Talk:Dan Savage

Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

LGBTQ+ studies B‑class

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dan Savage article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2

See also Talk:Rick Santorum, Savage Love

---

How is it more appropriate for Dan Savage and Savage Love to be a single entry than not?

We have separate entries for Catch-22 and Joseph Heller. We have separate entries for This American Life and Ira Glass. We have separate entries for Peanuts and Charles Schultz.

The concept that an artist and his work should be merged into the same entry, even if one part of the work is of dominant interest, eludes me. I'm going to change Savage Love back to a link. Please convince me how I'm wrong. --The Cunctator 20:05, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

There is less verifiable, informative information about Savage Love than about Peanuts. See our recommendations on the ideal page size, for example. As and when we have ~10K of information on Dan Savage and his column to warrant a seperate article, the articles can of course be split. Martin 20:13, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well, if we do merge them, I hope it will be under Dan Savage rather than under Savage Love, because the author of multiple books and writer/director of dozens of plays should not be treated just as a columnist. -- Jmabel 21:32, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

Hey, I wonder if we can get Dan Savage to eat his words?

Think of it, santorum on the lips of 1.3 billion people....

---

Seems to me that it is redundant to link to the "Spreading Santorum" web site from this page. We are also linking to it from Savage Love.

-- Jmabel 21:32, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Keenan Hollahan? What? -Branddobbe 22:45, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

This was the name under which he did his theater work in the mid-90s. I'm not sure of his motivation, but he used the name pretty consistently in his theater work for several years. See, for example, http://www.kittenpants.org/09_winners/dansavage2.htm: "I'm Dan Savage. Keenan is my middle name. Hollahan is a family name (my grandma's maiden name)." Do you think we should go into this in more detail in the article? -- Jmabel 23:02, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

I removed "The idea that he was primarily a "neutral party" advising heterosexuals quickly fell away: today, gays are undoubtedly disproportionately represented among his correspondents." I read "SL" regularly, and straights make up the huge majority of his questioners. --zenohockey 21:51, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that the gays, who make up less than 10% of the population, do not make up considerably more than 10% of Dan's correspondents? -- Jmabel 05:38, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

I did a random survey of six articles from his [archive]; specifically, I look at the columns he wrote from 3/20/03 through 4/24/03. Here's the breakdown (I removed the letters where the writer's orientation was unclear):

3/20: 3 straight

3/27: 4 straight

4/03: 4 straight

4/10: 1 straight, 1 gay

4/17: 1 straight, 2 gay

4/24: 2 straight, 1 gay

TOTAL: 15 straight, 4 gay

Okay, I admit I was wrong. :-/ I'll go revert to the original. --zenohockey 17:18, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But I'm leaving out the sentence about "neutral party." He's not exactly giving straights advice biased towards gays, is he?? --zenohockey 17:23, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, the original concept was that he would be unbiassed between straight men and straight women. -- Jmabel 18:06, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. I'll revert. --zenohockey 19:00, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

While I can see the intent of this phrase, it scans poorly. I initially read it as a suggestion of gay-bias, although that confusedly. Further, I contend his readership isn't really particularly queer, but moreso mostly atypical. People who feel their sex lives are atypical tend to write him, which incorporates some amount of queerdom. I think this description misses that essential element. JoshuaRodman 04:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying this edit is wrong—in fact, I'm inclined to believe it is right—but it is uncited, and it is not common knowledge. Citation would be in order. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in a link to the kittenpants interview mentioned above in which Savage clears that up. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.70.34.5 (talk • contribs) 8 Nov 2005.

If people want to discuss whether content in the article is inappropriate and see if there is consensus to remove it, that's fine. If people want to anonymously remove material without so much as an edit summary, that borders on vandalism. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've had some back and forth about this in the article. Our article currently says that "he claimed to have volunteered for the campaign of conservative Republican Party presidential hopeful Gary Bauer in order to infect the candidate with influenza virus." Savage's own account [1] tells a somewhat different story. "My original plan was to follow one of the loopy conservative Christian candidates around -- Bauer or Alan Keyes -- and write something insightful and humanizing about him, his campaign, and his supporters. But then, from my deathbed [Savage had the flu], I catch Gary Bauer on MSNBC. 'Our society will be destroyed if we say it's okay for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman,' he says…In my Sudafed-induced delirium, I decide that if it's terrorism Bauer wants, it's terrorism Bauer is going to get. Naked, feverish, and higher than a kite on codeine aspirin, I call the Bauer campaign and volunteer. My plan? Get close enough to Bauer to give him the flu, which, if I am successful, will lay him flat just before the New Hampshire primary. I'll go to Bauer's campaign office and cough on everything. Phones and pens. Staplers and staffers. I even hatch a plan to infect the candidate himself; I'll keep a pen in my mouth until Bauer drops by his offices to rally the troops. And when he does, I'll approach him and ask for his autograph, handing him the pen from my flu-virus-incubating mouth." And, as we cite from [2], "Savage later said much of the article was fictitious." So while our statement that he claimed "to have volunteered…in order to infect the candidate…" is technically true, it is somewhat misleading. It is technically true that, according to his account, he already had this intention by the time he specifically volunteered for that particular campaign, but by that same account he did not have that intention when he first headed for Iowa; also by later account the original article was at least partly fiction, and anyone who has read Dan Savage at all would be confident that he would have added lurid details, not removed them. - Jmabel | Talk 07:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since 6 days have gone by without response, I will edit. - Jmabel | Talk 03:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it is important to bring to your attention an AfD on Santorum going on over here that will likely have implications for page naming and disambiguation of Santorum as a search term and dab content on the Rick Santorum page. -- cmh 19:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following appeared in Savage's column of August 22, 2006. He is clearly joking, but someone might take it seriously and try to revise the Wikipedia birthdate based on this joke. Please keep this quotation here for future reference. Tomgally 00:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Q. You write that you met your boyfriend "when I was 23" 11 years ago. C'mon, Dan! You're not 34 (23 + 11, as the column says), at least according to multiple online sources. (Wikipedia can be edited, but it's got the same date as IMDB and lots of other places.) Lying about your age is beneath you! —Boy Utterly Saddened to Encounter Deceit

A. You're right, BUSTED, I really shouldn't lie about my age. But I worry that people won't take my love-and-sex advice seriously when they learn that I'm only 27 and I've been with the same guy for 11 years. Readers might conclude that I can't know all that much about dating, relationships, and heartbreak if I've been with the same guy since my junior year of high school. But I guess the cat's out of the bag now—damn you, Wikipedia!

Yeah, I'd noticed last week when he lied about his age again. I'm amused to see him busted. And, indirectly, by us. Hi, Dan, if you're reading this, I'm a fan, but not a sycophant. - Jmabel | Talk

In the Edmonton, Alberta free weekly paper called See Magazine reprints his Q&A latters. Is thair a anthor paper in Canada that reprints his Q&A ?--Brown Shoes22 21:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed. NOW, a weekly alt-paper in Toronto, syndicates his column. The Savage Love page also mentions a paper in Halifax. Gloriana232 15:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The alt-paper View in Hamilton reprints Savage Love, and I believe Echo in Kitchener-Waterloo does also. --Saforrest 03:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Georgia Straight in Vancouver pubishes Mr. Savage's articles, as well. Tenspeeder 20:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A section collecting the hate-mongering of Dan Savage would be useful, collecting it one place instead of all over the article as it is now.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.145.145.31 (talk • contribs) .

Care to clarify, or just trolling? - Jmabel | Talk 06:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what happened to dan's photo? (the flattering one which he just mentioned in the latest SL) --Katwmn6 03:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering that, too. Plinth molecular gathered 16:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was removed by User:OrphanBot following Wiki's guidelines on unsourced images: "Removing image with no source information. Such images that are older than seven days may be deleted at any time." Maybe someone else has a decent picture of Dan or one that falls into the public domain or falls into fair use guidelines. The old one looks like it was a publicity photo lifted from one of his books. Zotdragon 18:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since he's made favorable comments about Wikipedia (and especially that photo), perhaps he'd be willing to donate a picture. Does anyone feel like writing to him? -Will Beback 01:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been in touch with him. He's "bummed" about it being removed, but, of course, he's not the photographer, so it's not his copyright to license. He seems to find this as ridiculous as I do. - Jmabel | Talk 06:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you ever see him in person? If so could you take a photograph of him? -Will Beback 23:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the original photo? I'm sure his office has licenses to plenty of flattering press photos, the current one should go lower down n the article. JeffBurdges 15:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the original photo can be found in an online article in the Philadelphia Weekly [3]; perhaps someone more knowledgeable about the Fair Use requirements could see if this means the photo can be added back to the Wikipedia entry. The one that's up now hardly even shows his face, and it should be removed.

Check fair use criterion #1, if there is a free alternative to a fair use image, it must be used. Since Savage has expressed an interest in his Wikipedia article, perhaps he will choose to release a better picture under an acceptable license (GFDL or CC). ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think the personal opinions section is unuseful and its kinda too incomplete (and too incompleteable if thats a word) and really it should be scrapped or the focus should be taken away from the strange things and changed to just a random list of his personal opinions —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs) some time in November 2006.

Needs citations too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.162.53 (talk • contribs) 13 December 2006.

I think it's a bad idea. It's really easy to bias this article either way by picking and choosing his personal opinions. He's been writing since 1996, so it's impossible to include all of his opinions. My two centsRWgirl 16:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the following cut?

• Savage is also friends with the controversial gay pundit and self-labeled South Park Republican Andrew Sullivan, whose influential blog (http://www.andrewsullivan.com) he took over for a week in August 2005 while Sullivan was on vacation.

Jmabel | Talk 01:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Savage has been asked about his advocacy of dragging political opponents "behind a truck until there is nothing left but rope" in reference to the Senatorial campaign of Carl Romanelli in Pennsylvania in 2006. The statement was an obvious reminder of the racist murder of James Bird in Texas by a couple of criminals. When appearing on the NPR national show in February 2007 discussing racist and homophobic statements by other entertainers, he did not choose to explain this cruel statement."

I think the abovoe comment has too much personal commentary from whomever wrote it. Firstly, he wasn't advocating for the dragging of anybody behind a truck. It was tasteless humour. Secondly the "obvious reminder" sentance is biased. There's no way to know what Dan was or was not alluding to. It is author opinion unless further explanation or refrences can be added. Thirdly, the last statement is too vauge. Did he not explain because he wasn't asked? Was he asked and declined to comment? Was he just asked about statements he made in the past in general? Also, remark that it was a "cruel statement" is author biased. It was tasteless, and not funny; yet it was meant in the vien of humour. It's a world of difference for an entertainer to say something utterly tasteless than to actually make a call upon the public to perform said action.

I'm removing all the biased words. For now I'm leaving the "James Bird" remark, but I'm qualifying it with a "some beleive" until I or someone else can come up with a source that shows intent.RWgirl 15:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this quote had already been covered in the Personal opnions section. I removed the redundant portions. I also found a link to the [interview]http://www.ivygateblog.com/blog/2006/10/dan_savage_gives_daily_pennsylvanian_thoughtful_nuanced_interview.html.

I'm looking for a source for the NPR interview. I really am curious about context.RWgirl 15:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]