Talk:santorum

Deletion debate

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

Why is santorum redirected in such an odd fashion and protected to boot? Are certain slang terms not allowed in here or what? Karmosin 29 June 2005 17:09 (UTC)

Hello,

I locked the entry at santorum down as it matched the pattern of a recent vandal. I shall unprotect it for today, to allow you to enter the "proper" definition, then relock it. The previous entry was as ridiculous as it was vulgar; as bad as something you'd expect on the site urbandictionary. Enjoy. --Connel MacKenzie 1 July 2005 23:15 (UTC)

But the definition he inserted is the correct one, whether it's vulgar or not. Since when is obscenity reason enough to exclude a notable word?

Karmosin 13:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

1. As best I can tell (having done very little research on it myself so far) is that it is a concerted personal attack against United States Senator Rick Santorum, through indirect association. Far from NPOV, that could conceivably make Wiktionary party to slander.
2. The word does not seem to exist in running text. Particularly not likely to be used in everyday text.
3. The definition that was given seems to be a copyvio.

--Connel MacKenzie 06:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

That it's "a concentrated personal attack" is really not relevant in the least if it's notable. For a good analogy over at Wikipedia see GNAA. Very offensive, yet notable enough to get an article (that Ta bu shi da yu) has tried 6 times to get it deleted, and failed, is a good sign that it's staying for good). Number 3 is not really relevant either since it is just a simple matter of changing the wording. Does number 2 actually have any connection to official Wiktionary policy? If so, please link and quote. Otherwise, we'll have to accept it as a valid entry.

Karmosin 11:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

You are wrong on every point. GNAA is not a personal nor an individual attack. Slander is a crime. What goes on at Wikipedia is irrelevant; Wiktionary policy is our guideline here. Copyvio's mean the entire article is removed before being resubmitted. And yes, WT:CFI (every contested version says this in one way or another) specifies it must be in running text. Additionally, not only does it not have a single running text citation, it does not have multiple citations spanning more than a year.

Furthermore, the lack of any repudible dictionary to include it (after years of attempts at promogulating the slanderous term) is validation that the attempt to include the term as a "word" fails to meet even the most liberal criteria for inclusion. --Connel MacKenzie 14:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Karmosin, Connel is right. Notability is not a dictionary concept. Attestation is. If you can provide evidence that santorum is attested as a word, please do so on Talk:santorum, where this discussion is best continued. Uncle G 17:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the proper policy citations. I would recommend quoting policy instead of getting working up about the slanderous nature of a word next time; it's not relevant to these discussions. And why not just delete the article if doesn't qualify? You should either find a definition or no entry at all. "--error: link target missing--" just looks confusing.

Karmosin 00:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Because it was entered apparently by a vandal, at the approximate time a vandal struck, in a similar style as that vandal, under an anonymous IP. Simply deleting it means it is recreated 12 hours later during the next round of nonsense. Redirecting it to Main Page is also unacceptable.

By the way, we here at Wiktionary are not so rabid about policy as our counterparts at Wikipedia - our policies are guidelines. Just because it doesn't say we shouldn't be libelous doesn't mean we should be party to libel or slander or whatnot. Your earlier asertion that an entry must be accepted if explicit prohibition is lacking, seems more appropriate for Wikipedia style policies. (Generally, that is not true here on Wiktionary.) --Connel MacKenzie 05:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Obviously you're rabid enough to follow your own guidelines. Very friendly too.

Karmosin 22:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Um, whatever. You seem to have a particular agenda. IIRC, I was not the one that added this particular article to the TOP of WT:RFD#Chronic_problems. --Connel MacKenzie 22:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually the word is really common in Seattle. I just moved from there. I'm not sure if you can remove something just because its history is slanderous. I would expect to see a note in the etymology, but not the removal of a word. Words become so through use and it seems to me this one is used enough to be considered at least slang.--68.89.229.134 13:00, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

That is an excellent distinction. If that were the case I'd agree. However, the only citations provided so far have themselves been slanderous in intent. Furthermore, agressively including it in Wiktionary when it doesn't otherwise meet our CFI makes Wiktionary party to that slander, as promoters of it. It is unreasonable to expect Wiktionary to take that legal risk on. --Connel MacKenzie 15:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC) Edited: Connel MacKenzie 00:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Belated point of order: the term should have been deleted for failing CFI (with regard to attestation), because, if it ever meets CFI, it will be allowed. — Beobach 08:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Quotations

Quotations will be stored here, to determine if the term is ever actually used. (Many quotations were in the entry, but are not durably archived: see here.) — Beobach 08:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• 2007, Robert J. Rubel, Squirms, Screams and Squirts, page 65:

  In the “for what it's worth” department, the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex is called santorum.

  Safety Warning #6: Be particularly cautious where this santorum goes. As previously noted, you don't want to get any fecal matter in the vaginal area. Bad safety risk.

• The occurrence in Waleman's Stepdaughters is spurious. It's a clear typo for "sanctum sanctorum"; the book was first published in 1971. Deleted.

• The book Hard by Dunn is a self-published, free e-book. [1]. [2].

• "Broken Science Press", the publisher of Hate Starve Curse, seems to have published exactly two books, both by Austen James: [3][4].

• STARbooks Press is a bona-fide publisher of gay literature. --Jayen466 20:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Adding full definition

This definition page was highly slanted toward the sexual neologism, ignoring the original definition, as well as the additional neologism meaning social conservative. I have also cut back the number of quotations because in this editor's opinion, the definition stands on its own without the UNDUE case of putting 7 prurient quotations in. One should be more than sufficient. -- Avanu 16:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

For a rare sexual term we need all the verification we can get. You should not have removed them. I don't see any proper citations (uses, not mentions) for your political sense either. Equinox ◑ 16:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, the words sanotum and Santorum are different. cf. johnson and Johnson Gacurr 16:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Technically Gacurr is incorrect. You need only go to the spreadingsantorum website to see it used uppercase. Also, who ever heard of case creating a fully independent entry in a dictionary, especially like this? Wouldn't each entry have a link pointing to the other? Sorry, I'm new here, can't even properly spell Wikitionary (guess I'm supposed to not say Wiki but Wik). Do have reliable sources for all of this, they're just all over in Wikipedia at the moment. -- Avanu 19:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Equinox, I'm afraid you're going to have to teach/show me how to accomplish this verify process. This doesn't make much sense to me at the moment. -- Avanu 19:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say just find the citations in books, magazines and otherwise 'reliable' sources (not blogs as anyone can write anything in their own blog) we'll do the formatting if you can find the evidence. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I have not seen a dictionary without case being considered. For instance, go to m-w and observe smith (noun) is a separate entry from Smith (biographical name). Likewise, Wiktionary does distinct entries as johnson and Johnson show. Apple versus apple is another example. And quisling v. Quisling. (Where there is no separate surname, Wiktionary has only one entry. Another variation is Hooverville.) The website you reference has the word in lowercase. Gacurr 22:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Undid new definition

There does not appear to be any sourcing for this new definition. Gacurr 07:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It's at RFV, where things normally get 30 days unless they are patently made up. So this is a de facto speedy deletion. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm new to how Wiktionary works, and Gacurr is fully aware of this having a source, but is deliberately behaving in a tenditious manner, carried over from Wikipedia. Now that I know where to post the source, I'll do so now. -- Avanu 16:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Avanu, please stop insulting me. As I noted to you in our prior discussion, your example sentence is different from your new sense. It also does not support a primary definition. Gacurr 16:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

'Shorthand for Social Conservative' and 'Shorthand for Social Conservatism' are practically the same. You initially declared the definition invalid because of the tiny difference in '-ive' vs. '-ism', and now seem to be on the track of attacking it each time I attempt to follow the Wiktionary rules (which I am still unfamiliar with). This is very similar to the behavior seen on Wikipedia with regard to the Santorum (neologism) article and its associated Talk page, where you spent a good portion of the page arguing with all comers regarding whether we could mention the absence of this term from a slang dictionary whose preface included it. Honestly, if I saw you working toward remedying the shortcomings in the definition, rather than simply coming up with ways to assault it, I might feel differently, but from what I can tell, you're dead set on *your* version of this word and less than willing to accept modifications to your view. -- Avanu 07:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia original research issue went to the OR noticeboard where my position is noted to be correct ("say what they said, and nothing more").[5] Like in that situation, we mention what the source says, not what we wish the source said. Since Wiktionary is not in the business of redefining words, inventing new senses and adding them as entries is not a good idea. I am watching the RfV board at the santorum entry and waiting for you to provide attestation for the new sense you want to include. Gacurr 17:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Again, I would ask you to let go of the deliberately tenditious behavior. In the Talk page discussion at Santorum (neologism), you were out-opined by almost every single editor, and then went to another forum and begged a different outcome. And then to say that the answer given, which included double negatives was clear and settles things is clearly just looking for approval wherever you think you can find it: "my first inclination would be to say that if Partridge says that they didn't not include santorum explicitly, saying that they said it would not be OR." Who knows exactly what the editor said there?

One more time, if you are willing to help remedy the shortcomings of my unfamiliarity with Wiktionary, by all means, I'll accept your help. I've brought sources and if they aren't sufficient, I'll work on improving them. But if you've ventured over from Wikipedia to continue the same drawn out arguments, I'm not up for more of that. As an editor said there: 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)

-- Avanu 05:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing improvements to the Wiktionary page for santorum. If you want to re-open the original research issue on the Wikipedia page, start a new section there. A better use of your time, with respect to the project here, would be to perform the research to provide attestation for the new sense you want to include. Gacurr 12:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Gacurr, you brought up the issue (which I was answering). I'm just asking you to drop it, as well as the tenditious behavior. Help or stop harassing. Thanks. -- Avanu 14:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The literal definition of santorum is beyond doubt - it's a word created in plain sight at the Spreading Santorum web site and trumpeted in Dan Savage's column through free newspapers throughout almost every city in the U.S., not to mention online. It has been well covered by mainstream news outlets.

I am very skeptical of the definition as "shorthand for social conservatism". It is often used with this connotation; but the connotation that the speaker is more liberal is probably even stronger, as Republicans seldom seem to take pleasure in adopting this vocabulary. ;)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I think that the primary figurative use of this word is the same as the figurative use of bullshit. If you look up "bunch of santorum" you'll see this in many places... even though the literal liquid sounds like a hard thing to bunch up!

Personally I've used this term for other brown, disagreeable, oily liquid, namely the oil that comes out of the filter of a good vacuum pump when too much liquid from gels being dried has been sucked up into the pump over time. But such figurative extensions are routine in speech; by contrast I think the use as "bullshit" - perhaps with a mention of the liberal-conservative connotation - may go beyond this and deserve a separate definition. Wnt 18:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess that 'connotation' sense is what the paper from the Wikipedia article was saying, but I'm not an expert in Wiktionary so I'm not totally certain yet how we go about things. Do we include connotative senses of a word or just literal? Does it depend on how pervasive it is? Who decides that, etc etc.... -- Avanu 20:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

RFV

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

santorum

Shorthand for 'social conservative'. Equinox ◑ 16:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Could be an 'attack sense' based on the other sense of santorum. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Snidow, Shawn (2008 November 20) “Natality in the Private, Public, and Political Spheres: When Santorum Becomes santorum”, in Annual Meeting of the NCA 94th Annual Convention‎^[6], San Diego, California: www.allacademic.com

The paper, titled "Natality in the Private, Public, and Political Spheres: When Santorum Becomes santorum", dealt with the impact of new media on various spheres of influence. The paper's abstract noted, "The specific issue used as an example for this analysis is Dan Savage's internet media campaign to transform former Senator, Rick Santorum's name into a new sexualized word, to retaliate against and increase awareness about the senator's issue stances regarding sodomy, other sex acts, and GLTB rights."

Additional quotes:

"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'"

Can't seem to actually get to the paper online today, maybe someone else will have luck. Its fully cited and sourced in its own text. -- Avanu 16:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

These citations aren't valid without valid referencing, authors, years, titles. Only the last one seems to support your meaning anyway, proving that the word exists isn't the issue, it's whether it has the meaning you say it has. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

If I could actually pull up the paper today, this wouldn't be a problem. It has cites for everything. -- Avanu 16:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/5/9/4/9/p259493_index.html one just says 'page not found'. Oh and which paper, one paper could only give one citation anyway (three independent durably archived citations) --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget that we need "uses" not "mentions". See w:Use-mention distinction. DCDuring TALK 17:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting mention of this in 2006 Partridge's. The word was not included then or since. In contrast WP has had numerous articles about the word/concept/smear. It is an interesting example of propaganda. We should have a category for pejorative eponyms, that is those intended to denigrate the specific person (entity ?) from whose name they derive. DCDuring TALK 17:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Partridge does mention the word in the original sense ("a frothy mixture of...") but not this new sense. The original sense is also recognized by the American Dialect Society.[7] Gacurr 17:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting how few cases of this kind of "reverse pejorative" seem to exist. gerrymander may once have been intended to be disparaging of Mr. Gerry during his active political life. I'd be interested in whether there were other instances. We regularly remove this kind of thing as vandalism when it involves persons who could sue. Perhaps some rhyming slang is similar.

The new sense seems an inside joke intended to disparage social conservatives. Language change by group intention at internet speed. DCDuring TALK 20:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The new sense social conservative does seem to have no sources. The related sense, social conservativism, only has the one example. I would tend to agree that either of these new senses is pejorative. I had thought removal of the new un-sourced sense would be indicated but the editor who came up with it reverted back to the entry page with it. Gacurr 22:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Folks are slow to speedy words that are controversial, even when they are likely not to meet WT:CFI. Here at RfV, the standard is four weeks/one month to allow time for the work of attestation. Sometimes an imaginative advocate can find attestation that a person ill-disposed to the entry can or will not. DCDuring TALK 22:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The new sense is given above and at the entry as "...conservative". But the only example to support it says "...conservativism". Gacurr 17:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to make the definition change to "conservatism"; it seems like a fairly minor/inconsequential difference to me. If I could pull up the paper, I could grab the sources used. Otherwise I will just have to wade through a bunch of Google hits, but from what I can tell we do have a couple of days here, so I'll work on it later when I get home. -- Avanu 23:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It is best to go by what our source says. A cache page of the paper says "conservativism". (I corrected my two posts above.) The paragraph for context:

A Lexis Nexis search of major US and word publications and News Wire Services for the terms “Santorum” and “sodomy” garnered 242 articles beginning with the original April 22, 2003 date. A search of “santorum” and “Dan Savage” garnered 17 articles, one of which was a New York Times guest column by Savage himself on April 25, 2003. Other articles called the term disgusting, but recognized that it had become shorthand for social conservativism. Others reported on Bob Casey’s (a Senate candidate and challenger for Santorum’s seat) return of Dan Savage’s campaign donations due to the columnists role in minting the “raunchy definition” (Budoff, 2006 for instance).

So, the number of articles found by the author to recognize the shorthand for social conservativism sense is not given, other than being more than one. Gacurr 00:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Cell mates: Casey casts a Santorum vote against research

Post-Gazette

Used as an adjective in the headline.

Help Us Give Christine O’Donnell The Santorum Treatment

http://jezebel.com/5664107/help-us-give-christine-odonnell-the-santorum-treatment

Again used as an adjective, but in the sense of beginning an attack.

"And that is partly because his name is forever associated with something he would consider disgusting and probably evil, and that serves to remind the rest of us just how reprehensible Santorum's politics actually are."

Huckabee Pulls a Santorum

http://wonkette.com/346053/huckabee-pulls-a-santorum

Nekkid Wimmen, Faggots And Rick Santorum {{|}} TheCanthook

www.canthook.com › Blogs › Dr. Harl Delos's blog

Apr 17, 2011 ... If you want to piss off a gay guy, you'd call him a Santorum. Call him a cocksucker, and he'll likely say, "Yes, and a good one, too!

Government Shutdown Looms As Boehner Rejects Funding Stopgap

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/biglith/john-boehner-wont-back-budget-stopgap_n_824633_77712053.html

biglith - Commented 4 months ago in Politics

“He's a "Santorum"­.”

mnwildfan - 08:26 PM on 2/17/2011

Now that's low. :-}

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/jnratliff/rick-santorum-john-ensign_n_861930_88265689.html

jnratliff - Commented 1 month ago in Politics

“All GOPteapers are santorums? LOL!” — This comment was unsigned.

Of these, only the Post-Gazette quotation seems to be from a site we would consider durably archived. That quotation ("Casey casts a Santorum vote against research") does not seem to be in the sense given. It is readily interpreted as a metonymous reference to the senator, specifically to an action or a position he might have taken (like "Huckabee pulls a Santorum"). Analogous uses of different proper nouns ("to pull a LaBron", "He's no LaBron", "Is LaBron our Michael Jordan?") might help show how many proper names can be used this way.

If someone said that someone in Egyptian politics was the "Santorum of Egypt", that might be more interesting. But it is still a long way to from that to the uses of Hitler#Noun that have gone far beyond mere allusion. DCDuring TALK 00:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I will continue to Google this. Its a little difficult, since the most primary results are always about the Senator/candidate himself. (unless you search for the word by itself, then the 3rd entry and beyond are about the Senator himself) These results confirm, to me at least, that the primary definition is the Surname of the senator, the other two definitions are hard to determine which is which, but judging at least by the examples I'm finding, the *wink* *wink* use, where a person uses it to make fun of political opponents seems to be more common. Sort of like saying "Republicans are shit", but substituting the word santorum. It seems to convey simply a general disdain for all things in opposition to the speaker saying the word. -- Avanu 07:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I commented at the entry talk; in sort, the literal definition is well established and I think a fair number of people use it figuratively in the same sense as bullshit, but with a liberal vs. conservative connotation. Wnt 18:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(repeated from Talk page of entry) I guess that 'connotation' sense is what the paper from the Wikipedia article was citing, but I'm not an expert in Wiktionary so I'm not totally certain yet how we go about things. Do we include connotative senses of a word or just literal? Does it depend on how pervasive it is? Who decides that, etc etc.... -- Avanu 20:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Effort and imagination may be able to produce cases of the word being attestably used in ways that an ordinary countable common noun is. If such effort and imagination fails to produce evidence in a month, then the matter might be closed by a trusted resolver of such items. If there is no effort to forthcoming, then the matter might be kept open for longer. Similarly if there is non-conclusive, but suggestive evidence.

Countable nouns form plurals and collocate with "a", are modified by determiners (eg. "many", "few", "other", "some", "another", "any") and adjectives. All of this unambiguously or, at least highly probably, in the sense given. The searching is difficult as the big corpora do not facilitate searches for lower-case forms. It might be necessary to search the web for some distinctive common collocations in the sense given, then to search Usenet (via Google groups) and Google News for durably archived instances of the same collocations. Tedious. DCDuring TALK 20:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

List of santorum:

1. use: What a bunch of santorum.
2. use: I think this is a load of santorum.
3. use: Lou Dobbs is a pustulent sack of santorum
4. use: Alberto Gonzales - lying sack of santorum
5. use: Rove and Gillespie - filthy, lying sacks of santorum
6. use: I think he just needs a nice steaming cup of santorum and he'd be fine.
7. use: Same goes for that cowardly sack of santorum ...
8. use: a lying sack of santorum. Look it up.
9. use: If you store up a supply of santorum, they're likely to shuck off more easily.
10. use: Yes, I have been following that and my understanding is that O'Keefe is a lying sack of santorum and ...
11. use: I stepped in a nasty puddle of santorum in the rest room at a roadside park the other day.
12. use: This is due to its rather unkempt appearance, its quite thin wallet, angry and bitter affect, and its odor of santorum about its person.
13. use: Scumpy Goebels chortles, through a mouthful of santorum:
14. use: I just keep getting an image of santorum......just not Rick.
15. use: You are nothing but a night's collected amount of santorum
16. use: Breitbart, that big fat lying sack of santorum, posted an edited videotape
17. use: Yeah , I'm tired of fucking around with what is essentially a shallow puddle of santorum .
18. use: I would lean more towards an aborted buttfuck because of an excess of santorum (google is your friend)...
19. use: ...remains in its bladder-acid-soaked latrine-hole, quaffing liberal quantities of santorum - directly from its sources, no doubt, as they "visit" said hole'...
20. use: Nydia, you worthless cuntload of santorum(the frothy mixture of fecal material and lube) mind using your own handle?
21. use: There you squeegee up a palmful of santorum after a messy assfuck and fling it into the face of the bottom, screaming "Bam, ya nasty bitch!"
22. use: I think I detect the sickly sweet odor of santorum in the room.
23. use: This is a vile dripping mess of Santorum.
24. use: Yeah, but it's elaborate, they gotta do a lot of toe tappin' and hand waving' and always have gobs of Santorum to clean up afterwards.
25. use: Sounds like a load of Santorum to me, but ...
26. use: I Can Make The Sad Sack Of Santorum Dance At My Beck And Call, At My Will.
27. use: [snip remaining lines of santorum]

Gacurr 10:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

All of these are off-topic, relating to the unchallenged sense. The definition that is challenged is the one that says the term means "social conservative" or "social conservatism". DCDuring TALK 13:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Does a new entry on this page need to be opened for the sense of "bullshit" suggested by another editor above? Toward the top of the list, it seems like it might be used that way (or in the sense of "shit"). Also, toward the bottom, santorum is capitalized. Is this sufficient to support an alternative form (like jack-o'-lantern)? On the challenged sense, in culling the above, I searched through about 20 pages of results and no instances of use in the sense of -ative or -ativism (or -atism) were found. Gacurr 19:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no formal need to vett a distinct sense here before adding it to the entry. OTOH, it is wise to take advantage of the attention being devoted to the entry while this is open, especially if you are uncertain. I would exclude the examples that were capitalized. The capitalized common noun sense would have to stand on its own for verification, IMHO. These cites don't seem to support the "bullshit" sense. I'm not sure that they support the sense "shit" vs. the more established sense. The mere presence in a slot commonly occupied by "shit" in a common phrase doesn't mean it has the identical meaning as "shit": See google books:"lying sack of" -"lying sack of shit" -"lying sack of crap". DCDuring TALK 21:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the "social conservativ(e/ism)" sense as unattested and therefore RFV-failed. I have added the "shit: rubbish, nonsense" sense the citations Gacurr provides use. - -sche (discuss) 22:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Tagalog

It seems to me that the Tagalog term is 'atang', and 'santorum' is an English term for it. —CodeCat 01:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

CodeCat, Duque's "Santorum" article apparently uses it as a nonce loanword for a local ritual, and though I scoured Google Books to find additional English usages, I did not turn up any. And those two English taxation-related citations I found were apparently about a Filipino word "santorum", not English usages. Neither sense seems to have been adopted into English literature or English dictionaries, from what I've read, but I'd be delighted if you or anyone else could find any. ~ Robin 20:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Can a speaker of Tagalog translate this for me? "simbahan" is Tagalog for church, so I suspect it's the "tithe" sense.

Thanks in advance. ~ Robin 02:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Our Tagalog citations are in English. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

That bothers me too. I'd like to list some genuine Tagalog citations, like the above. ~ Robin 19:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

"anti-homosexuality stance and policies"

Is likely POV as Santorum denies specifically being against homosexuals, only against some homosexual acts in line with the teaching of his church (Roman Catholic). In addition, he has no "policies" at all -- all he has are opinions. Thus this should be changed, as I have tried to edit before, to "alleged anti-homosexual stance" and "polices" should be simply dropped as meaningless here. Cheers. Collect 21:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Replaced this characterization with a specific description of his stance being opposed. ~ Robin 08:38, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The wording "perceived anti-homosexual opinions" was also somewhat problematic. By placing "perceived" as a qualifier in front of "opinions," it made it sound as if it is debatable whether Santorum has ever registered any opinions on homosexuality, not debatable whether the views he has expressed qualify as anti-gay. It can objectively be said that Santorum has expressed views on homosexuality, but how those views are interpreted or characterized is, of course, a more subjective matter. Astral 06:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The statement that Rick's opinions were perceived as anti-gay is disingenuous. They were objectively anti-gay. Without even considering that he equated homosexuality with bestiality, Rick stated that homosexuals should not have the right to marry. Nixing the word perceived from the etymology section will help eliminate the inappropriately apologetic tone in this article. Doing so will also improve a sentence that is probably too long in the first place. L3lackEyedAngels 18:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment by L3lackEyedAngels (talk • contribs), wise words. -- Cirt (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Why, thank you. :) L3lackEyedAngels 04:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Not an actual word, POV editors

To state that this word has actual real world usage in its derogatory meaning is false, except in a few negligible cases. The presentation of this name as a word with a derogatory meaning can only be the product of POV editors - editors who either are unfamiliar with NPOV or else have little regard for it. -Stevert 06:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Regardless, santorum has sufficient usage to meet Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. ~ Robin

Like I said, it has no usage except in a few negligible cases. -Stevert 01:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Citations:santorum says otherwise, and satisfies our CFI. ~ Robin 08:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is another ref[8] contradicting stated POV of common ord usage. Some semantic shift may be due to action of Santorum who after geting publicity in one L group trying to gain fame in group of true dog lovers, as one of PR rules says that, "it does not matter what they talk as long as they talk".

Urbandictionary is editable by anyone, and is a frequent target for made-up stuff like this. Got a beef with someone? Simply add a disparaging entry for them at UD and let the lulz begin. That is all that site has been used for for years. Tarc 15:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

More to the point, urbandictionary is not durably archived so it's not a valid source, and it also lists mentions rather than uses, which disqualifies it from the outset. —CodeCat 17:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

All words are "made up" at some point. That is how the language grows. When I was born, hypermedia was not yet a word because nobody had invented it. As has been pointed out to you, santorum meets our WT:CFI, so your only recourse against it is to start a vote to modify CFI. Equinox ◑ 21:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I've heard all my gays use it, and even some of my firefighter buddies will use it to mean SLUDGE, use isn't rampant but it is consistent and not isolated.Lucifer 06:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Its obvious from the comments here and the discussion at Wikipedia that some editors either don't know what NPOV means, or they just don't take it seriously. The promoted "neologism" is a slur, one that slurs not only Santorum, but anyone with the last name "Santorum." -Stevert 01:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It would be a POV if we didn't include an attested word because it was offensive. We include quisling as well for the same reason, and many other words that are derived from a person's name. It would not be neutral to include one but not the other. —CodeCat 01:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you're trying to say. nigger is an offensive word, but it's still a word that people use, therefore we have an entry. The same applies here. We have no "point of view" whatsoever; we merely document words that are used and that demonstrably exist. Equinox ◑ 02:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The violation of NPOV would be to make this entry exempt to WT:CFI just because a few editors are upset by the content of the entry. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

A notice to editors, please read this

Note that while it is part of the Wikimedia project, Wiktionary is not Wikipedia and its rules and policies do not apply to Wiktionary. This means we do not have a 'biography of living persons' policy, nor do we have any kind of notability criterium, a policy on original research (indeed, in some cases original research is necessary), and a very different idea of what a reliable source is. Instead, our main policy concerning what is included and what is not is our criteria for inclusion. The two English senses of this word currently displayed in the entry have both been found to satisfy our criteria for inclusion in a previous Request for Verification, the archive of which is displayed on this page. The citations for this term, as required by the RFV process, are given on the entry's citation page. This means that the senses given on this entry are considered verified and therefore not subject to removal. Any attempt to remove these senses will be reverted, and may lead to warning or banning due to vandalism. If you believe this information should nevertheless be removed, you have three options:

1. Submit the term for deletion by adding the {{rfd}} template at the top of the English section, and by creating a discussion at requests for deletion with arguments why the entry should be deleted despite having citations showing that it exists. Note that an RFD request explicitly does not challenge the citations, that is what RFV is for.
2. Re-submit the term for verification by adding the {{rfv}} template at the top of the English section, and by creating a discussion at requests for verification with arguments that the given citations do not support the senses displayed in the article.
3. Start a discussion to modify the criteria for inclusion at our main policy discussion room, the Beer Parlour. Note that all amendations to CFI require discussion, and following discussion are subject to a formal vote lasting one month, prior to implementation.

—CodeCat 13:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

(Given the citations, I think an RFV request has precisely zero chance of succeeding, so I would say RFD is the best recourse – for those who see some problem here. Ƿidsiþ 13:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC))

Another possibility, which one editor decided to take, is to bring the entry to a wider attention in the Tea Room, but that page is really just an extended talk page, nothing more. —CodeCat 14:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Would RFD really be a waste of time, seeing as how there are plenty of cited sources both in quotes on the definition page and extra references on the citations page, as helpfully provided by admin Robin Lionheart (talk • contribs)? -- Cirt (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding?

I just added some material to the entry, which was then promptly removed by CodeCat. The material I added was info on the actual definition of the word "santorum":

"SANTORI, SANTORIO, SANTORELLI, SANTORIELLI, SANTORINI, SANTORUM: From the medieval first name Santoro, derived from the Latin word Sanctus = Saint, the genitive plural form is "Sanctorum", used also to indicate the All Saints feast. Possibly connected to someone acting as a saint, or who has connection with religious things (a sacristan)"

Sourced to http://www.italyworldclub.com/genealogy/surnames/s.htm

CodeCat promptly removed it, claiming "Undo - those are etymologies and definitions of the name Santorum with a capital S." If CodeCat actually thought about it for a second, he would have realized that the above definition uses the term(s) as a noun, and naturally, as a noun, the word would not be capitalized. Only when it is used as a name is the word capitalized.

Secondly, and more importantly, it should be noted how editors here have been jumping to promote an entirely slanderous usage of a word, all the while neglecting to include an actual use of the word. Thanks, -Stevert 22:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it's a surname. Surnames are capitalized in every language on the planet Earth. You're welcome to add your etymology to Santorum, but not here. -- Liliana • 22:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Stevert, You pretty much couldn't be more wrong. Your contributions was off-topic, violated copyright, posted twice and in both occasions posted in an inappropriate place. Also the entry does include actual uses of the word. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Stevert, this usage cannot be "slanderous". It makes no false statement about a certain ex-senator; it merely names something unpleasant after him. ~ Robin 18:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

in reaction to views

After this last disconvoluting which resulted in "in reaction to statements by Santorum " instead of previous "in reaction to views expressed by Santorum primarily with his statements" I come to think do we know was it a reaction only to the statements. Or the views expressed by his statements and something even more? Wasn't it a carefully designed plan after all? I mean, Dan Savage did intend to attack Rick Santorum's views if not even Rick Santorum himself. So a simple reaction to someone's statement only would be a statement itself not the whole promotion of a new term. If an actual war was fought over this, would we say "in reaction to statements..."? --BiblbroX дискашн 08:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we could defer to paraphrasing from referenced wording in a few good reliable secondary sources? Mother Jones magazine, Slate magazine, article by a former Editor at Oxford English Dictionary, interview with Santorum himself, at The Daily Caller. We can use these sources as a model and go forward with some quoted citations from these references. -- Cirt (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Here are the excerpts from those three sources offered:

• Santorum's problem got its start back in 2003, when the then-senator from Pennsylvania compared homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia, saying the "definition of marriage" has never included "man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be." The ensuing controversy prompted syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage, who's gay, to start a contest, soliciting reader suggestions for slang terms to "memorialize the scandal." The winner came up with the "frothy mixture" idea, Savage launched a website, and a meme was born. (Mother Jones magazine)
• This year the strongest contender was santorum, defined (and heavily promoted) by sex writer Dan Savage—in a campaign to besmirch the name of right-wing Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum—as "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex." (article in Slate magazine)
• The story goes back to 2003, when, angered by Santorum’s conservative views on homosexuality, columnist Dan Savage, who is gay, set up a website that included a fictitious definition for the word “santorum.” The page graphically described it as the bi-product of a certain sex act and it quickly rose to the top of online search engine terms. (interview fromm The Daily Caller)

I didn't know the full story before, but this most certainly was a carefully designed plan after all. --BiblbroX дискашн 20:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

And the term subsequently entered public lexicon usage without reference to what prompted its formation — in music, books, literature, erotica, etc. :) -- Cirt (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, on the very spreadingsantorum.com (the first google hit for santorum) I found a link to a page which credits Dan Savage as the author of a text in it. The text says this:

Alas, the Santorum scandal didn't have legs. In fact, most of us--myself included--had already moved on when a Savage Love reader wrote in to say that he didn't want to see the Santorum scandal fade into political oblivion. SARS (Sex and Rick Santorum) suggested that we name a sex act for Santorum, "[so that] this episode will never be forgotten." I thought it was a super idea and asked my readers to nominate sex acts for the honor of being known as a "santorum."

And so on. --BiblbroX дискашн 22:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course. But note it was proposed by a reader of his column, voted on by other readers, and promulgated by readers of the column. Then, years later, it's since been adopted in common usage in literary works, without actual reference back to the incident that prompted creation of the term. :) -- Cirt (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

So we have wikt to do that for us. --BiblbroX дискашн 23:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

If you mean describe the etymology with reference to above secondary sources, sure! -- Cirt (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done, with refs added, see diff. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

кул. --BiblbroX дискашн 09:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! And, no worries. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 09:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

ska probljem --BiblbroX дискашн 12:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Etymology?

The etymology of this word doesn't check out with the quotations because origins per the etymology postdate the cited usages. Where did the slang terms come from? -- Ke4roh 12:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Read it again. It's accurate. Just because the sources are from post 2003, doesn't mean they can't accurately describe the etymology from 2003. -- Cirt (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

RFV discussion of the Tagalog section

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

Tagalog section. All cites given are English and not Tagalog. -- Liliana • 16:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Liliana-60 (talk • contribs), this section belongs on the Tagalog language Wiktionary website, but not on this language version. Then, we can give an interwiki link to that page. -- Cirt (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. If it's real, then it's in the right place: it's an English description of a Tagalog word. —Ruakh_TALK 17:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay okay okay, understood, and I suppose your reply is "at" Liliana, as well? :) -- Cirt (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

No, only "at" you. I'm positive that Liliana already understands this; you simply misunderstood her original comment. ("Tagalog section" means, "I'd like to request verification for the Tagalog section", i.e., "I'd like to request citations that demonstrate that this word is used in Tagalog." "All cites given are English and not Tagalog" means, "The Tagalog section currently has things that are formatted like citations, but they're in English; to demonstrate that this is a Tagalog word, we need quotations in Tagalog that actually use it.") —Ruakh_TALK 19:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, understood. Thank you very much for the helpful explanation. :) -- Cirt (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

So, to clarify, we don't need cites in Tagalog? ... sorta confused here, sorry :( -- Cirt (talk) 09:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes we do; for the Tagalog section. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, alright, quite right, that's probably for the best. So what happens if we don't get those? -- Cirt (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Then we remove that section. —Ruakh_TALK 19:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I see, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I added one Tagalog cite. You can find a few more if you search for santorum nang, on which note, [[nang]] has no definition. Phol 19:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your help! This thread can probably be marked as resolved at this point. :) -- Cirt (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Not yet; we want three cites for the "sacrifice" sense and three more for the "tithe" sense before we mark either as passed. I might find three cites for the "tithe" sense, but I worry the "sacrifice" sense falls through the cracks in Wiktionary's CFI: I can't find Tagalog quotations of it, but the many English quotations of it put it in italics as a borrowing... Phol 23:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed for now. - -sche (discuss) 20:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Equating homosexuality with bestiality

Hi Widsith. Regarding this, can you point me to the statement where Santorum equates homosexuality with bestiality, please? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

"Equating" has been replaced with "comparing", so this is a moot point, IMO. - -sche (discuss) 19:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I hadn't noticed. "Comparing" is wrong, too, however, because it is ambiguous. "Comparing" can mean either considering similarities and differences or it can mean the two compared things are similar. Our readers won't know which of these alternative meanings applies in this case. Some, indeed, will just assume it is the latter (as many commentators have in the past). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

If you look more closely at the edit history, I also edited the page after reverting you so that it said ‘seen as equating homosexuality with bestiality’, which unfortunately got removed with Robin's later edit. Arguing over exactly what he did or didn't mean is beside the point – the point is that many people interpreted his statements as drawing strong similarities between the two. Ƿidsiþ 20:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Etymology is not the same as definition

This site should not be cultivating skepticism. I shouldn't have to "press 1" to get the etymology of a name. And labeling the definition as an etymology construes CFI and POV standards. It appears as a hate crime, or revenge porn in the state it is...both being illegal. Could you put the definition in its own definition sub, because it certainly isn't etymology nor spam. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Santorum#English 67.45.96.107 07:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)