User:Zenswashbuckler/Thoughts on the Santorum Affair/BLP Concerns

BLP policy & its bearing on this article's contents
Preemptive apologies for length.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attack pages
Done. A well-sourced description of an attack does not equal an attack. ☯.Zen <font color="#c22">Swashbuckler <font color="#000">.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Challenged or likely to be challenged
Done. The threshold for inclusion of material in this article is very high due to its very contentiousness. Only the strong survive. <font color="#000">☯.Zen <font color="#c22">Swashbuckler <font color="#000">.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material
Done. See above. <font color="#000">☯.Zen <font color="#c22">Swashbuckler <font color="#000">.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Avoid gossip and feedback loops
Done. There was some concern about this page's placement in search engine results for santorum, but AFAIK this has been assuaged by the fact that we have a strongly neutral article that can't be confused with participatory involvement. <font color="#000">☯.Zen <font color="#c22">Swashbuckler <font color="#000">.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Misuse of primary sources
Done. <font color="#000">☯.Zen <font color="#c22">Swashbuckler <font color="#000">.☠  21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Avoid self-published sources
Done. No such sources are used anywhere; the only possible question is one of linking to the official site (see below). <font color="#000">☯.Zen <font color="#c22">Swashbuckler <font color="#000">.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Further reading and external links
Question needs deciding. On the one hand, an external link to spreadingsantorum.com sends readers to a self-published source of allegations and commentary regarding Rick Santorum. On the other hand, it is the official site of the campaign (which is the actual subject of this article). It would be an obvious and clear-cut "no" if it were proposed to add the link to Rick Santorum. Instead it is proposed to add it to this article, where it would be extremely pertinent, and in keeping with WP:ELOFFICIAL.

My own view is that having an article about the campaign and then not linking to the single most important part of the campaign is itself a POV violation. "We'll tell you about this sordid mess, but we won't make it slightly easier for you to investigate it yourself, despite the fact that we do it for Stormfront, David Duke, and others." <font color="#000">☯.Zen <font color="#c22">Swashbuckler <font color="#000">.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Avoid victimization
Done. Article scrupulously avoids making more hay than was already there. Well-documented facts are reported, nothing more. <font color="#000">☯.Zen <font color="#c22">Swashbuckler <font color="#000">.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Public figures
Done. Rick Santorum is a public figure, as to some extent is Dan Savage. Contentious information is exhaustively sourced. <font color="#000">☯.Zen <font color="#c22">Swashbuckler <font color="#000">.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Privacy of personal information and using primary sources
Done. <font color="#000">☯.Zen <font color="#c22">Swashbuckler <font color="#000">.☠  21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

People who are relatively unknown
Done. See "Public figures" above. <font color="#000">☯.Zen <font color="#c22">Swashbuckler <font color="#000">.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Subjects notable only for one event
Done. See "Public figures" above. <font color="#000">☯.Zen <font color="#c22">Swashbuckler <font color="#000">.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Crime perpetrators
Done. <font color="#000">☯.Zen <font color="#c22">Swashbuckler <font color="#000">.☠  21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Privacy of names
Done. <font color="#000">☯.Zen <font color="#c22">Swashbuckler <font color="#000">.☠  21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)