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

2011-05-29 Thread Jim Redmond
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 09:54, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: Has anyone asked Jimbo what he thinks about this controversy? I mean no disrespect to you or to Jimmy, but: Why should his opinion matter more than anybody else's? Articles need to stand on their own merits, not because of

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

2011-05-29 Thread Bob the Wikipedian
And I think Jimbo would agree with Jim's statement. God bless, Bob On 5/29/2011 11:49 AM, Jim Redmond wrote: On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 09:54, Ken Arromdeearrom...@rahul.net wrote: Has anyone asked Jimbo what he thinks about this controversy? I mean no disrespect to you or to Jimmy, but: Why

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

2011-05-27 Thread Fred Bauder
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Brian J Mingus brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: This strikes me as indirection. If someone claims that an article is biased then they are also claiming that the process governing its creation is biased. Such a claim is not a slur, it is a purported statement

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

2011-05-27 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Thu, 26 May 2011, George Herbert 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? The main negative effect of the article on Santorum is

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
Message- From: Brian J Mingus brian.min...@colorado.edu Sender: wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 17:44:41 To: English Wikipediawikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum

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

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

2011-05-25 Thread Ian Woollard
On 23/05/2011, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: Google's search results are entirely their business. Actually not entirely, we do have quite a bit of control. In an absolute worse case we could noindex the entire article (I'm not suggesting it, in fact I strongly recommend against it). But google

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

2011-05-25 Thread The Cunctator
: --- On Wed, 25/5/11, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote: From: Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]] To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, 25 May, 2011, 7:53 On 23/05/2011, geni geni

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

2011-05-25 Thread Fred Bauder
You are ascribing motive to Cirt's activities. Assume Good Faith. This is starting to feel like something that should be dealt with by interested parties engaging with each other, rather than researching on wiki-en. There is a on-wiki discussion and there will be more, but this: By the

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

2011-05-25 Thread Ian Woollard
On 25/05/2011, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: Okay, now we are getting somewhere. These templates are all new creations by Cirt, the Santorum article's main author. They were created between 10 and 15 May, shortly after Santorum announced he might run for President, and then added to

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

2011-05-25 Thread Andreas Kolbe
--- On Wed, 25/5/11, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net I don't want to get that clever, to the point that we take into account that even talking about the article on this list might affect ranking. What is needed is to improve the article; it

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

2011-05-25 Thread Andreas Kolbe
--- On Wed, 25/5/11, The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com wrote: Let's just delete articles we don't like. It would simplify the wikilawyering. You see, I question whether if fulfils any encyclopedic (rather than Googlebombing) purpose to list santorum in a nav template of 100 political

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

2011-05-25 Thread WereSpielChequers
I'm not surprised that a Wikipedia article shoots to the top of Google searches, isn't that one of the reasons why we write here? I'm pretty sure I've seen Wikipedia articles come top on Google even if they lack templates and are practically orphans. Nor am I surprised that someone who writes an

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

2011-05-25 Thread Andreas Kolbe
, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: From: WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]] To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, 25 May, 2011, 20:21 I'm not surprised that a Wikipedia

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

2011-05-25 Thread George Herbert
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: I've dropped Cirt a note and link to this thread, in case they weren't aware of it. As mentioned before, what is at the root of this is a wider problem though: to what extent we as a project are happy to act as

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

2011-05-25 Thread Fred Bauder
I've dropped Cirt a note and link to this thread, in case they weren't aware of it. As mentioned before, what is at the root of this is a wider problem though: to what extent we as a project are happy to act as participants, rather than neutral observers and reporters, in the political

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

2011-05-25 Thread Fred Bauder
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: I've dropped Cirt a note and link to this thread, in case they weren't aware of it. As mentioned before, what is at the root of this is a wider problem though: to what extent we as a project are happy to act as

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

2011-05-25 Thread Fred Bauder
I'm not surprised that a Wikipedia article shoots to the top of Google searches, isn't that one of the reasons why we write here? I'm pretty sure I've seen Wikipedia articles come top on Google even if they lack templates and are practically orphans. Nor am I surprised that someone who

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

2011-05-25 Thread George Herbert
With all due respect, Fred, I believe the article either complied or came very close to complying with WP policy when this discussion started here. Your opinion that it did not has been communicated, but you do not have consensus that there is in fact a problem requiring being solved here. On

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

2011-05-25 Thread Andreas Kolbe
--- On Wed, 25/5/11, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: As mentioned before, what is at the root of this is a wider problem though: to what extent we as a project are happy to act as participants, rather than neutral observers and reporters, in the political process. I'd

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

2011-05-25 Thread Andreas Kolbe
--- On Mon, 23/5/11, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: From: Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]] To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Monday, 23 May, 2011, 21:56 I'm skeptical that we should have

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

2011-05-25 Thread Andreas Kolbe
--- On Wed, 25/5/11, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]] To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, 25 May, 2011, 22:38 On 25 May 2011 11:34, Andreas Kolbe

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

2011-05-25 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Tue, 24 May 2011, Tom Morris wrote: The reason: Wikipedia is on the Internet.  If Wikipedia has an article about something whose promoter specifically intends to spread it on the Internet, it is impossible to separate reporting from participation.  It's a loophole in the definition of

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

2011-05-25 Thread George Herbert
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Wed, 25/5/11, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: From: George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com Again - you do not have consensus (here or there) that it violates the policy. We know YOU (and

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

2011-05-25 Thread David Gerard
On 25 May 2011 22:53, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: Then you've missed the point. The point is not that [[Corbin Fisher]] is about a gay porn company. The point is that it's written in PR style, complete with a blue call-out box: Except you did not say PR style, with call-out box -

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

2011-05-25 Thread Ken Arromdee
Again - I am not Cirt, and I find the article reasonably balanced. Having an article that associates someone with human waste be reasonably balanced is like claiming that an article about the Richard Gere gerbil rumor (as long as it stated the rumor was false) would be reasonably balanced. The

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

2011-05-25 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Wed, 25 May 2011, David Gerard wrote: Except you did not say PR style, with call-out box - you said gay porn company, as if those three words were enough to make your point. You lose. In this context, gay porn company is legitimate, because it implies a COI.

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

2011-05-25 Thread George Herbert
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: Again - I am not Cirt, and I find the article reasonably balanced. Having an article that associates someone with human waste be reasonably balanced is like claiming that an article about the Richard Gere gerbil rumor (as

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

2011-05-25 Thread David Gerard
On 25 May 2011 23:25, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: We cannot fix the fact that the term exists and was damaging to Mr. Santorum.  Censoring Wikipedia to attempt to right wrongs done in the real world is rather explicitly Not the Point. Indeed. And attacking the author is

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

2011-05-25 Thread Brian J Mingus
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 4:25 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.comwrote: On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: Again - I am not Cirt, and I find the article reasonably balanced. Having an article that associates someone with human waste be reasonably

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

2011-05-25 Thread Andreas Kolbe
--- On Wed, 25/5/11, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com Then you've missed the point. The point is not that [[Corbin Fisher]] is about a gay porn company. The point is that it's written in PR style, complete with a blue call-out box: Except

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

2011-05-25 Thread David Gerard
On 25 May 2011 23:36, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: It's not my fault if your eyes home in on the gay porn bit. :Þ You are forum-shopping this issue, and it's blatant and obvious. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Political_neologisms

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

2011-05-25 Thread David Gerard
On 25 May 2011 23:39, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 May 2011 23:36, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: It's not my fault if your eyes home in on the gay porn bit. :Þ You are forum-shopping this issue, and it's blatant and obvious.

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

2011-05-25 Thread Andreas Kolbe
--- On Wed, 25/5/11, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]] To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, 25 May, 2011, 23:40 On 25 May 2011 23:39, David Gerard

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

2011-05-25 Thread WereSpielChequers
Kudos to Andreas for notifying Cirt so quickly after my suggestion, but may I suggest that we review the rules for this mailing list? Currently neither https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l#Rules nor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette which it links to via a

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

2011-05-25 Thread George Herbert
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Brian J Mingus brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: 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

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

2011-05-25 Thread Andreas Kolbe
--- 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

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

2011-05-25 Thread Andreas Kolbe
--- On Thu, 26/5/11, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com From: George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com 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

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

2011-05-25 Thread George Herbert
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Thu, 26/5/11, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com From: George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com I don't agree with either statement. The event (Savage coming up

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

2011-05-25 Thread Ian Woollard
On 25/05/2011, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: The common element is promoting a POV. There's absolutely no ban against that. NPOV is a property of the Wikipedia and articles, not editors. In other words, users adding a POV to an article or articles in the Wikipedia in general

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

2011-05-25 Thread Andreas Kolbe
--- On Thu, 26/5/11, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: From: George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com The Santorum controversy...  article has 2 sentences on Savage and the neologism, no coverage of the consequences on Santorum's career, Santorum's comments regarding it, or critical

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

2011-05-25 Thread Tom Morris
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 23:57, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: If there weren't any anti-scientology campaigners spreading the word about Xenu, we'd still have a reason to have an article about Xenu.  If there was no anti-Santorum campaign, we'd have no reason for the article--its

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

2011-05-25 Thread Fred Bauder
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 23:57, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: If there weren't any anti-scientology campaigners spreading the word about Xenu, we'd still have a reason to have an article about Xenu.  If there was no anti-Santorum campaign, we'd have no reason for the article--its

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

2011-05-25 Thread Carcharoth
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 1:19 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: No question the subject is notable. The question is how to handle it appropriately. Think outside the box and merge it to the article on Dan Savage? One criticism I have of the article on the neologism is that the

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

2011-05-25 Thread Fred Bauder
Again - I am not Cirt, and I find the article reasonably balanced. Having an article that associates someone with human waste be reasonably balanced is like claiming that an article about the Richard Gere gerbil rumor (as long as it stated the rumor was false) would be reasonably balanced.

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

2011-05-25 Thread George Herbert
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Again - I am not Cirt, and I find the article reasonably balanced. Having an article that associates someone with human waste be reasonably balanced is like claiming that an article about the Richard Gere gerbil rumor

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

2011-05-25 Thread Fred Bauder
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Again - I am not Cirt, and I find the article reasonably balanced. Having an article that associates someone with human waste be reasonably balanced is like claiming that an article about the Richard Gere gerbil

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

2011-05-25 Thread Carl (CBM)
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:43 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: None of the examples you cite are living people. This reminds me again about a somewhat common misinterpretation of BLP. BLP is not really motivated solely by the fact that a person is alive, To the extent that WP:BLP

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

2011-05-25 Thread Ian Woollard
On 26/05/2011, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: The association of a living person with shit is inherently unbalanced; it spreads a negative POV towards that person, no matter how many disclaimers we add saying that we don't think he's really like shit. Well said. That's the

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

2011-05-24 Thread GmbH
On May 23, 2011, at 7:58 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: --- On Mon, 23/5/11, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: From: Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com On 23 May 2011 02:24, Brian J Mingusbrian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: When you Google for Santorum's last

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

2011-05-24 Thread Andreas Kolbe
--- On Tue, 24/5/11, GmbH gmbh0...@gmail.com wrote: From: GmbH gmbh0...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]] To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Tuesday, 24 May, 2011, 1:11 On May 23, 2011, at 7:58 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote

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

2011-05-24 Thread George Herbert
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Yes, let's replace our elite judgment for that of everyone else. You've got one word right, our. You are responsible for this. No, he (and we) are not. Dan Savage is responsible for this. -- -george william herbert

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

2011-05-24 Thread The Cunctator
Huh? On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.netwrote: Yes, let's replace our elite judgment for that of everyone else. You've got one word right, our. You are responsible for this. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list

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

2011-05-24 Thread Andreas Kolbe
--- On Tue, 24/5/11, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: I don't know that it's been reviewed in analytical terms at that level.  It's so offensive on one level that academics and political commentators seem to just shy away from it rather than addressing the rather deep Hey,

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

2011-05-24 Thread The Cunctator
There's also this: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/5/9/4/9/p259493_index.html *Natality in the Private, Public, and Political Spheres: When Santorum Becomes

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

2011-05-24 Thread Andreas Kolbe
--- On Tue, 24/5/11, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net I've no idea how the Wikipedia article manages to get itself represented twice, with two different titles (one of which redirects to the other). Personally, I think redirecting the

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

2011-05-23 Thread Charles Matthews
On 23/05/2011 03:56, geni wrote: On 23 May 2011 02:24, Brian J Mingusbrian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: When you Google for Santorum's last name this Wikipedia article is the second result. This means that people who are looking for legitimate information about him are not going to find it

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

2011-05-23 Thread Will Beback
Words coined after the names of then-living people: *Orwellian *Chauvinist *Boycott *Bowdlerize and countless others. Wikipedia can't ignore significant cultural trends for the sake of censorship and super injunctions. Nor should it be used to promote those trends. So long as we stick

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

2011-05-23 Thread Fred Bauder
On 23/05/2011 03:56, geni wrote: On 23 May 2011 02:24, Brian J Mingusbrian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: When you Google for Santorum's last name this Wikipedia article is the second result. This means that people who are looking for legitimate information about him are not going to find it

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

2011-05-23 Thread Charles Matthews
On 23/05/2011 13:35, Fred Bauder wrote: This seems to combine malice and political purpose. Really it is stuff that belonged on Encyclopedia Dramatica. I take it Fred means this article or this campaign: if the latter that's obvious enough. Given a mainstream piece of coverage such as

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

2011-05-23 Thread George Herbert
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 5:54 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 23/05/2011 13:35, Fred Bauder wrote: This seems to combine malice and political purpose. Really it is stuff that belonged on Encyclopedia Dramatica. I take it Fred means this article or this campaign:

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

2011-05-23 Thread Carcharoth
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 4:47 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: Many of the things we report on are unfortunate.  An IMF candidate who alledgedly raped a hotel maid snip Candidate? Last I looked, he was Managing Director of the IMF at the time the story broke (he is now former

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

2011-05-23 Thread Carcharoth
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: that the situation with Twitter and a UK footballer I was looking at the wrong article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_British_super-injunction_controversy This one is more specific:

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

2011-05-23 Thread Fred Bauder
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 4:47 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: Many of the things we report on are unfortunate.  An IMF candidate who alledgedly raped a hotel maid snip Candidate? Last I looked, he was Managing Director of the IMF at the time the story broke (he is now

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

2011-05-23 Thread The Cunctator
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:47 AM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 5:54 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 23/05/2011 13:35, Fred Bauder wrote: This seems to combine malice and political purpose. Really it is stuff that

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

2011-05-23 Thread Carcharoth
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 4:47 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: Santorum himself seems to have a decent level of understanding that the phenomena is out of his control and not something he should try to suppress, despite being personally offended. I suppose he could change his

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

2011-05-23 Thread George Herbert
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 4:47 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: Many of the things we report on are unfortunate.  An IMF candidate who alledgedly raped a hotel maid snip Candidate? Last I

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

2011-05-23 Thread Fred Bauder
We don't exist to fix the real world - we exist to report on it accurately. Many of the things we report on are unfortunate. An IMF candidate who alledgedly raped a hotel maid, a tornado that killed 89 plus people, a terrorist attack in Pakistan and several ongoing and incipient wars,

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

2011-05-23 Thread George Herbert
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: We don't exist to fix the real world - we exist to report on it accurately.  Many of the things we report on are unfortunate.  An IMF candidate who alledgedly raped a hotel maid, a tornado that killed 89 plus people,

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

2011-05-23 Thread Ken Arromdee
I'm skeptical that we should have an article. The reason: Wikipedia is on the Internet. If Wikipedia has an article about something whose promoter specifically intends to spread it on the Internet, it is impossible to separate reporting from participation. It's a loophole in the definition of

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

2011-05-23 Thread The Cunctator
I agree. Let's remove all content on Wikipedia about the Internet. On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: I'm skeptical that we should have an article. The reason: Wikipedia is on the Internet. If Wikipedia has an article about something whose promoter

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

2011-05-23 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Mon, 23 May 2011, geni wrote: When you Google for Santorum's last name this Wikipedia article is the second result. This means that people who are looking for legitimate information about him are not going to find it right away - instead we are going to feed them information about a biased

  1   2   >