Talk:Dan Savage/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Dan Savage. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Initial comments

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)

Name

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)

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.

Removing content from the article

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)

Iowa

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)

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

AfD of Santorum

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)

Dan Savage in Canada !

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)

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)

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)

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

The "x-press" publishes savage love in Ottawa 99.240.232.231 (talk) 23:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hate section

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)

Hate mongering?! Hilarious! Some people have no sense of humour. Dan Savage is about the most open minded and tolerant person out there, particularly in the 'advice' community. If you think he has got it in for you, or has hurt your precious feelings, then you are a real sad case and deluded. Get a grip! 82.211.95.178 (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Missing Photo?

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Personal opinions is a bad section?

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)

Why cut?

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)

Biased?

"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" sentence is biased. There's no way to know what Dan was or was not alluding to. It is author opinion unless further explanation or references can be added. Thirdly, the last statement is too vague. 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 vein of humor. 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 believe" until I or someone else can come up with a source that shows intent.RWgirl 15:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

His kid

Savage's son is 9 years old and has never been mentioned by name in Savage Love or SLOG (the Stranger's Blog). There's no need to have his name or age on this page; he can simply be referred to as "Savage's son." This is way off base. Savage's son, DJ, is the subject of one of the book's that he has written. Both the name as well as how Savage and his boyfriend settled on it are openly discussed in the book. In an essay on parenting that he recently contributed to This American Life, Savage identifies his son by name and age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.24.74 (talk) 01:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

His problem with Pride

Can someone please offer a reference for his opinion that Pride fails at building gay community? Because I read his book about the seven sins, and an entire chapter was devoted to this. He felt Pride was GOOD for building gay community in that you get to come out and see all the other queers, and the diversity of the subculture, and have fun and dress up. What he was attacking in that chapter was people trying to use Pride as a legitimate and primary political vehicle, for the very reason that Pride is more about dressing up in crazy costumes, getting drunk and high, and getting laid - all of which Savage thinks are great things, but not necessarily effective in a political discourse. Long story short, he felt Pride is entertainment and should not pass itself off as activism. I have the book somewhere I can look later and change it, unless someone provides evidence against this.Rglong 18:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Dan Savage, Bauer, and voter fraud

Hi! In 1999, Dan wrote a great article on Bauer in the primaries; it was very controversial, and probably worth mentioning. The Advocate, on Dec 19 2000 reported that on 7 November, 2000 that Mr. Savage pled guilty to voter fraud, was sentenced after pleading guilty to same. [4] It would be great if we could find more citations on this (although that one citation is pretty good; can anybody in Seattle go get the court record? I'll try to pull it myself...).

How to work it in, and how to find more good documentation; I think the fact that Dan's a criminal is worth mention.

- 66.92.73.52 23:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Another site I've found, NNDB (internet only, not printed, less reliable than The Advocate) suggests that Mr. Savage pled guilty to a lesser charge. [5] , so we need to figure out exactly what it was. - 66.92.73.52 23:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The Advocate is reliable but the NNDB is not. I have to step away from the computer for a while, but go ahead if you want and draft some text. Based on the short Advocate article, it's proably worth a short paragraph, maybe three or four lines. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. I now have another cite, this time from the New York Times. In the article "How to be Iowan for a Day", Mr. Savage wrote on 7 January 2004 about what the did[6]. Between the article in "The Advocate" about his conviction and sentencing, and his article in the NTY about what he did; I think this is pretty well cited. Unfortunately, I've not read more than the synposys to thee above story; I'll pull it at my public library to read the whole thing for details worthy of biographical inclusion. I'll also call the court and see if the record is easily avaialble. - 66.92.73.52 23:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I can probably look that up in their archive too. I wouldn't go to any trouble about the court records, we don't normally like to use primary sources of that type. An NYT article is much better. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, have you actually read over the article? There's a full tretment of the matter under Dan Savage#Political advocacy. Sorry for not catching that sooner. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It also appears in Skipping Towards Gommorah.--TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 08:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Married in Vancouver, no?

Shouldn't his marriage and husband be mentioned in hte article (maybe I missed that). From what I remember thety got married in Vancouver because of Canadian same-sex marriages laws; he's also appeared on certain Canadian talk shows, including one Vancouver-shot panel show I remember well, where conservative columnist Barbara Amiel positively squirmed on her seat, which was right next to him; in discomfort or ?? Not sure the show or date or I'd add it to the media section. Skookum1 (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, let's find a source. If he was in fact married legally, it should certainly be included as autobiographical content.-Seidenstud (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to an editorial he wrote for the NYTimes, in which he says that he and his partner were married in Canada "over a year and a half ago" (which makes the actual year of the union somewhat ambiguous): http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/opinion/30savage.html?_r=1&oref=slogin. I'd add it myself, but I've got to run out the door to look at an apartment. If nobody's put it into the article by the time I get home, I'll do it myself. Buck Mulligan (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Is your apartment in an old tower, by any chance? (Just riffing off your user name. and not insinuating that you're "stately and plump" like your namesake). I'm not sure if online marraige records are available for BC; they may be (archival ones are).Skookum1 (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

He covered the marriage ceremony comprehensively in The Commitment. - CheshireKatz (talk) 17:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

GGG and DTMFA

Didn't Savage invent these two acronyms, or were they already in circulation and he just popularized them: (for those who haven't seen them, they're "good, giving and game", the way a partner should be, and "dump the motherf**ker already".Skookum1 (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, he invented them. At the very least, he would have the primary responsibility for popularizing them. - Jmabel | Talk

Birth Date

There seems to be some controversy here about what Dan Savage's birthdate is. Was is in '73 or '64? So far the only evidence in either direction is IMDB. Being largely user-contributed, IMDB is not a strong reliable source (see WP:Citing IMDb). Therefore, since we don't have a strong source, and since this does fall under WP:BLP, I am removing the birthdate completely. It should not be re-added until a better source is found. -Seidenstud (talk) 01:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No need. I imagine that this is a response to some remarks he made in the course of his last podcast, to the effect that whoever wrote his Wikipedia page must be dyslexic, because he's 34, not 43. I'm pretty sure he was kidding. And never mind IMDB. Just use yer noggins: If the guy's been writing "Savage Love" since 1991, then--unless he was a really exceptionally insightful 17-year-old--1964 makes more sense. So please: whoever's changing the guy's birthday on this page, please stop. Thanks. Buck Mulligan (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

But this is more than a common sense issue, really. This is a verifiability issue. As obvious as the truth seems to you, it has become controversial. WP:BLP clearly states: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." As much as I want wikipedia to have as comprehensive bios as possible, it strikes me that this datum does not comply with official policy here. -Seidenstud (talk) 02:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think your reading of official Wikipedia policy with respect to controversy is perhaps a bit overly broad. The fact that somebody decides to change Mr Savage's birthday--incorrectly--doesn't automatically make that birthday a matter of controversy. I could change random facts in this article to my heart's content, and no reasonable person would conclude that these facts had thereby become matters of controversy. I understand that IMDB isn't a good source of information, but many famous people's birthdays are listed in this encyclopedia without any reference at all. This is because their birthdays are uncontroversial. Savage's birthday would have been left unchanged on this page, had he not cracked a joke about it on his podcast this week, which tells me that his birthday isn't actually very controversial at all. Somebody (or several somebodies) misunderstood him and changed the info, that's all. But why don't we see what other people who read and edit this page have to say? Anyone with an opinion on this matter will probably be chiming in, any time now... Buck Mulligan (talk) 02:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

While I don't think imdb is a very reliable source, I think that's the date which should be kept. I don't know if this page got the info from the same place, but according to it, he's 43. Also, I did some research and came upon another site (and this is from 2004!)-- again, I don't know if they're lying or not, but it says what it says. To be honest, I don't know if he was lying, joking, or joking about lying, but I don't think what he said in his latest podcast should matter. I agree with Buck Mulligan: let's use our common sense. And according to the page history, it was changed several times by several people, so his apparent joke wasn't all that clear to everyone. QuadrivialMind (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the Seattle Weekly source is a bit better than the imdb one, so I'll add it so it has both. If the anonymous/new editors keep changing the date back to '73, perhaps we can consider semi-protection. -Seidenstud (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Great! What a nice thing it is to come to a consensus like a bunch of adults. Buck Mulligan (talk) 23:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Strange, eh? Unfortunately, such behavior seems to be the exception lately around Wikipedia.... -Seidenstud (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems somebody changed it yet again (this is besides the anon edits that Seidenstud fixed), but this time, it was apparently corrected by that person too. We don't even know how many more people are going to be listening to the podcast in the future and coming here to 'correct' the birthdate. Are we going to have to protect this page or something? QuadrivialMind (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's very good that that editor self-reverted when he saw the error of his ways.... As for semi-protection, I don't think the problem is bad enough just yet. Maybe in the future, but for now, I don't think the severity here matches the criteria in WP:Rough guide to semi-protection. -Seidenstud (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that semi-protection seems a bit extreme. If people were writing libelous stuff about Savage on the page, then certainly protection would be called for, but as it is we seem to be doing a pretty good job of reverting his birthday to the correct date ever couple of days or so. I'm sure that eventually this will all die down and people will lose interest and go back to vandalizing the Barack Obama page. Buck Mulligan (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I was lost, but now I am found. Kill the fatted calf. Call the family 'round. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 02:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome into the fold, Michael :) Anyway, I put a few comments into the article beseeching people to refrain from changing the birthdate. Let's see if this reduces the frequency. Next step: firmer language. Muahahaha. -Seidenstud (talk) 04:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Let's see what happens, I guess we can still edit every day or two for the time being. I also think it will die down eventually, sooner rather than later. Specially with those fancy comments ;) QuadrivialMind (talk) 06:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm changing per Dan Savage's own statement about how the Wiki is wrong found here: ^[1] Saudade7 21:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Just following up to say that I have now changed it. I think that verifiability begins with the person's own statement about his or her age. After that, if you feel that he is lying about his age, then it falls upon you to make a section about the age controversy. Please know that if I felt there was any chance that I was doing something unethical by changing the b-day, I would have been afraid of the harshly worded, exclamation point laden warning on the edit page. It was truly intimidating. Thanks. Saudade7 21:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Age1

Dan Savage keeps stating on his "Savage Lovecast" that his age is incorrect here. Most recently, (in number 83?) he explicitly said that his age was 34 and that wikipedia had it backwards. This seems important to address as Savage cites this as an example of why wikipedia cannot be trusted. Is this podcast appropriate to cite, and how could it be done? Slugokramer (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Oy. What a mess, eh? I think the way to handle this would be to add a new section to the article called "Age Disparity" or something and report this. Any other thoughts? -Seidenstud (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, forget that. as far as I can tell, this "controversy" has yet to be covered by any reliable sources, so really discussing it would be WP:OR. -Seidenstud (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Dan Savage's podcast is a reliable source for this article. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, and I don't know if this is the right place to ask this, but why is there a new heading about this? Wasn't this exact same matter discussed a month ago, or are we discussing something else now? What I mean is the heading right above this one... I thought there was a consensus, only to come to Mr. Savage's article today and find the menace has struck back. I suspect it hasn't been changed a long time ago because the sources cited for this new birth date actually back up the previous one (how logical is that?)

I actually don't think Savage's podcast is reliable in this matter, since -as it was said- he could have been joking, and the references provided in the article show at least one ...let's say, similar confusion in the past, which has nothing to do with his podcast. What's more, common sense tells us the guy didn't start his column when he was 17 years old. QuadrivialMind (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The difference between this section and the one above it is that the latter discusses which date is correct, while the former sets out to discuss whether or not this very date-changing conflict is notable enough to include in the article. Now that Mr. Savage himself has weighed in (according to Slugokramer) this issue now exists outside of Wikipedia.

I fully agree with you that the podcast is not a reliable source. Even a very broad reading of WP:RS and WP:SELFPUBLISHED prohibits the use of primary sources in contentious issues (which this is quickly becoming). As long as the section was not being added, however, I saw no need in debating this point while it clearly exceeds the scope of this talk page. But. presumably, if a third-party source gives non-trivial coverage to this mini edit-war against an anonymous gang, then this incident could be given a section of the article. But of course, in that case, this talk page would be as valid a source as the podcast. -Seidenstud (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I see. Well, I'm not sure Slugokramer has told us anything we didn't know. If I recall correctly, it was that very podcast (last minutes of episode 84) which stirred up the whole birth date pseudo-controversy. Actually, that's not entirely correct- Slugokramer did say that Savage had previously stated his age on Wikipedia was incorrect, but I wasn't aware of this (links would be helpful by the way). If this is so, I doubt it is a joke, but to just correct this alleged mistake still doesn't sit well with me at all when I consider the guidelines Seidenstud posted. I mean, we know that other third parties have reported different information compared to what Savage himself has said on at least one occasion (that occasion being podcast number 84). If it turns out he has stated his age is wrong on numerous occasions, then I'm all for creating a new section in the article itself.

For starters, we have the not very reliable imdb, plus this site, and the Seattle Weekly article, all third party sources which state he was born on 1964. So it's looking like everyone agrees on when the man was born except himself. If we find more sources of Savage stating Wikipedia is wrong, I think it would be sensible to include this in the article.

I have found another page, but I don't know if it is entirely reliable. The article itself hints at Savage saying he's in his mid 30s (this article is from 2006), but in the comment section, someone identifying himself as Dan Savage (hopefully the real Dan Savage) actually states My birthdate is 10.07.64. There's no way of knowing for sure it was Savage saying this, but considering it's the comments section for an article that he himself wrote, I think he would have had the comments removed had he thought there was an impersonator around. It's just another source (apparently himself this time) which points towards not changing the old birth date. Thoughts? QuadrivialMind (talk) 07:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a 2006 column where Savage mentions the Wikipedia age issue. If I recall correctly, this has been a running joke of his, but I can't find other references. Xander76 (talk) 02:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah! My mistake. I misunderstood and thought that there was a second time that he mentioned this. In this case, let's never speak of this again. ;-) -Seidenstud (talk) 12:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

My understanding would be IMDB and NNDB are not reliable, but Seattle Weekly would seem to be. Normally I'd be all over a person clearly identifying their birthdate as an acceptable use of a WP:SPS but given its apparent equivocality, the SW article is the best for verification. '64 should stick pending further sources in my mind. WLU (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have trouble seeing the recently-added age section as anything but trivial and would be in favour of removing it - this is a wiki-specific controversy and if the only mention is a throw-away in a podcast, meh. WLU (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Dan Savage made several references to this article and his age in the most recent podcast, Savage Lovecast episode 88, released today. Again stating that he is 34, and giving his birth year as 1976. Anticipate frequent edits again in the next few days. With regard to the reliability of the Seattle Weekly, I'd double check movie times with another source. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 04:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The IMDB and NNDB are not Reliable Sources, and as such, I'm removing the IMDB from the page. To me, it seems like the best solution would be to note that the one newspaper source indicates one date, but that Savage himself claims another one, and cite both the Seattle Weekly article and one of the podcasts where Savage makes the claim. Does that seem reasonable. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

To add another source to this debate, please refer to Episode 328 of "This Amercian Life" (May 2,2008), where Savage discusses his father's pastime of watching "Barney Miller". The series ran until 1982 "When I was 17". This statment BY SAVAGE refutes his own claim that he is 34.AZ1577 (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not so much a matter of factual dispute, as it is a performance schtick. I don't think you would consider Phillis Diller as a reliable source about her own date of birth, right? If this matter gets any play in other media, then it should be included in an expanded section within the article. The interaction between Dan Savage's routine as an entertainer, referencing this article, and the actions of random editors is quickly approaching the level of an internet phenomenon. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

On a page where there is no controversy to the assertion, I'd say it's no problem to cite either an individual's own assertion or IMDB/NNDB. Given this page is facing issues, I'd say the Seattle Times is the only applicable source that's reliable and independent. I agree that unless the age debate gets picked up by independent media it should not have its own section - right now the sources are Savage's own podcast, which are clearly not reliable third party sources. It's not a notable piece until it's picked up by news sources, and wikipedia is not a blog. It's approaching original research territory if we try to expand. Even saying that Savage has claimed something different is problematic because he did not claim this in a reliable source. WLU (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Savage's podcast isn't a reliable source for citing his age - but per WP:SELFPUB, it IS a reliable source for the purposes of verifying that he has made the claim about being 34. The question then becomes whether it's worth mentioning in the article, or not (and personally, I think it's not a bad idea to do so, in the interest of clarity) -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Meh, I still think it's not worth reporting (though I agree with how his podcast could be used as a reference). I'd prefer it stay out of the page, but as soon as it shows up somewhere besides his podcast that's a reliable source then I'm OK with it and will help maintian its presence. Right now, I've removed it once but won't bother to do so again if someone really wants it in the page. WLU (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't even matter how much someone wants it there; until an independent reliable source reports on the age disparity, any mention of it is original research as constitutes unpublished synthesis. Hit bull, win steak, you say that the podcast is reliable for verifying that he made the claim, and you are correct. However, there is nothing to verify, that is, there is still no non-original-synthesis assertion that the claim was made which is in need of verification. -Seidenstud (talk) 04:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh? How could it be a synthesis, since it's one assertion that's not being combined with anything? To be a synthesis, it'd need to be a combination of several otherwise-reliably-sourced items into an unverifiable chimera. You might want to take another look at WP:SYN. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the debate is only worth having if someone wants to document the age 'controversy'. Does anyone really want it on the page? If so, how 'bout we kill this very long section discussing his actual age, and start a new section on whether it's worth discussing Savage's comments on his age on wikipedia being wrong. WLU (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I'll bet Savage is having the laugh of a lifetime over all of this very serious discussion. As several people (myself included, in the section above) have pointed out already, the guy is obviously lying about his age. To wit: He did indeed say in last week's podcast that he was 34 years old and that he was born in 1976. Now, barring the highly unlikely possibility that the man forgot which year he was born in (which would of course be either 1974 or 1973 if he were really 34 years old), those two statements taken together should pretty well torpedo his credibility as far as anyone around here is concerned. And as far as this "controversy" goes, I agree with WLU and Seidenstud that any discussion of this business on the main page would be both a waste of space and borderline original research at this stage, since we have no reliable source for the claim that he wasn't born in '64. The situation would of course be different if we had, say, the Guardian giving one age and Time giving another, as is the case on the Monica Bellucci page (and what a mess that is!). But as things stand, I'll second what Michael J Swassing said about this being more a matter of a performance schtick than a genuine factual dispute. I'm sure the endless editing of his D.O.B. will die down once Savage gets tired of yanking our collective chain and moves on to some new favorite topic. I'm a bit surprised he's kept this up as long as he has. Buck Mulligan (talk) 06:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI--for posterity's sake and to convince any remaining doubters/Savage sycophants--I happened to be listening to old episodes of Savage's podcast, and in #42, from August 7, 2007 [7], Dan is on the phone with an HIV positive gay man, and he very casually gives his (summer 2007) age as 42, within the context of a serious conversation, when he's not on his schtick. --Alas i am (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

As of this writing, our article has him born in 1974, which would make him only 33 now and would make him 17 in 1991 when he befriended Tim Keck. Frankly, that is ridiculous. Further, it is cited to a Seattle Weekly article that says nothing of the sort. It says he "will turn 40" on October 7, 2004. A 1974 birth would have him turning 30 on that date. The date seems to have been recently and anonymously changed. I am changing it back. But I think a footnote should discuss some of these other sources. - Jmabel | Talk 16:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

In a recent podcast, episode 96, he's talking to a woman who's dating a 45-year old. Savage says the guy is, "probably only six months older than I am." Maybe that'll keep the sycophants away for a while :) justinfr (talk/contribs) 19:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll say it here too -- I'm changing per Dan Savage's own statement about how the Wiki is wrong found here: ^[2] I think that verifiability begins with the person's own statement about his or her age. After that, if you feel that he is lying about his age, then it falls upon you to make a section about the age controversy. (Then find a birth record or something rather than the IMDB which like the Wikipedia is created by regular people who weren't around for his birth. Sure the whole thing is fishy, and he *looks* 43, and he seems confused about dates, but I think we first need to respect his statement and find better evidence to discount it than the IMDB. Please know that if I felt there was any chance that I was doing something unethical by changing the b-day, I would have been afraid of the harshly worded, exclamation point laden warning on the edit page. It was truly intimidating. Thanks. Saudade7 21:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It's harsh because three or four times a week somebody changes the date. I love Savage's column and podcast, but he's definitely an unreliable source when he's doing is age schtick. First, Savage love started in 1991. If he's 34, that means he started writing it when he was 17--quite implausible. Second, there are other occasions when he's not doing the age thing that he talks about being in his forties (e.g., podcast 96, where he refers to a 45 year old "probably being 6 months older than I am"). If you change it, I'm pretty sure it will be reverted, unless the consensus here has changed. justinfr (talk/contribs) 23:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Aside from when he explicitly states how old he is - in his 40s, not his 30s - and the obvious sarcastic context under which he claims to be younger, he regularly talks about what it's like to have been sort of semi-pre-HIV and seen it change, which would fit with his actual age, not this "34" nonsense. I'm changing it back. --Jammoe (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect reports of Savage's age

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)

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

He's 34! Goodness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.199.198 (talk) 09:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

On his June 24, 2008 podcast that he repeatedly said he is 34 and that IMDB and other sources are wrong. The page should be changed. I think once incorrect info is put on the web it is propagated. IMDB really isn't a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.207.118.34 (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

See the comment below from Alas I am in the section Age. Listen to podcast 42, where he says he's 42. justinfr (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Age 2

DAN SAVAGE IS THIRTY FOUR that's 34!!!!

Thank you.

Caitlin H. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.179.83 (talk) 04:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your enthusiasm. Savage Love started in 1991, 17 years ago. That would mean if Dan started the column at age 17, which is unlikely to say the least. justinfr (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

He's 43. He said that "Wikipedia doesn't know all... For instance, the site incorrectly lists my age: I am 34, not 43," in a recent column (http://www.avclub.com/content/node/86604). But he was being sarcastic, and the person who made the edit didn't get it. Obviously he did not start the column at 17. I'm changing it back. Bflorsheim (talk) 03:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected this article for a week, because of the recent column noted above. Bearian (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This is now a frequently asked question: click show, above, to see the full debate. Web sources mentioned above for Savage's birth date and running joke:

Married to a woman?

In this article (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=606142), Amy J. Ruiz says she was married to Dan Savage in 2004. Is that true or a joke? AniBunny (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. Here's the story: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=17394 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.122.57 (talk) 02:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Getting a marriage license is not the same as a wedding ceremony nor the state of marriage itself. Bearian (talk) 17:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Getting a valid marriage license is sufficient for two persons to be legally recognized as being married. Not sure what the relevance of whether or not there was "a wedding" is. - CheshireKatz (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

A marriage license is permission to get married, not evidence of already being married. I don't know about the state of Washington, but in general, both parties need not even be present to apply for a marriage license. (Perhaps CheshireKatz is confusing a marriage license with a marriage certificate, a vital record showing that a couple is legally married, apparently sometimes on the same piece of paper as the license.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Former Roman Catholic?

(Though Savage has stated that he is now "a wishy-washy agnostic" and an atheist,[8] he has said that he still considers himself "culturally Catholic."[7][9]) I wonder why he's identified as a former Roman Catholic, when he himself says that he is Catholic? Liam (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question. Catholicism is a religion devoted to the worship of God. If one is an atheist, then one isn't worshipping God and isn't in the religion anymore. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, he says he's CULTURALLY Catholic... he baptized his son and he still celebrates Christian holidays like Christmas, but he doesn't go to church and doesn't really believe in God. --MgCupcake (talk) 03:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

According to his story on "This American Life Live" on April 23rd, 2009, Savage expressed that he was raised in a Catholic household, yet began questioning because this religion was telling him that his orientation was wrong. I think he left the church for a while because of this, but now is, like the former person said, culturally Catholic. Also, with the recent death of his mother who was Catholic (while still believing in and loving her son, even when he identied as gay), Savage expressed that he has been connecting with the church more since it is familiar and reminds him of his mother who is now gone. He said he finds himself going into church at odd hours, and spending significant time there. sstauffer 12:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.181.147 (talk)

On 1 September 09 he claimed he was an "avowed atheist" on Keith Olbermann. Jct328 (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Disgusting

This guy is a disgusting sex columnist. He revels in it. He does it on purpose, and it's what gives him and his column their edge. It seperates him from every other sex advice giver I've ever read -- and it's his signature attitude, tone, and approach to the issues. But there seems to be no way to adduce this highly pertinent and relevant information without violating the lame, loose, sloppy, ill-thought-out NPOV rule. Hilariously (and disgustingly), people tell me providing this information violates article "neutrality." Any help here by any person of quality, integrity, and intelligence would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.129.156 (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Imagine that -- a sex columnist who enjoys sex. How can we work that into the article? ;-) --Nik (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

What, Nik? Hello? ...I would still like to hear an answer to my question -- if anyone out there has any integity and intelligence. Is insight and perceptivity BANNED on Wikipedia? Must everything be banal and bland?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.129.156 (talk) 09:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

To "Unsigned:" I don't know everything about Wikipedia, but I know that neutrality is important. Without it, articles would be a complete mess of subjective information. While you may find Savage "disgusting," not all people do. I, in fact, like him and enjoy his podcast most of the time. While he may "revel" in his unique presentation of ideas, I'd also argue that many talk show hosts/podcast hosts do. What about Michael Savage? Do you think he doesn't "revel" in his extreme views that piss of many listeners? He creates controversy, like Dan Savage, and they revel in that idea. It depends on who you are, but I find Dan's approach to be much easier to take since he mostly argues for equality and freedom of choice, rather than the other Savage who expresses views such as "autism is a sign of weakness and it a result of poor parenting" while we all know that research disproved that years ago....

What would Wikipedia become if I labeled everything that I thought was disgusting as "disgusting?" That would mean that George Bush, slugs, fruit bread, pharmaceutical companies, health insurance companies, the U.S. criminal justice system, foster care, Dr. Laura, and Giardia in mountain streams would all be called "disgusting." In the end, I think everything in the world is disgusting to someone, so the word would completely lose it's meaning and what's the point of that? Let's try and work with information here, not personal opinion.

And as far as "integrity and intelligence" are concerned, I believe I fall in that category. As far as integrity, I'm dedicated to obtaining certain goals in my life and my actions are consistent with achieving these goals. I want to help others, so I'm getting the right degrees, working hard, volunteering and working in the appropriate industry, etc. I'm pretty sure you also mean integrity as far as morals are concerned. I don't really want to discuss that because morals are different for every person and what are they anyway? Beliefs? Or actions? I mean, everyone has violent thoughts about hurting others but not all act on them. Does this make everyone immoral? Because they aren't consistent 100% of the time? I don't think so. But not everyone who listens to Savage is "disgusting" as you define it. I don't do drugs, I don't drink, I haven't had any sexual contact with anyone for over two years, I am honest, I don't really break the law (unless you count hitting 67 on the freeway every once in a while), and I am passionate about what I believe in and speak up for it, for example freedom of choice and freedom of expression. Oh, and I'm a heterosexual, as if that matters. As far as intelligence is concerned, I'm young, but my GPA is over 4.0, I'm graduating Summa Cum Laude, I've scored high on standardized tests, I have a full time job with benefits at age 22, I've traveled the world extensively, etc. And it's not like life has been handed to me on a silver platter. I had to escape a horrible family life, I've had to overcome adversity in terms of trauma and violence. For these reasons, I'd ask you to reconsider the idea that Wikipedia is a place for your personal opinions. --sstauffer 12:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.181.147 (talk)

He is the fag, yes riht? but his articles are wanting people to become fag and homosexuals. God says this is wrong and is disgusting, I agree. This article should be gone. You just show how sick your American culture is now, it is sick, but it is being destroy by China and Iran. 64.58.106.139 (talk) 10:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Fadi

Openly gay in lead sentence

I have removed this per MOSBIO. Can this been worked into the lead section or elsewhere unless this is why he is notable. Thank you. --Tom 17:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"Racist"?

Resolved

– If any relaible sources support such allegations then present them for other editors to verify. -- Banjeboi 10:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

An angry lesbian (I'm being diplomatic here) at the college in my town spouts than Dan is a racist. I said it was news to me, and asked her to elaborate, and she said it was "in the wake of prop 8 he published a few racist articles". This was during a pride planning committee meeting for Oregon State University. Somebody mentioned getting Dan as a guest speaker and that's when she piped up that he was racist. Still wondering what articles she was talking about. Oh, and before you try to complain in my discussion form, I'M GAY, people. Very, very gay. --24.21.148.212 (talk) 08:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, googling will turn up a lot of material on this - his column, and this overview of the situation, for instance.

I'm in favor of this being mentioned in the article since it seems notable, but making it encyclopedic (controversy, reliable sources, NPOV) may be difficult. —EqualRights (talk) 11:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Just so everybody knows, this ISN'T heresay. Its asking for a clarification. There's a difference. --24.21.148.212 (talk) 06:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's Dan Savage quoted in this blog, in case you don't feel like slogging through it:

African American voters in California voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8, writing anti-gay discrimination into California’s constitution and banning same-sex marriage in that state. Seventy percent of African American voters approved Prop 8, according to exit polls, compared to 53% of Latino voters, 49% of white voters, 49% of Asian voters.
I’m not sure what to do with this. I’m thrilled that we’ve just elected our first African-American president. I wept last night. I wept reading the papers this morning. But I can’t help but feeling hurt that the love and support aren’t mutual.
I do know this, though: I’m done pretending that the handful of racist gay white men out there— and they’re out there, and I think they’re scum — are a bigger problem for African Americans, gay and straight, than the huge numbers of homophobic African Americans are for gay Americans, whatever their color.

I don't know if there's more to it than that—I didn't search The Stranger's archives—but either way, we'd need actual reliable sources stating that people are criticizing Savage, boycotting him, banning him from Oregon State University, or whatever. --Fullobeans (talk) 08:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The only reliable source I found (after a fair amount of searching) that even quoted Savage was the article Vote Largely Favored Prop 8, which only refers to his statements as "heated talk". So I suspect this contoversy does not meet Wikipedia's standards for notability or reliable sourcing. —EqualRights (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This seems pretty tame and non-notable. The quote above even states he thinks racist gay men are scum which would contradict the initial premise. -- Banjeboi 13:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

He's not banned from the university. Simply, the idea of him being a guest speaker came up at a pride planning meeting, and some chick shot it down, insisting he's racist. Right out the gate, at the time she declared he was a racist, I had a hard time believing it.. it just didn't fit. I mean, really. And after reading what he actually wrote, I've come to the conclusion he's not racist. This was just one of those dykes who likes to look for things to protest, especially when they're men or male-centric. --24.21.148.212 (talk) 09:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Links

Mayor of Seattle

There seems to be a back and forth on this material. It should not be in the lead sentence unless it is why this person is notable which doesn't seem the case. Can we establish notablility for this to determine if it should be included in the article. I have no idea or opinion either way. Thank you, Tom 11:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

There may be cause to weave this into content regarding his effect on local politics but looking over the sourcing there is little way this is to be taken seriously for now. -- Banjeboi 13:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Age

The man is 36, he states multiple times that wikipedia has his age wrong on his podcast-and not in a joking manner. Just change it already dontcha think?

I believe there might be an issue with Dan Savage's age on his page. In Savage Love podcast #84 (from June 2008) he states that his Wikipedia page is wrong and that he is in fact not 43 but 34, which would make him 36 now, not 45. Does anyone know conclusively if this is actually his age and that he lies on the Podcast about it, or did whoever first entered it get it wrong? All I know is that he disputes it on the Podcast.

Rosebush411 (talk) 14:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Whitney

I believe he may have been joking when he said he was younger.— James Cantor (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Dan re-asserted his age as 36 on Savage Lovecast episode 196 (July 20, 2010), which tracks with his previous statement. Is the 1964 birth date sourced? If not, I think we should take his word for it... JohannVII (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I looked the source up; it's an article citing a number of different ages reported from various sources, usually 5 years younger than the age asserted as correct by the article, although there was no sourcing info in the article that would indicate the source of the "correct" age - it only sources the "incorrect" ages. I'm quite willing to believe that Dan lies about his age constantly (and changingly, keeping him in the 30-40-year-old range; we'll know if he starts claiming to be born such that his early writing would have been done when he was three). An age of 45 tracks with his stories of his life experience (in his 20s during the 1980s instead of teens, adopting a kid in his mid-thirties instead of mid-twenties, etc.), so I'm on-board with keeping it unless someone can find a source more reliable than Dan himself. JohannVII (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

He has repeatedly stated that his age corresponds with the birth date in 1974. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oplu45 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

^{[age 1]} ^{[age 2]} See above links: I too heard Savage claim on the 7/20/10 Lovecast to be 36 and think it's hilarious how this dude keeps trying to roll back the odometer. He being 36 does not jive at all with his biography: i.e., he and his partner adopted their son when they had already been together several years and Savage's career as a columnist was well-established--their son is now 12! So Savage is claiming that they adopted their child when he was in his early 20's? So when did he meet his partner, Terry? When he was in high school?! C'mon--this article should list his real birth date of 196469.227.189.212 (talk) 10:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)Dave 7/23/10

^{[age 3]} In the book "Savage Love" (published in 1998) Dan speaks of reading the Penthouse forum carefully starting in 1978. If he is 36 in 2010 that would mean he was reading that column at age 2. The age referred to in the Wikipedia article is most likely correct. He wouldn't be the first mid-40s gay man trying to pass as mid-30s. Gerbera (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

^ www.seattleweekly.com/content/printVersion/163451
^ www.glbtq.com/literature/savage_d.html
^ http://www.amazon.com/Savage-Love-Straight-Americas-Columnist/dp/B002SB8PTM/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280241245&sr=8-5#reader_B002SB8PTM

In his podcast on Tuesday, July 20, 2010, Episode 196 he states that he is 36. I think his age should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.42.129.157 (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone verify his actual age? Get him to state his birthdate on the podcast or look up the birth information in public records so we can put this to bed? gujamin (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It's already sourced (you're welcome). See reference #2. DP76764 (Talk) 17:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The recent New York Times Magazine profile says Savage and his husband met "at a club in 1995, when ... Savage was 30". [8] Mathew5000 (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Commercial tone

This is a glorified infomercial. p.s. Love ya Danny —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.3.223.91 (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If you have specific criticisms on the article, please mention them. Otherwise, there is no point in posts like this. DP76764 (Talk) 15:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Catholic

There is currently an edit war over labeling Dan as Catholic or not. Please used the talk pages to settle disputes, instead of edit wars with flaming summary texts.

My two cents: Dan identifies as "culturally Catholic" which I don't believe is a designation that the Category of American Roman Catholics includes. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

First, the edit war is over. The other editor and I have settled this, he or she was right, I was wrong. I wasn't disputing the "cultural catholic" question, by the way. Instead, at the time I made my own edits, the wording of the cat inclusion criteria said something like "who was or were members...", and it seemed apparent to me from the article that Savage formerly had id'd Catholic. However, the intent (and this should have been clear to me) of the "were" was not to include living former Catholics but to include the deceased who had identified as Catholic. That wording was changed, but it simply hadn't occurred to me. Anyway, I'll head off and apply a few trout slaps to myself, I think there is now unanimity that the category was inappropriate and is best left removed. Have a great weekend! --j⚛e decker ^talk 21:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, actually there was never a serious edit war, and that dispute resolved very quickly in messages between Joe Decker (talk · contribs) and me. My comment about "edit war" was premature, for which I apologize. There was only a brief misunderstanding about the criteria for inclusion of the category. The article clearly should not have the category per the criteria of WP:BLPCAT. To make it even clearer, Savage even states (reported in one of the footnotes) that he is an atheist. Cresix (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. My apologies to everyone as well. --j⚛e decker ^talk 21:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for being so polite. There is currently some heated discussions in other parts of the project about how to categorize Jews, because there are substantial numbers of ethnic, cultural and religious Jews without overlap. I wanted to be sure that kind of issue did not erupt here. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I really appreciate that, and am glad you called it out. As it was, I'd kinda left things unclear here that the problem had been resolved, it was best to make sure that folks saw that it had been. Thanks! --j⚛e decker ^talk 22:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

And my thanks also SchmuckyTheCat. I made a change in the description of the category, so maybe there will be less confusion. Best to all. Cresix (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Husband?

Can someone please clarify whether the man Savage refers to as his husband is legally his husband, or a domestic partner that Savage calls his husband? Joefromrandb (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The references in this article make no mention of this man "marrying" his "husband" in Vancouver. They only state that he obtained, as a means of protest, a license to marry a woman in the state of Washington. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Savage has repeatedly used the phrase "my husband in Canada/boyfriend in America" in his column and podcast. His martial status is currently in a sort of legal limbo depending on where he is standing at the moment. For example, New York, while not permitting same sex couples to marry, recognizes same sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. So in New York, Savage would have a husband, but in his current state of residence, Washington, he has a boyfriend. I don't think Wikipedia has come to a consensus on this issue yet. Zotdragon (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what Wikipedia's policy is on that or if there even is one. My point was that the article said he got married in Vancouver, and then provided 2 references that mentioned nothing to that effect. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I changed "husband" to "partner". If someone has a reference that these two men are actually married, please provide it. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

That's covered in his book "The Committment"; see Dan Savage on 'The Commitment' and Galley Girl Catches Up With Dan Savage, for instance. Rostz (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless Wikipedia has a policy on recognizing gay marriages, the article should make it clear that the man who is his husband in Canada is not his husband in Washington. As Mr. Savage himself refers to this man as "my husband in Canada/boyfriend in America", it certainly shouldn't be for Wikipedia to deny or recognize the marriage. The article should follow Mr. Savage's own words, which appear to be exactly correct. He is married in Canada, but not in Washington. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no political stance on gay marriages. The term is a self definition (as is being called "gay", "boyfriend" or "partner") and in this case is verifiable. Removing the verifiable term "husband" in this context and using a less accurate term is against policy. You also appear to be assuming that this article should be read in the context of Washington rather than anywhere else, this would run counter to what we would expect of avoiding geographic bias. Thanks Fæ (talk) 07:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I realize that he calls this man his husband. Muhammad Ali called himself "the greatest of all time". We don't call him that here simply because he said it. Similarly, we shouldn't be calling this man Savage's "husband" simply because Mr. Savage refers to him as such. Wikipedia shouldn't have a position on gay marriage. We should report the facts exactly as they are. This man is Mr. Savage's husband in Canada, but not in Washington. And as I said, and as another reader has stated, Mr. Savage himself refers to this man as his "boyfriend" in America. It shouldn't be for Wikipedia to decide that this man is universally Savage's "husband", especially considering that Mr. Savage seems to acknowledge the difference. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, it seems astonishingly clear that replacing the term "husband" would be more-not less-accurate. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Finally, WP:BIAS is an essay "to be considered with discretion"-not policy. And if I assumed that the article should be read "only in the context of Washington, rather than anywhere else", I wouldn't be calling him his "husband" in Canada. It seems that you wish for the article to be read in the "only context of Canada, rather than anywhere else". Joefromrandb (talk) 08:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Using that argument we could never term someone as "gay", "agnostic" or "republican" even when they stated so themselves in independent publications.

If you re-read my statement above I was not referring to the bias essay as policy but carefully used the word "expect", the relevant policy is WP:NPOV. You appear to be making a rather pointy argument that the law in Washington is not the same as Canada, so what? The fact is that his marriage was made in Canada and we have verifiable sources that document him referring to his partner as "husband". In the future he might reside somewhere else than Washington where his marriage would be legally recognized, such as Canada or most countries in Europe (where I am reading this article from) or indeed reside in more than one place at the same time. The consensus is to use language that is meaningful in a non-geographically biased way and not just through Washington spectacles or Canadian ones either. I agree with your statement that Wikipedia should not have a position on gay marriage and I believe that was unambiguously clear from my statement which you seem to not have fully read; I would appreciate it if you would avoid making it appear that I have said untrue things about Wikipedia policy.

I disagree with your assertion that "husband" is less accurate than "partner" for this article on the basis of the sources available (such as the npr.org interview). If you wish to gain a consensus for deleting the word "husband" from this article and thereby disregard verifiable sources, I suggest you get a local consensus by raising a proposal or RFC on this page in order to avoid it appearing that you are lobbying for your personal opinions rather than complying with WP:V. Thanks Fæ (talk) 09:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Where did I make it appear that you said untrue things about policy? Joefromrandb (talk) 09:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

"Wikipedia shouldn't have a position on gay marriage" was your reply to my statement, which some might read as meaning that I had made a statement that Wikipedia has such a position. Fæ (talk) 09:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

No. I was reiterating what you said. I can see that this is hopeless. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You ask me to "avoid making it appear that you have said untrue things about Wikipedia policy". I never did anything remotely close to that. Then you talk about "lobbying for my personal opinions"? Where have I done this? I have made no mention of my personal opinion on this matter because it means nothing. I have stated the facts. He is married in Canada but not in Washington. It seems to be your personal opinion that his Canadian marriage is valid in Washington (contrary to "complying with WP:V"), as well as "somewhere else that he may reside in the future". Joefromrandb (talk) 10:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Your assumption about my personal opinion appears to a failure to assume good faith, particularly as I have made no statement whatsoever about how the USA might recognize Canadian marriage. I have made a clear and unambiguous statement of Wikipedia policy. This discussion seems a waste of time if you are not going to read what I have actually written and I have to re-quote my previous statements each time. If you are uninterested in starting a process to build consensus on this point, as I suggested above, then I see no benefit in making any further replies. Thanks Fæ (talk) 11:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I see. And what would you call your assumption about my personal opinion? Simply amazing. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

None was made, as is evident from the text above. Fæ (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

When American polygamist Kody Brown married another woman, even though legally he is only married once, they are all referred to as his wives. Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia is noted as having 22 wives. Not "22 wives in Saudi Arabia but only 1 in America". They're married, per WP:UCS I would stick with husband but if there are any sources where he explains or defines his relationship (i.e. what Zotdragon referred to above or an explicit discussion of his thoughts on gay marriage and why he got married in Vancouver) then that not only provides a definition, but also expands to include his thoughts on the matter which would be valuable to the page. Does The Commitment do this? If so, then I would suggest anyone who has read it expand the appropriate section. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

As also linked above the npr interview is about the book and covers this point. Fæ (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Kody Brown? The article makes it clear that only one woman is actually his wife, and the other 3 "marriages" are spiritual unions. As for Ibn Saud, he lived in a country where his marriages were legally recognized. If an American went to Saudi Arabia to marry 22 women, and then brought them to the United States, then "22 in Saudia Arabia but only 1 in America" would be appropriate. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

If Ibn Saud came to America with two of his wives, would one of them cease to be his wife? And despite being illegal, all of Brown's wives are referred to as wives. I support the continued use of husband. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps start by reading the article if you're going to reference it here. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest a solution. Change "husband" to "husband in Canada/boyfriend in the US (except in certain jurisdictions like New York". This is how Savage refers to Terry Miller. However, this is not an elegant or simple solution, and Wikipedia does value simple over complex.Zotdragon (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably the best would be to start with a description of how he got married, how he refers to Terry, and go from there. If we really wished to thread the needle, we can always try to reword to avoid using husband, partner or boyfriend anywhere. I think the husband in Canada/boyfriend in the US would be the worst of all worlds, except as an example. No offence Zot, I don't see it see it as an elegant solution. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You should redact that comment. You have no idea what you're talking about and you're out of line. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment removed. Though I'm pretty sure that I do know what I'm talking about. And I still support leaving the word as "husband" over "partner". Zotdragon (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Federal Law (DOMA) in the United States, and Laws relating to Homosexuals that married in Canada (but are not Canadian Citizens) does not recognize any marriage between two homosexuals. Therefore, Dan Savage does not have a husband he only has a partner. Revising article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.241.127.6 (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Santorum (sexual neologism)

Santorum (sexual neologism)

This article has recently been expanded with additional sources and referencing improvements. There is also some ongoing discussion about that, at the article's talk page. If you are interested, please have a look at Santorum (sexual neologism) and the associated talk page discussion at Talk:Santorum (sexual neologism). Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

New article - Savage Love: Straight Answers from America's Most Popular Sex Columnist

Savage Love: Straight Answers from America's Most Popular Sex Columnist

New article, of interest to contributors to this article. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

New page - created - Dan Savage bibliography

Dan Savage bibliography

Newly created page, Dan Savage bibliography. Feedback and ideas for additional information and secondary sources would be appreciated, at the article's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 07:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment - Santorum (neologism)

Santorum (neologism)

Request for Comment discussion started, please see Talk:Santorum_(neologism)#Proposal_to_rename.2C_redirect.2C_and_merge_content. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 06:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Linking to spreadingsantorum on this page

I have been reverted here so I'll take the discussion to talk. What is the opinion about retaining the information/links contained in the above edit? Protonk (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Its a self published attack site, please stop insisting on re-adding it. Off2riorob (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

You prefer we spell the name out in plaintext and refuse to link to it, then? Because we aren't about to scrub mention of the site from the article. Protonk (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like a good idea. Off2riorob (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

that sounds insane. Do you mean to tell me that grevious harm will come to the subject of the article (or a person in general) should square brackets be affixed to that string of text? Protonk (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds insane? your the one that suggested it. Off2riorob (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, as an absurd example pointing out the limitations in applying BLPSPS/EL blindly. I'm only mildly surprised at the positive reception it has received. Protonk (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

If you allow subjects to add their personal websites to their articles (or Wikipedians to do it on their behalf), where these contain attacks on other people, it would turn the articles into platforms for the attacks. That's why WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS are clear that self-published sources published by the subject must not contain material about other living persons. Please read the policies. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I read the policies the first or second time you linked them. I understand what they say and what you understand them to say. My point is this. First, we have a duty as net citizens to link to content where appropriate and not proscribed. In other words, the default mode should be building the rich web and exceptions should be rare. Second, it is not clear that the exception is justified in this case. Dan Savage is arguably the subject of this article. That is Dan Savage's website and it is referenced in the article by reliable sources as an important part of his biography. Punting the link out to a source in order to wash our hands of something naughty needs to be justified as it is an extraordinary action. You and Off2riorob argue that BLP provides that justification. Perhaps, but it is hardly open and shut and in no way follows immediately from a reading of that policy. Further, the act of linking to a website (where it would otherwise be appropriate) is a second order BLP concern. It is absolutely not on the same level of repeating the claims of that website in the voice of the encyclopedia and should be given the appropriate level of deference--that is to say much less than a brazen BLP violation in plan text. Finally, the absolute absurdity of allowing a bare string of text (spreadingsantorum.com) because reliable sources guide us to include it in the article but barring square brackets on either side should lay bare the strained nature of the claim you are making. If the website is so nefarious and defamatory as to proscribe any link, how is it innocuous enough to include in the text of the article. Also, the determination of "offensive" in this case is a bit subjective. I think the Santorum presidential campaign website is offensive and is a platform for anti-woman, anti-gay and anti-poor speech. But you don't see me running around and delinking it on that basis. Protonk (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Its a simple step to suggest that it is from that declared opinionated position against the living subject that you feel it is fine to add an external link to this attack site against that living person. Off2riorob (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I know, right? Just takes someone willing to cowboy up and suggest that. Alternately you could read the rest of the comment at face value and engage the arguments, but that's hard. Protonk (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Have to agree with SV and Rob. This is a BLP violation. The only purpose of the website is to attack and demean a living person. It serves no other purpose. There is no valid reason to promote said website beyond what is already stated. Arzel (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Who decides what the sole or primary purpose of a site is? And what operational distinction is made between our standards for material on wikipedia and material linked to from wikipedia? Please don't tell me that the standards are the same. Protonk (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Biphobia/transphobia

I came here expecting to see some kind of information about the controversies Dan Savage has caused by writing columns that are distinctly biphobic or transphobic, but there isn't even the barest mention of them in the article. It deserves its own section at least. 67.1.17.127 (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources would be a good starting point. You might find it helpful to set up an account, particularly considering the context of unsourced criticism being raised on this talk page in the past. See WP:BENEFITS. Fæ (talk) 04:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The advice in Savage Love used to be biphobic, back in the 20th century. For example: [9][10], both from 1999. In recent years, he is not biphobic. For example, [11] (2009) and [12] (2011). Mathew5000 (talk) 08:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

In recent years he's still very much biphobic and transphobic, even if he claims not to be when directly asked. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=22160 (2005) and http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=1118133 (2009) are some more recent examples of biphobia, and http://www.avclub.com/articles/march-25-2009,25624/ (2009) and http://transgriot.blogspot.com/2010/03/dan-savages-transphobic-azz-strikes.html (2010) are some recent examples of transphobia. The youtube you linked also has him expressing biphobic sentiments, additionally. This angered many in the bisexual and trans communities and you'll find no end of blogs and LGBT-related news sites reporting on it. 67.1.9.145 (talk) 07:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Just for a starting point, you can disregard all blogs as they are generally not considered reliable sources. News sites would be the place to start. DP76764 (Talk) 13:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I came to this article to see if his transphobia is being mentioned in the article, and I didn't see it. Good that there's at least discussion here in the talk page. 87.121.52.156 (talk) 07:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Dan Savage is STILL biphobic even today in 2011 just read this article in his own words http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/bisexuals/Content?oid=8743322 or watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2sIf_sVYuc&feature=related If you have access to the bisexual documentary "Bi the way" there's a part where on camera Dan Savage says biphobic things and practices bisexual erasure. Why is none of this mentioned in the article about him? He's also still VERY transphobic as well and uses terms like "Tranny" and "Shemale" as insults. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.74.2 (talk) 04:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes but on the other hand I like Dan Savage so don't put anything that might be construed as negative about him in this entry because that will offend me and maybe even offend Dan Savage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.145.12 (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

A section about his biphobia and transphobia should be included and mentioned in the article.96.227.207.25 (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No, per WP:NOR. Your sources don't measure up to BLP levels. Binksternet (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

They are direct quotes and writings by Dan Savage himself, so yes they are sources or biographies of living persons.71.162.251.239 (talk) 07:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Critical section

I have just re-added the addition that I made earlier. Whoever decided to delete the section that I put up about "Accusations of Biphobia/Transphobia" needs to stop. Those are verifiable sources from Huffington Post and a couple of highly respected and read LGBTI publications. The links in question also contain direct links (in addition to their stories) to Savage's work within his own publication. There is no reason for them to be deleted as they aren't defamatory or libelous, while anyone who has followed Savage over the years knows them to be true. Kate Dee (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I have followed Savage over the years and do not know them to be true. Even if I did, that wouldn't be relevant at Wikipedia. What you wrote seems to be, not neutral, verified information, but your own analysis of Savage's work, which goes beyond the scope of what an encyclopedia does. All of your sources appear to be opinion pieces on blogs, which wouldn't meet the reliable source guidelines.-FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Kate Dee, please gain a positive consensus here for adding a critical section on this topic, which has been raised on this talk page before. Continuing to revert the information into the article without a reasonable discussion (for example, exploring a little bit more on Savage's interview responses on this topic, which are the best sources to use and how to present appropriate balance and weight) will be treated as edit warring. --Fæ (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Given that there seem to be people here who think that Savage can do no wrong, I doubt that's going to happen. I'll give you a chance though. Write a section that recognises that Savage has been Transphobic/Biphobic in the past, and I'll leave this alone. If this page is continuously changed to say that he isn't however, I'll keep changing it or I'll report it as not being neutral, as it most certainly isn't at the moment. Kate Dee (talk) 00:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

While I am not sure it merits its own section, Savage has long been accused of making problematic statements about bi and trans people, promoting the ideology of an invisible college of people who have claimed male bisexuality doesn't exist and citing those same people in his opinions about trans people. He also frequently gives people within this invisible college space in his paper to espouse their controversial ideologies about sex and gender minorities (like reparative therapy of gender-nonconforming children, recently declared "no longer ethical").

Lifelong bisexual activist Kyle Schickner releases season two of web series "A Rose By Any Other Name"
Snails & Oysters: Dan Savage is Biphobic
Savage and Michael Musto have been described as "two of America's most notorious biphobes" (Bryant 2009)

Multiple news outlets reported his recent glitter-bombings (an emerging form of protest that targets politically conservative people). He has written several times about this recently, acknowledging the accusations of transphobia:

“Perhaps I’m a transphobic bigot,” but asking a father to wait “a measly 36 months” before having his penis chopped off “is a sacrifice any father should be willing to make for his 15-year-old son. Call me old-fashioned.” (NY Times 2011)
On Glitter, Transphobia, and Hate Speech
The Transgression of Neil Patrick Harris

I agree with Kate Dee a paragraph listing well-sourced accusations and his responses should certainly be included. Jokestress (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Finally some sensibility on here. Thanks Jokestress! Kate Dee (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Taking the above as proposed text, I have the following concerns:

There is no source showing Savage uses the term "Invisible College", I believe it to be a non-common term and the paper (link 1) by Ansaraa and Hegartya even puts the term in quotation marks in their abstract.
I am unclear how the claim that Savage allows "space in his paper to espouse" anti-bisexual views is evidence of Savage's views or that this is a demonstrable fact.
(link 2) This interview is about bisexual activist Kyle Schickner, he makes claims about Savage, but it is unclear exactly on which original evidence these claims are based. I would guess he is discussing the introductory video that Savage made for IGBP, if such a video can be linked where Savage has stated that bisexuality does not exist, then that would be a useful source. An interview or editorial with Schickner is evidence of Schickner's opinions, it is not a great source to pin a critical section on about Savage's views.
(link 3) The afterelton.com article is much clearer, the video from 2009 of Savage talking about bisexuality is a great source for his views. Whether this proves he is biphobic is unclear. In that presentation he does not deny that bisexuality exists (in fact he says "yes of course" to bisexuals existing) but appears to be making statements based on his experience including that some people identify as bisexual who are not and that is a "waystation" for many people. I find it hard to read this as being blatantly biphobic.
(link 4) The documentary by Blockman and Decker might be a good source, I haven't seen the video. From the abstract this might be useful to provide evidence that Savage has stereotyped bisexuals. Someone would need to go through this and explain the particular relevant segments.
The quote from the NY Times 2011 looks interesting and appears to be a comment about transsexual surgery (or gender correction) and how long people might be forced to wait. If this had the title and full date I would have been able to check it. Savage may have been making fun of the question and opinions differ widely for many reasons on how young people are assessed and advised before sexual reassignment surgery, I am not sure this by itself demonstrates he is transphobic.
(link 5) I think this is a good source for this issue. Savage covers the glitterbombing event and reactions in some detail. This can be used to support the criticism against Savage though it should not be presented as evidence of Savage being transphobic.
(link 6) This is an explanation from Savage about an accusation against him that seems to be false. I doubt this is evidence of much.

My opinion from looking at these sources is that the criticism should be mentioned in the article, but great care should be taken to analyse the sources to ensure they are not just editorials and that the sources are presented in a balanced way presenting all viewpoints. The opinions of Savage as presented in the sources must be presented accurately in the article, not just re-badged as evidence of biphobia or transphobia without being clearly verifiable and without being given undue weight in the article overall. --Fæ (talk) 10:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The above is not proposed text. It is a sample of citations in reliable sources, presented for editors who seem resistant to including these well-sourced accusations. The NYT piece is Married, With Infidelities. When the academic Journal of Bisexuality prints a piece listing someone among America's most notorious biphobes, it's pretty clear that the accusations exist. Savage got glitterbombed twice recently amid accusations of transphobia, joining a growing list of conservatives who make problematic statements about sex and gender minorities. I know his image in the mainstream media does not jibe with these accusations, but the accusations are a well-known fact which he has addressed. I'll let you all figure out proposed text and remind everyone that we are striving for editor retention and not biting newcomers these days. None of this reply is proposed text. I recommend starting with the text that has been removed for discussion. Jokestress (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the NYT link, below nicely formatted and ready to use. I misunderstood the quotation originally, but given the full context of the article, I still feel this would be misrepresented if labelled as transphobia. As for being biting newcomers, I'm assuming that does not apply to any particular response of mine you have seen here, leave a note on my talk page if you think it does as I'm happy to learn how to handle these things better, particularly when I am personally accused of being transphobic (diff).

Oppenheimer, Mark (June 30, 2011). "Married, With Infidelities". The New York Times. Retrieved 2011-12-13.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks like there hasn't been any progress on this since my apology on the other page and Jokestress's links. I'd appreciate it if a section was created on this soon given that it's becoming very evident that there's a case to at least document the accusations made against Savage. e.g. the Glitter bombs, documentaries and the NYT article to name a few. The same can be said about the "It Gets Better" page, as there's a lot of LGBTIQ academics who are starting to question it's effectiveness. Kate Dee (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

With pressure from real life, I doubt I will get the time think properly and look at this myself, I would encourage you to consider how to take on the above discussion and propose a short, neutral and simple addition to the article. If on the longer side it is far more likely to get nitpicked indefinitely (sorry). To meet your concerns even a very brief mention is a starting point and then it becomes a lot easier to add new sources or other neutral material later on.

The same would apply to the IGB article, but that is a subject to pursue on that discussion page. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I also agree that we should add this into both the articles on Dan Savage and IGB.71.162.251.239 (talk) 07:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

NPOV term keeps getting reverted?

What's up with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.241.128.157 (talk • contribs)

Agreed. I believe it's vandalism or someone attempting to push their opinion/agenda. See my comment on the last revert for the supporting arguments. gujamin (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

From Homosexuality article: "The most common terms for homosexual people are lesbian for women and gay for men, though gay is also used to refer generally to homosexual men and women". Also, there are categories like "gay writers" (look at the end of the page) and not "homosexual writers". You should not call other people vandals etc., please read WP:AGF. Best.В и к и T 17:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The term "gay" can cause confusion. People in other parts of the world might not recognize the term as a reference to sexual orientation, and instead as a reference to mood (happy/carefree) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.241.178.198 (talk • contribs)

See simple:gay or any widely used English dictionary. Some readers may well be stuck in the 1960s, this does not mean that the English Wikipedia cannot use commonly used modern language. --Fæ (talk) 06:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It appears that we can't agree to a term. What shall we do? 132.241.185.106 (talk) 23:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I think opting for the least ambiguous and correct word is preferable. gujamin (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

furthermore, the term "gay" can be seen as a pejorative and therefore would be inappropriate for the Wikipedia. gujamin (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

(Evidence of your opinion that "gay" is pejorative?) In any case, per WP:BLP, I've added high-quality WP:RS citations demonstrating both that he is referred to as gay and self-identifies as gay; please obtain consensus before changing the term. Rostz (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Gay can be used empoweringly or pejoratively. In its modern pejorative sense, it does not explicitly refer to gay people but is used to mean "bad" about anything and it would make no sense for the usage here to be read that way and so needs no clarification. Attempts across Wikipedia to change "gay" to "homosexual" have been made many times and in the case of BLPs it can only be treated as offensive to do so when the subject is sourced as identifying themselves as "gay". Repeated attempts to add what can be classed as a BLP violation will be treated as vandalism. Fæ (talk) 06:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It appears that we are not building WP:CONSENSUS on this issue. I'll consider talking it up with dispute resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.241.128.157 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 8 October 2011‎

There seems to be no "we" here, there is you writing from the same University address using different IP addresses. Please see Summary of benefits. --Fæ (talk) 11:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

In the context of this article, no reader will be confused by the term 'gay'. We should use it because it is the term Savage prefers. Other gay and straight people have, in the past, expressed preference for the terms 'homosexual', 'queer', 'homophile' or others, but Savage uses gay, and we ought to respect that. Binksternet (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Note that dispute resolution has been initiated regarding this issue. Rostz (talk) 03:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I have a few points: the "sources" that are sourced are in the context of discussing homosexual issues and therefore the term "gay" would have 0 ambiguity or pejorative reads. However, this is not "gay-wikipedia" and is meant to be encyclopedic and therefore the writing style should not be casual or colloquial as is appropriate in the "source". While Dan might be using the term "Gay" in that article context, no where does it say he prefers the term "gay" to homosexual (please provide the source if I am incorrect in this). In the talk on that, one mentions that if Dan does self-identify as "gay" and prefers that term, then the article should be re-written to say Dan is a homosexual man who prefers the label "gay". What he is as an encyclopedic description is homosexual as gay is an informal term, and while widely used, is not appropriate in this context. We would not write the term "y'all" despite how common and clear the term is because it is too informal for this context. I would like to re-open the discussion however, I'm not sure what the appropriate procedures for this would be. Given that either term would be appropriate, I question the motives of those insisting on maintaining the phrase "who is gay" and therefore have rewritten the section to remove ambiguity and casual writing style that existed before, hopefully creating a solution that will please all parties.gujamin (talk) 02:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

final note: if other users insist on using the term "gay" instead of "homosexual", I will not insist on keeping the term homosexual given that the phrase "is gay" (which is not clear) would now be "As a gay male" which is still clear and would not be considered pejorative given the new context. However, my arguments above stand for using the more academic term instead of the colloquial one. gujamin (talk) 02:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see you will not insist but I fail to understand why at the same time as making this statement you changed gay to homosexual in the article yet again which appears to be you insisting anyway. You may not be aware that Wikipedia:DRN#Dan_Savage is concluded. Further reversions are counter to WP:BLP and may be seen as edit warring. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 02:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Please also assume good faith; it is unacceptable to ascribe editing disagreements to suspect motivations. Rostz (talk) 01:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

There's also WP:AAGF and WP:ABF, heh heh. Seriously, once an editor has demonstrated by action a discontinuity with claimed intention, previously assumed good faith fades. The initial assumption of good faith is adjusted by experience, so Fae's observation is perfectly appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 01:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge in Campaign for "santorum" neologism

The Campaign for "santorum" neologism should be merged into this article. I can't find any reliable sources that mention the neologism by itself without mentioning Savage. It does not have notability outside Savage and his war on Rick Santorum. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. The connection to Savage is real, but the notability of the campaign to discredit Santorum is well established by itself. There's no need to merge the articles; both of them meet WP:GNG. Binksternet (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. If this was part of the article on Dan Savage, I'd support it being split out.Naraht (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose strongly a merge here. Yes, Savage initiated it, but it became more notable than this article could adequately provide as a subsection. DreamGuy (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose this should definitely remain unmerged. It is important that it stand alone as a testiment to a truly vile and ignorant idiot who wants to have power to impose his views on the public.66.65.4.118 (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- This is not a valid rationale. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose The fact that reporting about the campaign tends to mention the person who started it is not a good argument that the campaign itself is not notable. Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose latest attempt to get rid of article that has been kept time and time again. It's independently notable; as Theoldsparkle points out, the fact that coverage of the campaign mentions its founder means that they're trying to provide information to their readers, not that its notability is entirely bound up in Savage's, which is completely wrong (if anyone's, it's bound up in Santorum's). This WP:FORUMSHOPPING/WP:KEEPLISTINGTILLITGETSDELETED is really disgraceful. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Of course the article mentions Dan Savage. So does the article on the It Gets Better Project. So do the five articles about the five books he's written. I strongly oppose such a merger. DS (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Support/Oppose Obviously this issue has enough supporting evidence to be worthy of a separate article, however including a detailed section about it in Savage's wiki-page wouldn't hurt as well. Given the Biphobia/Transphobia proposals above which are just as well known as "Santorum", I propose that we have a dedicated "Criticism and Activism" section within this article. I also propose that equal footing be given to verified evidence that criticizes Savage, as this article isn't neutral under wikipedia policy in it's current form. eg NYT & Huff Post articles criticizing his attacks on Gender Diverse people, plus the video listed above where he publicly attacks bisexuals. If it isn't made neutral, I propose that it be deleted and a fresh "Dan Savage"article be put in it's place. Kate Dee (talk) 11:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose the merge. It doesn't make sense to merge this back into Dan Savage any more than it makes sense to merge It Gets Bettter Project back into Dan Savage's article. Dan Savage launched the campaign, yes, but the campaign has grown enough that it isn't all about Dan vs. Rick at this point. Commentary is occurring about the campaign that doesn't even mention Savage, demonstrating that interest is in the campaign and the neologism itself, not just in Dan Savage (and as a corollary, that the neologism itself is notable as a separate entity than Savage). This article, for example, discusses how Santorum's Google results have been affected by the campaign, but does not mention Savage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
WP:Snow result is to get rid of the hopeless merge tag and shut down this discussion. Binksternet (talk) 08:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Support The "Campaign for "santorum" neologism" is an esoteric locution only used in association with Savage; it does not have notability elsewhere. As such, the merge is appropriate. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 16:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the title doesn't seem to be as useful as a simpler, more direct title. But wouldn't renaming it to Santorum (bodily fluid) or Santorum (neologism) make more sense than putting it all here?

Oppose. Much of what is important about that subject will not be helpful to a reader who wants to understand who Dan Savage is, or what he has done. The content has become too much its own subject to fit coherently into a biography. A separate article is useful for the same reasons that it is useful to have an article on Bush doctrine that is separate from the article on George W. Bush. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
""Oppose"" 93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose If anything this should be merged with Rick Santorum’s main page, not savages. Also it would dishonest to not point out that NYyankees51, the one to make this request, is a heavily biased person and pro Santorum. He has been banned times before and has also shown to allow his opinions to play loose with edits and request.--216.81.94.71 (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose merits an article on its own (and why merge with Savage rather than Rick Santorum? Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose merits an article on its own... and **bingo** why merge with Savage rather than Rick Santorum? 842U (talk) 12:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose The word "santorum" has at this point entered the English language, if anything it's time to rename the article back to its original title - Santorum (sexual neologism) XeroxKleenex (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose and SNOW per Binksternet. JamesMLane t c 05:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose: Bad faith politically motivated nomination by POV warrior. The topic is more than notable and distinct enough to merit its own article, as scads of previous AfDs and RfC have shown. This nomination serves no purpose than to be disruptive. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Support - The " 'santorum' campaign" and Savage are source-tied at the hip in whatever public perception exists. While the same might be legitimately said of Rick Santorum, if there's a merge to be done (which I fully support), in equity it is the progenitor who "owns" this issue, not the target/victim of Savage's political attack. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Merge with Santorum, he's the subject of the issue. Gamaliel (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Santorum vs santorum

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Santorum vs santorum". Thank you. --The Gnome (talk) 08:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Is the use of the term "husband" used to describe the partnership between Dan Savage and Terry Miller the most appropriate in consideration of BLP policy?

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.

The consensus is clearly that use of the term "husband" in this context is most appropriate. — madman 06:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Is the word "husband" the most appropriate for describing the relationship between Dan Savage and Terry Miller on the biographical article and related articles that mention their relationship? The term "husband" is used by Dan Savage when describing his relationship and supported by multiple reliable sources. The couple were married in Vancouver BC, in 2005 and currently reside in Washington. Both the Dan Savage and It Gets Better Project have had the word changed to "partner" or "gay partner" in the past and a lprior local consensus exists on Dan Savage to use the word "husband". The Defense of Marriage Act has been quoted as a reason to use the term "partner" instead. --Fæ (talk) 12:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Husband they are married. DOMA has zero to do with this. Wikipedia is not the US Federal government. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Husband: That's how Savage describes him, and they are legally married. The fact that some states and the federal government do not recognize their marriage is completely irrelevant here on WP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Question: The article doesn't cite any source in which Savage is recorded referring to Miller as his "husband". In WP:BLP terms, "husband" is appropriate if and only if Savage uses the word "husband" himself. Otherwise the more neutral "partner" should be used instead. Der yck C. 14:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing in BLP that would preclude the use of "husband" given that it's reliably secondary-sourced, but he has indeed repeatedly referred to Terry as his husband, e.g. in his "It Gets Better" book. Rostz (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The article doesn't have to cite the word "husband', as that is the default term for spouse. There is nothing neutral about "partner" in the case of a married couple. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"Husband" is not an acceptable default term for a spouse/partner because in most parts of the English-speaking world, male homosexual partnerships are not recognised as "marriage" and those taking part not referred to as "husbands". Attempts at using marriage terminology in popular media before homosexual marriages are legalised have also been met with resistance, for example in the UK. For Wikipedia to use "husband" as a default term without those being described using the term themselves would be pushing a particular point of view. Der yck C. 15:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Deryck, please see the existing local consensus (linked from the RFC) where these sources were discussed and can be seen in the article. If there is an expectation that the word "husband" should have specific secondary example citations immediately located against them along with explicit quotations, then I suggest the other words previously challenged such as "gay" or other words such as "married" or "family" are good candidates, though considering the level of existing citations and quotations about his relationship and being gay throughout the article, one might want to balance that approach against the norms of WP:BLUE. A search on Google News[13] will provide you with a wealth of evidence that these words are in common use describing Savage in relation to Miller in quality secondary sources such as CBC or Time Magazine.

From your phrasing, I wondered if you understood that they are legally married, just in Canada rather than the USA. This is made clear in the article. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Fæ, I understand the situation fully. With the evidence you and Rostz presented, I have no problem with our using "husband" in this article. My previous reply simply serves to explain why I would've objected to the use of "husband" if Savage doesn't use the word himself. Der yck C. 15:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

To clarify the scope. This RFC covers all articles that include descriptions of the relationship and family of Dan Savage and Terry Miller with the implication that any such description would be reliably sourced in the same way as this article is. The RFC is not intended as a general or hypothetical discussion of the use of the word "husband" in the context of same-sex relationships, civil partnerships, marriage or marriages without legal recognition. Thanks Fæ (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

And a response to WP:BLUE: I believe the situation at hand is more like a case of WP:LIKELY. Der yck C. 16:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Husband: According to primary and secondary sources, they are legally married. Rostz (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Husband The Destruction of Marriage Act is federal law, deemed unconstitutional in parts by multiple federal courts. And that court-ruled-discriminatory piece of legislation should be the leading guideline here at Wikipedia to determine whether two legally married people can call each other husbands? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Husband Regardless of any political or social debates, the sources about this relationship all use the word "husband". Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Husband; it's the term the two use, it's the term secondary sources use, it's legally valid and Wikipedia isn't in the habit anyway of checking the legal marriage licenses of people who call themselves married (see: every heterosexual couple on this website). Are we seriously holding an entire RFC because of one anonymous IP-hopping troll? Speedy close this, please. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Husband; mostly per Roscelese above and also because DOMA has precious little to do with this question since, contrary to the uninformed opinions expressed in various edit summaries, it does not prohibit same-sex marriages; in fact, it implicitly assumes their validity when recognized by individual states. But are we going to be required to suffer through separate RFCs for every article discussing anybody in a same-sex marriage? IP trolling has also been making similar changes at Matt Morris (musician)‎ recently. Is there a better place, perhaps BLPN, to get a more general consensus? Fat&Happy (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Is that really necessary? Block the troll and/or semiprotect the articles, it's not necessary to hold a grand forum to address the demands of one person. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  - I believe it is necessary. There needs to be a demonstrable consensus if changes to single words such as "husband" or "gay" are to continue to be challenged across several articles and over an indefinite period (this is a long term issue, as demonstrated by the talk pages and archives). Indefinitely locking these articles is a poor solution as is blocking IP addresses on the assumption that it is a troll or even the same person. This RFC is limited to Dan Savage as the case for "identification" varies by how individuals self-identify and how secondary reliable sources describe them and their families. Though single discussions, such as that earlier on this talk page, do demonstrate local consensus, a RFC is a clear way of showing if a community consensus exists or not and is much easier to reference in the long term and then be used as the basis for any action to preserve the consensus. --Fæ (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
    - It's definitely the same person - check out the edit histories of the several IP addresses, they're all editing the same articles. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
PARTNER - Homosexuals like Savage cannot marry legally in the United States. Federal Law does not recognize homosexual marriages. Savege may have married his gay partner in Canada, but that was overruled just last week via Canadian Law. He is not legally married, therefore he cannot have a husband in the United States. Period. It is Partner only. I love it how you guys push your agenda with no regard to what the United States Congress and President George W. Bush have legislated with DOMA. The Defense of Marriage Act is the law of the United States, and has not been overturned as discriminatory by any Federal U.S. Court. 114.72.199.169 (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- - LOL fail, Clinton signed DOMA. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
    - Further LOL fail, the statement "Homosexuals like Savage cannot marry legally in the United States" is too sweeping. Several states recognize same-sex marriages -- I think New York was the most recent addition to the list, but there might have been another that I've forgotten. JamesMLane t c 23:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Point of fact, gay marriages in Canada for non-residents were not overturned last week. Savage is married in Canada, which is recognized by several US states (and likely his home state of WA soon). Washington state does not differentiate the term Husband/Wife/Partner/Spouse, so the verbiage here doesn't need to rely on any legal statutes. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Husband Savage is married, even if that marriage did not occur in the US and is not recognized by the US. If he refers to his partner as his husband, so should we. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Husband for passing references, such as Miller's role in the It Gets Better project -- but it's proper for the section on "Family and marriage" to expand on the nuances, as the current version does. It's not as if Wikipedia, by using the word "husband", is suppressing a notable fact about Savage's personal life (namely, that his marriage isn't recognized where he lives, thus exposing him and Miller to various potential problems). I'd favor amplifying that section by incorporating Savage's own description of Miller as "my husband in Canada/boyfriend in America". JamesMLane t c 23:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Husband. Why is this even an issue? Gamaliel (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Husband. Regarding the DOMA issue: this article isn't about taxation or insurance issues of Dan Savage, so it is out of DOMA scope. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Husband, in many states he is legally married, sources call Miller his husband, and this is just one user (perhaps a banned one) that is trolling the page to his propaganda. Keep the word husband and if needed protect the page. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Husband per the sources, and a WP:SNOW close, please. Imzadi 1979 → 08:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Husband per sources and respectful etiquette. Binksternet (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Husband, unless we change all the instances of "husband and wife" to "partner and partner", too. –Fredddie ™ 16:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Husband is clear, partner is vague and ambiguous. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Husband - a) it's self-description so no violation of BLP (ie it's not meant as a slur) b) the couple did go to Vancouver to get legally married so "husband" is the appropriate term since husband is a male spouse. That the marriage is not recognized in all jurisdictions is irrelevant. There are many jurisdictions in the world where marriage of people between certain faiths is not recognized. If say, a Jewish person and a Muslim receive a legal marriage in, say, Cyprus we wouldn't say they aren't husband and wife because they couldn't have legally married in Saudi Arabia or Israel. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Husband - As one who (once) previously changed it to "partner", the myriad arguments above now have me on board with "husband". Joefromrandb (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Husband – they are legally married, and Savage uses "husband." SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

For the love of everything sparkly and rainbow colored will someone please close this (and delete this comment!)Naraht (talk) 02:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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.

List of "Personal opinions"; why?

The list of "Personal opinions" appears to fail the guideline of WP:Manual of Style/Embedded lists which states "Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a simple list may not." I suggest any opinion on the list which does not warrant expansion into reasonable prose is removed per IINFO and everything with significant impact is given appropriate weight and context by integrating into one of the specific sections. --Fæ (talk) 08:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

"Controversies"

They aren't controversies if there was no actual controversy, i.e. if nobody besides Savage commented on their opposition to his remarks. Savage saying something that people could find offensive and then apologizing for it, which is what is currently described in both "controversy" paragraphs, is not a controversy. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, these should be dropped from the article. I think these fail Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves as the quotes may be seen as self-serving to increase his public profile when there is nothing outside of the Walled garden to demonstrate social or historic impact. --Fæ (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Catholophobia to claim this is a Catholic

Described himself as an atheist or agnostic.
Supports birth control and other things condemed by the Church.
Calls a man his "husband" and supports homosexual "marriage".
Most of his political associates are Jews, like Evan Wolfson.

In the weird world of the American media circus, where "anything goes", I'm sure some individualistic rationale will be cited to claim otherwise, but Catholicism is a religion; a system of beliefs with specific doctrines and dogmas; its not like Judaism where you're still a Jew even if you're an atheist. If you don't believe in God, if you don't believe in the Holy Trinity, then by definition, you're not a Catholic. This personality calls himself an atheist and is opposed to the Church's positions in the socio-cultural arena, no Catholic. Rí Lughaid (talk) 13:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Described himself as an atheist or agnostic.

He also still considers himself "culturally Catholic."

Supports birth control and other things condemed by the Church.

Not relevant.

Calls a man his "husband" and supports homosexual "marriage".

Not relevant at all.

Most of his political associates are Jews, like Evan Wolfson.

Are you serious? Keep your anti-Semitism for yourself.--В и к и T 14:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm serious... his political associates are explicit enemies of Catholic cultural norms, representing the most prominent opposition group. Define "culturally Catholic"? A person that is an atheist and opposes all of the Church's social positions doesn't fit the bill of anything-Catholic. He clearly doesn't belong in a category about "American Roman Catholics", a religious category. Rí Lughaid (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works as far as labeling people by religion goes. It isn't our place to judge anyone's orthodoxy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

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.

[3] www.seattleweekly.com/content/printVersion/163451

[4] www.glbtq.com/literature/savage_d.html

[5] ttp://www.amazon.com/Savage-Love-Straight-Americas-Columnist/dp/B002SB8PTM/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280241245&sr=8-5#reader_B002SB8PTM

[1] Savage's Statement about the Wikipedia's incorrect listing of his birthday

[2] Savage's Statement about the Wikipedia's incorrect listing of his birthday

[1]

[2]

[age 1]

[age 2]

[age 3]