Jump to content

Talk:Dan Savage

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Date of birth controversy

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WHO wants Dan Savages birthday to be 10 years ahead of what he himself has repeatedly pointed out as wrong? and WHY? someone seems to have an interest in preventing the wrong date from being edited. WHY is that so??? one of numerous sources for his correct age: http://www.savagelovecast.com/episodes/88#.UuqoNBzAnh4 unless he is a liar, his year of birth should be 1974, NOT 1964! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicky Romano (talk • contribs) 14:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is joking. Nothing to see here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dreadfully sorry, please forgive me, I've pasted the wrong link. Here's the right one: http://www.savagelovecast.com/episodes/88#.UuqoNBzAnh4

I'll take his (printed) words (see the work cited for his birthday) from his own book over the text on a podcast webpage as a more reliable source. DP76764 (Talk) 19:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I invite everybody to listen in on the podcast in the link above from min. 7:40 to 8:37 where the issue is addressed by a caller and then commented and clarified by Dan Savage himself. He says he's 34, not 43, and the conversation took place in 2008. Can we now edit the date, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicky Romano (talk • contribs) 22:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's October 7, 1964 in Contemporary Authors Online, Gale Biography in Context, Newsmakers, Salon, imdb, The Quotable Atheist, Slap and Tickle, A Readers Book of Days, etc. Savage has been taking 10 years off his age for years. It's an old, old joke. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{Request close}}

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Um, guys?

[edit]

When did he come out? That's an important part of his life, should we put it in there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.98.124.118 (talk) 10:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's been out since high school. In other words, that status precedes his public life, so for all intents and public purposes, always. I don't think it's necessary to put in here, at this point it would be like putting in that someone discovered they liked the opposite sex in high school. 75.17.119.250 (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 U of Chicago discussion controversy

[edit]

This but it was covered by some reliable sources and lots of advocacy groups/publications, so its absence here may be rather obvious, if anyone wants to take it on:

Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carolmooredc I tried to do it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Since this is a Biography of a living person, and these are harsh criticisms, it's important we get it right so gave more context to initial situation and used WP:RS secondary source to identify the salient points of his reply. He just said too many things all over the board for Wiki editors to do that, especially when secondary sources are available. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's gay: The lead

[edit]

Why is there suddenly an influx of editors trying to remove the word "gay" from the lead? Savage's notability is largely based on his very public sexual orientation.- MrX 01:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Savage's sexual orientation needs to be stressed in lead, because it's essential to his notability, it can easily be done after his nationality. Convention on Wiki is to open with nationality. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could then restore it to a suitable place?- MrX 02:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As seen with this edit link, an IP removed from the lead that Savage is gay, stating, "I erased the word 'gay' from the first sentence. I do not believe that saying he is gay is necessary. If it were, why not write 'straight' for every straight person with a Wikipedia page...?)" As also seen with that edit link, Dennis Bratland reverted, stating, "unhelpful, childish reasoning. Please discuss on talk page." I made a WP:Dummy edit, stating, "WP:Dummy edit: IP, Savage is a prominent gay activist/LGBT supporter; that's why it's relevant to state in the lead that he is gay." BoboMeowCat then removed the gay mention, stating, "Savage's sexuality should not come before his nationality in the lead." MrX reverted, stating, "This bio loses essential context if this very notable fact is omitted. Please make your case on the talk page." And I thanked MrX for that revert via WP:Echo.
BoboMeowCat, I'm not understanding your objection in this case; I mean the removal of "gay" from the lead. A big part of Savage's WP:Notability hinges on his being gay. Including "gay" in the lead regarding his sexuality is similar to (or "exactly" depending on how one defines "category") a WP:BLPCAT matter, which states, "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." Also, how did you come across this article; I don't see where you've edited it before now.
On a side note: MrX, I altered the heading of this section with ": The lead" so that it is clear as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. I also combined BoboMeowCat's section with yours. Flyer22 (talk) 02:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have zero objection to including the word "gay" in the lead, it just shouldn't come before his nationality. It's convention to open with nationality. However, it kind of seems unnecessary and redundant considering the second line of the lead already includes: "Savage and his husband Terry Miller began the It Gets Better Project to help prevent suicide among LGBT youth." --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please point to the guideline or community consensus that states that no adjectives should precede nationality in the lead of biographies. I've edited 1000's of articles, and (at least) 100's of biographies and this is the first I've heard of this.- MrX 02:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it's a formal guideline, but it seems to be a convention regarding sexuality and ethnicity, and I've seen edits which put ethnicity or sexuality before nationality routinely changed, at least on high traffic articles. Barney Frank isn't a gay American politician, he's an American politician, even though he's considered the most prominent gay politician in the U.S., which is included in the lead. I think such a convention keeps things from getting inconsistent and in some cases even weird sounding. I'm glad articles such as David Duke don't open with "white American" even though that's certainly notable for him considering he's in the Klan.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that David Duke is white is covered not only by the lead image showing that he is white, but by the lead currently stating that he is a White nationalist and former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. Flyer22 (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Barney Frank has a Wikipedia article about him because he is a Congressman, not because he is gay. Should we forget to mention at the top of Malcolm X that he's African-American? Or take the fact that Oscar Pistorius is an amputee and bury it in the 12th paragraph? Or not mention that Elena Myers is female because we don't say that all the other motorcycle racers are male? The reasoning there is childish and ignores the reality that in the world as it is, extraordinary personal traits affect notability. We might wish to live in a world that is blind to sexual orientation or race, but if it were our policy to pretend that is the world as it is, then everyone whose notability hinges on their race, gender, orientation, etc. should have the article deleted and we should only keep articles where their achievements alone -- as people -- are counted.

Another way to look at is to consider the guideline WP:OBVIOUS and ask, "If someone knew nothing about this person except what's in the first paragraph, would they be woefully ignorant?" If you knew only that Savage was a writer and didn't know he was gay, you'd be missing something. If you knew Pistorius was an athlete but had no idea he was an amputee, you'd be missing vital information. If you mistook Savage for Canadian, what's the real harm? It isn't really that important to know he's American. But if you thought he was a straight advice columnist you'd really not have a grasp of who he is.

There are many notable people whose orientation, gender, race, etc. are not important and we don't mention it in the lead. You have to pay attention to the subject and not apply simplistic rules across the board. Or better yet, look at your best sources. If the sources give it prominent mention, so should we.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this long objection. I have no problem with people being identified as gay or by race in the lead, if their sexuality or ethnicity is critical to their notability, but I do think it's inconsistent to have an encyclopedia with several different fill-in-the-blank Americans. David Duke's identification as a White nationalist comes after American instead of calling him a "white American". People from all over the world read WP, and the convention to open with nationality seems preferable and makes sense. If someone's notability is tied to their race or sexuality, it shouldn't be difficult to incorporate it elsewhere in the opening, as was easily done in this article where Savage is now described as an American gay activist, writer, etc--BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, BoboMeowCat, as for the Dan Savage lead being clear that Savage is gay without stating that he is gay, all because it states "Savage and his husband Terry Miller began the It Gets Better Project to help prevent suicide among LGBT youth," and notes other LGBT matters... That does not mean that Savage is gay; it could mean that he identifies as bisexual or not by any sexual identity at all. And although, depending on how one defines the term gay, it can mean that Savage is exclusively sexually interested in men, is bisexual, or is simply a part of the LGBT community, the term gay is usually interpreted to mean exclusive sexual attraction to the same sex. Flyer22 (talk) 03:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aaaaaannd: If there's really something wrong with David Duke, then go fix it. No reason to make that into a problem on Dan Savage. Second, it says he's a white nationalist, which allows you to safely assume he's white. Contrast Duke with Dan Burros, where the fact that he was a Jewish member of the American Nazi Party is basically the whole reason he's notable. Yes, I'm sure you can find some broken articles that need fixing, per WP:OSE, but if you stick to articles that are actually well written, there's no real inconsistency. The rule is to put what's important in the lead, that's all. Which is after all, merely following the sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't appear to be anything wrong with the David Duke lead. He's identified as an American first and then his race, which is significant to his notability is mentioned after his nationality. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An IP restored the "gay" part, but put it after "American." Side note: People should usually sign in when they have a Wikipedia account and are editing a Wikipedia article. Flyer22 (talk) 03:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)That wording is awkward and not an improvement, in my opinion. Substituting "gay activist" for "newspaper editor" further compounds the problem.- MrX 04:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence will unavoidably be read as a statement about why this person is notable. We generally steer clear of race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation as independent components of that statement, I think for good reason. (African American appears to be the most widespread exception, for reasons discussed elsewhere.) For whom aren't those important characteristics? Not to say that being gay doesn't inform Savage's career as an advice columnist and gay activist, but it isn't necessary for either, nor is it sufficient for notability on its own. I much prefer a formulation that describes him as a "gay activist", rather than attributing his notability (even in part) to simply being gay. Where gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation is for a specific reason a fundamental part of notability, it's best to make explicit why (e.g., not "...is a female race car driver", but "...is the first female to win an AMA Pro Racing sprint road race").--Trystan (talk) 04:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is Dan Savage a Copy Cat Michael Savage of Savage Nation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.246.162 (talk) 07:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Dan Savage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Dan Savage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dan Savage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dan Savage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sex workers and incels needs secondary sources

[edit]

If it is worth mentioning at all, Savage's comments on incels and sex work should probably be summarized as something like, "Savage said that the stigmatization of sex workers and their clients is one of the causes of the male entitlement that contributes to mass murders by incels. He rejected characterizations of his views as 'throwing sex workers at incels'". Read: [1][2]. I wouldn't mention this at all unless third party sources have covered it. Characterizing a subtle argument entirely on primary sources is out of bounds of the WP:BLP policy. Self-published sources can be used in a BLP for unambitious statements the subject makes about themselves ("I've been to France. I'm no longer dating Bob.", but when it's complex, and doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, we need secondary sources to give us an analysis. See WP:SELFPUB and WP:PRIMARY. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category

[edit]

@Deisenbe: do you have a source for the "American cannabis activists" category? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://thefreshtoast.com/cannabis/dan-savage-on-launching-americas-first-marijuana-themed-film-festival-theres-a-huge-visual-component-to-being-stoned/ deisenbe (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that organizing a film festival around a particular theme automatically makes one an "activist" for that theme, and the article doesn't describe him as such. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There's nothing about cannabis activism in that article. Unfortunately, some Wikipedia editors think "activism" means doing something in favor or support of an idea or practice, and have weakened the meaning and definition of the term. I suspect that 90% of the activist categories should be depopulated and the editors responsible for tagging articles like this should stop. The problem initially stems from a philosophical position in the conservative/libertarian community which promotes the idea that anyone who supports a controversial idea or practice suddenly becomes an "activist". This is a minority position unique to the conservative community and isn't generally held outside of that group. Viriditas (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, recreational marijuana had already been legal for 7 years at the time he was involved in this festival. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dan_Savage&oldid=1252199751"