On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Brian J Mingus brian.mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 6:50 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Brian J Mingus brian.mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Brian J Mingus brian.mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
I believe you will have a hard time justifying your claim that my
comment
is
false (not to mention that it is a slur). It should be easy to show
that
the
article is curated by at least one, and probably several, biased anti-Santorum contributors.
The onus is on you to prove that such a broad slur on other Wikipedia editors is true. Even if we accept this as truth, the solution to such problems is typically the eyes of more editors and not deletion.
This strikes me as indirection. If someone claims that an article is
biased
then they are also claiming that the process governing its creation is biased. Such a claim is not a slur, it is a purported statement of fact. However, you would say that the claim is invalid because to claim that an article is biased is to necessarily not assume good faith. Following your line of indirection, it isn't possible to claim that an article is biased because you would necessary violate the principle of good faith, ie, implicitly or explicitly claiming that particular editors are biased. I believe you would rather follow this line of reasoning because it directs attention away from the real issues at hand.
I do not read the article as anti-Santorum or biased.
If it were anti-Santorum and biased, this discussion would likely have taken place on the article talk page, with specific examples of paragraphs, sentences, sections, quotes, source selection etc. which were improper or unbalanced.
The actual discussion has included essentially none of this.
It's somewhat of a jump of faith to extrapolate from this that there's nothing wrong at the detail level with the article, but that claim could be made and defended credibly.
The claims of things wrong with it that are being made are, in Wikipedia terms, novel interpretations. BOLD allows us to take wider views, but it does not allow one to merely assert a particular wider view to be absolute and unchallengeable truth.
Yes, several people here believe that it's a problem. No, not everyone does. No, you do not appear to have a consensus on your side, much less a majority.
Under those conditions, BOLD fails, and we revert to the details and to standard interpretations. About which no detailed problems have been asserted so far...
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
If only there were a way to quantify notability I believe this problem would be much easier to tackle. I am personally not inclined to go through the article point by point and try to figure out what ought to be there. In general I think we can show that the article is too long and ought to be rewritten in a shorter, more concise form without also having to debate every sentence there. As was previously stated, Wikipedia is not the end-all-be-all of information on a topic, but in this case it comes pretty close. That's not how it's supposed to be..
As I said earlier - I think that making it shorter and more concise would leave out elements that *improve* how Santorum appears, in the totality. His behavior - described in some but not excessive detail - and the critical and academic context - described in some but not excessive detail - make him look better than the raw incident does.
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?
Seriously - the details here matter.