On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 4:25 PM, George Herbert <george.herb...@gmail.com>wrote:

> 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 long as it stated the rumor was false) would be reasonably
> balanced.
> > 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.
> 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).
> Our coverage of the term is NPOV and balanced, in my opinion.
> You seem to wish that the term did not exist.  That's a fair wish, but
> not relevant to Wikipedia.  What's relevant to Wikipedia is that it
> does exist, has numerous reliable sources, has had real-world impact,
> and therefore is at least arguably notable and an appropriate subject
> for a WP article.
> 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.
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herb...@gmail.com


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.


WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:

Reply via email to