" 

 Although I've never heard the term, if the word santorum is known widely, a mention in the Trivia section seems fine. But only as a mention. Something like, ""Dan Savage successfully introduced the word santorum into the English language as a derogatory insult to the politician."" Not a sentence as long and drawn out as the one that keeps getting on the article. If people want to read more on the origin and reason for the word, it should be on the Savage article, not on Santorum's, since Savage was the one who coined the word and uses and supports it. Thomas Crapper actually did something that connects him to the meaning of the word ""crap"". Clinton actually did something that connects him to the meaning of the nickname ""Slick Willy"". Except ""santorum"" is not a nickname for Rick Santorum. It's a word, and as such isn't really comparable to Clinton's nickname anyway. And Santorum didn't do anything to connect him to the definition of ""santorum"". So a mention on his page? I guess...but a mention in the trivia section. Not a long definition or reason behind it; that belongs on Savage's page.Stanselmdoc  (copy-pasted from an above discussion) 

 ::I don't understand why there's even a discussion on this.  In encyclopedias, if someone's name connects to another subject, a reader is directed to the other subject.  Santorum himself has no connection to the word other than Savage's efforts to create one.  So the word should be on Savage's page, or have a page of its own.  And to the proposed paragraph above: it's too long and drawn out.  Clearly gay rights activists are going to be the most outspoken against someone speaking against them.  They're not ""particularly critical"", they're the most critical. It's redundant.  And it should go in a Trivia section, because it's not a valid criticism of the politician.  A valid criticism refutes arguments and proposes its own; it doesn't degrade and insult someone, so it shouldn't be in the ""criticism"" section. "