--- On Thu, 26/5/11, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com
From: George Herbert george.herbert@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]].
Andreas