Talk:Dan Savage
|
|
See also Talk:Rick Santorum, Savage Love
How is it more appropriate for Dan Savage and Savage Love to be a single entry than not?
We have separate entries for Catch-22 and Joseph Heller. We have separate entries for This American Life and Ira Glass. We have separate entries for Peanuts and Charles Schultz.
The concept that an artist and his work should be merged into the same entry, even if one part of the work is of dominant interest, eludes me. I'm going to change Savage Love back to a link. Please convince me how I'm wrong. --The Cunctator 20:05, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- There is less verifiable, informative information about Savage Love than about Peanuts. See our recommendations on the ideal page size, for example. As and when we have ~10K of information on Dan Savage and his column to warrant a seperate article, the articles can of course be split. Martin 20:13, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Well, if we do merge them, I hope it will be under Dan Savage rather than under Savage Love, because the author of multiple books and writer/director of dozens of plays should not be treated just as a columnist. -- Jmabel 21:32, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Hey, I wonder if we can get Dan Savage to eat his words?
- Think of it, santorum on the lips of 1.3 billion people....
Seems to me that it is redundant to link to the "Spreading Santorum" web site from this page. We are also linking to it from Savage Love.
-- Jmabel 21:32, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Keenan Hollahan? What? -Branddobbe 22:45, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
- This was the name under which he did his theater work in the mid-90s. I'm not sure of his motivation, but he used the name pretty consistently in his theater work for several years. See, for example, http://www.kittenpants.org/09_winners/dansavage2.htm: "I'm Dan Savage. Keenan is my middle name. Hollahan is a family name (my grandma's maiden name)." Do you think we should go into this in more detail in the article? -- Jmabel 23:02, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I removed "The idea that he was primarily a "neutral party" advising heterosexuals quickly fell away: today, gays are undoubtedly disproportionately represented among his correspondents." I read "SL" regularly, and straights make up the huge majority of his questioners. --zenohockey 21:51, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Are you seriously saying that the gays, who make up less than 10% of the population, do not make up considerably more than 10% of Dan's correspondents? -- Jmabel 05:38, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
- I did a random survey of six articles from his [archive (http://www.thestranger.com/archive/savage.html)]; 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)