Talk:Dan Savage/Archive 2

Journalism conference comments about the Bible IS notable

An editor who seems to have a bias against Fox News as a reliable source (it is one, so get over it already) removed an addition about Savage's comments about the Bible at a recent journalism conference for high school students. This needs to be put back in the article as it is completely notable and sufficiently sourced (and there are plenty of other sources available -- even one that is pro-gay). The removal of this incident is nothing more than censorship. 67.233.241.169 (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Quite possibly worthy of a sentence in the controversy section, but we're not a news source; the stories on this are mere hours old and still coming out. Give it a few days and we will have a much better picture of if and how it should be captured in the article.--Trystan (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, because that's how the Trayvon Martin shooting article is being handled... 67.233.241.169 (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not a fan of Savage as most would be able to tell you, but please wait until the story develops. Unfortuanately the TM story is a mess, I wouldn't compare much to that travisty. Arzel (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC) ***Aww come on dude! Savage has a long long history of offending conservatives including public reaction by said conservatives. That deserves fair and full attention in the article. Absolutely NO reason to remove that edit. If anything, it should be added to, to provide general context of his activist speeches. Can you look any of us in the e-faces and actually tell us Ted Nugent, or any other conservative activist, doesn't have this kind of opposition context in their Wikipedia articles???? I challenge you to defend that one!!***

• • I wonder why some people are removing reference to the Gay Conservative group who got so offended at one of his speeches that they walked out? This is cited as an actual story, but was scrubbed from the article. I believe it provides balance to the article. By comparison, the article on Ted Nugent, and many other conservative activists, show articles indicating negative reaction to their comments, so too should this one. Also, he should have the label "activist" added to the very first paragraph.** — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.140.178 (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I put in the original info on the Seattle speech and see no reason whatsoever to not include. It was correctly sourced, not inflamatory and was written with a clear NPOV tone and a strict "this happened" tone and nothing more. There is also no reason to wait as there is no "Truth" waiting to come out. Savage made a speech, people walked out, comments were made by the organizers, and quotes were garnered from some of the people who left - all truth with nothing further to add or flesh out AND the entire thing is notable. The only that is remaining is a comment from Savage which, if he makes one, can be tacked on later. Really scratching my head why this is being left off this page. Ckruschke (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Can we add it to the article now??? Seriously, if this were Ann Coulter bashing gays or Muslims, it would be made a permanent addition to her article in a heartbeat. 67.233.240.136 (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It is in the article, so let's work towards a consensus to improve what is there. I think it will be best to avoid third party characterizations of what was said, and just present the remarks as said. I suggest the following, based on Ckruschel's version:

During an April 13, 2012 keynote speech on anti-bullying at the National High School Journalism Conference in Seattle sponsored by the Journalism Education Association and the National Scholastic Press Association, Savage said, "We can learn to ignore the bullshit in the Bible about gay people. The same way we have learned to ignore the bullshit in the Bible about shellfish, about slavery, about dinner, about farming, about menstruation, about virginity, about masturbation." Several students walked out of the presentation following these remarks, prompting Savage to state, "It’s funny, as someone who’s on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible, how pansy-assed some people react when you push back." Several conservative commentators and organizations condemned Savage's remarks as anti-Chrisitan bullying. JEA's executive director Kelly Furnas and NSPA's executive director Logan Aimone released a joint statement that said in part "We did not have a prior transcript or outline of Savage's speech...we wish he had stayed more on target for the audience of teen journalists," and "While some of (Savage's) earlier comments were so strongly worded that they shook some of our audience members, it is never the intent of JEA or NSPA to let students get hurt during their time at our conventions." Savage issued an apology for using the term "pansy-assed," but defended his statements regarding the Bible.--Trystan (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The comments have already achieved quite a bit of coverage from news organizations as broad as LGBT Weekly, HuffPo, CNN, Global Post, The Daily Beast, The Daily Mail and Breitbart. Its coverage is only growing. Several gay rights, religious and political organizations and prominent individuals have weighed in and it's pretty much a 24/7 thing over at Breitbart News so you can expect it to grow as both a point of political contention and an incident that will be used against Savage. It's a notable, controversial incident and it's properly sourced as such. As it is written now it's also compliant with BLP but I would like to see more sources defending (or "contextualizing") the comments. I'd also like to see more quotes from Savage himself. In the future please do not simply blank the material if there is something you're not happy about. Discuss it here. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Trystan's edit (I didn't have direct quotes of what he said at the time of my original insertion) and TomPointTwo's comments above. Ckruschke (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Requesting Readding this portion to the Section called Controversies

For some reason, possibly that the user decided that it was not controversial to them, this was removed from the article:

"During an April 13, 2012 keynote speech on anti-bullying at the National High School Journalism Conference in Seattle sponsored by the Journalism Education Association and the National Scholastic Press Association, Savage began "cursing, attacking the Bible" and when as many as 100 students began walking out, "called those who refused to listen to his rant 'pansy asses.'" To many that left after their Christian beliefs were attacked, "they felt like the anti-bully activist was in fact - the bully." JEA's executive director Kelly Furnas and NSPA's executive director Logan Aimone released a joint statement that said in part "We did not have a prior transcript or outline of Savage's speech...we wish he had stayed more on target for the audience of teen journalists," and "While some of (Savage's) earlier comments were so strongly worded that they shook some of our audience members, it is never the intent of JEA or NSPA to let students get hurt during their time at our conventions.""

The edit log says; "Undid revision 489553475 by Ckruschke (talk) rv per WP:NOT#NEWS. The enduring notability of this event is not established"

However, it can be seen to be news. What occurred has been mentioned on several sites that can be considered News Sites. Yes, it might not be completely notable, but the section in called "Controversies", which the actions of Mr. Savage can be considered to be placed in that section for it is controversial. While the portion above should likely be edited, it should not be removed from the article.

Other "possible" sources:

1 - http://nation.foxnews.com/dan-savage/2012/04/28/gay-conservatives-demand-dan-savage-apologize-anti-christian-tirade

2 - http://www.annistonstar.com/pages/full_story/push?blog-entry-Intolerant+Atheism%20&id=18394952

3 - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2136502/It-Gets-Worse-Anti-Bullying-speaker-Dan-Savage-blasts-Christian-teens-ditching-lecture.html

4 - http://nation.foxnews.com/war-religion/2012/04/27/anti-bullying-activist-curses-mocks-christian-teens

5 - http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/anti-bullying-speaker-curses-mocks-christian-teens.html

6 - http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/04/28/video-christian-students-walk-out-as-dan-savage-attacks-the-bible/

7 - http://www.towleroad.com/2012/04/dan_savage_journalism_conference.html

8 - http://my.hsj.org/Schools/Newspaper/tabid/100/view/frontpage/articleid/521669/newspaperid/3784/Dan_Savage_Speaks_to_JEANSPA_Conference.aspx

9 - http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981295950

10- http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/miller/120425

11- http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/04/anti-bullying_icon_bullies_students_with_obscenity-laced_anti-christian_rant.html

12- http://www.christianpost.com/news/gay-anti-bully-activist-calls-students-pansies-for-walking-out-after-anti-bible-remarks-73735/

13- http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/anti-gay-bullying-leader-calls-christian-students-pansies-for-walking-out-o/

14- http://www.citizenlink.com/2012/04/18/students-walk-out-on-dan-savage/

15- http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ao0k9qDsOvs

Note: When I say possible, I mean that there might be a way to use it. It just might not be very likely as in the case with the 10th and 11th sources. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

When two major organizations like the JEA and NSPA are forced to release a joint statement about the incident, I'd say that makes it pretty damned notable. 67.233.241.169 (talk) 05:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Someone like Savage provokes a lot of 'controversies'. If we added a new line to the 'Controversies' section each time something he said pissed someone off it would be longer than the rest of the article put together. (Frankly, it's arguably too long already.) We need to exercise editorial judgment and consider historical perspective. I don't think these comments are really significant enough to be worth mentioning; perhaps if the media are still talking about it in a few weeks they might be, but I'm not seeing it just yet. Robofish (talk) 11:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Well if we can have an entire article about Romney's dog--we can have a paragraph or two about this anti-Christian tirade. – Lionel ^(talk) 20:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

A brief mention is needed (which I have added), but not much more at the moment, per WP:UNDUE. —Eustress ^talk 22:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree we don't need more than a paragraph, unless the incident spawns a additional chain of events. With that said, the context and content of the controversy exceeds the scope of your edit, as you can see now that it's being covered in the Washington Post by Michelle Boorstein. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

But it still is unclear whether or not the broader Christian backlash is merely a media-driven flash in the pan. Per WP:BLP/WP:UNDUE, I recommend waiting for a little while to see if anything more substantive results from his comments and what, if anything more, should be included in this article. —Eustress ^talk 00:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

A "broad Christian backlash", regardless of the catalyst, is not relevant to the content being added here. The material must be notable, reliably sourced, fit within the scope of the article, not lend undue weight to fringe views and be double checked against the standards of BLP. This is now being carried by several major news organizations as a notable controversy, including HuffPo, LA Times, CNN, Washington Post, Breitbart, MSNBC, National Catholic Register, several local Seattle network affiliates, The Atlantic, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, etc. It's commented on by major political and religious figures (as seen in my edits which were deleted) including GoProud, LGBT Weekly and Parents Television Council. In light of all that I would say that any informed attempt remove reliably sourced coverage of the controversy or preventing giving it the necessarily space to properly contextualize and define the controversy should be treated with some degree of suspicion. TomPointTwo (talk) 01:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

An additional note: the organizations that paid Savage to speak on social media and bullying, the National Scholastic Press Association and the Journalism Education Association, have issued an apology. They characterized Savage's comments as "inappropriate" and "belittling of other's religion". They also clarified that it was both students and advisers who walked out. TomPointTwo (talk) 01:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

"UNDUE" is pretty nebulous and subjective. Who or what determines what is or is not "undue?" 67.233.245.242 (talk) 05:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a subset of our policy on maintaining a neutral point of view. You can read it and if you have any specific questions as they pertain to this issue I, or another editor, will help clarify for you. I hope that helps. TomPointTwo (talk) 05:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I've sat on this for some time with no additional commentary from others. I'll be re-adding information on the full context of the comments, the backlash and relavent commentary from notable figures and the follow up apology from both the hosting organizations and Savage, barring valid objections. If interested editors would like I can post a draft first. TomPointTwo (talk) 05:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

As noted by others, this incident has generated little but extremely biased chest-thumping by commentators from the loony fringe of the conservative movement. It is not at all that notable in the context of Savage's biography, and does not require the space you intend to devote to it. To boot, the conservative commentaries are more polemic than reporting, and contain glaring factual innacuracies. There is little evidence that this event will have lasting significance for the topic of this article, even within the loony fringe. More than a brief mention would violate WP:UNDUE. Not every minor incident that gets the wingnuts foaming at the mouth is notable. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a lot of strong, sweeping language for some broad assertions. What criteria are you using to define "biased chest-thumping"? Can you provide actual data to back that the majority of the coverage is constituted as such? What method are you using to identify "loony" members of the conservative movement and what does that mean? I'd request the same for "wingnuts" and a less metaphorical definition of "foaming at the mouth" would be helpful. How do these labels interface with relevant wikipedia policy? Could you please identify, specifically, the factual inaccuracies in the sources provided so far? I'd like to know which reliable sources claiming that the comments were "controversial" would cast undue weight by adding the material to the controversy section, and why. What are the parameters you are using to determine that the dozens of media outlets, political groups, social advocacy groups, religious figures and Savage himself expounding on these comments are "minor" in nature? What would a "significant" incident's coverage look like in contrast? Thanks. TomPointTwo (talk) 06:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Editors who have expressed interest in this topic have made edits since my last post but not followed up with comments here. In light of this I'll make my changes this evening. Again, I can provide a draft for comment before hand. Without further comment or rational concerns I'll make the changes without a draft but, as always, with extensive citation. Cheers. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Please provide a draft for comments. There is no rush. Article is not going anywhere.--В и к и T 21:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You bet. Hopefully I can get it up tonight, after work. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Do we need a period of full protection?

I have seen the same controversial content being put in, and taken out, several times in the last 24 hours. I have already semi-protected this article for a week but this still seems to be happening. Do any of the regular contributors here feel that full protection is necessary to enable a quiet period of discussion and a consensus to be reached? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. That would be the best.--В и к и T 22:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

No - this would be an overreaction to an isolated issue. The multiple reverts and re-reverts were caused, in my opinion, by a select few whose personal bias pro Savage kept justifiable content off the page. If my original submittal was kept in, I don't think you would have seen multiple people coming to the page to add similar content. That being said, Fæ's 100% correct statement that the Seattle Speech verbiage needs to reach consensus on content to ensure that "the page" puts its best foot forward and this controversial content (within this page's editors) is agreed upon. Therefore I would suggest that we should be commenting on the thread above to Trystan's recent revision of my original insertion and get it posted so that the issue can quiet down. Ckruschke (talk) 11:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Agreed. I'm happy to see that nobody has been tempted to revert anyone else for the last 12 hours and folks seem more prepared to discuss rather than be tempted into a unpleasant edit war. --Fæ (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request - JEA/NSPA joint statement about Savage

Mention of this warrants inclusion:

Statement by National Scholastic Press Association and Journalism Education Association regarding keynote speaker at recent Seattle convention

67.233.240.136 (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Already being discussed on above two threads. Ckruschke (talk) 11:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

"Gay establishment"... sources?

So, I saw this in the article and it seemed a bit weird and I decided to put my skeptic glasses on. A Google search "gay establishment dan savage" hasn't yielded any results. The only pages that mention "gay establishment" and Dan Savage are the ones with copy-pasted text from this article. So either give sources or remove it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.115.131 (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I just did a search for sources on this one, and couldn't find the origin of it either. The text was added by User:Jmabel in this edit back in 2004, without a supporting source:[1] I'll ask him if he can remember where he got it from. In the meantime, I've added the {{fact}} tag, and if no sources can be found the quotation should be removed. Robofish (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Google "dan savage gay mafia" and "dan savage HRC" (i.e. Human Rights Campaign) and "dan savage quisling", to start with. Savage has, usually, taken a more radical approach (i.e. Act Up) vs. the conciliatory and cautions strategy of many large and well-funded groups, typically those closely connected to the Democractic Party. For example, he called a Family Equality Council representative who had a meeting at the Obama White House a "quisling", equivalent to a Nazi collaborator, because Obama wasn't moving fast enough on gay rights. He's had similar run-ins with local Seattle gay groups, over such issues as when the pride parade moved off capitol hill, and most especially the "gay establishment's" unwillingness to criticize risky sexual behavior (bathhouses, barebacking) for fear of offending someone. Conversely, Savage has admitted that maybe he was wrong and they were right after several victories by the more cautious and methodical faction represented by Jamie Pedersen and others, as well as Obama's eventual repeal of DADT and abandonment of DOMA.

There are many sources showing Savage has been a gadfly to the gay establishment, often sticking his foot in his mouth with over the top language, while not being totally pigheaded about it in his calmer moments. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't dispute any of that. The question is whether Savage has ever actually used the phrase 'gay establishment'. Currently, the article refers to 'what Savage has been known to call the "gay establishment"'; I agree it sounds like something he might say, but if no one can find a source where he actually uses those words, that statement is inaccurate and should be removed. Robofish (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Fixed now. The article does need to expand coverage of his differences with the left, though the greatest weight should be given to his disagreements with the right. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

"undue emphasis, non-neutral wording"

With all due respect for Binksternet, that user's edit summary seems to apply precisely to the Binksternet version, which gives only Savage's denial that he called the protesters pansies, suppressing the information that he was (whether rightly or wrongly is scarcely for us to judge) interpreted as in fact calling them pansy-assed and the information on the words he actually used. Esoglou (talk) 20:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I object to any sort of elongation of that paragraph. The April 2012 incident is not considered so important to Savage's life and career that it requires more text. That's the undue emphasis. The non-neutral wording is how you put "pansy-assed" into the article three times instead of once. NPOV requires us to use wording that describes events neutrally, not wording that brings the reader to anger. Binksternet (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. The text can easily be abbreviated more than in the Binksternet version, with the mentions of "pansy-assed"/"pansy" reduced to one only. Esoglou (talk) 08:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

1) While I agree with getting rid of the "pansy" overkill, I completely disagree with the gutting of the original paragraph that was crafted through the Talk section above. The reason for the walkout have been watered down by various editors to be only because Savage said that the audience needed to "learn to ignore the bullshit in the Bible about gay people" which sounds trite - "these people walked out because they DON'T want to ignore the bullshit in the Bible about gay people." What the gathering was, where it was at, the context of the speech, and the (quoted) reactions by the event organizers and the people who walked out have all been removed w/o comment. Obviously this isn't a huge story for Savage who is no stranger to controversial actions/words, but if this is going to be in the page at all, the reasons for the walkout and reactions to his Christian bashing need to be honestly told. It is not "bias", "non-neutral", or "undue emphasis" to properly record and reflect on a story. Criticism fairly won should be fairly related.

2) I fail to see why the Fox News reference is continually being deleted. Where does it say that this is "unreliable"?

3) In Savage's "response" to the criticsm that most of the 2800+ students who were in attendance at the conference were Christian is obviously wrong and should be removed showing a break in the quote. This was a national conference and anyone who thinks that a majority of people in any secular national gathering are Christian is laughably ignorant. Must be a typo that that shouldn't be continued on this page. Ckruschke (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

I looked into the origin of the 2800+ parenthetical statement and I believe it was made by Savage rather than a typo. However, I cannot locate the exact Savage blog that is being reference. Perhaps it is a video or audio file rather than text.

Fox News unreliable? Who knew? LOL. Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/04/29/on-bullshit-and-pansy-assed, Savage's blog. It's the third citation in the paragraph, and the source of the quotes in the first two news articles cited. I agree that a Fox News citation has no business in any topic remotely political, social, or religious. They're a partisan organ, not real journalists. The current version gives a reasonable treatment of the incident. If the incident grows in significance and more coverage comes from reliable, unbiased sources, it can be expanded later on. We have all the time in the world. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Per Ckruschke we are certainly able to quote selectively, for instance, "I would like to apologize for describing that walk out as a pansy-assed move. I wasn't calling the handful of students who left pansies ...just the walk-out itself." However, Savage's sense that most of the students were Christian is certainly his viewpoint. I haven't seen a published rebuttal saying that less than half of the students were Christian. Binksternet (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hence the logical conclusion that it's manufactured outrage: if we had multiple sources which held the facts or conclusions in dispute, it would be a real controversy. Instead we have the usual partisan hacks trying to keep a dead issue on life support. It is a worthy inclusions in the article in that it demonstrates that Savage's mouth often gets him in trouble and he frequently has to take back words that go overboard. But that's really all there is to it. The rest is right wing propaganda. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia account remains stoutly defended, while knowledge of the words spoken depends not only on sources such as the Fox Radio and Seattle Times reports, but also on a gone-viral video. Esoglou (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

1) Selective sourcing simply because your personal bias makes you believe that the news source is unreliable is censorship. Fox News is as dedicated a news source as any other and has had to recant their stories much less than the networks have recently. 50% of the population sees MSNBC & NPR as similarly biased left-wing rags - should we delete those too? I'm not sure what's wrong with the Seattle Times ref other than it doesn't say what the pro Savage people want it to.

2) Dismissing this as manufactured outrage is easy to say. However, where were you when the "manufactured outrage" about Rush Limbaugh's comments about Sandra Fluke? Yes, Mr. Limbaugh is obviously a target with a bigger stage but it's basically the same issue - both Limbaugh and Savage are accused of using their influential positions and speaking opportunities to bully a select few and both of their "apologies" are equally non-apologetic. However where those of you with personal interest pro Savage have gutted the statement on the Seattle speech to a pathetic, milquetoast sentence, Limbaugh has a whole freaking page (Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy)! Now that's bias. Either that or the pro Savage people are admitting that he shoots off his mouth all the time and is therefore no big deal. Which one is it? Ckruschke (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Yes, "Savage has a history of walking back from over-the-top political rhetoric"[2]. He's a bit of a loose cannon sometimes. Often. That's an uncontroversial fact. But all that stuff about Fox news and Limbaugh and MSNBC -- it's canned right-wing talking points, and transparently obvious POV-pushing. Wikipedia editors should strive for a neutral tone, and not act as crusaders against what they perceive as the evils of the world. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

"Now that's bias." -- No, it blatantly obviously isn't, as the Limbaugh-Fluke was and continues to be a major national story, whereas most people have never even heard of Dan Savage. But your assertions are consistent with your extraordinary and extreme ideological bias. It's a wonder that you're able to put it aside and do neutral editing. -- 70.109.46.5 (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry your clear non-NPOV pro-Savage has clouded your objectivity. As anyone can see I was making simple comparisons and pointing out the obvious dichotomy between how the very similar incidences have been portrayed and reported on Wiki. I'm not "crusading" against or for anything other than trying to ensure the neutral viability of the story - and in its current state it might as well be removed because it says virtually nothing. I know nothing about Savage the person and have zero bias against someone who I have not had the time (or interest) to research and you are thus CLEARLY in the wrong to refer to me as some kind of "right-wing" hack and I can only assume that this sort of out-of-line attack is meant to belittle my position.
That being said, I was simply alarmed when I read that an anti-bullying crusader clearly brow-beat Christians in his audience and was the first to post a well-referenced and clearly neutral reporting of this. This was not the "political rhetoric" nonsense that our Rep's/Sen's/Pres' routinely throw out for publicity - he was supposed to be giving a germaine keynote to journalism students and instead he used it as an opportunity to put people down for their beliefs which I thought was unfortunate and sad. However, since as you say Savage routinely shoots off his mouth and his official stances are not always in lock-step with his more public words, maybe this isn't quite the story that I thought it was and this should therefore be chalked up as "no big deal" as it is now reflected on the page. Correct? Ckruschke (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Wikipedia is not one of those forums where angry partisans flame each with insults they heard yesterday on the Rush Limbaugh or Kieth Olbermann show. This is a discussion about how to improve an article, and nothing more. See WP:NOTFORUM. For this reason, I will not engage in off-topic tit-for-tat debates. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Which was what I was attempting to do. Nothing I said was off-topic. I simply pointed out that the Seattle issue had been gutted by the Savage fanboys on this page and was trying to either restore the statement so that it accurately reflected what transpired or determine whether the issue was not relevant. Didn't realize that I was in the process of being shouted down for having a differing viewpoint... Ckruschke (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

You've attempted to win consensus, and failed. That's not being shouted down, and it's not persecution. Wikipedia has a policy, WP:BLP, that says to err on the side of avoiding criticism of living people. That, and a lack of objective citations, is why you failed to win consensus. Editors fail to win consensus on Wikipedia every day without resorting to calling other editors "fanboys". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Noted. I agree - I have been unable to gain concensus. Theoretically your point about "name calling" applies to those who kicked off the festivities by calling me a right-wing hack. Theoretically things proceed easier w/o their viewpoint being marginalized... Ckruschke (talk) 01:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

I called the unreliable sources right wing hacks: "...it's manufactured outrage: if we had multiple sources which held the facts or conclusions in dispute, it would be a real controversy. Instead we have the usual partisan hacks trying to keep a dead issue on life support". Nobody is out to get you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Wedding photo

I'm pretty sure that's Bill Savage in the wedding photo next to Terry Miller. I don't know if it's vital that the caption identify him. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

There should probably be a Personal life section for the family stuff versus where it is now, Early life and education. — Brianhe (talk) 05:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring and Controversies section

Besides the fact that the edit war and violations of the 3RR needs to cease, and that the article should revert to this version until consensus is reached, we should be aware that moving content out of the main article sections into the "Controversies" dumping ground is a step backwards. In fact, everything under Controversies should be merged up into an appropriate section. The reasons why this is a more readable and more neutral way to organize the article are explained in Wikipedia:Criticism, particularly WP:CSECTION. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The text that is being moved to this section does not actually mention any controversies, it just details Savage's actions. Putting them in the "controversies" section is confusing and misleading. It might make more sense if the sections actually showed that there was a controversy about these things, using reliable sources of course, and making sure not to give WP:UNDUE to relatively minor issues. CodeCat (talk) 23:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Line should be removed

this line - A 2012 Feminist Wire piece argued that the "... the popularity of the [It Gets Better] campaign and its legitimacy depend on the very subtle exclusion of non-white and non-bourgeois bodies".[61] is about the It's get better campaign and belongs there, not on his biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toothiness (talk • contribs) 10:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

It is actually a general criticism of Dan Savage that only mentions IGBP as one of the several points of attack. The reason it should be removed is that it is not a "piece" at Feminist Wire, it is just a self-published blog post by a non-notable author. It's also filled with errors and is incoherent, suggesting that Savage was somehow screening out videos by blacks, and incorrectly stating that the IGBP was failing to gain support from progressives. The claim that Savage or the IGBP is racist would require a credible source, and one capable of making sense, and would need to explain why numerous people of color participated. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Controversies section sourcing

Much of the sourcing is not demonstrating anything but that an incident actually occurred - not that reliable sources think much of anything about the incidents. You could fill several article about controversial things Dan has said but who cares if reputable sources are not making much of it? Toothiness (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources?

An editor has added this paragraph to the lede

Savage has advocated for the killing of people who disagree with him.

Which seems very out of context and very unbalanced in proportion with the rest of Savage's biography. The editor has also added a tag that states that the article relies on primary sources. My tally of the footnotes reveals that this is completely untrue. As such, I have reverted the edit and invite the editor to explain their reasoning. - MrX 04:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The controversies section needs to be summarized in the lead, per WP:LEAD. If you want to edit what I wrote, fine. But deleting it is wholly inappropriate. Further, the article relies heavily on primary sources, particularly from the subject. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Your edit is in no way an accurate summary of the controversy section. It is a clear WP:BLP violation and needs to be removed.

As far as the article relying on primary sources, please provide evidence to support that assertion. I see several different newspapers, magazine articles, and other independent sources. Yes, there are several primary sources, as would be the norm when we are summarizing someones body of work. However, this is not the same as "relying" on primary sources nor is it a valid use of the template that you inserted prominently at the top of the article.

Regardless of how strongly you feel about all of this, you should not simply force your edits into the article by edit waring. As an experienced editor, you should already know that. Please gain consensus for your controversial edit and explore the timeless art of discussion.- MrX 17:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi MrX - I have no dog in this fight, but I skimmed this thread and it took me only about 1 min to find three paragraphs (only 4 para's into the article) that almost completely rely on primary sources:

In 1991, Savage was living in Madison, Wisconsin, and working as a manager at a local video store that specialized in independent film titles. There, Savage befriended Tim Keck, co-founder of The Onion, who announced that he was moving to Seattle to help start an alternative weekly newspaper titled The Stranger. Savage "made the offhand comment that forever altered [his] life: 'Make sure your paper has an advice column—everybody claims to hate 'em, but everybody seems to read 'em'." Savage typed up a sample column, and to Savage's surprise Keck offered him the job.

Savage stated in a February 2006 interview in The Onion's A.V. Club (which publishes his column) that he began the column with the express purpose of providing mocking advice to heterosexuals, since most straight advice columnists were "clueless" when responding to letters from gay people. Savage wanted to call the column "Hey Faggot!" in an effort to reclaim a hate word. His editors at the time refused his choice of column name, but for the first several years of the column, he attached "Hey Faggot!" at the beginning of each printed letter as a salutation." In his February 25, 1999 column, Savage announced that he was retiring the phrase, claiming that the reclamation was successful.

He has written in a number of columns about "straight rights" concerns, such as the HPV vaccine and the morning-after pill, stating in his November 9, 2005, column that "[t]he right-wingers and the fundies and the sex-phobes don't just have it in for the queers. They're coming for your asses too."

The above paragraphs have four sources - all "Savage, Dan" - and unlike in the previous three paragraphs are used to support more than just his birthday or where he went to school. The last sentence is a direct quote which has no attribution at all (which makes me wonder why it's lasted so long...?). This is all in the top 10% of the page. Your own citation to Nathan Johnson states that he misused WP:BLP. However, scrolling down that same page specifically cautions against over-reliance on primary sources (WP:BLP#Reliable sources) so you can't have it both ways.

So is the section above the only example of over-reliance on primary sources? You certainly can't say I cherry-picked it as I just started on Ref #1 and worked my way down and stopped when I saw #12-15 were all "Savage, Dan" and then scrolled back up to see what they were used to support. I'm not saying I agree with Nathan Johnson's point of view about the addition to the lead, but your counter-argument on the primary sources tag does not seem to hold water. Not picking on you, but there appears to be some room for debate and/or improving this page. Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

I don't have a dog in the fight either and I'm fine with trimming any content that depends on primary sources and portrays the subject in anything but a neutral fashion, or is of undue weight. Of the edits the Nathan Johnson made, the tag is by far the lesser of my concerns. My larger concern was the wording that he shoehorned in the lede. I'm 100% confident that it is unacceptable according to our most sacred policies. - MrX 18:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the polite response. Unfortunately, my suggestion would be to almost completely delete the above quoted section, so I'm not sure I'm the one to do it as removing content could be perceived, by some, as being performed by someone with an axe to grind (which of course it isn't). However, I will look at the page as whole and create a new thread with sections (if there are any besides the above) that I see that "may" rely to heavily on primary sources and/or are of the rah-rah type (as you mention above). We can then discuss the best way forward with this content. I'll post something by mid next week. Thanks - Ckruschke (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

I agree with MrX that the blatant BLP violation is of far greater concern than the sourcing issue.

As far as the sourcing goes, it is important to keep in mind that primary sources are not prohibited, they just need to be used carefully. One of the main situations in which it is appropriate to use them is for neutral autobiographical information. In the first two paragraphs above, the claims are not contentious, and there is no possible third-party source that could possess the same information. The article is written in such a way as to attribute their content to Savage.

On the whole, I agree with the essay WP:USEPRIMARY, and I think the first two paragraphs above accord with its interpretation of policy:

An article about a person: The person's autobiography... is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the person says about himself or herself. Such primary sources can normally be used for non-controversial facts about the person and for clearly attributed controversial statements.

There is of course a need to balance autobiographical content with secondary sources, and to carefully ensure its neutrality. But I would strongly object to completely deleting the first two paragraphs quoted above.--Trystan (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Although the uses of primary sources appears to be relatively benign, the section posted by me above and the "Personal opinions" and "Views on outing" are almost entirely devoted to primary sources. This is a problem in an encyclopedic work because this over reliance on Savage's "I did this" and "I said that" undercuts the non-NPOV of the article (as we've already seen be raised). Essentially these sections need to be bolstered with more "Savage did/said this" sources or else the legitimacy/existance of the sections should be questioned. My 2 cents. Ckruschke (talk) 18:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke