Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

2011-05-26 Thread Will Beback
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: We discussed this a couple of days ago at our meet-up. Jayen466 has a long history of harassing Cirt, an editor who has created dozens of featured articles on a variety of topic. He has engaged in widespread forum

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

2011-05-26 Thread Richard Farmbrough
Fred Bauder wrote: The matter can be resolved by editing which conforms the article to Wikipedia policies. This is true, however it is also true the editing which conforms the article to WP policies might fail to resolve the matter. The revival of Gore Vidal's technique of some 50 years ago,

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

2011-05-26 Thread Richard Farmbrough
Presumably we are evaluating the arguments that are not /ad hominem /on their merits, rather than on the /ad hominem/ basis that their author elsewhere makes /ad hominem /attacks? RMF On 25/05/2011 22:38, David Gerard wrote: See, at this point you completely blew your credibility in this

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

2011-05-26 Thread WereSpielChequers
Actually I'm evaluating them on their appropriateness for a mailing list. A discussion that would be perfectly in order on wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DRV#Principal_purpose_.E2.80.93_challenging_deletion_decisions looks more like off wiki canvassing to me. May I suggest that we

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

2011-05-26 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Wed, 25 May 2011, George Herbert wrote: You are conflating the term (which associates someone with human waste) and our coverage of the term (which describes the term, descriptively, historically, and cultural and political contexts). No, I am not. I am conflating what the article says and

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

2011-05-26 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Thu, 26 May 2011, Andreas Kolbe wrote: As a matter of fact, it would help Wikipedia if the article were retitled, [[Dan Savage Google-bomb campaign against Rick Santorum]]. The fact that it would help is exactly why it's not going to happen--all the people who are promoting the article

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

2011-05-26 Thread The Cunctator
This is a mistaken understanding of what unbalanced means with respect to Wikipedia. On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.netwrote: Again - I am not Cirt, and I find the article reasonably balanced. Having an article that associates someone with human waste be

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

2011-05-26 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Thu, 26 May 2011, Tom Morris wrote: If there weren't a tea party movement, we wouldn't have an article on the tea party movement. The tea party movement isn't mainly an Internet campaign, and even the aspects of it that are Internet-based don't involve attempts to increase its search engine

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

2011-05-26 Thread George Herbert
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: [...] You can't neutrally discuss how a person is compared to shit.  Not in any real-world sense. I don't agree for a moment that we can't neutrally discuss how a person is compared to shit. We can and in my opinion we

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

2011-05-26 Thread Fred Bauder
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: [...] You can't neutrally discuss how a person is compared to shit.  Not in any real-world sense. I don't agree for a moment that we can't neutrally discuss how a person is compared to shit. We can and in my opinion we

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

2011-05-26 Thread George Herbert
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: [...] You can't neutrally discuss how a person is compared to shit.  Not in any real-world sense. I don't agree for a moment that we can't

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

2011-05-26 Thread Jim Redmond
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:47, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.comwrote: We aren't doing anything wrong here. We could, but the actual coverage in the actual article is NPOV and does not show Santorum himself in a negative manner, because we show Santorum's reasoned and mature response

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

2011-05-26 Thread David Gerard
On 26 May 2011 00:52, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote: On 25/05/2011, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: The common element is promoting a POV. But that doesn't seem to be what's happening here; I don't see signs of breach of NPOV. Andreas appears to have a vendetta against

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

2011-05-26 Thread Brian J Mingus
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 11:47 AM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: [...] You can't neutrally discuss how a person is compared to

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

2011-05-26 Thread Carcharoth
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Brian J Mingus brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: I believe that you should at least agree that the article should be no more than 2-3 paragraphs in length, with a small handful of citations to truly authoritative, and perhaps even academic, discussions of the

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

2011-05-26 Thread Carl (CBM)
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: I can agree with this. Most articles summarise their sources, and serve as a starting point for further reading on the topic. This article appears to be the starting and the ending point. Sometimes less is more.

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

2011-05-26 Thread Carcharoth
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Carl (CBM) cbm.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: I can agree with this. Most articles summarise their sources, and serve as a starting point for further reading on the topic. This article

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

2011-05-26 Thread Carl (CBM)
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: Part of the process of improving articles involves editing them, and that includes removing stuff as well as adding stuff. There are many cases of articles at the featured article process (and sometimes at the good

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

2011-05-26 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Thu, 26 May 2011, George Herbert wrote: The *term* shows him in a negative light, but the *incident* actually shows him responding maturely and responsibly. This is an artificial distinction that happens to fit Wikipedia rules, but not reality. Spreading the term automatically shows him in

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

2011-05-26 Thread Rob
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 2:30 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: (Proposed general rule: if you launch your complaint on Wikipedia Review, you're already wrong.) This is going on my user page. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

2011-05-26 Thread Rob
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Brian J Mingus brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: Your arguments fail to account for the fact that the article is curated by biased anti-Santorum contributors, Well, you lost me right there. This is a terrible slur on both the editors of the article as well as

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

2011-05-26 Thread Brian J Mingus
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Rob gamali...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Brian J Mingus brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: Your arguments fail to account for the fact that the article is curated by biased anti-Santorum contributors, Well, you lost me right there.

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

2011-05-26 Thread Rob
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Brian J Mingus brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: I believe you will have a hard time justifying your claim that my comment is false (not to mention that it is a slur). It should be easy to show that the article is curated by at least one, and probably several,

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

2011-05-26 Thread gmbh0000
Man, I'm not even for us having an individual article on this-it belongs in the Rick Santorum or Dan Savage articles-but this relentless barrage of bad faith assumptions is ridiculous. You're inferring a conspiracy to smear Santorum by enlarging the article. I hope you realize you're alienating

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

2011-05-26 Thread Brian J Mingus
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Rob gamali...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Brian J Mingus brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: I believe you will have a hard time justifying your claim that my comment is false (not to mention that it is a slur). It should be easy to show

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

2011-05-26 Thread George Herbert
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Brian J Mingus brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Rob gamali...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Brian J Mingus brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: I believe you will have a hard time justifying your claim that my

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

2011-05-26 Thread Brian J Mingus
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 6:50 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Brian J Mingus brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Rob gamali...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Brian J Mingus

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

2011-05-26 Thread George Herbert
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Brian J Mingus brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 6:50 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Brian J Mingus brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Rob

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

2011-05-26 Thread Carcharoth
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 5:28 AM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: In this particular, I am vexed and confused.  If the longer article makes him look better, why in the flying spaghetti monster's name are those advocating human dignity here asking to shorten it? Because people

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

2011-05-26 Thread George Herbert
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 5:28 AM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: In this particular, I am vexed and confused.  If the longer article makes him look better, why in the flying spaghetti monster's name