Talk:Jeff Gannon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Newer discussions go at the bottom; older at the top. Please.

Contents

[edit] On policy

my reversion of your edit on Jeff Gannon has nothing to to do with vandalism, and all to do to the fact that it was ungrammatical, with an inappropriate inline link to an external website, and a repeat of information already mentioned above. RickK 06:03, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

It was not ungrammatical, inline links to external website's are appropriate, and the owner of the two sites no where else exists on the page. You are as much a liar as Bush.
What part of Talon News, a virtual organization (no physical office, newsroom, etc.) with a handful of volunteer "reporters", and owned by the Web site GOPUSA. "Talon News apparently consists of little more than Eberle, Gannon, and a few volunteers does not already say what you said? RickK 06:13, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
" "Robert Eberle ... is the president and CEO of both GOPUSA ... and Talon News." is what you deleted. Are you new to English or what? Where is "president and CEO" or the first name "Robert" in "Talon News apparently consists of little more than Eberle, Gannon, and a few volunteers". Edit the two without losing data if you wish, but don't just arrogantly delete relevant data!
I've reformatted the article to match Wikipedia standards. RickK 06:28, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Although I read Kos and Atrios every day, and wish nothing more than to bring this administration down, Wikipedia should not present any bias and I believe this article is strongly biased. I find it quite insulting to Gannon as a person, when it should only present his actions. Among other biases... --Vik Reykja 07:23, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Quote the bias. Describe the bias. Edit the bias. But claiming "bias" withiut examples or evidence is trolling. On the other hand, it is inevitable that right and left wing people will fight it out here; so an npov tag is also inevitable. - - - - - - - May I suggest both sides present their point of view without either side deleting the other's obviously biased (to them) comments? Right wing example: "Limit the discussion to ...". Left wing example: "This is part of a wider problem of ...". Let's let this be a full and complete discussion, with parts eventually being moved to "discussion" or other (new) articles like GOPUSA or "manufactured news", "We create reality", "Republican propaganda", or "liberal bias (USA)" etc. (signed I_started_this_but_noone_owns_it)
The bias is all over the place. Certainly you're not trying to tell me this is a balanced, encyclopedic article. The reason I'm not editing it myself is because I'm not familiar enough with the story to do so. The tiny bit I know is what I've scanned from Atrios and AmericaBlog (I haven't been reading as attentively as usual this past week). I know absolutely zilch about what the neo-cons are saying. --Vik Reykja 08:25, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm saying it WILL be; let the process run its course and don't optimize too early. There is no way more data won't be dug up over the coming months, and no way to tell which lead will pan out. I'm just saying AT FIRST, the process is the key. Gather data. Organize data. Format data. Improve POV, spelling, organization. Now it is an Encyc article. You don't get to the end without going through the middle. Don't prematurely delete data is all I'm saying. (signed I_started_this_but_noone_owns_it)

Stating that Gannon stayed overnight at the White House is neutral. Stating that there were "overnight trysts" (unless there is some documentation -- which I've never seen) is extremely biased. This is Wikipedia, NOT "Conspiracy Planet."

[edit] External links

Don't include quotes from the external links next to them, that's not Wikipedia policy. Label the link and let the reader take what they will from the linked article. RickK 21:36, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe you. If you are right provide a link to proof. Counter examples exist THROUGHOUT wikipedia. Link to a policy page saying it is NOT to be done. I do not believe there is a Wikipedia policy to never describe what is to be found at an external link site. I think you are LYING. Any link to any Wikipedia policy concerning external links would advance this conversation.

This discussion motivated me to search for the policy myself. The only policy is guidance (not rules) at [1].

An example there of the CORRECT WAY to list external liks is:

  • The Memory Hole by Russ Kick, a website which "exists to preserve and spread material that is in danger of being lost, is hard to find, or is not widely known" [2]. It is regularly updated with new documents, which are often obtained by the editor himself through Freedom of Information Act requests. The site also provides links to reports on external sites.

I'll assume you honestly believed your mistaken notions and accept your apologies.

Please restore my external links to being PROPERLY DESCRIBED. Feel free to edit the descriptions (of course), but deleting them is VANDALISM.

Stop calling differences of agreement vandalism. Your example does not say that you should put a full paragraph of quotes from the linked article in the description. If you want to cut it down to one or two sentences, that's fine, but the quotes are excessive. RickK 08:37, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Done, as requested. I hope our future encounters are more pleasant for BOTH of us.

[edit] Balance with conservative POV

Rick, one of the quotes from an external link contained just about the only conservative POV expressed here. Therefore I worked on the Controversy section a bit to try to get some more balance back in. Betsy Devine

It looks fine to me. RickK 05:26, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute on Dkosopedia

I have no objection to including Dkosopedia among the external links. Labeling it "The most complete site on the web on Jeff Gannon" is unencyclopedia-like and misleading. It is unencyclopedia-like because "The most complete" is puffery rather than description. It is misleading because it implies that Dkosopedia is a neutral source of information. I am changing the label to "A wiki-like compilation of the case against Jeff Gannon". I also think we should arrange the External Links list to put news on top and opinion pieces or partisan material on the bottom.

Betsy Devine

Your pruning and editing is rather good. Thanks for improving my input. I added back one external link... improving your input. You're welcome. [signed I_started_this_don't_own_it_blahblahblah]

[edit] Some questions the article might discuss

Taken from "America blog".

  1. When did GannonGuckert adopt the pseudonym?
  2. If GannonGuckert did nothing wrong, and this is just a liberal witch hunt of some poor innocent guy who's only crime is being a conservative, then why did Talon News and GOPUSA delete all of Gannon's old articles, and a slew of other articles dealing with gay issues?
  3. Who was this "client" for whom Gannon bought the Web addresses MilitaryEscortsM4M.com and MilitaryEscorts.com?
  4. What was the client intending to do with those addresses?
  5. As a self-professed Christian, conservative, and reporter who tends to only report the anti-gay viewpoint in his articles, why did Gannon accept a client that was clearly interested in escort services, and gay military escort services at that?
  6. Who is paying the ongoing costs of maintaining the domain registrations for MilitaryEscortsM4M.com and MilitaryEscorts.com?
  7. Who is J. Daniels, the other name associated with these domain names? If it's a fake name, why did Gannon use yet another fake name in this instance?
  8. According to WHOIS, those domain names were updated just two months ago, this past November. Did Gannon update those names?
  9. Who paid Gannon's salary? Who paid Talon News' bills? Who pays for GOPUSA's budget?
  10. Gannon says he refused to divulge to the FBI who slipped him the CIA information about Valerie Plame. Other journalists were threatened with jail for taking that position - why wasn't Gannon (or Novak, for that matter)?
  11. According to court documents, Gannon owes some $20k in Delaware, from a judgement ten years ago. What's up with that?
  12. GannonGuckert says he's been harassed and stalked since the day he spoke out during the White House press conference two weeks ago. But according to Atrios, Gannon's real name wasn't discovered and made public until 10:54PM this past Monday night. How did people track him down at church and phone his family if no one knew his name? Not to mention, this story wasn't even a big story until just about 2-3 days ago.
  13. GannonGuckert says he has 750,000 subscribers to his news service. Really? Love to hear more details about that factoid.
  14. Is Gannon married?

Obviously these are slanted and a somewhat loaded, but they make the points that constitute the scandal. I understand a blog called "Instapundit" has views on this matter, too. Can they be stated succinctly, or are they essentially reaction to these allegations?

Some other views: conservative voices are necessary in the White house to balance the "liberal bias" of the questions of rest of the media.

Some quotes from the site. The reactions are very anti-Bush, though the site seems to present Republican/neo-conservative views, e.g. "moral values" ... [is a term that has] irked many liberals, who view morality as advocating a set of designated social policies, not the function of personal conduct.

Using a pseudonym is not a big deal: Mark Twain did it. Article by Sher Zieve (Response, seen elsewhere, "Twain pimped men?") The porn site domain names were not registered for him, they were from an ex-client who never used them. Lack of impartiality is a fact of life. Refers to his family.

A brief summary with some information about the domain names.

Another summary

[edit] Unsourced quotes from Gannon's site: to wikiquote.

Social Security reform has long been regarded as the “third rail” of American politics, a comparison of an attempt to change FDR’s retirement program to making contact with a subway car’s electrical source. The warning is clear: touch it and you die. It has scared off politicians for decades, but President Bush has decided to defy those who lack the moral courage to save a system that most young people doubt will ever pay them benefits.

  • I am certain that I heard this quote from someone else. Huh. - mixvio 03:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The Old Media has been promoting the idea that George W. Bush should tone down or cancel his inaugural celebration because we are at war and the tsunami, world hunger, etc.

Oddly enough there have been no calls for canceling the Oscars, the Super Bowl, the President's Day federal holiday or Donald Trump's wedding.

There were many more ties between al Qaeda and Iraq than there were between the White House and Enron. So how come the Democrats spend so much time talking about Ken Lay instead of Saddam Hussein?

Thank you. Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. [Senate Minority Leader] Harry Reid [D-NV] was talking about soup lines. And [Senator] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet in the same breath they say that Social Security is rock solid and there's no crisis there. How are you going to work -- you've said you are going to reach out to these people -- how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality? [3] (Suggests he constantly gave the party "softball" questions).

[edit] Portrait

I understand this is a picture of him. Can anyone confirm or deny? Mr. Jones 09:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I can confirm that this is his face. I don't have the time right now to study it for photoshopping. --Vik Reykja 09:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] " reveal what they see as Gannon's hypocrisy, not his sexuality.

When I originally wrote this sentence, I'd assumed that "what they see as" was understood. But the addition by 198.138.135.83 is probably a good idea, considering that Conservatives dispute the hypocrisy claim.

betsythedevine 18:03, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"reveal possible hypocrisy." is better than "reveal what they see as Gannon's hypocrisy, not his sexuality." because the issue is not just Gannon's possible hypocrisy but MORE IMPORTANTLY the possible hypocrisy of his employers, the White House and the Republican Party. But that would be the opposite of containing the problem wouldn't it? Remember Watergate and all the efforts to minimize it?

As the owner of the americablog website says, "It's looking increasingly like they made a decision to allow a hooker to ask the President of the United States questions. They made a decision to give a man with an alias and no journalistic experience access to the West Wing of the White House on a "daily basis." They reportedly made a decision to give him - one of only six - access to documents, or information in those documents, that exposed a clandestine CIA operative.". This needs to be mentioned. I only hinted at it but pointed to the link. I hope this comes across as NPOV in the article. RickK 06:25, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Leadership Institute

Media matters claims that he worked for The Leadership Institute Broadcast School of Journalism. [4] Mr. Jones

Media Matters link does not claim that Gannon "worked" for Leadership Institute Broadcast School of Journalism, merely that he is a gradutate of the Institute's two-day broadcast journalism workshop.

Quite correct. Interesting, nonetheless, and the institute deserves an article. Mr. Jones 18:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The NPOV header

Can we remove the NPOV header off this article? Nobody seems interested in discussing what it is that they're objecting to. RickK 05:39, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

The fact that it is current news and NO ONE knows what will turn up makes the NPOV label mostly redundant to me. Vikreykja appears to have added it initially and he says (above) "The reason I'm not editing it myself is because I'm not familiar enough with the story to do so." In other words, it looks biased even though I, Vikreykja, don't know the facts. Making judgements when you don't know the facts is the very meaning of the word biased. As a new and current article, needing improvements in NPOV is only natural. Which to me, makes NPOV both a valid and redundant charge. (signed I_started_this_but_noone_owns_it)

If nobody objects, I'll remove it sometime tomorrow. RickK 09:17, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Rick, I put the header back up there because some very striking changes were made to the article. A few samples of what I object to:

"Calling "Jeff Gannon" an "alias" without giving Guckert's explanation that is was a professional name." (I already fixed this.)
"In short, there wasn't even a transparent pretext upon which to classify him as a 'journalist'." (This whole paragraph still needs work.)
"Hypocrisy issue" and "Pornography and prostitution allegations" as section headings.

It would make more sense to group the sexual side of the story in one section with the controversy about making it public. Similarly, the Daschle story doesn't merit two separate one-paragraph sections.

I thought it was a very good solution for people with passionate feelings about the Guckert story to express them in Talk while keeping the story neutral. Considering what happened in the past 24 hours, however, I think it's a good idea to leave NPOV up there betsythedevine 15:12, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Betsy, a "professional name" IS an "alias"... by definition. I don't think there is any particularly negative connotation attached to the word 'alias'.
That said, I agree that discussing things in talk makes sense. To my way of thinking it now seems proven fact that Guckert lied about his connection to the websites (claimed he just set them up for a client VS actually advertised as a prostitute on them) and when he started attending press briefings (claimed April VS video of him on February 28th). Likewise it seems clear that McClellan lied about Guckert not representing a security breakdown or intervention by someone in the White House. It HAD to be one or the other as the idea of the presidential press room being open to just any gay prostitute is absurd on its face and denied by various journalists (Dowd and Milbank for instance). McClellan also claimed that affiliation with a news source that publishes regularly is required... but at the February 28th briefing Guckert had no such affiliation. Finally, both Guckert and McClellan have said that Guckert only got daily passes, but other reporters have stated that they recall seeing him with a hard pass... still up in the air, but if confirmed will indicate a continuing deliberate pattern of deception.
If I start adding text about these lies (and the hard pass allegation) are people going to start screaming 'NPOV' or is this all sufficiently established by now? CBDunkerson 16:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I would say it's established. --Vik Reykja 18:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] James Dale Guckert vs. Jeff Gannon

I think that after the first sentence the article should consistantly use either Gukert or Gannon, but not both. Any opinions on this? (signed I_started_this_but_noone_owns_it)

I would suggest sticking with Gannon unless there is a specific reference to Guckert. RickK 09:26, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Generally I'd think we should use his real name and the alias only when appropriate - such as when quoting an instance where it was used or discussing the reasons for/nature of the alias. If we were to give an alias preference we might as well call him 'Bulldog' everywhere. CBDunkerson

Wikipedia is to use most common name. The Gannon name is most commonly used. RickK 23:07, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Point and Counterpoint: the continuing controversy

See the problem is that the real issue is what laws are to be passsed, which means who is to be elected, which means which party do you trust, which means who are the biggest liars - Democrats or Republicans. And this Jeff Gannon thing is just a small tiny battle (so far) in deciding where billions of dollars are spent and what laws are passsed adding to the freedom of some and subtracting from the freedom of others. Point and Counterpoint is a place to connect the dots and make sense of this controversy in an encyclopedic way. This is not a blog!!! Original research is forbidden by policy. But even encyclopedias point out the point of political events. (signed I_started_this_but_noone_owns_it)

[edit] Jeff Gannon vs. James Guckert

Why are Jeff Gannon and James Guckert two different articles? They should be linked to one another. It's the same person.

They *are* linked together. Jeff Gannon redirects to James Guckert. Kingturtle 15:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
And I have now moved Guckert back to Gannon, under the policy of use most common name. Why was this moved, anyway? Especially without discussion. RickK 23:08, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
I moved it to the real name of James Gickert. But I realize it was pre-mature. Kingturtle 23:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Are you sure 'Gannon' is the most commonly used name? A week ago (when he was a virtual unknown) that was true. A few years before that we'd have to have gone with 'Bulldog'. Now it's a toss-up between Guckert and Gannon. The print media are mostly using Guckert. In another week I think his real name will be clearly predominate. CBDunkerson 10:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes. I did a google-war comparison, and gannon is by far more used. Kingturtle 21:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Because he has been publishing, and then being quoted, as 'Gannon' for two years now. Of course there is a large body of old pages using those names... and 99.99% of Americans have never visited any of them. That level of usage pales in comparison to the number of people who have heard of him recently. Is the standard 'more used in old web pages', 'more used in recent web pages', 'more used in the general world (or US) population', or what? Right now you'd be hard pressed to find ANY mention of the name 'Jeff Gannon' which does not also reference 'James Guckert', and vice versa. There is also unquestionably far more attention to him currently than in the rest of his life combined. To put it another way... 'Jeff Gannon' would never have received a Wikipedia page. The revelation that he was really 'James Guckert' resulted in one being created immediately. CBDunkerson 11:27, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
In one of his first interviews with Wolf Blitzer, he said he preferred to be called Gannon. I don't know if that matters to Wikipedia or not, though. --Vik Reykja 18:43, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A Google News search, which only covers recent pages, finds "Jeff Gannon" to be far more common than "James Guckert". - SimonP 15:03, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Is it Daniel or Dale[5]? (BTW IMO this is the tastiest thing in the Whitehouse since King–Spence 8) ) Kwantus 15:25, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know for sure. I took Daniel from the dKos link, but if it's wrong it needs to be changed. --Vik Reykja 17:39, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"James Dale Guckert" google search returns 997, including for example Washington Post stories on the matter. "James Daniel Guckert" returns 8 (One of which is this article). Looks like a mistake to me. Tabor 00:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have changed it to Dale. --Vik Reykja 07:57, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This article keeps alternating between Guckert and Gannon, through no pattern I can discern. With regards to his 'journalistic' activities, he should probably be referred to as Gannon, and elsewhere as Gannon unless Guckert makes more sense. I see no such pattern here currently. →Iñgōlemo← talk 07:38, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

[edit] Talon News now redirects to Jeff Gannon and all its history was erased

Um.... what? why? Was Talon News listed on VfD? --Ben 20:29, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah ok. A capitalization problem was the culprit (one of the things that has always annoyed about wiki). Talon news redirects to Gannon (I've now changed the redirect). Talon News has the full article. --Ben 20:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Johnny Gosch

Sherman Skolnick has reported on his blog that Guckert is in fact Johnny Gosch.

Google confirms that this rumor is out there but it appears to be solidly out in left field. Johnny Gosch was a Des Moines paperboy who disappeared in 1982. Noreen Gosch, Johnny's mother, has claimed that in 1997 he came to see her and told her of his kidnapping by "a highly organized, very corporate global pedophile/pornography ring. Evidence links this same porno/pedophile ring to the 80's 'congressional call boy scandal', money laundering, drug running, illegal arms deals and more." [6]

Whether it deserves to be mentioned in the article as a highly improbable rumor is an open question, but I've removed it so that it doesn't get mistaken for credible information. A look at why it's so improbable: [7]. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:47, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Thank God this isn't in the Wikipedia entry. Someone's ridiculous Gosch spam just told me to go to this page. -- John Gorenfeld

This item is in the entry. Unfortunately, I think it's part of the X-Files. The one with Nelson Riley as the science fiction author debunking their interest in the paranormal. Also, why don't people phrase things as if it's possibly someone's debunking the internet and trivializing this entry and Wikipedia. I know this guy isn't as big of a deal as the newspaper editor in Tennessee, but come one, this portion of speculation is so out there. Can someone take it upon themselves to edit it?

[edit] Another Gannon Quote

From the Panel on Blogging that the Washington Press Club held not too long ago:

JEFF GANNON: Why does everything have to be looked at through, uh, a lens that represents every particular point of view? [8]

I couldn't help but think about Wikipedia & the NPOV policy (&, yes, chuckle) when I read that. -- llywrch 20:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Correct version of the quote

No transcript I've seen of the quote in Jeff_Gannon#Initial_controversy that I've seen has Gannon actually saying "Senate Minority Leader" and "Senator", so I've put them in parentheses. --Saforrest 12:48, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sexuality

It's clear that he advertised as a prostitute on a military gay-themed escort website. What this says about his sexuality is unclear however. Does anyone have any statements from Mr. Guckert about his sexuality? As part of Category:LGBT politicians I'm trying to subcategorize him, but I don't have any evidence of where to put him. So far I've been able to rule out the lesbian and TS/TG options. Cleduc 13:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

He wrote a bunch of pretty anti-gay articles while at Talon. Being a male prostitute does not necessarily imply gay. There is strong circumstantial evidence to suggest he is gay but I don't think we want a category 'suspected gay politicians' or else we would have to include McClellan (strongly suspected of being Gannon's customer), Mehlman and others. We would end up including pretty much every politician who has a history of gay baiting.--Gorgonzilla 01:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
On the other hand we could stick him in the category of Prostitutes.--Gorgonzilla 01:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
I concur. I will remove the article from Category:LGBT politicians and add to Category:Famous courtesans and prostitutes. Of course, this will leave open for debate whether "Politician" should be a subcategory of "Prostitute." Cleduc 16:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Americablog

I don't think that Aravosis would actually object to the term 'Left-wing' since they campaign for Democrats, however progressive is a more accurate description since the blog has much more of a social-libertarian bent than anything else.

Do you really think that matters? Our esteemed anonymous (coward) contributor wouldn't care how they choose to identify themselves. Interesting that he doesn't choose to make this change to the Americablog page as well, however. Cleduc 16:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Well Aravosis definitely went after Gannon because of the anti-gay screeds that he wrote for Talon so the pro-gay rights tag is probably more relevant. I don't think he would hesitate to do the same if a similar thing came up in an anti-gay Democrat administration. --Gorgonzilla 01:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Overnight Stays

Recently, content about "overnight stays" at the White House was removed, Occam's Razor being cited. Plausabile or not, this conjecture consitutes original research. I think there should be a section, that some have interpreted entry/exit logs and his (past?) career as a prostitute to mean that he had White House client(s). And it should be sourced. Cleduc 16:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

There's no reasonable evidence to suggest these were overnight stays. For example, according to Raw Story (cited by dKos, Nytimes, The Guardian -- so not a right wing site), he checked in twice on Oct 6 2003 at 12:58 and 6:10 without ever checking out (including between the two check in times) (http://rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/secret_service_gannon_424.htm) Either we assume he has some form of teleportation device that allows him to leave the White House (or an identical twin), or he didn't properly check out/the records were lost/improperly kept. Even if we assume the identical twin, they both need the teleportation device to be able to leave.
Furthermore, if they were overnight stays, why isn't he shown checking out the following day? Instead, he's never shown checking out, until of course he next checks in. Again, he needs the teleportation device.
I think a much more plausible analysis is that either security or record keeping was flawed. If you really think a section speculating on overnight stays and clients being serviced in the whitehouse is warranted, then there has to be some explanation of why he checks in but never out, and sometimes out but never in (with checkins and outs between those events). Holmwood 20:33 16 December 2005
I've now made an extensive set of edits. Little was removed outright, though quite a bit (especially salacious material or speculation) was moved to the appropriate section, including a new Speculation section). I also toned down some language -- e.g. "homosexual escort" substituted for "gay prostitute", and "others" instead of "supporters". Did anyone actually "support" Gannon himself?
Why are these outlandish theories about Gannon staying over at the White House and possibly being a kidnapped boy included in an encyclopedia article? If we include this nonsense, we should include a speculation section in George Bush's entry saying that David Ickes thinks he's a reptile alien who's part of an international Jewish conspiracy to rule the world. It just doesn't pass factual muster, makes Wikipedia look like a joke, and in its present form adds an excessive amount of clutter. The speculation about Gannon staying in the White House might be worth one sentence, but not the entire entry and exit logs as they are included now, and the completely unsubstantiated nonsense about him being a long-ago kidnapped boy doesn't really belong on any reputable website. Oldkinderhook 21:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Mr. James Dale Guckert

I have a question for you, and your supporters.

Why on earth do you think you should be treated any differently than any other homosexual prostitute on the internet? As a conservative, your views on homosexuality are pretty stiff and not very inclusive. But what puzzles and offends me and most americans is this: You champion the views of the republican conservativism, yet you lived a life that had "liberal" and even "radical" tendecies. You committed acts that would otherwise be considered illegal and immoral according to your own conservative position. Why should you be absolved of responsibility for these actions? Should other gay men who are engaging in prostitution be also absolved in your world? I think you should update this article to reflect your personal views on this. It seems to me that you are saying that it's ok for republican conservatives to engage in liberal activities that liberals openly advocate. But you are also saying that it's not ok for liberals themselves to do so. I think that your comment on your website "So feared that the left had to take me down" is true. You yourself live as a leftist liberal and you yourself took yourself down. Oh by the way, I will never refer to Guckert as "Gannon", because that is not his name. If we have any LEGAL documentation showwing that he LEGALLY changed his name, we should post that on here. I do not know why this article isn't titled "Guckert"... unless of course the Wiki-moderators feel this is more "appropriate". I think its because the status-quo supporters with their conservative sensibilities still feel that Guckert is a conservative liability that needs to be re-packaged to soften the blow. --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh and i know how the game works. Prostitution itself could be challenged as you were in an "escort" site, which may or may not indicate sex. The point is, you are living or have lived a life devoid of personal responsibility vis-a-vis your political views you have espoused in your articles. Why? --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


Why did I post those comments above? Because I see the bias on Wikipedia that masks itself (YET AGAIN!!!) with preferential treatment. HIS REAL NAME IS GUCKERT, the article should not link to his FAKE name. He is not a entertainer or any kind of public figure whose stage name is of public interest. He used a different name allegedly because it's easier, but which name is all over the sexual related stuff? COME ON! --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Johnny Gosch again

I've (re-)removed this material. Please do not add it back without making sure you have reliable sources. FreplySpang (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who said it and when did they say it?

I removed the following quote:

"Questions have arisen as to Guckert's relationship with the White House and with the Republican Party."

I removed it because there is no claim as to who raised these questions, their validity, and what conclusions were reached. Also, there was no citation to whom these questions were ascribed. --Jtpaladin 01:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noncompliant

Many people seem to be hanging their hat upont this line from the WaPo as a source for claims that Gannon is a prostitute: "In the interview, Gannon did not dispute evidence that he has advertised himself as a $200-an-hour gay escort but would not specifically address such questions." Perhaps in some circles, the lack of a denial is a confirmation, but not on Wikipedia when dealing with living persons. Also, DailyKos is not a reliable source. This article is a liability. Crockspot 20:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

As I have suggested elsewhere (and I believe Crockspot has concurred), in terms of whether he was or was not a prostitute/escort, an appropriate way to handle this would be to stick to what we can say quoting two February 2005 news reports in the Washington Post: "[His] naked pictures have appeared on a number of gay escort sites"; he "was offering his escort services for $200 an hour, or $1,200 a weekend". [9] [10]

Frankly, the salacious details about being "cut" and a "top" have no place in an article about anyone much other than a porn star. - Jmabel | Talk 07:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is poorly laid out, and poorly written. It needs a serious overall for unity and form. To start, the introductory paragraph is fractured and unclear - it provides much information but not in a concise nor topical manner. If I were to read that paragraph and ask myself "Who is Jeff Gannon", I would not be able to come up with a clear answer. Compare with, say Johnny Gosch - even the first line is out of place and awkward.

Continuing, his "background" section contains a variety of information which appears out of place. How is "background" being inferred? Is the article talking about his biographic information, or his job? Why is there information about what critics say in this section, or about the current activity of his escort profiles? None of these have any bearing on his background, and needlessly clog up the article.

The section on his journalistic career, however, is much better. However, the final section comes quite literally out of nowhere - it is highly unclear what is even being talked about for several lines. I would think that, given the nature of this article, the material should be reorganized, including this in the "controversy" section, after a substantial trimming. Furthermore, why is the theory related to Johnny Gosch included in the "journalism" section at all? It has no relation whatsoever. Haemo

I don't think we should infer that "escort = prostitute". This is a form of Original Research and "connecting the dots." This inference would not hold up to legal scrutiny in a court of law, therefore I don't see how it would hold up to a scrutiny of libel. Verfiability, not truth. --Tbeatty 15:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] inclusion on list of known prostitutes

Absent a self-admission, a conviction or confession of a number of clients, I don't see how this can hold up. In a list, there is no rebuttal. Considering that a number of news outlets have avoided using the term "prostitute" to describe his ads in escort magazines, it seems there is room for doubt (and therefore no room on the list) for this person.--Tbeatty 00:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Consider that others did not have any such qualms. In a list there is the opportunity to cite the inclusion, which I think it is fair to say is pretty much unambiguous. Calling these "escort services" has always been a euphemism; I reckon you don't pay $200 per hour and require details of the length of a man's penis and pictures of him nude for a dinner date. Guy 19:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree and I haven't removed any material from inside the article that makes the accusation or uses the term. However, a list is unambiguous with no room for doubt. There simply is no evidence that he was ever hired as a prostitute. Even if he advertised, there is nothing that says he was ever called or used as a prostitute. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. So while it may be true that he wanted to be a prostitute, there is no verifiable evidence that he actually was one. --Tbeatty 21:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prostitute category

Now that the edit war of two days ago has had time to cool off, I'm going to reinstate the category. Gannon has been idenified as a prostitute by multiple reliable mainstream media sources (certainly far more reliable than, say, Human Events) and has been identified as a prostitute by himself when he posted ads for his wares on the internet on webpages whose domians have been registered to himself. WP:BLP requires a level of caution but it does not require willfull naivete or prohibit us from providing the reader the same facts as the mainstream media. Gamaliel 17:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is appropriate. According to WP:BLPP proposed guidelines: "Allegations or imputations of criminal activity; Subnote: (sometimes only crimes of moral turpitude) Allegations calling someone a prostitute, fraud or other crime should be determined by the judicial system." It seems quite clear to me, and I am uncertain why you insist on holding the position you do. Actually, I am certain, but WP:CIVIL prevents me from expressing it. Crockspot 17:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I insist on holding this position because I think it is utterly baffling and mindboggling that people think we can not identify a man who advertises himself as a prostitute as a prostitute. I may be misinterpreting your tone, but I get the feeling you think I have some sort of political motive here. I do not. I am motivated by exasperation at the tortured logic used to justify the removal of obvious facts. Gamaliel 17:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
He didn't advertise himslef as a prostitute. --Tbeatty 17:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to the talk page. Please cite the sources where he says "I am a prostitute." You are accusing him of a crime. I have yet to see a customer, a charge or a conviction. It is a violation of WP:NPOV to draw the conclusion that he is a prostitute. Let the reader decide but don't put him in a category that is in dispute. The problem is htat there is a dispute. Do you not see that? Do you not see the many,many more mainstream articles that DON'T identify him as a prostitute because they don't believe it would be proper (they use terms like "escort" and they let the reader decide)? A prostitute is someone who has been paid for sex. Advertising to be an escort is not proof of prostitution and that's why those magazines are legal and the people in them aren't summarily arrested. They actually have to have sex for money. Imagine that. You have not provided any sources that say it occured. Prostitution has not been verified. --Tbeatty 17:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
let's look at a WP quote: "In the interview, Gannon did not dispute evidence that he has advertised himself as a $200-an-hour gay escort but would not specifically address such questions." They never say prostitute. It doesn't need to be. They leave it to the reader. A similiar example is in the NPOV policy. There is no need to say "Hitler is a bad man" because his actions speak for themselves. Similarly, Gannon's action speaks for itself. There is no need to make a determination that he is a prostitute and doing so violates NPOV policy as well as WP:BLP.--Tbeatty 17:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
There is no determination being made. The deterimination has been made by reliable sources and by Gannon himself. Gamaliel 17:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Gannon has determined that he refused to discuss it. The reliable source determinations should be presented as their determinations, not as Wikipedia's determination. Are you saying that you are just going to ignore the guideline that is posted on WP:BLPP which specifically addresses prostitution? Crockspot 17:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
That proposed guideline was created seven days ago by editors whose interpretation of the policy at WP:BLP is far too broad and overreaching and would have what has been described as a "chilling effect" upon the accuracy of Wikipedia articles. So, yes. Gamaliel 18:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
No. One source identified him as a prostitute. Many MANY more have avoided the conclusion, just as wikipedia should. As far as I have seen, Gannon has NEVER referred to himself as a prostitute. The Indie article uses his escort ad as the background for their claim that "he advertised himself as a $200-per-hour prostitute". They interchangeably used "hooker" "prostitute" and "escort". That is not very reliable journalism. The overwhelming majority of mainstream news outlets saw the same ads and used "escort" and never accused him of a crime because they didn't have to. See NPOV examples. --Tbeatty 17:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Gannon posted an ad advertising his prostitution services. That's a declaration that he was in fact a prostitute. Gamaliel 18:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Then source it. The indie article says no such thing. --Tbeatty 18:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you now disputing that Gannon posted the ads? Gamaliel 18:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
To be honest, I have heard a lot about these ads, but I have yet to see one, other than a quick flash on television. I think he probably did, but I have yet to see any direct evidence of it, other than claims of other parties. So I would second Tbeatty's request for a source. Crockspot 18:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The sources already in the article show that Gannon registered the domains. Gamaliel 18:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
He claims that he registered those domains for others. Registration of a domain, or even posting an ad as an "escort" is not proof of the commission of the crime of prostitution. I presume you cannot source the advertisements? Crockspot 18:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't dispute any of it. It's up to you to source it. As far as I have seen, the ads don't say "prostitute", they say "escort". That seems to be universally accepted. Like I said, he probably was a prostitute. But this isn't about "truth" it's about "verifiability." You want to call him a prostitute on very tenuous evidence. It simply doesn't need to be said. That's why Washington Post, New Yort Times, etc, use the term "escort" because all the advertisements said "escort" and he was not ever charged with or convicted of prostitution. IF he would have use the term "prostitute" those sources would have quoted them. But the closest they have come is what "bloggers have determined." While the bloggers may be right, they are certainly not reliable.--Tbeatty 18:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to look up prostitution ads with naked men in them while I'm at work, sorry. The existing sources should be more than sufficient. And are we back to this willful naievete about prostitution ads? BLP does not require such a level of gullibility. Gamaliel 18:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Tbeatty, what is this about a crime? English Wiki covers a lot of territory. It may be that in your country or state that prostitution is illegal. If so then it is likley that advertising is also (prostitution #Advertising prostitution). You might want to put some of your energy into upholding the law of your juristiction by getting him convicted. The rest of us would just like to let him and the category be as they are. Meggar 18:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

So:
If The Guardian can call him a prostitute then I think we can as well, even if he does insist he "bought it for a friend". Guy 18:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I just pulled up the vanity fair piece and the Sydney Blumenthal piece. VF didn't make the claim he was a prostitute and SB was an opinion piece which isn't reliable to cite. --Tbeatty 18:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Which ignores the Guardian's headline - and in ignores the fact that just about everyone says it but us. Guy 20:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Prostitution is a crime just about everywhere in the US. Being a provider of "escort services" is not a crime in most places. I have a friend who worked as an escort in Japan. She is a lesbian, and never had sex with her customers. She was tall and blonde, and was paid well to be seen walking into places and sitting with fat Japanese businessmen. Crockspot 18:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The category also includes courtesans, which is pretty much the definition of an escort. Guy 20:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The headline for this piece in the New York Daily News refers to him as a "Gay Prostie". Don't know whether that's helpful or not. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really as the source for that label in the article is a blogger and the title is "links to gay prostie" without actually claiming he is a gay prostitute. THere are a couple articles with titles that imply prosititution but would not hold up to WP:BIO or WP:RS requirements. --Tbeatty 19:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Solution

Why not just rename the category to include escorts?--Tbeatty 18:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be too easy. What would we argue about? Crockspot 18:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
To something like "Courtesans, prostitutes, and escorts?" We'd have to take it to WP:CFD, of course, but I find this an acceptable (and ingenious) compromise. Gamaliel 18:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
List of famous prostitutes and courtesans should probably also be moved to a new similarly modified name. There will certainly still be disputes about how the information is presented here and in several other articles, (ie. instances of "prostitute" changed to "escort" would be my preference), but I think I would be satisfied with this solution, and it would reduce the liability of the foundation. Crockspot 20:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
First we should ask some people with greater linguistic than me if courtesan and escort are not semantically equivalent. To my eye they are. Guy 20:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
"Courtesans, escorts or prostitutes" would be my choice. Semantically I think they are all euphemisms with same connotations. Appealing to my geek side, I would change "and" to "or" since logically we only need one category to be true for inclusion. "and" implies all categories (even though most readers would not notice the difference of whether its "and" or "or"). "Prostitute" is probably the most problematic as it connotates a crime but it's already there so existing list members were either courtesans or prostitutes. I don't know if there is a class of "escorts" that would be greatly offended if they were included in a list of prostitutes and courtesans? Is it okay to lump in people not accused of a crime with people who are (i.e. guilt by association?). Is it different for living vs. dead people? I think that's a larger question that hasn't been answered yet. I'll post in WP:BLP forum to see what people think. I think we also need to be careful that "escort" should be some sort of profession and not simply someone who escorts another. Considering we could source Chelsea Clinton as a Presidential escort for Bill Clinton[11], while high on the entertainment value, it wouldn't add to the list as intended (at least I hope not). --Tbeatty 06:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Can you post a link to this discussion you have initiated? I can't seem to find it. Gamaliel 18:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm replacing the category. When the name change discussion, whereever it is, is concluded and a new name is agreed upon, a bot will update all the relevant articles. Gamaliel 17:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
So have you done anything at all to implement your proposed compromise? Will you? Or will you just revert? Gamaliel 18:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I proposed the solution that would be acceptable and that was to expand the category. If you think it's that important to have the category expanded so that it fits Gannon, I will not revert. But until the category is expanded to include "escorts" it doesn't apply to him and I will revert according to WP:BLP. --Tbeatty 03:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
So you never had any intention of acting on your proposal or even informing anyone of that fact. I don't know why I'm surprised, that's the kind of collaboration I should have expected from you. Gamaliel 04:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Read it. I proposed it as a question. Why didn't you follow up? WHy do you continue to revert when you know that there is no consensus for the addition of the category (not to mention a WP:BLP violation)? Why have you not proposed the change as WP:CFD as you said you would? And please assume good faith and leave the snide remarks off of wikipedia. --Tbeatty 04:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I did assume good faith, that's the whole point. I expected you to act on your proposal after you said you initiated discussion. But you failed to act upon it or even answer questions about it posted here, and when you get called on it you start throwing out the acronym soup and accusing me of saying things I never said. So I was wrong to assume good faith in this case because you are acting like you always do. I'd be glad to leave the snide remarks at home once you start actually collaborating instead of wikilawyering. Gamaliel 04:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I expected you to file the CFD when you said We'd have to take it to WP:CFD,. Why didn't you? I am not wikipawyering. As far as I can tell, I am the only one who did anything on it. You are the one who wants the category added. I proposed a solution that you agreed would work and you proposed the venue. Follow up on it. Stop trying to blame others for what you haven't done. We are not here to simply do your bidding. --Tbeatty 05:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I just saw your request for where the comment was requested. I didn't realize the User contribution button wasn't working correctly. One is here and another is here.--Tbeatty 05:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I didn't "propose a venue", I pointed out to you the fact that that was the only way to change categories according to Wikipedia rules. Had I any idea you wouldn't actually act on your proposed category change, I would have take it to CFD ten days ago. I made a request on CFD yesterday. If you had kept up with the discussion here, instead of only returing when someone makes an edit you don't like, we could have had the solution implimented by now. Instead you ignore my question about where all this discussion was going on and attack me for not participating in a discussion I can't find! It's rich that you try to attack me for not doing something when it is you who have failed to act on your proposal or even let anyone know that you weren't going to act on it. Others could have easily done the work you refused to do if only you had bothered to tell anyone. Gamaliel 13:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Why do you still think people should do your work for you? Why didn't you file the CfD? I offered YOU a solution to YOUR problem. Why did you wait 8 days to look for the CfD or even ask about it? You are the one who seems to think this person needs to be in a category and I thought you would be more proactive in getting it handled especially since you said you would take it to CfD. Stop complaining about other people not doing the work YOU want and stop edit warring before the necessary work is done. It's not productive.--Tbeatty 00:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
It's idiotic of you to say I want people to do work for me when I already submitted the change to CfD. You are the one who has proposed a solution and then failed to act upon it or even have the common courtesy of telling other people that you would not. This is par for the course for you, refusing to participate in collaborating or discussion then rushing back to the article when someone makes an edit you don't like. You attack people for not using the discussion pages but you only bother using them when it furthers your own interest and don't feel you have to do any actual work that doesn't promote your ideological viewpoint. And then you have the chutzpah to attack me for supposedly (and incorrectly) wanting you to do "my" work to address "my" problem, when it is actually the encyclopedia's work and the encyclopedia's problem, but those things don't interest you unless they coincide with your agenda. That's nothing new, but now you're just outright lying about things I've supposedly said because you can't own up to the fact that you have no sincere interest in genuine collaboration. Gamaliel 05:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh please. I came up with the compromise. I initiated two discussions on the change in separate venues. You proposed the CfD here and didn't follow up with it and now you want to blame me. Whatever. And now you mischaracterize and lie about my edits and my character because I don't follow your POV warrior mentality. I have no interest in your version of "collobaration" which involves defaming subjects of articles and pushing your political viewpoint into every article. You can review what you said and it indicated to me that you would file the CfD. So go do it. I personally don't think he needs to be in ANY list but it isn't a policy violation if the list is changed so I won't oppose it. Come back when/if it passes. Stop edit warring and insulting other editors. --Tbeatty 05:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Here's what you seem to think I'm lying about. Why would you expect me to take it to CfD when you a) proposed taking it there and b) came up with the new name? --Tbeatty 06:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Because it was a proposal you initiated and you said you had begun discussion on it elsewhere. Wow, why on earth would I expect that to mean you would be acting on your proposal? Silly me, what was I thinking. If you had the common courtesy to follow up on talk page discussion instead of ignoring it until changes are made to the article you don't like, which is something I've seen you do again and again on numerous articles, if you had just said "I won't be acting on this at all, but here is what I think other people should do", then other people would have acted on your proposal for you, as I have already done. Instead you claim I want you do to "my" work. Talk page discussion should be the work of every Wikipedian; it's not some onerous task that is being thrust upon you by me. You talk a good game of bringing up policies, but you ignore them when it suits you and don't pay any attention to the spirit of them at all. You claim I want to "push my political viewpoint into every article", which is of course bullshit that you don't bother providing any evidence for, and then whine about me insulting you after that ridiculous accusation. That's rich coming from someone whose idea of enforcing BLP is sanitizing the articles of conservative activists like this one but pushing smears from the Swift Boaters as factual sources in the John Kerry article. Gamaliel 16:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I have a solution, why don't you both hold your breath and stamp your feet until one of you turns blue first, then the other can declare himself "Teh Winnah!". Crockspot 18:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prostitute category again

The name change has been rejected. The editor who proposed the compromise didn't even bother to participate, and the only other editor here who did voted against it. So here we are again. I would have much preferred the compromise, but such is life. I don't feel that I have any other choice but to restore the category. Gannon advertised himself as a prostitute and has been reported as such in multiple reliable mainstream media sources. It would be POV to sanitize this article to pretend he was not a prostitute. If you object to the reinsertion of the category I suggest you propose another compromise or seek mediation because I don't see any other solution if the factual integrity of this article is to be maintained. Gamaliel 16:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It is quite clear in the article that Gannon ran an advertisement as an escort. There is no "sanitization" of that verifiable fact. However, there is no verifiable information showing that he ever was arrested or convicted of prostitution, or even that he engaged in prostitution, or even ever had any customers as an escort. Applying this category to this subject is an extremely blatant violation of WP:BLP, and I am removing it. Crockspot 17:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Advertisements selling his wares as a prostitute, which have been linked to him with undisputed evidence presented by mainstream media sources, is more than sufficient verifiable information. I am restoring the category as well as adding a POV tag to the article. Gamaliel 17:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
In the interest of avoiding an edit war, I will hold for today (at least). The POV tag is fine, as it should give a little more visibility to the disagreement we have here. Crockspot 17:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I also posted some RFCs. Gamaliel 17:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I had a little bit of an issue with your wording on the three RFC's, so I tacked the following onto the end: "correction by another editor - The advertisement was for an "escort" not a "prostitute". ~~~~~ " Also starting an RfC section below. Crockspot 18:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC on "prostitutes and courtesans" category

  • I have made many arguments, all of them well founded (in my opinion) in Wikipedia policy and the law of libel and slander, especially "libel, per se". I don't wish to repeat them, but most are on this page, and in the Gannon section of WP:BLPN. I very strongly believe that use of the category violates WP:BLP Crockspot 18:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oooh this is a tough one. Is a person who has placed an ad for prositution (escort, courtesan, whatever, if your getting paid for sex you're a prostitute) a prostitute even though no one answered the ad? I can see both sides of the disussion. If you hold yourself out as something (in placing an ad), you really can't complain when someone calls you it. However, under WP:BLP since there was never a criminal prosecution for it, I would hesitate to use the category. But I really am on the fence. The other issue is, is this categorization of Guckert necessary to Wikipedia? Would anyone notice if he is not listed in this category? Ramsquire 18:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
"Wikipedia uses categories as an aid to the reader. They are not intended to be information in themselves, but are useful in finding information."

-[12]. It is well-established the man offered his services of companionship in return for other value ($$) and that is what the category covers. To argue that since he was never convicted of it means he wasn't - well, that's just silly. The category is simply consistent with the article text.

Please sign your edits. It may be silly to you, but WP:BLP does require extra scrutiny for things like this. No one is questioning whether he offered his services for money. If you can verify that he did in fact exchange sex for money, this dispute would go away. Placing an ad proclaiming yourself a hit man does not make you a murderer, or even a hit man in fact. Ramsquire 19:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that Guckert appears to be at least an attempted prostitute, but the relevant section of BLP seems clear -- he hasn't been convicted or pleaded guilty, so I don't think the category applies. TheronJ 20:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Who said anything about conviction? The idea that one can only describe as a prostitute someone who has been convicted of an offence is straight original research. Christine Keeler is described as a courtesan - no indication she was ever convicted of anything. Sarah Bernhardt was a courtesan but not a prostitute. The term courtesan is an old-fashioned one and is used by several people in the escort industry to describe what they do. Guy 20:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmmm. Maybe I wasn't clear. If Guckert admitted being a prostitute or courtesan, that would probably meet the WP:BLP#Use_of_categories example also, but he hasn't. Certainly, the Category:Criminals example offered is very, very, very conservative.
  • Also, I don't see what original research has to do with WP policies and guidelines, particularly when the policy in question explicitly says "for example." If OR forbids me from extrapolating from an "example," there is probably something wrong. TheronJ 21:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP I think we have to treat this very conservatively. First, there's the chance that nobody actually hired him. Then, naive as it may sound, offering services as an escort is only a well-known euphemism for prostitution. WP:V forbids reasonable inferences. If Wikipedia had a category called, People who offered their services as escorts then he'd fit into that. Based on the current evidence we can't actually take the next step and say he's been a prostitute. Durova 20:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree with a conservative interpretation of WP:BLP in this case. If Gannon has not been convicted or pled to what he is accused, we should not categorize him as if he had. Abe Froman 20:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Being a courtesan is not an offence. Never was. Being an escort is semantically equivalent to being a courtesan. Guy 20:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Saying a prostitute or courtesan is not breaking any law is either semantics or applying an outdated definition to the current world. Defining Gannon in the Prostitute and Courtesan category is not approriate, given he has never been convicted of any related offense. Mentioning the fact that Gannon had extracurricular habits on the internet is a matter of record. Categorizing him as a sex worker is another matter entirely. Abe Froman 21:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Has the definition of courtesan been expanded to include men, and customers who are not in higher classes of society? If it hasn't then Gannon isn't a courtesan, and the debate should center on whether he should be categorized as a prostitute. And the question of is someone who wants to be a prostitute, but can't get any clients, still a prostitute? Ramsquire 21:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Assuming the use of courtesan for an escort is appropriate, we may need to split the category, as it could be considered perjorative for an escort who is living. Would we have a category of "Drivers and Drink Drivers"? In any case, without good evidence that he was actually engaged as an escort - it comes down to being pedantic. Find the reliable source that verifies he actually was an escort rather than merely someone who advertized his services. We can't make the leap ourselves, especially not for a living person. --Siobhan Hansa 21:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
In regards to the name of the category, I proposed it be changed to "Courtesans, prostitutes, and escorts". The change was rejected on the grounds that escorts (who just sell their time and companionship, of course) and prostitutes should be kept seperate as the latter was clearly an illegal activity. But should we not then separate courtesans and prostitutes as well? I don't see why we can't include Gannon as a courtesan, or should we propose that the category include both female prostitutes and escorts, but only male prostitutes and not escorts? Gamaliel 21:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Why not just create a new category called "Notable Escorts"?Ramsquire 21:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't address the issue of courtesans vs. escorts. Perhaps split c/p up and pair c/e together? Gamaliel 21:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
That may be a good compromise position.Ramsquire 21:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Regardless, Gannon cannot go into a Notable Escorts category unless there is good evidence his services as an escort were used. As far as I'm aware the evidence on that is all speculation and assumption isn't it? --Siobhan Hansa 22:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Well that's just ridiculous. First the problem was that we couldn't call him a prostitute because he advertised as an escort. Now the problem is that we can't call him an escort despite the unrefuted evidence that he advertised himself as such. There is no "speculation" or "assumption" involved here. Gamaliel 22:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
There are two issues intertwined here. Most of the current objections, to me, seemed to be based on the fact that Guckert hasn't been convicted of prostitution so to categorize him as a prostitute would violate WP:BLP. That is a valid position. But if we were to split the category to allow for escorts to be included, the Category:Criminals argument would have been dealt with to a large extent. However, I think we would still have to consider if categorizing Guckert as an escort is synthesizing information and original research.Ramsquire 22:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
What original research? He posted advertisements! Gamaliel 23:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
That's my earlier question. If someone holds himself out as something, and (let's assume) get's no takers, can we give him the label without the verifiable proof that he went all the way? That was the point of the hit man analogy. Are you a hit man once you place the ad saying you are, or do you have to commit the hit? Ramsquire 23:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Let me try to pose the question another way: Do we have a reason not to take Gannon at his word? By posting the advertisements, he is essentially testifying "I am an prostitute/escort/courtesan/whatever". To assert that he is not would require evidence to the contrary, and to have the article assert that he was not an escort without such evidence is original research. Gamaliel 23:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't going to argue in this RfC, but since you are arguing every point, I must get this in. When questioned about these activities by the reliable source reporters, Gannon refused to address the issue. He still refuses to address the issue. He has made no public admission that he is a prostitute. No one is suggesting that the article state that he is NOT a prostitute either. That would be just as much a drawing of a conclusion as calling him a prostitute, when we do not have enough reliable secondary source info upon which to base EITHER conclusion. I have never had a problem with the RS sources stating that he ran these ads being in the article, or the RS editorials that call him a prostitute. I have no problem if someone reads that, and concludes for themself that he is a prostitute. I DO have a problem with Wikipedia concluding that he is a prostitute, by putting him in a category as a prostitute, or having various articles refer to him as "Jeff Gavin, male prostitute", because at that point, Wikipedia is editorializing, drawing a conclusion, publishing original research, or however you choose to describe it. Wikipedia does not make conclusions. Wikipedia only reports the conclusions of others, in an encyclopedic way. Saying "Joe Blow of the Washington Post called Gannon a prostitute.(citation" is encyclopedic. Saying "Jeff Gannon is a prostitute" is synthesis. Crockspot 23:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, there is compelling evidence that he was an escort - in other words, a courtesan. Guy 21:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Giving the right side some relief. No, we don't have anything but the ads and his "explanation" of "mistakes" "in the past". The article should not assert he wasn't an escort without proof, but to categorize him as such would be to take a side on a dispute with limited evidence. It is verified that Gannon held himself out as an escort. It is not verified that he conducted himself as one (outside of placing the ad). To call him an escort on that may, and I repeat, may, be synthesis. I really don't know. Ramsquire 23:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Offering your services as an escort makes you an escort. As an analogy, alleged prostitutes are jailed all the time based on solicitation, without any evidence whatsoever that the act has ever occurred. The issue of whether he actually had any clients is tangential. He solicited clients, and under any reasonable definition, that makes him an escort. Certainly part of the controversy about Gannon centered on this aspect, so it seems notable enough to include. I have no position on whether escorts, courtesans, and prostitutes should be separated. Derex 23:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Solicitation of prostitution is itself a crime. It requires the description of an overt sex act to be performed, and an agreed upon price for those services. Crockspot 23:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and that's why he's being listed as an escort and not a prostitute. Derex 00:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that hasn't happened yet. It was a suggestion made to create that category. Right now the category is "Courtesans and Prostitutes" hence the debate. Ramsquire 00:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Two issues with Derex comment. Does offering myself as a hockey player to a hockey team makes me a hockey player? Or do I have to suit up and play to get that descriptor? The second issue is not whether the info should be in the article. It is and it belongs there. The issue is whether Wiki should put Gannon in the category based solely on what is in the article, or do we need more, e.g. reliable sources that verify that Gannon actually conducted himself as an escort. Ramsquire 23:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Does being licensed to practice law make you a lawyer? Yes, even if you don't actually practice. Did he _describe_ himself or his services to be those of an escort? I don't know, but if so he is a self-described escort. Derex 00:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Different ballgame, you have to pass a series of exams and meet licensing requirements to become a lawyer. If he was registered in Nevada as an escort... Argument over... he's an escort!!! But as we know from all the phony expert cases, placing an ad is not the same as receiving a license. Ramsquire 00:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

And to become an escort, you only have to place an advert on an escort site. A weaker standard than the bar perhaps, but the point is that he invested effort in becoming an escort, just like a lawyer invests effort in passing the bar.

At any rate, we can argue analogies forever without getting anywhere. My main question is did he describe himself or his services as those of an escort? If so, he's a self-described escort. Period. Derex 01:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

That may be your question, but the RfC was about whether the category can be used. I still think it's a violation of WP:BLP. I don't think you can say in the article "He is an escort" so I don't think you can put him in a category of "escort". --Siobhan Hansa 01:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
If he's a self described escort (is he?), why wouldn't he belong in the escort category? That makes absolutely no sense. Derex 02:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
That's the thing - as far as I can tell from the article. He isn't. At least not confirmed. It seems that all this arguing is about making the jump that the bloggers and papers made. Which is fine for speculation and sensationalism. But it's not verifiable in a reliable fashion. And for WP:BLP we need to be strict about that.--Siobhan Hansa 02:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


Factiva search produces 84 major media references to "Jeff Gannon" and "prostitute", even stricter terms "male prostitute" + "gay prostitute" produces about 50. Obviously the press doesn't miss the point.

Review WP:BLP#Use_of_categories:

  • The article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced.
done
  • The subject publicly self-identifies
done, even if he may not admit it directly, he can't, and doesn't, deny his previous actions
  • relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life
Obviously so, as that is what the media zeroes in on right away.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.184.138.132 (talk) .
  • "Gannon was offering his escort services for $200 an hour, or $1,200 a weekend."Washington Post
  • "Gannon did not dispute evidence that he has advertised himself as a $200-an-hour gay escort"Washington Post
  • "Guckert, who posed reliably friendly questions to administration officials, had recently offered his services online as a gay male escort," Salon
  • "Gannon owned and advertised his services as a gay escort on more than half a dozen websites with names like Militarystud.com, MaleCorps.com, WorkingBoys.net and MeetLocalMen.com, which featured dozens of photographs of "Gannon" in dramatic naked poses."The Guardian (UK)
  • "a former male escort" Vanity Fair
  • "a background as an on-line escort" MSNBC

I think there's not a serious argument to be made that Gannon hasn't been roundly described in the media as an escort. It's not our job to determine whether he actually was, because that's orginal research. If you really are concerned about some far-fetched legal action, simply change the category description (not name) to "people who have been widely described as escorts or alleged to be escorts" That's surely the safer course anyway for all members of the category, and the one consistent with Wikipedia principles. Category is appropriate. Derex 03:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Since the rename to include "escorts" failed, it's clear that the community wants a distinction between escorts and prostitutes. If the people who think categorization is that important, why don't you create a category called "Escorts" or "Gay Escorts". --Tbeatty 04:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

That seems fine to me. It's fairly obvious to anyone sentient that he turned tricks, but that's not citeable. Derex 04:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
RFC follow-up: I could live with categorizing him as an escort, given the press coverage. Durova 05:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out a couple of things: a Google search of "Bush" and "Hitler" returns a whopping 12,300,000 hits. Does that prove that Bush is Hitler? Secondly, all of this discussion about a non-existant category of escorts is sort of beside the point. My problem is that if you go to the Gannon article and click on "what links here", you will find other articles where Gannon is referred to as a prostitute, male prostitute, or gay prostitute. I have removed those references in the past, only to have them reverted by the caller of this RfC. I don't have a problem referring to him as an escort. But "prostitute" is basically calling him a criminal, when there has never been any criminal action against him. It's just wrong. Crockspot 12:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like there has been some cleanup on those pages. I found two "prostitute" statements remaining, (Americablog and Talon News) which I changed to "gay escort" or "male escort", depending on what was there. I cited BLP and this RFC in the edit summaries. Crockspot 14:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
For the record I reverted you because you were removing all record of the incident at all from these articles, including usage of the word "escort" which you don't seem to find objectionable now. Gamaliel 17:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
At that time, I was only following the requirements of WP:BLP, which called for the removal of unsourced or poorly sourced negative claims without discussion. It was specified that it was not the remover's responsibility to "fix" the claims, only to remove them. My edits today only changed prostitute to escort, to better reflect the sourcing. On a related note, today while making the above edits, I ran across a couple of instances of Matt Drudge "being gay", the "sourcing" merely mentioning the names of the publications where this information supposedly came from, but no real citations. I don't feel it is my job to hunt through a half dozen publications searching for articles that might not exist, so I just removed them. I did mention in the edit summary that the info could be put back if proper citations could be found. But as far as I can tell, the only "proof" that Matt Drudge is gay is that he has been seen in gay bars. I was a well-known regular at a gay bar for several years (even filled in as a go-go dancer a few times), and I am certainly not gay, so I don't see that as "proof" of anything other than maybe he isn't as "anti-gay" as he is painted to be. Crockspot 18:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
It is the responsibility of all editors to insure that articles are complete and accurate, not merely to police them for objectionable items. If you didn't feel like doing the research, the proper thing to do in that instance would be to use the article talk page to bring the matter to the attention of other editors so they could do the research. Gamaliel 18:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Not according to Jimbo's own words. This is why I get so frustrated with you. You are frequently telling me that I should be doing something that is in direct contradiction to official policy, and the founder's wishes. Crockspot 20:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Let me clarify. What I should have said to make my intent fully clear is: after you remove the material, use the article talk page to bring the matter to the attention of other editors so they could do the research. This is both perfectly in line with policy and with the responsibility of editors in a collaborative project. Gamaliel 20:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. But Jimbo and the policy both state "without discussion", and I felt that my edit summaries concisely stated the issue, and the solution to it. Technically, the information is to be removed from the discussion pages too, so it seems counter to the policy to be discussing the same information that is supposed to be removed. Anyway, we are straying way off of the RfC. Crockspot 20:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The potentially libelous information can be removed without prior discussion. That does not mean that there should be no followup discussion on the talk page regarding the appropriateness of including true information once it is properly sourced. Gamaliel 21:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, fair enough. I do try to do that when I have the time, and the info wasn't just recently added by a troll. Just didn't today. I try to keep it more general as to what the policy is, and not get into rehashing the specific claims. And while on BLP Patrol, you just don't have the time to do it (living bio edits average about one every six seconds), but most of that is vandalism and trolling that you're removing. Crockspot 22:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons states: "Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages." Wikipedia:Libel states that history pages shouldn't include the information, either: "It is Wikipedia policy to delete libellous revisions from the page history." So, in the Matt Drudge instance, the edit summary was fine; re-opening the isue on the article's talk page might have led to further problems. (In point of fact, the passage above might be better were it a little less specific: something along the lines of "I ran across a couple of instances of potentially defamatory information regarding Matt Drudge, the "sourcing" merely mentioning the names of the publications where this information supposedly came from, but no real citations.—Chidom talk  00:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC) JzG raises an interesting point above. What is the practical difference between an escort and a courtesan? Derex 22:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Courtesan's don't always get money for their services and they're clients are usually royalty or members of the higher classes of society. Otherwise it's about the same. Although not all escorts have sex with their clients, they always get paid. Ramsquire 22:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that courtesan is a more antiquated term, and is included to refer to more historical figures. See List of famous prostitutes and courtesans. Crockspot 22:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Gamaliel has created a new category, escorts, and applied it to the article. I am willing to work with that, but I had a small issue. The category had no description, and contained the category "sex workers". I removed sex workers, and added the following description:

"This category is for persons who have offered or advertised their companionship for a monetary fee. Escorts may or may not be involved in sex work.

Someone reverted back to the old category, but I have put it back to Gamaliel's last edit. I think we may have a compromise, if my changes to the category will be acceptable. Crockspot 19:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Some escorts are sex workers and thus it belongs in that category. Also note the following occupations in Category:Sex workers which may not necessarily involve intercourse: Session wrestlers, Dominatrices, Groupies. Gamaliel 20:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
However, some escorts are not sex workers. For example, it is not uncommon for an elderly woman to hire a gentleman escort to accompany her to a function, dance, etc.; gay men have also been known to hire an escort to attend a party or other function. To assume that there is sex involved is just that—an assumption, and a potentially dangerous one, certainly an inappropriate one (as are most assumptions, actually).
It seems that the same issue presents here. Because there is a clear disclaimer on the Category:Escorts page, I think the problem is solved as to the categorization.
The larger issue, however, hasn't been resolved—that of including potentially defamatory information. What it boils down to is the quality of the source(s) used. In an instance of this nature, I'd much rather see more references from better sources than have been provided, but I like to err on the side of caution.
Additionally, per the portion of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy that bars potentially defamatory material being posted on Wikipedia, if the sourcing is questionable (again, I'd err on the side of caution here), that material shouldn't appear on this page, either.—Chidom talk  00:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
There are plenty of major media sources stating he was an escort. Look up a bit, I provide about 5 in this discussion. Also, I wonder if it would be fair use to post a screenshot of his escort advert, without comment, and let readers draw their own inferences as to what he was offering.[13] Derex 02:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not worried about claims that he was an escort; that's established. I was referring to the allegations about the services he provided as an escort. Letting readers "draw their own conclusions" isn't encylopedic; the purpose is to inform, not to "tantalize". (Not the best word, but can't think of a better one right now—having a major vocabulary gap moment.)—Chidom talk  02:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
What could be more neutral or informative than simply showing the webpage? No spin, no commentary, no interpretation. Any other description of what the page does or doesn't say is simply someone's interpretation of it. If we truly wanted to "inform" in any other sense, we'd say he's turning gay tricks for cash, because that's obviously what he was doing. We can't make that interpretation though, so why interpret at all? Derex 02:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
There is a verifiability issue with the screen shot, since it is posted on a blog. I also have a problem really reading or seeing anything on the one you posted above, but maybe that is just the example. Are there any active web advertisements? Because frankly, I have yet to see one. I don't doubt that they existed, but I just havn't been able to find any. Crockspot 03:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I very much doubt he still has any up. I suppose one might quibble with the verifiability of that screenshot. It is true though, because many people independently checked it against the web-site (which was still up when that came out). I did see a full-size shot of one at the time, and basically it left no doubt about what he had in mind, without being legally specific enough for a solicitation bust. I wonder if archive.org has a shot of this, or was it behind a pay-wall? Derex 03:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
By verifiability, I also mean, was it verified that they were actually Gannon's ads, and how were they verified? Even if we had the ad, did it say "Jeff Gannon" or "James Guckert", or was there a jeffgannon.com email address, or an address known and verified as his? Was independend facial recognition software run on the photos? I know I'm pushing to the extreme here, but this is what is meant in WP:BLP by high quality verifiable sources. The ad itself would be considered a primary source, which should not be used without a secondary source to verify it in these cases of negative info about a living person. Crockspot 03:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
If you reduce the url to just the americablog.blogspot portion (rather than the Google archive url) the screen shot shows larger; but it's still not very readable: Screen shot; the person depicted could be almost anyone.—Chidom talk  03:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
The fellow who designed the webpage says it's him. The pic is also clearly him, anyway. If you want to be super-careful, simply state that this some have "alleged" that this is his web-page. I'm signing off now though, because I don't actually care whether Gannon screws Santorums, turtles, or anything else for $200. Derex 03:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but how was the identity and claim of the web designer verified and vetted? Bada BING! :0 Crockspot 04:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Background and controversy

I moved some of the controversy-related material out of the background section, and into the controversy section, where it belongs. It needs to be a little more smoothly integrated into the flow of the section. I also sourced his fraternity membership, removed the part where he claims to have been a marine, because I could not find a source for that, and tried to reword the part about working for the Blade so that it is a little more ambiguous, since a reliable source for his firing cannot be found. "Has worked" opposed to "does work" semantically is accurate, even if he has been fired. I have another article to tend to, so that's it for tonight here. Crockspot 02:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I like Chidom's rewording of the Blade part even better. Crockspot 03:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Um, thanks, but I didn't reword the Blade part at all; kudos need to go elsewhere. I just used a different citation template to reference the alumni association minutes.—Chidom talk 
I'll take those, thanks. Derex 03:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad. I'm going blind from inline citation templates. Crockspot 04:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On the other hand....

I'm surprised to find no mention in Wikipedia of Rich Merritt, author of Secrets Of A Gay Marine Porn Star (Merritt, Rich, Secrets of a Gay Marine Porn Star, Kensington Publishing Corporation, 2005-06-05, ISBN 0758209681, Amazon.com); who served in the Marines during the Clinton years.—Chidom talk  03:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Why? Is the book or the man notable in some way? Derex 03:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Creating the article is only a click away. But does this have anything to do with Gannon? Crockspot 03:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I know the article is "only a click away"; I'm just surprised it hasn't been started by someone else. Yes, I think he is notable. The only thing it has to do with Gannon is some similarities between their stories—consequences of being a closeted gay, "off-duty" activities, etc.—Chidom talk  04:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

There appears to be reasonable doubts that Gannon was ever in the Marines. I also couldn't find any reliable source for him claiming that he was, that's why I just removed any mention of it. Crockspot 04:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I mean is he notable for something other than being a gay marine porn star, not that there's anything wrong with that :) You mentioned Clinton, which made me wonder if there was a connection there somewhere. He seems to have been a Marine Captain, which is not a particularly high rank (unlike in the Navy). Derex 04:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Rather than repeat all the info here, watch for an upcoming article. I'm trying to get it "ready for primetime".—Chidom talk  15:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blogs

Why are we citing to blogs in this article -- they violate WP:RS?!? Morton devonshire 02:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

RS does allow some blogs to be used, for example, Gannon's own blog in an article about him, and the blogs of RS organizations, like a WaPo blog entry by one of their reporters. - Crockspot 15:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Journalist/media career

Yakuman changed "journalist" heading to "media career", as being POV. May be splitting hairs here, but he was actually a journalist for the Blade. But since the section encompasses more than just the Blade, I am inclined to leave that change in place. - Crockspot 15:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/e/f/Talk%7EJeff_Gannon_f969.html"