[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

[The Cunctator]

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:47 AM, George Herbert
<george.herbert at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 5:54 AM, Charles Matthews
> <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > On 23/05/2011 13:35, Fred Bauder wrote:
> >> This seems to combine malice and political purpose. Really it is stuff
> >> that belonged on Encyclopedia Dramatica.
> >>
> > I take it Fred means "this article" or "this campaign": if the latter
> > that's obvious enough. Given a mainstream piece of coverage such as
> >
> http://swampland.time.com/2011/05/17/please-do-not-google-the-name-of-this-undervalued-republican-candidate/
> > from a few days ago, I wonder if the article is really out of step.
> >
> > Charles
>
> There is a big difference between "This name-based neologism is
> offensive and derogatory" and "This name-based neologism is offensive
> and derogatory, but politicially and socially significant".
>
> It's neither our doing or fault that the neologism has become
> significant in some areas of society and has had a noticeable and
> noticed effect on Santorum's potential future political career.
> Failing to cover it would be an error of judgement on our part, and
> quite frankly if we removed it we'd probably stir up enough negative
> controversy related to censorship that his name would be dragged
> through the mud worse than it already has been.
>
> Santorum himself seems to have a decent level of understanding that
> the phenomena is out of his control and not something he should try to
> suppress, despite being personally offended.
>
> We don't exist to fix the real world - we exist to report on it
> accurately.  Many of the things we report on are unfortunate.  An IMF
> candidate who alledgedly raped a hotel maid, a tornado that killed 89
> plus people, a terrorist attack in Pakistan and several ongoing and
> incipient wars, these are other unfortunate things that make the
> neologism Santorum pale in comparison.
>
>
Well said. It's a dirty word, it's politically motivated, but it fits all
valid criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. The only reason to delete it is
personal political or cultural bias.