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)
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)
Is "controvertially" a word? AxelBoldt 02:56, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
"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)
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
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
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
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
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:
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)
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)
Who? I didn't see any in the sources. Some citation would be appreciated. Geo.per 20:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Umm... What? 208.247.73.130 00:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
Does anyone know if there is a definitive list anywhere of papers that carry the column? - Jmabel | Talk 06:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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):
— SMcCandlish [ talk] [ contrib ツ 00:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC) (updated 11:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC))
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)
Dan Savage has been shown to be rather biphobic towards bisexuals in his advice column. He is also rather against people who are into kink/BDSM and open relationships.
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)
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)
Is "controvertially" a word? AxelBoldt 02:56, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
"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)
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
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
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
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
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:
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)
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)
Who? I didn't see any in the sources. Some citation would be appreciated. Geo.per 20:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Umm... What? 208.247.73.130 00:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
Does anyone know if there is a definitive list anywhere of papers that carry the column? - Jmabel | Talk 06:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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):
— SMcCandlish [ talk] [ contrib ツ 00:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC) (updated 11:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC))
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)
Dan Savage has been shown to be rather biphobic towards bisexuals in his advice column. He is also rather against people who are into kink/BDSM and open relationships.