Talk:Matt Sanchez/Archive 17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Please 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.

Contents 1 Opening sentence 2 Errors - Grammatical 3 infobox image 3.1 Date the image

Opening sentence

"(also known by stage names: Pierre LaBranche and Rod Majors)" - Is this necessary since his stage names are mentioned elsewhere in the article? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 09:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I ask because other articles (ex: Simon Rex) do not mention stage names in the opening paragraphs since the names are listed under the appropriate sections of the article. If he was just known as only being in porn then it would be different, but he and the person I mentioned are known for other events. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I have already said above that I think they should be removed from the first sentence. I suggest giving it a little time, and if no one objects, boldly remove them. Jay*Jay (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know it had already been discussed. I've never really paid attention to this article and debate and I just happened to notice the stage names when reading this morning. I'm gonna have to read some of these talk page discussions. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the names back to where they were at the end of the second paragraph. I wouldn't support removing them as arguably his gay porn and escorting career coupled with his newfound right-wing career is what made his notoriety. Would anyone care about him if he weren't a former gay pornstar? Benjiboi 13:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, no one is saying remove the stage names. I was suggesting it's unnecessary as being in the opening sentence since the two stages names are now mentioned 3 times in the article. Also, the infobox says "other names" and lists his stage names once again which seems unncessary. Do all WP articles follow this format? What is the reasoning behind bolding the stage names you just moved? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 13:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, The infobox is not considered text of the article per se and frankly I'm not sure if the names need to be listed there. We do however bold names like that on bios "born as" is a good example (see Pope Benedict XVI for instance). It helps a reader who types in "Rod Majors" and was redirected here understand why they are indeed at the right page. Benjiboi 14:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I may have been the one to put them in the lead and/or bolded them - I don't remember for certain, but it's the kind of thing I would do because of our practice of listing and bolding synonyms for the subject title (whether a person or otherwise) in the lead. It seems like it's in the MOS somewhere, but I'll have to track that down before I can post the relevant portion. Aleta (Sing) 21:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, the relevant section is WP:MOS#First sentences, and it doesn't say exactly what I thought it did. In fact, I think it doesn't give a clear guide on how we should handle this situation. FWIW, I do think we should list the stage names right up front and bold them as someone might be looking him up under one of those names. Aleta (Sing) 21:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. Also from WP:MOSPN "Alternative names should be mentioned where appropriate; with bold type in the opening line of the entry if they are in wide use, elsewhere in the article (with or without the bold type) if they are less-used. This is usually a matter for individual judgment." My hunch is that they are fine where they are now but assuming Sanchez becomes notable as a journalist the article's focus may need to change. Benjiboi 02:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC) If we wanted to bother someone else we could see how the good folks at FA would handle it. Benjiboi 02:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Patent nonsense? Bad shortcut? Aleta (Sing) 02:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Linked fixed, someone must have moved the redirect. Benjiboi 03:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, it is my opinion that bolding those names gives undue weight to a particular part of his history. I don't necessarily think they should come out of the lead (I could make an argument either way), but I DO believe they should not be bolded. - Philippe | Talk 02:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, although it's not a huge deal to me either way. (I guess that's an Agnostic opinion, no?) AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. These are other names he's known by and were it not for a Matt Sanchez article there would be a Rod Majors article, although you wouldn't know it by the way the information has been gutted. We are here to convey information and bolding names conveys that those names are the same person. Benjiboi 03:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Benji, you don't think that the simple inclusion of those names does that? I think the bolding is overkill. - Philippe | Talk 03:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not overkill at all. Professional pseudonyms are bolded as a matter of course on Wikipedia. See Mark Twain. Better yet, see Traci Lords. --Eleemosynary (talk) 04:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

But are his stage names considered "professional" pseudonyms? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 10:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Why wouldn't they be? They are the names under which he worked - that seems to me to be the definition of a professional pseudonym, similar to a nom de plume of an author. Aleta (Sing) 15:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Cuz it's not current? Other than residuals (and in porn I don't think you get those), he's not making any money off that business, so unless he's currently in the studio making a new one, he's not currently a "professional" porn actor. Just my opinion. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would say it is quite current as the whole national fame of Sanchez is not from his fine blogging and right-wing postulating but because he had gay sex for money and then became the poster-child of conservative politics and was revealed for the former held in conflict with the latter. It's lovely of us to want to let Sanchez's wishes dictate how little of his actual bio is reported however that's not how wikipedia works. We should strive to dispassionately and neutrally report the facts as best we can. We work with what we have; our suspicions that he's no longer in the military or ran an escort website are equally useless as suggestions of anything else that we don't have reliable sources for. The lede is to be able to stand alone as a summary of a subject and I see no reason not to include his other professional names just as we do on every other bio and this includes bolding those names. I do agree, however, that given the subject's ongoing dramatics (including socking) and hyper-sensitivity to reality that leaving them at the end of lede seems like a fine compromise. As has been pointed out numerous times there would be a Rod Majors article if this one didn't exist. Benjiboi 02:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The "cuz it's not current" argument disintegrates upon examination. Again, please check Mark Twain or Traci Lords. Neither of them are still "making money" off the professions for which they employed their pseudonyms. Bolding such pseudonyms is a Wikipedia standard. Sanchez is not exempt from it. --Eleemosynary (talk) 03:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Errors - Grammatical

There are a couple of errors (gram. with the article). First, "In March 2007, Sanchez was awarded the first "Jeanne Kirkpatrick Academic Freedom Award".[3] at the Conservative Political Action Conference." The period needs to be taken out after Award. Second, cite 7 is messed up. Please fix. Thanks. miranda 07:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Y Done - thanks. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

infobox image

Image:Dressblues.jpg is the highest quality image we have, as far as I know, and I don't see the purpose in using Image:MattSanchezChopper 2.jpg which is not good quality. Appealing to "POV" as the reason doesnt cut it, as any photo injects a POV - Image:MattSanchezChopper 2.jpg leads the reader to believe that he has seen a lot of military action. The infobox is there to give the reader a quick overview of the person - and quality images are the way to do that. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This sort of statement -- specifically "appealing to 'POV' as the reason doesn't cut it" -- is not helpful to the project. It appears to be an attempt to "frame" the discussion before it begins, and reject other editors' concerns before they raise them. Please resist doing this. --Eleemosynary (talk) 05:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this "framing" comment came after several editors had reverted adding a picture with edit summaries that claimed POV. WP:AGF, k? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't cut it. Discussions concerning a prior photo do not permit editors from ruling out arguments when submitting a new one. --Eleemosynary (talk) 06:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Dressblues is a far superior image. I support its use in the infobox. Aleta (Sing) 04:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That photo may become problematic if, as frequently alleged, Sanchez was expelled from the Marines. The evidence for that at this point is circumstantial (Sanchez's removing all military designations from his blog, for example); we don't have a reliable source, yea or nay. However, this comment doesn't seem like a hoax. But the photo also suggests that Sanchez is active military, when, in fact, if he's still in the military, he's a reservist. It's also troubling that Sanchez uploaded this photo to Commons during his year-long ban, and now it's been uploaded here. It seems posting this photo is enabling Sanchez to evade his block, and continue editing his article. Not good. --Eleemosynary (talk) 04:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We work from reliable sources - you need to find reliable sources that Matt isnt in the military. NotebookNinja could upload that document obtained under the FOI onto Wikimedia Commons, and transcribe it to Wikisource.

Also, the Wikimedia Commons project is not Wikipedia! He is not avoiding his ban! How many times does this need to be said. John Vandenberg (talk) 05:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

John, he is working around his ban by uploading an image to Commons, so other editors can upload it here. It's a work-around. And a pretty blatant one. --Eleemosynary (talk) 05:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

He is doing exactly what Wikipedia wants all BLPs to do - upload freely usable images to the Commons project. Wikipedians have a choice on whether we want to use images that are available on Commons, and it would be highly unusual if we didnt make use of the best images that we can. John Vandenberg (talk) 05:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And Sanchez is an unusual case, who is still vandalizing Wikipedia via homophobic rants delivered through sock accounts. He also claims he "made" the photo himself, just as he (falsely) claimed he "owned" the Columbia photo. "Dress Blues" may be a high-quality photo in terms of pixels and resolution, but it's an unacceptable photo as it suggests that Sanchez is currently a Marine, when the last reliably sourced article we have said he was under investigation by the Marines for fraud. --Eleemosynary (talk) 06:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not he is still in the military (and our last reliable source says he is), this image is a) free (and unquestionably so) and b) of good quality. Find a better free image with no copyright problems and we can discuss that one. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I'll discuss this one, thank you. For which there appears to be no consensus for inclusion. --Eleemosynary (talk) 06:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Dressblues is a far superior image in quality only. As all the regular editors here should be painfully aware it's looking less and less likely that Sanchez is in the military and I will again wonder aloud if the rights to use this image are indeed owned by him. Looks a lot like a standard service pic that likely the military branch that took the photo would own rights to. Benjiboi 04:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

US Military images are in the public domain, as it clearly says on the image page. John Vandenberg (talk) 05:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The image tag says it's a "self made" image by Sanchez. So he's claiming he "made" the photo himself? That's laughable. It's an official military portrait, with the exact same background as this one, and you'd help this project immensely if you stopped giving Sanchez the benefit of the doubt. --Eleemosynary (talk) 05:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The uniform is copyrighted though. Derivatives and such. And yeah, the image wreaks of POV. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 05:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

{{citation needed}} John Vandenberg (talk) 05:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on y'all - they are both very military-type photos, so the POV argument doesn't work for me at all. Whether or not he's in the military now, we know he at least used to be, and the photo does not necessarily have to reflect his current status. Aleta (Sing) 05:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(indent reset) The dress blues image POVs that he's in the military. The other one barely showing any camo is what most journalists wear when over "there" covering war. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 05:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The POV is in "sanitizing" him and whitewashing the fact that he is in the military. A "dress blues" image is a) free, b) good quality, and c) not flattering. Well, I guess that last one is just my opinion. But it's a better picture than the grainy thing from the helicopter. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Is he still in the military? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 05:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We have no reliable source either way. The various Military Times sources saying he was active pre-date the conclusion of his fraud investigation. --Eleemosynary (talk) 05:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

How about someone file a request under the Freedom of Information Act and find out? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 06:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to illustrate the absurdity of the argument that POV isn't a reasonable concern, I'd like to ask a hypothetical question: Suppose I could arrange for one of the studios for which Matt worked to release into the public domain (and upload to commons, or whatever) a high quality, high reosolution image (better quality and resolution than dressblues). Suppose further that this photo was a head shot (in both senses of the word). Could I reasonably argue that it should be used as the highest resolution free image we have available? After all, we know he used to be in porn. Jay*Jay (talk) 11:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The difference, of course, being that he is in the military, and he's not doing porn. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? Would you please point me to a reliable source for that - one that doesn't establish that he was in the miilitary, but establishes that he still is in the military? Then, would you please explain why resolution and image quality can be used to argue for a picture like dressblue, but the same argument seems unimportant when it comes to the hypothetical suggestion I advanced? Finally, consider the portrayal of Matt in his porn 'persona' and his marine 'persona'. Are neither of these a POV concern? Both? Only one? Why? Jay*Jay (talk) 15:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

All our reliable sources say that he's in the military. We have to assume that things haven't changed - until we have references that say otherwise. We don't have sources to prove he's changed his name to "Annie", either, so until some show up, we assume his name is Matt.

Now, just for your hypothetical purposes, lets say sources show up that say he's not in the military. Then your hypothetical pornstar picture might be just as valid as the military photo.

As for "persona", I'm not sure I fully follow your question. Matt used to do porn. Mat is in the military. Matt is a writer. To portray him in the lede of the article in his past career rather than his current career is POV, isn't it? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced the low resolution image with a higher resolution one. Durova^Charge! 00:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually all of our reliable sources don't say that but more to your point no reliable sources, as yet, assert that he's no longer in the military. We have assertions that Sanchez is no longer in the military just as we have assertions that he is still doing escort work but until we have reliable sources those will have to remain on the sidelines. Benjiboi 00:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have locked this article because editors are edit warring over every detail. I have also reverted because the reasons given to use the lower resolution article are based on violations of WP:BLP, naming assertions that he isnt in the military based on a fraud investigation, without knowing whether that investigation is at, or what the outcome is. As this is an revert+protect, which is usually ill-advised, I will not be entering into any discussions about the infobox image for the next month, and I will let another admin decide whether to fulfil any {{editprotected}} request. John Vandenberg (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with your action as it seems quite convenient to revert then lock onto a contentious photo version of the article then disengage and "let" other admins address {{editprotected}} requests which generally don't happen unless there is clear consensus to make an edit and even then some prefer to wait until article is unprotected. Also the assertions behind the reasons not to use the POV photo are beyond just the fraud and gay porn military investigations; they also include mounting circumstantial evidence with nothing currently suggesting that Sanchez is still in the military except that DADT dismissals generally diminish during wars. Benjiboi 00:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No one suggested the other photo was problematic except for lower quality which is hardly a valid reason to replace with a POV-problematic photo that there is no consensus to include. Benjiboi 00:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the protection. The POV argument regarding service status doesn't make sense: both portraits under discussion depict him in military uniform. One is higher resolution than the other. Anyway, I have no intention to edit war over the issue. If things don't settle down then WP:AE can handle it. Durova^Charge! 00:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll go on record to say that the revert and full protect to the version you've been lobbying for, is foul and abuse of tools. I of course won't take it to ANI since you've got a sizable cabal that won't see anything wrong in what you've done thereby making any reports/requests for comments anywhere else than here, pointless. Just as long as it's in the history that it was the wrong thing to do. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 02:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, rather pointless to fight them as they are experts on the system, and likely should know better than to edit war then revert/protect as such. Also "both portraits under discussion depict him in military uniform" is sadly misinformed as one rarely sees anyone except current and dead military personnel in "dress blues" whereas camo is widely worn by the general public. The reason the headshot was pulled from the previous photo was to remove the POV of Sanchez in a helicopter for the exact same reasons. I expect this behavior from Sanchez and am quite stunned to see it from admins. Benjiboi 02:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a blatant abuse of tools, and a complete disregard of everything "the project" is supposed to stand for. But at least there's now a history of this abuse. That will be helpful down the line. --Eleemosynary (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Folks, this article is under arb restrictions and there does appear to be edit warring and there is certainly very heavy talk discussion going on. Work issue out here on talk and the protection can be lifted. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but that still doesn't dismiss the abuse. Ad admin has reverted to a version he has been lobbying for and then full protected the page. That's abuse, no other way to say it. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 14:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Misuse of tools seems to be the releavnt section. Benjiboi 02:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Date the image

I suggest we use a caption for the image with the date of 2003: something basic like "Matt Sanchez in 2003". Then there is no question about how old the image is, and the reader/viewer is free to assume or not anything about his current status. Aleta (Sing) 00:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant idea! John Vandenberg (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a good solution. Durova^Charge! 02:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This would seem to make the 2008 photo the perfect candidate as it's a current photo. Benjiboi 02:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a crappy photo though! Aleta (Sing) 02:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

And we use crappy photos all the time, the answer isn't to switch it for a problematic photo without consensus. I'd rather have a "crappy" photo than one with blatant POV concerns. Benjiboi 02:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

From "As this is an revert+protect, which is usually ill-advised, I will not be entering into any discussions about the infobox image for the next month" to being the first to respond to a suggestion on the image, commenting "Brilliant idea!" - time elapsed 43 minutes. No comment...
Aleta, adding such a caption would be a marginal improvement, so I would support it being done - but it doesn't go close to addressing the POV issue. A neutral image would be one that made neither military nor porn allusions - like to Columbia one (I know, Matt would have to sort out the copyright issue, which John Vandenberg has given him enormous motivation to do by reverting to, and then protecting, a version with Matt's #1 choice for an article image). It is disappointing that some seem unable to grasp the fairly evident situation that either an image in Dress Blues or an image of Matt from Jawbreaker would be blatantly biased depictions to go with the lead. Matt in Dress Blues in the military section, maybe - but the lead? Jay*Jay (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC) _{Note: edit conflict x 2}

I'm really curious why you feel that a picture of a man in uniform when he's in the military is somehow out of place? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It is out of place as the illustration accompanying the lead section. Matt is notable principally for his porn work and for the controversy connecting his porn past to his present views (both political and LGBT). He would not, under any circumstances, warrant an article based on his Marine career. Under such circumstances, using a Dress Blues image which proclaims 'MARINE!!!' is to introduce at the start a trigger of a mental image. I would have no problem with such an image for someone notable for being a Marine - but that isn't the case here. If someone is notable for multiple reasons, surely NPOV would dictate a 'neutral' image with the lead. Would an article about Tom Cruise have a picture with the lead from one of his film roles, or from a Scientology speech, or from some other single area? No, it would have a neutral publicity photo. For me, the Columbia image is the closest to 'neutral' - it does not scream military, nor porn star, nor any other epithet that might reasonably be applied. As I said above, the Dress Blues shot could be in the article with the military service section - maybe even the full chopper shot with the blogger part, provided an appropriate caption was added. But in the lead? No. I am quite serious when I say that this image is as biased as an illustration at the start of the article as would be one of Matt in mid-69 or providing oral stimulation in Jawbreaker. I am willing to listen to any argument that I might be wrong - but I would need to be convinced that the image does not introduce an immediate slant to the article. FYI, with my background knowledge of the influences associated with juxtaposition of text and images, I am struggling to see any basis on which such an argument can be made. Please note that this is not meant as an appeal to authority that you should accept my view, but it is to indicate that there really is a basis for a picture "telling a thousand words" - and those thousand words with the Dress Blue image are spectacularly one-sided, in my view. Jay*Jay (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected|Please add the caption: "Matt Sanchez in 2003" to the infobox photo that is currently there. Even though there is disagreement about which image to use, we seem to have consensus to date whatever image is there. (I hope I'm doing this correctly.) Aleta (Sing) 14:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)}}

Sorry, but I disagree, the image should be removed altogether. Doubts exist as to the uploader's ownership and as is evident here is seen as POV-pushing. Adding a caption isn't helpful in this case, it only seems to legitimatize the use of a problematic image. Benjiboi 14:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Benji, I don't understand your doubt of the copyright status of DressBlue. The image is quite clearly his dress-blue image, one that is provided by the military. Yes, he says "self" on it, but that's the only questionable thing about it. It's otherwise free and clear, OTRS certified, and public domain.

Jay*Jay, thank you for clearly pointing out your concerns. You (and others) have been claiming "POV" without explaining what you meant, so I'm glad to see the clarification.

The three things in Matt's life that are "notable" by Wikipedia's standards are a) his adult video award(s), b) his national exposure from the Columbia incident, and c) his Kirkpatrick award and the surrounding controversy.

Two of those three issues are related to his porn career. Two of them are related to his conservatism. Slanting either way does provide a POV problem. And I see some of us taking a timeline view (as in 'he started in porn, now he's a conservative'), whereas some people are taking a current view looking back (as in 'he's a conservative who's done porn').

I hope that explains a little better where I see our differences of opinion. From my perspective, focusing on his conservatism (what he's currently doing) makes the Dress Blues photo at least partially acceptable, if not ideal. It has a military slant that I (personally) don't like, but which does correctly point to his conservative nature and stance. I wouldn't mind the Columbia Spectator photo, but that one isn't available. And rather than having nothing, this one will do (IMO). -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for painting me as "grasping at straws" on this, I'll simply refer you to the facts of Sanchez being banned for editing and continual presenting differing versions as to his credibility as either a editor or photo uploader. Also cheers for claiming those of us rightfully pointing out POV concerns are "screaming", (sigh), this certainly helps keep dialog even keeled. Did you really need help seeing that a photo of the subject in the article in full dress blues was problematic on POV concerns? Really? I also find it highly problematic to equate military equals conservative although one could certainly build a case for it. I will refrain from refuting the rest of your statements to avoid BLP concerns. Benjiboi 15:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Sanchez is also notable for his "misunderstanding" with U-haul and the United War Veterans Council - a "misunderstanding" that resulted in a fraud investigation because these two organizations accused Sanchez of trying to get money from them by misrepresenting his military service. Sanchez is frequently misidentified as a war veteran even though he's a reservist who was never deployed to a war zone. Why use an image that would only add to the confusion by showing Sanchez in uniform?Reelm (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Disabled editprotected request. There doesn't seem to be consensus. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

SatyrTN, I am honestly surprised that you did not think I had made clear my POV concern. By comparing the dressblues image to a porn image, I was trying to illustrate the unacceptability of a slant in the opposite direction. I was acting on the interpretation that you understood the POV concern, but didn't see the extent of the slant introduced. My apologies - I thought I had been clear. For the record, I remain strongly of the view that the Dress Blue photo with the lead is unacceptable. I do not believe the fact that many in the military are conservatives is anywhwere close to a justification for the image that outweighs the POV objection. The photo belongs with the military career section or nowhere - but not with the lead. Jay*Jay (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Jay*, you haven't quite addressed my point, though. You say above:

Matt is notable principally for his porn work and for the controversy connecting his porn past to his present views.

As I pointed out, though, that's a very slanted view. Two (or three, adding in Reelm's comment) of his "notable" issues are related directly to his being in the military - the Columbia incident, the Kirkpatrick award, and the U-Haul incident. Not to mention his writing. So what other picture would better illustrate the issues for which he is notable? SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

As I have said, several times, a neutral lead photo would illustrate neither his porn past nor his military past. Columbia is the best I've seen. A head shot from something like the Coulter photo might be OK. Failing that, the lead should have no photo until a suitably neutral one is available. Jay*Jay (talk) 05:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the copyright status of DressBlue, the only viable alternative to Matt Sanchez's claim of ownership would be to call it a work of the United States federal government. All U.S. federal government works are public domain. So either way it's a free image and a legitimate upload. Durova^Charge! 18:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)