Talk:Sarah Vowell

Why do you care?
Why would someone's sexuality matter? Why do you care? Sarah is a gifted story teller and has enriched our lives with her writing. Questioning her her sexuality is offensive and none of our business. Concern yourself with who you share your bed with and leave everyone else alone. Deal?


 * Is the reason why someone cares about the information they seek relevant to its inclusion or exclusion? There are many facts about individuals chronicled in encyclopedias which are personal or embarassing in nature. Why censor information, if it's available and public? And if you're willing to censor some personal issues, why not censor the entire article, or at least seek explicit approval for each tidbit of information from the subject?


 * e.g., "Vowell lives in New York City, cannot swim, is afraid of heights, and does not drive a car. She usually enlists the aid of her friends and family to drive her to plaques and graves when doing research. She also suffers from celiac disease, in which the body has an allergy to gluten." - how is this any of your business, or relevant to Vowell's work? Shouldn't it be deleted, then? 71.131.209.170 10:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I find this discussion interesting after viewing her on the Daily Show in which she had a pronounced lisp. Seriously, no mention of her speech impediment? That's got to be at least as impactful on her life as a public speaker as who she chooses to stimulate to orgasm... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.103.147 (talk) 08:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree
I don't see any reason why her sexual orientation would be of circumstance unless it plays a major role in her public life (i.e. being an advocate of gay rights).--Klestrob44 20:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * i should hope that she isn't. i think i'm madly in love with her. (unsigned comment)

I agree with the above comments. I think she's just private about her personal life. I know that for a lot of the current group of autobiographical writers/essayists (cf. David Sedaris, David Rakoff, Ira Glass, Dave Eggers) that there's a certain threshold they do not cross in discussing their private lives, even though those very same lives are the ones that fuel their work.

That said, I do believe she is straight. I recall an article she wrote that appeared in The Stranger a few years ago in which she mentioned an ex-boyfriend who was obsessed w/ the band XTC. In Take the Cannoli she mentioned sharing a house with a boyfriend in college. Also in the TAL program "Invisible Worlds" (one of the best ones I've heard, by the way) she has a short vignette in which she describes wanting to have a relationship w/ a guy she's talking to at a coffee shop but realizing that such a thing is impossible because he's a libertarian. But I don't think any of this is important to mention in the article. Her sexuality is fairly inconsequential to her body of work thus far.

Apart from all of this, I don't mind that she doesn't mention her sex/relationship life at all. It is how I'm able to fuel improbable daydreams about her. ;) Melvillean 01:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * She mentions boyfriends in several of her writings, so it does look like she is straight. But since Sarah has chosen to keep that aspect of her life private, it is irrelevant to an encyclopedic discussion of her, which should focus on her career.Sandmaster 05:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

So true
Sometimes its best not to know everything about a celebrity who you like. All I can say is that she has an amazing voice. Piercetp


 * Amen! God I love that voice!  Her, David Sedaris and Jonathan Goldstein form a holy trinity of This American Life contributors.  Reading her stuff is so much more enjoyable when you have the nasally twang of her voice in rattling around in your imagination.  Funkyj 20:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Capote
I just saw the film this weekend and noticed she was thanked in the final credits. Does anyone know her connection with that film? Piercetp

The director of Capote is a good friend. He is mentioned and acknowledged in some of her books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.176.74 (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Is the first syllable of Ms. Vowell's last name pronounced so as to rhyme with "now" or with "so"?


 * The name "Vowell" is pronounced as in 'not a consonant,' at least by Sarah. I pulled out my Incredibles DVD and watched the Vowellet video essay to be sure, and she introduces herself in the first few moments.  Wyvern 03:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This article on Sarah Vowell seems like it is written by her, to promote herself. The information is way to personal and lame.


 * and apparently YOU are too lame to use the correct form of the word "too." If you don't like her, why don't you simply not read about her, instead of taking the time to comment? BTW, so what if she DID write it - self-promotion is no crime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.158.187 (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * She's proud of being lame. I'd stalk her if I could summon the energy. --Vlvtelvis (talk) 07:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Moving 'External Links' into article
It seems like several of the links (especially to articles) could be moved into the main article and turned into citations. Just a suggestion for anyone with the writing talent who feels bold. Dp76764 (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Suffers from?
I question the language of the statement that she "suffers from celiac sprue." Do we know she suffers because of it? Can't she just have it without "suffering" from it? I think it shows a bias people often have when discussing a health condition or disability that they don't have. Maybe instead it could read: She has celiac sprue, an auto-immune disorder caused by a reaction to gluten. Beatitudes77 (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. My question is, why don't people just change things if they feel this way instead of leaving a comment here? Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia which is what makes it so amazing.  Tgpaul58 (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Bad ref
http://www.avclub.com/articles/is-there-a-god,1413/ Is a bad reference. Many of the people polled were joking (take for instane, Conan O'Brian, a devout Roman Catholic), so it is hard to know who was kidding or who wasn't kidding. I'll remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.5.110.177 (talk) 02:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I put in a better reference, an article she herself wrote in the New York Times, where she declares "Because I am a culturally Christian atheist..." David Shaw (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added this ref to the article now.98.210.164.198 (talk) 02:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Trail of Tears date
The "Trail of Tears" story on This American Life was July 3, 1998 -- not July 4. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/107/trail-of-tears Cjsummers (talk) 02:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comments
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Unfamiliar fishes section
In chronicling Vowell's writing, the part on Unfamiliar Fishes stands out from the rest in its negativity. While the criticisms are well referenced, and legitimate information to share, I am not certain they belong in this article about Vowell. Also, while they come from respected publications, there is nothing to indicate if they are representative of the work's reception.

I suggest that a separate page on this work be set up to provide ingormation  specific to it, and that reviews be included there with greater context. Ignatios2000 (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree and since no one else has chimed in in nearly 3 years, I'm going to revise that portion (in Career/Published Works) in order to shorten the negative reviews and include a positive one from the book's wiki page. El duderino (abides) 01:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


 * How can this issue have been addressed, and the wholesale lack of sourcing in the article not been addressed? How, absent sourcing, can anyone claim to have presented a fair and accurate assessment of the critical response to this or any of her books? This article is a mockery of WP encyclopedic standards, and editors should be calling it what it is. 2601:246:C700:19D:E9FE:616:59EA:AE2F (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sarah Vowell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100608122206/http://chicagoist.com/2008/10/21/interview_sarah_vowell.php to http://chicagoist.com/2008/10/21/interview_sarah_vowell.php

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Question
Is she the oldest person to ever portray a teenager in any form of media? If so, then I think it should be worth mentioning on her page. Tyler Michael Mannix (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Article violates WP:OR and WP:VERIFY
As noted throughout, this article flaunts the guidelines and policies of the encyclopedia, constantly presenting personal knowledge without sources. It is among the worst articles we have ever seen here, and it is unusable in any teaching setting. 2601:246:C700:19D:E9FE:616:59EA:AE2F (talk) 04:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Add to this the need for a lead rewrite, because the lead repeatedly introduces new material rather than summarizing the contents of the article. Specifically, the phrases/words "historian", "social observer," "contributing editor", "1996 to 2008", and "toured", etc., do not appear in the main body and/or are not supported there by citations. Note, the lead rewrite tag was chosen because it allows for explanation, and both and  tags apply, as much information is newly appearing, and some summary content is omitted. 2601:246:C700:19D:E9FE:616:59EA:AE2F (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Overtagging in article
I'm removing some of the tags because the article was overtagged to the point where it was unreadable. Please see WP:Tagging pages for problems and WP:OVERTAGGING.

If a sentence has "citation needed" at the end, then each fact in the sentence does not also need "citation needed" added to it - I have removed these additional citations needed. Some of the tags also did not have explanations added on the tag or talk page (such as the "When" tags added to general statements that do not necessarily need a time period specified), and others were repetitive or redundant and have been combined or removed. - Whisperjanes (talk) 06:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Native American identity
Her claimed Native American heritage is 1/128th or 0.78% as stated in the This American Life transcript. If she is not a registered member of a nation or tribal government I think the classification of subject of this article as Native American should be removed.