On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 4:25 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@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@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