Talk:Savage Love

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Punishment (see the HTML comments)

One might call the Savage campaign a textbook example of smearing an opponent's name with dirt. --Uncle Ed 14:54, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think you're right Dysprosia 14:56, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
What a brown-noser you are! The pun was a mere by-product of fixing the articles. --Uncle Ed 19:03, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Ah well :) I got a laugh out of it, anyway Dysprosia 23:15, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Savage is certainly pushing his new word-coinage for santorum -- Karada 15:22, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I just found out his column also coined "pegging," which doesn't yet have an entry here, though I may fix that tonight. [1], [2] --zandperl 01:58, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] "Controvertially"

Is "controvertially" a word? AxelBoldt 02:56, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Depends on your ability to introduce it into the English Language. Try hard and you'll get it! In fact, it may already be there. Pfortuny 20:19, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Cart before the horse

This situation (popularizing a new sex term) has taken place before (though less controversially) in 1991 within the Savage Love community, in the case of the term pegging.

There's a difference between creating a new term for an existing practice which describes that practice and investing an existing word with a new meaning for the purposes of defaming an individual.

This is not simply a case of 'popularizing a new sex term'.

If we mention pegging, we should CONTRAST it, not LIKEN it to the santorum (word) campaign.

You may as well compare spearing fish for food, with using a spear to murder someone. C'mon, people, get a grip: we're all supposed to be TRYING to write neutrally. --Uncle Ed 20:16, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Good point, thank you for making it. I was trying to add context to the discussion of the controversy/campaign (call it what you will), and didn't realize my words could be interpreted the way you did. I intended the statment "this situation has taken place before" to refer to how in both cases Savage made up a new sex term; however you are correct, Ed, that his motivation for doing so is drastically different in the two cases, and this different motivation is in fact the cause of the controversy. --zandperl 04:42, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Rick Santorum's comments

Savage disagreed strongly with...

I question whether Savage's disagreement was with the senator's actual comments - or with what the columnist felt the senator was implying.

If I recall correctly, it was AP which originally reported the comments and labelled them anti-gay at the time.

I think Santorum was making a legal point that if one kind of consensual sexual activity is to be made lawful on the basis of privacy, then that basis requires ALL consensual sexual activity to be made lawful.


  • That is, either adultery, incest & homosexuality should ALL be permitted or none of them should be permitted.

What these sexual acts all have in common is that many Americans consider them immoral. The primary difference, as far as opinion polls go, is that many more people still frown on incest as frown on homosexuality.

Maybe that's why Savage chose to regard Santorum's comments as linking an unpopular sex act (incest) with one that has almost finished gaining popular respectability.

Anyway, let's not take sides and guess what was in the minds of either the senator or the columnist. I think we'd better write our articles based on what both of them have SAID.

We can say that Savage regarded Santorum's comments as anti-gay if that's what he said. Or we can even quote him as saying, "I disagree with the senator's remarks" if that's what he said. But let's not endorse an interpretation. --Uncle Ed 18:30, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ed, he said "I don't have a problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts." Interpret that. --The Cunctator 10:45, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"That is, either adultery, incest & homosexuality should ALL be permitted or none of them should be permitted": First, why should adultery be against the law? If a married couple chooses to have an open relationship, what legitimate interest does the state have in regulating their consensual sexual behavior? Non-consensual adultery would be, I suppose, a violation of the legal contract known as marriage, which is voluntarily entered into. As for incest: do you (or Santorum) mean to suggest that minors can give consent? Because most folks, both legally and morally, would disagree. As to adult-adult incest: other than possible public health issues (and queasy as the idea makes me), again, it doesn't seem the state actually has a compelling interest in regulating personal behavior here. Obviously, if you believe the state does have a compelling interest in regulating personal behavior - like, say, because a lot of people find the behavior offensive - you'll have to be prepared to argue that some states should be allowed to prohibit interracial marriage, or marriage of beautiful models to gorilla-esque piano-playing pop stars like Billy Joel... (I'm only serious with the last remark to the extent that there's not that much difference between people trying to enact one set of preferences, and prohibit one kind of "offensiveness," and those which would clearly be a gross imposition into personal choices.) --2fs 13:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

2fs, none of your comments relate to the Dan Savage article. This is not the place to have a discussion on the propriety of legal gay marriage, nor is this the place to express your opinion on what legalization would ethically entail. Geo.per 20:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Edited transcript of Santorum's remarks. Probably should go into one of the articles:

http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20030423santorumexcerpts0423p6.asp

Unedited transcript of the same section.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-23-santorum-excerpt_x.htm

I think this article should focus mostly on Savage's reaction rather than on Santorum's actual statement, which is already extensively covered in Rick Santorum. The links to the full interview would also fit better there. It should definitely be mentioned that the initial published excerpts of the interview included the "[gay]" insert which the Senator didn't say. In this article, it would be sufficient to say "To protest against Rick Santorum's remarks, Dan Savage asked his readers to come up with..." AxelBoldt 21:27, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I wonder how much of this media flap is the result of journalists delight in 'playing gotcha'. They mostly ignore what politicians say about the issues, but prefer to talk about their reputations or their standings in the polls or their career prospects. "Did Mr. Q or Ms. R say something that ticked off anybody this week? Let's pounce!" --Uncle Ed 15:24, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
In my day (1950s) "pegging" was inserting a stimulating substance (a mint, ginger, or hashish resin) into the rectum. (And no I didn't - but I knew about it.) Anjouli 17:14, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)


The term has largely failed to catch on and even Savage himself has clearly demonstrated in his columns that he is more than sick of the term. Come to think of it, what the hell was this doing on Wikipedia in the first place? --Thunderbunny

It is catching on. Sex dictionaries, magazines, and other media are publishing the word. The term has been so linked to that Dan's SpreadingSantorum.com website is the #1 Google hit for 'santorum'. This isn't just a Googlebomb, the term is as fairly popular as any other semi-obscure sexual term. So why not put it in the Wikipedia? cprompt 16:53, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Sources that are publishing the word are of course always appreciated. Geo.per 20:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


Please cite reasons for any attempt to remove content. Larvatus 00:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus

Please cite your reasons for any attempt to remove content. Unsupported edits are subject to summary reversal. Larvatus 05:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus

Third notice: Please cite your reasons for any attempt to remove content. Unsupported edits are subject to summary reversal. Larvatus 02:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus

  • It entirely consists of unsourced personal opinion. "Revulsion"? "Popular understanding?" "Deviant?" FCYTravis 02:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Kindly pause to read the text that you are editing: "Savage was outraged by these statements. At the suggestion of a reader, Savage challenged his audience to come up with a sex-related definition for the word santorum as a satirical form of political protest for the express purpose of "memorializ[ing] the Santorum scandal […] by attaching his name to a sex act that would make his big, white teeth fall out of his big, empty head"." Hence the point about revulsion: Dan Savage was asking for a revolting definiens of "santorum". As to deviant and antisocial sexual behavior, the reference is to the preceding passage: "Santorum describes homosexual acts as part of a class of deviant sexual behavior, including incest, polygamy, and zoophilia, which he said threaten society and the family." No personal opinion enters into this description. Please read more carefully before indulging in your urge to censor expression that hurts your feelings. Larvatus 02:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
      • You've produced no evidence which supports the assertion that there is any "popular understanding" as "revolting," nor have you produced any sources which support your assertion that "santorum" has reinforced this "popular understanding." Saying that this term "unwittingly reinforced" anything is personal opinion, unless you have a source to cite. FCYTravis 03:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Added ext links, here's why

Just added some external links, but wanted to comment... I realize they may seem like overkill, but I wanted to find 2 things: 1. the other reader ideas for the definition of "santorum" and 2. The announcement of the winner. It took me over an hour and a half of digging through the site's archives to find these, and since I figured others might want to know, it made sense to save other people hours of effort. That's my justification for adding them. I also stumbled upon the origin of the santorum google-bomb idea, and since that is probably the most widespread effect of the whole phenom, I felt it was worth noting. Jafafa Hots 21:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


Nicely done!

-IJ

[edit] Cited source for Doorknobgate

Just a quick edit. Added a citation for the alleged door knob licking incident.--Khazwind 06:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed this on the Bauer page:

In the 2000 Presidential Primary, Salon.com assigned Dan Savage to write about the Bauer 2000 campaign. Mr. Savage came down with the flu during the assignment and then attempted to sabotague the Bauer campaign by infecting staffers by licking pens and door knobs that he thought they would use. Savage wrote about his plan in his article and Salon.com decided to publish it.

I think this explains the situation far more accurately than the current explanation on the Dan Savage page (which reads as though Dan Savage was working undercover elsewhere, on behalf of the Bauer campaign). Accordingly, I edited the section for clarity, adding no new information. Geo.per 20:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I just read this article for the first time. The first section after the introduction appears to be a fairly minor, critical, anecdote about Savage. I don't advocate removing it, since some people apparently find it important, but I'd like to move it further down, at least so that it's below some more substantive information about who Savage is and what he does (other than apparently lick some door knobs six years ago). At the moment, it just reads like a minor, snipy point that's been highlighted for no obvious reason. But I will happily defer to any more regular contributing authors of this article if you feel the need to revert this change. --spiralhighway 20:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I do advocate removing it, which i then did. The reasons for deleting it are:
  • the events which led to doorlicking and fraud were while he was on assignment from salon.com not writing for Savage Love
  • the voter fraud was a midemeanor for which he pled guilty and was not a major crime
  • the doorlicking thing is a pretty minor prank and was really nothing more than a not too flattering anecdote in one article
  • the material already exists in the Dan Savage article where it belongs

The text I removed follows:

Doorknob licking and vote fraud Salon.com assigned Dan Savage to write about Republican Gary Bauer's 2000 election campaign. Mr. Savage came down with the flu during the assignment, and alleges he attempted to sabotage the campaign by licking doorknobs, staplers, phones and computer keyboards so that the staffers might catch the flu as well [5]. Savage was convicted of voting in the 2000 Iowa Caucus, although he was not lawfully registered to vote in that state.[1]

Charles (Kznf) 21:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Some gay activists"

He was criticized for this by some gay activists.

Who? I didn't see any in the sources. Some citation would be appreciated. Geo.per 20:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ITMFA

For years, Savage has told his readers in bad relationships to "DTMFA"

Umm... What? 208.247.73.130 00:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That would be "Dump the motherfucker already", if that's what you're asking. Gloriana232 15:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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. rootology (T) 19:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

As the Santorum (sexual slang) is essentially a duplication of Savage Love#Santorum, I think the former should just be merged into the latter. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 17:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I oppose a merge, and would rather do the opposite; the Santorum entry on Savage Love should be cut down and linked here. For one thing, it's odd to disambiguate to a section of another article; for another, having now attained use outside of merely Savage Love contexts, it's taken on enough of a life of its own to be treated as a separate entity. Captainktainer * Talk 18:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
That's fine also; I'm just objecting to the near exact duplication. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 03:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where column appears

Does anyone know if there is a definitive list anywhere of papers that carry the column? - Jmabel | Talk 06:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Santorum (merge)

Against - Santorum term is in wide usage. Makes no sense (to me) to merge with an article of the term originator. Santorum article survived AfD, and so should stand on its own. Atom 16:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment I have withdrawn the suggestion for now. Pan Dan 16:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, this has been proposed again, so I'm going to say I'm against a merge. It's notable enough for its own main article, and it certainly has enough content. —bbatsell ¿? 15:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Against. It is a related article certainly, but there is no need to merge two already large articles. Zotdragon 17:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Against. Where's the case "for"? If none appears, I'm going to remove the merge tags. -- Samuel Wantman 20:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Against. I was a proposer of one of the AfD's, and the debate there convinced me that the act of coinage is notable enough for an article. I do think that santorum (sexual slang) is slightly disingenuous in its discussion of the term's currency, but since that article is essentially a history of a political act by Savage, that's neither here nor there with regard to merging. I don't think it would hurt to have it merged to this article, but I see no particular reason to do so. Mike Christie (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Against. I see no good reason to do so. Kolindigo 21:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Against this one and the one below. The term is notable independent from the column. Seems like someone is just trying to try an alternative to afd's that haven't passed. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Independently notable? How so? --DachannienTalkContrib 21:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New merge proposal

Please pardon the delay in justifying the merge proposal; we all have to sleep some time. :-) I'm not sure why people are posting new material under the topic for an earlier merge proposal instead of starting a new topic. I have done so here.

Points (a few of which are in response to above comments):

  1. Please note that more than 50% of the source citations at the Savage Love page, in total, are about this topic alone. To the extent Savage Love is a reliable article, it is more-than-half devoted to the topic of Santorum (sexual slang) to begin with.
  2. Please note that the focus of Savage Love once it gets past the bio and generalities parts is on Savage's Internet political memetics experiments including this one and "ITMFA", etc. Which leads us to...
  3. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and is not here to be a venue for wannabe-article after wannabe-article about Savage's latest off-the-cuff experiment of this sort. To the extent that any of them are notable enough to be in Wikipedia at all, they belong in the Savage Love article, until multiple, independent, reliable sources confirm widespread currency. See also this smoking gun - the principal sourcing improver of the article decries the very sources he's added as non-supportive of notability!
  4. The "particular reason" to merge that article with this one is WP:N, which is very clear that articles on non-notable topics should be merged into their parent articles rather than simply deleted. This is actually an exemplary case - that the term (as a political meme, not actual slang) even exists at all and has a history is well documented (so should not simply be deleted wholesale), but proponents not only cannot, but admit in the very article text that they cannot, establish sufficient notability to support a separate article (multiple independent reliable sources demonstrating that the term is actually in general use).
  5. The fact that the term achieved any notice at all was due to Google-bombing, which militates against not for the idea that it is notable.
  6. Santorum (sexual slang) has been AfD'd twice. The first time the vote was "keep", the second time it was "hopeless lack of consensus", indicating a trend toward "delete" for the inevitable third AfD. If it isn't merged into here it will very likely simply be deleted next time around (see above; this would be a loss of encyclopedically-valid content, albeit minor). It is also noteworthy that proponents of the article removed the first AfD results tag from the talk page, leaving the impression that the article had only been AfD'd once.
  7. The article in question is more than "slightly disingenuous", in more than one way. The entire piece is a handwave. It masquerades as a well-sourced good article, but is in fact a bunch of self-referential quotes by Savage (cf. WP:N, WP:RS, WP:INDY, WP:COI, WP:AUTO), every single one of which could be removed without affecting the core of the article. Doing so (try it, in a sandbox) reveals an underlying article that consists of a bunch of assertions that are not only unsourced but unsourceable (the article effectively admits they are unsourceable, in fact); a failure to assert much less demonstrate importance; and a failure to demonstrate notability. So, the idea that it has "enough content" for its own article is neither here nor there; most of that content is outright blather and could (rather should) be deleted as nonencyclopedic.
  8. The act of coinage by itself is emphatically not notable enough for an article; see WP:NFT, et al. An enormous number of successfully AfD'd and SD'd articles are new coinages, and are deleted precisely because they are. (If one is simply asserting that it is possible for a good article to be written about the act of a coinage, that is surely true. But this is not what Santorum (sexual slang) purports to be; it purports to be an article on an actual term of notable slang usage, which "santorum" demonstrably is not. What "santorum" is, is a faintly interesting example of Savage's memetic experiments, a subject of some political and possibly sociological, but near zero linguistic, interest. It begs to be merged back into this article.
  9. The fact that Savage has to try so hard to push this protologism is evidence that it falls squarely into the purview of WP:NEO. If it were in actual notable currency, there would be no point in pushing it. No one has to push for the adoption of "teabagging" or other genuine terms of sexual slang.
  10. Several attempts to justify the article appear on its talk page. They generally boil down to "it's interesting, I like it", "it's important, since there isn't any other word for this", "it's a 'gay thing' and people who don't like this term are prudes or prejudiced", or "I promise I've heard it used on the street". All of these arguments are long since discredited in AfD, etc., precedent. "Interestingness" and personal preference are of no relevance to notability. Uniqueness isn't either; we don't have a special word for the boogers that come from deep in the sinuses and are ropey and brown, either, yet the world goes on just fine. There is no evidence of anti-gay or more generally censorial sentiment; the concerns raised that could be triggering such feeling have been related to WP:NPA and WP:NPOV in that "santorum" is a direct personal attack on someone; as he is deceased, WP:BLP is not in play, so the issue isn't very strong on either side (and you'll note that it is absent from the pro-merge argument); unsupported assertions of bigotry or other forms of bad faith carry no weight. And finally, anecdote is not verifiability; if we accepted arguments like "I know it's true", "I swear I've seen it", etc., WP would have several hundred thousand more articles in it on totally bunk topics.
  11. Wiktionary has not accepted a "santorum" definition, instead redirecting back to Wikipedia, and listing "santorum" on its List of protologisms (i.e. newly coined words or phrases defined in the hope that they will become accepted into the language). Words appearing on that list are effectively banned from being added to Wiktionary proper because there is insufficient evidence of notable currency.
  12. The fact that Wikipedia has some good articles on neologisms and memetic experiments does not mean that "santorum" is one. Take Godwin's law, for example, which was created as a memetic experiment. Over a decade after the fact, the term is actually in demonstrable, well-cited use beyond the author, his friends, and commentators on him/it. "Santorum" is not, as evidenced by (and effectively outright admitted by the principal editors of) the article on it.
  13. Re: WP:COI, WP:AUTO, etc. — Read them carefully: Substantial authorship by fans/boosters of a subject does not save an article from being classified as autobiography or vanity/confict of interest just because the subject him-/her-/itself did not write the article. This is a very important point. Note also, in this particular context, the username (Santorummm (talk • contribs)) of the principal editor of the Santorum (sexual slang) page. Hint hint.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC) (updated 11:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC))

  • Against. Nothing above really convinces me, it's really a matter of personal opinion --I think this has risen above the muck to be notable on its own, you believe it should be swept back into a subsection. Thusly, I am against merging. --Bobak 01:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge Reasons are simple. Merging would put too much weight on the santorum section it were merged into Savage Love, and I don't think any of the santorum article should be deleted. --Samuel Wantman 07:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. SMcCandlish provides an impressive explanation of why the other article should be merged here. I should note, in response to Samuel Wantman's note above, that if Dan Savage/Savage Love's notability has arisen/grown from his neologisms and/or political attacks - in particular, "santorum" - then this article should be more heavily weighted toward representing that content. The neologism "santorum" is non-notable on its own, and Dan Savage's notability is significantly reduced without the controversy surrounding that neologism, so honestly, it's a merge made in heaven, of sorts. In addition, none of the references in the other article indicate "santorum" actually being used outside of a political context, and what little anecdotal evidence some have tried to provide that it is used in a purely sex-related context (i.e., intending solely to describe the "feces/lube mixture" that Savage has assigned to this term, rather than to also or instead make a tongue-in-cheek dig at the person) is not permitted on Wikipedia (WP:OR). This means that regardless of whether it should be merged here, it certainly isn't really sexual slang - it's slang born of politics - and it shouldn't be located where it is currently. A merge is probably the best way to arrive at a location for the article's contents without creating an even more cumbersome title. --DachannienTalkContrib 11:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Here are links to pages that use the word, which have nothing to do with Savage Love: [3] [4]. I found these after a very quick search. I'm sure there are many more. The word is commonly used. Yes, it is slang born of politics, but it isn't the first such term (see Gerrymandering). --Samuel Wantman 08:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:NEO doesn't require evidence of use, just evidence of coverage, so this point is probably moot. However, I would suggest that given that Savage explicitly asked his readership to start using the word in an effort to make it current, evidence of real currency would need to come from edited sources -- either reliable sources in durable media, or online versions of the same, such as newspapers with editions online. A blog or website posting can't be treated as reliable evidence, just because of Savage's request. As I say, this is moot because the term's notability doesn't depend on usage (and usage would not, in turn, establish that it deserved an article, again per WP:NEO). Mike Christie (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Incredibly Strong Oppose -- Every single point you have raised here as been addressed (and successfully refuted) in Santorum (sexual slang)'s second AfD, save for point #6 which is unprovable crystalballery, and highly suspect at best. If your assertion were true then you would have nominated the article for deletion, but since it is quite clear that any such attempt would fail you are attempting to do a loopholing end-run around the inevitable failure of an AfD by "merging" (read: deleting 90% of) the article. Santorum (sexual slang) has proven quite clearly that it stands just fine on its own as a separate article. It ain't broke; stop trying to "fix" it. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 21:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Firstly, the 2nd AfD came to a conclusion of "hopeless lack of consensus", so the claims that all these criticisms have been adequately addressed already, and that a third AfD would "quite clear[ly]...fail" are false on their face. Secondly, assuming you can, with psychic powers, know my mind is way more crystalballing than anything I've said (as was your "quite clearly fail" assertion; by contrast, I only asserted a probability). In point of fact, I did not nominate it for a third AfD yet because I don't believe in doing AfDs back-to-back that soon, and I thought the article should have the opportunity to merge here. I'll wait a few months. Who knows but maybe the santorum article will actually improve by then and be salvageable. <shrug> I'd be happy with that result (and I think you mistake me for someone as personally intent on doing away with Savage-related articles as you are on defending them reflexively against perfectly valid criticisms). Also, please do not make unfounded attacks against other editor's motives. I'm sorry you are so personally invested in these articles that you feel you need to go there, but one of them simply is not an encyclopedic article as a ding an sich (though it may have some mergeworthy encyclopedic content in it), and ranting at people that point that out and document why, and publicly questioning their ethics, isn't going to change that. PS: I never suggested deleting 90% of the article in the process of doing the merge. I rather think it would be pretty in-depth section here. I did say that one could remove most of the article in a sandbox to see that the core facts of the article are not independently, reliably sourced but are WP:AUTO in its broader sense. That's not the same thing, and you are making a blatant straw man argument as a result. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose any merger - And a few rejoinders. One, two data points (the two AFDs) is not sufficient to label something a "trend". Two, to the extent that the Savage Love article is redundant of this one, then both articles need to be cleaned up; but that doesn't really get at the desirability of separate articles. Here, the article topics are significantly different, albeit related; and foreseeable expansion go in very different directions. So, as a matter of structuring an article, they should be separate. (It's really a mistake to, as a rule, prefer one long article that brings together disparate related topics, to several shorter articles that are precise on their particular topic.) --lquilter 20:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Re: "trend" — Maybe you are right, but so what? This is non-responsive to any substantive issue raised. You are free to predict that my prediction won't come true, but who cares? As to the second point, I would generally agree with you, except when one of the topics isn't notable or well-referenced enough to warrant a separate article. WP:N covers this pretty well. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - Never has so much been written about something of so little importance. I'm sure I'm paraphrasing someone. This is veering dangerously close to a tempest in a teapot. Zotdragon 19:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment: You may consider the issue inconsequetial, but your "oppose" fails to refute any point I've raised at all, so it isn't substantive. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that proves my point exactly. A lot of time and energy will be wasted debating this issue, maybe the articles will be merged, maybe they won't. In the long run it won't matter because if the articles are merged, inevitably someone will split, or try to split, the article and either way Wikipedia won't be improved, it's just be a lot of shuffling articles about. I'm opposed to merging articles in general unless one article is so minor it doesn't merit a full article, even a stub. Since there is plenty of material in the Savage Love article, there is no reason to merge. Zotdragon 21:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NOW magazine

Savage's cloumn also appears in Toronto's NOW magazine (http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/current/savage.php) Would someone with more experiance than I kindly add this lil' tidbit? Thanks!

-Jay --70.53.42.90 07:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/a/v/Talk%7ESavage_Love_dbfb.html"