From: Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)yahoo.com>
> From: George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com>
I
don't agree with either statement.
The event (Savage coming up with the term, the effects
on
Santorum) is
notable. It's covered in reliable sources. The
word itself would be
a Wiktionary entry, but the incident overall is
Wikipedia.
We're reporting on the damage to Santorum, not
causing
it. Our
reporting is not making it better, but neither is it
making
it worse.
The damage was done by Savage and others and was
widespread
long
before the article here.
We do not censor topics that are damaging to
individuals
just because
they are damaging. They have to be notable and
covered in a NPOV way
for us to cover them, but this passes both tests.
You may be forgetting that we have an article on [[Santorum
controversy
regarding homosexuality]]. That's notable. The term,
linguistically, is not.
It's in one slang dictionary, and one book on neologisms.
As a matter of fact, it would help Wikipedia if the article were retitled,
[[Dan Savage Google-bomb campaign against Rick Santorum]].