Talk:Campaign for the neologism "santorum"/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Edit request from Theoldsparkle, 9 June 2011

‹The template below is included via a redirect (Template:Edit protected) that is under discussion. See redirects for discussion to help reach a consensus.›

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

Change heading "Reader's contest" to "Reader contest", because it was a contest of readers, not a contest administrated by a single reader. Change heading "Spreading santorum Website" to "Spreading Santorum website" because "Spreading Santorum" is the name of the site. Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot more wrong with the article than a simple misplaced possessive and capitalization. If I had to guess, the "S" is lowercase in "Spreading santorum Website" because it is trying to make clear it is the word, not the name. -- Avanu (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. A lot. And I think you're right about the reason behind the odd capitalisation. I agree with Theoldsparkle's suggestion. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Theoldsparkle's request, per WP:Section caps. Spreading Santorum is a proper name, the proper name of Savage's website; therefore, it must be capitalized in a section heading. Website, however, is not part of the proper name of the website and therefore must be lowercase. I don't see any possible controversy in that one, not in the MoS, not in any credible English primer you'd care to choose. :) // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Done, both changes made. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

New Partridge Dictionary Quote vs Lede

The third paragraph of this article utterly fails WP:DUE. Why on earth is the opinion of the 2006 New Partridge Dictionary given greater prominence in the lede than Rick's opinion from this year? 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph 1, definition and bare etymology
Lead Paragraph 2, motivation for word
Lead Paragraph 3, outside analysis of word
Lead Paragraph 4, personal response by Santorum to the word

What's the problem again? WP:UNDUE would mean we don't cover how this barely meets the neologism definition (aka 'is it actually used?'). I believe a LOT of editors have expressed that the article overall is WP:UNDUE because it highlights the word over the attack by Dan Savage in creation of this definition. You have 13 paragraphs of moderately anti-Rick Santorum text to 6 paragraphs of response (from Coining to Response by Rick Santorum) Despite lots of evidence that this is primarily a Search Engine phenomenon, it is characterized by the material added as being ubiquitous and in common use. I believe a strong retort to that impression is called for in the opening in order to satisy WP:DUE. -- Avanu (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

What's the problem again? WP:UNDUE would mean we don't cover how this barely meets the neologism definition (aka 'is it actually used?'). -- Avanu (talk) 01:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe a LOT of editors have expressed that the article overall is WP:UNDUE because it highlights the word over the attack by Dan Savage in creation of this definition. You have 13 paragraphs of moderately anti-Rick Santorum text to 6 paragraphs of response (from Coining to Response by Rick Santorum) Despite lots of evidence that this is primarily a Search Engine phenomenon, it is characterized by the material added as being ubiquitous and in common use. I believe a strong retort to that impression is called for in the opening in order to satisy WP:DUE. -- Avanu (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Please use the preview button, and don't reply to yourself.) Lede paragraph 3 makes a claim that is disputed by other reliable sources, and the article body. It's transparently POV-pushing to include just this quote in the lede, which is fail. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 01:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The lead establishes credibility for the word right off the bat. The addition of a balance to that shows it is clearly an attack. It sounds like you're saying that because 2 reliable sources have different opinions, the only opinion that matters is the one you like? I'm advocating balance, not a one-sided view. -- Avanu (talk) 01:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No, you're not. Read what you just wrote again. It's self-contradictory. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Avanu. Santorum looks like a perfect fit for the definition:

A neologism (/niːˈɒlədʒɪzəm/; from the Greek νέο-, néo-, "new", and λόγος, lógos, "speech", "utterance") is a newly coined term, word or phrase, that may be in the process of entering common use, but has not yet been accepted into mainstream language. Neologisms are often directly attributable to a specific person, publication, period, or event.

Gacurr (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, to be precise, I think you meant santorum (lowercase). That's part of the problem here. I went and looked up neologism in Merriam-Webster online, a reliable source for definitions. You tell me which definition we should use here. Sadly, these are not jokes below.

Definition of NEOLOGISM

1: a new word, usage, or expression
2: a meaningless word coined by a psychotic

--Avanu (talk) 02:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The Webster family of dictionaries seem to be unique in that second definition. Neither the Cambridge [1] or Oxford [[2] online dictionaries include it, nor does the New Oxford American Dictionary in Mac OS X 10.6. Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary includes it, but it also includes a different primary definition that I find interesting: "a word, usage, or expression that is often disapproved because of its newness or barbarousness". Regardless of which definition you choose, which part of the definition is objectionable? Santorum—and yes, like any other word, it gets capitalized when it is the first word of a sentence—is indisputably a "word, usage, or expression". Are we arguing that it is not "new"? Perhaps it is not disapproved of because of its newness or its barbarousness? It's fair to argue that WP:NEO says that we shouldn't have a neologism as the focus of the article. It's a real stretch to argue that the dictionary proves santorum isn't a neologism by the definition of the term. Or is the argument that santorum is definitely not "a meaningless word coined by a psychotic"? Color me confused. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The word santorum came at the beginning of a sentence, thus capitalized. The Wikipedia article covers the second definition.

In psychiatry, the term neologism is used to describe the use of words that have meaning only to the person who uses them, independent of their common meaning.

Someone pushing a POV might use the second definition. The first is appropriate to this article.Gacurr (talk) 02:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We also have another RS that asserts that the campaign was successful, and the word "santorum" is now widely known. (I'm too lazy, but look for the quote from "The Nation" further up this page.) Given that, it seems our options are to either argue our sources in the lede, or leave them both out. I think they should both be left out, per WP:LEDE. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the quote used as the total sum of paragraph 3 is that it contradicts itself with the two claims that it makes ( "the word is used all over the internet" / "the word isnt widely used") and provides no clarification as to how those two seemingly contradictory statements can both be true. Active Banana (^bananaphone 02:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Banana, if you read paragraph 3 carefully, you see that they say it is the attempt "to place into wide usage". They don't say it is in fact widely used. But they are correct that Dan Savage does want it to be widely used. -- Avanu (talk) 02:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point. It matters very little -- certainly not enough to make the lede -- what they said in 2006, when we've got a more recent, equally reliable source asserting the opposite. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Which source was that? I'll go look, but I don't see this as being a widely used word. -- Avanu (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're not familiar with the sources already in this article at this point, you've significantly undercut what little legitimacy as a contributor you had left. You should also know by now that no one cares whether you "see" that this is a widely used word; it has no bearing on the content of this article. But, to the end of your own personal enlightenment, give the source currently numbered 67 a look: "What Savage did do, that was novel and purposeful is create a new associative meaning for the term santorum." 24.177.120.138 (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

(@24.177.120.138) Thanks for the reference. I went and read that entire paper, and actually in many ways it would be a great substitute in its entirety for what we have here now. A couple of questions however. First and foremost, what makes the paper's author Shawn Snidow, a reliable source? Also, in reading through the paper, a couple of quotes seem important to point out.

The internet picked up the new santorum definition as evidenced by two searches. One search was of the internet, while the other searched major news outlets. A Google search of "santorum" and "frothy" produced 33,900 sites including the following outlets. Santorum is an entry in wikipedia and urbandictionary.com.

Other articles called the term disgusting, but recognized that it had become shorthand for "social conservativism"

The first quote there describes a very very specific search and doesn't really show whether this is a widespread term. In addition, the paper mentions that Santorum is here in Wikipedia, which clearly seems to fall into our "feedback loop" rule, since the paper is making a claim to the term's notability and widespread use by it having an entry here. The second quote from the paper shows what many of the editors have been trying to say. The word 'santorum' doesn't get used to describe fecal matter, but is a way to derisively describe social conservatives. So the idea that the word (just) means 'fecal matter' is a bit dishonest, especially if you consider this paper a reliable source. Your thoughts? -- Avanu (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It's reliable by virtue of the publisher's reliability, presentation at a symposium, etc. You're missing the point that whether or not the term is in widespread use is irrelevant. WP:NEO requires treatment in reliable, secondary sources, not widespread usage. You're also misstating WP:CIRCULAR: a passing reference to Wikipedia is not the same as presenting material originating from Wikipedia. In short, you're arguing against a source (which, really, you should take to WP:RSN), while at the same time using it to support your synthetic argument that anyone using the word is engaged in a political attack. That's beyond inconsistent; it defies logic.

What's more, no one's saying that "the word (just) means 'fecal matter'". You just made that up. It's clear that you're constructing a strawman argument just so that you can dismiss me as dishonest. In point of fact, the word means "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that sometimes accompanies anal sex," and, yes, it was originally conceived of as a political attack. But the sources show that it is now more than that: it has since become a full-fledged, bona-fide neologism that meets every Wikipedia criterion for a stand-alone article with a concise, descriptive name. Your consistent misrepresentation of this article's sources and Wikipedia's policies is what's truly dishonest here. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

24.177.120.138, please try and read what I *actually* write. I wasn't arguing against a source, I was just asking some questions. A student paper wouldn't normally be considered a reliable source, especially if they were drawing original conclusions, since that would really just be a proxy form of OR. In addition, I highly complimented the paper on its points and content, so can you lighten up on this a bit and stop trying to tear up arguments I'm not even making? -- Avanu (talk) 13:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree the Natality paper (along with Brewer's Value War: Public Opinion and the Politics of Gay Rights) should be drawn on far more heavily than it is at present. It seems to be a student paper, but it's intelligently written, was deemed good enough to be presented at the 2008 NCO Convention, and it's the only in-depth source we have. (And just to be clear, it addresses the campaign, not the word.) --J N 466 11:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Its a much better paper than our article at present. To address your final comment, I think several people have said maybe we need to just be addressing the campaign, since the author rightly states this word is really shorthand for 'social conservative'. -- Avanu (talk) 13:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

As for the 2006 timing of Partridge, note that there is no mention at all of santorum in the concise 2007 edition, the 2008 American edition, or their 2007 Sex Slang dictionary, even though they do feature a number of citations to Dan Savage. And it's not because the authors are in any way squeamish about sex, excrement or gay matters; the 2008 edition for example has entries for "fecal freak" and "felching". --J N 466 11:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Page protection

Editing at this page has been orderly until yesterday when a single editor, Avanu, launched an edit war, and at his third revert (against 3 different editors) spammed ANI, and BLPN with a complaint, which was ignored at BLPN and dismissed, with some concerns expressed about the Avanu's behaviour, at ANI. Fastily protected the article at the request of an editor who, as far as I can see, has never edited or had anything to do with it.

In #First sentence (parenthetical comment), above, Avanu received unanimous opposition to his edit, including from those on his side of the RfC discussion. I and another editor asked Fastily 12 hours ago to lift page protection, and our request was followed by one from Avanu to keep it (and his unanimously opposed edit) in place.

I left a request at ANI for anyone to lift page protection three hours ago and, so far, no one has commented. I can understand admins not wanting to get involved in a what appears to be highly charged, sexual political dispute, the length of this talk page alone is pretty daunting. So brief comments from editors here stating their position on page protection might help clarify the situation for an admin brave enough to look into this. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, it seems this protection is not necessary now, and as Fastily hasn't disagreed I have lowered the protection. All editors are reminded to stick to the established procedure of WP:BRD. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Martin. Thanks. I replied at ANI before I saw your comment here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The information above has several inaccuracies, and really accuses me of bad faith editing, using terms like "orderly until yesterday when a single editor, Avanu" and "spammed". In addition, the "unanimous opposition" comment is also inaccurate. Reo argued that other things were higher priority, and Tarc and Collect made statements that showed they agreed that bias is present. The sentence which has "our request was followed by one from Avanu to keep it (and his unanimously opposed edit) in place" is *ALSO* inaccurate because I only made a case for continuing page protection, NOT a defense of my edit. In short, a very biased and inaccurate picture was painted in order to get an admin to intervene on this again. If we're going to work on this together, editors cannot do this. -- Avanu (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

For the record (Avanu and I discussed this elsewhere), "unanimous opposition" refers to his edit, not his stance toward problems with the article, and my equating page protection with keeping his edit was not meant to imply he had said anything along those lines. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Page Blanked

I've blanked the page, it's an attack on Mr. Santorum, and while I'm not familiar with him and have no ties to him, WP:BLP is very clear, attack pages on an individual cannot remain. I've blanked the page for that reason and intend to keep it that way per WP:BLP.

KoshVorlon'_Nal^uboutes _Aeria^Gloris 12:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

A recent AN/I discussion (here) already advised against relying on a BLP exemption from 3RR on this article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Can we please give accurate information? The AN/I advised nothing of the sort. "Closed. This is a content dispute, and no admin action is reauested. Please don't bring this issue here again, but follow the appropriate dispute resolution. Fram (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)" -- Avanu (talk) 12:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether it is a BLP violation is being discussed in depth above. If you can throw some light, by way of sound reasoning with reference to policy, on this question, you're welcome. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Blanking the page is not a way to deal with the bias issue here. There is sourced and valid information on the page, and much of it has a place in Wikipedia. The problem is with its current presentation. A good solution might be to merge it with another article or maybe re-titling the article. -- Avanu (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)When this article was most recently under sustained discussion on WP:BLPN, there was no consensus to support removing it as an attack page. [3] Nor was their any such consensus the time it was up at BLP/N before that. [4] As can be seen in the header of this talk page, three times this article has been up for deletion, and no consensus for deleting it has been found. Even a cursory review of this talk page would show that there is considerable difference of opinion on whether or not the article violates WP:BLP, and those who would have the page entirely eliminated appear to me to be a minority. In light of that, it's very difficult for me to assume good faith and see how blanking the page could be anything but disruptive, but I am trying. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Attack pages

Far frome being bad faith, this is per the policy itself:

Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to; see below. Non-administrators should tag them {{db-attack}}.

This article, even though it's sourced, is an attempt to disparage Mr. Santorum. Like I said earlier, I have no connection to him, I've only heard of him via Wikipedia and have no vested interest in this article, I'm doing this per WP:BLP, specifically "Attack pages". KoshVorlon'_Nal^uboutes _Aeria^Gloris 13:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

KoshVorlon (and other editors), there is an ongoing RfC on what to do with this article above. Please review discussion there. --J N 466 13:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Your reasoning is unsound. This article is coverage of the creation of a word and the events surrounding that creation. It is an event that has been well covered by multiple reliable sources. BLP is NOT a blank check to remove "negative" content: (from the BLP page) " BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Active Banana (^bananaphone 13:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

To add to what Banana said, the spirit of BLP/DUE/NPOV wants a neutral tone. "Hitler was a terrible guy who sucked" is not how we write in Wikipedia. Clear, unbiased, neutral tone, etc, that is what we need to strive for. While I agree that the article needs improvement to bring it up to the standard for Wikipedia, I don't agree that it is entirely unfit for Wikipedia. Deletion no, modification, yes. -- Avanu (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

"The frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex" is not a living person. It is also not a hat.--Noren (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

But Santorum *is* a living person. See Fallacy of composition. -- Avanu (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you attempting to imply that a particular person named Santorum contains "The frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex"? That appears to be a highly inappropriate personal attack, and I certainly made no such claim. --Noren (talk) 14:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

All things called santorum are not equal. Again, see Fallacy of composition. -- Avanu (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be providing a fine example of the Fallacy of the undistributed middle.--Noren (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is documenting a notable event, we can't reasonably infer that it was created to disparage the subject, a word or an event, so you can't invoke Wikipedia:Attack pages. Questions have been raised, though, about whether this is the right title for an article which is about an event; it is argued that the vast preponderance of sources address the campaign of its coiner and the consequences of the coining, rather than the word and the thing it denotes. This means, it is argued, that the notable thing here is the campaign and the name should reflect that. The RfC, above, also recommends reducing it to a couple of paragraphs (I've had a go, above) and merging them into a Santorum sub-page, which would have the effect of reducing its prominence, and may be justified on the grounds that the reliable secondary sources are too weak and scant for a stand-alone neologism article. These are just a couple of the aspects being discussed above. If you're interested, familiarise yourself with this wall of text and join in. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Even if it is notable, it doesn't stop this from being an attempt to disparage Mr. Santorum. There's no exemption from being an attack page just because Dan Savage wrote about it, or other press wrote it. It's an attack page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KoshVorlon (talk • contribs) 14:37, 10 June 2011

yes hello. whether or not you view this as an attack page, it is sourced. please do not blank the page. -badmachine 14:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I have per the policy on attack pages. KoshVorlon'_Nal^uboutes _Aeria^Gloris 14:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. This is a difficult, subtle question. Do we, and if so, how do we report a notable instance of disparagement of a living person without compounding the attack. It may seem black and white to you, Kosh, but it's actually a very demanding question. You've been told about the WP:ANI, WP:BLPN, and WP:AFD discussions that all failed to support deletion. If you need links to those, ask and I'll collect them for you. Having been told that now, if you continue blanking or edit warring using your existing rationale, you will be sanctioned for disruptive editing. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

This page has already been nominated for deletion three times. If it were truly an "attack page" meeting the CSD G10 criteria, the outcome of at least one of those AfDs would have been "delete". However, none of the AfDs has had an outcome of "delete". Therefore, logically, this page cannot be a candidate for CSD G10 so long as the content is substantially unchanged.
CSD G10 applies to BLPs that are "entirely negative in tone and unsourced". This article is not entirely negative in tone, and it is indisputably sourced. Therefore, CSD G10 cannot apply to the article in its current state.
Your assertion that this is an "attack page" is unsubstantiated. For example, I wholeheartedly disagree that this is a page "that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject" (WP:ATP). It exists primarily to document a highly notable, very well documented phenomenon that has already had lasting impact upon US national politics. If you can't establish a consensus that the article meets the definition of an "attack page" in the first sentence of WP:ATP, the rest of your argument falls apart. To be clear, I don't believe it meets that definition, and I will be very difficult to persuade.

This pattern of blanking and absurd deletion requests is very disruptive. There's a clear process going on here. Please participate, rather than working athwart it. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

In order: AnthonyCole, I doubt I'd be blocked, as blanking an attack page is policy (and yes, this is an attack page)

It's a term used to disparage Mr. Santorum, coined by Dan Savage for that very reason. Doesn't matter that it's notable, it's still an attack and cannot be in Wikipedia per policy. Again, this isn't personal to me, I don't know the man, have no stake in keeping this page anything but compliant to policy. I've renom'd for deletion and blanked it again , per policy.

Macwhiz, I'm discussing on this page ... I am participating. KoshVorlon'_Nal^uboutes _Aeria^Gloris 15:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict, may not take into account recent statements) As a relatively uninvolved editor, I have to agree with many of the comments above. Particularly Macwhiz. There is a process going, express your opinion, take part in the threaded convestaion, etc. But please don't blank the page, it is not an attack page in the opinion of many editors. Thenub314 (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Kosh, let me put it these terms: "Understanding is a three-edged sword." You are acting as if your side is unequivocally the truth. That is tendentious. Please stop. Also, please note the difference between the term being used to disparage Santorum, and the article being primarily created with the purpose of disparaging Santorum. This is an important distinction that I do not believe you are recognizing. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Kosh, Wikipedia policy allows for some degree of bullheadedness, but like anything it asks that we limit it. We're allowed extreme freedom to exposit our thoughts on the Talk page, but reverting back and forth (edit warring) is held to a limit. While I agree with you that there are BLP concerns, getting yourself blocked/banned just for this is not going to end up fixing the problem. -- Avanu (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because consensus and precedent holds that it's not in violation of WP:BLP. --24.177.120.138 (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

A plain reading of policy essentially says that the attack page policy requires an unsourced page. This page is sourced, therefore the attack rationale becomes invalid. Not because it might or might not be attacking in tone, but simply because sources (in this case LOTS) exist. If you can find a valid speedy deletion rationale, please present it on Talk, however, I doubt you will. -- Avanu (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

This page should not be speedy deleted because... --205.234.80.17 (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Avanu, nope, WP:ATTACK doesn't state that an atatck page requires an unsorced page. It says nothing about wether the information is sourced or not.

KoshVorlon'_Nal^uboutes _Aeria^Gloris 16:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I went to WP:ATTACK and 'technically', you are right if you stop at that page and don't read additional policies. However, the WP:ATTACK page does address the page here through the following: "When material is spunout of a biography of a public figure by consensus because that section of the article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it is not necessarily an attack page, even if the content in question reflects negatively upon its subject. Such an article is still required to comply with WP:BLP."

The policy information I was quoting about attack pages came from the WP:BLP page. To wit: "Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to; see below. Non-administrators should tag them {{db-attack}}."

Also "Summary deletion is appropriate when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to an earlier version of an acceptable standard."

So, Kosh, please bear *all* policies in mind when deciding to do an action like this, OK? -- Avanu (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

KoshVorlon, please stop making up non-existent policies and actually read the reams of discussion regarding this. This is currently one of the highest-profile pages on the project and has been discussed in every conceivable forum by a very broad cross-section of editors up to and including Jimmy Wales. If there were grounds for speedy deletion, someone would have noticed them by now. – iridescent 16:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Kosh is technically correct when he says that WP:ATTACK doesn't require the article to be unsourced... but materially incorrect because WP:ATTACK is essentially "a giant footnote to G10", [5] and WP:CSD#G10 has the unsourced requirement. The G10 criteria for an "attack page" would be

libel—nope, not on our part, it's sourced, not a credible argument;
legal threats—nope, not applicable to this article;
material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person—You might argue it harasses, but that's an uphill battle; it's Savage doing any harassing, we're just reporting on that. I can't see a credible claim that the article intimidates Santorum. In either case, it's an incredible stretch to claim the article is intended purely to do either. (I don't think it actually does either.)
biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced—this can't apply, because the article is anything but unsourced.

Further, let's take note of WP:ATTACK#Negative spinout articles. "When material is spunout of a biography of a public figure by consensus because that section of the article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it is not necessarily an attack page, even if the content in question reflects negatively upon its subject." This may not be precisely applicable to this article, but I suggest that, given there's a suggestion on the table that we do the reverse and integrate this article with the man's biography, it's worth considering.

Also consider WP:WELLKNOWN, as others have cited. This is not a case of someone picking on a random, non-notable kid to ruin their life. It's a statement of political satire made against the documented controversial statement of a highly well-known public figure in the course of a political campaign, and the enduring legacy of the remark and the satire. There are credible arguments that the topic is notable, relevant, and well-documented. That brings WP:WELLKNOWN into the mix, and at the very least, it suggests that summary, vigilante "justice" by speedy deletion or page blanking is wholly inappropriate in this case.

But finally, read the head of WP:CSD. "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations." This page has survived three prior deletion discussions, so it is not a candidate for speedy deletion as a matter of policy. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. If you want the article deleted, please put it up for WP:AFD, which is the proper venue for deletion discussions. Please see here for previous AfDs. More deletion discussion here is unlikely to be fruitful. -- The Anome (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

KoshVorlon........seriously. Stop disrupting. (Oh, and I wrote that before looking at your user page.) BE——Critical_{__Talk} 17:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

In reverse order:

Critical - I'm follow the policy, per WP:BLP attack pages, that's not being disruptive.

The Anome - I actually put up a speedy, per policy. I wouldn't be able to nominate for AFD now, as some sysop I won't name that doesn't understand the policy on attack pages has locked the attack page down without blanking it.. oh well, may be time for a recall :) (I'm kidding on that - I know it wouldn't survive! )

MacWhiz Believe it or not, I am actually looking at each link posted here. Yes, attack pages don't state that they apply only to unsourced pages, but G10 does, so yes, you're correct. However, I still contend this is an attack page as it (the neologism) was coined purely to disparage Mr. Santorum, so I still belive this to be an attack page based on that. I don't actually think only I know the truth, it's plain common sense, and yes, I admitt to being stubborn too!

Iridescent Attack is not a made-up policy, it's part of BLP, if you really think that's made up, I suggest you read more ;)

KoshVorlon'_Nal^uboutes _Aeria^Gloris 19:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Lower case first letter in title redux

During the repeated blanking of the article earlier today, another editor added the lowercase title template to the article. This matter is the subject of recent discussion archived here. As a general matter, encyclopedia subjects are capitalized, much like words at the beginning of sentences. For instance,

Apples taste good. I would like to eat an apple.

While the word apple is lowercase in the second instance (and in general), its encyclopedia entry is titled with an initial uppercase letter. To contrast with this example, there are some words that should always feature a lowercase initial letter. One such word is the Apple Inc. trademark iMac.

iMac computers from this year feature Thunderbolt. I would like an iMac.

Even at the beginning of a sentence, the initial letter is not capitalized. This would not be the case with the subject of this article such as in the following sentence:

Santorum is a word recognized by the American Dialect Society in 2004 for its outrageousness.

While normally the word santorum does not feature an initial uppercase letter, when found at the beginning of a sentence or as a subject title an initial capital letter is correct. Gacurr (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

oh. thanks for finding that, i had not seen the prior discussion. The Anome fixed it as i was preparing an editprotected section. -badmachine 19:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
No problem. Actually that editor rolled back his own changes.[6] So looks like an edit request is still needed. Gacurr (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I got a bit carried away and started making more edits, totally forgetting the full-protection status of the page for a moment -- hence my rolling back the changes when I spotted it. I've re-made the change you've requested. -- The Anome (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thanks. -badmachine 19:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thanks as well. Gacurr (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

proposed merge from Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality

there is a proposal to merge Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality into this article. -badmachine 10:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

BLP concerns for non-politicians

Ultimately, this supposed neologism is about Dan Savage finding a completely uncivil way to make Rick Santorum pay for having a different opinion. The question we also need to be considering from a BLP standpoint is other individuals who share the same last name, who had no part in this quarrel and in fact might be sympathetic toward Dan Savage's ideals.

Apparently this concern was brought up to Dan Savage, who replied, "innocent people named Santorum will just have to deal with it, just like guys named Dick and girls named Peg and people named Lewinsky. If other folks named Santorum are angry about what's happened to their last names, well, they should direct their anger at the jackass senator himself. He's the one who brought santorum down on their heads, not me."

I would hope we can recognize that Wikipedia has a higher standard than Dan Savage. -- Avanu (talk) 10:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

So we are going to be changing Quisling et al? Active Banana (^bananaphone 11:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, just went and read that one, never heard it before. Quite a stretch to assume we might take a fairly obscure word that is over half a century old and compare it. But, I'm game. So, some guy, Vidkun Quisling, assists a foreign power in the military takeover of his own country. Pretty serious action. It gets reported in a general sense by The Times with the general concern about others repeating this same act. Vidkun betrayed everyone in his nation and became a household name for this massive betrayal. On the other hand, we have a politician pressured into making a few additional remarks during a press conference. Unplanned remarks after being badgered to answer by a reporter. This in turn prompts a blogger to go on a crusade to equate the politician's name with shit. Kind of a different scale here. Typically words take on power without having to be told over and over to use it the way one guy says. Take "truthiness", for example. Stephen Colbert effortlessly coined that term and it stuck. He didn't have to run around setting up websites for it and pushing for others to use it. So, yes, its unfortunate for the other Quislings to get stuck with that, but that is something they can clearly blame Vidkun for. In our present case, we have a person engaged in character assasination, and Wikipedia is only helping. -- Avanu (talk) 11:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Reporting on a phenomenon is not the same thing as "helping" it. If a character assassination attempt is notable enough (e.g. commented on in dozens of reputable sources over 8+ years), Wikipedia should certainly report on it — having an article on a campaign is not the same thing as agreeing with it. The difference between this and "helping" Savage is that we report as neutrally as possible, e.g. quoting responses by Santorum and supporters calling the neologism campaign "disgusting" etcetera, as well as media commentary on the impact (or lack of impact) of the neologism. (If we can find a reputable source calling it "character assassination", we should certainly include that too. I did a quick Google search and wasn't able to turn up anything but blogs etc using that particular term, but if you could point out a good reference that would be great.) — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC) [Speaking as someone whose own last name is also sexual slang.]

(e/c) So living Quislings must "suffer the consequences" because the "bad actor" was a Quisling. But living "Santorums" should be "protected" because the "bad actor" had a different last name? Active Banana (^bananaphone 15:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Avanu's argument was that Santorums should be shielded because this neologism is spearheaded by one person as an attack, rather than a metaphor that arose semi-spontaneously as in Quisling. Not to mention the fact that many US citizens do not see Santorum as a "bad actor". Regardless, however, I don't see how Wikipedia can pass judgement on whether the attack on Santorum is just, nor can it censor its description of a widely commented-on political phenomenon involving a public figure even if many people feel the phenomenon is unjust and unkind. We can and should (and do) report notable sources who do describe it as unjust and unkind, though.

On the other hand, as I commented above, there is a reasonable argument for changing the name of the article to Campaign for "santorum" neologism or similar. For one thing, the article at present is mainly about the campaign to promote the word and its political impact, rather than about usage of the word per se in the sexual context. Also, renaming the article in this way might be more neutral, in that there is some dispute about whether the word is a "genuine" neologism used to describe something as opposed to a slur against a particular person. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

(after several E/C) Active Banana, You're actually equating the significance of the term "quisling" with "santorum"? That's daft. For starters, Santorum's "crime" was to espouse a (narrow-minded) view of homsexuality; Quisling threw an entire country under the bus of Nazism. Further, "quisling" is at least a useful term; I seriously doubt that there is much use for the product Savage was describing. Verbing of people's names happens far too often, but we don't have an entry on "lewinsky", which received a fair amount of currency in the late 1990s. (You can probably figure out what that meant, and it's equally offensive to the subject.) Horologium (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

sooo we dont need to protect living quislings from a widespread negative use of a term that equates to deliberate evildoing, but do need to protect living santorums from a nonwidely used term about a "bodily function"? Active Banana (^bananaphone 16:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Originally my response to ActiveBanana after first Avanu response

I admit that the Quisling brought by ActiveBanana is interesting paralel, at least partly. But there is quite the limitation to the paralel too. The difference in scale of victimization of the surname-holder described by Avanu is just one point. The other point is the notoriety of Qusling word (as compared to the almost not used santorum). Being Quisling... this is something you would heard Czech Republic nad elsewhere, it is quite notorious and deep into vocabulary penetrated term. It is not neologism anymore. I repeat:this not neologism anymore. But still, even so, I am surprised, that here it is as entry in encyklopedia, I would expect it to be in Wictionary not here, the content of quisling I would expect to be in the article of Vidkun Quisling.

To agree with ActiveBanana on one point I decree that I believe, that Wikipedia becouse should not censor reality, so if there would be widespread usage of the term santorum in it's new meaning, then we could not preclude the article from being under this term.

What is different here, is that while santorum word is crafty attack on someone, it is notable just by being the crafty attack. It has not any other notability for Wikipedia as in wp:N.

The article santorum_(neologism) (or any other form of the santorum article name) would fail to exist, if the word would be in usage as is, but senator Santorum would not exist. It would fail on wp:N in the first AfD.

This is different from Quisling, he might be long dead, but the word is still known, santorum is not in its new meaning (yes there probably some wery marginal independent usage exists; I saw some primary sources here: Talk:Santorum_(neologism)/Archive_3#Examples_from_literature but the usage is extremelly marginall)

I see it not right to write article about subject which is not notable in itself (new word for lubed fecal matter), we certainly should write article about something what notable is; for example the event of bringing up the word to usage: Spreading santorum and more, but this all are the events around the savage and senator, not the fecal matter. But then - lets name it so. Let not cover it by some amusing, cool name. It does not describe reality, at most it just helps to create it de novo.

Or am I wrong? Would be santorum (as neologism) able to get wp:notability by itself? Even Partridge dictionary of modern American slang and unconventional English being one of sole sources for such opinion, actually mention the word only to say it failed to get the recognition --Reo ⁺ 16:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Reo, I think that line of argument is something of a straw man. The fact is, three times now this article has been up for deletion, and three times it's survived. If there were any credible claim that the article is not notable, that would have been brought up. To the extent that it has, the argument has failed to sway consensus. Given that there are now even more references to the term in reliable sources than there were during the last deletion discussion, I can't see how it could possibly have become less notable. So, I don't think notability discussions are terribly productive at this point. It seems to me that the place where the two sides may be able to reach détente would be whether the article should be about the neologism, or the campaign to create it. I started out on the first side of that debate, but I have to say I've been swayed to the second side. The currently-pending RFC doesn't work for me, but once it closes, I expect to quickly see one suggesting that we rename the article as discussed further up the talk page, and that the article be refocused around Savage's campaign, rather than the etymology of the word; that, I would !vote for. I don't expect this will cause a wholesale change of content, but it would change how it's presented. Look, I think it's unlikely that the article's going to go away entirely; why not let's figure out how to get rid of the rough edges? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Macwhiz hi, I feel a bit ashamed. Becouse I feel that what I did write, probably did not bring what I wanted to convey. Or I might have also overlook something. In fact, I do (did) not claim, that there are missing sources for the article to get notability, I do (did) not claim that the article is going to fail in wp:N. I do think that the article name is misleading, because the entire story and all significant sources are centered around campaign, not the word (neologism). That's all I tried there to say. There is no straw man, which I would create and defeat later, at least if I understand how others can understand what I did write :). In fact I agree with you on most of what you write. The RfC does not work for me either. I do not think the article should be merged into something anymore, I just think it should be renamed and the name shoud be chosen well (but I was reasoning so already above) Reo ⁺ 22:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Reo, reminds me of that George Bernard Shaw quote: "Two peoples, separated by a common language." :) I think we're on the same page. Heck, I'm beginning to suspect a lot more people commenting here are on the same wavelength than it appears at first glance. No reason to feel ashamed. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not care what Dan Savage's motivation was. We care whether the term is widely discussed in reliable independent sources, which it apparently is. Whether it should be merged or retitled to an article discussing the controversy around Santorum's bigotry is another question, but we have more than sufficient sources for this topic whatever title it might eventually assume. As to the impact on his campaign, I cannot believe that his original remarks had any intent other than to bolster votes with extremists; the fact that the extremists seem to be less of a majority than they have historically assumed themselves to be, is hardly our problem. "He who lives by the sword" as they say. Guy (Help!) 21:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

My feeling reading the above is that there's a lot of "original research" going on. Wikipedia has a problem in that people who want to build up articles are banned from original research - we can't tape an interview with Rick Santorum and Dan Savage, put it on Wikimedia Commons, and cite it for his rebuttal, for example. Even the simplest deductions are supposed to be off limits. But when it comes to excuses to cut out big chunks of an article, the sky is the limit! Any vague line of argument that says something published in reliable sources is meaningless, misleading, or inappropriate, and that's supposed to be a legitimate reason to exclude it. That just isn't reasonable. There shouldn't be OR going on on either side (though I think, a more mature Wikipedia would have found a way to allow both to do so in some sidebar). Wnt (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Neither Vidkun Quisling nor Benedict Arnold are covered by WP:BLP. Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

<font color="orange">@ActiveBanana: 1. I would think you have enough experience to realize BLP does not apply to Quisling. 2. You yourself say santorum is a "nonwidely used term." So, why do we need an article on it? It isn't notable. What is notable is the ruckus raised against Rick Santorum by Savage and Stewart. Tuck a few lines about it into the BLPs of both Santorum and Savage and be done with it.</font> Yopienso (talk) 23:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

if you look at the subject of this section, you will see it is the potential BLP concerns for living non-politician "Santorums". If we need to apply BLP to them, then we certainly must also apply BLP to the living non-traitorous living "Quislings" such as these fine folks[7] . Active Banana (^bananaphone 02:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You are correct that I missed living non-politician "Santorums". I was using "BLP" as it refers to the living politician Rich Santorum. I am correct on that point. Yopienso (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

as far as "nonwidely used term", it was the user prior to me who suggested that it was not widely used along with several other premises. I merely placed those premises into another frame and asked a rhetorical question. Active Banana (^bananaphone 02:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Wrt it was the user prior to me who suggested that it was not widely used, I'm unable to find that. Looking at timestamps and proximity, the prior user seems to have been Horologium, who noted, I seriously doubt that there is much use for the product Savage was describing. That refers to demand for the "product," not frequency of use of the term. It seems you yourself were agreeing that the term is not widely used. If so, you are correct on that point. Therefore, we have a WP:NOTE problem. Yopienso (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I am going to make an appeal to common sense that BLP does not apply broadly to the class of people with the surname Santorum. See: WP:BLPGROUP. Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Banana, the reason why Quisling doesn't relate to this is because we aren't promoting that term, and people aren't going around in the media saying "Wikipedia is telling everyone to namecall the Quislings!" The difference here is that we are being actively cited as validation for this term's credibility. We are lending creedence to the term by how we present our coverage of it. Yet we're supposed to be neutral. -- Avanu (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Condensed version of the article

Another element of the current RfC is the proposal to condense the article to one or two paragraphs before merging. Would anyone like to collaborate on working up those paragraphs, to see how much relevant information we can get into the smallest possible space? I understand those opposed to the merge might be reluctant, lest this process enhances the chance of a merge but, ~~judging by the present state of that RfC, I'd say that prospect is highly remote, and~~ this article is egregiously bloated and I believe this process may help us to identify where and how to cut fat. Here's something I prepared earlier:

In May 2003, syndicated columnist Dan Savage, offended by then U.S. Senator Rick Santorum's comments on homosexuality, asked his readers to suggest the most appropriate meaning for the word "santorum," and created a website that featured the winning definition: a mixture of fecal matter and lubricant sometimes produced in anal sex.^[1] Due in part to the high number of other sites that link to it,^[2] (13,000 in 2009 compared with 5,000 to Santorum's campaign website)^[3] Savage's embarrassing "definition" page has consistently been at or near the top of internet search engine results for "Rick Santorum" and "santorum,"^[4]^{[5] significantly impacting Santorum's internet profile. Santorum commented in 2011, "That'll take care of itself over time and if this campaign [for the Republican presidential nomination] takes off and we decide to do this my guess is we'll have lots of other things that will transplant things like that. [...] I'm sure [the media] will be writing a lot of things and there'll be lots of links to other things that will far supersede some nasty people that are trying to be crude."^[6] Though his neologism campaign has received significant media coverage and the American Dialect Society selected santorum as the Most Outrageous Word of the Year for 2004,^[7] Savage's definition has failed to gain wide usage.^[Partridge]}

Above, Wnt said it needs something about the campaign's political impact, but all I could find in the sources was various pundits' pure speculation. And I'd like to know how Savage got those 13,000 links, do any of the sources explain? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear that there was any consensus for reducing the article to two paragraphs. Furthermore, we normally don't edit articles by "rebooting" them — i.e. en masse deletion of content and replacement by some new version with an a priori prescribed length, except in cases where we delete the article entirely (which can be [and has been] debated on AfD). If editors think that the article should be shrunk, they need to make make specific proposals about individual things (sources, information, details) that should be removed one by one. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Struck a part of my comment: it may happen. Steven, this has been proposed in the above RfC. I think it would be instructive to see just how much of this ridiculously fat and clunky article can be sloughed off without losing anything relevant, so those that are contemplating endorsing the RfC can see what effect it may have. Is there anything relevant missing from the above? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Nearly every article could use improvement, and some strings of detail could use summaries. I don't see a "ridiculously fat and clunky article" to prune here, and a question based on that premise is not germane. If the question is whether a well- enough sourced medium quality article on a notable subject should be pruned to two paragraphs, clearly not. Further, the reason seems to be objection against covering the subject on the encyclopedia, a notability argument. Having failed to get rid of an article, I don't think it's good practice to minimize an article as a second best solution. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

We differ on whether the article is bloated. I have had the pleasure of carefully reading it and slicing off irrelevancies. This is the product. I defy you to find one relevant well-sourced thing missing in my version. I have no objection to the encyclopedia covering this event. None. I object to logorrhoea which this article epitomises. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a good summary. Could I suggest you add it to Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality? --J N 466 19:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a blue link to it in the first sentence: "comments on homosexuality." This isn't a summary, as such, it's the article. It's all the relevant well-sourced information without the cruft. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I know. But it could be quite easily adapted. It's better than the summary that's in that article at present. And I agree it's pretty much all that need be said. --J N 466 02:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It's all that can be said that's well-sourced and relevant. It needs to say how Savage got those 13000 inbound links - I assume he solicited them from his readers but there's no source. I asked the two above commentators to tell me what's missing, and they've come up with nothing. This really is all there is to the article, if you leave out the self-justification. Really. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you'd want to include at least a few sentences on the commentary from ABC News,[8] Mother Jones[9], The Faster Times[10], Rachel Maddow,[11] The Concord Monitor [12], and the Nation (the latter of which was reprinted at CBS News, [13]) regarding how the Google Bomb campaign is seen as a major obstacle to Santorum's presidential ambitions. That seems like the most notable aspect of the whole debacle--that numerous media sources are reporting that Senator Santorum may have been effectively Google-bombed out of the presidential race--and I think it belongs in the summary. Khazar (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The above rewrite does say the neologisim campaign has received significant media attention, which should be easy enough to source, but those sources you linked to don't say it's seen as a major obstacle to his presidential ambitions. Santorum says it's not a problem, and Savage says it's impossible to measure whether his campaign impacted Santorum's 2006 result. I read through most of the sources on the page last week (see the above list), and found just some speculation on the question of its impact on his ambitions. I'll re-read them over the next few days, because you're right, if there is something relevant and soundly sourced that we can say about that, it would be very beneficial to the article. But this "impact on his career" point is axial. We must get it right, and can't rely on fluffy, off the cuff speculation or OR. Ideally, we want the results of rigorous research, but we may settle for a serious review of the question in a high quality source, based on much more than some dude's feelings on the matter. A string of opinions from journalists and bloggers does not reach a high enough standard as a source for this central point. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

While I see your point to a degree, stating that the statements of expert political observers are irrelevant unless backed by "rigorous research" is a much higher standard than has previously been applied to other sections and articles on political controversies (see Bill Ayers presidential election controversy, Howard Dean#2004 presidential candidacy, Macaca (term), etc.). Beyond precedent, I don't know that it's a reasonable standard to set. Out of the above sources, the Concord Monitor says that the Google Bomb has been an embarrassment to the campaign (and it's enough of one to merit a two-page article), though quotes sources believing Santorum has a chance of overcoming it; the CBS source leads off with it and describes it as the main reason why Santorum "is now widely considered a joke"; Mother Jones discusses the problem in detail, quotes a publicity expert describing the problem as "devastating," and states that observers believe the issue contributed to his Senate loss as well; The Faster Line leads off its evaluation of him as a candidate with the mention that he has a "Google Problem"; Rachel Maddow said "“Mr. Santorum's name recognition is so low that this Google thing presents a serious barrier for his campaign". And these are just the most prominent. (Slate.com gave it a blog post this morning as well: [14]) If we have more rigorous poll results that contradict the above, let's include them and give them prominence. But these sources go beyond "some dude's feeling on the matter". There appears to be a wide consensus in everything I've looked at that this is an issue for Santorum's campaign and no dissenters saying it isn't. It seems a shame for us to refuse to mention a major problem for his campaign. Khazar (talk) 13:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I think everyone should agree it's an embarrassment, so I've included that and a link to The Concord Monitor. Nation (CBS) says "now Santorum is widely considered a joke... No, not just because of the internet prank, but for all that lies behind its mockery." It says the prank contributes but it does not say, as you say it does, the prank is "the main reason why Santorum is now widely considered a joke." Regarding the Mother Jones quote, I agree. Michael Fertik seems a strong enough source for the (pretty obvious) claim that it has seriously impacted the man's internet profile, so I've included that. I wouldn't trust Mother Jones for the assertion that it contributed to his senate loss. It may have, may not have. Savage said there's no way of knowing and Santorum says it's not a problem. Rachel Maddow is describing it as a serious barrier for his campaign. I'd give that claim more credit if it were coming from someone on neutral ground in this, she is both gay and liberal.

What I'm saying is we can't add the fact it's an embarrassment to the fact it's messing up his internet profile and conclude it must be harming his career, or even negatively impacting his popularity. (It may make him a laughing stock among liberals, though. I've been doing a lot of chuckling.) And bundling together 20 Rachel Maddows guessing it must be a serious barrier doesn't equal one quality source making the claim. That quality source is probably there now. We just have to find it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Much of what you say is fair enough, but I have to call a serious foul on "she is both gay and liberal". Liberal, fine, but if we discredit the analysis of gay reporters, we need to equally discredit "straight" sources, too, as the ones Santorum and other conservatives regularly say are being harmed by gay marriage. And who wants to have only bisexuals and transgendereds reporting? (Not Rick Santorum, is my guess). In any case, a Washington Post writer also described the campaign as "a big problem for a certain former senator from Pennsylvania" if you'd prefer that [15]. The Capitol Hill paper the Roll Call also describes the problem as "one that makes Santorum’s presidential hopes laughable in some circles" [16] and elicited commentary from many relevant individuals and groups on the issue (some of whom said it was a major issue for Santorum, some who said it could be overcome). Again, I'd suggest that at least some of this analysis should be included. I don't know much about the reporters involved, but statistics suggest an 80-90% chance that they're straight enough to be considered reliable sources. :) Thanks for listening to my concerns. Khazar (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair call. It's the likelihood she'll have a clue whether it's a net negative or positive in his campaign that is the problem. Savage doesn't know, Santorum says it's not a problem for the campaign. Of course it's a problem having the top result saying you're a piece of shit: it's hurtful, insulting and embarrassing. But the people who are laughing at this situation may not be his constituency. We don't know how it will affect their vote. We don't know what effect the publicity around this prank is having on his career; and we can't guess, or rely on people who have no more idea than you, me, Santorum or Savage. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, and thanks, by the way, for being one of the most pleasant and reasonable people I've encountered in this cross-Wikipedia fiasco. I guess I'd still argue for at least a sentence to the effect of "Following Santorum's announcement of a 2012 presidential run, many pundits noted that the "Google problem" posed a serious issue for his primary campaign", and followed by an example quotation or two, and 4 to 15 citations (or perhaps a footnote leading to those citations to avoid cluttering the article text). As long as it's sourced to "pundits" or "political observers" or "commentators", I don't think we're making that statement ourselves, but rather appropriately summarizing the expert coverage of the issue (just as we might say "many reviewers noted the end of Super 8 (film) to be overly sentinmental" without making the assertion about sentimentality ourselves, even though this is true, the last two minutes of that movie are terrible). But since more news is being published on this daily, I'm okay with waiting another week for the dust to settle on other issues around this article and then re-examining. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Cool. And thank you for the feedback... and the complement :). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Partridge revisited

For several weeks, this article said, The 2006 edition of The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English cited santorum as an example of "deliberate coining".^[1]. The info was added in this edit, and later also made it into the article's lede, leading many editors to believe the word is listed in the dictionary (it isn't). As the reference cited the introduction of vol. 1 of the dictionary, rather than vol. 2 of the dictionary, where keywords beginning with "s" would be located, I queried this citation, but never received a full source quote with context. I've now had a chance to look at the dictionary; what it says is this:

As we drew from written sources, we were also mindful of the possibility of hoax or intentional coinings without widespread usage. An example of a hoax is the 15th November, 1992, article in the New York Times on the grunge youth movement in Seattle. The article included a sidebar on the 'Lexicon of Grunge'. The lexicon had an authentic ring, but turned out to be a hoax perpetrated by a record company employee in Seattle. An example of deliberate coining is the word 'santorum', purported to mean 'a frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex'. In point of fact, the term is the child of a one-man campaign by syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage to place the term in wide usage. From its appearance in print and especially on the Internet, one would assume, incorrectly, that the term has gained wide usage.

--J N 466 18:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I have noted below that we allowed original research to slip into the article on the noting that a term is not present in a source. Gacurr (talk)

It isn't OR, that's crystal clear. It provides the balance needed to understand that it isn't in the definitions of the dictionary, but just the introduction. -- Avanu (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The 5 year old dictionary also does not say XX and YY about the term. It does not say ZZ and GG about the term. It does not say QQ and VV about the term. And anyone could go to the dictionary and observe ("verify") these simple facts for themselves. So whatever we insert in the article based on our original observation regarding omission of XX, YY, ZZ, GG, QQ, and VV by the source is not original research, right? Gacurr (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Remove original research from article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved

– It is okay to include our original observation on what is not found on a page in a dictionary if the reader would be misled otherwise

Right now the article say that the 2006 slang dictionary "did not list" santorum. The source given is the 2006 slang dictionary. This is original research on our part and so should be removed from the article. Gacurr (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

And how is this original research when directly citing examples of usage is not? This is an example of proper use of a primary source. From WP:NOR: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." Unless you're going to argue that understanding the (English-language) alphabet to the extent necessary to review an alphabetical listing of terms constitutes "specialist knowledge," there's no basis for this argument. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Have to agree with Hullaballoo. If the 2006 dictionary skips past this term in the "S" section, it is pretty easy to verify. Go look in dictionary, can't find it, point made. It definitely meets the opening paragraph of the WP:OR policy. What you probably already know is it *would* be original research if we went on to say WHY they left it out. -- Avanu (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Should we add that the term is not listed in Merriam-Webster? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Not relevant. Merriam-Webster is a mainstream dictionary, and this is a neologism. New word, not in common use, etc. If I remember reading correctly, this was sourced as being included in the 2004 version of the slang dictionary, and now its stated that it is gone from the 2006 version, is that right? -- Avanu (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Going into the article again and looking, I have to say your concern is rather silly. "The 2006 edition of The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English did not list "santorum", but discussed it in the introduction as an example of "deliberate coining", noting: "An example of deliberate coining is the word 'santorum', purported to mean 'a frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex'. In point of fact, the term is the child of a one-man campaign by syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage to place the term in wide usage. From its appearance in print and especially on the Internet, one would assume, incorrectly, that the term has gained wide usage."

It only says it ISN'T in the dictionary because it IS in the introduction. Sheesh waste of time..... -- Avanu (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And so to say it was there then but not now is our original research. Just as to say "I can't find it" is, on its own, original research. We could add a part to an article saying that we searched the internet for such-and-such and no result was found. Great. That is original research. Going to a source and not finding something and then reporting we did not find something is the very essence of doing original research. The claim about the omission of a term is not a claim made by the source we have attributed the claim to. The 2006 slang dictionary does have a statement in it about the word; that is a claim. Noticing what is missing is not a claim made by the source; it is OR. Gacurr (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you are reading too much into the Original Research policy. If I write "A B C D E" versus "A B D E" it doesn't take a rocket scientist to say "C is missing". If you take the facts, that dictionaries are used to look words up, and this dictionary mentions the word in its introduction, and stop there, the implication is that the dictionary has the word in it too. But the reality is, for some reason or other, the dictionary didn't include the word in its definitions. Saying "its not here" is not original research. The source material, by virtue of a gap, supports the statement. -- Avanu (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Is it original research to say that Plato doesn't mention CD Players in The Republic? It wouldn't probably be germane to a discussion of The Republic, but it would be pretty much incontrovertible. The absence of a term in a dictionary by itself doesn't seem worth mentioning, EXCEPT in this case, it is mentioned prominently in the introduction to the same dictionary. -- Avanu (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you have provided an example of OR with your first question. This is the same, whether our original research might seem relevant or not. The dictionary does not mention the absence of a term. So we cannot, absent a reliable source making this claim. Gacurr (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is not intended to override the most obvious instances of common sense. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is not to have original research. See below for an example that may help to understand. Gacurr (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

This may help to see this more clearly. An example of something that could (but shouldn't, because it is OR) be put into the article:

While not noting how diligently they had searched for this particular word, the slang dictionary did say, "…"

Making negative statements (statements of omission) about a source that the source itself does not make is original research. While it might provide balance to the statement made by the slang dictionary, it is our original observation that they omitted something, even if by common sense we can all see that it is not there. Gacurr (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Are we arguing to include what's not in a source? How does that comply with anything in an encyclopedia that relies on RS. There are no sources at all? In such cases multiple policies and guidelines can be circumvented. That's a big time, slippery slope. (olive (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC))

Yes, others are. I am against it. Right now there is a positive statement about what is missing from a source included in the article. I am trying to get it removed. Gacurr (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It is relevant in this case because the cited dictionary mentions it in the introduction as the sort of thing they didn't include. It doesn't take OR to understand that. For several weeks, everyone reading our article gained the impression the cited dictionary included the term. That's misrepresenting a source, and something we should avoid. --J N 466 20:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

So include what the dictionary says and leave the OR out. (edit conflict)That we might think that quote, or part of it, leaves some impression, is not a justification to then do OR. Gacurr (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Is the Pope catholic? Is his office called the Papacy? We don't yet know, because the article on Pope does not seem to have a reference. Tsk! I think we need to put a citation tag on there, as people have obviously fallen down the slippery slope and resorted to original research. Please read this and stop being foolish. This is material that someone familiar with the topic, in this case the dictionary, recognizes as true. There is no contention here that we have gotten the facts wrong. Wikilawyering is a form of disruption. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Ordinarily, I might agree with you Gacurr, but without a statement like this, the reader is inclined to think the word *IS* in the dictionary, since the dictionary's introduction mentions it. I have a feeling you just don't like the idea that the dictionary isn't supporting the idea of this being a neologism enough, so you don't like people pointing out even the tiniest chink in the armor of belief. Its a fully supportable statement based on the source. This dictionary is a set of A,B,X,Y, and Z, therefore we can see clearly by Set theory, since we know the alphabet is a set from A to Z, that the other letters *aren't* there. This is called deductive reasoning. Please contrast that to inductive reasoning which you might know better as Original Research. -- Avanu (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Even deductive reasoning is OR if carried beyond the most simple forms. What we have here is blatant and simple obviousness, which is specifically allowed. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Then it is blatant and simply obvious that the 2006 dictionary did not note how diligently they had searched for this particular word, along with a host of other omissions we might observe about this or any source. Gacurr (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, Gacurr. We have no idea how much they searched for the term. We cannot deduce that from available sources. -- Avanu (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Why would we need to deduce it? All we have to do is look at the source and not see it there, then report on our original observation: (we looked at the source and observed) the source does not note how diligently they had searched for this particular word. So then in general we can say, the source does not say this, the source does not say that, the source does not list this, the source does not list that. Reporting our original observations on omissions is original research, even if the observation itself is factual. Gacurr (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Because one thing is a set, the other is just opinion. A to Z is a set. How hard someone works is an opinion. -- Avanu (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The book is a set of statements. We are noting what statements are missing from the book. That is the problem. Gacurr (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Article and source side by side

I can't see a problem with the way the article currently handles this. Versions below:

Early version of the article	Source (New Patridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English)	Current version of the article
The 2006 edition of The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English cited santorum as an example of "deliberate coining".^[2] [17]	As we drew from written sources, we were also mindful of the possibility of hoax or intentional coinings without widespread usage. ... An example of deliberate coining is the word 'santorum', purported to mean 'a frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex'. In point of fact, the term is the child of a one-man campaign by syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage to place the term in wide usage. From its appearance in print and especially on the Internet, one would assume, incorrectly, that the term has gained wide usage.	The 2006 edition of The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English did not list "santorum", but discussed it in the introduction as an example of "deliberate coining", noting: "An example of deliberate coining is the word 'santorum', purported to mean 'a frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex'. In point of fact, the term is the child of a one-man campaign by syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage to place the term in wide usage. From its appearance in print and especially on the Internet, one would assume, incorrectly, that the term has gained wide usage."^[3] SlimVirgin ^{TALK\|CONTRIBS} 21:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is the inclusion of the phrase "did not list "santorum"" You'll note your source in the middle does not say this. Gacurr (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

But we can see that they did not include it.

We're allowed to use primary sources in the following way: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." So we look and we see it isn't there. And we have an explanation for the exclusion in the introduction, which is what makes it relevant. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You made a table above with your source and the statement you are relying upon for the article. I am looking at the source text you have provided and no where in it does it state that "santorum is not listed". The original observation of what is not included in a source is a blatant example of original research. There are many things not included in the source that could be added to help balance out what is actually said by the source. Including these omissions is a step beyond what we are allowed to do. The relevance of our OR has no bearing on the question of whether or not we can include it. Gacurr (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah the Horatio Nelson ruse of holding a telescope to one's blind eye and declaring "I see no signal". John lilburne (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I call WP:COMMONSENSE on this one, and agree with Slim. The source does not, in fact, list santorum, and includes in its introduction the reason why it decided not to do so. The source is calling attention to the fact that they did not list it. It's not a matter of original-research "the dictionary has no entry for word X"; it's a matter of clearly conveying "the dictionary explicitly states they considered having an entry for word X and decided not to". We are not guessing that they omitted the word—they said they omitted the word. Therefore, common sense says that in this case, it is not original research to mention the omission in this one case. However, if a future edition comes out and still doesn't list santorum, but makes no mention of that omission anywhere, putting that in the article would be WP:OR. Make sense? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I do not see the dictionary making the statement, "(we) considered having an entry for word X and decided not to". If they did, it would be fine to include that statement. Gacurr (talk)

Since we're commenting down here now. A to Z is a complete set. A to Z minus X is an incomplete set. This isn't OR. Saying X was left out because of Y, that's OR. -- Avanu (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Saying X was left out, based on our original observation that it is omitted, is OR. Gacurr (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Gacurr, please stop your tendentiousness. Everyone else, I think we can ignore his comments as unsupportable by policy and by reason. I agree with Slim and Macwhiz and Avanu. That should make a consensus. Yopienso (talk) 23:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Yopienso. Your comment was out of chronology for this discussion. Gacurr (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Primary research

From WP:PRIMARY:

All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Analyzing a text and not finding something is a claim for which a secondary source is needed. In the current version of the page, we are saying more than the text says. That is something Wikipedia is not supposed to do. Gacurr (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not an interpretive claim. The source spells it out. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the source spells out we can state. I have no problem with that. Gacurr (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind using your main account? You don't seem to be a new editor, and it's unfair to take up people's time with multiple voices. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe your comment is relevant to the discussion here. Gacurr (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC).

It's directly relevant. You're wasting a lot of time, and you're clearly an alternate account.

I think there's no doubt at this point that Wikipedia is being used by this campaign. The question is whether those people will allow the rest of us to sort this out now, or whether the whole thing's going to end up with ArbCom and checkusers to find out who's who, and who's doing what. I hope the former. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

This section here is to discuss the primary research in the current version of the article. There is likely a relevant forum on the encylopedia for your concern. If you need me to take part, then leave a message on my talk page. Other than that, might you reply in the context of this article to my statement above, "Whatever the source spells out we can state. I have no problem with that." That is, can you see how I am relying on what the source says and not more? To take it a step further and analyze the source to see what it does not say is original research. Gacurr (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this original research? -- Avanu (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

That is clever. It is being used to illustrate the concept of fractions. The image itself denotes a cake with a piece missing, even leaving crumbs as a helpful visual indicators. The artist chose to communicate this using a visual vocabulary. If the caption for the cake said, "with a glass of milk missing." then it might be similar to our situation. The image does not show a glass of milk. Our source document does not denote that something is missing from it. (Others seem to think it does.*) Such a notation could be described and there would be no issue of original research. (* If this is the case then the specific parts that say that can be included, either as direct quotes or summaries of those quotes.) Gacurr (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Simple math is exempted from original research, seen at WP:CALC within the WP:NOR guideline. Binksternet (talk) 01:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

We're not adding or subtracting. We're making an original observation about a source text (what it does not contain). Gacurr (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Is all this argument over saying that something was not listed by a dictionary? When the dictionary talked about its reasons for excluding it, so that we can see that it's not that they simply missed the word? When you have the limitless powers of WP:BLP apparently on your side, or at least more for you than against you? I mean, I think santorum is a neologism, but I don't approve of excluding reasonable coverage of the facts. Wnt (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

We can include the dictionary's full quote on the subject. That is not an issue. So whatever they said and intended to say about the subject is not excluded. The problem is taking it a step further and going to a page in the source, not seeing something, and then reporting on that. Gacurr (talk) 02:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I have a new rationale for Gacurr to hear. Hopefully the mental block can be overcome. santorum is a word. Dictionaries have lists of words. If I have "A, B, C, D" in my dictionary, and I try to add "B" to it, I will quickly realize "B" is already there. Simple, yes? If I have "A, C, D" in my dictionary, I will also quickly realize there's no "B" already there. In other words, a simple logical test validates the existence or non-existence of the term/word. There's no interpretation, therefore the fact was already present, and can be verified by *anyone* capable of doing simple logic. -- Avanu (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Designate (talk) 03:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Look, reporting that something doesn't exist in an alphabetical entry is not original research. Period. It could be original synthesis if this absence was taken in isolation or out of context, but the article presents it completely in a reasonable, honest context. It is dishonest to imply the word was listed in a slang dictionary, so this clarification is reasonable. Designate (talk) 03:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

This whole argument seems like an enormous waste of time. Is anyone else making the same argument as Gacurr? (I'm certainly not.) If not, then let's put an end to this one, perhaps with one of those little green check thingies. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It is instructive that the Partridge account gets to the issue in about 75 words, within which they outline almost everything you could ever want to know about the term, including its definition, its origin, and its current real world usage. Its hard to see what all the extra verbiage in the current article adds. John lilburne (talk) 08:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Olive above did seem to understand the issue: "Are we arguing to include what's not in a source? How does that comply with anything in an encyclopedia that relies on RS. There are no sources at all? In such cases multiple policies and guidelines can be circumvented. That's a big time, slippery slope." I think I have stated the case for why this is OR as clearly as I can (we are reporting our original observation on what is not found in a source). So, yeah, further discussion at this time would appear unlikely to change the result. Gacurr (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

^ Partridge, Eric (2006). The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English. pp. x, xi. ISBN 0415259371. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
^ Partridge, Eric (2006). The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English. pp. x, xi. ISBN 0415259371. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
^ Partridge, Eric (2006). The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English. pp. x, xi. ISBN 0415259371. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[1] Partridge, Eric (2006). The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English. pp. x, xi. ISBN 0415259371. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[2] Partridge, Eric (2006). The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English. pp. x, xi. ISBN 0415259371. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[newpartridge-3] Partridge, Eric (2006). The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English. pp. x, xi. ISBN 0415259371. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]