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

[Fred Bauder]

> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Charles Matthews
> <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> On 24/05/2011 18:49, George Herbert wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Fred Bauder<fredbaud at fairpoint.net>
>>>  wrote:
>>>>> Yes, let's replace our elite judgment for that of everyone else.
>>>> You've got one word right, "our". You are responsible for this.
>>> No, he (and we) are not.  Dan Savage is responsible for this.
>>>
>> Right - and an egregious case of bullying it is, based on a distinctive
>> surname. (Fred's comparison with ED is not off-beam, just missing the
>> point IMO.) I'm clear that, in human terms, I have a low opinion of it.
>> If our article doesn't give the data that would make it possible to
>> come
>> up with an informed opinion on Savage's campaign on that level, then it
>> is failing. Too much to ask whether it could do the same on the issues
>> of whether this kind of campaigning actually changes minds, or
>> discredits freedom of speech, etc. These things are more interesting,
>> when it comes down to it, but constraints on OR mean the article is
>> really just a compilation of quotes from journalism.
>
> I don't know that it's been reviewed in analytical terms at that
> level.  It's so offensive on one level that academics and political
> commentators seem to just shy away from it rather than addressing the
> rather deep "Hey, what does this say about society/politics/etc".
>
> If that exists then it almost certainly should be covered in the
> article.  I am not aware that it does, but this is outside my core
> areas of competence (though I was pretty aware of it when it started).
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herbert at gmail.com

We could try cooking up some serious analysis, perhaps by political
scientists or journalists. So what are the serious questions to be
addressed?

Fred