Talk:Jeff Gannon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

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

Contents

[edit] Occupation/Prostitution

I changed the opening to be a bit more in accord with other wikipedia biographies which list the subjects various professions near the begining. I also put explicit reference to Gannon's career, or would be career, as a prostitute as I think that's important to the scandal.

- And I changed it back, because whatever you think of the man, your (and my) political beliefs don't belong in here.  Has he actually attempted to become a prostitute in the literal sense?  If so, cite evidence.  If not, keep your opinion to yourself.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.241.156 (talk) 00:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[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)
You MUST describe or edit the bias. Please don't waste time with silly complaints. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.84.220.32 (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2007 (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."

Stating that Gannon stayed overnight at the White House is a leap to a conclusion, not a statement of fact!! <signed SDTH)

[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]

I removed this link last week, because it violates WP:EL, being a wiki, and NPOV, being that their editorial policy is stated to be POV. - Crockspot 18:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[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.

This is a fallcious argument and is inherently false. The "liberal bias" of the media must be proven. There is no reason to assume it. Further, a balance of conservative and liberal views is not neutrality. In order for that to be the case, the analyses must be factually correct and verifiable. For example, conservative attempts to insist that the Gannon scandal is a "non-story" is fallacious and there is therefore no need to include. Opposing views must have integrity and the facts must be verifiable. This is the same reason why Biology books don't give equal time to Creationists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.84.220.32 (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

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)

Talon News does NOT redirect to Gannon's web site. Please give accurate information. 70.251.162.103 05:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You're commenting on a two year old post, and he's talking about the wiki articles, not the websites. - Crockspot 05:34, 29 March 2007 (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?

Without trying to give credence to the Gannon-Gosch conspiracy, the Cannonfire article hardly debunks it. All it says is that the main reason to disbelieve it is that Ted Gunderson (an ex-FBI agent) believes it. Tom

[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)

Gannon/Guckert has strongly implied that he is bisexual. --SDTH

[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)

You are 100% right. If Guckert was a Clinton toadie asking softball questions to Bill, and had questionable visits/overnight stays in the White House, there is no question that Clinton would have been removed from office. No question whatsoever. Look, Clinton was impeached and nearly thrown out of office---saved by ONE vote---over the laughable Monica affair that nobody but the right-wing, frothing-at-the-mouth Clinton-hating dittohead zealots cared about. Bush lies us into an illegal war and extended occupation of a nation that never attacked us nor was planning to, causing thousands of American servicemen and women deaths and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths? Deliberately flauts the Geneva Conventions? Maintains half of Clinton's approval rating for over 2 years now? No problem, apparently. Right-wing Republicans and Neo-cons are so hypocritical it's not even funny! BobCubTAC 23:46, 1 October 2007 (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)

Well what constitutes a reliable source? Gosch's mother (Noreen Gosch) is making this claim that she is fairly sure but not certain. So is ex-FBI agent Ted Gunderson. Rusty Nelson, who was a photographer in the Franklin Coverup says they are the same person. Bonacci, who was also involved in the Franklin coverup says they are the same person. I don't see why they don't just use facial recognition software like they use in Vegas or London, that would solve the issue once and for all.

El Juche (talk).

Well what constitutes a reliable source? Read reliable sources. Certainly include the Gosch information if the claims can be supported by reliable sources. If Noreen Gosch, Ted Gunderson, Rusty Nelson and Bonacci make claims, then just make sure their quotes come from reliable sources. Kingturtle (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2008 (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)
Just wanted to add something. Some people seem to be thinking you have to be convicted to be in the sex workers category. This of course doesn't make sense since it isn't a crime in a number of countries. Nil Einne 14:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Prostitution is illegal in the United States (except in certain locations), and that is where the subject lives, so WP:BLP requires a conviction before calling him a prostitute. We've been through this dispute last summer, I believe. The dispute was particularly over the use of the Prostitutes category. We came to a compromise in using the Escorts category, which I believe is a subcat of Sex Workers. Sex Workers do not necessarily engage in illegal activity, even where prostitution per se is illegal, so that is a compromise that I was willing to accept. - Crockspot 19:58, 10 May 2007 (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)

[edit] Reinserted deleted item (but edited, and with a "citation needed" notice)

The following line was recently removed from the article:

However, other journalists felt that there was nothing unusual about this question, since there are so many opinionated, antagonistic questions asked by liberal journalists.

The justification for removing this line, I believe, was the inherent bias of the statement. However, since this is a useful bit of information if true, and since most of the bias lies in the use of the phrase "liberal journalists," I reinserted the statement, though I added a {{fact}} template and replaced "liberal" with "other." Of course, as per Wikipedia policy, if the statement isn't referenced soon, it should probably be removed completely again. Jeff Silvers 22:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a useful bit of information if true, but it's a misleading piece of spin if it's not true. If someone has a citation from an actual journalist making this argument, let's use that citation -- but as it is, it smells to me like what armchair quarterback wants the viewpoint of "other journalists" to be, rather than something which actually originated with those other journalists. It's a judgment call, of course, but my judgment on this one would be to remove it and let the person who inserted it provide a citation to support it if one exists. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
That's why I made mention of the fact that it needs to be deleted unless somebody sources it soon. Jeff Silvers 22:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually have a problem with the whole paragraph. The Stewart statement should be sourced. That shouldn't be too hard, just write a basic cite with the date that it appeared on the show. The part about the liberal bloggers ridiculing him needs to be reliably sourced. If they are notable bloggers, that shouldn't be too hard either. If they are not notable bloggers, then who the hell cares, and why is it in the article? If that's gone, you don't really need the third part. If they both can be reliably sourced, that's another story. - Crockspot 04:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV violations and removals of cited information by Sdth aka 156.110.204.66

The edits by 156.110.204.66 (talk · contribs) (now acknowledged to be Sdth (talk · contribs)) are in complete violation of WP:NPOV and cannot be allowed to stand. Among the factual and cited information that Sdth has removed (this is by no means an exhaustive list):

  • Gannon/Guckert's famous question slammed Reid for comments about "soup lines" that in fact, Reid never said.
  • Gannon/Guckert got one-day passes to the White House on a regular basis for nearly two years despite a) those passes being very difficult to acquire even for legitimate news organizations and b) Gannon's "news organization" Talon News already being denied a Congressional press pass as not a legitimate and independent news service.
  • Gannon/Guckert presented himself as a "graduate of the Leadership Institute Broadcast School of Journalism." which was discovered to be a two day seminar for "conservatives who want a career in journalism."
  • Gannon/Guckert previously worked for homosexual escort services, offering his services for $200 an hour.

Among the biased language and dubious claims Sdth has inserted:

  • "Actual journalists were not concerned about this question." (Implying that anyone who was concerned about the "question" that falsely attributed comments to the Senate Minority Leader was not an "actual journalist.)
  • "Actual journalists, however, recognized that this question was not as deferential as those posed to the Clinton Administration." (Same implication that anyone who does not share this POV is not an "actual journalist".)
  • "It was later established that Richard Armitage leaked Plame's identity. However, it was also established that Plame was not undercover, nor was her employment with the CIA classified information." (Well, I guess somebody better inform Special Counsel Pat Fitzgerald, eh? How dare the Department of Justice special counsel declare that her employment with the CIA was classified [14] when Sdth says it wasn't?)
  • "Democratic Representatives", a factual designation, becomes "Partisan Democrat Representatives", a statement of Sdth's personal opinion.
  • "Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee" becomes "the liberal, highly partisan Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee", and we are 'treated' to the opinion that "Congresswoman Lee is known for her vitriolic, partisan attacks, and her extreme, left-wing views."
  • The attributed statement "Records appear to show that Gannon spent many nights in the White House and visited the White House on several days during which no press conference or other press events were held." is converted to "Records show nothing unusual about Gannon's White House visits, and these records are comparable to those of other White House correspondents." Needless to say, this is exactly what the cited reference does not support.

Sdth/156.110.204.66 must stop these edits, which clearly violate the policies of Wikipedia. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If Fitzgerald thought Plame was undercover, and that her employment with the CIA was classified, why didn't he prosecute Richard Armitage? Fitzgerald knew from early in the "investigation" that Armitage was the leaker. Do your homework. 70.251.162.103 05:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
"If Fitzgerald thought Plame was undercover, and that her employment with the CIA was classified, why didn't he prosecute Richard Armitage?" That's not our job to speculate on. See Wikipedia:No original research. Fitzgerald is a reliable source; you are not. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I literally laughed out loud at that bit of nonsense! Fitzgerald is a reliable source??? Give me a break!! 70.251.162.103 05:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
By Wikipedia's policies, the Department of Justice special counsel on the Plame case is a reliable source, especially about the Plame case. You as a reader can decide that you still don't believe what he has to say. But as a Wikipedia editor you are bound by Wikipedia policies, and you are not allowed to simply disregard the reliable sources on the matter and insert your own original research. And as previously stated to you, if you don't want to play by Wikipedia's rules, you sure don't have any right to use Wikipedia's resources. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

70.251.162.103 (talk · contribs) is also obviously the same editor. All three addresses have now been warned about the three-revert rule. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Sdth is now also using the address 12.149.178.247. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't know that. There are a number of us who are tired of your liberal rantings that you claim are factual. 12.149.178.247 05:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This Page Is Atrocious

What happened? This page previously contained information. Now it is filled with biased BS. "The highly partisan, liberal, vitriolic, extreme left-wing Rep. Lee." OH MY GOD. What is wrong with you people? Was this article written BY GUCKERT HIMSELF???? I DELETED the most obvious of the POV but there is much more to do. I will be watching this page and deleting anything that pops up that is even remotely as POV as that. In the meantime, where are the ACTUAL records of Guckert's visits to the White House? They used to be here. And it was obvious that they were somewhat unusual and he would sign in and NEVER sign out, or sign in and out at incongruous times, in the middle of the night. Instead of just SAYING "they showed nothing unusual," why don't we just put the logs back up on the page and leave it to the viewers of the page to draw their own conclusions. -Laikalynx 15:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is atrocious. Please look at the section immediately above to see why; so far as I can see it's been a single editor who's been violating Wikipedia policies left and right in an attempt to force Wikipedia to promote his bias. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Laikalynx and Antaeus Feldspar, it is YOU who are violating Wikipedia policies in an attempt to promote YOUR bias. Stick to the facts, please, and stop inserting your bias into the Guckert/Gannon article. And, no, I am not Guckert/Gannon. But thanks for the compliment! 12.149.178.120 05:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "had never had an article published"

User:Sdth recently inserted the following text in the article:

However, as is stated further down in this article, Guckert had previously come under criticism from liberal supporters of South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle for the way Guckert covered that campaign.

This is incorrect. As the word "previously" indicates, we are referring to a specific point in time, namely the White House press conference of February 28, 2003. The citation for Gannon's coverage of the Daschle campaign says that he began in the summer of 2003, which is obviously not "previous" to the White House press conference. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Antaeus Feldspar, you are correct this time. You are not often correct in the comments that you make, but I did make an error on dates, in reference to the above edit.

However, how do you and Gamaliel justify the biased opening statement about Jeff Gannon, when the erroneous "reason" is given that Gannon "came under public scrutiny, in particular for his lack of a significant journalistic background and involvement with various homosexual escort service websites using the professional name Bulldog"?? The correct reason is given later in the article under the "Controversy" section, but the casual reader is left with the erroneous impression that Gannon was scrutinized for his alleged lack of journalistic background, and his alleged involvement with various homosexual escort services. The correct reason is that liberal bloggers did not like the question he asked President Bush, and THEN they made the allegations about his background. Why can't you let ACCURATE revisions stand, instead of reverting back to this biased, erroneous opening statement?? Sdth 14:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Provide a reliable source for this assertion and then we can begin to discuss its potential inclusion. Until you do this, you are just pushing a POV. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 15:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Why are you so blind? The article already bears it out, and is well-documented that he came under scrutiny because he upset some who felt that he was deferential, so they began digging in his background. It is obvious that the statement as it is worded now, IS a POV, NOT documented fact. It is a malicious POV that needs to be changed into a neutral statement of fact. Sdth 16:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
If this is "well-documented", provide a source. It's very simple. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 16:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
You are contradictory. It already states it further down in the article, and is documented throughout the article. You're not making sense. The way it is currently worded is CONTRADICTORY!!! My revision simply made it consistent with what is documented in the article. Sdth 21:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The statement is accurate, whether you like it or not. What drew attention to Gannon/Guckert might have been his so-called "question", but what drew scrutiny once attention was on him was the fact that here was someone with incredibly weak journalistic credentials to go along with the incredibly weak journalistic ability that led him to report a joke by Rush Limbaugh as if it had actually happened, getting daily passes for two years into a venue for which many much more qualified journalists were turned down. Not to mention his side occupation in the sex industry. If it was a mistake by an otherwise competent journalist, it would have been forgotten quickly as a mistake by an otherwise competent journalist. It's the fact that Gannon was being treated as an otherwise competent journalist without being one that raised eyebrows. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Feldspar, your comments show your incredible blindness, caused by your obvious vitriolic hatred for Jeff Gannon. The statement is NOT accurate. The SCRUTINY began when people were upset by his question. You are presenting a POV, NOT fact, due to your extremely biased position. Sdth 16:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Have a nice day. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
As is typical of liberals when they are faced with the truth, they either have nothing more to say, or they fly into a rage. Fortunately, Feldspar chose to hold his peace at this point. Gamaliel said nothing more at all. At least they showed some intelligent thought by not speaking any more when faced with the truth! Sdth 06:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Or we figured out that you will never understand or comply with basic Wikipedia principles. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
You mean YOUR interpretation of Wikipedia principles.... twisted to fit your biased opinions. Any thinking, halfway intelligent person can see that this article is VERY biased, and very slanted against Mr. Guckert. You quote him and anyone who supports him, using terms like "claimed"; then when referring to anyone who critizes him, you use terms like "said," "pointed out", "stated", etc. That is NOT objective. Just because you are convinced in your mind that something is fact, does not make it fact. I know for a fact that Bill Clinton is the worst President we've ever had. I recognize, however, that that is my opinion, and could not say that about him in a factual article. YOU do not understand basic principles of objectivity. The entire Jeff Gannon/James Guckert article is extremely slanted, and gives quotes on one side, in order to convince the uninformed reader that James Guckert is a very bad person. Most of what is stated in this article is unproven accusations, and yet it is treated as if it were unquestioned fact. THAT is what I am trying to correct. I don't care if Guckert slept with every male in Washington, DC..... I just want the record to be presented factually and objectively. This article is NOT objective, and only partially factual. Therefore, I will continue to do my part to correct the record. Sdth 15:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Another glaring example of the lack of objectivity is the quote that said Guckert's question was "so friendly it might have been planted." That leaves in the reader's mind the idea that it was planted. All you have to say is that the question was considered too friendly. There is absolutely zero evidence that his question was planted, but as is typical with the dishonesty displayed by nearly all liberals, you plant the idea by quoting various people, without a shred of evidence. Sdth 15:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Among the principles of Wikipedia that you show yourself unwilling or unable to follow is civility. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Rebuke taken. I apologize for being sharp spoken. I spoke out of frustration for the lack of civility and objectivity shown to James Guckert. I will be civil. Will you show Mr. Guckert the same civility? Sdth 19:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

With regard to Guckert's question to President Bush, if you want to hear Guckert's side of the story, go to this link, which should be included in the article: http://www.interfacemediagroup.tv/nathans/shows/2007_0419_Jeff_Gannon/index.html

Guckert states that (contrary to the perception of his enemies) his question to President Bush was not actually friendly, but was trying to understand how the President could try to work with people (Democrats) who actually had no desire to work with the President. In other words, it made no sense to try to work with these people. The President had just be re-elected, with a stronger majority in Congress, so he should do the will of the people and ignore the naysayers on the Left, instead of this idea of working with the likes of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. It was NOT a friendly question. Sdth 16:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

So, if Bush believed that the Earth was flat, and Guckert had asked "why do you even try to work with people so divorced from reality they believe the Earth is round, or even believe like Harry Reid that the earth is cubical," that would not be more friendly than "how do you plan to work with people who disagree with you about the shape of the Earth?" Sorry, but just because you, Guckert and Bush all share a common prejudice against the left does not mean that it was acceptable journalistic practice for Guckert to ask a question that not only took that prejudice as "fact" but included provably false assertions in support of that prejudice. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
That did not even make any sense. The point Guckert was making is that President Bush had just been handed a strong victory, which was the voice of the American people endorsing his presidency and policies. With that in mind, why try to work with people who LIE about the economy, who have nothing but your destruction in mind? Guckert may have been mistaken about the soup lines satire, but he was right on point. There are reams of evidence to prove that the economy was (and still is) strong. The Left has very little to run on when the economy is strong, and when we face vicious enemies who would destroy us. So, as they have done for the last 2 1/2 years since Bush was re-elected, they spout all kinds of lies to destroy him. Feldspar, your comments make no sense. And as one well-known talking head has said, "liberalism is a mental disorder." Thus, you can't even reason with most liberals. Sdth 22:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] daily press passes for nearly two years

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2005/02/11/gannon/index_np.html =>

Jeff Gannon enjoyed unfettered access to White House briefings. He gained that access not by going through the normal full background check most journalists face when obtaining a "hard pass," the ultimate White House credential, but rather by getting day passes, which require only an abbreviated background check. According to one current member of the White House press corps, Gannon was the only reporter to skirt the rules that way, obtaining daily passes month after month for nearly two years. "Why did the White House circumvent the process for him?" asks the White House reporter.

Not feeling too well right now -- perhaps someone else will feel like integrating this into the article to clarify the unusual favoritism the White House was showing towards Guckert/Gannon. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah........more biased blathering from the left, who always take themselves way too seriously. Just because "news" has historically been controlled by newspapers and a few elites running the "brand-name" media, does not give them a monopoly on the news. You don't have to have a huge staff to publish news with the technological advances we have today. You're the same REGRESSIVE people who opposed the machines of the Industrial Revolution, and who opposed automobiles, because it wasn't done that way previously, and because supposedly it was creating unemployment. What lunacy!! Sdth 22:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV reversions by Antaeus Feldspar

I very carefully edited the opening comments about James Guckert/Jeff Gannon to be very objective and neutral. I even referenced the comment with documentation. Mr. "Feldspar" immediately reverted my edit, due to his extreme bias in this case. There is NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that is POV in my edit, yet he continues to revert my edits with knee-jerk reaction. If this continues, I will be reporting him to an administrator. Sdth 15:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There is plenty that is POV in your edit but at this point when you are willing to take the word of an unnamed "talking head" (your phrasing) that "liberalism is a mental disorder" to try and prove that it was not inappropriate for Guckert to "ask" the venomously partisan and factually inaccurate "question" that he did, there is little chance that you will ever be able to recognize the POV in your edit. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I did not take the word of an unnamed "talking head". I heard him say it, and was skeptical. My observations over the years, however, have led me to the conclusion that it truly is a mental disorder. Secondly, you have yet to show me anything that was POV in my latest edit, which was carefully tweaked from previous edits to be squeaky clean when it comes to lack of POV. I am also waiting for a response to my question above about your lack of civility toward Mr. Guckert. As for Guckert's question, YOU PERCEIVE that it was venomously partisan. The question was factually correct, except that he misunderstood Rush's satire of Harry Reid. Otherwise, the question was factually accurate. You seem to be unable to see the malice, venom, and fallacious intent in the Wikipedia article about Mr. Guckert. Sdth 18:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
From now on, please keep you opinions regarding the politcs and mental health of other editors to yourself and confine your comments to the contents of this article. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 19:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I side with Sdth in the issue of the lead, regardless of the mental state of Wikipedia editors or authors of sources. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, thank you for prolonging this dispute. This is ridiculous. You've reinserted a POV claim blaming the matter on "liberal bloggers" and for a "source" the link is to a video of Gannon himself. Don't you think there's a little WP:RS problem there? Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 19:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Gamaliel, the article already calls them "liberal bloggers" down under the "controversy" section of the articles. How can it be NPOV to call them liberal bloggers there, and POV to call them liberal bloggers in the opening statement??? As for quoting Guckert/Gannon himself, don't we have a RESPONSIBILITY to let him speak for himself on this issue if we are going to quote his detractors??? You do not make any sense whatsoever. Sdth 20:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
His point of view should be represented in this article, but he should not be used as a reliable source for statements of fact regarding the sources of opposition to himself. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 21:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • My two cents is that neither of the edits is truly NPOV, and both are misuing Wikipedia's voice. Pare it down to the verifiable facts, and attribute everything. I don't believe that anyone who knows who Gannon is is unbiased. People either despise him or love him. Let's not leave someone who has never heard of Gannon with either impression if they happen to read the article. It's subjects like this that seperate the rats from the snakes at Wikipedia (to steal a great quote from Survivor - Fiji). - Crockspot 19:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Crockspot, what would you do to make it NPOV? While I am an admitted fan of James Guckert, I would like the record to be fair and accurate, and truly NPOV. I'm open to feedback. I just know that the record as it stands is NOT NPOV. Sdth 20:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, what I mean by attribution is not to just cite a source, but to make the attribution in the content, so that it is not Wikipedia's voice being used. For example, where it says "in particular for his lack of a significant journalistic background", it would be more npov to state "in particular for what the Boston Globe characterizes as a lack of a significant journalistic background". There are reliable sources for both of the disputed edits, the problem stems, in my opinion, from which version Wikipedia's voice will be used to push. The correct answer is neither. There are two opposing viewpoints, so obviously Wikipedia cannot state either one as "the truth". Both should be presented, and attributed to sources other than Wikipedia. I happen to sympathize with your view, but I'm not going to wade into this dispute with my biases flying. - Crockspot 20:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I can totally agree with you, Crockspot. That is what I am trying to do: present both sides of the story, instead of this one-sided malarkey that presents the views of Guckert's detractors. But everytime I try to insert something to balance the article, I am immediately reverted by Gamaliel or Antaeus Feldspar, who seem to be obsessed with a pathological hatred for Guckert. Do you have any suggestions as to how we can get the record to be neutral, presenting both sides, without being immediately reverted by these two people? Sdth 20:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
"Pathological hatred"? Congratulations on your gift of telepathy. Now dial it back and deal with the article instead of attacking other editors. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 21:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
There could be no other explanation for yours and Feldspar's insistence that the article be presented in a negative POV, instead of sticking with objective NPOV. You are NOT fair at all. So what other explanation can you give for your lack of objectivity? You also failed to address the glaring contradictions in the article that I pointed out. Sdth 04:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
You can't expect other editors to address your concerns, no matter how legitimate, if you attack them while expressing those concerns. Been there. I haven't looked too carefully at this article in a while, so I'll try to take a closer look in the next couple of days. - Crockspot 04:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, here is a proper citation of the interview you want to use:

I've only watched the first segment, but it seems like it would be a useful source for this article. - Crockspot 04:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Crockspot. I know you are correct about attacking people. I'm just very frustrated because these two people have attacked me several times over the past few weeks. I should not respond in kind, I know!! Thanks for helping me to re-focus! Sdth 05:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Some of the sources in the article are dead links, so what I will do first is try to relocate those sources, and format all of them so that we have good footnotes that show exactly what that source is. I will then try to locate additional/new reliable sources, and list them here for investigation and working into the article. I think, to diffuse the situation for a few days, you should go over that interview a couple of times, make some good notes, and list on this page additions to the article you would like to see, based on that source. It looks like he talks about a wide range of issues in that interview, so there would probably be multiple things that can be used. The woman doing the interview is a former producer of Larry King Live and the Charlie Rose show, and she has interviewed a number of notable people in this Q&A Cafe venue (Fred Thompson and Bob Woodward, just to name two), which I believe is broadcast on Channel 9 in the Washington DC area. So I don't think that there is anything dubious about this source, and certainly it is reliable for what Gannon currently says. That should keep everyone from each other's throats for this week. - Crockspot 15:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, sounds great!! I appreciate your help. I have not really had the time to familiarize myself with all of the procedures on here. I'll try to get some information garnered from the Jeff Gannon interview at the Q & A Cafe, and pass along to you. Thanks again! Sdth 15:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep an eye out for things that are already sourced in the article, that this interview can be used as a further confirming (or even disputing) source. - Crockspot 15:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Roger! Willco!! Sdth 15:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Looks like I should work through the EL section too, rehab any bad links (editor and publisher links notoriously go bad, but the article ID numbers are usually still valid for locating a cite or abstract), and remove ones that are already cited in the article, then maybe some of those can be used as well. Just so everyone is on the same page, a live free url is not necessary for a valid citation. As long as publisher, title, date, and author are there, it's valid, so don't remove sources just because you have to register or the link is dead. I notice that there is also quite a bit of recent news in the past few weeks. I do have one objection to the dKospedia link in the External Links. That is a wiki, so not reliable by our standards, and their stated policy is overtly POV, which violates our NPOV standards. I think that link should be removed. - Crockspot 16:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I would completely agree. This article needs to be as objective and NPOV as possible. Good work, Crockspot! Sdth 17:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • P.S. Crockspot, I will get those notes together over the next few days. I have a hectic schedule for the remainder of this week. I may not have everything together until the weekend. Sdth 04:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have read Sdth's removed comments, and I have to say that I support his underlying sentiment. Editors do need to show some modicum of respect toward the subjects of the articles that they edit. It is important that we do not give off the impression of being unduly biased. He should not have "called out" particular editors, but his concern is valid. I see it a lot in articles such as this, where politics collides with the dark underbelly of society. As editors, we need to comport ourselves as neutrally as we are able. - Crockspot 18:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If you isolate his comments from the context of his remarks over the last several months, then yes, there is a reasonable kernel of an idea that is worth considering. But I'm not sure this is the place to debate this issue nor do I see any evidence presented of any editor's lack of respect for Gannon impinging on his or her neutrality when it comes to edits and article content. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 18:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, I haven't been paying a whole lot of attention to this article lately. But now I'm here, so let the springtime, sugarpops, and rainbows reign... :) - Crockspot 20:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
That sounds fantastic. So, if you haven't been paying attention to the article, why are you stepping in as some kind of mediator? You have a clear single-purpose account (maybe take a look at your buddy's contributions) and several other editors reverting "NPOV" additions like removing cited facts and calling anyone who thought Gannon's presence at the White House for two years was strange a leftist or a "liberal blogger" instead of a journalist. The edit summary you questioned was born of a lot of frustration with this individual. I guess you symphathize with Sdth's political beliefs, which is clearly your right, but your "stepping in" and deciding how people should act who have battled his POV edits for a long time is somewhat insulting. --Tractorkingsfan 17:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I will warn you in a friendly manner that your comment is verging on a personal attack. I rarely put a smiley in my comments, and if I do, it means I am making a joke. If you go back through the history of this article, you will see that I had a similar dispute with Gamaliel over the prostitution tag. Sdth does have some valid concerns here, it is just that he is presenting them in the wrong way. I am attempting to help him to become a better editor, because he reminds me of myself about a year ago. Gamaliel and I may not agree on much, but we are both dedicated to this project. Every editor drags a bias along with them. What matters is how you deal with that bias, and how you deal with other editors because of those biases. It's no secret that I do not hold the "liberal" view of Gannon. I have also noticed in my search for more reliable sources, that there are a significantly greater number of Editor & Publisher Magazine article extant than are cited in this article. E&P has perhaps the most extensive publication history on this subject, and I am curious why only a few of their articles are cited. I have some unproven suspicions that there may be a POV reason for this, but I won't know that until I can get ahold of the text of those articles. Once I have examined all the sources, new and old, I will rewrite this article if I feel that it is necessary. If you doubt my ability to do this in a NPOV way, I suggest you go to the Barbara Schwarz article and ask around. I fought very hard for that article to be deleted, but once I realized that it was here to stay, I rewrote the entire article in a more NPOV way, without actually changing any of the key content points. I was commended by the editors on that page for my efforts. You can also check out the Swift Vets article, and talk to EECEE, who is ideologically opposed to me. Ask her if she thinks I am able to edit in a responsible and NPOV manner. I think that I am a good example of someone who first came to Wikipedia with an axe to grind and an agenda to push, and learned to become a good editor who's first agenda is the project itself. I see this same potential in Sdth, and I am trying to cultivate that in him. So far it doesn't seem to be working very well, but don't condemn me for trying. - Crockspot 18:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
A personal attack? No. Somewhat dubious of your agenda? Yes. However, you have done great work for the encyclopedia, so I will AGF and let you do your thing. Apologies for any misunderstanding. I think it is important thought that you keep an eye on Sdth, (Sdth I mean you no offense at this point), who has been making a lot of consecutive edits. Many of them are fine. Just keep an eye on things, I think that from previous experience with his idea of factually accurate and NPOV edits, he may occassionally let his biases do the talking. Thanks, --Tractorkingsfan 21:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
It's working, Crockspot. Thanks for having patience with me. Right now I'm trying to get Gamaliel to discuss this with me, and see if we can come to an agreement. At this point, he refuses to talk to me or to discuss it. I will admit that I was too confrontational and angry, but I was so disgusted that he kept reverting my edits without discussing it with me (which he has NEVER done), that I let my anger get in the way of my good judgment. Sdth 03:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of Civility Shown to James Guckert

  • Antaeus Feldspar, I am still waiting on an answer to my question that I asked you.

When are you going to start showing the same civility that you asked of me, toward James Guckert/Jeff Gannon? Isn't he due the same civility that you expect? Sdth 04:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit my comments, Gamaliel. I am not making any personal attacks. I am

asking a simple question. Several of you are NOT civil toward Mr. Guckert, and your POV comments in the article about him are not civil. Feldspar asked that I be civil, to which I have agreed. I am simply asking when that same civility will be extended to Mr. Guckert. Sdth 18:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Gamaliel, you and Feldspar have both attacked me repeatedly over the past couple of months. I became frustrated, and retorted a few times. Feldspar accused me of not being civil, so I complied, and have attempted to be civil. I am asking a simple question which Feldspar refuses to answer. You need to leave my comments alone. It's one thing to revert my edits. It's another to remove my comments from the discussion page. The lack of civility being shown to Mr. Guckert is quite appalling, and IS a suitable topic for discussion here. If Feldspar has a right to question my civility toward him and you, then I have a right to question Feldspar's and your lack of civility toward Mr. Guckert. Sdth 19:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Please identify where I have personally attacked you or retract the accusation. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 19:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Without any proof whatsoever, you accused me of being the same person who made all of the other edits on Jeff Gannon, just because I happen to use (part of the time) a computer that shares the same IP address as hundreds of other computers. Secondly, you have repeatedly reverted my edits, even when they were extremely NPOV and were also referenced. Just the fact that you keep removing my comments here (after Feldspar attacked me several times, and I simply asked that we be civil toward Mr. Gannon/Guckert) is an attack, in and of itself. Sdth 19:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Identifying User:Sdth and User:156.110.204.66 as the same person is not a personal attack.l It is also true. See, for example, this edit, where Sdth signs a comment by 156.110.204.66.
Reverting your edits is not an attack.
Removing your attacks on and baseless accusations regarding User:Antaeus Feldspar is not an attack.
Now please identify where I have personally attacked you or retract the accusation. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 19:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Please also visit WP:AN/3RR and, seeing the report of 4 diffs within 24 hours, identify how it is "egregious" and the people who posted it are "liars", or retract that statement (made on your talk page) as well. --Tractorkingsfan 19:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Gamaliel reported edits made from an IP address used by hundreds of users. He is trying to claim that every edit made from that address is me, which is ludicrous. Sdth 19:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
If you aren't making those comments from the IP address, then you shouldn't sign them. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 19:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I cannot believe that you said that. I never denied using that IP address. I'm just saying that there are hundreds of other people using the same IP address. Are you really having that much trouble comprehending what I have said several times? Sdth 20:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you really expect us to believe that hundreds of people from the University of Oklahoma are rushing here to make exactly the same edits as you to this article? Give it up. Now please identify where I have personally attacked you or retract the accusation. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 20:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Why do you persist in putting words in my mouth? I never said there were hundreds making the same edits. I only said there are hundreds of other users. Sdth 20:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confused

  • Crockspot, I am confused as to why you reverted my NPOV language which I inserted. I thought we were on the same page. Everything I changed simply made the article more objective, more NPOV. Please clarify. Sdth 21:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I misread the history. It's Gamaliel again, not Crockspot. Gamaliel, you previously stated that if I simply made changes from "claimed" to "said", etc., that my edits probably would stand. Why aren't you keeping your word? You claim not to be attacking, but your very actions are attacks. Sdth 21:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
You made other changes as well. I disagreed with those. And an editorial disagreement is not "attacking" you. Stop playing the victim when you've been the one disrupting this article for months. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 21:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Name one POV change I made. I scrupulously made ONLY NPOV changes. I'm not playing victim, but you have harassed me with your POV for months. I have not disrupted this article. I have made factual corrections. I will grant that I have been lax in finding the references to document those facts, but I have not "disrupted" the article. If by presenting the truth, I have "disrupted" the agenda of those who hate Mr. Guckert, then I will proudly admit to being guilty of "disrupting". But that is not my goal. My goal is to get a NPOV article that is factual about Mr. Guckert/Gannon. Sdth 21:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I am no longer going to discuss anything with a person who continually attacks me and accuses me of an "agenda" of "hate" and then claims they are being attacked when I object. I'm just going to revert your POV edits. You have been at this for months and you haven't accomplished anything, and I'm no longer going to subject myself to your vitrol. Have fun. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 21:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Why do you refuse to answer the question? Tell me which edits you think are POV? It is NOT POV to exchange "stated" or "said" for "claimed". Why do you consider that POV? That is a very basic concept of objectivity. When you say "claimed," it implies that the "claimer" is not to be believed. Then when you quote their detractors and say, "stated", "pointed out", etc., you're implying that their detractors must be right. You're convicting them based upon your beliefs.

I will accept your statement that you have not attacked me verbally, and retract that accusation. But what do you call it when you refuse to discuss the alleged POV, and repeatedly revert it? Sdth 03:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turning over a New Leaf (note to Gamaliel)

Gamaliel, I left a note on your user page, but thought I'd leave a note here, also. I will be happy to discuss any of my edits with you in a civil manner. I made several small edits incrementally, so that each edit could be evaluated individually, and not require a complete reversion (should that be the case). I know I handled things incorrectly previously, and I apologize to you for that. I hope you will work with me. Thank you. Sdth 20:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Master source list

I've been collecting and organizing these in user space, but I thought I would dump it here. There are still some older articles to add, and about twice as many Gannon-authored articles still to add, but this is a good chunk for people to dig into. At the end of each cite, if it says Cited, it's already cited in the article. If it says Listed, it's already listed in the news articles section in the article. If is says both, that should be self-explanatory. If it says nothing in bold, then it is not used in the article at all. If you end up using something, please mark it in the same format. I'll add more when I can. Enjoy. - Crockspot 00:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undated

[edit] 2003

[edit] 2004

[edit] 2005

[edit] 2006

[edit] 2007

[edit] Talon News articles by Gannon

[edit] House Judiciary Committee

I removed the bulleted items which gave great detail of this failed resolution. There is no justification for going into such minute detail of someting that failed to pass, and I believe it tends to give undue weight to the matter. - Crockspot 18:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsupported Claims Against Gannon

To include the UNSUPPORTED claims of unnamed journalists about Gannon's allegedly "friendly" question to President Bush, and to include Sheila Jackson Lee's unsupported claim that Gannon "penetrated" the White House, is very POV, in my opinion. I say that both statements should either be removed, or followed by a statement that there has been no proof presented of either claim. Sdth 05:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  • As to the "friendlyness" of the question, I would direct you to the 2003 Les Kinsolving piece in the source list above. He's a well-known longtime member of the Washington press corp, and he asks his own "friendly" question before documenting one of Gannon's questions. One could argue that Gannon's line of questioning is not unique to him, and is aimed more at exposing hypocricy in the left, rather than sucking up to the President. Making that claim in the article might be difficult to do (original research), but certainly the Kinsolving piece should be cited in the article somewhere, perhaps as rebuttal to the claim that he had no significant background in early 2005. That would at least give the Kinsolving piece exposure in the article, and the readers could draw their own conclusions about it. - Crockspot 12:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you completely, but Gamaliel won't hear to it. Perhaps you can convince him? (and you can make the edit??) Sdth 16:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Let me think about the best way to approach it. - Crockspot 17:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article on White House security system

According to Raw Story, Gannon's first logged visit to the WH came three days after the publication of the disputed article. - Crockspot 17:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I did check. Like I said, it predates his first visit, and the disputed visits happened as much as two years after the publication of this article. Applying this to Gannon is not only WP:OR since he doesn't appear in the article at all, it may not even be relevant. We have no idea what changes were made to the system in the subsequent two years since the publication of the article. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 17:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I should not that should a reliable, up to date source for this be found that actually mentions Gannon, I would off course support including it in the article. If a reliable source puts up a defense of Gannon, naturally it should be included, but we should not construct one for him using out of date information. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 17:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The article was published the same week he started his visits. If you've ever worked in IT, you know that things don't get fixed that fast. What we do have is a reliable source reporting problems with the system. What we do not have is a source showing that this problem was EVER fixed. So unless you have a source showing that this problem was fixed, and when, we must assume that the problem STILL exists. I think you are being patently unfair to the subject, and engaging in quasi wiki-lawyering to exclude this timely, relevant, and reliably sourced information. I am not going to roll over on this one. So how do we avoid an edit war? - Crockspot 17:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, since you brought up how you think I supposedly feel about this, I'll tell you what I actually think. I don't think Gannon ever spent the night at the White House. Planting gay prostitutes in the press corps is one thing, having them spend the night down the hall is quite another. So yes, I think the security system is a reasonable answer to the question of what happened. But we can't just make up a defense of Gannon and stick it in the article because we want to. It violates original research for one thing, and for another, the information is out of date. This isn't wikilaywering, these are fundamental principles we are talking about here. Do you really think quoting an out of date article from a partisan hack website to make up a defense of Gannon that no one else has come up with is a good idea? Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 17:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Exactly which part do you find to be OR, or even "defensive" of Gannon? It's just the citing of a reliable source that there is a problem with the system. And since we do not have another reliable source telling us that the problem was ever fixed, it would be OR to imply anything otherwise. I think your argument opens a huge can of worms that you may not want to open. Raw Story, and many of the other articles cited, could certainly be considered as "partisan hack" as the one you charactarize, and acceptance of your argument would bring them all under close scrutiny for exclusion as well. Is that where you really want to take this? I'm willing to follow you there. Also, please look at the comment I'm replying to, and tell me that you are not displaying a certain level of vehemence toward the subject with your comments. Come on, Gamaliel. You and I are alot alike, just from opposite sides of the fence. I admit that I have biases, but I work very hard to not let them affect my editing. You do not seem to be willing to even admit that you have biases that are present in all human minds. Can we just cut the BS and fix this article? While I disagree with you alot, I've always considered you a role model to follow, so if you find me to be a pain in the ass, realize that I learned from an expert. - Crockspot 18:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I have no doubt I'm a pain in the ass. :)
Who isn't admiting it? It's obvious I don't think much of Gannon, but I don't think much of Hitler either, and no one would seriously suggest that my vehement hatred of asshole Nazis would prevent me from editing the Adolf Hitler article fairly. That's the real can of worms we don't want to open. We regularly admonish new editors from crying "bias" and such in editing disputes, so experienced users like us shouldn't be going down that road either.
I'd love to be able to include this in the article, and I'm looking on Lexis/Nexis right now for any articles that talk about the security system in relation to Gannon. No luck yet but I will keep looking. As I've been reading I'm thinking that perhaps we should rework that section or even fold it into the controversy section. It does lack some information; there's nothing about Conyers' and Slaughter's claim that Gannon's work violated laws against propaganda, for example. Perhaps the modified form will satisfy objections. But I simply can't accept that section in its current form even though I believe it is probably what happened. Verifiability, not truth. No original research. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 18:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Your comparison of Gannon to Hitler really gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. While you are searching, see if there is further reporting on the WH system problems that DON'T reference Gannon. If they fixed the problem the next week, that would be information that you wouldn't want to overlook, and it wouldn't reference Gannon. On the bias thing, my point is, we ALL have biases. I try to wear mine on my sleeve (or user page) so that it is harder for me to get away with biased editing without being called on it. It seems to have worked for me, because the only people who accuse me of having an agenda to push have been editors who I have obstructed from pushing their own agenda. I know you have biases. Who doesn't? I think you'll find it liberating if you just come out and scream "I'm a big flaming libbernazi!!!!1111oneeleven", and then let it go. Of cource you're going to pay more attention or go out of your way to support or revert things that you agree with. I do it too. Everyone does it. It's dishonest to deny that that goes on, or that there is even anything wrong with it. We don't have any responsibility as editors to bend over backwards to support a position we don't agree with, blatant policy violations notwithstanding. I would rather be honest about my politics up front, and take the flack for that, than be dishonest and try to pass myself off as some perfect unbiased being who does not even exist in this universe. It's all good man. - Crockspot 18:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm really not sure what you are getting at here. I've never hidden my political orientation or been shy about keeping my opinions to myself. I really don't understand what you think I'm being dishonest about. Good editors put aside their biases and try to look at things fairly.
I'm searching for up to date information on the state of the White House access control system, but I've had little luck so far. But the WND is unacceptable, it's out of date, potentially irrelevant, and tries to blame everything on Bill Clinton. Do you think this is something an encyclopedia should rely upon for information? Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 18:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I guess I'm just more yammering than accusing you of anything. :) I percieve that there's an invisible wall between us, and I would like to have a more casual working relationship with you, where we accept and understand each other and work together, rather than trying to outwit, outplay, and outlast each other. As for the WND source, I don't consider it to be any less acceptable than Raw Story or the Huffington Post, both of which are cited. They all tend to be partisan. Les Kinsolving works for WND, and while he is a conservative, he's no partisan hack, so you cannot paint everything that WND publishes with the same brush. (He also asks very Gannonesque questions, which no one seems to take issue with. But then, he's a nice old man with no naked pictures of himself floating around.) You could say the same thing about Huffington Post, but probably not Raw Story. Which gets us to the very meat of the problem with how Gannon was treated. He is a conservative journalist. He has never denied that. What was so outrageous was that the liberal journalists, who all have themselves convinced that they ARE these truly unbiased beings, went after Gannon for basically doing what THEY do, but from the other side of the fence. Any journalist who does not fit their mold MUST be a Bushie plant. No one has ever presented any valid evidence that he was a plant. I don't think he was a plant. I just think he was a conservative who wanted to get in there and give the liberals hell. That he had some sordid details in his past made for a better story. Gannon was basically the victim of mass BDS. - Crockspot 19:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I thought things were going fairly well until this dustup. I guess it's all a matter of perspective.
If you look at things from the perspective that the mainstream media are liberal activists, then I guess you wouldn't see anything wrong with dropping in a conservative activist. But if you see the mainstream media as something which should be and at least attempts to be non-biased and non-partisan, then the Gannon incident was outrageous. A fake journalist with no credentials from a fake newsorganization funded by a conservative activist group is hardly the same thing as a mainstream journalist who leans a little too far left for your taste. The fact that he was given access to the White House so easily with his sordid background and lack of credentials while mainstream journalists were subjected to lengthy and much more rigorous background checks makes it quite obvious that this whole thing was rigged. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 21:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
We already have Gannon's statement for balance. Is that not good enought? Meggar 17:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
We all know that statements made by a subject, even quoted in a secondary source, do not carry much more weight than a primary source. An independent reliable secondary source is always good, unless it pops ones world view bubble. - Crockspot 18:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
As for "partisan hack web sites," most of the major networks have proven themselves to be "partisan hacks", so I wouldn't go there. As for Gannon's statement, that should be enough balance, but there is so much vitriolic opinion based upon nothing but speculation and hearsay, the Insight/WND article about the White House security system clarifies the picture, since some claim there are "highly unusual" visits by Jeff Gannon. Sdth 17:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
No, we shouldn't "go there" because we don't want to sidetrack the discussion with ranting about CNN or NBC. The fact that you find the major media unreliable doesn't make a hack site like WND reliable. We stick to reliable sources around here. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 18:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
But who's definition of reliable sources do we use? I find CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, NYT, WP, PBS, etc. to be "hack" orginizations. The Wiki definition of reliable source does not make that clear. I have found WND to be a pretty reliable source. Regardless, what is the definition of a reliable source?? A number of those major news organizations have had to retract major stories several times in recent history. What gives you the right to define WND as a "hack" site, and then to consider the major outlets reliable? I'm not trying to be smart-alec, but I truly don't see your point. Help me out. Sdth 20:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but the point is moot. Around here the mainstream media are considered to be reliable sources and fringe partisan websties are not. If you disagree with this, you can argue your case at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 20:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
So may we assume that you would consider Raw Story, Counterpunch, Media Matters, and Salon as equally unreliable? We could be on the verge of a breakthrough here. - Crockspot 21:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Hardly. Salon and Media Matters are reputable and mainstream. Doesn't this kind of gamesmanship qualify as what you described as our attempts to "outwit, outplay, and outlast" each other? Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 21:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing at the link you sent me on Wiki's "reliable sources" page that says who is reliable or not. And why do you say that WND is a partisan hack site, while Salon and Media Matters are not?? You amaze me, Gamaliel! Salon and Media Matters are leftist groups, and no more reliable than WND, which is considered on the right side of the political spectrum. Who says Salon and Media Matters are reputable and mainstream? I'm scratching my head in confusion.... Sdth 21:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
WND punches out partisan attack pieces disguised as news articles. Salon is a left leaning magazine of commentary, akin to the New Republic or the National Review. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 21:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Look, we can argue Raw Story versus WND all day, but that doesn't address the matter of original research or the fact that the story is out of date, both of which are far more important than the partisan nature of the "news" organization in question. I understand that you want to focus on that aspect because it gets all of our partisan hackles up, but there are more important issues to discuss in relation to that material. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 21:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, excuse me, but you're the one who called WND a "partisan hack site" in order to discredit it as a source. Speaking of which, if we are going to use that standard, we really need to take down Congresswoman Lee's quote about Jeff Gannon, because she is well-known to be one of the most intensely partisan hacks in the Democrat Party.
Anyway, regardless of who is a partisan hack, WND is a news organization. Crockspot has documented the timeliness of the article. There is just as much reason to use that, as there is to use all of the accusations from the left about Jeff Gannon. Rep. Lee's comments are not the only partisan comments out there. Most of the statements about Gannon in the article are from leftwing groups. Sdth 21:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
You understand that there can be no conclusion to the section either way. The people with the facts aren't talking. The introduction of the WND article does little for it but to require us to believe that the whole WH security system is as worthless as it is expensive. That too could be be cleared up by a proper investigation, maybe even make Gannon look better, but it isn't going to happen. The best the section can be is a limbo. Is there something more profitible that we could be working on? Meggar 22:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Quoting partisan opinion, a perfectly valid thing to do, and designating it as such is not the same thing as using a unreliable partisan attack piece disguised as a news article and using that as a source for factual information. Your comparision is invalid.
Even if the article came from Tree Huggers Flag Burning Digest, it would still be inappropriate because it is both out of date and original research. Both are completely unacceptable regardless of the nature of the source. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 22:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I am glad that we have made some progress. Two months ago you reverted my edit calling Congresswoman Lee a "partisan hack." I assume that you are giving me license to label her comment a "partisan opinion"? Sdth 22:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't make a damn bit of sense. Try to focus on the issue at hand please. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 22:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
It makes sense. You said, "Quoting partisan opinion, a perfectly valid thing to do, and designating it as such...." So, it makes sense that I could "designate" Rep. Lee's comments as partisan opinion. Anyway, where's your sense of humor? Sdth 03:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
IMHO WND is an unreliable partisan hack source (I just discovered they were part of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory brigade WND: Rumsfeld says 9-11 plane 'shot down' in Pennsylvania and the attempt to include this article is OR and synthesis of material (what's that exact term?) TheDeciderDecides 05:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
So which argument are you making? That the source is unreliable, or that the content you removed was OR/synthesis? Your edit summary said you reverted to remove OR/Synthesis, but you have not shown what is OR about it. (Allow me to help: OR is something that is not supported by a source, ie, made up, or a conclusion synthesized from taking multiple sources, and saying Source A plus Source B equals Conclusion C.) The content you removed was all supported by the WND source, so it is not OR or synthesis. If you want to attack the source itself as partisan, you may be more successful, because it is a conservative-leaning news source. However, WND is not the only partisan source cited in the article. In fact, there are quite a few partisan sources, but they are not conservative. Gamaliel started to make the "partisan" argument, but he quickly abandoned it, because he knew exactly where it would lead. If editors are going to start cherry-picking sources because they are "partisan", then I am going to insist that all partisan sources go. Just to give you one example, Raw Story's managing editor is a known DUer. Newsweek also stated "If you're looking for alleged GOP malfeasance, the folks at rawstory.com are frequently scooping the mainstream media." I could go on, and I will if need be. But for now, your reasons for reverting do not have merit. I'm going to revert and give you the chance to formulate a cogent argument. - Crockspot 06:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The source is unreliable in my judgement, but that - and this is the thing that people can't seem to grasp - is immaterial as the other concerns are overriding and would exist regardless of the nature of the source. I should have known better than to insult a conservative news outlet, no matter how far removed it may be from actual journalism, because nothing will get partisans to jump down your throat faster and ignore the issue at hand. While it may be convenient to frame this as a partisan issue because that makes it a he said/he said matter of opinion, this is not a partisan issue, it is a matter of two fundamental problems. One is that you are applying an unrelated source to this issue and that is original research synthesis. Two is that this material predates Gannon's first appearance at the White House and thus is out of date, especially given that he continued to visit two years later. Your earlier invoking of your IT experience only proves that this is original research. We are relying on this article for things it simply does not say. It doesn't not discuss Gannon or even discuss the security system while he was there. It boggles my mind that this would be even remotely acceptable to you. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Augusta Free Press editorial

I tagged a cite from the WH Credentials section to the Augusta Free Press. I can find no evidence that this article was ever published, save for a mention on Media Matters (which has a dead link). No google news archive hits, no LexisNexis hits. Web archive does not spit it out either. If this source cannot be verified that it actually existed, then I will remove this cite and the statement it supports after a short time. I also notice that the section about the problems with the White House visitor system has been removed as OR, yet the editor removing it has failed to specify what is OR about it. All the statements are taken from the source, the source was published, and is reliable. If some good arguments for it being OR are not put forth over the coming days, it will be put back in. - Crockspot 20:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The Augusta Free Press is not indexed by Lexis/Nexis. I have repeatedly specified what the OR problem is, and our most recent discussion is on my talk page for anyone who wants to chime in. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 21:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
It is not OR, it is "source-based research", which is fundamental to building an encyclopedia. There is no synthesis. There is no conclusion stated. There is no analysis. It simply adds factual and reliably reported information to the topic being discussed in that section (White House visitor logs). The article was printed only a few days before Gannon started visiting the WH, so it is not out of date, it is relevant to the discussion, and there is not a good reason to exclude it. - Crockspot 03:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
When you are creating links between things that no known reliable source has created links between before, that is original research. And if Gannon's visits were restricted to a week or two following the publication of the article, I might agree, but they continued for two years after the publication of the article. To assume that the security system in the White House remained exactly the same for two years with no changes and the same problems remained is not an assumption that I share, and it is not an assumption that an encyclopedia article should rely upon. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 14:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
It is not creating a link. The topic of discussion in that section is the White House security records. It is only adding further sourced information to that topic. It's the same topic. It is not a link to add further sourced information about the same topic. You see sources used this way in almost every biography on WP. Are you telling me that they are all OR? If so, then we have a ton of work to do. - Crockspot 16:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I added a couple more sources to the 2003 list above, the Berlau piece was also printed in Insight Magazine in March of 2003 (he also writes for Investor's Business Daily, so that should remove any "unreliable source" arguments), and a Malkin piece from July, which references Berlau and the problems with the WH visitor tracking system. The SS director who was hired on to solve these problems was moved out two years later, and replaced by Sullivan, but I can't find any mentions of a failure (or success) at fixing these problems. - Crockspot 17:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The Insight article begins the only section specificially about the swipe card errors "as this reporter revealed last fall", meaning that this information is even more out of date. Sorry, we can't assume the same problems existed when Gannon was there. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 18:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
No such implication was made in my inclusion, but I will refactor one more time. - Crockspot 19:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
By including it in the article we are making that implication. If the problems were fixed, the reader would think, then no one would bother including irrelevant information about past problems. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 19:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I have found plenty of references to the AFP story online such as here. It seems there is plenty of evidence that this story was published and I don't see why this should be removed simply because the link went dead. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 22:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not one to exclude a source for lack of a url, I just could not find any record of the publication. - Crockspot 03:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it may have changed its name. See http://www.thenewdominion.com/. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 14:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leupp source and statement

In the part where it says that the records appear to show that Gannon spent the night, I think this is a pov cherry picking of the article. I reworded it based upon this quote from the source: "The records also show days when Gannon checked in but never properly checked out, beginning in July 2003 or five months after he started his White House journalistic activities. He later goes on stating his opinion that maybe he slept over, but since this is a somewhat biased source, and the article makes no editorial attribution, we should stick with the most factual statement in the source. - Crockspot 19:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Was just looking through the records at the Leupp source, and there are check-in times with no check-outs, and vice versa, but there are no check-ins one day, and check-outs the next, so it is a mischaractarization to say that the records appear to show that he spent the night. That's not what the records appear to show, and that is not what the source says in the factual part of his article. I also suspect that this shows that the logging problem may have indeed been fixed by then, otherwise we would see some check-ins with check-outs twelve hours later. So as long as the "appears to have spent the night" crap stays out, I am satisfied to leave the Insight source out as well. - Crockspot 19:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply. This works for me. Thanks for your efforts. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 18:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
My pleasure. Welcome back. - Crockspot 20:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tau Kappa Epsilon fraternity

James Guckert was a member of the Tau Kappa Epsilon fraternity ... A confirmed citation needed as the current citation doesnt confirm Gannon was ever a member of Tau Kappa Epsilon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.82.93 (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)