Talk:Savage Love

Concerned articles not mentioning saddlebacking

There has been considerable controversy at the two articles Saddleback Church and Rick Warren about this term, and none of these articles made any mention of the term or its inception before I added the term today to both articles in the See also sections. In case this past controversy now flares up, I'd like editors of this article also to keep an eye on it or participate in any consensus-making process on the issue of whether or not a tenable case can be presented for completely suppressing the existence of this term from those two articles. __meco (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2010 (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)

Biphobia

I'm glad you put the section about how Dan Savage is biphobic in there but if you have ever read what Dan Savage has said about bisexuals in his "advice column" you can see how he is biphobic and does practice bisexual erasure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.70.175 (talk) 11:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Where is this published?

The article currently states the column appears weekly in several dozen newspapers, mainly free newspapers in the US and Canada, but also newspapers in Europe and Asia. Can somebody clarify which papers carry this column, especially outside the US? I've never heard of it, and the article implies it has a completely US perspective and readership. --Ef80 (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Dan Savage's column is published in a newspaper in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. The website of the paper is http://www.straight.com/ and it is called "The Georgia Straight" or just "The Straight." Janice Vian, Ph.D. (talk) 01:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

"Pegging" citation

User:Binksternet added a {{citation needed}} to the Pegging section on December 26, 2012, saying it needed a source other that Savage himself and citing WP:SECONDARY. Then followed a string of reversions by Binksternet and a few other people. I came here now and added a reference to the column in question. I see the Policy on WP:SECONDARY for Primary Sources allows primary sources to be used, so long as there is not analysis based on them. I think that column is a valid reference, and besides, where are you going to find someone reporting on the percentages of the votes? Savage was the only one with access to them.

Thoughts? —Ignatzmice^talk_contribs 21:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Removed the whole section. Needs secondary source. If there isn't one, then it doesn't belong in the article. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

What kind of secondary source are you *expecting*? Tamtrible (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

One that exists. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Like this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegging_%28sexual_practice%29 It was the *first* thing that came up when I googled "pegging" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamtrible (talk • contribs) 23:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

and, for the campsite rule, will this do? http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Campsite%20rule Tamtrible (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

You can't cite Wikipedia as a source in a Wikipedia article. None of the sources on that page are reliable. Urban Dictionary is likewise not reliable. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You're the one who said "one that exists". If those don't meet your criteria, then *please* indicate what *would* meet your criteria, for the existence and/or significance of a *slang term*?Tamtrible (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Tamtrible, have you looked through WP:RS and WP:CITE yet? Those will explain how/what to cite. That being said, the references in the pegging article itself seem like they could be of some use in this situation. DP76764 (Talk) 19:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess... my point of confusion is, what do you want citation for? That Dan originated the term? That the term is used? That the practice exists? For the first, I think the relevant column is more than adequate citation. For the second, I'd think that Urban Dictionary would suffice, as presumably it wouldn't have an entry if people didn't use the term. I'm mostly trying to get clarification here as to exactly *what* is being requested... Tamtrible (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You're almost there! The point remains that UD cannot be used though; see my link above to WP:RS. Tangent to this: reliable sources (in quantity) are generally used to prove notability. If something is not notable enough to be covered by sources, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. DP76764 (Talk) 20:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The description edit war

I'm pretty sure Savage would agree fully with that description of himself... many of the bits could probably be linked to things he has directly said in his column, if someone was to be obsessive enough... Tamtrible (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Savage would probably agree with it, and so would I. However, you must have a reliable third party source for this summary of his stance on various issues. Binksternet (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Some potentially likely links:

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=18144030 he encourages readers to pursue their fetishes

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=340 tolerable example of humor here, plus pretty clear indication that he's gay and has no problem with everyone knowing it

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=880970 profanity

Is that enough references, or do I need to archive-dive for the rest? I'm not 100% sure how to put 'em in... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamtrible (talk • contribs) 07:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

No. Those aren't okay. Please see WP:V, WP:IRS, WP:CITE, WP:BLP, and probably others. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Then I am not comprehending *how* you would reference *the views of a person* other than by looking at *what he has actually said*... Tamtrible (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Find a secondary source. If the information you desire to include hasn't been covered in a third-party, secondary, reliable source, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it seems... odd that we can't use a person's own words as a reference for what that person's views are, but... Here's the offending section, I don't want it lost in the edit history if/when someone figures out how to reference it properly.

[snip]BLP offending material removed by User:Nathan Johnson[/snip]

Tamtrible (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

You can't put that here either unless it's sourced. You should really read up on the policies and guidelines that I linked above. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

While we are having the discussion about whether/how to source it, I didn't want the text itself, which was a pretty good way of phrasing the relevant points, lost to editing. And it seemed reasonable to say "Here is the text we're trying to find sources for. Any ideas?" The whole problem is that everyone who knows about the subject pretty much agrees that *these things are true*. The problem is just *how to source it*. So I wanted to keep *the paragraph that we are trying to find sources for* somewhere that we could say "Hey, anyone know how to find sources for this?"... especially since *I found sources* for at least most of them, that were *the person's own words*, they just were not sufficiently encyclopedic. I'm pretty sure the primary intent of those policies is to keep from misrepresenting someone's words, et cetera, not to make it impossible to say something about a person without backing it up in triplicate or something. I just wanted to leave *the paragraph itself*, on the *talk page* (not the article) until we can clear up how to source it.

The paragraph in question: "The openly gay author uses the column as a forum for his strong opinions that reject conservative views on love, sex, and family. He generally encourages advice-seekers to pursue their fetishes, so long as activities are legal, consensual, safe, and respectful. The tone of the column is humorous, and Savage does not shy away from using profanity. The cornerstone of his sexual ethics is consent; he is thus strongly opposed to bestiality, child molestation, and rape, and frequently speaks out against incest and social inequality. Though Savage encourages sexual experimentation, he does not encourage carelessness. He frequently uses his position to promote safe sex and awareness of AIDS."

Is there any way we can refer this to some sort of moderating authority or something, instead of just going back and forth at each other?... Tamtrible (talk) 05:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604104320/http://www.glbtq.com/literature/savage_d.html to http://www.glbtq.com/literature/savage_d.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)