Talk:Santorum neologism gains prominence during US election cycle

Review of revision 1395669 [Not ready]

Revision 1395669 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 19:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: See below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: I'm afraid I'm not seeing the newsworthiness here. Nothing about this seems to have changed in the past few days — except perhaps that The Fort Worth Star-Telegram interviewed Dan Savage, which rightly isn't the focus of this article. I mean to ask around for other assessments of this —and I'm quite interested to hear the author's thoughts— but my own immediate sense is that it lacks the current-event spark to make it news. It seems to be a rather well-done variant of a (sorry to be so blunt) "fluff" piece that's making the rounds in the msm. (I realize that's a rather strong word to use... though, of course, it gets hard to see anything as a strong word when compared to the subject of this article.) Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 1395669 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 19:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: See below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: I'm afraid I'm not seeing the newsworthiness here. Nothing about this seems to have changed in the past few days — except perhaps that The Fort Worth Star-Telegram interviewed Dan Savage, which rightly isn't the focus of this article. I mean to ask around for other assessments of this —and I'm quite interested to hear the author's thoughts— but my own immediate sense is that it lacks the current-event spark to make it news. It seems to be a rather well-done variant of a (sorry to be so blunt) "fluff" piece that's making the rounds in the msm. (I realize that's a rather strong word to use... though, of course, it gets hard to see anything as a strong word when compared to the subject of this article.) Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Additional potential sources

• Jack Cashill. "Dems Mobilize in Missouri for Santorum" — American Thinker, February 4, 2012
• The Canadian Press. "Anti-gay remarks haunt Rick Santorum online" — CTV Television Network, January 15, 2012
• Lee-Anne Goodman. "Nine-year legacy of Santorum's anti-gay remarks a 'frothy' online gross-out" — Winnipeg Free Press, January 14, 2012
• Edward Schumacher-Matos. "Rick Santorum's Google problem becomes the story" — KPLU, January 10, 2012
• Laura Sydell. "How Rick Santorum's 'Google Problem' Has Endured" — National Public Radio, January 6, 2012

Listing additional potential sources, above. -- Cirt (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Prevalence in news

Prevalent in the news under multiple different searches:

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]

-- Cirt (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts on newsworthiness

My sense (thus far) is that the newsworthiness difficulty has been one of presentation.

• Excerpt from WN:Content guide#What is 'news'?: News stories focus on a recent single current event or phenomenon.
• The focus here, as I understand it, is that the neologism is prominent in voters' minds in the election cycle.

• The headline and lede don't altogether bring out the voters/election aspect of things. It seems possible this might be achievable with remarkably few words added.
• As the central focus of the article, it has to be backed up, somewhat, later in the article; one can't have an inverted pyramid with only the base (lede) and tip (background) without a middle section of the pyramid. Right now, it doesn't seem the rest of the article would back up that focus. The only details I've noticed mentioned, after the lede, that are within three days are Santorum saying something against same-sex partnership (relevant background, but doesn't speak to voter awareness of the neologism), and the interview with Savage (also doesn't speak to voter awareness).
• Of course there's the whole two-independent-sources thing.

--Pi zero (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: I'm not making any claims about what is or isn't covered by existing sources, just intending not to let the sourcing issue slip out of visibility. --Pi zero (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Responses to above suggestions

---

Thank you very much for these specific suggestions, they were quite helpful. I've made several changes in response to the above recommendations:

1. I've moved the page to a new title, "Santorum neologism gains prominence during US election cycle", from its original, "Santorum neologism still prevalent after nine years". This directly incorporates the suggestion from the 2nd point by Pi zero, above. diff.
2. Per advice above from Pi zero, I've tweaked the lede/intro to provide more focus on the fact that the neologism is prominent in voters' minds in the election cycle. diff.
3. I've added additional sources to supplement the prior sources, to back up the central focus of the article on the topic suggested by Pi zero. This included sources National Public Radio diff, KPLU diff, and The Canadian Press diff diff diff.

Again, thanks so much for these helpful pointers. This helps greatly to shift the central focus of the article, and back it up with multiple different independent sources. :) -- Cirt (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1396024 [Passed]

Revision 1396024 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 01:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1396024 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 01:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Link description

Regarding diff, no worries, I'm happy to defer here to the judgment of Pi zero (talk · contribs). ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Stevertigo's notes: Why this article lacks quality

1. "{LGBT}" Why the LGBT tag? To put this subject strictly within the context of LGBT issues, is to promote the slur/neologism as put for by a homosexual activist. This topic just as much falls under the topic of slander/defamation, doesn't it? Why isn't there a slander/defamation template?
2. "A neologism coined in advice columnist Dan Savage's column Savage Love in response to comments made by former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum about homosexuality has gained prominence during the ongoing election cycle in the United States." - This sentence is too wordy. I understand that the author's premise is that the slur/neologism has "gained prominence." My suggestion is that this is not actually true, or else misstated. Has the author actually shown that the slur/neologism has "gained prominence" simply because more people have been Googling Santorum's name? That is clearly the author's premise, but the author does not actually support this in any way except to loosely cite a couple news articles. More to the point, the author(s) appear to use the word "prominence," both in the title and the lede, as code for "legitimacy." They appear to be doing the opposite of what real journalists actually do, in stating that the neologism/slur is somehow legitimized by either Santorum's rise or Google's principled defense of the Google bomb. In short the prominent usage of the word "prominence," along with the LGBT tag, and the defamatory painting, must all really just be reflective of the author's bias.
3. "After Santorum spoke out against LGBT rights in the United States in 2003, readers of Savage’s column voted to define the word "santorum" as "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex."" - "Santorum" (lower case) is an actual word, meaning something related to a sanctified ritual. So, the proper verb here might be [readers voted to] "redefine" [the word].
4. "The prominence of this term's association with Santorum, a current candidate for the Republican Party presidential nomination, has had an impact on the former Senator's presidential campaign." - Is there a source for this? Santorum won three primaries yesterday, perhaps the slur/neologism hasn't been having that much of an effect at all.
5. The article quotes gay activist Dan Savage "It is vile, as are Santorum's comments about gay people." and features his quote prominently. Santorum's comments are not featured prominently. This again points to a bias with the author(s).
6. The article also includes an image titled "File:Still Life with Rick Santorum, Lube, Dildo, and Justin Bieber doll.jpg|thumb|left|Artwork inspired by the santorum neologism phenomenon. Attributed to someone named "bijijoo."
7. "Democratic strategists poised themselves to take advantage of Santorum's association with the neologism phenomenon." - The word "phenomenon" here appears to have superlative connotations. Using superlatives is a clear example of bias.
8. "Based on sources among Democratic operatives, Jack Cahill of American Thinker reports Democratic tactics in Missouri involve actually galvanizing support for Santorum ahead of that state's Republican caucuses in order to eliminate the possibility of a Mitt Romney win. Cahill says they view Santorum as mostly a dirty joke's punchline." - How does this actually relate to the slur/neologism/Googlebomb?
9. "The [Wikinews] investigation noted that: "An edit to an article about a controversy over Senator Rick Santorum's statements about Constitutional rights to privacy with regards to sexual acts, seemingly coming from Rick Santorum's staff members, removed a reference to an effort to redefine Santorum's last name as a neologism." - This is old news. How does mentioning it here support the article's premise of a "prominent" "phenomenon"?
10. "In a 2003 interview with the Associated Press, Rick Santorum compared legalizing same-sex marriage in the United States to supporting bestiality. Readers of the Savage Love advice column selected a new definition for the Senator’s last name, and Savage created a website www.spreadingsantorum.com to document the spread of the phenomenon. The term became a prominent result in searches online, and gained dominance on Web search engines including Google, Bing, and Yahoo!."
11. "Google global communications chief Gabriel Stricker commented to National Public Radio in an interview this January, that the company was avoiding editorial judgment, and that the prominence of the santorum neologism phenomenon in web searches is due to increased interest in the subject. Stricker stated, "There definitely are people who are finding this to be the best answer to their question, and they are indicating this by either clicking on this result or linking to this result as the best answer to that question."
12. "In the wake of Santorum's showing in the 2012 Iowa Republican caucuses, additional curious people looked up the former Senator on the Internet and in turn discovered the santorum neologism phenomenon."
13. "After journalist Laura Sydell of the National Public Radio program All Things Considered received criticism for covering the increased attention to the santorum neologism, she explained why the issue was relevant: "I felt it was an important and legitimate story in the wake of Mr. Santorum's success in Iowa. Although the site had been up for many years, it was only after Mr. Santorum's success in the caucuses that a large number of people were actually searching for more information about him." - Searching "for more information about him" does not mean that the slur itself has been receiving increased validation - only Google regards a click on a link to be a validation of the neologism/slur.
14. "The Canadian Press provided a similar analysis in January — that more coverage of Santorum has led to more coverage of the neologism." - More detail - what did this paper actually say about the subject?
15. "Rick Santorum himself has acknowledged and discussed the existence and prevalence of the santorum neologism phenomenon, in comments to the press." - To Santorum, its not a "phenomenon" its just a prank, and his comments on the subject do not "acknowlege[]" the "prevalence" of the subject - the word "prevalence" implies that the slur has some legitimacy.
16. "Santorum tried to alleviate the neologism's results in web searches by reaching out to Google in September, but this act only served to increase reporting and coverage of the phenomenon." - This assertion doesn't have a source and appears to be editorializing.

-Steverti (talk) 05:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Most of the items on that list —and, indeed, the overall shape of the list— are mainly evidence of lack of understanding of the nature of Wikinews. That's perfectly understandable; we all start out as newbies. The first thing to keep in mind is that Wikinews is not Wikipedia. A page that may be useful to you is Wikinews:For Wikipedians; we're always looking for ways to improve that page, as it doesn't prevent as many cross-cultural misunderstandings by Wikipedians as we could wish. Your list doesn't show evidence of understanding the mutually related (and, ultimately, deep) Wikinews concepts of news, review, and archiving, and their implications. Note, btw, that we are a highly collaborative project, with our greatest successes coming from a deeply rewarding interaction between author(s) and reviewer(s), working in very different roles on any given article toward the shared goal of producing high quality news. --Pi zero (talk) 14:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree here with the judgment in this analysis of comment by admin Pi zero. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)