--- On Tue, 24/5/11, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote:
From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)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