--- On Thu, 26/5/11, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:
From: George Herbert <george.herbert(a)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