--- On Thu, 26/5/11, George Herbert <george.herb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: George Herbert <george.herb...@gmail.com> > > George, > > > > Can you please address a couple of points that I > believe have been brought > > up in this thread. You may want to read the previous > emails that more > > clearly elucidated the points first, or not. They are > as follows: > > > > 1) This term deserves a Wiktionary entry at best, not > a Wikipedia entry. > > > > 2) Wikipedia is being used as a platform to damage > Santorum. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Brian > > I don't agree with either statement. > > The event (Savage coming up with the term, the effects on > Santorum) is > notable. It's covered in reliable sources. The > word itself would be > a Wiktionary entry, but the incident overall is Wikipedia. > > We're reporting on the damage to Santorum, not causing > it. Our > reporting is not making it better, but neither is it making > it worse. > The damage was done by Savage and others and was widespread > long > before the article here. > > We do not censor topics that are damaging to individuals > just because > they are damaging. They have to be notable and > covered in a NPOV way > for us to cover them, but this passes both tests. You may be forgetting that we have an article on [[Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality]]. That's notable. The term, linguistically, is not. It's in one slang dictionary, and one book on neologisms. Andreas _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
