Talk:Santorum

This redirect was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on 28 July 2011. The result of the discussion was Keep as a redirect to current target..

Apologies for reinstating the disambiguation page but as someone who heard about the sexual connotations of "Santorum" before ever hearing about the senator, I feel pretty strongly about this. Regardless of your politics, "Santorum" is now recognised in many places that neither know nor care about the Rickster. veghead 23:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The disambiguation page already exists at Santorum (disambiguation). I've reverted this back to a redirect to Rick Santorum as per existing consensus, and restored the hatnote on that article to direct readers to the disambiguation page. Powers ^T 02:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK sorry - I missed the disambiguation page. Could you point me to a reference to this "consensus" as I've been unable to find it. Thanks veghead 10:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santorum
  - latest AfD
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Santorum
  - straw poll
• Talk:Santorum (disambiguation) - the long sordid history

Powers ^T 19:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair play - I stand corrected :) veghead 21:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Santorum lost his senate bid, he's becoming less of a politically important figure. As the use of santorum as sexual slang increases (as evidenced by the last comment), the relative importance of the two change, thereby meriting reconsideration of the value of the disambiguation page. That something was resolved in the past does not mean that is a static and unchangeable decision any more than English is a static language.NickGorton 16:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What "last comment" do you mean? Regardless, it's true that the decision need not be static, though I would at least wait until Sen. Santorum is out of office before bothering with a new discussion. Powers ^T 14:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of anon edits have recently moved the target to the dab page; I've reverted a couple of times, since I think that at least a discussion is warranted prior to changing the existing consensus. For myself, I think the target should remain the senator, since I suspect both he will decline in notability no faster than the other possible targets. If anyone disagrees, let's talk. Mike Christie (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another revert today for the same reason as above. If we need to change the target, we can, but given the history of discussion I don't think this should be done unilaterally. As it stands I would still think the ex-senator is the natural target for the redirect. Mike Christie (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having never heard of the senator, I disagree.

If you can get consensus for your view, we can change it. Consensus has to come first though, given the history of this discussion. Mike Christie (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have started

Hi Dravecky. I'm aware of the battle around the neologism article, and have read most of the background. I agree the controversy and amendment articles should be moved to See also, and would be happy to do the move – neither subject is ever likely to be referred to by the disambiguated term only. Santorum is, however, frequently referred to simply as Santorum, so it is reasonable for him to appear in the disambiguation list. It is also functional for readers to find the article they're most likely to be looking for at the top of the list. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without solid evidence as to which article readers are seeking when they enter simply "santorum" (as opposed to the former Senator's full name), one normally turns to Google ranking and, well... Any reader seeking the person will have their eye drawn past the list to the "Persons with the surname" header. - Dravecky (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. So, because Google returns Wikipedia's article on the neologism above the article on the politician, we would ordinarily conclude that more readers are searching Wikipedia for the neologism than the politician when they type in "santorum"? Have I got that right? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a point of information, one would think it far more accurate and sensible to compare the Wikipedia stats on the two actual articles. That would be word and person. Except for this recently manufactured 'controversy', far more people over time have been looking for the person. Flatterworld (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Flatterworld, that seems reasonable. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i will only point out that the two links are identical and thus useless for comparison. -badmachine 17:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For several reasons, among them

Further comments about the disambiguation page should go on Talk:Santorum (disambiguation).

I'm pulling the

Since this disambiguation page was an admitted kludge, containing multiple otherwise improper entries to justify its existence, it can be deleted entirely and the sole bit of remaining disambiguation handled with a hatnote pointing to the neologism. - Dravecky (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, I suppose. In practice, in a serious encyclopedia that has anything close to a functioning BLP policy, I am not going to have a hatnote that says "For the mixture of lube and fecal matter, see..." (or even anything slightly more reasonable, like "for the sexual slang term" or similar) at the top of a BLP. I'm unhappy with the (indirect) prominence the hatnote I put up gives to the attack phrase as it is, but given the existence of the attack phrase article, I couldn't justify not linking at least to the dab page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How BLP justifies no longer having a term go to a disambiguation page I would like to hear. Gacurr (talk) 01:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is unreasonable to have a reader type in the name of a well known (in the US) politician, and have the first item on the list be an attack phrase based on his name. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an opinion, not universally shared, not apparently based in policy. Unilateral action in the face of so much compromise and discussion seems a bigger violation of the principles of collaboration and cooperation. - Dravecky (talk) 02:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am comfortable, and pretty confident, in my interpretation of BLP as it applies here. I'm sorry you view that as uncooperative; I don't think it is, but I regret you think so. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A reader is not typing in Rick Santorum. They are typing in santorum or Santorum. It is ambiguous whether this should go to the politician article or the sexual neologism article. Having a list present these options in no way violates the BLP policy, at least in no way that you have explained. Gacurr (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. This has absolutely nothing to do with BLP. Sending "Rick Santorum" to the dab page automatically would be inappropriate, but "santorum"... no. 74.102.164.44 (talk) 08:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded rationale

I'm operating on following basis:

1. We shouldn't delete the article on the attack phrase, because a couple (I think; there was at least one) AFD discussions were closed "keep", and because it is sourced so it doesn't violate the letter of the BLP policy, and because it is a notable meme and should probably have an article at some name.
2. If we're going to have an article on the attack phrase, it needs to be able to be found when you type that phrase into the search box.
3. In a serious encyclopedia that has anything close to a functioning BLP policy, we don't want an attack phrase to be the first thing people see when they type the last name of a living person into the search box. I am distressed that not everyone agrees with this basic fact, but it really can't be otherwise.
4. All the other articles at the disambiguation page are related to the politician. He is fundamentally the primary topic; the other topics are, by definition, secondary. When there is a clear primary topic, the redirect goes to that page, not the dab page.
5. When a name has a primary topic, the dab page always notes the primary topic first, and other possibilities below.
6. Per (2), we have to have a hatnote to the dab page in the politician's article, as uncomforatble as I am about that.
7. In a serious encyclopedia that has anything close to a functioning BLP policy, I am not going to have a hatnote that says "For the mixture of lube and fecal matter, see..." at the top of a BLP. Thus, the hatnote is to the dab page instead, even if the dab page is a kludge.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A less provocative hatnote might read '"Santorum" redirects here. For the sexual neologism coined by Dan Savage, see

Reagan goes to RWR's article, Carter goes to a disambiguation page that mentions JEC in the lead, Bush goes to a disambiguation page that does not mention GHWB or GWB at all, Clinton goes to a hndis page where WJC (and HRC) aren't mentioned until the third grouping of names, and Ford goes right to Ford Motor Company. That's not so much a pattern as a wheel of chance when you type in a last name. Still, 4 out of the 6 (counting Bush twice) go to disambiguation pages, not right to the politician. - Dravecky (talk) 04:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

That has to do with the fact that 4 of the 6 are names where we have a lot of articles for people with that name, and a primary topic isn't obvious. That isn't the case here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dravecky: Exactly. You don't put in the disambiguation page to keep the phrase from appearing at the top of the BLP, you just don't put the phrase at the top of the BLP in the first place. Your suggested hatnote doesn't mention lube or fecal matter at all, and we don't need to do put that in. Ken Arromdee (talk) 05:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A hatnote at the top of an article that says anything like that is still a problem, just not as serious a problem. --Floquenbeam (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Floquenbeam; I think the new situation accurately reflects BLP and gives the prominence to Savage's coinage that it deserves -- no more and no less. It was a successful political act by Savage and that's recognized by the hatnote; more would go beyond acknowledging notability and would function to continue the political attack. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Floquenbeam. Much of the effort exerted to claim greater importance for the phrase is, I think, thinly-veiled attempts top further the attack.RoteMemorization (talk) 12:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I haven't gotten a response yet on the admin's talk page [1] B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 16:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. The edit summary claims an edit war was in progress when, in fact, no edits had been made in 10 days. - Dravecky (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be an automatic redirect to Rick Santorum. It should go to the dab page. 74.102.164.44 (talk) 08:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may do, depending on the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santorum (disambiguation) (2nd nomination). Josh Parris 06:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

in fact, it did, until about seven months ago, after this discussion. -badmachine 06:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]