slight restatement of the above section. If the question is "can we put vulgar in quotes and use it in a sentence like "person XYZ referred to the term as "vulgar"" without running afoul of our content policies?" then the answer is a qualified yes.  But we still need to find someone whose opinion we care about and determine whether or not such an inclusion meets NPOV. Protonk (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * While I may disagree with your NPOV position, I agree that it is a WP:POLICY issue that warrants consensus discussion and resolution and I have amended the question process to accommodate that discussion next. However, the immediate question addresses a consideration that can be made independent of WP:NPOV. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ...then the answer is a qualified yes.
 * Your "example" appears to suggest that "language" must reflect specific attribution. Per the discussion on "Weasel Wording" (below), non-specific wording (eg. "some observers") is perfectly suitable assuming consensus agreement. Objections as to non-specificity (  tagging) can be satisfied via the provision of WP:V, WP:RS sourcing which is the focus of this question. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a perfect example of what the section below is describing. The definition is vulgar, there are sources for it being vulgar, almost everybody reading the definition will consider it vulgar; that it is vulgar is uncontroversially so. And yet here we are with weeks of arguing about whether the adjective 'vulgar' can be used or not. John lilburne (talk) 06:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Then I take it your answer is yes? If so and if the consensus answer is yes, where and in what manner it should be incorporated will be addressed in due course. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It does not matter, because in a short while along will come the posse to nitpick the issue, and around and around we will go again. This can only be resolved via attrition. John lilburne (talk) 15:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Picking nits will be considerably less facile if and when a credible consensus can be established. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sort of Agree with Wikidemon. It's unencyclopedic, especially because not necessary. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 12:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with calling it vulgar, or saying that people across the political spectrum have called it vulgar. -- J N  466  16:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Really not the question here just yet Jayen466, rather do you believe the provided sourcing satisfies the WP criteria stated in the question. Yes (I assume)? JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I think you may have missed a couple of additional sources I posted above at 16:11, 23 June 2011, including the Washington Post. There are not millions of sources saying it, but enough, and enough different ones, to mention it in the article. Having said that, I won't lose sleep if the article doesn't say it is a "vulgar" definition; the reader can see that for themselves, and most would come to that conclusion anyway. -- J N  466  17:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I think you may have missed a couple of additional sources I posted...
 * I offered select sourcing that I thought would be sufficient to satisfy any consideration as to WP:V, WP:RS. If you (or anyone) wants to see more or wants to add more, that's fine too.
 * I won't lose sleep if the article doesn't say it is a "vulgar" definition...
 * If you mean as an "adjective" in "Wikipedia's Voice", that possibility was rejected above. If you mean as an attributed "opinion on fact", I simply don't share your view but that issue will need discussion and consensus resolution at an appropriate time. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, we certainly could mention that Casey rejected Savage's campaign contribution because of the "vulgar" content of the santorum site. I guess that would be the most natural place to get the word in. Casey's view was widely reported. -- J N  466  20:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * -- J N  466  20:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur. And also citable is the "Philadelphia Daily News" observation from Savage's own website that characterizes Savage's "anti-santorum" website as "vulgar" independent of Casey's observation. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Does the characterization "vulgar" satisfy WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD notability considerations for presentation in the lead?
Yes or No JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No The characterization isn't notable as it occurs in few of the sources. It's also not necessary, and that's important, because an encyclopedia should primarily describe and give information (such as the definition itself) rather than characterize or convey characterizations which aren't necessary or notable.  Given this, it's far more neutral to forgo using characterizations which we're only using because we as editors think they are appropriate. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 15:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Yes - EVERY RS source that elects to offer a characterization of the "definition" describes it as "obscene", "unfit to print", "vulgar" or some variant thereof...and these sources are prolific. It is decidedly NPOV, in fact (IMHO) mandated by NPOV, that these overwhelmingly well-documented characterizations be presented as unchallenged "facts about opinion" with more than ample "notability" for inclusion in the lead. The universality of that negative characterization argues for its "notability" under WP:LEAD and any prospective reader would be highly misinformed by its exclusion. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The reader can't be misinformed if we include Savage's definition of "santorum." And probably most sources either don't characterize, or else give different characterizations... which so far as I know no one looked for. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 13:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see my response to Noleander below. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Question - Jake: Can you clarify the RfC question?  (the "rise" wording is a bit confusing).   You are asking if the characterization "vulgar" should be included in the lead section?  In other words, should the lead continue containing a statement somewhat like it already contains:  "Savage's effort culminated in the creation of a derogatory word association sometimes described as vulgar or unprintable.."?  --Noleander (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, by "rise to" I was refering to consensus approval but as you find that unclear I will just remove it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, depending on exact wording - For wikipedia to state that the definition is "vulgar" would clearly be inappropriate as that is a subjective determination, but to state that the definition has been characterized as vulgar and unprintable is NPOV. Whether or not it is notable enough is important but I think it is clearly an important aspect of the topic. Its not just a fun fact that the definition that's been associated with the word is considered vulgar by some, its actually the whole point of the campaign. The issue is whether a significant number of reliable sources actually make such a characterization. I think the references speak for themselves. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No - Yes, many sources do characterize the campaign/neologism as vulgar. But other sources characterize it as many other things ... for editors to pick out a single characterization for preferential prominence in the lead, amounts to cherry picking.   For example, gay activists may characterize the campaign/neologism as "wonderful" .. should we include that in the lead?  Why include "vulgar" but not "wonderful".   I suppose a case for emphasinzing "vulgar" in the lead could be made if there were some strong statistical proof that that the "vulgar" characterization were  dominant (> 50%, say, of all characterizations). --Noleander (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Such as "hilarious or in Wikipediaspeak "humorous?"  Humor would be good, as it encompasses "hilarious" and "joke"  and Santorum himself called it that. Noleander, you make a good point. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 01:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @Noleander - But other sources characterize it as many other things ...
 * @Critical - And probably most sources either don't characterize, or else give different characterizations... which so far as I know no one looked for.
 * Then you should find adequate WP:V, WP:RS sources that might satisfy a WP:UNDUE consideration for inclusion. The resolution to your objection, under WP:YESPOV, is not the exclusion of appropriate WP:POLICY based content/sourcing, but the presentation of sourcing that might present either an opposing or alternate view.
 * On that point as well, there has been no sourcing presented suggesting that the definition is NOT obscene, unprintable or vulgar (which might legitimately present an opposing view) nor are "hilarious" (or some other alternative view) and "vulgar" mutually exclusive. Some might conceivably find the definition to be BOTH "hilarious" AND "vulgar". You need to find and present those sources to make your case for inclusion of that content. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There seems to be adequate sourcing for "humorous." Re your point "there has been no sourcing presented suggesting that the definition is NOT obscene," WP:BURDEN means that no one has to find reasons for not including something- that's on the people who want to include it.  What we have here is a good argument to round out the characterizations used... but only if we use characterizations.  If we were to not use them, we wouldn't have to be in this mess.  Of course, since we're characterizing, logically we should also note the absence of characterization in certain sources, but that is not how Wikipedia is set up.  Which all militates against characterization unless said characterization were a truly notable part of the situation... which it is not. Additionally, the lead is supposed to summarize content in the body, and "vulgarity" is not a very important part of the discussion in the body.  It's just in the lead because Wikipedia editors want it there.  BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 13:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But you are misconstruing the guidance of WP:BURDEN which states (emphasis mine) ...
 * "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it ."
 * As per the prior consensus question, the sourcing for "vulgar" satisfies WP:V, WP:RS and WP:UNDUE consideration thus satisfying the WP:BURDEN guidance criteria for reliable sourcing. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No one said it didn't, I was responding to your call for sourcing for non-existence "there has been no sourcing presented suggesting that the definition is NOT obscene," and the second point is that if we characterize, we need to use all the notable characterizations... but characterizing isn't necessary. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 15:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The mainstream press articles I've looked at universally describe it as at least unprintable (left/center) or vulgar (center/right). How gay activists/specialist press describes it is another matter, which I didn't try to survey. There is room to include a spectrum of evaluations in the article, with attribution. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are a variety of characterizations, and the article could/should cover them all (provided they are sourced). But this RfC is focusing on which, if any, characterizations belong in the lead paragraphs.  That means we have to demonstrate which characterizations, if any, are prominent.  Because that determination is difficult, my suggestion  is to omit all characterizations from the lead, and instead put them into a section in the body of the article that covers "characterizations" or "reception", etc.  --Noleander (talk)`
 * Agreed: given that there are different characterizations, it's difficult to determine WEIGHT. And we should find out if any source discusses santorum as part of the tradition of using humor and ridicule in politics/culture. This is a very common kind of thing after all.  And it seems to me that this article emphasizes the "nastiness" aspect, but leaves out the fact that this is seen as humor by a great many people.  The nastiness is easier to document, and maybe the humor is taken for granted.  Also if any source discusses it in the context of democratic culture historically.  But I digress. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 15:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @Noleander: That means we have to demonstrate which characterizations, if any, are prominent.
 * @Critical: And it seems to me that this article emphasizes the "nastiness" aspect...
 * And we do that here via the presentation of WP:V, WP:RS sourcing which we have already determined to be satisfied by the sourcing provided for "vulgar".
 * Both your collective points are valid and I see no problem incorporating the fact that it is widely sourced as "humorous" as well (wording should be an easy fix). However, as I noted elsewhere, "humourous" and "vulgar" are NOT mutually exclusive. Both can be (and, perhaps, should be) reflected in the lead as reflecting an NPOV...and I have made a suggested edit for your further consideration in that regard. JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Not really. As has been pointed out, while many observers characterize it as vulgar, that view is not the only one, and may not even be a majority view. The Mother Jones piece, which is cited a number of times, doesn't call it vulgar; neither do Stewart or Colbert (I know they wouldn't anyway, but the fact remains). Partridge doesn't, and the Brewer book doesn't either. Chris Wilson / Slate only quotes Santorum himself ("...allows for this type of vulgarity to circulate."). Ditto New York Magazine and the Feb. 2011 Roll Call piece. So if we phrase the statement in a way that makes it clear that the belief in santorum 's vulgarity is significant but not universal, I could live with it in the lead. Otherwise, it would fall on the wrong side of the UNDUE line where the lead is concerned. My instinct is to act per Noleander and leave the characterization refs for the body.  ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  15:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ...if we phrase the statement in a way that makes it clear that the belief in santorum 's vulgarity is significant but not universal, I could live with it in the lead.
 * I'm not sure I quite understand your response here. The "characterization" as "vulgar" is already qualified as not being "universal" ("...sometimes described as...") nor is it, IMHO, even reasonable to expect that it would be reflected in all sourcing addressing the definition (as you already appear to have noted). As there has been no sourcing offered to suggest that the definition is NOT socially offensive in some way, shape or form and ALL of the characterization sourcing presented (WP:V) suggests that it IS socially offensive, that would seem to satisfy your concern...yet you respond "not really". Can you clarify? Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 10:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe when I wrote that the wording or proposed wording in/for the lead was less nuanced and much more strongly implied "Well, tons of people just think it's horribly vulgar," full stop. It has evolved since then, and since this thread started. As it stands now I think it passes muster on WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE without according too much space to the WP:FRINGE. I now support a close to de facto status quo if that is such a thing.  ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  14:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Zenswashbuckler, I believe I posed a question that warrants resolution prior to any consideration of consensus-acceptable language that might subsequently reflect the characterization(s). The current text is transient and, IMHO, should have no bearing on your determination as to WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD consideration but you're obviously welcome to respond as you see fit and I'll comment no further on your position. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No. Finding myself here, bizarrely, as a result of the RfC request, I wonder whether I have strayed into some twilight zone.  I would question the very existence of this article, not semantics arising from it.  However, I don't intend to engage in that debate.  Instead, allow me to observe that if a noun does not yet exist to describe the scum residue left after sodomy, the neologism isn't vulgar, even if it is intended to be thus, particularly since it isn't a compound of existing vulgar terms.  Whether Santorum was or is an innately vulgar person would be a separate debate.  Regards  Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk   05:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes as this is how it is treated by reliable sources. – Lionel (talk) 09:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment on closing This could be closed either as no consensus or as "no."  But it seems to me that closing it as "no consensus to include" would be appropriate.  It would also be more prudent, because the point brought up by Noleander above would have us go through a lot of negotiation and turmoil which can otherwise be avoided. Be— —Critical __Talk 02:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, another 15 days of nothing is what we'll probably get for leaving it open. If you want more response, I suggest canvassing those formerly active editors. Be— —Critical __Talk 15:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want more response, I suggest canvassing those formerly active editors.
 * Already did that once and I'm not inclined to do so yet again. As to further participation in reaching a credible consensus, if it's just not in the cards, so be it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. Be— —Critical __Talk 20:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No. This is a slow-speed retro-justification for censoring this article. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 06:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yess Cited as opinion, this appears to be a significant opinion raised about the campaign. Collect (talk) 11:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you read the above? You're answering the question as put, but I don't think you're considering the implications, such as if we include this, we have to include other characterizations per WEIGHT, and there's no good way to do so. Be— —Critical __Talk 16:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Compromise solution Santorum himself called it vulgar. Since the topic is about his name, state that "Santorum called the term a 'vulgarity'". Using Santorum's own words in the lead is not undue weight, since the term is all about him. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  22:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * More importantly, it was characterized as "vulgar" or "unprintable" by substantial RS sourcing. Attributing the characterization to Santorum alone would be misinforming any prospective reader. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Closing comments There is no consensus for inclusion whether carefully written or not nor is there consensus on the "compromise solution". As there is no consensus to include, 'vulgar' should not be in to lead until a consensus is achieved in another RFC.--v/r - TP 20:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Duh, Yes - of course its vulgar. I mean, anal sex, feces, come on! I think people would have to be pretty stupid to think it's not vulgar.-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 21:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Reversions to my edit of the Introduction
I recently made this edit to the introduction. Tarc said this was "Pro-Savage cheerleading" and Anythingyouwant said this was "assisting the campaign." I'd like some outside input because I think they are mistaken. The intro should present the basics. What is the campaign for? What is the brief history of the campaign? What is the current state of the campaign? I simply reorganized information and added references for every single sentence (which is not the case in the current revision.) I think the intro reads very poorly in its current state, and this definitely needs some outside input. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 01:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please acknowledge your review of the outside input contained in the archives wherein there exists several hundred editor's perspectives. It seems that you are proposing a change to a point settled upon after much debate.  Can you reword your proposal as a response to the debate summary box and archives at the top of this article?   Blue Rasberry    (talk)   03:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked through the archive topics and didn't find anything specifically related to this. Please direct me to the relevant discussion if I may have missed it. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 03:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The edit you proposed started thusly: "The campaign for the "santorum" neologism is a movement to associate the word "santorum" with the definition 'the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.'" It seems to me that this assertion is contrary to the major result of all the debate, that being the first point listed in the debate summary box at the top of this page: "This article is about a campaign started by Dan Savage, and supported by many others, to humiliate Rick Santorum by turning his name into a neologism for something disgusting."  To what extent would you agree that the lede reflects this result? To what extent does your own proposal?   Blue Rasberry    (talk)   04:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see the conflict. The point in the debate summary box seems so vague. It indicates who started the campaign and who supports the campaign. But it doesn't really address what the campaign is for. To say the campaign is "to humiliate Rick Santorum by turning his name into a neologism for something disgusting" doesn't really say anything. We know exactly what the "something disgusting" is so why can't we say it? It is so disingenuous to not say right up front what the campaign really is for. In fact, I'd argue that my version abides by WP:NPOV much better than the old version. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 04:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, he should have used the word "campaign" instead of "movement." I basically agree with this edit and have tried to do similar ones in the past.  I'm not an outside opinion.  We shouldn't be basing WP actions on what happens outside Wikipedia, we're here to just write a good article.  I'm not sure if WP:NOTCENSORED applies here.  Be— —Critical __Talk 04:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what the anti-Santorumites would love to do, make the "frothy mixture" angle to be the front and center of the article. But that isn't what the article is about, we successfully turned this article away from focusing on a word that does not exist, a word that is not used in legitimate, everyday speech, and towards a focus on Dan Savage's manipulation of technology to campaign against a politician that he and his supporters dislike. Tarc (talk) 12:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, try and tone down the rhetoric and don't presume to know my political leanings. Secondly, in hiding what the campaign is for, it has resulted in a lousy introduction section. What is this campaign for? This article needs to answer the fundamental question up front. Of course the word doesn't exist, that's why it's called a "neologism." SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 12:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * When I see bad editing practices, I will call them out. Secondly, no, there is not an issue of hiding or censoring or any of that bullshit.  We don't need to elaborate in excruciating detail in the lead exactly what Savage's fake definition entails.  We introduce the subject matter, that a columnist linked a politician's name to an invented slur, and leave the details to the body.  Encyclopedia-Writing 101. Tarc (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well I disagree with you on every point you just made. This is why we need some outside opinions. Let's wait and see what others have to say. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 12:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As others have already told you above, this issues has been hashed and rehashed to an exhausting extent in past discussions. This rfc is largely an irrelevant thwacking of dead horses. Tarc (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * WP is always a work in progress, and there is always room for change and improvement. Like I stated above, I didn't find any previous discussions while scanning through the index related to this issue, but feel free to link me to one if I may have missed it. Thanks. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 13:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether it's about the campaign or the word: the frothy mixture definition is what this article is about. That's the central fact, and there is no getting away from that.  Focusing on the campaign is simply to focus also on the process of creating the definition rather than the to focus only on the definition as a word.  That broader scope is why the campaign is notable but the definition isn't.  But the definition is central either way, and is one of the primary facts.  Those facts are: who, why, and what. We shouldn't push the "what" part around for reasons exterior to Wikipedia, and the basic details are exactly what a lead is supposed to present.  This isn't beating a dead horse, it's a re-uptake of outstanding issues which were unresolved due to lack of consensus. The unresolved issue was the weaseling of the lead to try and jigger Wikipedia's text relative to outside influence.  That was never resolved, because there's a basic disagreement as to whether Wikipedia should conform itself to the outside world, versus merely reporting it and letting the chips fall where they may.  Be— —Critical __Talk 16:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not what the article is about. That is what the article that Cirt created was about, but since then it has turned to focus on the campaign rather than the fake word itself.  How many times does this need to be repeated to you? Tarc (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Am I correct in concluding that your concern with my edit, Tarc, is the positioning and prominence of the definition? Or were there other parts of my edit that you felt were worthy of reversion? SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 22:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Since you asked for some outsider input I hope that my opinion is welcome and that no one bites the newcomer ;-) I am totally new to this debate and know nothing of it's history. But from reading this discussion I would agree that it is valid to say what the fake word actually means. "Something disgusting" sounds like censorship to me. I don't agree with the beginning of the proposed rewording, however. I would simply do something like replacing "a neologism for something disgusting" with "a neologism with the definition 'a frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex". MsBatfish (talk) 10:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE I've copied below the introduction as it currently appears. Assuming it has not been drastically altered by the time you read this, do you agree that this is now sufficient? Personally I think it is fair and well-written.

"In response to comments by U.S. Senator Rick Santorum criticized as "anti-gay" by gay rights groups and some politicians, sex columnist and gay rights activist Dan Savage initiated a campaign in 2003 to associate Santorum's surname with a sexual innuendo. Savage's effort culminated in the creation of a derogatory word association.

In a segment of an April 2003 interview with the Associated Press discussing a recent United States Supreme Court decision striking down an anti-sodomy law, Santorum argued that consenting adults do not have a constitutional right to privacy, and that the recent court decision effectively was legalizing bestiality, polygamy, adultery, and sodomy, all of which he believed undermined society and the family. Savage subsequently asked his readers to coin a definition for "santorum" which would offend the Senator, announcing the winner as "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex". He created a web site to promote this definition, which became a prominent search result for Santorum's name on several search engines. He offered in 2010 to take the website down if Santorum donated US$5 million to Freedom to Marry, a group advocating legal recognition of same-sex marriages.

In June 2011 Santorum said of the situation that "There are foul people out there who do horrible things. It's unfortunate some people thought it would be a big joke to make fun of my name. That comes with the territory." In September 2011 he asked Google to remove the definition from its search engine index. Google refused, claiming that it would compromise the integrity of its search results." MsBatfish (talk) 10:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This discussion has already progressed beyond your comments above. Please see the current RFC discussion below if you'd like to comment. JakeInJoisey(2) (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)