On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 5:28 AM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
In this particular, I am vexed and confused. If the longer article makes him look better, why in the flying spaghetti monster's name are those advocating human dignity here asking to shorten it?
Because people should read the article about *him* to find out who he is, not the article on the neologism. Similarly, people should read the article on the person who started the neologism to find out about him. The article on the neologism can be short and to the point, and leave people to go read the articles on the people if they want more. The way to get balance is to look at articles on other neologisms and see how long those are.
You're missing the point - His reaction, and critical reaction, to the neologism are the aspects that make him look better.
If we cover those in the article on him, widely separated from the neologism and its origins, then it doesn't counterbalance the neologism's fundamentally offensive nature nearly as effectively as if it's in the neologism article.
Doing "our usual thing" increases the apparent damage to Santorum. The way it is now, with the longer article on the neologism, is the best balance I can see from making him look reasonable.
The advocacy of shortening it is directly and inappropriately counterproductive from the goal of minimizing harm to Mr. Santorum.