Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:17, 15 February 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Campaign for the neologism "santorum" article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Campaign for the neologism "santorum" was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones Date Process Result August 19, 2006 Articles for deletion Kept December 25, 2006 Articles for deletion No consensus October 2, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed October 23, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed December 19, 2010 Articles for deletion Kept June 12, 2011 Articles for deletion Speedily kept June 20, 2011 Articles for deletion Kept June 21, 2011 Deletion review Endorsed Current status: Former good article nominee

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. U.S. Congress Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", or "Events". Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Google Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GoogleWikipedia:WikiProject GoogleTemplate:WikiProject GoogleGoogle Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Google To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Articles for most of the other products listed here and here. Assess : All articles in the Category:Unknown-importance Google articles and Category:Unassessed Google articles using the project's assessment scale Expand : Google Mapathon, Google Talkback Maintain : This WikiProject Merge : Google mobile services into List of Google products Stubs : Category:Stub-Class Google articles and Category:Google stubs Update : List of features in Android and Gmail interface#Product integration. Update logos of Google Marketing Platform products Other : Add more stuff to this to do list if you like! (click here...) create: Help the Google article for a good article status Improve the Outline of Google Get more members using : {{subst:Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Google/Invite Members}} Infobox Images with transparent areas needing a different background color Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Internet culture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Languages Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Shawn Snidow (20 November 2008). "Natality in the Private, Public, and Political Spheres: When Santorum Becomes santorum". Annual Meeting of the NCA 94th Annual Convention. Chris Rovzar (7 September 2010). "Does Rick Santorum Really Have a Google Problem?". New York Magazine. Joshua Kors (9 May 2011). "Q&A With Dan Savage: On Obama, Fox News' Shepard Smith and Success of 'It Gets Better' Project". The Huffington Post. THR staff (10 May 2011). "Jon Stewart Makes Rick Santorum One of Google's Most-Searched Terms". The Hollywood Reporter. Brittany Talarico (10 May 2011). "Keira Knightley on Googling Rick Santorum: "My Innocence Has Been Taken Away"". OK! magazine. Jason Zabel (20 May 2011). "Rename Lake Calhoun?". A.V. Club. Cade Metz (20 June 2011). "Misplaced Pages awash in 'frothy by-product' of US sexual politics". The Register. Chris Wilson (1 July 2011). "Lube Job: Should Google associate Rick Santorum's name with anal sex?". Slate Magazine.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Campaign for the neologism "santorum" article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 7 days

There is a clear consensus not to include a picture of ex-Senator Santorum. RfC: "Vulgar" - WP:NPOV & WP:LEAD? No clear consensus to include in the lead. RfC. RfC: Should the characterization of the definition be replaced with the definition itself? No consensus for change. Other points Dan Savage's name should not be incorporated in any titleing. See decision. This article is: about a campaign started by Dan Savage to humiliate Rick Santorum by establishing his surname as a sexual innuendo. "santorum", if employed in article title, is lower case The campaign to establish the word association is notable. "Vulgar" cannot be used as an unattributed, unqualified and/or unsourced characterization of the "definition" in "Misplaced Pages's Voice" "Vulgar" satisfies WP:V, WP:RS and WP:UNDUE considerations as a "fact about opinion" for article inclusion. Website can be used in lede. External link to website is permissible (see decision).

Straw poll

Again, as stated above, the purpose of this is not to determine consensus but rather to help steer discussion. JakeInJoisey provided the first question and I'll add a few as well. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Question: Is incorporation of Dan Savage's name in any proposed article title appropriate?

Is incorporation of Dan Savage's name in any proposed article title appropriate? JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes

• Yes - This political attack is inextricably linked to Dan Savage. It strains, IMHO, WP:NPOV that the TARGET of this attack should be further villified yet the AUTHOR of the attack remains unidentified in this article title. This is an instance where editorial discretion, in full compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, can and should act in the best interest of both the integrity of this project and fundamental fairness. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Given the current effort to expand the scope of this article by incorporating content related to Savage's escalation of his attack on Santorum (see discussion below), serious re-consideration should be given to renaming this article Dan Savage's political attack on Rick Santorum. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Yes - why not it's his creation. D Savage's dirty name association. Youreallycan (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Yes - as should the LGBT activists who have campaigned with him.88.166.32.210 (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Yes He is the "prime mover" and ignoring that in the title will mislead readers. Collect (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

He is the "prime mover..."

...and you'd be hard-pressed, I'd venture, to provide sourcing addressing this subject that doesn't also reference his name. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Yes The "campaign" or whatever we're calling it cannot be separated from Savage. It is inherently linked to him. NYyankees51 (talk) 05:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

No

• No. As a rule, we don't include the author's name in a work; thus The Green Child doesn't contain Herbert Read's name in the title. Others have pointed out that by now this thing has taken on a life of its own with people like Stephen Colbert weighing in. You might even argue that the reader who submitted the definition deserves the credit. ;) Wnt (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

  But we do call it Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell, even though we have no other article on that subject. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• No. Unless there are a rash of other definitions with articles, such that a differentiation between them is required. No such clarification of authorship is required, and since it is not common practice ... it is inappropriate to include at this time. 70.15.11.44 (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• No, for the reason stated by Wnt. -- The Anome (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• No for the reason stated by 70.15.11.44. There's only one theory of relativity, so we have an article at Theory of relativity rather than Einstein's theory of relativity. Dan Savage is not more important than Einstein. Contrary to JakeInJoisey's argument, we do not "vilify" a politician by accurately reporting on incidents in that person's life, even incidents that involve attacks on or disparagements of that person. Usually the subject is notable only because of the connection to the target, not the author, so the best identification of the subject matter will often name the target: Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, George W. Bush military service controversy, etc. The present case is unusual in that the whole subject of the article is the political use of a particular word (or a particular combination of eight letters, if you prefer). The best title doesn't use Rick Santorum's name but does use the neologism/attempted neologism/eponym/octagraph/whatever -- "santorum" but not "Santorum". JamesMLane t c 17:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Usually the subject is notable only because of the connection to the target,...

Perhaps so but, in this instance (and, IMHO, quite, quite notably), the subject exists and, according to Savage himself, endures only because of Savage's ongoing campaign. Were that not the case, Savage's "offer" to terminate the campaign upon Santorum's "donation" of $5M would be nothing more than a meaningless, hollow gesture.

...so the best identification of the subject matter will often name the target: Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, George W. Bush military service controversy, etc.

In neither of those matters is a specific progenitor identifiable...relegating both, I'd suggest, to rather unpersuasive or unrepresentative comparative status. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• No per JamesMLane's argument, and the fact that per WP:BLP we probably shouldn't be dragging any unnecessary names through the mud without good reason. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• No. He's the father, so to speak, but the thing has momentum all its own. If we knew who the originator of originator of the Lolcat was, we wouldn't give him this much attention. The only real difference is the level/means of initial publicity, and Savage asking his readers to be the first ones to propagate the new definition. They succeeded in that now most of the U.S. knows there is something peculiar about Rick Santorum's last name, or at least the act of googling it. Savage is responsible for starting the first little snowball; the avalanche is the avalanche. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 20:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• No Another attempt to use the voice of the encyclopedia to make a judgment about the propriety of this campaign, of course. Protonk (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• No per JamesMLane's theory of relativity reasoning. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• No - it goes against Misplaced Pages convention to avoid adding the inventor's or proponent's name to things, plus or minus. We don't call it Henry Ford's Model A, Martin Luther King's I have a Dream Speech, or Sirhan Sirhan's Shooting of Robert Kennedy. It serves no encyclopedic purpose to do that here, so I won't speculate about what nonencyclopedic purposes may be accomplished. BTW, hasn't this issue been decided already? - Wikidemon (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• No Savage started the campaign and organized it, but at least tens of thousands of people have participated in it. It is not his campaign. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• No - It is not our normal encyclopedic practice to attribute authorship to neologisms or, in this case, a notable campaign to establish a googlebombing word or neologism. Carrite (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• No - unless there arises some unrelated campaign for redefining "santorum", the current title succinctly identifies the topic. WP:TITLE repeatedly makes it clear that conciseness in titles is valued. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• No per Wikidemon Pass a Method talk 22:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• No, even if he stopped "his" campaign at this point, it is clearly no longer something he controls. It would be like naming the Mother's Day article Anna Jarvis's Mother's Day. Pawsplay (talk) 06:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• No, the name of Dan Savage need not be in the title, for the reason given above by Pawsplay but it should definitely be in the article. It's clearly Savage's campaign and, as such, should be routinely included for information purposes.-The Gnome (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Question: campaign, controversy or other?

Should the article's subject be described using the word "campaign," the word "controversy," or are other words more appropriate? elektrikSHOOS (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Campaign

• Comment: "Campaign for" addresses the argument of those who didn't like Santorum (neologism) (one of the former titles) because, they say, the word isn't widely used and therefore hasn't reached the status of a neologism. The advantage of "Campaign for" in conjunction with "neologism" is that it doesn't assert that the campaign has succeeded, only that an effort has been made, which I think is not disputed. The disadvantage of "Campaign" is that it suggests a sustained effort over time. Dan Savage hasn't done all that much since setting up the website and urging people to link to it. My bottom line is that I'd like to find an improvement on "Campaign" but right now I don't know of one, so by default I'd say to stick with it. JamesMLane t c 07:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The disadvantage of "Campaign" is that it suggests a sustained effort over time.

I'd call that accuracy and not a disadvantage. Santorum's recent elevation in status has, IMHO, initiated no small number of media references, some probably intended to resurrect the issue...and likely this reinvigorated discussion as well. Other than that though, a good assessment with which I concur and would opt for "Campaign for" as my second choice (not that anyone is asking about second choices). It may be perceived as clunky, but it is, apparently, digestible to most. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

In Savage’s view, there is no “campaign” anymore. He recently told a reader inquiring about “your campaign to redefine ‘santorum’”:

Savage, Dan (2012-01-11). "Savage Love: Santorum Surges". The Stranger. ISSN 1935-9004. First, GP, the campaign is over: Santorum has been redefined.

Savage considers this a fait accompli. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 08:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Controversy

1. Controversy covers all sides of the issue, avoids confusion, and is most appropriate given the original intent. Original post from May 15, 2003 ... 70.15.11.44 (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Other

• Political Attack - which most precisely represents reality. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Word - This may sound like a cop-out, but titling this article Santorum (word) avoids all of the issues that are causing, or being alleged to cause, the arguments at issue of late. The word word is more accessible than eponym; santorum is unequivocally a word whereas many editors have argued that it isn't a neologism; readers can judge for themselves whether or not the attempted definition is an attack without WP bashing them over the head with it in the title; and the phenomenon has grown beyond being a campaign by any one person or small group of people to the point where everyone who pays any attention to the news gets the joke when Jon Stewart shows CNN coloring Santorum's Iowa counties brown. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 19:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Meme - Because word might be a little too non-specific; its cultural penetration and decentralized propagation render campaign totally unsuitable; and controversy would imply that media and politicians are constantly arguing over whether the redefinition is legitimate or deplorable (which for the most part they're not, and didn't, even when the word was new). ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 19:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I like it. It fits the definition of a (forced) meme. Speciate (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Oooh, "meme" is good. (Interestingly a lot of the up-to-the-moment hits for Santorum meme are about his sweater vests, but I think we don't have to worry about anyone becoming confused.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Well it would be till someone asks you to source it. There aren't many RS that use the word. B——C_ritical 05:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Neologism - I understand people's complaint about the accuracy of this label because Savage didn't invent the original word but the complaint doesn't seem to be supported by the dictionary, at least Random House, which provides the definition "the introduction or use of new words or new senses of existing words" (emphasis mine). "Controversy" is inaccurate, because there's no argument or debate or question at the heart of this topic; it's just something a lot of people don't like. "Political attack" is inaccurate because, while the reason for the attack is political, the actual means of attack isn't. "Word" is overly vague. I don't hate "campaign" or "meme" but I prefer "neologism". Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Your "Random House" link is persuasive but with a caveat. The already-discussed "Partridge" determination (which, as I understand it, is an accepted authority in these matters) that "santorum" does not rise to "neologism" status suggests that the "Random House" definition is less than complete. As long as the use of "neologism" is qualified by language suggesting that "santorum" has not yet attained "neologism" status (eg. the current "Campaign for"), then "neologism" would be my second choice. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Movement - "Spreading santorum is a movement" <link to non-RS removed>, "Savage started a movement", "... by launching an online movement through his Savage Love column to redefine the word 'Santorum.'" ... see also: Special:Search/intitle:Movement 70.15.11.44 (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly why can we not link to www.spreadingsantorum.com/archives/cat_santorum_letters.html in discussion? Primary sources can be used in talk page discussions about primary sources. BLP is not a cache-22, you have to be able to talk about something in order to talk about it. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Its of no benefit to the article and will never be included there - Its a chat thread/letters to the editor, full of demeaning attack comments, - are you joking? Youreallycan 23:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Right at the moment, because I'm pissed off at the edit-warring and prepared to block or full-protect. Take it up at a noticeboard please, but I'm not willing to see more jousting here. Everyone knows what the web address is, there's no compelling need to link it unless you can gain a consensus of uninvolved editors that it should be linked. Franamax (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I might have missed some context here, was there edit warring over redacting the link from this !vote? Edit warring is indeed bad on both sides, but I do agree, BRD and consensus would suggest we leave the link off the article page unless there's a consensus to include, which does not look terribly likely. Linking to a sub-page to make a point about something that subpage says by way of discussing a different matter here on the talk page (whether to call it a neologism, word, movement, whatever) doesn't seem particularly contentious or harmful to living people. Anyway, all the best with efforts to keep order! - Wikidemon (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is the context you may have missed. Franamax (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Neologism. I'd say Santorum (neologism) > Campaign for "santorum" neologism > Santorum (word) > Santorum (Dan Savage) > Santorum (political attack) > Santorum (movement). Wnt (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Any of those are better than the current title (except the second one, of course). 70.15.11.44 (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It cannot be any of the form "santorum (descriptor)". The article is about Savage's google-bomb campaign/movement/whatever, it is not about the fake word itself. At one time it regrettably was, but due to some hard work by SlimVirgin last year, the article was cleaned up and focused, as it should have been alla along, on the campaign. Tarc (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Spreadingsantorum.com. Why not just call it...what it is...the actual name of the website. It's really what this is all about anyway.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Second! Cut to the chase already, and call it what it is. 70.15.11.44 (talk) 03:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Derogatory eponym is pretty descriptive. Collect (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• Eponym with or without a modifier like "derogatory" preceding. Eponymousness is this term's raison d'être. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• Santorum's Google problem Per WP:COMMONNAME, this is what the reliable sources call this subject, and we should do the same. B——C_ritical 22:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• Political attack Most accurate. Second choice is spreadingsantorum.com. NYyankees51 (talk) 05:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Savage political attack (pun intended). Second choice "Political attack", third choice google-bomb. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Question: Which grammatical classification is the most appropriate for the word in question?

As it relates to this article, which grammatical classification is the word santorum? Place response in bold with appropriate link, if needed. Please, table any arguments to omit any such classification from the title. This here is a question of classification, not about title inclusion as of yet. Keep in mind WP:OR. Examples: neologism, eponym, innuendo, slang, ironic metonymy, etc. ... 70.15.11.44 (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Eponym - While this may be a case of recording change in the process, a word stemming from an individual has been defined. Whether or not the definition sticks and regardless of its meaning, it was defined as such. citing ... Name game: The slang system has left Senator Santorum feeling very uneasy from The Independent, July 7, 2011. 70.15.11.44 (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Euphemism - Both sourced and, apparently, as defined per Misplaced Pages. If you follow the incorporated link to profane, you are presented with "profanity" as exemplified in '...words, expressions, gestures, or other social behaviors that are socially constructed or interpreted as insulting, rude, vulgar, obscene, desecrating or other forms." Savage wanted "santorum" turned into a euphemism that would make its way to neologism status. He got only as far as the euphemism aspect. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC) JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Neologism, which describes the word. Euphemism is an ideal second choice per JakeInJoisey's argument above. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC) (switched them around; once I thought about it, neologism feels like a better choice to me elektrikSHOOS (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC))

Not to detract from your feelings, but Misplaced Pages:Verifiability dictates the need for a more rigorous reasoning ... i.e. citation needed. 70.15.11.44 (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Assuming "campaign" remains incorporated, "neologism" might be accurate if it's presented as Savage's "goal". However, with all the recent carping as to "sourcing", where is the sourcing documenting Savage's intent to "campaign" for, specifically, a "neologism"? The only sourcing I recall is the "Partridge" rejection of "santorum" for consideration as a "neologism". JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, carping for verification. Are you knocking references? And if you recall a source, please share it. 70.15.11.44 (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Derogatory eponym would be by far the most accurate. The "definition" is specifically gemacht to be derogatory. Collect (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

A truly apropos idea. It concisely embodies the undeniable nature of the word in its full context, that of a slight affronting the very person whose name it is redefining. Though the question comes into play, whether it is truly derogatory in a neutral sense of the word. But first, let's have a comparative study:

1. Eponymous slur
2. Eponymous slight
3. Slanderous eponym
4. Insulting eponym
5. Derogatory eponym

While the eponymous nature of the word is not in question, the character is, as well as the appropriateness of the term being used to describe it. It is first and foremost, eponymous. It is only strictly a neologism to those who seek to include "-gism" in the title of this Misplaced Pages article, to further their own designs. Whether the character is derogatory or not is probably subjective enough to not include. But some exampling of the nature of the word should be addressed. 70.15.11.44 (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

While the eponymous nature of the word is not in question...

Oh, but it is in question. Your provided source illustrates and suggests via the examples provided that an eponym has its genesis in some characteristic directly attributable to the namesake and is also commonly understood in colloquial use. That is hardly the case here. Instead, a "definition" was fabricated from whole cloth and a surname designated to represent that definition. While its author might certainly delight in its characterization as a bona fide "eponym", it is an "eponym" wannabe just as much as it is a "neologism" wannabe. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It is an eponym, not an "eponym wannabe" because there is not doubt that the term is named after an individual and who that individual is. An eponym is simply "a word derived from the proper name of a person or place" so santorum's eponymous nature is not at issue. That it's insulting to the proper name it is derived from doesn't stop it from being an eponym. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem with neologism, is that while this is a new definition, it is not a new word (string of characters). The only pre-existing definition was merely a proper noun, but non-the-less, it is not an altogether new word. It is, however, altogether eponymous; in that, the new definition uses an existing proper noun as its word. One trumps the other, you see. For compromise, and clarification as to the nature of the usage of a proper noun with new meaning, a modifier (such as "derogatory" or whatever) could be used, but isn't (IMO) required. 70.15.11.44 (talk) 03:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it's altogether an eponym. And like I said above, its eponymousness is central to the issue. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Noun "Thus was born the noun “santorum” – a word whose definition is so unsavoury the ex-senator has been trying to get Google to remove it from its search engine." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/a-republican-menace-or-a-messiah/article2294732/?utm_medium=Feeds%3A%20RSS%2FAtom&utm_source=Home&utm_content=2294732 88.166.32.210 (talk) 03:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • If we're going to be that vague we might as well say word. Noun also isn't useful as a disambiguation since that other Santorum is a noun too. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• common noun as distinct from Santorum the proper noun :) "Savage redefined the word “santorum” as a common noun describing a “frothy mixture” of substances that might stain the bedsheets after particularly vigorous man-on-man action of the type Santorum, the person, vocally disapproves." http://www.dailydot.com/politics/rick-santorum-google-search/ 88.166.32.210 (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I am commenting here per a request by JakeInJoisey at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Linguistics#Linguistic Expertise Solicited. I have no opinion on the "most appropriate" label, but offer these observations on those currently suggested.
  • Noun. If one accepts that santorum exists as a word in roughly the sense described on this page (which, it must be acknowledged, is not an uncontroversial assumption), that word is certainly a noun. The proper noun Santorum, referring to Rick Santorum or other similarly named people, is also a noun.
  • Neologism/Coinage. The word is a neologism, since it was coined within recent memory. It could also be called a coinage, on the same basis; coinage sometimes conveys the additional sense of an unnecessary or specious new word.

    Your observation appears to conflict with the position taken by "Partridge" as reflected in the prior discussion here. Can you reconcile what appears to be the difference in positions? Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

    Well, Partridge pointed out that the status of santorum as a true neologism was in question under their rules because the entire manner in which it came to cultural significance was Savage's column and website, not a more "natural" use that grew organically by people actually using the word to describe the substance (this being what separates it from other deliberate neologisms like Truthiness). But if Cnilep is right, then coinage would work here regardless of Partidge's stance on neologism, as coinage does not necessarily imply the organic widespread use of the word, only its deliberate creation and a notable degree of awareness of it. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 16:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

    ...I should add to the preceding: If Cnilep is right and I've understood him correctly. Thanks. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 16:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

    It appears that Partridge rejects santorum on the grounds that (1) it was deliberately coined and (2) it is not actually in use. The disclaimer I included under "noun" should apply to all of these remarks: they assume, not uncontroversially, that santorum actually exists (is used) as a word. Partridge, it seems, does not make that assumption. Cnilep (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Eponym. The word may be regarded as an eponym under some senses of the word, but the most common sense of eponym seems to be the name of the person after which something is called (e.g. "Pelops is the eponym or name-giver of the Peloponnêsus." Grote, History of Greece, 1846), rather than the thing called by that person's name (e.g. "The eponym malapropism was coined from the character Mrs. Malaprop" Membean (web site), 2011). The former is the only relevant sense listed in the Oxford English Dictionary second edition, though the latter sense does appear in draft revisions from 1993. The name-giving-person sense is the first sense given in Meriam Webster's 10th, though, again, the thing-so-named sense is the second sense given.

    Interesting. So, if I understand your position correctly and referencing the specifics of this discussion, "Santorum" (surname namesake) is, in the "most common sense", the "eponym" in this equation while "santorum" (the object referenced) would be currently rejected by "Oxford" but accepted by Meriam Webster as an "eponym". Have I got that right? Further, if the COMMON noun "santorum" was non-existent but created and defined at the same time, then it has no identification or association with the PROPER (and existing) noun "Santorum" other than spelling. Could that still be legitimately characterized as an "eponym" given those circumstances? JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Euphemism. The common noun santorum is not, strictly speaking, a euphemism; a euphemism is a new or less-distasteful substitute for a taboo or offensive word. The new word did not substitute for an older one.
  • Metonymy. Likewise, the word does not refer to an object or phenomenon by reference to something associated with it, a necessary element in metonymy.
  • Innuendo. Single words, out of context, are generally not regarded as innuendo – a indirect reference to something negative.
  • Slang. Although the word is certainly not standard, and therefore edges toward slang, it is also not clear if it is used by any in-group of speakers, a usual necessity for slang.

Cnilep (talk) 04:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your observations and I'm confident they'll serve to inspire some additional thought. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Why isn't SpreadingSantorum.com in External Links?

It seems counterintuitive to me that this article does not link to SpreadingSantorum.com itself, apparently by a deliberate decision. Can someone explain to me why there should not be one? ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Its a specifically designed blogger attack site against a single living person that is the subject of one of our BLP articles. There are some pretty demeaning and offensive posts there, we don't need to link to such a site, it's plenty to discuss the sites existence and unnecessary to link to it. Youreallycan 11:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a deliberate decision to keep this article separate from its subject: the article is about the campaign, not part of it. However, the name of the campaign's site (in both of its versions) is in the article, if you need it. -- The Anome (talk) 12:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

That's some convoluted gobbledegook. It's absurd that we talk about it but won't link to it. The "attack site" rules aren't pertinent here. For what it's worth, any interested reader can go ahead and type it into google or their web browser. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know it's contorted. A compromise between two extreme and diametrically opposed positions always is. -- The Anome (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Another issue is that linking to the site is actually part of the attack - the link has been spammed and google bombed and it is the clicking on the link that keeps the attack site as the first search return for his name - wikipedia BLP policy suggests that the project would not want to be part of that attack by unnecessarily linking directly from this site to the attack. Youreallycan 12:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The googlebombIts search ranking is an effect of linking the text "santorum" to SpreadingSantorum.com. Linking "SpreadingSantorum.com" to SpreadingSantorum.com would only affect search results for "SpreadingSantorum.com", which does not contribute to the googlebombits "santorum" rank. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2012, Ed. 25 January 2012 (UTC)

And Misplaced Pages is not here in order to name "Spreadingsantorum.com" three thundred times either. Do you really think that this is the purpose of Misplaced Pages? To name the site as many times as one can on a page or pages? I fear that whether Google existed or not is irrelevant to the fact that spamming a site name is still spamming. As Gertrude Stein would have said: A spam is a spam is a spam." Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Why would you think that anyone thinks that the purpose of Misplaced Pages is to name a site as many times as one can? Do try to discuss this rationally, Collect. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not expert on google bombing to raise the profile of a website but adding a link from here to the attack site will add page views thereby raising the sites profile and add to the attack. Youreallycan 12:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

That's probably true, but that's also an effect of having this article at all. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of this article should be to document its subject, without, as far as possible, either aiding or suppressing the campaign it describes. Mentioning, but not linking, the domain names of the campaign sites is an attempt to maintain that balance. -- The Anome (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I reverted removal of the link to spreadingsantorum.com once, very very roughly an hour ago, as its appropriateness for this article seemed (and seems) blazingly obvious. I later found that the article had lacked the link for some time. I wondered why. A quick look showed this discussion of whether or not there should be a link, but the discussion seems inconclusive to me. -- Hoary (talk) 13:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Please feel free to re-start the discussion: it's certainly an issue without a single obvious clear solution that would satisfy everyone. However, the current compromise has held up pretty well for some time. (Just for clarification, I would be happy to see the link put in the article; but I can also see that many people would see that as provocative and counter to policy, and I can see their point of view as well. The current compromise works for me. I should also mention at this point that although Misplaced Pages external links have NOFOLLOW set, this is by no means universally honoured by reusers of content.) -- The Anome (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was about to comment on the matter of NOFOLLOW. Thank you for the invitation to restart the discussion. I don't propose to do so, because the matter promises to take some time, I'm not all that concerned, the discussion may well generate less light than heat (especially during the next month or two in the political career of RS), and I'm busy. But I'll register my dismay at the way in which these "BLP" concerns are being used to remove a link from an article on a matter for which the site linked (or not) would seem to be of key importance. (By comparison, the article "Westboro Baptist Church" is I think right to have a link to its "official site", godhatesfags.com, no matter how offensive this site may be.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The GHF site is imo offensive, but in this regard it is not an attack site aimed at a single person that is the subject of one of our biographies. Youreallycan 14:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that BLP, properly read, would limit us from linking to a notable site designed to criticize the positions of a politician simply because it chooses a deliberately shocking of doing so. Nor does linking to a site make us responsible for the entirety of its contents.

As far as a BLP analysis of this article goes, I'd be much more concerned that we repeat a claim of Savage being a "foul" person who does "horrible things" right in the lede. I'm not suggesting we need to remove that quote, because I think when reporting on a notable feud between public figures, we have a fair amount of leeway to dispassionately present the content of the dispute, and the site is a notable part of that content.--Trystan (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I am reading two rationales - one that adding the link influences search engine results and that this is inappropriate, and that it is a BLP violation. So as not to influence the search engine result, I am listing the link without hyperlinking it. If it needs to be further disguised I would not be opposed. For the BLP violation I would like to hear a rationale about how having this link is any more of a violation than having this article. I think the link should be included because it is fundamental to understanding the nature of the campaign. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

In Misplaced Pages's external links guideline, WP:ELOFFICIAL overrides WP:ELNO, but WP:ELNEVER overrides WP:ELOFFICIAL. So in an article about an attack site, the question of whether or not to include the official web site of this campaign hinges on whether this BLP violation falls under WP:ELNO or WP:ELNEVER. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No - Misplaced Pages clearly suggests that WP:BLP concerns outweigh "attack page official sites" for sure - this is not even a close call. Meanwhile, if an EL is improper, it is improper even if Nowikied. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

In complete agreement with Collect on this. The site serves nothing more than to denigrate the name of a living person. Arzel (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:ATTACK refers to pages created within Misplaced Pages specifically to disparage their targets. In no way does it prevent us from appropriately covering notable criticism of politicians by other public figures.--Trystan (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You are confusing notable criticism with what is basic anger. This isn't a disagreement with a political position, this is Savage saying, I don't like your opinion so I am going try and get other people to say that your last name is "Shit". This is the political debate of a four year old, and the website is the tantrum response. Savage is free to scream whatever he wants from the top of the mountain, and since it is a story we can talk about Savage's screaming from the mountain. This, however, does not mean that we must provide a link to the mountain to further promote Savage's screed, especially when it is nothing more than a personal attack on a living person. The website itself doesn't even say anything that isn't already in the article. The only real benefit to anyone is Savage, in that it gets the link out there some more. Arzel (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is appropriate for us to make editorial decisions based on our personal assessment of how mature or effective Savage's criticisms of Santorum are.

Clearly there isn't going to be consensus to add the URL (linked or unlinked) to the external links section. As long as it doesn't get censored from the article entirely, I for one am content to drop the issue.--Trystan (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

At some point we'll have to consider what the preponderant opinion here is. I agree that it is nonsense not to include the link in External links, and nofollow mitigates most of the concerns one could raise. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No follow relates only to this site - this part of the objection is related to the fact that this site is mirrored at a hundred, or even hundreds of other sites, that do not follow the same standards as wiki no follow. Youreallycan 18:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware that Misplaced Pages policy requires that we adapt our approach to the consequences that might emerge at other websites -- I would be surprised if this is the case, though I'm happy to admit that I could be wrong. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

If we are aware that adding a link to wikipedia increases the traffic to that site and we are aware the site is a place for demeaning and degrading comments and posts about the subject BLP and ELNEVER suggests we don't link to it. Youreallycan 19:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Linking to attack page

The issue is whether this article should link to the website called spreading santorum. Here are the issues:

1. There is the assertion that Misplaced Pages's linking to this site causes Misplaced Pages to participate in its promotion in a non-informational way, i.e. by changing its search engine rank external to Misplaced Pages
2. Misplaced Pages has policies which prohibit linking to attack sites, and this site is an attack site
3. Regardless of the linking policy, Misplaced Pages has WP:BLP regulations which are prime and override everything else, and linking to this site violates BLP rules

Are there other issues?

The reason I assert for linking to the site is that the site is the official website describing this article. The "campaign for 'santorum' neologism"'s model has been to promote that website, and it is not possible for anyone to understand this article without understanding that this website exists and can be visited.

user:Damian Yerrick suggested that WP:ELNEVER applies; I think this must be a mistake because that is only about copyright and I do not know of anyone claiming that the site violates copyright. WP:ELNO says, "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid..." and I assert that this site is the official page of the article's subject, so I say that does not apply.

I feel that point 1 about the influencing search engine rank can be mediated somehow if that is a problem - we can put the address in a picture so that engines will not see it.

Users arzel and collect say there is a BLP violation but I do not understand. What is the BLP argument for not including the link? How is including the link any more of a BLP violation than the existence of this Misplaced Pages article about the campaign embodied in that website? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The first objection (that we are promoting an offensive idea by mentioning it) is a canard, as it is fundamentally opposed to the mission of an encyclopedia. We mention every subject under the sun, neutrally and without censorship, not adding our own efforts however righteous to elevate or downplay the subject in the public's mind. Many people make it their job to spread beliefs, religions, styles and tastes, and they create images, memes, sound bites and catch phrases, and publicity events specifically to spread through public media. If a terrorist organization kills people to gain notoriety and spread fear, or a credit card company engineers a holiday to increase sales, we don't avoid talking to them, or linking to their official sites, in an effort to avoid becoming a mouthpiece for their message. We're a neutral conduit that spreads all messages, good and bad. As to BLP overriding all else, if that were true we would just shutter the project because we can and do hurt living people. It's hard to argue that a politician now running for President who likened gays to pedophiles and practitioners of bestiality is so powerless and victimized that he needs our protection from the comeuppance of those he insulted. That's not our business. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Who says that Santorum needs to be protected. The argument here is whether to link to an attack website. It is not like the website adds any information, and it is not all that clear why there is such a desire to link to a site that has no intrinsical value, provide no additional information about the topic, and serves only to push up page hits for the denegrating term. Arzel (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I dispute that the website has no value and provides no information because it meets WP:N. If you have a rationale for saying that something can meet WP:N yet not have value then I would like to hear more about it, because I thought N was the standard. If you are concerned about page hits, then how would you feel about the website address being embedded in a picture which no bot could read? Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The website is simply the definition which is already included. Please tell me how that provides any valuable information. Arzel (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The link is to the landing page of a site that seems to function as a blog. The splash - or should I say splat? - page includes design, layout, and social media elements, and the infamous brown splatter image described in the article, which is worth minus a thousand words right there. The blog contains quite a bit of content and is updated regularly. I haven't had the urge to read it in any depth, but it does seem to contain updates on the google bomb campaign, and more general political advocacy. So yes, a lot more there than is, or can be, in the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the leading page is a link to a blog (WP:EL 11). Although I would debate that it contains anything of value since it is little more than attacks on Santorum. And if the Blog is the primary reason for inclusion than it violates WP:EL number 11. Arzel (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It does not matter at all what the page contains or that it is a blog, because even if the page contained content which was meaningful to you that would not make it notable. It is notable only because it is the official website for the campaign for the santorum neologism, which is the focus of this article. It is further notable because it is the subject of many articles in reliable sources. Do you dispute that it is the official website of this campaign? Do you dispute that it is the focus of many reliable sources which are cited in the references of this article? Under WP:EL, the first rule of what should be linked is "Misplaced Pages articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. See Official links below." In WP:ELOFFICIAL it says that "These links are exempt from the links normally to be avoided..." which includes things like being a blog or having no content. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This article is not about the website, therefore WP:ELOFFICIAL is irrelevant. Arzel (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding?!? The very item you just linked specifically says:

An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following:

1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Misplaced Pages article.

2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

Explain to all of us how the very website that is running the campaign doesn't meet those conditions. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 18:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

ELofficial is not a guarantee of inclusion and it was not created for single instances and exception as this. Anyone that take a while to read the content hosted on that blogger site will accept it is primarily in existence to attack a living person and that content is hosted there that demeans and desires a single living person that is the subject of one of our biographies. Linking to the blogger site is part of the attack againt the person. As such WP:BLP supported by a bit of WP:IAR allows and encourages us not to link to it. Youreallycan 15:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it a good enough compromise that we do include an external links section, but do not link but rather put www.spreadingsantorum.com in plain text? B——C_ritical 22:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Either a plain text link or a link in a picture is, so far as I know, unprecedented. I am not sure that Wikipedians are even supposed to worry about this because this sounds like a legal issue which users have no position to debate anyway. I think I might like to have the conversation just be about whether the article benefits from the link, and whether the link constitutes as a personal attack, and if the article benefits and it is not an attack then the link goes in as a link unless the WMF says that this is legally harmful. I know nothing whatsoever about how search engine ranks are affected by the text or linking of Misplaced Pages articles, and so far as I know, no one in this discussion does either. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I do: Misplaced Pages external links have a special property, called "nofollow," which the wiki software inserts in every external link. That means Misplaced Pages cannot be used to effect Google rankings. B——C_ritical 23:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

En Misplaced Pages is mirrored to hundreds of other www sites that do not stop bots using nofollow. Adding an external link to a wikipedia article massively increases the traffic to that site. Youreallycan 00:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The practices of other websites are not our concern. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The preponderance of opinion seems to be for including the external link, as a link. I see one argument against having the link which really makes common sense, and that is Youreallycan's argument that other sites which mirror this one might drive up the google rank. The other arguments don't make any real sense, if we are going to have the article at all. It seems to me that Youreallycan's argument takes our concern for our external effects to new heights, and many here are arguing that we should not modify our editing based on what happens offsite. B——C_ritical 00:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That is just a part of my policy driven objection to adding this external link to en wikipedia - primarily - its a blogger site - created to attack a living person - there is a lot of attack and demeaning user generated content, and defaming content hosted on the blogger site, as such, its not even a primary reliable source - Youreallycan 00:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The site is not a reliable source. It is a primary source, not that this matters, because it is not being used to source any information. The link is only to give a demonstration of what the article is about as it is the official website for the subject of the article. The site is created to attack a living person and it does contain demeaning user generated content. I find nothing about those characteristics any more objectionable than the existence of this article, and if the article exists, then I think the quality of the article is greatly diminished by not also including this link. Do you feel this article should exist? If the article exists, do you think it can be understand fully without access to the official website? Is there a Misplaced Pages policy which says anything about the community's duty to censor Misplaced Pages in anticipation of what external sites will do with the information on Misplaced Pages? Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

In summary; this article already demeans Santorum, so there is no reason to object to the blog site that is the source of the personal attack. Why don't we just ignore BLP and WP:EL on every article? Arzel (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that as an accurate summary. And if this article demeans Santorum in any way, then point to that part and we'll fix it. B——C_ritical 02:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:ELOFFICIAL says that it overrides most other WP:EL concerns. Please respond to that if that does not relieve your concern. Also, what is the BLP concern? It is a rare circumstance that an attack site is the focus of international notoriety consistently for nine years. Are you disputing the notability of the site, and you see it as a non-notable attack page? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me like a general consensus to have the link, without taking any extraordinary measures like putting it in plain text or a picture. B——C_ritical 18:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me like you simply are ignoring those that disagree with you. Arzel (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 18:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Attack sites is a rejected proposal. This is a very old debate that has happened multiple times. We have linked to many, many worse pages. There is absolutely no reason the link should not be included. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

There is absolutely no value to make the link. The website serves only to attack the subject and fails via WP:BLP Arzel (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I realize that's your opinion, but you've failed to gain the consensus of others on this page. Since you haven't brought up any new reasons for rejecting the link, I don't see the consensus as having changed. B——C_ritical 18:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Concur with Arzel's assessment as an accurate reflection of the the now-archived prior discussion of this issue here and here. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

A number of pros and cons. There appears to be consensus at the moment for including the link, although there was no consensus (as opposed to consensus to remove) in a prior discussion. Consensus can change and this is only the second or third time, but after a while it's best to settle things and be done with them, not to keep rehashing old things or declare a new consensus hastily. Few new facts since then, except some ongoing news coverage, and with Santorum as a leading candidate close to an election it's a more current issue. This discussion is wider and involves a number of new participants. Normally BRD would suggest that there has to be a consensus to add or make a change, but this isn't that exact of situation. The content is already there, and some are proposing that we break with normal editing style by failing to include a link we would normally include - so I'd say it's up to them to demonstrate why. I haven't seen a viable BLP issue or solid reason why removing the link would better serve the encyclopedia (not saying the argument is misplaced, just not a winner). Truly, whether the link is there or not makes very little difference, which may be the reason people opposing it got the upper hand last time, it's really not that important to include it and some people strongly object. On balance, at the very least I'd wait a while or else revisit it after the election, there's no deadline here. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If there is consensus to include and it's a matter of "failing to include a link we would normally include", I think there's not much of a case for not including it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that the prior discussions ended in a clear consensus not to include (as Wikidemon points out); rather they petered out as people grew tired of hearing the same arguments over and over. What looks to me like the most cited policy in those discussions, WP:BLPSPS, doesn't apply because we're not intending to use this link as information about Rick Santorum, we're using it as the WP:ELOFFICIAL to the subject of this article. It is no different than putting the link to Rick Santorum's official campaign website on the Rick Santorum article. Our article makes painfully clear that Misplaced Pages is not endorsing the views expressed in the external link, and that we are linking it solely because it is at the heart of the campaign itself, integral to the article subject. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 19:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone please list the people who support the different approaches so that we can see what the dominant view here is. BTW, I think it makes a big difference that WP:ATTACKSITES is a failed proposal. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I just checked, and the American Nazi Party gets a link to their official website. Explain to me how spreadingsantorum.com, even defined specifically as a personal attack site and not a political prank, is less deserving. Pawsplay (talk) 06:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Straw poll on EL

I am summarizing the discussion, but I was also a participant so someone please check the point of view in this table and feel free to edit it!

Here are the previous discussions on this topic - here and here.

It seems like some people are saying that linking to the site constitutes a violation of BLP, but describing the site does not constitute BLP. I propose a straw poll to try to identify all the objections to including the link, and to get responses to the counterpoints made to objections. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Any point making it official as a WP:RFC? - Wikidemon (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I would not oppose that, but since I proposed the poll, I think it would be best if someone else proposed the RFC. You, perhaps? Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Only If you don't prefer a definitive consensus resolution to 11 more months of incessant carping. What wording would you suggest? JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Include the link

1. The only argument against including it is that it is a violation of BLP, but no one has said why: in what way does the link violate BLP, that the article does not? If it is our consensus that the article does not violate BLP, why would the link violate BLP? Having the link is natural in the circumstances, and does not promote the site content in any way. Misplaced Pages should not base its own text on what external sites may or may not do, or on possible but unspecified consequences outside our control. The necessity to consider harm per BLP does not extend beyond reason, and the link meets the inclusion test even for a biography. Misplaced Pages is comprehensive. B——C_ritical 19:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
2. If the article itself can exist (in conformity with BLP) as I think it can (and as previous deletion discussions have established quite definitively), then I see no reason the link cannot be included. In fact adding the link almost seems like a minor point, an afterthought, given the nature of the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
3. WP:BLPSPS doesn't apply, since this article is Campaign for "santorum" neologism, not Rick Santorum; since this is only tangentially a BLP-related article, the only policy on the BLP page I can see that applies is WP:WELLKNOWN. Now if there were a WP:BLPNOHELPINGJERKS policy, that said in effect "Misplaced Pages articles shall not cover anything consisting solely of people being assholes to each other," then we could delete this entire article, about half the Opie and Anthony page, everything on this page that can't be replaced with official court citations, and certain sections of Alex Rodriguez. Sorry, couldn't resist. Since there's no such thing, though, all of this content remains, including this article, which should have a full complement of external links just like any other page. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 20:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

   BLP Applies everywhere, your reasoning is invalid. Arzel (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

4. We would normally include a link in this type of article, and there's no reason not to include the link here. We have this entire article about Dan Savage attacking Rick Santorum. It's not a BLP violation to provide an actual link to the attack, and nobody's explained how it would be a BLP violation; what are we saying with the link that hasn't been said in the article? I haven't found any other article about a similar topic where we refrained from linking to the relevant official site; Stormfront (website), for example, links to that forum, which is filled with truly vile, hateful stuff. Theoldsparkle (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Yes, this is pretty obvious. None of the listed arguments against hold any weight, and the counterarguments are correct. The site is a primary subject of the article. It diminishes the encyclopedic value of the article and violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED to refuse to cover a topic, and to refuse to allow readers to even examine it, out of an objection to the subject matter. Many find the site distasteful, and many will find other websites we cover distasteful. We do not play favorites with knowledge. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
6. It is appropriate to include a link to the official website of the subject of the article. Edison (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
7. The site should be linked to to illustrate the subject of the article. The only reason I have seen against including the link in all the discussion to date is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Of course, WP:BLP and WP:EL have been mentioned, but no one has demonstrated how including the link would violate these policies (despite numerous requests), and I can find nothing in them to exclude the link myself. At this point, I consider further mention of WP:BLP and WP:EL as not only counterproductive, but purposefully disruptive, and a mere cover for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'm not inclined to assume good faith anymore, unless concrete and specific reasons are produced. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

   No one can accuse you of inconsistency, Dominus, since at the same time that you insist that citing Misplaced Pages policy would be "purposefully disruptive" you fail to cite any policy in support of your view.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

8. Link to it. WP:ELOFFICIAL puts it squarely under WP:ELYES. Opponents have been unable to justify their WP:CRYBLP. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

   It is not an official organization or movement, simply a blog page of someone that hates Santorum. Whining WP:CRYBLP does not bode well for WP:AGF Arzel (talk) 03:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

   Of course it's a movement, to promote a definition of santorum. Which they notably did by making SpreadingSantorum.com the #1 search result for santorum. SpreadingSantorum.com is the spearhead of that campaign. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

   WP is not a Soapbox to promote a political agenda, which is all that site is trying to do, albeit in a juvenile manner. Arzel (talk) 05:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

   By that reasoning we should remove just about every EL for any controversial subject matter on the project, including Rick Santorum's own links. Ridiculous. You're really stretching here and making your better arguments less credulous. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

9. Link per Dominus Vobisdu, Robin Lionheart, and Theoldsparkle explanations above. Heiro 23:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
10. Link. The subject of the article is the neologism campaign, and the site is official site for that campaign. Someone reading an article which prominently discusses a website is likely to have an interest in visiting that website as a further information seeking behavior. The purpose of external links is to facilitate these natural avenues of further inquiry for our readers. A WP:BLP contravention could override this, but I don't see any case for one. The spirit of BLP is to keep biographical content factually reliable and neutrally presented. It explicitly does not prevent us from covering, dispassionately but fully, notable criticism of an individual by others.--Trystan (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
11. There is no policy based reason to not have a link and plenty (see above) of reasons why to link to it as the most relevant external link for this subject. There are hundreds of offensive websites attacking numerous people linked to from Misplaced Pages. WP:ATTACKSITES was rejected as a policy. Misplaced Pages links to Encyclopedia Dramatica and Stormfront. This single page is fairly innocuous compared to those. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
12. Include link It should be included for several reasons (a) It is the official website of the article. (b) We have an article on it and a link would be a useful tool to understand it. (c) Opposing the link would mean a slippery slope to removing links from several other articles, and such attempts are usually opposed. (For example, see Anders Breivik article and check the manifesto) (d) Nobody has properly demonstrated that the link violates BLP (e) Misplaced Pages is not WP:CENSORED. Pass a Method talk 02:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
13. Include link. I'm an outside user who's come to this talk page after seeing it linked on WP:AN. While I respect the opposer's BLP concerns, I fail to see how including the link violates BLP any more than the article itself does. The article is also transparently incomplete without it. Personally, I think the campaign is pretty stupid, and it's a bit embarassing for Misplaced Pages that we have an article on it at all, but since we do (and it's apparently not going anywhere), there's no reason to exclude the link. Robofish (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
14. Include link - We should not let our personal political objections to a site impact the decision-making process as to whether a link should be included. For example, the fascist Stormfront (website) includes a link to........... the Stormfront website. Certainly the site mentioned here is the locus of the campaign about which this article is written. Whether you support the campaign, whether you're bitterly opposed to the campaign, or wether you're in the middle somewhere supporting some aspects but not all, shouldn't matter. This is fundamentally an aspect of a political movement dealing with a public figure (a candidate for President of the United States), not an "attack site" about a private individual. Carrite (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
15. Include per Robofish, who said pretty much exactly what I was thinking. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
16. Include The link is discussed within the context of the article and it is the nearest thing the article has to an official website. ThemFromSpace 20:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
17. Include, there's no logical way around it, its the source of the extremely notable "controversy" which supports the existence of this article. Personally, by way of disclosure, I must admit that I also find Santorum's views on gays to be so reprehensible that I cannot live with myself or look my children in the eye and tell them I believed in America if I did not speak out against him. So, I ask myself, would I support a link to the World Net Daily's birther-central page (wherever it might be) on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, and I have to concede - yes, on the same grounds.--Milowent • 21:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
18. Include, we normally link the website if it is primary/relevant to the article. There is no BLP vio to do so. Also per Carrite and Schmucky. R. Baley (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
19. Misplaced Pages has no policy that prohibits linking to sites that promote distasteful subjects. For instance, the American Nazi Party prominently links their official website. Pawsplay (talk) 06:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Do not include the link

1. Oppose link as violative of non-contravenable Misplaced Pages policies including WP:BLP and not using the straw arguments placed above. And I fail to see how a site whose sole purpose is to attach a disagreeable "definition" with the name of a living person qualifies as an "official site." Collect (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

   And yet no one has described how the link is in any way a violation of BLP: it's the consensus that this article itself is not a violation of BLP. Why then would the link be a violation? B——C_ritical 20:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

2. Oppose Link as a violation of WP:BLP and WP:EL #11. BLP applies everywhere. I am not sure where Zen comes off claiming that it does not since this is not a BLP. WP:EL is equally apt since the site is a blog, and this article is not about the blog site, it is about the general campaign. On a side note I am noticing a number of "new" commentors here. Arzel (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

   Since the EL11 you cite is prefaced by Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject (emphasis in original), it does not apply. I "come off" trying to assume good faith, that is, assume that you have some reason for claiming this is a BLP violation. Since you've refused thus far to state a principle of the BLP policy which a link would violate, I'm forced to try to interpret which parts of the policy you might be trying to argue from. Either describe, in detail, how it is a violation, or stop using BLP as a club to get your way. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

   I have stated the rational SEVERAL times above, quit whining and read the previous discussion. Arzel (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

   No official link exists for many articles. "Fansites", including everything from websites run by fans of a musician to a charitable organization supporting patients with a disease, even if they are endorsed or authorized by the subject, are not considered official websites because the subject of the article is unable to control the information being presented. Since Santorum is the subject and has no control of the information being passed, the link is not an official link. Arzel (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

   That's sort of like saying The Social Network could have no official link, because Mark Zuckerberg has no control of the information being passed. Mark Zuckerberg is not really our article's subject. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 05:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

   The site is not a blog to which that rule is specified. Furthermore there is probably little contention to the official movie website since the goal of the website doesn't appear to be to try and trash Mark Zuckerberg. They are simply not in the same plane of existence. Arzel (talk) 05:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

   Alright, take the official link for The Case Against Barack Obama. Among other articles there critical of Barack Obama, you can read screeds by professional trasher Ann Coulter. (Frex, "No sentient human is required to take Obama's profession of Christianity any more seriously than if it were coming from a 1980s blow-dried, money-grubbing televangelist with a mistress on the side. All liberals are atheists. Only the ones who have to stand for election even bother pretending to believe in God.") So, does that book not have an official link? ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 06:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

   Yes, that link from Human Events should not belong on that article either. You should go remove it. Arzel (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

   It's unofficial by your WP:ELOFFICIAL interpretation, not mine. So you should remove it, not me. It'd show your impartiality. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

   Done. Arzel (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

3. Oppose Link - Per general observation that mitigating support or even perceived support for this most vulgar "political attack" with its inherent BLP considerations is not only well within the prerogative of WP "editorial judgement" but must surely be suggested by even the most minimal sense of forbearance under the principles espoused by WP:BLP. Is there a WP:RIGHTTHINGTODO that might be cited?JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

   Under the "editorial judgment" rationale, if you'd like to create a policy that would remove the direct external link to Stormfront, I wouldn't be opposed. But if we're operating under site-wide principles, failure to link in this case smacks of IDONTLIKEIT. I'm not accusing you of acting that way by any means (on the contrary, your edit history on the article and its talk page indicates great equanimity), but I see most arguments against the link eventually boiling down to that essence. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

   Citing, essentially, WP:IAR as a way of getting rid of the link isn't a good idea. The link is a natural and useful addition to the article, and in no way promotes the content of the site. B——C_ritical 23:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

4. Oppose link Clear violation of WP:BLP & WP:ELNO. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
5. This is an encyclopedia, not a click-through to generate pocket change for Dan Savage. The website itself is largely irrelevant to the overall anti-Santorum campaign anyways; the main thrust of the article is the campaign to affect Google searches. Tarc (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

   Which is centered around that site. The site is in the article lead, one of the most notable aspects of the article and campaign. It is, along with the definition, one of the most central factors here. And what pocket change? The site doesn't seem to have adds. What in the world are you talking about? B——C_ritical 03:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

   The site costs pocket change to run, but without ad revenue it's a net negative for Savage. More traffic just means more money to run it, actually. This argument doesn't make any sense at all. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

   A straw poll is intended simply to gauge where opinions on a particular matter lie, not to rehash a threaded discussion for the nth time. If would be best if the two of you stop attacking every editor who has weighed in in opposition. Tarc (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

   No rehash. That was the 1st time anyone here's discussed whether SpreadingSantorum.com generates revenue. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

   I would be interested to know if that is a criteria used to determine inclusion. Is there a precedent on this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

6. Oppose link - strongly oppose this link being promoted via wikipedia and all its mirrors - it is an attack site that hosts demeaning and attacking content about a living person that is the subject of one of our articles - that is its purpose , pure and simple - go into it and read some of the posts and comments there, its a disgusting attack site - Its disgusting that supporters of savage and his attack are unable to let go of their personal desire to add to the attack and are voting to add this, and its a poor reflection of wiki policy and guidelines that a link such as this is not automatically excluded and that this discussion is even necessary. This should not be closed on a head count but on a reflection of policy - with consideration to BLP in especial regard to what this link actually is and what its specific purpose is. The closer should also be one of our more experienced administrative closers. I imagine the inclusion or exclusion of this will set a new precedent, as I don't think on Misplaced Pages there are any other links to external bloggers sites that are specifically created to attack and demean a single living person. IMO this attack site should be blacklisted on wikipedia. Youreallycan 11:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC) - (this post created a lot of discussion moved to its own section below)
7. Oppose using Misplaced Pages to promote this website Bulwersator (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
8. Oppose - The counterpoint to the WP:BLPSPS argument does not hold up. Per WP:BLP, "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Misplaced Pages, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, and categories." BLP policy is not limited to biographical articles. Rlendog (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

extended discussion

Responses and discussion of User:Youreallycan's oppose comment.

1. Misplaced Pages links to a lot worse. Sorry to upset your delicate sensibilities but that is the way the world is and Misplaced Pages reflects it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

   And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a non-reason for much at all. Collect (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

   Not correct. It is relevant to point out that Misplaced Pages practice is to cover material however offensive to some, and that external links to official sites are no exception. Otherstuff regards using examples of bad content one place to justify bad content in another, which isn't the case here unless one is proposing that all these other subjects should be censored too because they are disagreeable, which appears to be SchmuckyTheCat's argument. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

   Is is normal then as the supporters of adding the external suggest, that we link to blogger sites created for the purpose of, and only carrying content designed to attack and demean a single living person that is the subject of one of our biographical articles? Youreallycan 17:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

   People here don't seem to get that this is not a biography: it's an article about a campaign. That's why we renamed it a while back, instead of deleting it. As such, the central tool of the campaign is extremely notable, and we should link to it. B——C_ritical 17:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

   WP:BLP applies to this article one hundred percent. We are not obliged to link to such attack locations, especially when the have been created to attack and demean a single living person, and we are not obliged to assist the attack by linking to it. Youreallycan 17:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

   No one has explained how the attack is helped by the link... but we have explained how the article is helped. BLP applies to all statements about living people, but we do report on very nasty things. Our report on the Campaign for "santorum" neologism is deeply involved with the site, and we should link to it in a complete article, as we would normally in an article not so politically charged. It's really as simple as that, and linking in no way whatsoever does any harm to Santorum. B——C_ritical 18:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

   - lets be honest here - a link from en Misplaced Pages and all its mirrors will drive up traffic to the attack site and increases the attack on R Santorum - the site is full of demeaning attack content all specifically created to attack that single living person, the more people that read it, the greater the level of the attack. The simple compromise position is plenty - just add the link for readers to see and search for if they want to, as we have been doing for quite some time.(see - http://www.spreadingsantorum.com) Its not like the link is hard to find, its the first site that comes up if you search for the senators name - but we should not be assisting the increase of traffic to the blogger attack site. Youreallycan 18:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

   Why should we be in the business of discouraging people from something we write about because we disapprove of it? By that logic we ought to remove the link to Santorum's campaign site as well because that serves to increase his web traffic. We shouldn't be assisting him either, as many Wikipedians find his comments and positions offensive. The question of disparaging one living person versus disparaging several percent of the population is a red herring, if we weighed that one the latter causes far greater harm. Again, we're not in the position of playing favorites. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

   This is not the same, and it is absurd to try to make the claim. Arzel (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

   R Santorum's website is not a blogger site created to attack and demean a single living person. Within wiki guidelines there is absolutely no comparison between the two. Youreallycan 18:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

   Far more likely, the people who view the site will despise Savage. This is again why we should not be considering censorship of Misplaced Pages: we don't know the consequences. B——C_ritical 18:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

   We are not blind - any Neutral can go there and see the attacking and demeaning content - not censored is not an excuse to link to such externals. Youreallycan 18:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

   First of all, don't be so fast to assume that everyone despises or even disagrees with Savage. The campaign works because Savage has supporters, as many people are far more offended by Santorum's substantive civil rights issue than Savage's hostile reaction to it. We don't need an "excuse" to cover a notable subject like that, we simply do. We absolutely can make comparisons between one form of offense and another, that's how to understand censorship and how it's explained all the way from classrooms to the Supreme Court. When you get in the business of forbidding content because it's offensive to you, you have no principled reason to forbid one kind of content rather than another. The "single living person" thing, again, is not a relevant distinction. That's a BLP argument and BLP is a narrow exception to our rule that we cover every topic under the sun. We could make other impertinent distinctions about it being a blog, the purpose being comeuppance and antagonism, it being in the field of politics, or the topic being sex-related, but none of those matter. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

- Many of your comments seem focused on not censored and opinions of the site being opinions - clearly not censored is lately getting close to historic, at least its no longer an excuse to add whatever attack content you can find on the www. As for opinions , any uninvolved neutral would read the site would see its all about attacking R Santorum, much of which is just simple demeaning and attacking content - this man is a (add attack comment here) - not content we have to link to or we are not providing educational information ot our readers. WP:BLP is a good reason not to directly link to a blogger site that has been created specifically and hosts content that specifically attacks and demeans a single living person - your idea that because R Santorum is opposed to same sex marriage that we shouldn't link to his webpage is unsupported completely in wikipedia policy and guidelines. We cover such attacks but we are not obliged to link to them thereby increasing traffic to them and assisting the attack - this is quite a different issue and a specific one as its far from usual. Youreallycan 19:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. There is no support in Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines for refusing to link to Santorum's site or Savage's. Once we are out of BLP territory, no amount of offense taken at the site content matters, nor does the reason or mode of offense. The argument that we shouldn't let people see something because in so doing they are supporting it is a censorship argument. NOTCENSORED is a fundamental part of WP:NOT policy, a flag often waved where it doesn't belong, but here squarely on point. Santorum disparaged gay rights, then Savage attacked Santorum. That's a fact, they both did it. We cover things that happened, and those things happened. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You are confusing the two. I don't agree with Santorum, but he didn't disparage anyone. He has an opinion about gay rights based off biblical views. Savage doesn't like his opinion so he attacked him. It is one thing to disagree with someone's opinion or belief, it is an entirely different thing to attack a person for having that opinion or belief. Arzel (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Savage didn't attack Santorum for his religious beliefs, he attacked Santorum for advocating anti-gay laws based on those beliefs and for comparing gay sex to bestiality. Plenty of people are far more offended and troubled by Santorum's conduct than Savage's. They are indeed two different things, but not in a relevant way that makes it okay to give people access to one and not the other. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

That is a distinction without a difference, the point is that Savage did not create the site to debate the position of Santorum, rather he simply hates Santorum, and thus attacks him in a juvenile manner. If you seriously believe that more people are offended by Santorum's belief than by Savage's behaviour in response, then you really need to get outside of your sheltered existance. Arzel (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring the ridiculous ad hominem, that's a clearly inaccurate characterization of the site. Savage didn't wake up one day and decide to besmirch a random citizen. He's an activist for gay causes fighting what he (and many others, obviously) see as bigotry. Nobody really knows what anyone is thinking but perhaps this interview will be helpful elucidating Savage's own account of why he did it. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Your position of comparing D Savages deliberate attack against a single living person and R Santorum's political position is incomparable. Notcensored is dated and recently extremely weakened - notcensored is not an excuse to add an attack site created with the single purpose and hosting content singularly designed to demean and attack a single living person. There is support in en wikipedia policy and guidelines not to link to such attack sites - clearly BLP encourages us not to and WP:EL is begging for the update - as users finding exceptions see that as a reason to add , but clearly that not the case. Youreallycan 20:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Notcensored has not been weakened, it never was a haven for exempting gratuitous scatology from editorial discretion. Again, no "excuse" is necessary to provide external links to article subjects, we cover them all without prejudice. On the contrary, refusing to point readers to see material for themselves that we write about in an article would be a new rule. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Notcensored has not been weakened (just as an aside), and again, the spreadingsantorum.com site is basic and intrinsic to the subject. Not linking to it is to censor ourselves not because of any BLP concern, but because we don't like the content. If we have this article at all, then we should do it right, without flinching from the content, and that includes having any link which we would otherwise include were this not offensive or politically charged. People wanting to exclude the link would be better off trying to get rid of the article. This is without question the official site of the campaign for the santorum neologism, which overrides other concerns. And all BLP concerns should be directed at the article, not the link. B——C_ritical 21:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Not censored is not an excuse to add this attacking and demeaning blogger external that was created for those specific purposes - EL official is not an excuse to include it either. Any neutral would return the position that the blogger site is a simple personal attack against a living person. You claim its normal and usual to link to such blogger sites created for attacking and demeaning purposes but its not is it. BLP and simple cautious - do no harm editorial control reject completely the addition of this external. Your claims that Santorum attacked a group of people so its ok to add that groups attack of him blogger site is just a partisan position that cares less about guidelines and policy. Youreallycan 21:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not using WP:NOTCENSORED. It's not appropriate here, because no one is making an argument to which it applies. Rather, we're arguing by other means. And I say it's normal and usual to link to any site which is central to the subject of any article, no matter the content. And you're getting me mixed up with someone else I think. B——C_ritical 22:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not mixing you up with anyone - you are User:Becritical - If as you assert, it is normal to link to blogger sites created for the sole purpose of attacking and demeaning a single living person then please link me to some of them. Youreallycan 23:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

LOL, nobody is acting as if this is a normal circumstance. But two can play at that game: show me an article where the central focus of the article is a campaign or other set of circumstances centered on a single website, where we do not link to that website. B——C_ritical 23:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Its not an Internet game becritical - its content about a living person - please don't start all that lol crap. You want to focus on campaign and website, but this is all about a single living person, and that is where policy and my focus is. Youreallycan 23:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the campaign and the individuals and this article are all focused on a single website, which is an attack site on a single living person (they all swirl around this site like a whirlpool around a drain, though there are different aspects). The circumstances focused on that site are what we are writing about, and not giving the link is just WP censoring itself. Don't tell me how to express myself. And answer the question, because it's valid: show me an article where the central focus of the article is a campaign or other set of circumstances centered on a single website, where we do not link to that website. B——C_ritical 00:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't give a damn about you and how you express yourself - but here WP:BLP is policy and is the focus. Please attempt to override your POV and stay neutral in regard to this BLP content. Have you got a COI in your edit history that is opposing to the position of this living person? If you have please declare it, thanks - Youreallycan 00:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You can keep saying this is a BLP issue, but it's not. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

A comparable example where we include an WP:ELOFFICIAL that is a self-published blog dedicated to attacking an individual is on Orly Taitz, where we include a link to her official site, which is a self-published blog dedicated to perpetuating Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. As a side note, an WP:ELOFFICIAL is by definition controlled by the article's subject, so it's always going to be self-published in that sense.--Trystan (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thank you, I don't have the general knowledge to come up with that (: B——C_ritical 02:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages'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. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• - BLP states - and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. - We are all well aware that adding external links to en Misplaced Pages and its many hundreds of mirrors drives up traffic to such externals. Promoting and directing readers to a blogger attack site, created for the purpose of attack, that includes demeaning content, clearly is additionally harmful. Youreallycan 23:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

  You seem to be making two points, and I want to leave the BLP one aside. The other point is about a Misplaced Pages policy that editors should anticipate what third parties will do with Misplaced Pages content on their own sites, and adapt Misplaced Pages articles to account for the effects of what unnamed third parties will do. I have never heard of any such thing. Is this what you are suggesting? If not, can you clarify what you mean? Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a rare case - an individual case where editorial control is required - there is not clear cut wiki guideline for such rare cases. We don't need to anticipate, we know, that the linking to an external site from en wikipedia and all its mirror sites, drives up traffic to that site. So, if we add this attack external to the article it will increase traffic to that online attack. We can, and have been, avoiding that simple fact for quite some time with the old consensus - nothing presented here has overridden that long term previous stable position that was driven by WP:DONOHARM Youreallycan 00:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, and should never be written in such a way as to subject its own content to the whims of the outside world. We are a pure conduit for neutral information, and we do not censor our articles for any reason whatsoever. That goes for BLPs just as much as for the rest of Misplaced Pages. A full and neutral treatment includes discussion of the website, and normal practice includes any official site related to our article's subject. B——C_ritical 02:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

As WP:HARM notes, the principle of doing no harm was explicitly rejected, because it is incompatible with our obligation to maintain a neutral point of view when writing about all subjects, including living people. Specifically, avoiding harm is not a justification to remove relevant negative information about a living person.--Trystan (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You're misreading that: "avoiding harm remains an important consideration within our living persons policy, doing no harm has been found to be incompatible with our obligation to maintain a neutral point of view when writing about all subjects, including living people." Can this harm be avoided without really reducing the WP:DUE content? Do we give the reader the name of the website? That's enough. Providing a link to the site doesn't add a jot to the readers' understanding, it just participates in the prank; something we can't do. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The contention that, by including the link, WP "participates in the prank" is absurd. it is also not our role to protect Santorum from being harmed by Savage's campaign. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies equally to Santorum and Nelson Mandela. It cannot be otherwise. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:ADVOCACY Savage is free to say whatever he wants about Santorum, but neither he nor you are free to use WP to futher his advocacy. Arzel (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

By that reasoning, Misplaced Pages would have no external links. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

No harmful links. You have a problem with that? Tell me one thing that a hyperlink will add to the readers' understanding. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

What does it add to the reader's understanding? It is a bit of human nature that people want to see for themselves what this is about. That's why we don't censor obviously relevant links. Readers want them; they expect them; they know they exist. We dilute our credibility by stating like some ivory towered elitist that we know better what links they should click.

The other point about harmful is absurdly errant. First, define harmful. I find it hardly likely that a major public figure with a monthly advertising budget of multi-millions of dollars such as Rick Santorum experiences any harm from a URL on a backwater page of Misplaced Pages. Politics are a rough and tumble field. Campaigns play dirty, very dirty. Even Huntsman had to deal with reprehensible and underhanded rumor mongering about his "black baby" in South Carolina. The presence of a URL on Misplaced Pages is not "harmful" to major political candidates.

Second, harmful is both a POV and OR. Where do we start defining which harmful links we are going to remove? Which objective criteria do we use? This is original research based not on actual content, but on abstract meta concepts. We aren't going there. Why are we removing harmful links but not advocate links? You want to whitewash this project of criticism but allow advocacy? That is a massive philosophical breach of our core pillar, WP:NPOV.

There may be two dozen people on this talk page. In the past, hundreds of editors have chimed in about attack sites, insult sites, shock sites, racist sites and any other kind of offensive material. Self-censorship, harm, and nebulous BLP rationales have always been dismissed when external links are clearly relevant to the subject matter. It is absurd to think six people on this talk page know policy better than the hundreds that have commented in the past. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

You don't appear to have answered my question. The actual answer is, the hyperlink adds nothing to the readers' understanding, it just saves the reader the trouble of typing the url.

You argue that linking our page to Savage's attack site isn't harmful to Santorum. If it wasn't harmful, Savage wouldn't be maintaining it, and Santorum wouldn't want it off Google's first page.

You argue that assessing harm is POV and OR. I suppose you mean it involves discernment, judgement and common sense.

You ask, which harmful links are we going to remove? Well, links to blatant attack sites is one class. Let's be clear. We're hiding nothing from the reader. We're saying, here's the website. That's our responsibility to the reader fulfilled. We don't hyperlink it. That would be failing in our responsibility to a living subject, and joining in the attack.

Regarding, "Self-censorship, harm, and nebulous BLP rationales have always been dismissed when external links are clearly relevant to the subject matter," harm is real and obvious and something we take very seriously, it's mandatory to consider it in BLP editorial decision-making. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:27, 27 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.). ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This is such bloated nonsense its impossible to reply. Youreallycan 23:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Come on Youreallycan, don't get confrontational. It seems to me he put it in the simplest possible format, and it's very understandable, and it does require discussion. B——C_ritical 23:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Zenswashbuckler, thank you for this straightforward, diligent and very helpful contribution. Writegeist (talk) 23:28, 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. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Tone

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

Criticism and praise

Done. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Attack pages

Done. A well-sourced description of an attack does not equal an attack. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 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. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material

Done. See above. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 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. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Misuse of primary sources

Done. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 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). ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 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." ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice work (: B——C_ritical 22:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Consensus here is against the "link" to a site dedicated to a frothy mixture of Savages words. Collect (talk) 12:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That is a bold assertion considering it is the minority view. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

You're using a definition of "consensus" I don't think any of us are familiar with. The fact that we're still discussing this means there is no consensus as yet. Those arguing against the link have not convinced many others of their case. Non-inclusion is only justified by a non-neutral POV. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 14:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Pray tell -- what exactly does that comment mean? What is it intended to imply? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It means you are being deliberately obtuse in your claim in order to avoid the obvious. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Avoid victimization

Done. Article scrupulously avoids making more hay than was already there. Well-documented facts are reported, nothing more. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 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. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Privacy of personal information and using primary sources

Done. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

People who are relatively unknown

Done. See "Public figures" above. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Subjects notable only for one event

Done. See "Public figures" above. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Crime perpetrators

Done. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Privacy of names

Done. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

added details of "to rick" not proper IMO

I find no conceivable value to that editorial insertion, no consensus to permits such an insertion, and it again is a gratuitois insertion promoted by Savage, and not of any calue in any BLP-related article (which this has been found to be_. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It's clearly pertinent to the topic of the article, and the consensus on this page is running against the BLP argument. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the subject of the small-s "santorum" campaign. We're not writing an article on Dan Savage's overall anti-Rick Santorum agenda. Tarc (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not at all gratuitous, since it's clearly linked to, and a continuation of, the santorum campaign. (I find it clever how rick, though fairly tame by itself, makes "rick santorum" so much filthier.) And there's no consensus to permit this removal of relevant information. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It's also not "trivial" or "inconsequential". It received significant coverage in independent sources and is an obvious continuation of Savage's campaign, and thus an integral element of the subject of this article. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete relevant material. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Being reported doesn't make it consequential. Consequences make it consequential. When you've sourced some significant real impact, then it may be considered for inclusion. At the moment, it is too much like us just being a mirror for Savage's thought bubbles. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course it had consequences. It brought new attention to Savage's camapign. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Savage's campaign to make a derogatory eponym from Rick Santorum's name has been consequential. That Savage redefined both his first and last names is a detail that merits inclusion, even if rick never catches on like santorum has. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 14:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Get overyourself. Savage did nothing regarding Santorum's first name, other than to get a bunch of his followers in a tizzy. Arzel (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you please not use that kind of language here. It's not acceptable. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the subject of the small-s "santorum" campaign.

Self-evident and decisive. Fully concur.

We're not writing an article on Dan Savage's overall anti-Rick Santorum agenda.

Perhaps we should be. How's Dan Savage's political attack on Rick Santorum grab you? JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Jake, that grabs me as a bad idea for a move. It may be "self-evident and decisive" to you that rick and santorum are completely unrelated, but I and others completely disagree. In fact I would say they are intimately related, stemming from the same source (Savage) and consisting of exactly the same thing (an attempt to redefine Rick Santorum's name as something disgusting and associated with gay sex). I don't know that rick actually warrants inclusion anywhere, since it doesn't appear to be catching on as santorum may be and isn't the subject of a sustained (campaign, meme, widespread-practice-of-linking-by-totally-unrelated-people, what have you) as santorum is. But what's notable here is not that Dan Savage has made a political attack against Rick Santorum (plenty of more notable people than Savage have done that); what is notable is the nature of the attack and its persistent success in spite of both presumed search engine neutrality, and moral opprobrium from many directions. I don't know if we want to have yet another move war discussion. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 15:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It may be "self-evident and decisive" to you that rick and santorum are completely unrelated...

That is not my position. Please don't overstate it. My position is that Savage's attempted escalation of his "political attack" is unrelated to the specific subject this article title suggests. Now, if you wish to broaden the scope of this article to encompass any related development in Savage's "political attack" against Santorum (current and, perhaps, future), be my guest...but at least have the ethical decency to appropriately title this article to reflect what it currently masques. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:BRD would suggest that material boldly added to the article and then quickly reverted is not re-added until a discussion reaches a consensus to do so.

As for whether this should be added, how much coverage did it receive in reliable secondary sources? That, rather than our personal opinions of its consequence, would show if it is warranted.--Trystan (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

This situation is the inverse. Would WP:BRD also suggest that existing material boldly deleted from the article, then quickly reverted, is not re-deleted until a discussion reaches a consensus to do so? ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Mate, BRD just doesn't matter. It's an essay isn't it? WP:BLP is policy. You want to include that one person opined that we should all use another person's name as an obscene imperative. Nothing happened, except a smattering of press coverage. People say cruel and (in this case very) funny things about other people all the time. We're not Savage's mouthpiece.

If something comes of it; if there are significant consequences, this is the article for it. But not yet. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I included nothing about using Rick Santorum's name as a sentence. Perhaps you should argue with content I did include, rather than content I didn't. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 06:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

So, you added the "to rick" content. I didn't know. None of this is black and white, of course. It is inconsequential. But very clever. So it's tempting to include just as an example of Savage's satirical genius. But since there's been no real consequences for Santorum or his campaign, including it here looks to me scarily like helping Savage push the verb without decent encyclopedic justification. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Who, me? No, when I started editing this article two weeks ago, that “to rick” paragraph was already here. I appended a clause “meaning "to remove something with your tongue"”. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Your addition turned "rick santorum" into a sentence. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

There was no addition. The content has been there for six months, and does not explicitly discuss the use of the two together as a sentence. The content (in the stable version of the article) is there not because it's clever but because it received significant coverage in major sources in connection with the overall campaign, in other words it's noteworthy and relevant. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Robin added "meaning 'to remove something with your tongue'" so, yes, there was an addition, a clause, and it gives the reader Savage's sentence. Well, you've got some reliable sources for it, that verifies it. It doesn't make it worthy of note though. "And then Savage said" without any significant consequences, isn't noteworthy, reporting it is just being Savage's mouthpiece. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

My mistake; I misread the edit history and thought this material had just been added. BRD would favour its retention if the argument against inclusion is based on relevance, though as noted above a BLP concern would justify its removal. Though I don't see how this specific section, properly sourced to significant coverage, could violate BLP.--Trystan (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

This thread is absurd. The material is clearly relevant to the subject, covered by reliable sources (if the New York Magazine cite isn't enough, it's also covered by MSN and Fox News), and is in the article by consensus. In any other article, a later incident arising from the subject covered, involving the same participants, would be mentioned for context. The tenuous logic claiming lack of relevance to the subject, or a BLP issue, strain credulity. For one editor to bring this up is an innocent enough outlier opinion. But when the same cadre of editors who is opposing the external link and crying BLP rallies behind deleting a paragraph that has been in the article since last August and is willing to incite a group edit war to remove it, this seems to be more a matter of escalation and forming sides than a serious attempt to collaborate on an article. Under the circumstances I think discussion has broken down. The article ought to be protected in whatever version it's in without prejudice to restoring a stable version later, and editors should just go home and take this up another day after they've cooled down and resolved not to edit war or operate without consensus. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm with JakeinJoisey here: the "rick" part (if it's sourced I haven't checked) is very relevant, but suggests a rename. I suggest Dan Savage campaign to redefine "Rick Santorum" Barring that, however, the information is fully relevant in this article. I object to the removal of longstanding consensus information per WP:EDITWAR. WP:EDITWAR is an essay, not policy. heh. We are heading to ArbCom very fast here. B——C_ritical 18:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's related to the subject and you've got some reliable sources; that doesn't make it DUE, though. It would be DUE if it had had some observable impact on Santorum; if it was being commented on in slang dictionaries. Something like that. Real world impact. Prove it's due. You have to make that case, otherwise, it fails BLP and HARM. So, before dragging the community through that pile, I'd like to hear your case for DUE, just to be sure you can articulate a sound argument, and you're not going to waste everybody's time. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no WP:HARM, "This principle was ultimately rejected". I don't know whether it's DUE. B——C_ritical 20:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

...DUE, on the other hand (as opposed to relevance), is a pertinent argument. Normally, 3+ major media articles entirely about an event that mention it in connection with the subject of the article would establish weight, but perhaps this subject is so notable that we have a higher threshold. I also note that some people were unaware that the status quo included the paragraph, it was not a recent event or addition. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's not practice revisionist edit history here, one way or the other. I was involved in the previous relatively short tussle over this addition. Most everyone moved on with the addition of the content minus the actual definition BUT...like everything else associated with this article, the pro-Savage POV pushing is incessant in disregarding, save for token concessions, fundamental NPOV editing principles. The current lead composition, as compared to what existed 3+ weeks ago, is a POV abomination...and it will get worse until the editorial community gets off their collective duff and does something about it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't privy to any negotiated truce on the matter, but I suppose I could pore through the edit history again if I had to. I do observe that from last August through the present there has been a paragraph about Savage's going at it again in 2011 with Santorum's first name, and that a few days ago in the midst of the renewed debate over the link an edit war arose to remove the entire paragraph. I'd be careful about labeling a group of editors as partisans, as that's an accusation of bad faith, discourages consensus, and in any event is probably not correct. We're all free to have consistent positions on policies, some people have expansive views of BLP and feel that trumps inclusive encyclopedic coverage. Others, like me, consistently take the inclusionist position that we should unflinchingly cover all subjects, whether dignified or otherwise. That doesn't necessarily cut across lines of American party politics or gay rights. Tarc, for example, has been accused elsewhere by some as taking pro-liberal positions, but here he is solidly on the side of not besmirching an outspoken conservative. I don't know the other editors as well, but I'd hazard a guess that some of the inclusionist editors here would say the same if the target were a liberal. You'd have to, if you want to be principled about it. You can remind me of that if I ever advocate against content reflecting a public attack on a liberal politician. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Scholarly treatment

Has this campaign been subjected to scholarly analysis yet? Sorry, I can't be bothered going through the archives. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it has. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I've read that. I mean something peer reviewed. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course. Can you be bothered to use Google Scholar? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That rings a bell. I notice we're not citing it. I'm quite capable of dredging up random citations from google. I was wondering if the editors here are aware of anything worth reading on the issue in the academic press. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomo, that article, “ShitText: Toward a New Coprophilic Style”, only mentions santorum in a single sentence in an endnote. Aside from saying Dan Savage coined the term “in honor of Senator Rick Santorum”, there’s nothing related to the campaign. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

So what now re the link?

There is a consensus for including the link. But including it would lead to an edit war. So what are the next steps people want to take here? B——C_ritical 18:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

As previously suggested, an RfC, first composed to the satisfaction of both positions before presentation, is the reasonable and logical approach. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

What's the mystery? The question is whether to include the link or not. It's not as if we're trying to compose text here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Jake: What would an RfC offer? In point of fact, we just went through an RfC on this. Just because it wasn't quite formatted that way doesn't mean we didn't do it. We did all the things that RfCs do. B——C_ritical 19:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

What would an RfC offer?...We did all the things that RfCs do.

Community wide participation in an atmosphere not quite so laden with POV-pushing. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but really, can we PLEASE find some way to speed things up? I don't want to have to wait 30 days on these simple matters. How about 3 or 4 days max? Also, let's do as you say and agree on the wording and summary information before posting it as an RfC. B——C_ritical 19:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomo and Jake are right but, as with the verb, can you explain how the link isn't a violation of WP:BLP, "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment"? and WP:HARM, "avoiding harm remains an important consideration within our living persons policy." You can justify harm to a living person if the content meets DUE. But, as a hyperlink teaches the reader nothing that the url doesn't, how do you justify the obvious harm that a hyperlink will do to the subject? If you can't do that, you've nothing to take to an RfC. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, the URL without the hyperlink was offered as a compromise, and rejected. Hey, even mention that there exists a website was rejected . The current consensus is for the full hyperlink. I guess the question is whether the reader should be able to easily find the site, that is should we have it in an external links section. To further address your question, no one has explained how there would actually be any further harm to Santorum from our linking to the site. And if there would be, whether that harm, per the actual phrasing of BLP, is as it were "undue," whether that consideration is overridden by the consideration that Misplaced Pages, as an encyclopedia, should not be censored based on what might or might not be harmful and what external sites do. Censorship doesn't pass the snicker test to me: I don't actually think we're doing Santorum a whit more harm. And we routinely link to WP:ELOFFICIAL sites which do much more or similar possible harm, as noted above. So I simply disagree that there is any obvious further harm. B——C_ritical 20:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

What? The article presently says "Savage set up a website, spreadingsantorum.com ..." You have been told, somewhere in that wall above, that, obviously, Misplaced Pages hyperlinking to a SEOd attack site will compound the harm to the victim. If all you've got is "What harm?" you haven't a hope. You're wasting everybody's time. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The alleged harm isn't at all obvious. You can say we've been told it's harmful, but that remains to be seen. The website in question receives tons of inbound links from the main search engines, other people's web pages, and even some news sources (the Seattle Times, the International Business Times, and Mother Jones at a quick glance). The impulse that says "leave it out" is based on two unproved premises: first, that absent our linking it, the site and its search engine placement will go away (that's clearly not happening); second, that our linking the page participates in the attack (which, due to WP's use of NOFOLLOW tags, is flat-out wrong). Thus, concerns about "harm," while admirable, are nonetheless misplaced. WP's external linking policy is designed to aid readers in finding further information about their topics of research, and is followed even in cases such as Orly Taitz, where WP links to an external site devoted to attacking a living person, on WP:ELOFFICIAL grounds. Failure to treat this page similarly is a violation of NPOV. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 20:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That's very interesting. I'm going to sleep on this. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

No follow is only on this site , the hundreds of mirrors are not obliged to and many don't use No follow. If that orly tatz site (which is nowhere near as bad at the Savage blogger site which has a lot of user generated content ) is the only one you have managed to find then linking to such attacking sites is hardly common practice is it. Youreallycan 21:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Since when do we set our editing policies and content on what mirror sites do? That is out of our control and is neither here nor there. Heiro 21:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

When the link has been created specifically to do harm by google bombing, demeaning and attacking content in regard to a living subject of one of our articles. Youreallycan 21:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Totally irrelevant. We are not in the least bit responsible for what mirror sites do or don't do, and their actions have zero bearing on WP editing decisions. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Its not totally irrelevant at all. BLP encourages us to carefully consider such situations. Youreallycan 22:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Youreallycan. Not follow makes it (far) less harmful, but not harmless, and since the hyperlink adds nothing to the readers' understanding, including it would be gratuitous abetting of a personal attack, which violates BLP. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

@YRC: On the contrary. Quick investigation shows quite a number of official sites are linked from pages under "Individuals" and "Media" on Template:White nationalism. And if that standard of harm isn't sufficient to forbid external linking, I don't see how this possibly can be. As far as other sites devoted to attacking specific individuals go, their subjects frankly tend not to be notable, and thus don't have WP articles in the first place. I'm sure someone who's more of a news junkie than I am would be able to come up with some example besides this and Taitz. The fact that these cases are rare argues in favor of treating them the same as their closest relatives. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Such situations are not only rare - you have as yet not presented one that is similar imo - that orly tatz one is minor compared to this. Youreallycan 22:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

(EC)That's funny, I don't remember reading anywhere in the extensive discussion above saying that that is why it should be added. We can not control what mirror sites do and we shouldn't base our decisions here on how they choose to run their websites. As stated above by another user "WP's external linking policy is designed to aid readers in finding further information about their topics of research", linking to the site does this. As soon as it is enshrined in our policies "Thou shalt take into account what everyone else on the internet does before making decisions" then we can begin taking mirror sites into the equation here.Heiro 21:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Its not funny at all. BLP already encourages us to avoid harm, and err on the side of caution in regards to any additions that relate to living people. We already have a long term satisfactory compromise to this issue and users demanding to add this attacking and demeaning external should take it on-board as a satisfactory NPOV position. Youreallycan 22:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

As I see it, the two choices are: (1) wait for at least a few more days to see how the straw poll discussion goes, and then try to assess consensus internally or by inviting an uninvolved admin, or (2) certify the existing discussion as an RfC or clone / compose a new one, and start over... on the usual 30-day clock. The original question / argument list in the straw poll, and the BLP issue chart, are neutrally presented, thorough, and do not favor either position in the debate, so someone could cut and paste those. One thing we shouldn't do is to have already-involved parties modify the article based on their personal judgment about who has consensus - that's lead to a few edit wars already. It seems like a relatively minor issue for an RfC, but perhaps that means we can decide it with goodwill and cooperation all around. If we haven't resolved the "rick" verb thing by then I would add that as a secondary question in the RFC. Meanwhile, cup of tea. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a discussion of this issue in sections above. I have no objection to asking an uninvolved admin to make a judgment as to consensus apparent there; we can even wait a couple of days (though I doubt that there will be more activity there). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't say things better than ☯.ZenSwashbuckler did above, but that position has my support. I can only reiterate that basing Misplaced Pages content on what outside forces do is to set a precedent which will destroy the encyclopedia. And if Youreallycan is right, I have a lot of biographies of dead people who have living relatives who might be harmed by the things we say, so they need to be cleansed. Not to mention all the harm the Vagina article has done to young minds. Notice I didn't link that. As SchmuckyTheCat said, the judgment of "harmful is both a POV and OR. Where do we start defining which harmful links we are going to remove? Which objective criteria do we use? This is original research based not on actual content, but on abstract meta concepts. We aren't going there. Why are we removing harmful links but not advocate links? You want to whitewash this project of criticism but allow advocacy? That is a massive philosophical breach of our core pillar, WP:NPOV. There may be two dozen people on this talk page. In the past, hundreds of editors have chimed in about attack sites, insult sites, shock sites, racist sites and any other kind of offensive material. Self-censorship, harm, and nebulous BLP rationales have always been dismissed when external links are clearly relevant to the subject matter. It is absurd to think six people on this talk page know policy better than the hundreds that have commented in the past." B——C_ritical 00:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Opinionated scaremongering alert - " basing Misplaced Pages content on what outside forces do is to set a precedent which will destroy the encyclopedia." - oh my god, not adding this external blogger attack site will destroy wikipedia - Youreallycan 01:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Resorting to a sarcastic straw man argument is the final nail in the coffin of your position's credibility. Consensus should now reflect that position's demise, and the link should be re-added to the page. As I am heavily involved in this thread, I should not be the one to request this. But uninvolved editors should no longer be under any doubt as to the suitability of the edit. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 01:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I have not even started yet - the biased desire to add this attack external from POV users against careful consideration of policy and guidelines disgusts me, and their, and your, desperate desire to add it, has sadly resulted in the full protection of the article. Youreallycan 01:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Speaking just from a general administrative/editorial standpoint, I read BLP as urging me to "first, do no harm". I don't read it as prohibiting me from considering the possible harm done by "external forces", in this case, the massive impact of en:wiki including a link, which yes, will be mirrored widely. Note that vagina is not a living person. On another note, WP:BRDP (recently-dead people) should also exist, as the possibility of equal harm exists in linking www.ImGladJohnSmithIsDead.com, only the harm is to the surviving relations in that case. Franamax (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. It's OK to use Misplaced Pages to harm people if you want, but we have to insist you justify it by showing what didactic or other good it will do. Obvious harm has been demonstrated. Now you must demonstrate the obvious good that justifies this harm. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

(od) I do not see the consensus, and would note that the claim of a consensus is not founded in what is meant at WP:CONSENSUS in any way. Cheers - but use of the link does not have any proper editorial consensus here. Collect (talk) 01:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The weight of considered opinion is clearly in favor of including the link. If consensus means anything beyond filibustering or declaring one's own argument best because one has made it, consensus here favors inclusion. However, only 18 people have weighed in and the discussion is fairly new. So no harm in waiting. The notion that we are harming the opinionated senator Santorum by covering the consequences of senator Santorum's opinions is preposterous on its face and hardly worth the time to consider. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus, however I do see people often confuse voting with consensus. Arzel (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The weight of considered opinion is clear, as are attempts to hold out. There's no confusion, the situation is pretty obvious. My point is that we should wait a while longer to see if others care to comment, and perhaps go to an RfC, before going to the next step of having a neutral party evaluate this. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Page protection.

In order to stop the recent edit-warring that has persisted for a number of days, I have full protected the article. I have not set an expiry for the protection. When a consensus on the matter of the disputed external link has been achieved, unprotection should be requested either at my talk page or at WP:RFUP.

Additionally, it would be helpful if the editor requesting unprotection could remind the unprotecting administrator to restore the prior protection settings. CIreland (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, were you looking for "a consensus on the matter of the disputed external link has been achieved"? It is right here though enough walls of text are on the page I can see how it would be missed. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

There has been a call for an RfC and someone seconded the call. Either a rationale for not starting the RfC should be given or someone should start one. I started the straw poll and I am not starting the RfC. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrt, don't waste everybody's time: to justify the hyperlink to the wider community, not just some editors who cluster around here, you'll need to demonstrate some significant good it does that would justify the harm, per BLP, or demonstrate that it does no harm. "Not follow" was offered as proof of the latter, but that was rebutted with "mirrors". Before dragging the community through this, can you please plausibly explain how some benefit outweighs the obvious harm? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

And "mirrors" was rebutted with "not our problem". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

If something you do predictably causes a cascade of events that necessarily results in harm, with no compensatory benefit, it's your problem. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You think the harm is "obvious" -- but could you perhaps spell it out? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Trystan spells it out nicely here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Is that it? Key point: "the consequence of including the link is to greatly increase both traffic to the site and its search ranking". If we're concerned about the LP Rick Santorum, we might want to have a better sense of consequences for him. I genuinely don't think anyone has succeeded in being specific about this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about "greatly" but it would scoot more of our readers over to the attack site (the point of hyperlinking), which is bad for the victim of the attack site, and it may, through mirrors, enhance the site's SEO, which would be contributing to the victimization, and the whole thing not only makes us a player but obviously apparently partisan. All harmful, to Santorum and the project. Now, what's the overriding good that necessitates this harm? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You can't come up with anything, can you? "bad for the victim" -- how, exactly? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

We also, in your words, scoot more of our readers over to Orly Taitz's attack site. We do this not because we are "obviously partisan", but because we are nonpartisan. And though mirror sites may hypothetically (though no evidence has been offered) be enhancing Orly Taitz's SEO, we bear no responsiblity to fix their sites, they do. Take it up with non-nofollow-using mirrors, if you can find any. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 06:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Those are reasonable questions. "Bad for the victim" is obviously the case, as it would increase the hits on a page that insults and mocks the victim. But I'm now asking myself "So what? It's not like Savage is making libelous statements. It's political satire. And the site pretty mush is the topic of the article."

So that leaves me with "participating in the campaign" and "appearance of partisanship." You're right, Robin, linking is not necessarily partisan, but it could give the appearance of us being partisan. Does this matter enough to justify removal of the link? Probably not.

So, "participating in the campaign." Does doing what we'd usually do - link to the site that is essentially the topic of an article - constitute taking a political stance? You probably see where this is heading but, since changing my mind is a bit like tearing off an arm for me, I'm going to meditate on this for a bit longer. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm now persuaded that we should include the hyperlink to spreadingsantorum.com in the external links section. I still oppose inclusion of the verb "to rick" because it would mean including just another nasty thing that Savage said about Santorum that had no real world consequences, and our inclusion would be gratuitous boosting of Savage's anti-Santorum campaign. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Very few people have what it takes to change their mind on any issue in public. When I see it I'm like "wow, too bad I don't know this person in RL." B——C_ritical 04:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC Proposal - Link or Not Link

Editors are invited to suggest, as briefly and succinctly as possible, pro/con discussion points for community consideration in the formulation of a consensus acceptable RfC. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Why? We just had a srtraw poll, and consensus is clear. An RfC is unnecessary and disruptive. If you disagree, too bad, or take it to arbcom. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

A 2:1 split between increasingly entrenched positions is not what I would consider consensus, let alone clear consensus. Unless we can agree on the status quo (unlinked URL in article's body), or the unlinked URL in the External Links section compromise put forth below, I think a RFC might help provide some long-term stability to the issue.

I would suggest the following. Edits are welcome, particularly to the con side, which is not my own opinion.

Should Campaign for "santorum" neologism include an external link to spreadingsantorum.com? The unlinked text of the URL is included in the body of the article, but not in the External Links section.

Argument for inclusion: The site is the official site of the subject of the article (the campaign) and is discussed in the text as central to the article's subject. A reader of the article is likely to seek out the site as a further method of inquiry, which is the purpose of including an external link. While WP:BLP applies, it is not a justification for removing or curtailing coverage of well-sourced, notable, neutrally-presented criticism of a public figure. Our obligation to consider harm extends only to making sure the article is fair and neutral, not to abandon WP:NPOV by adopting Santorum's interests as our own. Our personal opinion of the campaign is not relevant; we provide external links to many other sites that we would never "promote" and are deeply offensive to many, including ones which feature personal attacks. Our NOFOLLOW tags in outgoing links mean our inclusion will not affect page ranking, and what other sites that mirror our content choose to do is not within our control.

Argument against inclusion: WP:BLP requires us to consider the harm done to living persons by the content of Misplaced Pages. In this case, providing a link is inherently non-neutral because it involves participation in a campaign to attack an individual. We are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of our actions, and the consequence of including the link is to greatly increase both traffic to the site and its search ranking, because we know our mirrors do not necessarily use NOFOLLOW. We can not claim neutrality while deliberately abetting Savage's personal campaign against Santorum. In comparison to this significant harm, including the link would result in only trivial benefit to the article at best. A reader interested in visiting the site is easily capable of copying the URL or searching for it in Google. The site itself is merely vulgar insult and personal opinion, and therefore not an important information resource. It is its existence, rather than its content, that is important to the article.

--Trystan (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll second the placement of this RfC with the language you've carefully crafted with the full expectation that, once placed, there may be a sudden rash of suggested RfC language amendments. There should be a small window of opportunity to do so and any suggested amendments could be submitted and considered in a "Meta Comments" section created in tandem with RfC placement. Do it...with solicitation of a "For" or "Against" response. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It's very well put. I do suggest that the table above with pro and con arguments, should be part of any new RfC. And may I put in a plea here for this RfC to be for a shorter time than usual? B——C_ritical 00:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I do suggest that the table above with pro and con arguments, should be part of any new RfC.

Inclusion of that table in the RfC language would, IMHO, frighten away 99% of the entire Misplaced Pages editor population. The suggested text is relatively concise and adequately reflects the issues in contention.

And may I put in a plea here for this RfC to be for a shorter time than usual?

An early RfC closure consideration can easily be made by the placing editor (who, IMHO, should be Trystan) if there appears to be an obvious consensus developing for either position. 30 days is not etched in granite.

I would also STRONGLY recommend against designating separate "for" and "against" sections so as to preclude any suggestion of response sequence bias. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, if they can't absorb the contents of that table, we are just doing another straw poll, not an RfC. The reason for the table is so they won't have to read the discussion. If you think that they can't even read the table, why would we do the RfC at all? No, if editors can't deal with the arguments, they best not participate. Driving away those who are merely evoting is a good thing. B——C_ritical 01:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I intend to give everyone who voted in the straw poll, without exception, a heads-up on the RfC. Tell me any objections now. B——C_ritical 01:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

One more try

After all this discussion, does anyone want to reconsider the compromise of a non-linked url like www.spreadingsantorum.com (website for Savage's campaign) in an external links section? It would save us a lot of trouble. B——C_ritical 03:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The incorporation of a non-hyperlinked URL in the article main body, if my memory serves me correctly, appeared to be at least an interim compromise resolution that had, also if I recall correctly, some relative stability. Whether that non-hyperlink survived until this most recent resurrection of the hyperlinking issue (and I've no interest in researching it further) is unknown to me. That being said, I've no personal problem with a non-hyperlinked url residing in the main body and no interest at all in seeing it further touted as an "external link"...which, I believe, would be contrary to "external link" MOS anyway. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying that you would not consider the compromise of having it in an External links section? Sorry, that's what you seem to be saying, just making sure. B——C_ritical 04:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying that you would not consider the compromise of having it in an External links section?

Yup. What I'm saying is that incorporation as an unlinked url in the text of the article main body (which is, I believe, the WP MOS preference for content anyway) appeared to enjoy a period of stability which, I'd suggest, implied at least a tenuous consensus. I'd have no objection to restoration of a non-hyperlinked url in the main body text. That clear enuf? JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

That's great, thanks (: B——C_ritical 04:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, that's great :) The unlinked url is still in the section #Campaign by Dan Savage: "Savage set up a website, spreadingsantorum.com, to spread awareness of the term..." It informs the reader without participating in the campaign. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see something like the following inserted into an external links section: "There is a website which exists for this campaign" or since it is already in the article text "There is a website called 'Spreading Santorum' which exists for this campaign." If there are arguments against doing either of these then I am open for more discussion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 05:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

That section is for links. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd be willing to accept that compromise if it gains support, but it seems way to strained to me. B——C_ritical 05:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I would call it limp rather than strained. I do not support it so much as I think it is minimally useful and I doubt anyone would oppose it. It seems like a compromise worth proposing because even if no one likes it I think it might be possible to get consensus that it is better than nothing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 06:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

There already is a consensus to include a link. There is no reason to settle for a limp compromise because of a filibustering minority. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

You do not understand the meaning of consensus. Arzel (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Consensus always means 100% approval. If one person disagrees there is no consensus. There is no consensus to include the link. There may be consensus for a compromise which is not well-liked but not opposed at all. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS absolutley does NOT require 100% approval. Of course consensus is not based on "votes" but when numbers are considered, 66% would be overwhelming consensus in an argument for deletion. It'd be on the low end of approval for a new admin. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

You are right that consensus does not require 100% approval, but you are no closer to understanding what consensus is. 66% is clearly not overwhelming, and does not even fit with the word consensus. Consensus is a general agreement among a group. I would say there is consensus that the website is integral to promoting the smear campaign, and if 90% or more were in agreement you could say that the overwhelming majority have the consensus that X. None of this matter, because this isn't even a consensus issue, it is a BLP issue and consensus cannot trump BLP. Arzel (talk) 05:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You "doubt anyone would oppose it?" It got reverted with an edit summary specifically saying it wasn't an acceptable compromise . And consensus on Misplaced Pages does not mean full support. If you think that maybe for this discussion you should go read the policy page. B——C_ritical 17:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a suggestion ot help us move forward - Would an experienced admins assessment of the current talkpage discussion help, as a way of guidance in policy considerations and weight of the current consensus in regards to policy? I imagine users would chose different admins, different admins to do something like that. One I would suggest for such would be User:Sandstein. We could even go further and all agree to accept his judgement. Youreallycan 18:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

That, or an RfC, would be fine. Another option is to make an open request for assistance on AN (heaven help us, not AN/I), and see who shows up. We do have to consider what would happen if things are declared one way or the other. Would the outcome stick and be respected? - Wikidemon (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I too think that an open request on AN for an univolved volunteer would be the best option. I don't see any point in an RfC, unless the administrator decides it's needed. I also don't see any point in waiting much longer. Everything that can be said has already been said, and we're just going around in circles now. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not trust a single user to decide this. All the way from Jimbo to, I think, members of the ArbCom, people have shown themselves to be incapable of keeping their own POV out of this subject. Perhaps 4 admins, 2 picked by each side of this, but who don't have any obvious POV. B——C_ritical 18:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of asking for three uninvolved volunteers, but thought that was too much to ask for. I don't like the idea of us picking the administrators ourselves. We could request politically neutral, non-US administrators. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, non-US, that's a good idea. Particularly European, as they would be less likely to be personally shocked. We don't want people who are deeply religious or something. B——C_ritical 19:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Or deeply anti-religious, for that matter. I think that should be specified in the request. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

They can't be gay either, or straight for that matter. We must find four well-respected bisexual administrators~ - Wikidemon (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

...who don't use lube. Point taken. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

So lets just ask User:Sandstein for a non binding assessment of the discussion on the talkpage so far, a NPOV administrators interpretation. Youreallycan 23:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I think a open request would be a better idea. No offense to Sandstein; I don't know them from Adam. Or to you; I'm sure you've suggested them because you think they're impartial. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't support an open request. I think we should choose one - we have many admins all good at what they do, but we have a few who are well considered in NPOV closures and in interpretation of policy - imo Santstein is one of them. Does anyone have another suggested admin? The fact that their comments will be more for non binding guidance than closure allows us plenty of room for more discussion after. Youreallycan 23:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't know Sandstein from Adam, but perhaps there are some among the "include" crowd that do, and also trust their judgement. As for a non-binding opinion, I don't think much of that. It would be basically just another non-adminsitrative opinion in the discussion, and one that was essentially canvassed. If, God forbid, it turns out that Sandstein is not impartial, one way or the other, the results could be quite nasty. And even if he is truly impartial, there may be participants in this discussion who still think otherwise and make a stink. Too big a risk for a non-binding opinion, which isn't what we're looking for anyway. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

If we are concerned about our ability to get an objective decision on this particular contentious fact set, perhaps it would be constructive to instead seek to plug the gap in policy/guidelines that it highlights. If we were to propose something like "Should 'sites that attack living persons' be added to WP:ELNEVER?", it might be easier to build a consensus on the issue in the abstract and then apply it to the facts.--Trystan (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think a policy clarification would be a good thing. It's such a rare situation - its almost completely unknown in the millions of wikipedia articles that sites are created only to attack a living person and that editors want to add it. Youreallycan 00:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think that a blanket statement like that would ever be accepted, due to the fact that any site that voices any criticism whatsoever of a living person could be described as an "attack" site. Even if it were to be accepted, there would be lots of bickering over what sites qualify as "attack" sites, and what sites don't. For example, Santorum's own official site would qualify as an "attack" site, since he attacks both Obama and Gingrich on it. The same could probably be said of any other politician's or political party's site. Furthermore, I myself would not characterize Savage's site as an "attack" site, and I'm sure I'm not alone. It's primarily defensive in character, and a response to an unprovoked attack by Santorum, one that was far more vulgar and offensive than what Savage came up with. The furthest I'd be willing to go is that it's a "counter-attack" site. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you consider you are able to overcome your feelings of being personally attacked by R Santorum's comments allow you to be NPOV in regards to this discussion? Youreallycan 00:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes - there are pages and pages of chat threads there - anyone that has a blogger account can upload stuff and add demeaning and attacking comments and content. Youreallycan 00:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Dominus Vobisdu wrote:

"Furthermore, I myself would not characterize Savage's site as an "attack" site, and I'm sure I'm not alone. It's primarily defensive in character, and a response to an unprovoked attack by Santorum, one that was far more vulgar and offensive than what Savage came up with."

People, its comments like these that serve only to reveal our own personal biases. If we can refrain from making such comments, or if we can simply recuse ourselves from participating here just to promote our own POV, then things might run more smoothly. We have a nice policy called NPOV, let's all please read it. -Stevertigo (t | c) 00:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Robin Lionheart wrote on the Wiktionary entry talk page:

"It has real world usage in my circle of friends. Once we were playing a game of French Toast, and for a while our leader's standard of comparison was "santorum on a stick", so santorum got used repeatedly that night. Regardless, santorum has sufficient usage to meet Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion."

Again, these types of comments only reveal the biases of the editor, and thus disqualify the editor as acting out of POV rather than out of fidelity to NPOV. NPOV is our prime directive, we should all be familiar with what it means. -Stevertigo (t | c) 01:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in real life, my friends and I have referred to that frothy substance as santorum. What bias do you think that anecdote conveys? Why, specifically, do you think it would disqualify me from writing from a neutral perspective? ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I like Youreallycan's Idea of getting something into policy, but fear that Dominus is right that it wouldn't work, and unless it did then it wouldn't solve our problems. I have no dog in either fight here, since I don't have strong feelings about gay rights and I don't think Santorum is more than a small side show. But surely the comment of "man on dog" in the context of gay sex is just as vulgar as the santorum definition. So, if the policy tweak idea won't work, what else? I don't think we can trust a single individual. B——C_ritical 01:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

@Stevertigo: I agree that our personal opinions of Savage's campaign are irrelevant and not really helpful to share. Though I feel it would be fair to point out that, in addition to the examples you list, there has been a fair amount of open disgust and moral opprobrium expressed by those opposing inclusion of the link. This is equally unhelpful for determining a neutral approach to the article. Nor is bringing in editors' comments from other sites into this discussion, and then condemning them as inappropriate, particularly constructive.--Trystan (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see much of that at all Trystan. Aside from the pro-slur activism, I see people here with a legitimate dislike for using Misplaced Pages (and Wiktionary) as a soapbox to promote their dislike for Rick Santorum. NPOV is the issue here. We report on the slur and the googlebomb from an objective point of view. -Stevertigo (t | c) 01:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

When your side is composed entirely of reasonable people trying to neutrally enforce policy, and the other side is composed entirely of activists trying to push a POV, it may be time to step back and make a renewed attempt to assume good faith. One could just as equally condemn the activists who want to delete content we would normally include in order to protect Santorum's interests. It wouldn't be any more accurate, or helpful to achieve consensus.

Both sides have good (and good faith) arguments based on differing interpretations of existing policies. And I think both sides are having some difficulty divorcing their opinions of Savage's "slur" (or should that be "political expression"?) from reaching a neutral consensus.--Trystan (talk) 03:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all I don't have a "side," except for neutrality. So naturally I have the problem of typically, not always, being in the company of "reasonable people trying to neutrally enforce policy." I understand that there are also POV editors who have sought to sanitize the article in certain ways, but I am not one of them, nor am I suggesting that we sanitize the article in any way, so it cannot be said that I'm on their side. But neither am I on the side that thinks someone's immature attempt to smear/slur someone's name should be promoted, either in the company of friends, or here on Misplaced Pages. -Stevertigo (t | c) 04:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Is describing the subject of an article as immature and saying it shouldn't be talked about by private individuals really compatible with a neutral approach? Not that it isn't an entirely reasonable view to hold; editors are allowed to have opinions on the articles they edit. But we have to set them aside and approach all subjects dispassionately.

We can not, of course, use Misplaced Pages to promote this (or any other) subject. And promoting a site that attacks a living person would be a clear BLP violation. My question would be, under what circumstances does linking to a site constitute promoting it? Presumably everything we link to receives increased traffic and, via our mirrors, a search engine bump. If that constitutes promotion, there is a lot we shouldn't be linking to. Certainly not white supremacist forms or birther conspiracies, probably not politicians or activist groups.--Trystan (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Robin Lionheart wrote:

"Yes, in real life, my friends and I have referred to that frothy substance as santorum. What bias do you think that anecdote conveys? Why, specifically, do you think it would disqualify me from writing from a neutral perspective?"

First of all, I don't actually deal with "that frothy substance" at all, so I have no need to reference it. But I suppose that may not be the case with you, and so I do understand therefore that you and others may feel there is some need to create a word to give reference to some fundamental part of your universe. But here's the problem: Typically a word is created when there is a concept without a name. Hence there is need for a word to reference that concept, and a name/word is created (and formed in accordance with the sound patterns of a given language). That was not the case with this word's "coinage." It was not promoted out of a need to give a name to an important concept, but out of a particular activist's desire to make someone's name into a slur. Furthermore, looking at the Wiktionary article's entry, we have a case where activists are promoting that the word "santorum" be used in the place of "shit" or "crap" without the distinction of lube, etc. How many different words do we need for "shit" or "crap?" "This is not a dictionary" is one of our original principles, but this also is not Urban Dictionary either. -Stevertigo (t | c) 04:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Speaking from the outside, I would support Youreallycan's suggestion of asking one uninvolved admin to make a non-binding summary. I see no reason at all that shouldn't be Sandstein. They are well versed in policy and I would trust them to decline if they had any significant bias. Ya'know people, arguing about how to ask for the "right" admin or "choose up sides" among neutral admins is pretty lame, it's a non-binding comment fer cryin' out loud. And it might give you some insight, whether you each agree with it or not. I have very close to zero contact ever with either Yrc or S, and I have no idea what S would say, but I think this is a very good idea. Franamax (talk) 05:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Not Sandstein. I don't trust them. B——C_ritical 07:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your heavily-involved opinion. Do you trust these 13 active editors more? That's where this seems to be heading unless there's a little less picking of teams here. This bears the signs of an "intractible dispute between editors", you can't even agree on how to ask for outside help. Franamax (talk) 07:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

YRC is a determined partisan in this discussion, and if he is suggesting Sandstein then it's a sure sign he expects Sandstein to take his side. If we're going to get admin input here in a way that will help us get some closure, then it should be an admin suggested/chosen by someone who isn't invested here. Franamax, perhaps you could be of assistance: that is, perhaps you could approach another admin whom you would expect to be able to judge the existing discussion in a dispassionate way. Don't turn it into a discussion here -- the last thing we need is extended discussion of whether your choice is appropriate (we'll end up needing an RfC for it...). Naturally what we need is someone who can summarize and discern the conclusion of the existing discussion, similarly to an AfD (where the closing admin is not !voting). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

LOL! "Partisan"? Not! He is, admittedly a strong proponent of WP:BLP but I have never heard him be called "partisan." That epithet is one of the last refuges of arguments when a person does not have consensus on his side - when there is no factual basis for the charge, it is like rain on a sheet of polished glass, and of no value. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea actually what User:Sandstein would say, he often surprises me but his closures are respected. He is however as I am aware with no known bias in this area and a person that is determinedly NPOV and policy driven in his closures.User:Ironholds is another person I am reminded is very experienced in policy and a respected NPOV closer. Youreallycan 10:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

In the interest of getting this resolved, I'll second User:Ironholds. I agree that he is both extremely experienced and well-respected. That's one endorsement from each "side". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Cool - yes, this is not a win lose situation , we are obliged to work this out one way or the other with as little drama as possible and get the article unprotected. Youreallycan 11:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Great. The sooner we get this taken care of, the better, as far as I'm concerned. Suggest contacting Ironholds in 24 hours unless there are any objections. I don't think we'll come up with anyone else soon that could be endorsed by both "sides", and the only alternatives I see are an open request on AN, or letting this go to Arbcom. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding names: Arthur Rubin and Malik Shabazz (assuredly not in cahoots with one another), and Jclemens and NewYorkBrad (hopefully able to keep the verbiage down and not have it be a frothy mixture). I am suggesting pairs of names, and not with any intent of them being on any side at all. Collect (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to see what Ironholds says. B——C_ritical 16:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Me, too. I'm putting the kibosh on Jclemens, though. He and I were on opposite sides of an RfC once, and it was far more contentious than this one is. I was surprised afterwards to learn that he's an administrator and Arbcom member. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hm, the user does have a couple of userboxes identifying strongly held opinions that may lead to a dispute which I think rule him out. Youreallycan 18:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Risker (talk · contribs) (Arbitrator) generally makes sense. She has a very good, and balanced, understanding of BLP. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Addition. 04:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have an objection to asking Ironholds? From his userpage, he looks like the ideal, in that he's not religious, not against gays but probably, my guess, not for Savage's campaign, and I think it is a plus that he is familiar with the law. Legal reasoning would give a good grasp of how different forces are to be given balance in reasoning. I didn't think that we would find anyone I'd be willing to take a chance on, thus my request for multiple reviewers. But I'd take a chance on this. B——C_ritical 18:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as I stated above. I would have no objection to a one of three but his strongly held views would imo rule the user out as a single commenter. We could always add the request when we ask to please recuse if they have strongly held views in regard to issues in relation to R Santorum or D Savage. Youreallycan 18:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Per Nomoskedaticity's comment above, I have already contacted the admin I would pick for this and they are willing to do it. I did consider asking Ironholds too, but went with my first pick. Franamax (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

That's great -- much appreciated. This is certainly better than having it arranged via nomination here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Kind of strange. I mean, what this looks like is an attempt to do an end-run around the consensus process. What do others think? B——C_ritical 20:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Well it seems to be fine. - Finding someone willing to do it is a good start, because these things can be thankless tasks. Youreallycan 20:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The mandate would be to summarize the discussion, provide policy guidance, and suggest ways forward. The various parties on this page seem to be hopelessly deadlocked to me, so sooner or later you're going to have to ask for outside help (or have it thrust upon you). I don't want to ask my "mystery guest" to begin if they are just going to get screamed at, so I'll wait for a few more comments. Franamax (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Becritical's comment was unfortunate (particularly before it was reduced). I see no evidence at all that Franamax's contributions to this page are anything other than "procedural", and at this point I think we're much better off with an admin chosen by a manifestly neutral party. Anyone who does any screaming should be dealt with under the heading of "disruptive". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Commenting on a redacted post is of limited benefit to drama reduction. No one is being "dealt with as disruptive" either - we are working together to resolve this dispute one way or the other. Youreallycan 21:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

If you have a "mystery guest" who we will all be able to accept- fine. But if you think they will have a chance of being screamed at, please don't try to undercut the process. I didn't think the process we were going through was in any way improper. It seemed as if both sides of this argument were attempting to come up with editors who were neutral. Suddenly saying you are going to bring on an editor whom only you know is, well, very strange. So no offense, you surely see how it looked. B——C_ritical 21:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all, Dominus and Robin Lionheart have yet to answer my comments above. Second, I don't understand this idea of finding someone to arbitrate here. Is it because it seems hard to find consensus? One way to find consensus is to discern which people have a POV and which do not. Ive done some of that here, and we should continue this work at Wiktionary too, as there seems to be some entrenched POV there too. See my comments on that talk page: . By identifying which editors have POV in mind more than NPOV, we can move on toward making an article which doesn't contain fundamental flaws in its approach. -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The only people who have a POV are the ones who disagree with me. If you know what I mean. Look, in my view the discussion/straw-poll above is clear, almost 2 to 1 in favor of including the link. Those in the 1 category refuse to accept this as consensus, so as Franamax says we have an apparently intractable dispute. Getting an uninvolved admin to contribute an outcome here -- akin to a close for an AfD -- might help move things on. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Steve, you didn't answer my question above, about how you discern POV. Earlier you quoted a comment I posted to Wiktionary, where I described my friends and I using the term santorum in real life, as a comment that would "reveal the biases of the editor, and thus disqualify the editor as acting out of POV rather than out of fidelity to NPOV". I asked you, "What bias do you think that anecdote conveys? Why, specifically, do you think it would disqualify me from writing from a neutral perspective?" ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

We should probably stop talking about POV- unless it becomes more of a problem. I redacted my own remark within seconds. B——C_ritical 16:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• I can see why the minority in favor of link removal might want to have a single "unbiased" administrator make a binding call on the matter of link inclusion, but the correct procedure is for imlementation of an RFC. The minority has already managed to successfully "lock" its preferences into the page, I note. This needs to be reversed expeditiously — it's a form of system-gaming. Carrite (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • As I understand it, the admin view won't be binding (certainly not permanently). Anyway, we have a straw poll above (where you have now also contributed), and the point would be to have someone discern the conclusion evident there. You might note that I'm among those calling for this, and I'm not part of the minority. (For the record, the numbers there are currently 14 - 6, favoring inclusion of the link.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

There's something absurd about this. We've got the name of the site spreadingsantorum.com up there on the page - it barely matters if it's linked. But it should be referenced properly from the References section, cite web template and everything, and that includes a link. We should also have an "Official link" to the website from the External Links section for completeness. But while my preference for these extra links is relatively weak, there's no point in "voting for a compromise"; it doesn't really improve the consensus. Wnt (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(od) Read WP:CONSENSUS and note that it is not a "vote" but reaching a compromise if possible while strictly following Misplaced Pages policies (that is, votes can not abrograte policy). In the case at hand, there is a reasonable belief that WP:BLP is violated by a proposed addition, and thus it requires far more than a "vote" at the very least. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Get on with it

The straw poll made it obvious what the consensus here is. We don't need some outside editor to come and tell us. So, what are the ways forward? RfC? I think dispute resolution is stupid: no one is going to change their minds, all compromises have been rejected. Unless people want to go to an RfC, we might just as well put the link in the article. If that doesn't work, it is a matter of editor behavior, that is, blockading consensus in the name of BLP. If we do an RfC, it should have a preset time limit much less than 30 days. If there isn't an RfC, we should go directly to ArbCom. No reason to spend loads of time on this. Anyone got any other options? B——C_ritical 00:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:CONSENSUS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay then, so do you want to put the link in the article, or shall I? Cheers. B——C_ritical 03:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes - bump it up as you feel - we have gridlock here and could use some policy clarification. What happened to the uninvolved admin, has that been rejected? Youreallycan 16:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

We could get an uninvolved admin, I think we got derailed by the "mystery admin" thing. Do you want more than one? I would agree to Ironholds, but not sure everyone would. But realistically, do you think that if he said the consensus was to put in the link that the problem would be solved? B——C_ritical 17:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that a simple head count consensus is acceptable - We need a a NPOV policy driven assessment of the discussion on this talkpage. I don't know who the mystery volunteer was, but I do think his assessment would have been beneficial - Why is this blogger external link not in the article after years of existence? The answer is not - because there is more users that want to include it than don't. Youreallycan 17:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The answer is that consensus has changed: before there was no consensus to put it in, indeed consensus against. I was a lone voice of reason in the wilderness then :P Do you like Ironholds? B——C_ritical 18:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with that position - my position is that interpretation of policy in relation to the consensus in this, and that, and all the discussions over the last four/five years has not changed at all and that is why the link is still not in the article then and now. Ironholds, yes I see him as a quality administrator but as I said above - the user has clear and strong opinions displayed on his userpage that imo if you were to ask him , with the caveat, if you hold strong personal opinions in relation to D Savage or R Santorum to please recuse, he would likely not take up the chalice. Youreallycan 18:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request, perhaps? The straw poll indicates 14 people favoring inclusion, 6 people opposing; there is also Anthonyhcole, who indicates a change of mind and now favors inclusion. Normally this would be entirely sufficient for implementing an edit on a fully-protected page. Of course, with edit request, we take our chances -- any admin can answer it -- so perhaps it's not the right approach. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Have it done, and then if the admins wheel war, or if anyone dislikes having the link, I believe it is necessary to take it to ArbCom. Alternately, a community-wide RfC. But those tend to draw so much noise from editors simply repulsed but having no real policy arguments, same as with the AfDs on this article. B——C_ritical 19:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Neither of you have any idea of what consensus is; on top of that this is not a consensus issue, it is a BLP issue. This is not a race, let the process work itself out and go work on something else. Arzel (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Although the exact setting is fairly unique, this is fundamentally no different than any other disagreement over policy interpretation and content, both of which are consensus matters. Policy is not up for debate, but interpretation of policy is something that we do on every page, constantly. Normally we would expect editors to work it out among themselves, and take a dim view of obstructionist tactics like edit warring, wikilawyering, assuming bad faith, and so on. As the term consensus is used on Misplaced Pages, there appears to be a consensus that this is not a BLP issue, and a further consensus that as an editorial matter we should stick with convention by including a link to the website that is the subject of the article. A vocal minority of editors disagrees and brings up policy and editorial arguments for their position. Both sides argue that policy and consensus are on their side, and the minority seems content to edit war the article to the point of page protection to keep the status quo. Under the circumstances, making an edit that is certain to provoke a reversion is a pointless escalation. So there appears to be a stalemate. There are dispute resolution means available (including some opportunities for reconsideration), so that's the sensible way to deal with it. Those means will eventually produce an answer that will disappoint one side or the other, or both. At that point the result gets declared, and we're expected to respect that decision whether we agree with it or not. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

If an edit request results in an edit to the page and the page remains protected, there won't be a reversion. Additionally: there is now an additional !vote for inclusion] at the straw poll. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Understood, but making an edit to a protected page is a use of the tools, so it's tantamount to an administrative ruling on where consensus lies and whether there is a policy prohibition that would trump consensus. Normally the protection is just used to stop edit wars and calm discussion, not to enforce the "right" result. I note that the currently protected version also omits a paragraph about "ricking", which was the subject of a new dispute and edit war. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure this is not a path that's open to us? The edit request template produces a box that reads (in part): "This template should be used only to request edits to fully protected pages that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus." With 18 people now favoring inclusion and 6 opposed, I'd be surprised if the discussion here could be read by a neutral party as anything other than consensus. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, on further consideration, Wikidemon is right about the edit request. If I were an admin I'd certainly consider it out of line. So, what's next? If this were a close issue, there would be more excuse for spending a lot of time at DR. Are there any fairly expeditious paths to take? B——C_ritical 21:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Ask User:Sandstein to close it with a total mandate of acceptance of his judgment - I have no idea what he will say or even if he would be prepared to close and add the link if that was the close. Youreallycan 21:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

No. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Why not? You have to have a reason. Arzel (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Are there any fairly expeditious paths to take?

The proposed RfC...designed to solicit a much more broad Misplaced Pages community consideration, I'd suggest particularly so in matters related to disagreements as to the pertinence or implementation of BLP policy. And just what is so all-fired unique to this controversial edit that mandates an "expeditious path" anyway? Is the sky falling or sumpin'? If the RfC had been implemented when its use was first broached, it would have been halfway home by now. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

What's fairly unique is this: we have a consensus. We have editors blocking it ready to edit war. Allowing this to go on for a month, as with the usual length of an RfC, is just rewarding such tactics, which is all-too-often what happens around here (and then there would be ArbCom). I know you're one for proper process, so you'll understand why I don't like it. B——C_ritical 21:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want to bump it straight up to Arbcom I will second your report - If you assert it is no longer a content dispute and you allege some users are edit warring against consensus and obstructive you can take it to Arbcom as they don't judge content disputes but you appear to be asserting it is something else - Youreallycan 21:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I would, but they demand diffs, and there aren't enough. Don't you think? B——C_ritical 22:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Your comments seems to warrant it - just go make your report and lets get it over with - the blogger link has been kept out of wikipedia for over five years, although users have repeatedly attempted to insert it to multiple articles, and clearly that is some kind of issue. Perhaps - opinionated users violating NPOV and users claiming a BLP exception for an external - start with that - I will support your opening and there will be time for us to present diffs as evidence, usually ten days. Youreallycan 22:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Eh, I've observed ArbCom enough to think that it wouldn't work properly. But if you want to file, I'll support you on the basis of needed policy clarification of (1) just how far we take the idea of eliminating harm per BLP and (2) whether external sites may dictate what content we put in articles. Policy clarification is within their prerogative. B——C_ritical 22:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I am happy with whatever keeps the blogger, attack, google bombing external out of the article and the whole project. Youreallycan 22:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

So, if the link gets put in, you will revert it back out? B——C_ritical 23:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Its not about me, is it > - I am unable to answer vague questions - I have alluded, more than once here ...? to my position that a policy driven assessment and an experienced and respected NPOV closer would be required for any close is my preference. Youreallycan 23:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, well it looks like neither of us really think this is currently ripe for ArbCom, so hopefully an RfC won't take too long. B——C_ritical 00:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

After you mentioned Arbcom in three contiguous posts I thought I should support you. Policy and guidelines already keep this attack blogger site out of en wikipedia without the drudgery of a months RFC.. Youreallycan 00:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think an RfC is the surest and most straightforward way to resolve this. ArbCom could take the case but I doubt they will, as they would see it primarily as a content dispute. No harm in asking, I guess, but for now nobody is behaving badly and admins aren't abusing any tools. Now if some of y'all could start misbehaving or harassing each other we might generate a case. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

But what is to stop people like YRC from declaring -- whatever the results of the RfC -- that there's "no consensus" and then resuming the edit-war to remove the link? We have a perfectly clear result on this talk-page -- how will an RfC be different in terms of providing resolution (assuming, for example, that the weight of opinion is similar)? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It's unlikely that it will have a different result than you describe. However, that's when we can go to ArbCom, and also they can clarify policy, if we can give them a clearcut question. And this is the reason to expedite the RfC, we don't want a process which will likely only lead to a blockade to take forever. I would suggest 3 days or a week for the RfC unless there's no obvious consensus. I'd like to get an early close established beforehand if possible. I also want to try and make sure it's not just voting, but that's difficult. B——C_ritical 07:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Just some thoughts. I'd oppose a rushed RfC or a mandated early close, though would accept an early close if the closer/s deemed it appropriate once the RfC is under way. There are two disputes: the verb and the link. Shall we ask for comment on both, separately, in the same RfC? (I'm against one and for the other.) The RfC could ask: "Should the article link to spreading santorum.com in the external links section?" and "Should the article mention Savage's proposed new meaning for "to rick?", with an agreed summary of the issues. Can we decide on a closer/closers ahead of the RfC? (Maybe ask them to watch the proceedings and redact any incivility and off-topic content?) If yes to the last, can everybody throw a number of names up and let's see if there's consensus on one or more candidate closers before we approach anybody. I propose Risker (talk · contribs) and NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) if they could be persuaded (and I know they've both got a lot on); and Manning Bartlett (talk · contribs) whom I don't know well but is making sense on ANI at the moment. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

If this is the direction we're headed: the two issues absolutely need to be dealt with separately, and the EL needs dealing with first (the "rick" business was raised after the EL discussion was well under way). Also: No to NW, but the other two are fine. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Although I'm not an RfC expert, my impression is that the participants don't get to stipulate any special rules or schedule, or appoint the closer. We just go through the process. The best we can do is try to make as clear and neutral a setup as possible, and encourage the discussion to stay on track and not devolve into name calling, procedural wrangling, or tangential issues. The "rick" thing ought to be covered too in the name of efficiency but multiple issues and multiple outcomes ought to be delineated carefully beforehand because otherwise it's hard to tease the real issues out of the inevitable slew of comments and endorsements. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I confess I haven't read the RfC policy, but I've participated in a couple. I'm not bothered whether the two disputes are dealt with concurrently or in sequence. It's a shame we can't choose our closers; it seemed like a good idea to me. And having them impose WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK would be great. I'm so sick of these brawls.

I completely agree that beautifully, concisely composed expositions of the various positions represented by the editors here would help. I think Tristan's made an excellent start here.

If we could come up with a trio of editors that we all respect, I'd still like to hear their views before putting it to an RfC. What do you think? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I support ArbCom. Arzel (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

They usually prefer a dispute to go through RfC first. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Manning Bartlett, there's a section above on the RfC, with a nice summary already written. Re closers, Risker might be fine. We will be able to tell a truly biased close. Or, if the close just says "Yes most people want the link, but BLP trumps them," or the more likely "Yes most people want the link but (Frummmmmm hummmm hummmm mmmmmmm rrrrr......) there isn't a consensus," then that's a case for ArbCom clarification or policy clarification. The link needs a separate RfC. I agree on hearing the opinions of editors first... but let's hurry up about it, since it probably won't do us any good. B——C_ritical 17:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

So far as I know there's never been consensus not to include the link, including the link is appropriate per WP:EL, and there's consensus to include it now. We don't need arbitrators or some ad hoc star chamber to tell us that. Wnt (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

But we can't get the page unprotected so we can put the link in, and then see if anyone edit wars and then go to ArbCom. So what to do? B——C_ritical 18:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I really wish you people would stop saying there is consensus when there is not consensus. Arzel (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do you say there isn't a consensus? B——C_ritical 19:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Because there is no consensus, and it is getting quite annoying that you can Nomo keep crying that some people are blocking consensus. Some of us have serious concerns about BLP issues in that the website you seem hell bent on including is nothing more than an attack site. It serves no value other than to further the attack on Rick Santorum. All pertenant information from that site is already included in the article, and I and others feel that the only reason some are so hell bent on including the link is to further promote Savage's smear campaign against Santorum. Arzel (talk) 06:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you have concerns, which the community has addressed and rejected as valid but inadequate. That's the consensus process. You have the right to accept the current consensus, or to seek a wider consensus, but saying it isn't consensus is just refusing to acknowledge the fact. Acting on such a refusal (by edit warring for example) would be disruption, which is why we could take it to ArbCom. Read this. B——C_ritical 06:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no current consensus, and it is clear that you have no idea was consensus is. Arzel (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

In an AfD with 18 people voting to delete and 6 people voting to keep, an admin would inevitably close it as consensus to delete. The problem here isn't lack of consensus as that term is implemented at Misplaced Pages; the problem is lack of a useful process for these circumstances. This will be dealt with. 143.210.79.229 (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

BC and the IP editor (who forgot to log in?) are right. This situation arises often in BLP and also NONFREE. Consensus is what the community decides, including community decisions on how to apply policy in a given situation. Edit warring in support of a personal minority interpretation of policy is a form of disruption that can require administrative intervention. Edit warring under claim of BLP is like shooting someone in self defense, not something you want to do if you can avoid it. If you happen to be right it's an exoneration, but if you're mistaken in your judgment you go to jail. Wikidemon (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll add that this is right as well. "It's a BLP problem" only works when there's a widely shared view that there's a BLP problem. When that view is rejected by the community, a small minority is not somehow exempt from the requirement not to edit-war. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

So there's a consensus that there is a consensus. The choice is between: unprotect ---> insert link ---> ArbCom (if edit war) and RfC ---> insert link (maybe) ---> ArbCom (if edit war). That right? What shall we actually do? I have a feeling some people don't really want to proceed with the RfC option. B——C_ritical 18:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec with comment immediately below) I would say it's unprotect --> insert link --> edit war (likely) --> AN/I --> SNAFU versus RfC --> insert link (likely) --> edit war (unlikely) --> editors blocked. ArbCom isn't going to decide whether the link should be in or where consensus lies, they can only decide whether it's a decision for the community to make. An RfC, by contrast, can decide all of these. We don't have to agree to an RfC (though that would be nice), someone just has to do it. Another thing mitigating against unprotecting before consensus is made official is that it's almost certain to lead to an edit war, and nobody from the unprotecting admin on down to the people making those threats ought to be precipitating an edit war. People can opt out of an RfC if they want, it just means they lose their chance to be heard. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay. B——C_ritical 18:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

(od) We can not use WP:CONSENSUS to violate WP:BLP. The concept that a majority can decree that the minority is wrong is not found in WP:BLP nor is it found in WP:CONSENSUS, so tthat argument fails mightily. The choice is either to violate WP:BLP or to follow it. I suggest that this is not a "choice" at all -- we are obligated to follow the requirements of WP:BLP. Cheers - and let's drop the "we will all spend years before ArbCom" arguments! Collect (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not the consensus. The consensus is that the above minority interpretation of BLP is invalid. You are arguing that your interpretation of BLP trumps consensus. B——C_ritical 18:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Per the advice here from the admin who protected it, I am proceeding with an RfC. At least that way we can expect someone to "close" it -- something that unfortunately wasn't forthcoming with the straw poll and discussion above. I believe strongly that it should deal only with the EL question; trying to discuss two contentious issues at once will prevent gaining clarity on either of them. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Per the RfC proposal discussion above, I am reverting this highly contentious, unilateral composition and placement of an RfC independent of consensus acceptability of the language it contains. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

No you're not. I do not require consensus to start an RfC. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Politics, government, and law Biographies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Following a very long discussion (and straw poll) above, the question here is whether to include Dan Savage's "Spreading santorum" website at www.spreadingsantorum.com as an external link for this page. Some people believe that it is a BLP violation, while others reject that view and believe that it is a proper EL and even belongs here per WP:ELOFFICIAL. The following represents a summation of the opposing views...

Argument for inclusion: The site is the official site of the subject of the article (the campaign) and is discussed in the text as central to the article's subject. A reader of the article is likely to seek out the site as a further method of inquiry, which is the purpose of including an external link. While WP:BLP applies to some extent, it is not a justification for removing or curtailing coverage of well-sourced, notable, neutrally-presented criticism of a public figure. Our obligation to consider harm extends only to making sure the article is fair and neutral, not to abandon WP:NPOV by adopting Santorum's interests as our own. Our personal opinion of the campaign is not relevant; we provide external links to many other sites that we would never "promote" and are deeply offensive to many, including ones which feature personal attacks. Our NOFOLLOW tags in outgoing links mean our inclusion will not affect page ranking, and what other sites that mirror our content choose to do is not within our control.

Argument against inclusion: WP:BLP requires us to consider the harm done to living persons by the content of Misplaced Pages. In this case, providing a link is inherently non-neutral because it involves participation in a campaign to attack an individual. We are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of our actions, and the consequence of including the link is to increase both traffic to the site and possibly to keep it on top of search engine rankings for a longer time, because we know our mirrors do not necessarily use NOFOLLOW. We can not claim neutrality while deliberately abetting Savage's personal campaign against Santorum. In comparison to this significant harm, including the link would result in only trivial benefit to the article at best. A reader interested in visiting the site is easily capable of copying the already incorporated but non-hyperlinked URL or searching for it in Google. The site itself is merely vulgar insult and personal opinion, and therefore not an important information resource. It is its existence, rather than its content, that is important to the article. 04:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Include the link

1. In essence, we have already had the necessary discussion here (with a straw poll above in which 18 people favored including it and 6 opposed) -- though of course there is nothing wrong with soliciting wider input. Beyond that: if the article itself can exist (in conformity with BLP) as I think it can (and as previous deletion discussions have established quite definitively), then I see no reason the link cannot be included. In fact adding the link almost seems like a minor point, an afterthought, given the nature of the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
2. Include. Again per the same arguments at the straw poll, and this very useful table of arguments. There are two general principles here: first, that we cannot hope to do absolutely no harm in the outside world, as explained at WP:HARM. Second, the only argument against the link is that (a) it might harm Santorum if WP readers clicked on the link and (b) external sites which mirror WP might keep the site on top of search engine results (A link in WP cannot have this effect). Misplaced Pages cannot modify its articles based on what other websites do: we need to be independent and uncensored, and this is the official link for this subject. B——C_ritical 19:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
3. Include per ELOFFICIAL. The "don't include" argument referring to WP:ATTACK makes the mistake that the guideline confers ATTACK characteristics to the Misplaced Pages article which lists it. It does not; the Misplaced Pages page which includes it is this one which explains it. This article is the best and only place for the link, and the link should be included because it is the official one for the topic. Others go so far as to label the URL as falling under our WP:ATTACK guideline which of course it does not, being as it is a guideline applying to attack pages found or formed in Wiki namespace, not the wide world. Finally, WP:BLP allows negative information that the famous person does not like; scroll down to see the part about WP:WELLKNOWN. "BLP" cannot be an unexamined shout of protest—it must be considered in context. Famous persons such as Rick Santorum are not as well protected as relatively anonymous people. Binksternet (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
4. Include - per WP:ELOFFICIAL, a good encyclopedia offers follow-up resources for its readers. And this includes cases wherein the official site is an attack site devoted to smearing living people (see David Duke, Stormfront (website), and others listed under Template:White Nationalism for a small number of examples). In fact, this case is much less vicious and dangerous, and less offensive to BLP policy, than those ones - juvenile scatology is nowhere near as serious for BLP as race-baiting and plotting action against the conspiracies these people believe in. Yet we have external links in those and many other cases, because we could hardly claim to be an impartial encyclopedia if we linked readers to some sites, but balked at others. Balking at this one on such shaky grounds constitutes a clear NPOV violation. Finally, the search ranking issue is a well-meaning red herring: Misplaced Pages's outbound links use nofollow tags, and thus have no effect on search engine rankings. In this case as in others, Misplaced Pages reports on the story without participating in it, and it will do so better by following its own precedents and adding the link. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 19:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
5. We should include, as that is the convention for how we write articles and there is no compelling reason to break with convention. As a starting point it is absolutely normal and proper to include an external link to a website that, like this one, is a primary subject of an article. We do not question on a case by case basis whether the content at the other end of the link is agreeable or offensive, good for the world or bad for the world, interesting or mundane. As its primary mission Misplaced Pages covers everything under the sun unflinchingly and without judgment, and a website like this at the intersection of politics, civil rights, and Internet culture is unquestionably a notable phenomenon. The question becomes why not include the link? Various objections have been raised, but the only one that carries any weight is that per our BLP policy we should not cause harm to any living person. Here that policy is misapplied. We are not causing harm to the politician that is the subject of the site, we are reporting that a third party is attacking a politician or, some would say, that the politician has hurt himself through intemperate comments that drew angry response like the site's. Politics is a rough and tumble business and we must report that it is so rather than shield our readers' eyes from subjects that we deem too troublesome for them. The notion that we are promoting the site's viewpoint by letting people read it is, frankly, specious. If letting readers examine a thing were promoting a thing, then we would have to censor all bad things from the encyclopedia. Nor is there a balancing question, as there would be at WP:NFCC, between adding disfavored content and the extent to which the content adds to the reader's understanding of the subject matter. Presumptively it does, but even if we had to judge that, there is a blog on the other side of the link with a large amount of design and ever-changing content relevant to the subject. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
6. Include per WP:ELOFFICIAL. The article already summarizes the contents of the link, so including the link does no harm that has not already been done; meanwhile, it provides benefit by aiding readers' ability to view, and evaluate for themselves, the primary source at the heart of the topic. I have seen no convincing rationale for why this article should be treated differently from any other article in this respect. Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
7. Include It should be included for several reasons (a) It is the official website of the article. (b) We have an article on it and a link would be a useful tool to understand it. (c) Opposing the link would mean a slippery slope to removing links from several other articles, and such attempts are usually opposed. (For example, see Anders Breivik article and check the manifesto) (d) Nobody has properly demonstrated that the link violates BLP (e) Misplaced Pages is not WP:CENSORED. Pass a Method talk 19:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
8. Include the link per the straw poll outcome, which I believe represents a rough consensus in favor of inclusion. As I also said there, though, I must admit that I find Mr. Santorum to be repugnant when it comes to his comments about gay people, and I could not live with myself if I sat and watched him say it without voicing my objection, for the sake of all that is good and decent in humanity.--Milowent • 19:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
9. Include - I'll recycle my words above: We should not let our personal political objections to a site impact the decision-making process as to whether a link should be included. For example, the fascist Stormfront (website) includes a link to........... the Stormfront website. Certainly the site mentioned here is the locus of the campaign about which this article is written. Whether you support the campaign, whether you're bitterly opposed to the campaign, or wether you're in the middle somewhere supporting some aspects but not all, shouldn't matter. This is fundamentally an aspect of a political movement dealing with a public figure (a candidate for President of the United States), not an "attack site" about a private individual. Carrite (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
10. Lets not revert back to WP:BADSITES --Guerillero | My Talk 20:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
11. Include per my statement above. ThemFromSpace 20:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
12. Include. The argument against, "We can not claim neutrality while deliberately abetting Savage's personal campaign against Santorum" makes little sense. Rather, we cannot claim neutrality while deliberately censoring a link to the very website that is the topic of this article. That Misplaced Pages may be perceived as non-neutral by including the link is irrelevant; Misplaced Pages is already perceived that way by ideological groups who object to articles they disagree with. That should have no bearing on editorial content. Santorum, with the help of Savage, brought this notoreity upon himself. So it's an attack site, but yet, it is notable enough to warrant an article on Misplaced Pages. Therefore there is no reason to exclude a relevant link, particularly when the entire topic of this article derives from that web site. It is also irrelevant what search engines do; Misplaced Pages (as far as I know) does not base its policies on the consequences of search engine algorithms. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
13. Include The BLP considerations here are intertwined with the existence of this article. If this article isn't a BLP violation, then neither is linking to the official site for the topic. If there is a BLP concern here, the way to handle it is to remove the article, not the link. aprock (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
14. Include, per all the arguments that have already been rehashed above. Having the article but not including the link is bizarre. It's particularly odd to think that by excluding it, we're somehow keeping people from finding it or protecting Santorum's reputation: anyone who reads the article as it is could find the link in a matter of seconds if they wanted to. It's all very well to say 'but if people find it and spread it, that'll help promote this meme that libels Santorum!', but that's already happened a long time ago. Excluding the link at this point would be closing the door after the horse has bolted. It's the same reason that the article Beck v. Eiland-Hall includes an external link to 'glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com', which is unquestionably libellous, but just as unquestionably directly relevant to the subject of the article. Robofish (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
15. Include per my reasoning in the above straw poll. Can you explain to me, by the way, how a second poll it at all anything other than a waste of time? The first poll had wide participation and a clear result. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
16. Include It seems evident that an article about a campaign should link to the website of that campaign. BLP is never an acceptable reason to argue for something to be removed. If it is a BLP violation, it should be removed with all deliberate speed. However it is not a BLP violation since it is reporting on the well-known claims made by others. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
17. Include per ELOFFICIAL. If we applied the antis’ loose, all-encompassing interpretation of BLP across the board, we’d remove official links from categories like Orly Taitz, The Obama Deception, or Michael Moore Hates America. BLP’s not a tool for censoring links to critics. No reasonable person thinks Misplaced Pages is a tool of Westboro Baptist Church, Stormfront, or Aryan Nations. We link to their sites not because we’re POV, but because we’re neutral. This site is practically the subject of the article, and Misplaced Pages is not censored. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
18. Include - We can't use Misplaced Pages to promote this (or any other) subject. And promoting a site that attacks a living person would be particularly egregious, as a clear BLP violation. But merely linking to a site that is of central importance to a well-sourced, notable and neutrally-presented article can not be construed as promotion of that site. Presumably every site we link to receives increased traffic and, via our mirrors, a search engine bump. If we deem that to constitute promotion, there are many, many sites that we should stop linking to; at a minimum we would need to add an exception to WP:ELNEVER for any site that criticizes a living person, and that would be a significant deteriment to our ability to provide useful links to readers. BLP requires us to take extra care that material is factually accurate and dispassionately presented, but explicitly does not require us to refrain from fully covering a notable topic simply because it involves third-party criticism of a public figure. To do so would be incompatible with our dispassionate, uncensored approach to providing information.--Trystan (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
19. Include here, do not put it on Santorum's page or the Controversy page. Speciate (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
20. Include for all the reasons I've stated before. This isn't a BLP issue - WP:ATTACKSITES is a failed proposal. The philosophy the other side endorses is a Sympathetic Point of View, a concept so discarded on Misplaced Pages that the NPOV policy pages no longer even mentions it (but the explanation still exists on Meatball). To delete linking to criticism, while continuing to link to the subjects propaganda, is a sympathetic whitewashing. The harm argument has some sway for BLPs of people who are notable for events not of their own doing, but not for a major public figure like Santorum who is spending millions of dollars a week on advertising a presidential campaign. The idea he is going to be harmed by a critical link is preposterous. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
21. Include. Claims by editor(s) in the 'No' camp below of possible libel are utterly wrong per Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. Indeed, if successful legal action could have been taken against Savage himself by Rick Santorum then it would have been already. The only harm that the website does to Rick Santorum is indirect, as it highlights his controversial views, views which he stands by and is not in any way ashamed of. I would strongly suggest that nobody who approves of Rick's views thinks any less of him due to the existence of the Savage campaign, they only think less of Savage. Rubiscous (talk) 04:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
22. Include. It's pretty much the topic of the article. To deviate from our usual practice here would be to take a political position, something we can't do. We link to The protocols of the elders of Zion, which defames an entire people, and has promoted pogroms and countless murders. This, on the other hand, is a political satire site that mocks a politician. Let's get things into perspective, shall we? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

    Actually we don't. The links are to a specifically annotated version thereof. With not only a strong disclaimer and essays at the start, but on every single page of it. WARNING: This document is a provem antisemitic forgery and hoax. Abuse is strictly forbidden. The "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," the most notorious and most successful work of modern antisemitism, draws on popular antisemitic notions which have their roots in medieval Europe from the time of the Crusades. The libels that the Jews used blood of Christian children for the Feast of Passover, poisoned the wells and spread the plague were pretexts for the wholesale destruction of Jewish communities throughout Europe. And so on. Collect (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

    So, we do link to it. Would you like to attach a disclaimer to our spreadingsantorum.com link warning the reader it's satire? We could probably do that if you felt it was necessary. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

    The external link section of the Protocols page is an unruly mess and may not have the best link to the source, or perhaps it's a useful link to an important annotation. We don't normally insist on editorial disclaimers, warnings, spoiler alerts, or the like to in front of objectionable external material. The question of which version to link to doesn't arise here, but a similar question recently arose at Encyclopedia Dramatica, which recently got moved to a new host. Incidentally, that article had a similar discussion about whether to include a live link or dead link. The specific issue there was harassment, but it could have been couched as a BLP matter too. I don't remember exactly how it transpired but the live link eventually prevailed. - Wikidemon (talk)

23. Include. The link is helpful for anyone who wants to know more about the campaign. It is a key primary source for the topic. We also routinely provide links to racist sites in articles about racist organizations. TFD (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
24. Include The link is part and parcel of the campaign to create the neologism - it does no harm that the existence of this article doesn't already do, and leaving it out would be unencyclopedic. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
25. Include The link is part and parcel of the subject. See also - goatse.cx, Misplaced Pages Review, Stormfront (website). No harm is done to the subject of the website, as Misplaced Pages outgoing links are NOFOLLOW, meaning we are not involved in the googlebombing. We are not responsible for the behavior of our mirrors - if we were, then we would also be forced to remove links to the above sites. The allegation of "significant" harm is ridiculous, when the website has been linked by The Slate Group, a Division of the Washington Post Company in their description of the campaign, amongst others. Hipocrite (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
26. Include This article is about the campaign for the neologism. The website is the campaign for the neologism. As unappealing as the whole thing is, it seems awfully foolish not to include the website. AniMate 21:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
27. If it has been settled that the article is about the campaign, then the website that is the centre of the campaign is clearly relevant. There's no reason to depart from usual policy in such cases, which is to link. The claim that the site itself is a BLP violation is preposterous nonsense for two reasons: BLP applies on Misplaced Pages not off it, and the site does not make any claims about the former Senator (it just attempts to misappropriate his surname, which is a different thing). Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
28. Include link. It's the subject of the article, and, as other users have pointed out, we regularly include the official page of the article subject all the time, even if that page harms or libels an individual or individuals, because it's part of providing coverage of the subject. BLP is a laudable goal, and perhaps some of the users here are even invoking it in good faith, but we don't apply it across the encyclopedia in the way they're suggesting we do here, and there is no reason to give Rick Santorum special treatment. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
29. Include link. The link is part of the subject of the article, just as goatse.cx, Misplaced Pages Review, and Stormfront (website). Because of our NOFOLLOW policy we do not add to the google bomb effect and the behavior of our mirrors is out of our control. Heiro 15:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
30. Include: For all the reasons listed above, especially that the site is the subject of this article. I still don't see any validity in any of the BLP arguments, and we are not, nor should we be, responsible for the actions of mirror sites. All of the "solutions" proposed are inadequate and cowardly. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
31. Include: It doesn't make sense to have a page about the campaign but not have the link to the website promoting the campaign. Either this page and the link should be both removed, or both should be included. FurrySings (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
32. Obviously include. There's BLP and then there's hysteria. The torrent of BLP concerns about this article is hysteria. Nothing Misplaced Pages does will dampen or ease Mr Santorum's Google problems. But, like previous RfCs on this topic, it is a jolly good way to waste time. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
33. Include as obviously appropriate. Not including it is clear censorship based upon political beliefs only, as there is no policy-based reason to do so. DreamGuy (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
34. Include as consistent with relevant policies and guidelines. Mr. Santorum is an adult, a former United States Senator, and a candidate for the presidency. If a public figure such as he chooses to make reckless statements that lead to unpleasant repercussions, that cannot be our concern. We're neither Mr. Santorum's nannies nor his PR agents, and it is not our job to clean up after him. Rivertorch (talk) 07:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
35. As long as we don't, uh... *fumbles for vocabulary*... use, uh... "anchor text", I think it's called? As long as we don't use anchor text of "santorum", providing a link to the site won't be part of Savage's campaign, and we should include it. Oh, and for the record, this is precisely the opposite of a Google Bomb. DS (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
36. Include - why should we make people go elsewhere to find information? Isn't the information supposed to be here? We provide web page links for Nazis. We publicize terrorist attacks. Why be squeamish about documenting one of the more significnt information technology events of the past couple of years? Pawsplay (talk) 06:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

    Indeed what information is there relevant to this article that is only obtainable from the external link at issue here? re Nazis, any given neo-Nazi (or neo-Nazi organization) generally gets "official" links only at his or her (or that organization's) Misplaced Pages article. If they set up additional website(s) to go after targeted individual Jew(s) they don't generally get more "official" links, this time to these additional sites they've created, here on Misplaced Pages.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

37. Include - The current article features a compromise, the link text with no hyperlink. Adding an active link will add no verifiable harm to Mr. Santorum, nor is this article a biography about Mr. Santorum. If other similarly controversial subject have similar links to attack pages, this article must include the link to keep NPOV. Johnden223 (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
38. Include — Other than being a major part of the subject of the article, the link is not inherently derogatory. Whether one thinks of lube and fecal matter is offensive is a matter of opinion. At the most fundamental level though, how is referring to a website's appearance through third-person sources even proper citation? A direct link is the only way to ensure a neutral point of view of the subject matter. (as a side note, the Rick Santorum page links three times to his campaign website, which could also be considered promoting POV).Dsetay (talk) 01:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
39. Include For about the 40th fucking time, yes. Protonk (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
40. Include This is a no-brainer. Eceresa (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
41. Include - obviously relevant to the article. --He to Hecuba (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
42. Include - In my opinion, this link is the sole notable ascpect of the entire riducle crusade against Santorum. Either include the link or don't have the article at all. BV 04:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Do not include the link

1. NO - BLP Violation The site in question is an attack site on a living person. Clearly under any other circumstance we would never even consider link to an attack site from a BLP related article. The pro-link people seem to think that because the attack site resulted in a notable story that linking to the attack site overides BLP. The rest of us argue that it doesn't matter if the site resulted in a notable story, linking to the site is still a violation of BLP, espcially since the goal of that attack site is to get Savage's drones to link the site in as many places as possible to drive up web traffic and internet search rankings. This is clearly a unique situation but BLP is an overiding principle, and I see no reason to link to an attack site. Furthermore, the site itself offers no additional information (outside of additional attacking of Rick Santorum) that is not already included in the article. Several above make the statement that we have links to racist organizations, however this is a specific attack page against a single person. They are simply not the same. Arzel (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
2. Hell no - For several reasons: First, linking to this webpage is about like linking to a copyright violation that became notable—we don't do it per the copyright policy. We shouldn't link to this per the BLP policy. Secondly, the link itself falls under WP:REVDEL criteria #3; specifically, "links to web pages that disparage or threaten some person or entity and serve no other valid purpose." Thirdly, per WP:BLPEL, we should avoid linking to sites that violate the spirit of WP:BLP. That website is nothing but an attack page, which leads me to my fourth point. The inclusion of the link seems to be skirting the edge of libel. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
3. Per Arzel and per elements expressed in the overview (save for the "NOFOLLOW" argument which I am unqualified to assess). Mitigating support or even perceived support for this most vulgar, overt personal, political attack with its inherent BLP considerations is not only well within the prerogative of WP "editorial judgement" but must surely be suggested by even the most minimal sense of forbearance under the principles espoused by WP:BLP. Were there a WP:RIGHTTHINGTODO, it could surely be invoked here. The already non-hyperlinked URL incorporated in the article main body is clearly a more-than-adequate compromise. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
4. Do not include: Misplaced Pages is not censored, but we should not allow it to become a vehicle for the propagation of somebody's vilification campaign. There are several BLP concerns with that link – it is not only disparaging and derogatory, but stands in contravention to WP:BLPEL and WP:ELBLP which apply to this article as well. I would also like to remind the users in favor of inclusion that WP:EL is a content guideline, and in cases of conflict between guidelines and policies, the policies prevail. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 20:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
5. Do not include: Per the shoud-exist-and-be-a-policy WP:RIGHTTHINGTODO. We don't censor anything, but keep a link who denigrates a living person, no matter what kind of link it is, can't be considered right. In all others, I agree with Nearly Headless Nick that if a guideline and a policy conflict, the policy has prevalence. Béria Lima 20:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
6. NO. The site is an attack site on a living person. Misplaced Pages should not allow it. It's a BLP violation. Misplaced Pages shouldnt be used as a vehicle to promote hate towards a living subject. Caden 20:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
7. No And consensus can not override WP:BLP - this "vote" is thus improper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
8. No. I was all ready for yes until I looked at it. I find it funny--and totally, totally unacceptable per our BLP policy. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
9. Exclude - Misplaced Pages should not link to a website, any website, devoted to bully and disparage an individual. It is unacceptable per the BLP policy, but more importantly per the spirit of the BLP policy : to avoid harm to living persons where harm can be avoided. This has nothing to do with censorship, and everything to do with doing the right thing towards a living person. How many of you would support linking to a website disparaging a gay teenager, knowing full well the potential consequences of bullying? CharlieEchoTango (contact) 00:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
10. Do not include Collect has this dead on. Unless someone can show how this does not violate WP:BLP, WP:ELOFFICIAL cannot possibly override it. Neither a guideline nor consensus can circumvent our policy, which is ultimately just our statement of keeping a tiny amount of ethical responsibility to those people we write about. The site is an attack site; its only reason for existing is to attack a living human being. As Reaper Eternal correctly points out, if this were any other article, the link would not only be removed, but, in fact, be RevDel'd. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
11. No Collect says it perfectly. Rlendog (talk) 04:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
12. No It's ok for an activist to counter attack against a politician who promotes ignorance and hatred. It's ok to have an article on a notable topic. It is not ok for Misplaced Pages to be used to assist this kind of counter attack. ELOFFICIAL and NOTCENSORED are not relevant as this is a unique situation and we are not a bureaucracy where a link must be inserted because the link might be seen to satisfy "official", and because editorial judgment has nothing to do with censorship. This issue concerns an activist's attack-by-neologism, and per BLP Misplaced Pages should not be used to amplify that attack. Johnuniq (talk) 06:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
13. No - As per WP:BLP - we should not be linking to blogger sites created for the specific purpose of demeaning and degrading a single living person. Youreallycan 08:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
14. No. Not again. By linking to the site, Misplaced Pages participates in the attack. And ELOFFICIAL is being badly misused; ELOFFICIAL does not mean that everything which passes it is exempt from other policies. It's entirely possible for something to pass ELOFFICIAL and fail BLP in which case since it fails BLP it should not be included. Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
15. No. When ELOFFICIAL is being used to override the rest of the linking policy (which references things like "taste" and "neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding") one should pay special attention to the line in Misplaced Pages:External links that says "The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link." I do see in the example rationales for inclusion given "information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail" and I do not see "information that could not be added to the article because as self-published claims about a third party it would indisputably fail Misplaced Pages:Verifiability." Note also that Misplaced Pages:Linking_to_external_harassment says a non-"live link" "is sometimes used as a workable compromise" and the link at issue here already appears as a non-live link in the body of the article.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

    I'd like to remind everyone that Savage's campaign involves linking to the site with the politician's name as the anchor text. If he had (out of some dadaeque whim) asked that people use the term "Rhubarb Muffins" as the anchor text while linking to the neologism site, it would be very difficult to get a good recipe for rhubarb muffins online, but the politician wouldn't care. All we have to do is omit the anchor text. DS (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

    Interesting point. I'm not sure of the technical details. Perhaps you want to move this to the section below. B——C_ritical 17:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

16. Exclude. The only new argument I have relates to Barrett v. Rosenthal, Ms. Rosenthal was adding her web site to various of the articles. The web site really was the subject of the lawsuit in Barrett v. Rosenthal. I believe the consensus was that the site really was libelous but-for Section 230, and we didn't want to be associated with it. IIRC, it ended up on the en.Misplaced Pages blacklist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
17. Exclude per strict implementation of Misplaced Pages rules for Biographies of Living Persons. The argument about Rick Santorum being a person in the public arena and, thus, unprotected from those rules is null and void because Misplaced Pages is not, in any sense of the term, a political forum. The person who's been the target of the relevant campaign objects to it, strongly and unambiguously so. It is clearly inappropriate for Misplaced Pages to link to a site attacking the subject personally. For what it's worth, I oppose almost everything Santorum stands for, politically, and I also get a kick, personally, from the punishment he received for his ignorant commentary on homosexuality. But personal, political opinions should not affect how we edit an encyclopaedia! -The Gnome (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Extended discussion

Meta Comment: The RfC bot has removed this RfC from its listings and it probably requires resubmission. While our views on this issue are in opposition, I'd propose that Wikidemon or Trystan resubmit this RfC as acceptable arbiters exercising control over the RfC language (to include Trystan's language) and duration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I have resubmitted the RfC incorporating the language suggested by Trystan, seconded by me and appended to the original RfC by BeCritical. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

We should remember that this is not a BLP. There is a very legitimate undecided policy question about whether BLP applies to non-BLP articles specifically about situations which are derogatory to living people: how can we discuss the material at all without violating BLP? If we are allowed to discuss the material, can we do it thoroughly, including the relevant linking? The argument is that since there is consensus this article should exist, that we should give the subject a thorough and unflinching treatment. B——C_ritical 20:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure where you get that "legitimate undecided policy question about whether BLP applies to non-BLP articles" idea. Please review the policy page: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page." This is not undecided, disputed or contested, but categorically stated. It is not Misplaced Pages's job to take an activist stance with regard to political controversies. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias are conservative (not using the term in American parlance). We should not let ourselves become a part of a vilification campaign and this is policy. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 20:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

"Particular care," yes, but this is not a BLP, and even per BLP Santorum is a public figure, and we cannot expect to do no harm at all. When you look at policy, it's not nearly as absolutist as you say, even though it seems that way at first glance. We have to have good judgment. My judgment is that actually if the link does any harm at all, it is extremely minimal, and balancing that against having Misplaced Pages be subject to what other sites do leads me to believe we should include. B——C_ritical 21:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It is true that BLP applies to every article. Where it applies differentially is that when an article contains a contentious statement about a living person we are very careful about the strength of the sourcing supporting the truth of the statement, whereas when an article says that a third party has made a contentious statement about a living person we instead ask for strong sourcing that they in fact made the statement, and that it is notable, relevant, and of due weight. We should not be in the business of promoting other people's vilification campaigns, nor of downplaying their vilification campaigns. Or of deciding who the villain is and who is righteously aggrieved when there is a clash of interests and values. The very premise of an encyclopedia is that by shining a light on every subject we empower readers and thereby the world at large to make their own decisions. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely, and the fact that this article exists is sufficient proof that we regularly uphold the values that you claim we espouse. When it comes to living people, we also like to err on the side of caution. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 21:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment - All respect intended to, and all good faith assumed of, those arguing for it - but forgive me if I don't see how drafting WP:RIGHTTHINGTODO as policy is in any way a good idea. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Bravo. ☻ ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Addressing User:Sven Manguard's question above: "Can you explain to me, by the way, how a second poll it at all anything other than a waste of time? The first poll had wide participation and a clear result": My understanding is that the opponents of including the link have refused to recognize the "clear result" of the first poll, and an RFC, evaluated and closed by an outside party, was deemed the most likely method of reaching a result that would actually be heeded. Theoldsparkle (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Meta Comment: Without objection, I will introduce the following edit to the opposition viewpoint (suggested addition emboldened/underlined)...

A reader interested in visiting the site is easily capable of copying the already incorporated but non-hyperlinked URL or searching for it in Google.

JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• • I object to that addition. If you want to make arguments against inclusion you can put them in your own comment, rather than larding up an RfC text that wasn't in what I originally submitted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

As I stated in the "RfC Proposal", the proposed text of this RfC (or any RfC for that matter) should be subject, at least for a limited time, to consensus acceptable re-composition. As a proponent of the "Include" viewpoint, you are also entitled (in fact invited) to amend, with consensus acceptance, the text expressing your own view. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

"With consensus acceptance"? But surely it is now clear that you don't have consensus for your addition. Please revert it. We already have the absurdity of two texts at the head here, following your attempts to delete the RfC I initiated. Don't compound your error. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggested edits as to the "Argument for Exclusion" were, in fact, solicited by its author, Trystan. If I see an objection to my edit from those who support that position, I will be delighted to revert my edit. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• My attempt to de-hyperlink the subject link on this talk page per an as yet unresolved WP:BLP objection has been reverted. Editors should be reminded that WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well as article pages. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm once again entertained at the way minorities intent on obstructing consensus at WP, realizing they are outside of both precedent and policy, attempt to create doctrine on the fly — in this case a redlink to a draft essay, of all things. It would be funny if it weren't so typical.Carrite (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, there's lots of amusing things about this article. One example is the masking of a POV attack on a BLP by proxy. Of course we're not talking about Dan Savage's Political Attack on Rick Santorum silly, we're talking about his Campaign for "santorum" neologism (but let's just toss in a little consensus "rick" for some added "entertainment"). JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, not to worry, my friend. A well placed whiny post by someone on the founder's talk page and ten days from now the WMF Board will pass a resolution on the Sacred Principle of Tasteless Neologisms, which can be cited as doctrine. Then the community gives that the bum's rush three days later... At which point this matter is resolved in favor of the majority, as it should have been weeks ago and we move on to the next dramathon. Carrite (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Satire is exempt from libel and slander laws. So Misplaced Pages's BLP rules do not apply. Speciate (talk) 03:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

That is a strange and false statement. Arzel (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It is true. I also researched libel law. It's highly unlikely that the site itself is libelous (only if it makes untrue assertions which are meant to be taken literally), and certainly not the link to it. B——C_ritical 03:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to libel or slander, I was referring to the statement that since he called it satire BLP doesn't apply. Arzel (talk) 04:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Libel or slander laws do not enter into it. Merely naming an icky substance after Rick Santorum would be neither. Like Strigiphilus garylarsoni does not libel Gary Larson (even if he weren’t honored to have a biting louse named after him). ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Avoiding legal liability for Misplaced Pages and its editors is only one of the purposes of BLP, there are others. For what it's worth, I wouldn't say the site is a satire of something, it is the thing itself. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure where you all are going with this. I am not seeing where anyone made the claim that it is libel, all I said is that simply calling something satire doesn't remove the possibility of a BLP violation. Arzel (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I am saying. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It was brought up in Do not include #2 above - "The inclusion of the link seems to be skirting the edge of libel". If both sides can agree that libel is not an issue then I call upon Reaper Eternal to strike that comment as unhelpful to the debate. Rubiscous (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

So, if it not libel, and it in no other way violates WP:BLP, then why are we debating this at all? Speciate (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment Reply to Include 16 - The site is not reporting on the well-known claim by others. The site is the source of the claim. Reply to Include 14 - The linked site is dead and has been dead for three years and is thus no longer an issue. Reply to Include 17 - There is no offical link on Michael Moore Hates America, and it doesn't appear there ever was. WBC is a horrible demented completely worthless hateful organization, but it is a different issue since the site is not directed at a specific person, thus not a BLP issue. The Orly Tate link has been removed as promotional WP:ADV. Stormfront and AN are clearly racist organizations but the links are not BLP issues. Arzel (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

And others have shown us where we include links which are attacks on single individuals, such as Obama. B——C_ritical 05:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Where? I removed the Orly Tate link because it was a merchandising plug. I am not aware of any other links that are callng Obama a piece of shit, and if there are please let me know and I will remove them immediately. Arzel (talk) 14:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

We link to this, and in contrast to spreadingsantorum.com, it makes claims which are actually libel, that is it makes false fact claims which are meant to be taken seriously. That's a much more serious issue than spreadingsantorum, and if we include that link, which actually includes libel, including spreadingsantorum is a nobrainer. B——C_ritical 19:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment We seem to generally allow linking to websites when they are the subject of the article, as is the case here. See for example, Misplaced Pages Review, which is just as problematic as the spreadingsantorum link. Whether a website hosts defamatory material on a single person or on many people is an irrelevant detail.   Will Beback  talk  23:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Not from a blp point of view. Arzel (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

How so?   Will Beback  talk  00:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

WP Review is not a BLP issue. Arzel (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's posit that WP Review hosts unsourced defamatory information about non-notorious living persons. How is it not a BLP issue? Are you alleging that it does not host? Are you alleging it's reliably sourced? Are you alleging it's not defamatory? Are you alledging the targets are so notorious that they cannot be defamed? Let's play the same game with Stormfront (website). Hipocrite (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Um -- WR is not part of WMF's purview, and certainly not under the WP purview - so how can WP issue a policy affecting an outside venue? WR is not an RS source, to be sure. I would suggest that no BLP should link to WR for any purpose relating to any "living person" claims, and if you tell me which articles so link in violation of WP:BLP, I would certainly remove any links to any contentious claims made there post haste. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you remove a bare external link to the site on an article about the site? Hipocrite (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Hypotheticals are tough - give me the specific example of a WP:BLP violating cite from Misplaced Pages. Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not a discussion about citations - it's a discussion of external links. I gave you two - we link to stormfront from stormfront, wikipedia review from wikipedia review. Hipocrite (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment Collect, the #7 no above, says that consensus cannot override BLP. But there is no question of that here. Rather, the question is about how BLP should be interpreted in this case. And for deciding how and whether BLP applies, we require consensus. B——C_ritical 19:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Policy Discussion

Most of the above comments seem to be coming down to whether or not this is a BLP violation. At the risk of WP:Wikilawyering, I think it might be constructive to look at the specifics of that policy and how differing interpretations might validly lead to differing results.

I think Zen does a good job above showing that WP:BLPEL is where the potential problem lies. Neutral coverage of notable criticism of a public figure's views is specifically allowed under BLP (hence the existence of the article itself), but what we can link to is more restrictive. I think the critical part of BLPEL is this:

• 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.... (emphasis mine)

A strict, literal reading of this would be that the content of the external sites that we link to would have to be able to pass our BLP policy for an internal WP article. This would represent a very strict test, one which would be signficantly out of step with current guidelines and practices, as we link to a lot of external content that would not pass BLP standards as they would be applied to an internal WP article. Essentially, under this intepretation, we shouldn't link to any site that contains information critical of an individual living person unless that site qualifies as a reliable source on the individual. If this is the intended meaning of this policy, putting this into practice would be a large undertaking, requiring signficant updates to our guidelines (particularly WP:ELNEVER) and removing many external links accordingly.

A more liberal reading of BLPEL is that it is not the external content of the site itself which would need to pass BLP, but our act of linking to the material that needs to conform to BLP principles. That would presumably be the case when the linking to the material is done as part of neutral coverage of a notable controversy. So where the criticism is validly the subject of an article, it would be within the spirit of BLP to provide the link as we would for any other WP:ELOFFICIAL.

Either way, I think it might be helpful for the policy to be clarified, to either make the stricter reading unambiguous (and thus drive the necessary changes to guidlines and practices) or to make the validity of the liberal interpretation explicit.--Trystan (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Wider RfC?

Anyone want to further advertise the RfC? This is a prelude to proposing that we already have our result. Yes, I want to push it, I've been very clear that in my opinion this shouldn't take as long as some RfCs. If anyone thinks that further advertising will change the results, let's advertise. If anyone thinks that leaving it open will change the results, let's hear that argument. B——C_ritical 19:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Allow the RFC (as its hotly disputed) to stay open for a longer period, a month - there is no deadline - if you allow the RFC to run its correct course, rather than rushing to announce the outcome and close it yourself, the outcome will be stronger. - advertise it. You shouldn't also be declaring the outcome. Youreallycan 19:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not. However, there is no reason to allow a small cadre of editors to hold up the process for over a month, when consensus has been reached. Do you, as the minority in the RfC above, want the RfC to be advertised further? B——C_ritical 19:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes I would - where has it been advertised ? It doesn't seem to be showing as an RFC as I would usually see it , and it should be added to centralized discussion and I can't see it there? As yet I have not had chance to read the recent discussion and I will get to that tomorrow. Youreallycan 19:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It's at the top here that's all I know. This discussion touches on links, NPOV, and other things, so those noticeboards at least. B——C_ritical 19:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It seems out of process for an RFC to not advertise it and attempt to close it fourty eight hours after opening. I will look more tomorrow - Youreallycan 19:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It's advertised at the list of RfCs (as per the link Becritical offered you), where RfCs are usually advertised. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but I was just wanting to know if the minority view wanted to advertise it even further. The point being to be able to propose that the RfC be closed without anyone saying that we didn't have a firm result. B——C_ritical 19:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

@Becritical , correct me if I am wrong, the RFC has only just been opened.

@NomoskedasticityThe discussion should be advertised as many neutral locations as possible - I feel this is something the wider community deserves to declare its position on. It seems it only stabilized there 24 hours ago after some alterations - as I said, suggestions to close now are extremely un-beneficial to discussion. Youreallycan 19:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You wrote "It doesn't seem to be showing as an RFC as I would usually see it" -- that didn't make sense, it appears at the list of RfCs exactly as one would expect. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Well - you seem to have objected to and removed the notice from WP:CENT - diff - its like you don't want the community to opine - Youreallycan 20:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Not at all -- as my edit summary says, WP:CENTNOT policy doesn't allow it and I suggest that you find more appropriate places to advertise it. A bit of AGF, perhaps? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Pot meet Kettle. You lost any GF when you tried to get the locking admin to insert the diputed link during the process. This is not a content dispute. It is a BLP dispute. I see no problem with a centralized discussion. Arzel (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

What? Perhaps a diff is in order... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The idea of trying to push this to a close so quickly would not look like a good faith effort to let the process run its natural course. There is no rush, and to rush will throw the whole process into dispute as an improper attempt to influence the outcome of an RfC and would likey result in Arbcom. I would also like to remind Be and Nomo that the is not a vote. The closing admin will have to decide if this action is a violation of BLP regardless of the number of people that comment one way or the other. Seriously, BeCritical, what is your rush? Do you care about WP policies or is your goal to simply get the link included as soon as possible in any way possible?Arzel (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Right now (20:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)) this RfC is at the top of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law. I would say that other categories this article might fall under are Media and Culture. Those arguing that including the link fails BLP might also claim this would fall under Biographies; it utterly fails Technology since the SEO question has been put to bed. Then it's possible the "rick" question (once we get to it, please don't think I'm trying to jump the gun here) should be added to Language. Now it seems to me a modicum of caution might be warranted about possible over-advertising, but I consent to whoever else's notice other editors wish to bring this, and I won't accuse anyone of forum-shopping. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 20:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The natural course of the process would have been to insert the link per the poll discussion. RfC's don't have a set time period. And it is only natural to expedite this RfC considering the circumstances. And again, there is no "rush," but neither should a small cadre of editors be able to block this link for over a month. So let's close it as soon as possible when it's reasonable to assume that the community has spoken. B——C_ritical 20:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Question: if, as those in the minority keep reminding us, the number of people on either side is irrelevant and all that matters is the closing admin's judgment on the BLP question, what would be the purpose of leaving the RFC open for a lengthy period of time? The only reason I can see to leave it open longer is for more people to comment, but the number of commenters doesn't matter, right? Is the hope that on the 29th day, someone new will come in and make a much more convincing argument than anyone else before him? Personally, I think seven days would be plenty and it's unlikely there'd be any game-changing developments between the eighth day and the 30th. Theoldsparkle (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree. B——C_ritical 21:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no harm to leaving the RfC open for the normal 30 day period and ensuring wide participation. Closing it early fans the fire of people who would dispute the legitimacy of the process. One hopes that if the discussion remains and is closed by a respected, uninvolved administrator, people will abide by the result whatever it is, even if they don't approve. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you think it would be seriously possible to claim bad process at 7 days given the extent of the consensus? B——C_ritical 23:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, any closure before the RfC Bot is fixed is going to be met with resistance.The Bot doesn't seem to want to add the topic to the list, and you can't manually fix the list since the Bot will come back and remove the fix. As it is, it is not even a true RfC since there is no general request for comments. I have a note off to Chris about the bot. Hopefully he can fix the problem.Arzel (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course. But we're talking about a week here. You don't think the bot will get fixed soon? What do you mean about no general request for comments? B——C_ritical 23:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Since the RfC Bot keeps removing the listing from the RfC page there is no general notice that the RfC even exists. Most people came here because you informed them based off their previous involvement. If you don't want a future edit war then just let it work out. Constantly harping about closing early or trying to push the process along faster does not appear to be a good faith effort of the process. There is no hurry, so I don't see what the big issue of waiting for the process to work itself through. Arzel (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

For the record, when I said seven days would be adequate in my view, it was under the assumption that the listing would be fixed soon. I agree that the RFC should be fully advertised as appropriate for at least most of that seven days. But I still see no reason to keep it going further than that, and the only argument to do so has been "What's the rush?" Well, by that logic, we could leave it open for sixty days, or six months, or a year, or more. There's no "rush"; a "rush" would imply a desire to end the discussion when there's still a good reason to leave it open. What's being expressed is a desire for action when there's no apparent reason to delay it (and, coincidentally I'm sure, the only people arguing for delaying action are also those who want to maintain the status quo). "RFCs are usually 30 days" is not a good reason for why this RFC should last 30 days if, after 7 days, both positions have been fully argued, the relative number of supporters for each position is pretty clear, and neither side can suggest what other information we need for a resolution. Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a better gauge would be an RfC duration predicated upon whether or not the RfC is still producing editor comment. Perhaps, after 7 days, no responses in 48 hours might be a reasonable indication that the RfC has produced all the comments it is likely to elicit. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not illogical, except that what we keep hearing, from the people who are objecting to an earlier close, is that it doesn't matter how many people comment anyway. So I would personally be okay with using that parameter, but I am going to point out that it doesn't make a lot of sense when combined with the ostensible expectation that the closing admin is just going to say "No, you can't include the link because it violates BLP and that's all there is to it." Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, were I to have my druthers, I'd much prefer to canvass the entire population of WP designated Admins for a mandatory expression of opinion on this question and let their collective wisdom decide. Now THAT would be an RfC I'd PAY to watch. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be interesting. Unless someone seriously thinks that after 7 days "something" is going to change, I don't see what objection there would be to closing. And the RfC has been properly listed since last night. B——C_ritical 18:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Bot

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

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

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

Edit request

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

In the second reference at the end of the lead paragraph, please disambiguate The Stranger to The Stranger (newspaper).--ShelfSkewed Talk 20:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. Seems straightforward enough, hopefully there's no controversy over whether The Stranger is actually a newspaper or something. :) Franamax (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This was done by The Anome. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually it was done by me, but Robofish nuked my comment (now restored). The Anome caught the other two further down, which I've just now reformatted. Franamax (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Another edit request

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

To whoever answers the request above: while you're at it, could you restore the {{mergeto}} template to the top of this article? I only just noticed that a (thoroughly sensible) proposal to merge this article with Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality has been ongoing since January, but someone removed the merge template from this one. Robofish (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh my, there are two of these articles? The tag was removed here by an involved editor. The merge discussion is still active and has not been closed by a neutral party. The normal period for an RFC to run is 30 days. Thus I have implemented this request. Given the level of acrimony on this issue, I would suggest that involved editors refrain from "closing" things, and seek outside assistance instead. Franamax (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This merger request has been proposed at least three times before, and has been struck down each time. It's not going to happen. That last few times it was proposed, the tag was removed because of the snowball rule. --Wikiepdiax818 (talk) 06:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

All quite interesting but not particularly relevant, as I did not judge the merits of the merge proposal, only its existence. Whether the proposal succeeds or fails, it is currently active and the notice tag here should not get sideswiped by the latest edit war. Franamax (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I think your comment "Oh my, there are two of these articles?" speaks pretty clearly as to your view of the merits of the merge proposal. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it speaks to my assessment of the potential for edit-warring and endless bitter argument. I have very little interest in the subject matter. Franamax (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

In view of your restoring the removal of the link from this talk pages and your earlier threat to block anyone who pointed to a sub-page of the site during the discussion, you do seem to be siding with the camp that claims this is a BLP matter, one of the main questions that will have to be decided by the RFC's closing administrator. This particular proposal is related to the edit wars that resulted in article protection (the editor requesting that the proposal be restored is also involved). This article has survived five deletion attempts and several merge attempts as it is, and the latest probably won't succeed either. No point trying to find the WP:Right Version here, probably best to stick to uncontroversial edits until the BLP matter is decided. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not siding with anyone, I'm being prudent and procedurally correct. A BLP concern has been raised with live-linking to the website. Live links are not needed for the purpose of the discussion, so I have removed them while the discussion runs. It is within my mandate as an administrator to respond to BLP concerns by removing material until the concern has been assessed. And by doing it as an admin, I prevent edit-warring, also within my mandate. My actions can be reviewed at AN/I any time (where incidentally, you can also edit-war to your heart's content, though probably not for long). In the case of the merge tag, I am just restoring notice of a current discussion, as outlined in the procedures for requested merges. I have no opinion at all on whether the articles should actually be merged, that would require actually, you know, reading them and stuff. Franamax (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Where did Franamax threaten to block people for linking to what?? B——C_ritical 19:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably any one of these times: . That's going back about 800 edits in just the last two weeks here, people sure seem to have a lot of opinions on this subject. Franamax (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I see, thanks. B——C_ritical 19:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Do I detect a bit of pique, Franamax? I'm not opposing your actions, I don't edit war, and there's no reason to question your neutrality on the outcome of this dispute. I personally think the merge proposal should be closed in due course rather than simply deleted. Regarding the link in the article: we're in an RfC, there will be an administrative close, people ought to respect the outcome if handled fairly and work through channels if not, and that's that. Nothing that happens in the meanwhile is a big deal because this will all be resolved. I'm just observing that your use of administrative privileges favors one side of the dispute, and that you made a disputed edit to a protected page in support, giving the appearance of being non-neutral even if that's not your intent. If avoiding edit wars were the only goal you could have accomplished that just as easily and no less correctly by threatening that anyone removing links from other editors' comments would be blocked, or better yet, that edit warring on either side will not be tolerated. Yet you sided with an extreme, and disputed, interpretation of BLP, which appears to be on the losing end of the RfC: that a notable website that we and the major press have covered is so toxic that we can't link to it even in the course of talking about it. Yes, it is necessary to link to things to talk about them. To argue otherwise is absurd. If that were the case why do we even have links? The IP's argument here was very different before you gutted it. That's taking sides, not following an administrative mandate. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

If there's pique there, it's that I was already supposed to be out on a hiking trail when I made that post, but it would only be pique at myself for getting distracted instead of getting out of breath. It is almost inevitable that any admin action will "favour" one side of the dispute. Semi-protecting an article favours the editors with accounts. Full-protecting favours whoever had the determination and numbers to war the longest. Closing an AFD as delete favours the deletionists. You may say I sided with an extreme interpretation, I may say (and do say, since that was my thought process) that I acted in a prudent fashion, until BLP issues could be resolved. I believe that acting prudently is also within the mandate of an admin. As far as the necessity of linking for the purpose of this discussion, I watchlist this page, the Help desk, the New contributors' help page, Editor assistance/Requests, VP/T and RD/S, RD/C and RD/M - I have not seen any editord asking how to get to any website that isn't coloured blue, not for the last 2 weeks and not for as long as I can remember, so I discount your assertion for the particular case of this page. As to gutting an IP editor's argument, that editor was free to return and reformulate it if they were committed to editing here; and I used the wording "removed", which clearly indicates that something may be found in page history, where you will note no revdeletions. Now I definitely have seen editors not understanding this, but it's always quickly resolved by someone pointing out the "View history" tab at the top of the page - so no-one is prevented from viewing the original ergument. Sorry, I don't see where you're going with this. Franamax (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's just make sure to get the RfC gets closed expeditiously, and everything here will be unimportant details. B——C_ritical 05:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I went hiking too, didn't cross my mind until I got back. Truly, this isn't worth missing a tree for :) I accept that you're impartial and attempting to act so, but claiming that links don't matter because people can use google or page history to find missing links takes us to a faraway place. Obviously, they do. That's why we have links. More importantly, after five deletion attempts and several merge attempts, best not restore a merge proposal under cover of article protection. A truly evenhanded approach would maintain calm and not weigh in on the matter up for discussion. Where I'm going is to urge that you not get drawn into siding with one side of a content argument or the other. Best not to jump the gun on that, a decision will come down soon enough. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Still a few weeks before the birds start coming back here in force, that really decorates the trees up good. :) Please don't conflate the proposed necessity of a live link in the article itself, which is the subject matter of debate here, with the necessity of a live link in the discussion on including the live link in the article. For the purpose of avoiding a BLP concern, and assuming reasonable competence among editors wishing to comment here, I honestly don't see damage being caused by using a plain URL instead. And again on the merge tag, it is an ongoing discussion which is generally noted as such on affected articles. Can you point me to a guideline clause which says when such notices should be removed, which contradicts my interpretation? The tag I restored says "discuss this", not "support this". What side am I supporting by restoring a notice of a discussion that has not been closed yet? On the contrary, if I anticipated the eventual result and declined the request, I certainly would be favouring one side. Franamax (talk) 08:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikinews link

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

Wikinews recently published an article regarding this subject. Please add {{wikinews|Santorum neologism gains prominence during US election cycle}} to the article. Cocoaguy ここがいい 02:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Perhaps one can say with some cirtitude that this suggested14:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC) administratively inserted edit is likely to be rather contentious. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I did it before reading the talk page and only afterwards drafted my response below. I did it because as a Wikinews reviewer and admin, I saw that the story had been published and per ordinary practice, we routinely add cross-wiki links. Personally, I don't see anything particularly contentious about it at all. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I did it before reading the talk page...

Please explain how your edit reflects concern for (or even cognizance of for that matter) the "fully protected" template mandate (emphasis mine)...

Please discuss any changes on the talk page; you may use the {{editprotected}} template to ask an administrator to make the edit if it is supported by consensus.

JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Because adding inter-wiki links is uncontroversial maintenance. There are 3,250 to Wikinews, 73,455 to Commons categories, 1,995 to Wikibooks. Given that such cross-wiki links are supported by the existing consensus of "yeah, we do it on every other article", I don't really see adding it as particularly a big deal. I still don't. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Done Above reasons for noninclusion are unconvincing. First of all, editorial decisions about neutrality are up to Wikinews editors and reviewers. All Misplaced Pages policy/guidelines/meta-space advice has to say is "Misplaced Pages encourages links from Misplaced Pages articles to pages on sister projects when such links are likely to be useful to our readers" (Misplaced Pages:Wikimedia sister projects#When to link). It is quite self-evidently useful: it allows readers to see a snapshot of news about this issue.

Reviewers at Wikinews have decided that it adheres to the project's own editorial guidelines, which include NPOV. It was reviewed by Pi zero, who basically reviews by the book and has never really shown favour or fancy to particular topics or editors as far as I can tell.

Prominence doesn't imply legitimacy. To quote wikt:prominence: "The state of being prominent: widely known or eminent". Key word: "or". Widely known or eminent. Seems pretty widely known: that's why it's an issue for Mr Santorum. Let's see: no connection to the election cycle? Check the sources on the Wikinews story: there are stories directly tying the issue as it affects Mr. Santorum to his performance in the Republican primaries and caucuses.

Cross-project links are rightly given wide latitude: we link to Commons categories even though the photos contained therein may violate BLP or the descriptions of those photos may not match up with NPOV. Wikinews stories often contain original reporting, which goes against WP:OR. Same with Wikiversity. Wikibooks contains instructional manuals which are both a violation of WP:NOT and possibly a violation of both WP:UNDUE and NPOV (OMG, the existence of a Wikibook on how to learn Swahili kind of implies that we ought to learn Swahili). With Wikinews, we can do something radical... let readers decide for themselves what to think about the story. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Umm, Tom Morris, I suggest you self-revert here and let discussion proceed. If I'm reading this right, you acted despite a clear objection to the editprotected request, and you are declaring this "uncontroversial" based on your position "as a Wikinews reviewer and admin"? Please reconsider and instead just make your case for inclusion here on the talk page, as an ordinary editor of this website. Franamax (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Then you've read wrong. I acted before I saw the talk page, then I saw the talk page and responded to the {{editprotected}}. I have made my case above. I won't self-revert, but feel free to revert per WP:BRD. I expect the discussion will be as enlightening and worthwhile as all previous discussions on this topic have been. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit as you suggested. In future, please investigate the circumstances when editing a full-protected page (which I believe turns a different colour in the edit window for everyone, not just me). Me, I find the discussion a little lengthy, but my presence here is not as part of the discussion, so I'm spared much of the need to respond to point and counterpoint. It sure is a long discussion though. :) Franamax (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Franamax, you currently have something like 23 posts on this talk page. This one, despite the disclaimer at the beginning, leaves no doubt as to your own perspective on the issue we have been discussing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems that you have remarkably little access to my mental states (which is good!), as I've argued myself back and forth on this a few times now. I took advantage of that recent hike to reduce down the principles based on all the comments I've read here and my own understanding of policy. There are two deep ones yet, which I haven't gone right down into. Also, I'm not sure of exactly how to weight each point. Anyway, I'll put you down as a "no" for me being one of the three to close the discussion. Franamax (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, it sounds here like you are giving *very* thoughtful consideration as to how you might !vote above. This is admirable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Why thank you for that nice and backhanded compliment. I have no intention of !voting, did you miss my post(s) above where I mentioned how little I care about the topic (or whatever broad swath of topics this is part of)? Thank you for your distrust though. :) Franamax (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Ah crap. I totally agree that this should be uncontroversial, but, well, ... hmm. My first reaction was Oh come on, it's just a goddamn news article, and a short precís-type one at that. What the hell's the problem now? Then, I looked at it and I can see how it might look (to someone opposed to either the existence of this article in general, or the proposed - RfC'd - external link specifically) like a bit of an end run around the RfC. While the Wikinews piece doesn't swing non-neutral in the body, it does directly link to the spreadingsantorum website, using the description: Spreading Santorum, official website created by Dan Savage to document the spread of the phenomenon. I can see how there'd be good faith objections to this presentation. On the other hand, there's really nothing wrong with linking Wikinews per se. There may be the seeds of a discussion here about Misplaced Pages insulating itself from the unsavory business of linking such dastardly things, and one layer of Wikimedia comparmentalization being insufficient isolation for Misplaced Pages. But that's way the hell beyond the pale for this page here and now. This is all by way of me announcing my intention to edit the Wikinews EL section to eliminate the words document the and of in the hope that this action forestalls a big tizzy on this page (and frankly because NPOV seems to require it). I believe this should be sufficient to justify keeping the Wikinews link (and nothing above suggests otherwise). ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 17:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Before the discussion on this goes much further, I'll suggest reading here and looking again at the proposed link. I can seek further clarification on this if editors feel it necessary. Franamax (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I can seek further clarification on this if editors feel it necessary.

Clarification on the exigencies involved in a WP ARBCOM sanctioned editor utilizing Wikinews to arguably promote the vilification of that related BLP would be, IMHO, most welcome and entirely appropriate...if not mandatory. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

English Misplaced Pages's ArbCom has absolutely no bearing on the operation of Wikinews. If you believe any Wikinews editor has failed to adhere to Wikinews policy, Wikinews' ANI equivalent is that way. Enwikipediathink is discouraged. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sheesh Franamax, can you tell us instead of making us read a whole ArbCom case :( ? B——C_ritical 18:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, that was one of the shorter ones, as I remember. :) I suggest only reading the page I linked, and the links contained in the body if you feel inclined. That page alone is sufficent for me to consider this a controversial edit, considering the page history of the link being considered for inclusion. I saw the edit request when it arrived and was waiting (I figured 24 hours or so) for further comments here, to assess consensus on what to do from the regular editors here, taking it at face value. Precipitous action on the part of another led me to look a bit further. Franamax (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Supposing Tom's objection is moot (I don't for a second, but what the hell), it still remains to be seen what the objection is. "ARBCOM sanctioned editor utilizing Wikinews to further promote the vilification of a BLP" - This has not been established. If you are asking, "Should we determine if this is in fact what happened," then yes, that's a reasonable query. Nothing I see in the Wikinews piece suggests that's what happened, but on the other hand I'm just one person. I invite a detailed summary of how it "promote the vilification of a BLP." ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 18:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This has not been established. If you are asking,...

Please see "arguably"...and yes, I am asking. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, missed the second edit. Thank you for clarifying. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 18:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps some further clarification in terms of defining the issue? Per the ARBCOM imposed sanction, does the incorporation of a link to a Wikinews article primarily authored by an editor who is...

...prohibited from editing articles that are substantially biographies of living people if, broadly but reasonably construed, (i) the articles already refer to politics or religion or social controversy; or (ii) his edits introduce to the articles material about politics or religion or social controversy. However, Cirt is permitted to edit other articles that refer incidentally to such living people providing (i) the focus of the articles is not substantially biographical and (ii) his edits are not biographical in nature.

...constitute an introduction by that editor of associated BLP content by WMF proxy? JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll make explicit the key to this line of inquiry: does the authorship on a different project by an editor sanctioned here, automatically render the content of the crosslinked article (and thereby the crosslink itself) tainted, regardless of the fact that it was reviewed and approved by a Wikinews administrator, and actually linked here by a WP admin? We seem to be skirting a number of lines here. I'm not convinced that such third- or fourth-hand involvement renders the Wikinews piece unfit for crosslinkage. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 19:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, presumably we should have a wikinews link, an external link, not keep trying to delete or merge the article or slap it with dispute tags, and in general cover this as we would cover any other notable piece of web content. However, that's a decision the community is trying to make right now. The question of the day is whether we should conduct business as usual with this article, or instead avoid inclusion of certain objectionable things that we would cover if they were not so offensive to some. In that context seemingly routine procedural and style edits become contentious. Thus, as I argue above regarding re-inserting a disputed merge tag, it's best to simply avoid use of administrative tools to change the article if there's a good faith objection. The closing admin will presumably rule on whether we can take a landslide of support for including something as consensus to include it, or whether the strenuous objections of the minority establish a lack of consensus, or our fundamental content policies forbid the content regardless of consensus. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Summarizing one of the arguments.

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

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

What counts as an "attack" ? Is making fun of someone's last name an attack? Mr Savage's name is already something of a pejorative, and we certainly know that a word can have multiple meanings. What qualifies Mr Savage's campaign as an attack? DS (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It is (as your post implies) a judgment call -- which is why the argument "It's a BLP violation!!!!!" can't work as trump here. Some would like it to work that way, but your post helps show why it can't. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

What qualifies Mr Savage's campaign as an attack?

Perhaps even more to the point, how does Misplaced Pages define an "attack page"? From WP:ATTACK...

An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject.

Need we go on for some further interpolation/sourcing? JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not our place to make those distinctions or judgments, because that is inherently an exercise in censorship and POV. If someone in the real world decides to do something stupid, or great, or destructive, and the world decides that it is notable, then with few limited exceptions and subject to all kinds of rules and editorial discretion, we provide encyclopedic coverage of the thing. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Emphasis on "encyclopedic," something that's increasingly hard to come by in the absence of any Misplaced Pages policies against puerility. Yesterday the Main Page featured Cartman Gets An Anal Probe. Somebody suggests we aspire to a something more highbrow and somebody else promptly starts going on about "censorship." It doesn't occur to the libertarians who dominate Misplaced Pages that this all amounts to a deep-seated bias against social conservatism.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

A classic! Time for some Youtube... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

And today WikiNews' Main Page hosts "art" featuring Santorum's head, praying hands, and a dildo. Perhaps someone can explain why positioning Misplaced Pages in the information market as a shock site serves the project better than aiming for authoritative status.--Brian Dell (talk)

(returns from youtube) that was a great one, especially the part where the aliens apologize to the cows! Too funny. I can't speak for the politics of the featured article crew, they're a funny hyperactive lot that often ends up at ArbCom, but inclusionism is not a biased exercise, it means we include conservative subjects and liberal subjects and everything in between or otherwise. Social conservatism is a worthy subject too, in case anyone wants to bring The 700 Club up to featured article status. South Park happens to be one of its critiques. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be pleasant (though I'm not holding my breath) if we could avoid wasting time on arguments rooted in glaring logical errors. WP:ATTACK refers to Misplaced Pages stuff (articles, talk pages, user pages, etc.). Spreadingsantorum.com is not an "Attack Page" in these terms because it is not part of Misplaced Pages. Conflating these things does nothing to enlighten anyone here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"It doesn't occur to the libertarians who dominate Misplaced Pages that this all amounts to a deep-seated bias against social conservatism"

No, because American social conservatism doesn't share the same values that Misplaced Pages does. Misplaced Pages isn't biased to Thai, Russian, Chinese, or Muslim conservatism either. While you can expect articles to treat these subjects neutrally, you can't expect the views of those subjects to bias the meta of the project. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The ex-senator himself described it as making "a big joke out of my name" - and most sources use the word joke to describe it, I think.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"Santorum" is essentially a non-existent substance

Despite being an homosexual, Dan Savage evidently has little experience with actual anal sex, as there is no “frothy by-product.” The anal sphincter is ordinarily very tight and has a “squeegee effect” upon the penis, allowing very little lube to come out afterwards, and almost never a trace of fecal material. Whatever has been deposited inside almost always remains inside until expelled in a subsequent and ordinary bowel movement. Dutchman Schultz (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Savage says santorum only exists by accident or if you're doing it wrong. This point has nothing to do with improving the article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I think it is, or could be relevant, as it bears on whether the campaign is a serious and mean attempt to ruin Santorum's life hatefully, or to make fun and cause him to be an object of derision in a more light-spirited way. This fact points toward the latter. If it doesn't actually exist generally, then that gives the campaign an extra level of humor, since Santorum and his followers wouldn't know that it doesn't exist, which bears upon the notion that law makers don't know what they're regulating. So yeah, it's relevant, and especially relevant to the judgment as to whether the link is to a hate site or a joke site: we all know that people are reacting to the RfC above based on their feeling about such things. B——C_ritical 06:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's clearly the former. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

And I think it's clearly not. The site engages in little more than juvenile name-calling, and does not advocate violence against Santorum, or stripping him of his rights or otherwise maltreating him. Nor is there any libelous content whatsoever- namecalling is not libel by a long shot. And to put things in perspective, it's positively G-rated compared to Larry Flynt's Campari ad parody about Jerry Falwell. In fact, the site and the definition are extremely mild and innocuous in comparison to Santorum's own pronouncements about gays, which is what triggered Savage's response, after all. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It's still making news, however. - Dravecky (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Netburn, Deborah (February 8, 2012). "Santorum isn't only candidate whose search results go negative". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved February 9, 2012.

I'm unclear how the OR and SYNTH that this section consists of has any bearing on the article. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 15:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It pertains to the question of whether the article should contain a link to the website that Mr Savage began for his neologism campaign. DS (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That claim is understood by way of the fact that this section exists. What is still unclear is what effect the existence or non-existence of the substance has upon Santorum, his presidential campaign, Savage, his column, the "campaign for 'santorum' neologism," search engine results, or anything else that this article discusses. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 17:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the parody question is terribly relevant, but the comparison between Misplaced Pages's coverage of Flynt's Falwell ad and Savage's Santorum website is quite close. Flynt, upset with Falwell's moralizing about sex, published a fake interview in which Falwell describes losing his virginity to his mother in an outhouse. The Supreme Court ruled that emotional harm intentionally inflicted on Falwell by Flynt is not a compensable damage due to free speech concerns. Savage, upset with Santorum's moralizing about sex, published a fake definition of Santorum's name involving a fictitious bodily fluid. In Savage's case we don't even get that far because unlike Flynt's ad, spreadingsantorum does not make any claims of fact about Santorum. But if it came to it, harm to Santorum is neither here nor there when one person is expressing his opposition to another person's politics. We have an article about each of the political attacks. That's much of what politics is, one person deliberately trying to discredit another to hurt their public standing. We're not the Supreme Court and Misplaced Pages isn't required to avoid censoring everything that passes as free speech. But for our own reasons we do try to avoid censoring content on the mere basis of being offensive. For what it's worth we do have not just a link but a reproduction of the Flynt ad in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. Flynt died in 2007 but the image was there without opposition (as far as I can tell) before his death. You could make most of the same arguments there, as with most BADSITES we would want to remove, that it's not necessary to see it in order to understand the subject, that letting more people see it achieves the creator's intentions, and so on. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It’s not “fake”, but a veritable definition now: santorum has several years of independent usage conveying Savage’s meaning, particularly in erotica. And Dutchman’s “almost never” ≠ “fictitious”. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't being precise. The similarity is that both Flynt and Savage published outlandish made up stuff by way of associating taboo sexual practices with people they viewed as hypocritical moralizers. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, it ought to be renamed

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

Works for me. The source presented by Becritical is hardly the only one. I doubt there are many sources for "Campaign for santorum neologism". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait, we don't name articles according to the slang used in newspapers. We name articles by choosing the most descriptive terms - "Google problem" is simply vague and non-descriptive. Yes it has certain merits, namely that the slur has largely been promoted via Google bombing, and that Google thinks preserving the effects of Google bombs is some kind of principle. Yes there are weaknesses in the current title, but its preferable to something vague. -Stevertigo (t | c) 05:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"we don't name articles according to the slang used in newspapers" Yes we do, read the policies. B——C_ritical 05:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

to me, it seems like titling this article that way promotes google over other search engines. this article was titled santorum (neologism) for a very long time until someone decided to claim that it is not a neologism at all and renamed it. -badmachine 07:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

“Santorum's Google problem” would be a misnomer; it's also a Bing problem, etc. If we did go with that name, I’d prefer “Santorum's "Google problem"” and not limiting our scope to Google. And in my opinion, nine years isn’t long enough for a word to stop being a neologism. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and to take the COMMONNAME example, Snoop Dogg promotes the career of Calvin Cordozar Broadus, Jr. To give you another, better example, Rick Santorum promotes the political career of Richard John Santorum. I'm sure there are many more and better examples. This is what we're supposed to do. We could use the quotes. B——C_ritical 19:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

As WP:RNEUTRAL says "n most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term." That's already the case as "Santorum's Google problem" redirects to what is substantively a Dan Savage campaign, not some problematic Rick Santorum initiative.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how that applies. COMMONNAME is policy, what you cite is a guideline. WP:RNEUTRAL notes what often happens, but COMMONNAME says how titles should be picked. B——C_ritical 19:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The status quo is that "Santorum's Google problem" is the redirect and "Campaign for "santorum" neologism" is the title. You want this reversed. WP:RNEUTRAL, however, says "more latitude is allowed" concerning possible non-neutral language for redirects. This suggests that unless you're angling for a fight the more contentious (in terms of neutrality) language should be the redirect and the less contentious language the title, ie the status quo. That said, given that the DAB page that the hatnote on "Rick Santorum" currently directs to will likely be deleted with the hatnote directing straight to this page, should the hatnote on "Rick Santorum" direct to "(Rick) Santorum's Google problem" it should become more obvious to the editing community that there shouldn't be a hatnote at all to "Rick Santorum" since "Main articles:..." are section or chapter hatnotes not article hatnotes.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I really don't know much about those mechanics. I don't care about fights, a fight or lack thereof shouldn't be a consideration in writing an encyclopedia. I just think we should use the common name per policy. I also don't care if there is a hatnote on the main Rick Santorum article, and I doubt that should be a consideration. Am I misunderstanding something? B——C_ritical 20:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If the case for having a hatnote to the whole Rick Santorum article becomes substantively weaker by retitling to "Santorum's Google problem", that suggests that your retitling proposal creates a more substantive issue than just a naming convention question. Is this article primarily about Rick Santorum's issues or is it primarily about Dan Savage's issues with Rick Santorum? If the former then I would agree with a retitling. Absent this sort of inquiry your characterization of the question to consider here is too narrow.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Some people might like it if there weren't a hat above the Rick Santorum article. But I don't think we really have to consider the things you mention. We're explicitly instructed not to by policy. Names are supposed to be common, not strictly descriptive or NPOV. And this subject definitely has a common name. B——C_ritical 21:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• As has been said multiple times before, "Santorum's "Google" Problem" (for whatever permutation of quotation marks) is passive, inaccurate and implies a meaning neither the text nor the sources convey. Obviously this discusion is being recapitulated above, but we should recognize that COMMONNAME and NPOV (and our sensibilities regarding content and presentation in general) variously coexist and conflict. We have to balance the expectations of one guideline against another. We shouldn't be visualizing this discussion as a series of trump cards played atop one another. Protonk (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

We're not looking for perfect neutrality in names. No one is arguing it's a perfect name, it's just the name of the subject, and we need exceptional reasons for rejecting it. I haven't see such reasons. Rather, if I recall, COMMONNAME was not really discussed as the major policy we should consider. B——C_ritical 04:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not only is it not just Google, but, especially in the current context of the Republican primaries, it's not even clear that it's a problem. The whole thing highlights Santorum's opposition to gays, and that opposition is a big part of his current appeal. That some media outlets find this a convenient shorthand doesn't make it neutral or accurate. Is there any RS that goes beyond chuckling at Santorum's discomfiture, and specifically avers that the purported "problem" has lost him more votes than it's gained him? My guess is that it's helping him rally the bigots, who are a not inconsiderable portion of the Republican primary electorate. JamesMLane t c 05:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Dang... all these true statements which are utterly irrelevant to the question. This last is original research. This is it's name. B——C_ritical 06:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No, its name is "SpreadingSantorum" or "SpreadingSantorum.com". That would be an appropriate article title, under the neutral application of general Misplaced Pages rules. Unfortunately, a large number of editors won't accept such a name, for political reasons, so that's out. "Santorum's Google problem" is a term used by some sources but that doesn't transform it into the actual name of the subject. (By analogy, "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" gets 2.7 million hits. "Obamacare" gets 11.6 million hits. Our article is still properly at the former rather than the latter because the former is the real name.) Now, given that the correct real name is unavailable because so many editors object to using it, we can certainly consider the alternative of using a media catchphrase that's common (but by no means universal). Its media use is a factor in its favor. To my mind, though, it's not enough to overcome the problems. The original research would come in us asserting, as fact, that this is a problem for Santorum, based on nothing more than some journalists' desire for a catchphrase. JamesMLane t c 11:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the site name would be good, but it's not as popular: "santorum's google problem", with the quotes, gets About 169,000 results, and spreadingsantorum.com gets About 10,100 results. Also the site name would limit the scope of the article way too much. And I don't know what factors would influence the Obamacare issue although it seems quite different and may be subject to precedence on Misplaced Pages. If NPOV doesn't apply strictly to names, then OR wouldn't either, would it? Anyway, it just seems to me that people are not making arguments based on policy here, but reaching for other things because of political reasons as you say. I wish there were some pushback on that. B——C_ritical 19:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per JamesMLane. The history of this topic predates the current American GOP presidential contest by several years. Renaming the article to "Santorum's Google problem" will only reflect accurately the current news media spotlight on the GOP race. The Google problem title ignores the topic's history.WP:RECENT might apply here? BV 22:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

This would be a good argument, but is't factually incorrect, as the name predates the presidential race. B——C_ritical 23:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead text for article rename

In 2003, in response to comments by then-U.S. Senator Rick Santorum that were criticized as anti-gay, sex columnist and gay rights activist Dan Savage began a campaign to (in Savage's words) "memorialize the Santorum scandal by attaching his name to a sex act that would make his big, white teeth fall out of his big, empty head".

Santorum made the comments to which Savage took offense in an April 2003 interview with the Associated Press. Discussing a recent United States Supreme Court decision striking down an anti-sodomy law, Santorum compared the right to consensual (homosexual) sex within the home to polygamy, incest and adultery, and made references to bestiality and child sexual abuse in the context of distinguishing them from monogamous, heterosexual marriage as forms of deviant sexual behavior.

Savage subsequently asked his readers to coin a definition for santorum, and announced the winner as "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex." Savage created a web site to promote this definition, which became a prominent search result for Santorum's name on several web search engines. These prominent results became known as Santorum's Google problem. In 2010 Savage offered 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 September 2011 Santorum asked Google to remove the definition from its search engine index. In response, Google said that the company does not remove content from search results except in very limited circumstances.

The only change is "These prominent results became known as Santorum's Google problem." If someone wants a more traditional style of defining the title first, please say so. B——C_ritical 01:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The lead is POV

Becritical, why lead with the "big white teeth" comment? Its tertiary to the topic. -Stevertigo (t | c) 05:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The only thing changed from the current lead is "These prominent results became known as Santorum's Google problem." That lead is not my preferred version, but we should discuss it in a different section. B——C_ritical 05:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I think (but I'm not 100% sure) that the "big white teeth" quote was added because there was disagreement about what Savage was actually trying to do (shock Santorum, or whatever) so it was decided the most accurate thing was to quote what he said his goal was. Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

An even more egregious POV transgression is the first paragraph allusion to a Santorum "scandal". The purported mitigation of this blatant POV composition (was anyone else aware of Santorum being involved in a "scandal"?) was the rather underwhelming concession to "compromise" by placing Savage's characterization in quotes. That's the type of editing that purports to represent NPOV "consensus" building/editing in a contentious atmosphere created, IMHO, in tandem with a perceived improvement in Santorum's political gravitas. I've no intent, however, to pursue it further here given all the irons in this current fire. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The body of this article already quotes Savage's claim that policy statement(s) by Santorum constituted Santorum's involvement in a "scandal" and Savage's desire to see teeth fall out of an "empty head." The question is why this is so important it needs to be repeated word for word in the very first sentence of the article. If truly so notable perhaps a paraphrase could be used for one of the two incidents on the order of Savage hoping that the teeth would fall out of the "empty head" of the grad school educated lawyer.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not necessary. See my suggestion here. It was added merely to avoid using the word "shock." B——C_ritical 19:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not add illustrations for clarity, and to brighten up the page?

I think it would really help the article look better. For example there is this photo - http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Rick_Santorum_official_photo.jpg - but I am sure there are better ones! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Time to close the RfC

It's been 6 days since the RfC was properly listed , so it looks like it's about time to request a close. What's the consensus on this? B——C_ritical 04:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The numerical trend is clear and extremely unlikely to change, and all arguments that are ever going to be made already have been. In fact, this is just a rehash of the long straw vote that preceeded it. Close at will, as far as I am concerned. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Lately, from memory, the ratio of exclude to include has been shifting from nearer 1:3 to near 1:2. If I'm right, the first ratio may represent the higher number of already-involved or interested editors, likely to vote comment early, compared with the views of disinterested voters who will turn up in a trickle over time. If that's what's happening, it would probably be valuable to leave this open another couple of weeks, as the later voters contributors may be a more representative sample. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Votes, eh? I salute your fairness, but it's supposed to be about arguments. B——C_ritical 05:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Lol. Yeah, but as Dominus said, not likely anything at all will change, don't you think? You really think someone will come up with a killer argument? B——C_ritical 05:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Neither of us knows what may come up. The last thing you want, though, is claims of illegitimacy, due to a rushed close when it looked like support was shifting. Just let it run. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

There will be claims of illegitimacy anyway from the die-hard Santorum supporters, and as BeCritical said, hoping for a "killer argument" is not a reason to protract an already protracted process. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a highly contentious RfC with very experienced editors on both sides. I agree it's highly improbable a strong exclusion argument will emerge. All the more reason to leave it open to prove the point. Closing it early gains nothing, and looks out-of-process, unseemly, and panicked. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

(u/d) I've been watching comments get added on both sides at a rate of 1 or 2 per day after the initial flurry. For the most part, they add an indivdual assessment of the competing priorities and seem to represent more "outside" views. Why not wait until the RFC itself has been inactive for (say) 3 days? Since presumably the main participants are still agreed on seeking an outside closer or closers, that would be a more compelling argument on the necessity for a close. Franamax (talk) 06:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Franmax, what you say would be reasonable if this were a vote. But not if it's about argumentation. What we have here is the kind of disruption that Misplaced Pages allows, which is an article closed down by a minority who can then cause the process to go on for weeks and weeks. They have made editing cease. We should not allow such disruption. No one can legitimately argue that the RfC has any logical reason to continue. A couple more opinions or single-edit users won't help. If they force us to go to ArbCom, then we should do it without waiting forever for arbitrary points (such as three days without a vote) that no one thinks will change anything. One side of this argument has already said that consensus does not matter. B——C_ritical 18:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope -- it is that consensus can not override WP:BLP which is quite a different matter. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

So, let's request a close. B——C_ritical 20:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Same thing. Whether BLP applies or not is, in this case, a judgment informed by the closing administrator's understanding of policy as well as the policy arguments made by the participants here. If the closing administrator is persuaded that BLP applies we have a definitive outcome that including the link is not permissible. If the closing administrator concludes that it is not a BLP matter and that editorial consensus is to include the link, that is the outcome. Subject to any normal review process of course. In either case, further edits against that outcome could be reverted, enforced by administrative action if necessary. The losing side is entitled to stomp around and vent, but as far as the article page is concerned they can either move on or take their argument to block review. We involved parties cannot convincingly declare who is right or wrong, just that there's a difference of opinion. But it's already clear that the weight of reasoned argument here -- by which I mean the majority of people who weigh in with clearly stated reasons -- is that there is no BLP violation and that the link ought to be included. There aren't any major new arguments, few people are changing their opinion, and the balance and tenor of discussion has not changed as the circle of participants has slowly expanded over time. That itself is a useful result, and does not argue for closing early. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't you have that slightly wrong? Interpretation of BLP requires consensus. That's not for the closing administrator to decide, unless it is absolutely obvious that consensus is against policy, which is not the case here. I don't see any difference between this and a normal RfC. Also, you apparently make an argument for closing early in your last lines, then say "does not argue for closing early." B——C_ritical 20:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Bc, I can only reiterate my comment, that by and large the people adding indications are including reasons which reflect their relative weighting of the policies at play. You are correct that an RFC is not a straight-up vote count, it should reflect strength of argument (as opposed to loudness of argument) for each option. So long as editors are still adding considered opinions, my feeling is that these will be informative to the closer(s). You may be frustrated that other editing is stalled while this process continues, but I would suggest that it is to your benefit to allow time for consideration, as the result will be more "bulletproof" that way. Let's assume that the RFC gets closed in favour of your own preference, would you rather have coninuting objections afterward that you rammed through an early close, or would you rather be able to point to a fully-compliant process? From an encyclopedic perspective, a week or two is not a whole lot of time. Franamax (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I will bow to whatever consensus is here, of course. But as far as the complaints, when you have editors who have already stated they won't honor a close which doesn't favor their views, it really doesn't matter. B——C_ritical 22:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Will this RFC ever be closed? I, and I'm sure a lot of the rest of you who participated, would like a formal result now to put this matter to rest (hopefully) once and hopefully for all. Heiro 22:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Some people here would have it run till early March. I think it should be closed now. B——C_ritical 23:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikinews

Article talk page: Talk:Santorum neologism.. -Stevertigo (talk) 06:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Eesh. I forward Pi Zero's suggestion to read this page before going any further on the thread linked just above - I wrote out a line by line response before reading that intro page and discovering that, indeed, it's now a moot point. In fact, it's a moot enough point that I'd suggest that when we realize the falsity of the unstated assumption that any coverage whatsoever is per se non-neutral, and subsequently restore the Wikinews link, we link to this page instead of any particular article. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 17:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I understand:

• "Like Misplaced Pages, Wikinews also has a Neutral Point of View policy: Wikinews:Neutral point of view."
• "Wikinews does not have a Biography of Living People policy; however, to comply with NPOV, unfavourable or damaging details relating to people must be clearly attributed to a source."

So what's your point? My comment there was that the article in certain ways violated Wikinews' own NPOV policy. -Stevertigo (t | c) 01:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, your objections #2, #7, and #15 are baseless because you've confused the meanings of words (viz. "phenomenon" just means something that exists, and neither "prevalence" nor "prominence" has any connotation of "legitimate"); #1 confuses juvenile meanness with actionable defamation, then asks why something that isn't there isn't tagged; #8 asks a question that is answered before it's even asked; #6, #10, #11, and #12 state facts about or quote from the article without stating an objection so I'm not sure what to make of them; and #13 is seeing ghosts (nowhere is there any word about validation; Sydell's job is to give context to the news, in this case the search results people will see when they look up Santorum). By contrast, #3, #4, #5, #9, #14, and #16 seem to have some merit, more or less. But that's all basically water under the bridge. The point I was making above was that since the article in question is going to be archived soon anyway (rather than being the type of article, like those on Misplaced Pages, that would be constantly updated, corrected, and vigorously NPOV'd), and since (like it or not) this is unlikely to be the last time we hear about the neologism from Wikinews, we should crosslink the category the articles appear in rather than any one article or a kludged-up list of articles. That's all. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 05:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

As its User:Cirt that is creating that content we should not be linking to it at all and no one should be adding links to any of his creations of content related to living people either - its a simple back door get around violation of his Arbitration editing restrictions on this project. Youreallycan 11:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

That's just about the worst argument I've ever heard. The issue can be considered on its merits, entirely apart from the identity of individual editors (on another project, no less). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - User:Tom Morris does a fair bit of work on wikinews with User:Cirt, such as this one, on Cirt's primary contribution focus here that led to his Arbcom restrictions, *Australian woman claims Church of Scientology imprisoned her for twelve years - started by Tom and improved by User:Cirt. Tom knew the wikinews article was written almost completely by User:Cirt. Tom is fully aware of the users editing restrictions here and under the circumstances should not have added the link. - It could easily be seen as him adding his mates article link to avoid User:Cirt from violating his arbitration conditions here. User:Cirt's expansion of this article was the primary reason for all the community disruption ever since. Youreallycan 12:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Off to Rio Rob: Just can't let it go, can you? Carrite (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Users that use the en wikipedia project in violation of NPOV, in a desire to further promote their own POV, no I will not let that go. Replied on your talkpage, - Youreallycan 21:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation page up for deletion

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

Unprotect

Is there any reason this article needs to be protected? Unprotect with the threat that anyone who puts in the link before the RfC closes will get blocked for disruption. B——C_ritical 01:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a lot on the table here already. Once this RfC question is settled, I will be pursuing the POV objection I previously raised as to the current composition of the lead paragraph...and I will apparently have to get in line. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, so can we unprotect? You note that my original was better, and could be reworded as the section below. B——C_ritical 06:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

You note that my original was better,...

"I" note? I've noted nothing of the kind. What I have noted is my perception that "collective POV persistence" has prevailed in "overwhelm(ing) months of painstaking consensus discussion"...and that deliberative NPOV editing in this same frenetic and contentious atmosphere is probably impossible. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

And I note the previous POV pushing to create non-neutral characterizations of Savage's campaign. That's what the current lead avoids, and any changes will have to avoid the former mistakes. B——C_ritical 19:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Reword of lead to avoid all POV and characterization

In 2003, in response to comments by then-U.S. Senator Rick Santorum that were criticized as anti-gay, sex columnist and gay rights activist Dan Savage began a campaign to attach Santorum's name to a sex act which would shock the Senator.

This leaves off the quotation which some see as POV, but still avoids all characterization. The word "attach" would be problematic, except it is Savage's own statement of intent. Some thought there was a problem with saying Savage meant to "shock" from Savage's statement "that would make his big, white teeth fall out of his big, empty head," but I am not of that school of thought. B——C_ritical 06:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

I'm not sure, but I think people are objecting to the "scandal" quote more than the teeth? But basically, I agree, we should avoid characterization, and would prefer that option if it's going to get support (: B——C_ritical 06:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Short message from the admin that protected the page.

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

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

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

CIreland (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for your input and admin actions on the article. - I would be interested in what opinion you have formed, but perhaps you prefer to keep that private - anyways - regards to you - Youreallycan 19:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You're an honorable admin, thanks (: B——C_ritical 19:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

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

It Is What It Is

Regardless of the final decision on naming the article, or clarifications of the scope of it, the spreadingsantorum.com must be linked. The fact that Santorum even has a "Google problem" or whatever you want to call it is itself notable. In a nutshell, there is the Ejaculation video (NSFW) controversy all over again. In the end, the consensus is going to reach the same conclusion: you can't have an article and then fail to provide the most basic information about the subject, simply because someone has objections to the motivations of Wiki editors, media contributors, people with opinions, ... this takes us from "will no one think of the children" to "will no one think of the Santorum?" BLP is an asinine argument against inclusion because being mocked by sophomoric memes is probably one of the least hazards of being a professional politician. If Santorum, didn't want to be offended, he shouldn't offended; this is not to pass judgment on Santorum or justify Savage's actions but to simply acknolwedge what is obvious, that Rick Santorum is a free acting adult, and to an extent, he is the author of any troubles he may have in this matter (not Misplaced Pages). This is no different than the dire warnings placed in the WP:PROUD. Santorum, and people who, respect, and deeply care about Santorum as a human being, including his wife and campaign director, are not entitled to be unhappy on Misplaced Pages about this article. They can be unhappy outside Misplaced Pages that the article is in Misplaced Pages, but within Misplaced Pages, the article remains because Misplaced Pages would suck more without it than with it. The matters worth discussing are:

• The scope of the article (campaign versus memetic status versus trend of reporting on the subject)
• Style issues
• Name of the article (taken from the two previous criteria)

There is no question in my mind whether the article deserves to be included, and there is no room for discussion on whether an article on something should include the most significant website on the entire website related to the something. Misplaced Pages is not "abetting" the campaign or promoting the neologism; this community is noting important fact. It is Santorum himself who deserves the credit for his notoriety, and Dan Savage who bears the moral weight of any unjustified harm he may have done to Mr. Santorum. The cat is out of the bag. The milk has been spilt. It is what it is. Pawsplay (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Agree with Pawsplay. Dsetay (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• This argument would work if this wasn't a BLP. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

  ... or a repeat of the very subject of the RFC, above. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Generally agree, and NYyankees51 I guess it works then because this isn't a BLP. B——C_ritical 20:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Doesn't the declaration in Misplaced Pages:External links that "No page should be linked from a Misplaced Pages article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link," imply "room for discussion"? Even if, with no small indulgence, we deem the site at issue here to be providing "neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding" (to quote again from Misplaced Pages:External links), it still does not follow that there is "no room for discussion" about whether to link because some sites are on the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist and others have "a copy of a work in violation of its copyright" and hence are not to be linked to regardless, even if an "official" site. As an aside, it is less than obvious that we have an "official" site here anyway for the purposes of Misplaced Pages:ELOFFICIAL since that policy says "Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself" and Savage's site here seems to say a lot about Rick Santorum and very little about "itself" when "itself" is distinguished from an official site for the Dan Savage article. I'll grant that some seem to believe that Rick Santorum should be spammed or worse anyway because they believe he deserves it. "his is not to pass judgment on Santorum," says Pawsplay, after he just does so by claiming that Santorum "offended." I'll grant that he offended Pawsplay and Dan Savage. That doesn't mean he offended Misplaced Pages. I would think that if Pawsplay et al were not trying to politicize this, they would not be advancing arguments that claimed that Santorum "offended." I may believe that Santorum did not offend but I have not been claiming that in order to argue for what Misplaced Pages should do.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The justifications of common sense and following the guideline are provided by pointing out that the site at the end of the link is the subject of the article. You may disagree and claim the justification is incorrect or outweighed by other considerations, but the burden of providing one has clearly been met. Now the spotlight is on you to say why not, which is what the discussion is all about. The guideline discussion about neutral, accurate material, being about the subject of the article, being an official site, etc., all address links to sites that are about the subject of the article, which is not the case here. This site is the subject of the article. Like most websites, spreadingsantorum does engage in a good deal of talking about itself in its many blog posts and comments, but we don't need websites to be vast "about this website" self-references in order to cover them, that would be absurd. We link to LinkedIn, Craigslist, or Facebook not because they talk a whole lot about LinkedIn, Craigslist, and Facebook, but because they are LinkedIn, Craigslist, and Facebook. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

That is the most succinct statement of this situation I have yet seen. Heiro 02:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

If "the site at the end of the link is the subject of the article" I would think this article would be titled with the name of the website it purports to be about, use the website infobox, be found in the "Internet properties established in " category, etc. It's been argued as much that this article is about an attack on a politician as it's been that it's about a website. It could also be argued that this article is about a neologism, in which case I'd ask what is the point to directing the reader to a website that - as far as the neologism is concerned - merely repeats the definition found in the article, if not to generate traffic for Dan Savage's blogging? Why isn't what's being called for here being applied to the former Pennsylvania Senator's current political rival? Google the last name of a certain former Massachusetts Governor and after the news feed the top three links are Mitt Romney's Misplaced Pages article, his official site, and... a website that not only isn't linked to (live or non-live) by Misplaced Pages but doesn't even have its own Misplaced Pages article! This despite coverage in TIME, MSNBC, New York (magazine), etc.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The wrong infobox and categories for a website? You want an Alexa rank, a launch party, and an article in techcrunch to prove there's a website there? I think the notability of the site has been established. Good spot on this other Internet craziness. I just tried to register spreadingobama.com but somebody already has it. Why oh why didn't I think of that earlier? If the copycats get completely out of hand we may eventually create a more general article about the whole spreading-X phenomenon. Whether this article gets merged in or stays separate, and how we handle external links, is TBD. In the meanwhile, once this article goes off protection it's probably worth adding a note about the derivative websites. A number of our articles about Internet memes contain a section covering parodies, derivatives, mash-ups, etc. There isn't a whole lot of precedent but you may want to look at List of scandals with "-gate" suffix. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Notice of redirect discussion at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion

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

Romney

Is the fact that googling Romney has a similar effect worthy of note? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.97.19 (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It may in the future. Note WikiDemon's comment in the above section about derivative parodies. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Not until it attracts a fair amount of non-ephemeral coverage in reliable sources, as Santorum's has over the years. Otherwise, it's just another flash in the pan. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I see the usual suspects over at WikiNews have this on their front page. I call attention to this in order to remind editors that there's an observer effect at work here such that the idea that the phenomenon can be "covered" by Misplaced Pages without driving the phenomenon is something of a fiction.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested moves

Dan Savage Google bomb

It has been proposed in this section that Campaign for the neologism "santorum" be renamed and moved to Dan Savage Google bomb. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Campaign for "santorum" neologism → Dan Savage 'santorum' Google bomb – Forgive me if this has been proposed before, but one of these titles makes more sense. Whether this is a legitimate "neologism" has been disputed here for a long time, but everyone agrees that it is a Google bomb. "Dan Savage Google bomb" could also work. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, the bot will apparently only list the initial move template and the subsequent "moves" remain unlisted. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. What, the consensus two weeks ago not to mention Savage's name in the title isn't good enough for you? Consensus can change, but not that fast. We simply don't include authors in work titles unless there is some necessary disambiguation (à la The Liar (Goldoni)); is there some other santorum neologism campaign that this needs to be distinguished from? It has gained notability way independent of Savage. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

  It seems there is a consensus that the current title is bad, but we're trying to come up with solutions. Sorry for coming up with a solution. Also, can you demonstrate notability independent of Savage, i.e., news articles that mention the "neologism" without mentioning Savage? NYyankees51 (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

  Many of the results in this search would support Roscelese's claim. They would also support a proposal to move this article to "Santorum's google problem". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose as what is frankly a wordy mess of a proposed title. Also, there is no real reason, and probably a few counter-reasons per WP:BLP, to shove Dan Savage's name in there. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: This has been shot down already, as Roscelese points out. It is also misleading, because while Savage started the "campaign", it has been carried out by thousands of individuals who are not under his control. Nor does Savage's name have to be mentioned for disambiguation purposes, and there are no other similar notable campaigns against Santorum. The "alternate" proposal of dropping Santorum's name from the title is clearly unnaceptable and POV to the extreme. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sorry, but that's an even more complicated title than at present; Dan Savage may have started it, but is not the only person involved; and it wasn't an attempt at a google bomb even though it turned out to be one. Though I still think Santorum google problem or some variant could work as a title. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose -- that's a pretty crappy name. I could echo the concerns about whether there is a need for disambiguation, but quite apart from that: it's a pretty crappy name. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - The current title sucks for reasons we've all been over. But the proposed title is slightly worse, both for the DAB reasons other editors already pointed out above, and because the issue at hand is not really a google bomb:

Because Google "fixed" that problem, Santorum's supporters say, Google should "fix" the SpreadingSantorum problem, too. But it's not the same problem. Google bombs skewed reality by linking irrelevant search terms to their targets' pages. Few people searching on "miserable failure" were really looking for Bush's bio, and if they were, they would have added his name to the search and come up with relevant results. When Google fixed the problem, it improved its search function by returning more relevant results -- and, crucially, it didn't do this just to disarm the "miserable failure" bomb, but to forestall all such pranks.

SpreadingSantorum, on the other hand, is a page created by someone (writer Dan Savage) about Rick Santorum. It might be offensive, but it's relevant. It's a perfectly legitimate Web page. Savage and the people who linked to the page -- thereby helping it reach the top of search results -- used no algorithm-thwarting trickery to climb up the Google ranks. It's a popular Web page, and it lands at the top for the same reasons that Starbucks.com (SBUX) lands at the top for a search on "coffee." (source) ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 17:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose for reasons previously given in multiple prior failed proposals to rename, please see talk page archive. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose it actually is not a Google Bomb. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Per Jimbo: "...the title ought to mention Mr. Savage's name, but not Mr. Santorum's..." JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

  I agree with Jimbo. In cases of deliberate creation of ambiguity Misplaced Pages titles should exclude the term which is the ambiguation target. Ambiguation is contrary to the knowledge purpose of an encyclopedia. However this would also mean not supporting this proposal because it retains the term in the title.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: 1)Spreadingsantorum.com, indeed, links to information about Rick Santorum. It is therefore not a Google bomb. 2) Even if it was, there certainly is not more that one so as to necessitate the inclusion of the authors name. 3)If you're going to change the name it should be returned to Santorum (neologism) since by any stretch of the imagination, that is what it is: "neologism , neology/ n pl -gisms, -gies/ 1. (Linguistics) a newly coined word, or a phrase or familiar word used in a new sense". "Santorum" was a familiar word used to describe a previously unnamed substance. If Misplaced Pages sticks with its policy of using the most common-sense title, that's what it should be. To ensure NPOV and be truly encyclopedic, Misplaced Pages should place higher weight to the Linguistics categorization over personal feelings. You can't "campaign" for a neologism anymore than you can be half pregnant; it's either a newly-coined word or it is not. A neologism being perceived by some as being derogatory does not change this. Could you imagine a page called Campaign for "MILF" slang term? Dsetay (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment It's better than the current title, but in fact the name of this, per WP:COMMONNAME, which is policy and which we should be following, is Santorum's Google problem. B——C_ritical 19:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I could go with Santorum's Google problem. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment what about renaming it spreadingsantorum, spreadingsantorum campaign or spreadingsantorum.com? Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • No -- it's more than the web site. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Meta Comment - The question calls for a Support or Oppose position on a proposed move to a specific title. For the sake of brevity (perhaps and for the love of God), editors should, IMHO, refrain from offering and defending their favored alternative(s). JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I do not agree that it is a googlebomb. Strictly speaking, this campaign was not googlebombing by linking “santorum” to a site about santorum; technically, that’s search engine optimization. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - It is not actually a Google bomb, nor, as noted previously, is it really owned by Dan Savage, merely devised and promoted by him. Pawsplay (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose It was not a Google bomb. TFD (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Discussed ad nauseum. This also incorporates all the bad things about chaining the name to google with the silliness of singling out dan savage in the title. Protonk (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose much per Protonk. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Savage did not set out to create a Google bomb. Binksternet (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"santorum" Google bomb

It has been proposed in this section that Campaign for the neologism "santorum" be renamed and moved to "santorum" Google bomb. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Campaign for "santorum" neologism → "santorum" Google bomb –

This is an alternative proposal to the above. Per WP:COMMONNAME, this seems to work best. Just about every source cited in the article refer to it as a "Google bomb" or a "Google problem". Very few say "neologism". I believe consensus is that the current title is bad, but we don't know what to replace it with. I think this works best. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• You don't perceive a problem with having two discussions like this going at the same time?? Okay, then. No to "google bomb", yes to "Santorum's google problem". But this isn't going to work... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Savage or not, it's still not a Google Bomb. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Then it appears you have some work to do at Google bomb. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to point out that six concurrent move discussions is a complete clusterf*ck. Can we possibly simplify all of this somehow? elektrikSHOOS (talk) 05:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Not my preference but a considerable improvement over the existing title. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose It may be slightly better than the existing title, however Santorum's Google problem is the proper name under policy. B——C_ritical 19:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: As has been amply pointed out to you (and me, too), it does not comply with the definition of a Google bomb.Could go with "Santorum's Google problem", which is what it is most often referred to in the press. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose on narrow basis - The reason given (Just about every source cited in the article refer to it as a "Google bomb" or a "Google problem".) is slightly misleading: only if you remove the words a "Google bomb" or is the summary accurate. Most sources attest "Google problem;" very few attest "Google bomb" (and those that do are mistaken on technical grounds as described above); and "...problem" does not provide sourcing for "...bomb." ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 20:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for same reason as previous request. Strictly speaking, this campaign was not googlebombing by linking “santorum” to a site about santorum; technically, that’s search engine optimization. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Copy/paste my arguments about google problem and add on the fact that this creates another factual inaccuracy, describing the campaign as a "google bomb". Protonk (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, not a Google bomb. --22:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - while it's not entirely accurate, I think this is probably still the best title, as it roughly communicates the subject of the article as simply as possible. Robofish (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Savage did not set out to create a Google bomb. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of Rick Santorum's views on homosexuality

It has been proposed in this section that Campaign for the neologism "santorum" be renamed and moved to Criticism of Rick Santorum's views on homosexuality. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Campaign for "santorum" neologism → Criticism of Rick Santorum's views on homosexuality

The most neutral (IMO) and non-biased title. Merge with Santorum_controversy_regarding_homosexuality. PaoloNapolitano 20:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oh FFS... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Please remain civil. I am merely presenting editors with alternatives. PaoloNapolitano 20:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean to tell us that you are entirely unaware of the failed merge proposal, or are you actually suggesting that we should have that discussion again? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• This RfC can be closed as there is already (yet another) merge proposal in progress. If you have an opinion, state it there: ]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support This seems to satisfy all concerns. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose and procedurally close as another merge discussion is currently underway, and there is no need to rehash. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose No. Protonk (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, proposed destination is much wider than the neologism. Merge, maybe.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Nope, this is about a political campaign against a guy who has become a Presidential candidate. That title would constitute a POV fork of the biography, I do believe. Carrite (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The merge proposal failed, sneaking it in under the guise of a rename is not going to work. The campaign is notable independent of the views that prompted it - if anything, the 2003 comments should be merged here - and I'm seriously fed up with these bad-faith attempts to wear out users who are interested in following policy and consensus. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for the zillionth time.--Milowent • 03:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Savage was not trying to simply criticize Santorum's political position, he was trying to ridicule the man and negatively affect his political career. Binksternet (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Santorum's Google problem

It has been proposed in this section that Campaign for the neologism "santorum" be renamed and moved to Santorum's Google problem. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Campaign for "santorum" neologism → Santorum's Google problem – As per WP:COMMONNAME. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support - per COMMONNAME as well as WP:RS - WP is the only thing calling it "Campaign for 'santorum' neologism." That can't be right. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 20:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support -- vastly preferable to the current title, ample support that satisfies WP:RS, and accessible to those whose vocabularies don't extend to "neologism". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose - ...as a further POV vilification of the victim. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

  I'm unclear as to how it constitutes a POV violation to call it what virtually every source calls it. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 20:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

...call it what virtually every source calls it.

I'll simply decline response to that degree of rhetorical posturing other than to observe that allusions to "virtually every source", upon examination, will rarely be universal and will often be biased. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

But follow the sources used in that article and it brings you here: ], which explains why it is not a Google bomb. You've just presented an example of a journalistic lapse by a reporter who should have known better, and in fact did. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You have my apologies for the exaggeration; what I meant to say was that more sources call it "Google problem" than call it anything else; and those that call it a "Google bomb" are factually mistaken. The last thing this page needs is more rhetorical posturing, so I'm sorry to have exacerbated that. What is still not clear to me, then, is why the common name is a POV violation. I don't want to put words in your mouth, or ascribe to you beliefs you do not hold, but neither sourcing nor brevity supports a title like Dan Savage's attack against Rick Santorum. If I've misinterpreted your position again, I apologize in advance - let me know. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 22:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

...but neither sourcing nor brevity supports a title like Dan Savage's attack against Rick Santorum.

This one (among lots of others) does. Apparently Savage is considerably more open to that characterization than a bevy of WP editors...

"It is a vile attack — I completely embrace that."

Dan Savage Talks 'Vile Attack' On Rick Santorum, MTV, January 10, 2012

JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Huh. Well, that's something. Since he owns it, that's not the most terrible idea. On the other hand, the rest of the quote at that source seems to indicate he's owning the "attack" as a means alleging the "man on dog" comment to be just as vicious as the "frothy mix" business. It's still a question whether our article name needs to get in the middle of this (or take that unequivocal an opinion on it). ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 04:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand,...

The "other hand" is most certainly fodder for exploration/development in the main body but should not, per NPOV, be a consideration in fashioning an NPOV title.

It's still a question whether our article name needs to get in the middle of this...

The progenitor embraces an "attack" characterization, sources describing it as such are plentiful...yet titling it as Dan Savage political attack on Rick Santorum is somehow POV anathema? I just don't get it (or perhaps, regrettably, I do). JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I said it's a question, not "POV anathema." That means I think it's a reasonable topic of discussion. Now don't you start putting words in my mouth. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Now don't you start putting words in my mouth.

Then I'll offer you an apology in kind for the misunderstanding and apparent lack of clarity. My comment was directed at the general rejection in this forum of either the use of Savage's name or the characterization "attack" in any title consideration. It was not directed at you specifically...and I'm pleased to note your openness to a reconsideration in that regard. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)