Talk:Matt Sanchez/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 13


Contents

Request for arbitration.

Resolved.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Matt Sanchez. -- Jeandré, 2008-01-06t21:11z

Correct link is Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Bluemarine. Benjiboi 23:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sanchez is neither a "Milblogger" nor a "War Correspondent"

Resolved.

Where is the source that Matt Sanchez is actually still in the military? I just read where he was made to change his blog heading from "Cpl. Matt Sanchez" to "Matt Sanchez." If he left (or was thrown out of) the Marines, he is in no way a "milblogger." In that case, the word should be replaced by "blogger."

Sanchez is also not a "War Correspondent" by any reasonable definition of the term (which includes employment by a legitimate news organization to file dispatches from the battlefield). (See Ernie Pyle and David Halberstam for more on this. Or just check the criteria on War Correspondent, keeping in mind that Sanchez is not a journalist.) Using this phrase to describe himself is just more self-promotion, and should be excised from the article as soon as the page is unlocked. --Eleemosynary (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sanchez blogs about the military. Hence, milblogger sounds an appropriate description. Does milblogger necessarily imply a blogger who is in the military, or can it be anyone who blogs about the military? <This is not rhetorical.> Aleta (Sing) 00:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Magic 8-ball says: See Milblog ALLSTARecho 01:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Milbloggers are not necessarily still those on active duty. There are a number of milbloggers who have retired or left active service who retain the milblogger designation. There is actually an organized group out there, which includes a number of former military bloggers. (My now-dead blog is still listed there, because I was still on active duty when I was actively blogging.) Milbloggers tend to have a better understanding of how the military functions than those who have never served; many milbloggers don't actually serve on the front lines, although some do, and some have died. Horologium (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you both. Going by Horologium's description then, there is no reason to change Sanchez's description from milblogger, whether he is still in the Marines or not. That makes a lot of sense that you'd still retain that description if you've ever served in the military. Aleta (Sing) 01:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Horologium's description is POV, and (as usual) a contentious, defensive apologia for Sanchez. From the Milblog page on Wikipedia; "The use of the term "milblog" implies that the author is with the military."
It's not clear that Sanchez is still "with the military." Until a source is shown that he is, the term may be inaccurate. As for "War Correspondent," the suggestion that Sanchez is one is laughable. --Eleemosynary (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Quoting from the Warblogger article (which is the article to which "milblogger" redirects: The field has also birthed a related subsidiary class of webblogs known as "MilBlogs," which also tend to focus on the war. These blogs are written by serving or retired military personnel, or have members on their team blog that fit this description. Considering that I have stated that I support an indef-ban on Sanchez, I can hardly be defined as a Sanchez apologist. Horologium (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Based on the above "milblogger" seems fine. Eleemosynary, I have yet to see a RS that states Sanchez is no longer in the military or that his status is changed, I've seen a lot of OR but we all know that's unusable.
"War correspondent" seems misleading to me as that does suggest a journalist from a news outlet reporting from a war-zone and Sanchez I think is in the gray area on all three. To me the standard should be is he a journalist? Is he reporting for a news agency? is he doing so from a war zone? Benjiboi 02:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

He was embedded with a military unit, which requires credentialing from the military, and qualifies him as a journalist, regardless of one's opinion of his talent or output. It appears that the media outlet for which he was credentialed was The Weekly Standard, since that was where most of his writing appeared; some may not be fond of The Weekly Standard, but it's not rational to dismiss it as a legitimate magazine. He was assigned to a Forward Operating Base, which is in a war zone, so he qualifies there as well. Horologium (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense. "It appears that" is hardly a qualifier to show proof of anything. Please stop the weasel words, and the interminable apologia. Show a source that he was in the employ of a news organization if you'd like to make the case that Sanchez is a "War Correspondent." Otherwise, he's not. And the fake, self-aggrandizing title should go. --Eleemosynary (talk) 04:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
You don't seem to be able to grasp this rather simple concept: Sanchez was credentialed as an embedded journalist by the military. This is not supposition, this is not allegation, this is not self-aggrandizement on Sanchez's part, it is fact. He was stationed at FOB Falcon; he would not have been there without the proper documentation. I don't know (and frankly don't care) which publication Sanchez was embedded for, but I do know that you are one of the most blatant partisan warriors to ever appear on Wikipedia, and you are trying to pull the same stunt here that has worked for you on countless other contentious articles, by intransigence and obstinately pushing your PoV. It's not going to work this time. Horologium (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
You don't seem to be able to grasp this rather simple concept: The military is neither an arbiter, nor a reliable source, of who is and isn't a journalist. And you've also shown no source that the military did any such thing. Your ad hominem attacks on me (and most other editors you disagree with) and your bluster aside, you're going to have to show a source that he was an employed journalist before using the "War Correspondent" title in the article.
Let me know if you need it explained more clearly. --Eleemosynary (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay - maybe a little chill time, Eleemosynary? Horologium? Take a breath before you post again? WP:AGF? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
It's a contentious point and we should not use Sanchez as the source. We can quote him as stating that he was x and y but we should make it clear that he is being quoted. Wjhonson (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. It seems we have a loose consensus that "milblogger" and "war correspondent" should only be used with a WP:RS other than Sanchez, if we use Sanchez to source it we should be clear that he is being quoted. As a suggestion perhaps warblogger would be most appropriate as the "use of the term "milblog" implies that the author is with the military" and there seems to be a fair amount of speculation that Sanchez might not be. Can we agree on warblogger? Benjiboi 21:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at his blog, and the majority of the posts have nothing to do with the Iraq War, but are homophobic screeds. The term "blogger" should be the only one we use. --Eleemosynary (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you only look at his blog, of course it will qualify him only as a blogger. However, he wrote a bunch of stuff for The Weekly Standard as well. It's like looking at Rosie O'Donnell's blog and saying she is only a blogger. Horologium (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect. "Blogger" is an accurate description of Sanchez's activities, based on the overwhelming majority of his contributions to the internet, under his name. The O'Donnell analogy is faulty, as is your ongoing campaign to augment Sanchez's self-aggrandizement. -- Eleemosynary (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmmmm, my "campaign" to augment Sanchez's self-aggrandizement includes supporting banning him from Wikipedia and scuppering his article, creating a new article that solely discusses his past career and his outing (which would eliminate this issue and all of the "self-aggrandizement" you have incessantly accused me of enabling). By your logic, Andrew Sullivan is only a blogger, since the vast majority of his contributions to the internet are through his blog. Since you were one of the biggest cheerleaders to retain this train-wreck, you should be equally supportive of including all of the biographical materials. Horologium (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Please. "Banning" him (a meaningless proposition, as he's already communicating through back-channels) and scrubbing the article, only to re-create it in language reflecting solely what you'd like it to is hardly acting in a good-faith, NPOV manner. Furthermore, your insinuations (below) that either Pwok or another editor hacked Sanchez's email are yet another smear from you, backed up by not a shred of evidence. And your Andrew Sullivan analogy makes no sense. I'm not saying Sanchez is "only a blogger." I'm saying his blogging is not "milblogging" or "warblogging" in the main, but simply "blogging" (and mostly short, homophobic ejaculations). His attempts to paint himself as a wrapped-in-the-flag "War Correspondent," etc. are just more of the same self-promotional nonsense with which he stunk up this Talk Page before earning his permanent block. But, as you previously argued that the military is an appropriate arbiter of who is and who isn't a journalist, I don't expect the facts to get in your way. And I am supportive of including all Sanchez's "biographical materials." Just not the ones he (and you) are making up. --Eleemosynary (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, but one of the "purported" e-mails was from me, and while it was incomplete, the portion that was included was exactly what I had written to Sanchez seven months ago, which is a pretty good indication that SOMEBODY has had access to Sanchez's gmail account. And as for your claims that I am making unsupported claims, you need to support or retract your claim that Sanchez is "communicating through back-channels". Horologium (talk) 13:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The comments are getting personal again... Pairadox (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Is it even possible for you two to stick to *content* rather than skirting so closely to WP:ATTACK? I find it utterly ironic considering neither one of you is a Sanchez supporter, yet you're continually arguing! Chill! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 07:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. The only ref I was able to find is a commentary on Worldnetdaily which notes he's fellow columnist and milblogger. I will amend to say that, in theory, this war will end but on any other article calling him a warblogger would not get such a rise. I still support its use in the context of his current war postings and sideline involvemnt with the Scott Beachum thing. Otherwise I agree that simply calling him a blogger might also be needed if his blogging is focusing on non-war things. Benjiboi 00:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit Request

Resolved.

{{editprotected}} Please remove the second paragraph from the opening section the one that goes:

'The award's event, the Conservative Political Action Conference, received mainstream attention when Ann Coulter controversially referred to John Edwards as a "faggot."[1] In the aftermath, it was revealed that Sanchez had performed in gay pornographic films in the early 1990s as Pierre LaBranche and Rod Majors.[2][3] Sanchez confirmed this, adding that he sometimes considers himself a progressive stating he "progressed from being a liberal to a conservative."[4]'

Reason:

As per WP:BLP, biographies of living persons must not be written in an overly negative manner. This particular paragraph in question is not relevant to Sanchez' biography. It's irrelevant that Ann Coulter called John Edwards a faggot, this is what Ann Coulter does as she makes a career shocking people. This paragraph merely adds a great deal of negativity to the biography especially by being in the opening. Whilst Sanchez' porn career might be notable, it doesn't need to be in the opening paragraph as it is already mentioned further down in it's own section. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, please add the following at the top: {{expert-subject|Biography|Date=January 2008}} in order to get help from WikiProject Biography. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Please see the extensive discussion of this. The information is notable and has been well-established. Aatombomb (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Coulter's remark was the spark that brought attention to the event and led to the disclosure of Sanchez's porn and escorting past thus catapulting him to a much broader national, and likely international, audience. Benjiboi 18:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Nonetheless, despite the sensationality about Coulters remarks, they should not be added per WP:BLP. Also, it's almost as if Sanchez is being held responsible for another persons remarks? In a related WP:BLP case regarding the amount of negative content to be allowed, please see the article Rachel Marsden. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Consensus has been to keep this information in the article. 19:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aatombomb (talk • contribs)
If so then WP:CCC and should change for the sake of WP:BLP. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
May I politely request that you familiarize yourself with the prior discussion on this. Aatombomb (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I just stumbled here from the Afd discussion, not knowing anything about this guy. My first strong impression is that the "faggot" line should be rewritten to note a controversial statement, then readers can investigate further by following the source. The way it's written now is too strong. Tparameter (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Another request as well. The sentence in the opening: "As a milblogger, he has been involved with the Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy" needs to be removed as well as it is uncited and as per WP:BLP if it's uncited it goes. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It's cited later in the article. Aatombomb (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
We have a ref that we tried to add to that statement but it apparently will have to await the conclusion of the Arbcom case. Benjiboi 00:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose the removal of the paragraph for obvious reason of being a main pillar of his notoriety and because no significant edits should be made to the article until Arbcom rules on the related case. Only minor copyediting should be done for things like spelling corrections, punctuation, etc. ALLSTAR echo 22:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Since there is clear opposition, I am turning off the editprotected tag. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Personally, I'd have supported this removal. The section seems to me to be about an Ann Coulter controversy, rather than a Matt Sanchez one; how is it relevant to him that Ann Coulter called John Edwards a 'faggot'? Since it's been kept, I think it should be rewritten to put the focus on Sanchez: e.g. 'Sanchez's history as an actor in gay pornographic films was exposed after he appeared at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, where he was awarded the Jeanne Kirkpatrick Academic Freedom Award for his work fighting discrimination against military and veterans.' It's as simple as that: no need to mention Coulter at all. Terraxos (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Respectfully disagree. From what I have seen (and remember) the only reason the event was paid any attention outside of the conservative universe was the Coulter called a Senator a faggot, that he was running for president made it more potent. Because of all the attention LGBT activists and bloggers noticed the poster-child for the conservatives was none other than Rod Majors, gay pornstar who was pictured cozying up to Coulter. I originally thought the faggot word was a bit strong but wikipedia is not censored and Coulter's purposeful use, which caught many at the event by surprise as well, seems to b a calculated attempt at causing controversy. Which it did, national headlines. Benjiboi 04:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Whilst I agree that wikipedia is not censored, I also think that it should be written in a professional manner. At the very least the term faggot should be replaced with something to the effect of "Ann Coulter made a homophobic remark". I also have concerns about the fact that it's in the opener and that it almost seems as if Sanchez is being held responsible for Coulters remarks. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
        • I think that Sanchez's words and actions are held in tension against each other. We do have time until the Arbcom case is finished so I see no rush to decide anything. I don't see a great need to tease the readers either making them dig for what was said. If someone is offended by that word they aren't going to fare much better with the rest of his bio. Benjiboi 04:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The Photo violates copyright, and should be removed

Resolved.
Resolved.

The photo in the article was taken by Francis Bartus, for the Columbia Spectator. The Columbia Spectator owns the copyrighted photo, and it cannot be used on the page in accordance with Wiki photo policy. Sanchez tagged the photo "Property of Matt Sanchez." It's not. Sanchez is, once again, lying. --Eleemosynary (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Take it up with the office. It has an OTRS ticket number assigned to it. Horologium (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Defending the indefensible, as usual, I see. No, I'll take it up here. And gain consensus. And then... almost as if by magic... the copyright-violating photo will be gone. --Eleemosynary (talk) 04:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's WP:AGF here Eleemosynary, that just maybe he does retain ownership. Personally I think a better shot would be the head and shoulders but we have time to sort it out. If you feel it's a copyright violation take it up with OTRS and wikicommons. Here though we can use the photos as we see fit. I've included a commons link at the top of this section so folks can see what photos are there. Benjiboi 04:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Columbia has their own wiki you know. Why not post to wikicu and just ask them?Wjhonson (talk) 04:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I went to the Spectator site and found this in the archives. The same photo, taken for the Sanchez article, with the credit going to "John Davisson," a frequent Spectator contributor. Assuming good faith with Sanchez -- who has trafficked in lies both on- and off-Wiki -- is simply not going to work. I'll send the info to Wiki Commons, as suggested. What's going on here, most likely, is that Sanchez wants the Spectator photo to be his publicity shot. However, Wiki's copyright policy doesn't allow that. So he falsely claimed the photo belonged to him. --Eleemosynary (talk) 07:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

More contradictory information

Resolved.

Sanchez accused another editor of posting information on these talk pages that lead to his bank account getting hacked. But he recently blogged about his banking issues and seems to be contradicting his initial complaint. He now says his bank account was frozen because an impostor went to his bank and tried to cash a check with a forged signature. No mention of hacking at all.Reelm (talk) 06:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, not seeing the relevance to the article here. Pairadox (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
It was brought up at ArbCom, they suggested he send them the evidence, but it wasn't mentioned again, so I'm assuming he didn't have any.Wjhonson (talk) 08:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Lack of discussion on the topic doesn't mean it didn't happen, simply that it hasn't been discussed or materials received. Sanchez is likely paranoid of any involvement with wikipedia at this point so sending banking records might not be high on his todo list. Perfectly understandable. Whether or not we personally begrudge or believe him I doubt that anyone wishes him ill-will or the disruption that identity-theft could entail. Benjiboi 03:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This is from a recent blog re: Sanchez. Probably not reliable enough to use as a primary source, but interesting. --Eleemosynary (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
FYI. That's covered in an above section. Benjiboi 03:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The link requires authentication. Even so I'm still waiting for any evidence that Sanchez's e-mail or bank accounts were hacked at all, or, if so, that this article or discussion page or Wikipedia in general is connected with that allegation in any capacity. Typing Monkey - (type to me) 05:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
According to discussions at a couple of other sites (I'm not providing links to such sites), it has been pretty much conceded that Sanchez's e-mail was hacked. None of the discussions implicate Wikipedia in any way, but it is likely that they are tied, either directly or indirectly, to the efforts of a now-indefinitely blocked editor who runs one of the sites in question. Horologium (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, still not seeing the relevance of this to the article. Are you saying this a notable event and should be included? Pairadox (talk) 13:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, not at all. None of this is relevant to the article. I'll drop it now. Horologium (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Imho, it could become relevant if Sanchez blogs about it. Do we want to restrict outselves to only his biographical points that become national news? For example, is it notable that there is a book which has a dedicatory passage to him? On that front, he has mentioned in a blog that he's writing a book. Do we have more details on that?Wjhonson (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

At that point WP:SELFPUB would come into play. It would seem that it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; and it does not involve claims about third parties; would set a pretty high bar. Could he write anything about this that didn't appear unduly self-serving, or involve third parties (be they named or not)? Pairadox (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your above and per our high standards on this article, it probably would not appear in more than a handful of out-blogs including his own. Navel-gazing isn't s.o.p. here, so even if he blogs, we don't usually refer in Article space to process actions. His 15 Minutes of Fame is probably over. Wjhonson (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
WJ, his upcoming book is called "Gay Jihad." He's writing it with an ex-gay who promotes reparative therapy. If or when this book is published that would make that bizarre incident with the man he met on Craig's List that lead to that strange YouTube post relevant. We should also create a section dealing with his published homophobic statements. For instance, he compared gays to Nazis on one of his recent blog entries.Reelm (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sanchez revealed as "source" in Beauchamp Affair

Yikes. I pretty much had zero interest in Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy but per the lede in Sanchez's article I went to see what that article had to say about Sanchez's involvement. And there is nothing. The talk page is riddled with similar talk page antics as we have witnessed here with the rough consensus that Sanchez seemed to be promoting himself over there with no success. In looking at the Sanchez revealed as "source" in Beauchamp Affair section on this article the four sources all seem to be blogs and as the Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy article doesn't seem to show his involvement as notable at all shouldn't this be greatly amended? I think all four refs could maybe stay and support "as part of his milblogging Sanchez covered the Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy controversy" but even that may be mischaracterizing it. Has anyone looked through these refs, are they considered WP:RS? Benjiboi 20:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If it is not notable enough to be in the Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy, I do not see why it would be notable enough to be included here. It is also pretty unclear what the extent of his involvement was beyond some behind the scenes fact checking - which he apparently did on a volunteer basis. Aatombomb (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
One of those sources is Hotair.com - a blog owned by Michelle Malkin. I wouldn't consider her to be a reliable source given her track record. Oddly enough, Michelle Malkin seems to agree with me, because I found this odd disclaimer posted at Hot Air:
HOT AIR NETWORK, LLC, MAKES NO WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF THIS SITE’S CONTENT OR THE CONTENT OF ANY SITES LINKED TO THIS SITE AND ASSUMES NO LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY (I) ERRORS, MISTAKES, OR INACCURACIES OF CONTENT
Seems like an odd thing to post on a news/political web site. I don't think a web site that puts up a legal disclaimer denying responsibility for inaccurate reporting meets WP:RS standards.:-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reelm (talk • contribs) 06:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Disagree on both counts; for instance someone could be instrumental in discovering something about President Kennedy but that bio might not feel the need to cover the source. I also have no doubts that reputable sources have similar and generalized disclaimers for a variety of reasons. Indeed even CNN and Wall St Journal likely carry some disclaimers per their legal representatives.
Has anyone really looked through these and or have any solutions or ideas? If not we might have to filter through to determine what they do support. If anyone feels strongly maybe we should {{fact}} tag or rewrite the lede sentence which seems misleading. Benjiboi 20:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please add {{fact}} tag to the last line of the lede stating Sanchez has been involved with the Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy. I wish I had tagged it before but had waited to see if anyone had a better source for it. Benjiboi 06:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC) My hunch is that the entire section might need to be removed but for now either tagging as needing citation or removing it from the lede would be acceptable. Benjiboi 06:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. Sandstein (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Source for Sanchez's involvement in Beauchamp flailex (request edit while protected)

From no less a source than Franklin Foer, the editor of The New Republic:

On August 1, six days after the "skulls on their head in sector" meeting, the Army concluded its investigation. Two days later, a public affairs officer announced that Beauchamp's piece had been "refuted by members of his platoon and proven to be false." The Army didn't announce this to The New York Times or even The Weekly Standard, let alone in a public report. It first gave the story of Beauchamp's supposed fraudulence to a former porn actor turned blogger named Matt Sanchez.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=51f6dc92-7f1d-4d5b-aebe-94668b7bfb32&p=10

While I (among others) have accused Sanchez of self-promotion, this is from the editor in chief of the magazine that originally published Beauchamp's fiction. It pretty conclusively states that Sanchez broke the story on Beauchamp's little lies.

I ask that it be added to the lead of the story, replacing the {{citation needed}} tag. Horologium (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. thank you for providing this, the secion it relates to should also be cleaned up as his invlovement wasn't clear from that text but we should try to make it so. Benjiboi 00:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotect}} Please replace the {{fact}} tag in the lede with this ref: [1] Thank you! Benjiboi 00:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong Disagree. Foer is not claiming Sanchez "broke the story," either obliquely or "pretty conclusively." He's stating someone from the Army passed along an assertion -- that Beauchamp's stories were "proven false" and that his "entire platoon" refuted Beauchamp's stories --for which no reliable source exists to this day.
"Breaking a story" (e.g. what Woodward and Bernstein did re: Watergate) is one thing. Receiving propaganda and/or misinformation -- which is all Foer is saying Sanchez did -- is quite another. Changing the lead paragraph to suggest otherwise would be egregiously inaccurate. --Eleemosynary (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Update. I wasn't going to attribute any bad faith to the original editor making this request. But now that I see this, I have to question his rush to put specious claims laudatory of Sanchez into the article. --Eleemosynary (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
You are certainly not one to talk about bad faith editing, as a quick review of your block log should show. The reference I am attempting to add will certainly undermine my vote at AfD to have the article deleted, but unlike you, I actually am concerned about accuracy, rather than cheap scoring of political points. Horologium (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for confirming you're not to be taken seriously. At any time. --Eleemosynary (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
That certainly seems to be a source we need to reference. Aleta (Sing) 01:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Certainly it should be referenced. But not as ersatz confirmation that Sanchez "broke" any story, as the source does not confirm (or even suggest) that. --Eleemosynary (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. Puh-lease! Everyone out of the pool (tweet tweet). The above reference is to assert that "As a milblogger, he has been involved with the Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy." Sanchez is named specifically and this ref seems to assert that Sanchez has indeed been involved. Hopefully that is evident to all. I wouldn't have asked for this edit if I thought it was in any way counter to the spirit of what we're trying to do. Once the dust settles on the AfD and arbcom an accurate, sourced section on how he was involved can be developed. My issue was that I wasn't seeing any WP:RS that showed he was even a part, and now we have one. Eleemosynary, you seem to be frightfully more familiar with the whole Beauchamp case, if you're willing please present any RS's that demonstrate Sanchez's involvement or non-involvement. Eventually we'll get a picture of what he did whether it was just as a conduit or if played some other role. Benjiboi 02:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

N Not done - no consensus for change. east.718 at 23:28, January 15, 2008