--- On Tue, 24/5/11, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@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 thing to
Santorum's BLP and covering
it there would be the "encyclopedic" thing to do.
The comparison to Bowdlerise, Orwellian etc. is IMO
unrealistic. Those
neologisms have stood the test of time, and have been
used un-consciously
in prose. "Santorum" is a conscious joke word.
Andreas
Well, too much. I'm on-board for fighting fascism, but not using Wikipedia as a vehicle. We need to have a policy discussion on-wiki about this.
I've been actually reading the sources cited; this is interesting and useful information, but needs to be handled more appropriately by both Wikipedia and Google. We need to bring the creator, and protector, of the article into the discussion too.
As was just pointed out to me on the article talk page, the article has survived three AfDs. Since the last one in December last year, however, it has grown from about 1500 words to 4800, as well as having captured the two top spots in Google.
[[Santorum controversy]] covers the same ground as well.
We do come across as just a *bit* partial here.
Andreas