On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 4:25 PM, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Ken Arromdee
<arromdee(a)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.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