Talk:Matt Sanchez/Archive 18

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 18
| Archive 19 →


Contents

Disambiguation

{{editprotected}} Can an admin please disambiguate marine to United States Marine Corps? Thanks. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 06:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Happy‑melon 11:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

New Photos of Matt Sanchez

Resolved.

A

B

C

D

Note: this section was started by user:WatchingWhales - diff. The images were uploaded by user:Fat Jenny - A B C D. Jay*Jay (talk) 02:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully these will allow us to solve the Matt Sanchez image issue. We'll even be able to move the image of Matt wearing Dress Blues to the military section, where it belongs. In the fervent hope that any potential debate about the images and copyright / licensing can be avoided, I note that all these photos are attributed as having been taken by David Shankbone. I contacted him by email, asking him to confirm that he took the photos and to check the licenses. His reply, in its entirity, was "I confirm, and all are appropriately licensed." Thus, I believe there are no problems, and we can focus our attention where it belongs - on which of the available images to use with the lead.

My preference is image C, which I think is the nicest of these photos, for the lead. Dress Blues could be moved to the USMC-related section, because it is a good portrait, just inappropriate with the lead. Jay*Jay (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree either C, or else A. The composition is a little off with C, but I think the background is better with C than A. Aleta Sing 03:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Ummm, I must say as much as a more neutral photo would be more than welcome these, to me, seem problematic as well. All four are attributed to User:David Shankbone who is probably well-known to many of the regular editors here. Sadly his page indicates he may have actually retired from contributing to wikipedia. It's quite puzzling why he would have deviated from his usual style of taking pretty good quality photos and uploading four with at least two sets of wardrobe and background as well as what looks to be a fair gap in time between at least "photo A" and the rest. Given the subject's now lengthy and documented history of uploading images that are not owned by them with what we can call repeated misunderstandings of policies I think some of our OTRS folks or if we have a cross admin on Commons could have suss out if these are indeed free of issues. Benjiboi 04:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
JayJay said he contacted David Shankbone, and DS confirmed that he took the photos and that they were appropriately licensed. Aleta Sing 04:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I will simply suspend my involvement here for a bit - this seems just too special for words. Benjiboi 04:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Matt seems to want to say something as well also please note the change in photo A already, doesn't seem to be Shankbone's work so I will remain in doubts on these. Benjiboi 04:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I emailed David directly using the email facility of WP, where only David can nominate the receiving email address. I have emailed him again with some suggestions as to how this might be definitively resolved, and am waiting for a response. In the meantime, I ask that we please all discuss the image options for the article on the assumption that these photos are appropriately licensed, and not get sidetracked. I will provide an update later, and the article will not be modified until the issue is resolved - no editprotected request would be granted in the present circumstances - so let's try not to get distracted by side issues or the homophobic drivel from the banned subject of this article. Jay*Jay (talk) 04:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Can I state that I'm certain that David took these pictures (I'm chatting with him separately) and is generally avoiding Wikipedia in general which is why he wasn't the one to upload them. Cary Bass demandez 22:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and 3 C. Cary Bass demandez 22:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I have also received confirmation from David that he took the pictures. WjBscribe 22:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I've received confirmation from David Shankbone also that these are his photographs. I'd go with C as the best of the group. DurovaCharge! 23:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The end of the photo saga: I have had a response from David, in which he has given me permission to forward our email correspondence to any editor in good standing who might have a reasonable reason to request it. Just email me a request. As others have noted, David is staying off-wiki in part because he is still being trolled. Jay*Jay (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Now, returning to the photo options, preferences for photo C have been expressed by Jay*Jay, Aleta, Bastique (Cary Bass), and Durova. Aleta also considered A acceptable. Any other views? Jay*Jay (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Given the updates I agree that Photo C seems the best and also registers as neutral. Benjiboi 01:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Since several people have agreed that photo C is the best, and no one has dissented since confirmations have been given of the photographer and license, would an administrator please put photo C in the infobox, and move the dress blues photo to the military section? Aleta Sing 17:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. Nice photo. Happy‑melon 20:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Work as an escort

I noticed that the Salon article "Porn Free" is referenced again. Does that mean we can include Sanchez's statement about having been an escort (from the same piece) in the article:

"Some of the sites were comparing me to Rich Merritt, a Marine Corps captain who appeared in gay films. Others were comparing me to Jeff Gannon and claiming that I too had advertised my services as a male escort. I won't deny it, or that I acted in several adult movies 15 years ago under names like Pierre LaBranche and Rod Majors." Aatombomb (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
No, we cannot. He never said he worked as an escort (see WP:BLP), and in fact has denied it on several occasions. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
But that doesn't matter, because A** has been beating this same drum since the beginning. Again, there is a COI violation and there's very little hope of an unbiased edit.Matt Sanchez (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I heard you admit yourself that you were an escort on the Colmes show. Aatombomb (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Provide a source. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Here: [1] Also, the quote above is from the Salon article, also used as a reference here. Aatombomb (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Damn, I was just about to post that youtube recording of Matt on Colmes admitting he was a prostitute.. admitting not once but several times. That info should be put back in the article. I've also saved the recording since Matt seems good at getting things removed from the internet. Also, as recently as November 2004 he placed ads in the New York Blade for "massage" services and Colmes calls him out about it. -- ALLSTARecho 16:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm hesitant to include that because he's denied it since then, and per WP:BLP, that has to take precedence. Little Richard isn't considered gay, and for the same reason. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The example helps clarify the policy. Thanks. Aatombomb (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the Little Richard issue has been completely settled yet. Some editors think references to his sexuality should be included in his bio because it was addressed in his official biography. (edit to fix broken link) Reelm (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There's also this article from The Army Times - Corps may investigate cpl’s gay porn past:

During a radio interview with Fox News Channel’s Alan Colmes last week, Sanchez acknowledged working as a male prostitute, but told Marine Corps Times he hasn’t had homosexual sex since he joined the Corps in 2003.

According to that Army Times article his admissions of prostitution were part of the military investigation into his background.

I would support removing the references to escorting and prostitution - if they were only based on rumors and speculation. But these allegations stem from public statements made by Matt Sanchez himself. This is a major aspect of his notoriety. Most of the articles I've read about this case refer to him as a former prostitute or a male escort, because he identified himself as a prostitute during an interview and compared himself to two other former escorts in his Salon article Porn Free. (Note: Rich Merritt is a gay marine who worked as a prostitute before he became a porn star.) Also, one of the refs used as a source for the Scott Thomas controversy also describes him as a former male escort.

If a section dealing with prostitution/escorting is based on statements made by Matt Sanchez, and it's drawn from refs currently used as sources, I don't see how this would create a BLP issue.Reelm (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, according to Satyr and Aleta, it's a BLP issue because, and only because, he now denies that he ever was a prostitute. Which, and no offence to Satyr and Aleta because I have the utmost respect for them, but that's the most assinine use of BLP policy I have ever seen. The man has admitted it, to the news media. Now that he's trying to cover his ass, he says he never did it so we can't include it? I propose this because it is fact:
Prostitution career

On March 8, 2007, Sanchez wrote an article for Salon.com in which he took note of reports "claiming that I too had advertised my services as a male escort." He wrote of the prostitution allegation: "I won't deny it, or that I acted in several adult movies 15 years ago under names like Pierre LaBranche and Rod Majors."[1] The following day, Alan Colmes, a liberal Fox News commentator, twice asked Sanchez whether he had worked as a male prostitute. Sanchez answered "Yes" to both questions.[2]

Sanchez later claimed that his admissions of prostitution had been misconstrued by Colmes and fabricated by Salon.com even though he wrote the Salon.com piece.
It covers the 2 issues at hand.. it includes 1) the prostitution and the fact that he has admitted to it, with reliable sources, and it includes 2) that he now denies it - which covers both sides of the issue and avoids BLP altogether. -- ALLSTARecho 20:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, I think it's WP:UNDUE to give this it's own section; in the gay porn acting community it seems pretty common for actors to also do escort service to supplement their income and possibly to leverage better industry opportunities so merging this into his adult career (which yet again has been gutted) would be more correct. There also is a legal definition between escort and prostitution; I believe prostitution is almost universally illegal where escorting in not but seen as a cover for prostitution. For those unfamiliar, a customer would pay an escort for their companionship, dinner, a date, whatever, all to be negotiated. Unless we have a legal record (which still may be OR), a RS stating Sanchez as a prostitute or Sanchez himself stating such I would avoid that word altogether. Benjiboi 05:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Let me amend myself. here is a RS that seems to cover it "During a radio interview with Fox News Channel’s Alan Colmes last week, Sanchez acknowledged working as a male prostitute, but told Marine Corps Times he hasn’t had homosexual sex since he joined the Corps in 2003." So I would support that word's use and suggest that we use quotes for the next person who might question it's use. Benjiboi 05:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)`
Also "Sanchez later claimed that his admissions of prostitution had been misconstrued by Colmes and fabricated by Salon.com" this needs to be sourced as well. I seem to remember Matt claiming Salon had altered his piece to which I suggested we find any evidence of that or that Salon has been accused of such activities by other people in RS. Benjiboi 06:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Totally appreciate your efforts on this Benjiboi. I would just like to point out that the discussion had reached this very same point several times before, only to be overruled by other editors/administrators as a BLP violation yet again. Aatombomb (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
SatyrTN is incorrect in stating that we have to excise Matt's admission of being a prostitute simply because he has since denied it. There is nothing in BLP that states this. If there is, quote it exactly. Wjhonson (talk) 10:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I ever said it has to be removed simply because he denied it. It is controversial information, though, and should therefore be sourced to a very high standard. And since there is contradictory information on the subject, it has to be handled very carefully. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
He admitted it on a nationally-syndicated radio program. He was asked you were a male prostitute, and he says Yes. That's awfully clear. Did you listen to the audio yourself? As far as the escort allegations, he has been identified in numerous ways as the same person who ran the excellent-top.com website until at least 2004. Wjhonson (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. We'd need exceptional WP:RS to support including excellent-top.com in any form. Benjiboi 20:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

When a website is registered, an address is given for the physical location of the website. When a person files a DBA or similar legal form, an address is given for that person with their full name. In Matt's case, the physical address for the website given on Alexa.com is the same as the physical address for himself as given in the 'US Public Records Index' on Ancestry. Same street address, same apartment number. His full name is given, including middle name, and his birthdate which matches his known birthdate from the California Birth Index. Wjhonson (talk) 00:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds promising, can you link the source showing the Alexa info and that it uses his name and address? Benjiboi 01:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I know that this is likely to be an unpopular sentiment, but answer this question: Why is there a push to include this detail in the article? In New York (where this is alleged to have occurred), prostitution is a Class B misdemeanor [2], at the same level as possession of fireworks [3], possession of graffiti instruments [4] (actually producing graffiti is a Class A misdemeanor [5]), or Fortune telling (yes, fortune telling is a crime under New York state law [6]). Since his notoriety stems from something other than prostitution (unlike, for example, Divine Brown), are allegations of a misdemeanor really even relevant? If the only reason to include this is to embarrass Sanchez, then it should be excluded. Horologium (talk) 06:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) As far as links to the relevant sourced content, it should all be in my article at CountyHistorian. As far as including the prostitution evidence, Horologium you know as well as I do, that once a person has achieved the level of notability where they warrant an article at all, all aspects of their life can then be cited and sourced. Each individual aspect does not need to rise to a notability level to be included in a biography. It is rather, the biography itself, as a whole, which must pass the notability criteria. Obviously that he was born in San Jose is not notable in and of itself, and yet it is a normal part of a person's biography. The fact that a person, say George Bush, was once a male prostitute, would certainly be included in his biography, if we could find evidence from a reliable source. The fact that Matt now denies it is not relevant to whether we include it, and including it, from the Alan Colmes show, is not a violation of BLP. If Matt wants to include *as well* a statement that he was confused or something, fine include it. To censor the evidence, simply to suit Matt, is not in the interest of the project. Wjhonson (talk) 07:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Note the above paragraph was previously removed for WP:BLP issues and also an admin stated that it hosted "speculative defamation". Neither of these things are in-fact true. BLP is quite clear that Talk pages fall under seperate rules. And if *investigative journalism* is *speculative defamation* we are in a whole lot of trouble. Wjhonson (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd imagine because it was his porn work and his prostitution being brought to light after receiving the Jeane Kirkpatrick Academic Freedom Award. Here was someone saying "I'm conservative, yay for Ann Coulter, down with the liberals" yet failing to reveal his own sordid past. Fortunately, the hypocrisy was revealed for him and his prostitution is just as relevant as his porn career in relation to him trying to hide his past. ALLSTARecho 06:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
We have to be careful of OR, there. Do we have any sources that cover the disconnect between his stances, politicism, and his past? Lawrence Cohen 06:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Besides his own comments and edits here on WP? ALLSTARecho 06:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Will this do?
There is of course nothing inherently wrong with Sanchez being a gay porn star or a male escort. His past is only notable because he chose to join a movement that exploits anti-gay sentiment for political gain. Coulter's now-famous "faggot" remark was not an aberration, but rather a symbol of the politics of resentment that propels the conservative movement and its elected Republican surrogates; a reflection of the bigotry conservatives have sought to write into the Constitution through the so-called Federal Marriage Amendment.
...snip...
As Sanchez marched down the road from the gay sex industry to the conservative movement, he followed in the footsteps of Jeff Gannon, Ted Haggard and many others.
The fact that he is a professional journalist and an admitted prostitute is notable. The fact that he's the second Republican journalist to be outted as a male prostitute (see Jeff Gannon) within a two year period is also notable.Reelm (talk) 08:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Anything he may say or write here would not be a valid source. Do we have any RS that cover that information? Lawrence Cohen 06:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Wikipedia is not a reliable source, as stated in WP:RS. Additionally (and this goes back to my original argument) why is something that happened in the past relevant to an event that occurred 10 months ago? Are you implying that transgressions are unforgivable, that one can never turn over a new leaf? Larry Craig is a hyprocrite; I don't know that the same can be said for Sanchez. He certainly wasn't volunteering details of his past, but at least he wasn't publicly saying one thing and doing the opposite at the same time. Horologium (talk) 06:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • When a person has achieved that level of notability that a biography is acceptable, all known facts about the person have an equal chance of being represented. The person, short of pointing out libelous statements, has no special prerogative to exclude certain details. We do not allow this priviledge to Ann Coulter, we do not allow it to Jimmy Wales, we allow it to nobody. It is a red-herring argument that only issues *related* to notability are included. We include a biography based on notability, but once included, each statement does not need to pass notability to be included. ALLSTARecho 14:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


Although the charge of prostitution is relatively minor as a crime, it connected to the question of fraudulent enlistment. With regard to CPAC, I agree that he had no obligation to divulge his past to them. However, when he signed on for the Marines, he was under an obligation to be truthful about his past. If the recruiter had been fully informed he probably shouldn't have let him in the first place. If he wasn't fully informed by Sanchez, then Sanchez fraudulently enlisted. This is also connected to DADT, since the porn documents homosexual acts. Aatombomb (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) There is dicussion of this very claim of "fraudulent enlistment" at Pwok's site. If you google:

"Matthew Sanchez" countyhistorian

You will hit on my site, which includes a link to Pwok's site. Pwok is a former journalist and it's really an enormous shame that this entire history of Sanchez caused Pwok to get banned from Wikipedia. But it did make him launch his own criticism site which all-in-all is a move designed to let the sourced facts speak for themselves without censorship. At any rate, he has a discussion board where this is being discussed and apparently he follows the article, talk, and ArbCom cases there as well. Wjhonson (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to say "Nonsense" to some of the above. Just because a person is notable and passes WP:N does *NOT* mean that every facet of their existence can or should (or even has the possibility of) being in their article! Thomas Jefferson wrote what he had for breakfast every morning in his diaries - does that information belong in his article? Take a look at WP:UNDUE some time.
So - to the article here - is there any chance of salvaging an article that's a) accurate and referenced, and b) doesn't slam Sanchez for turning around? Can we balance what he's notable for and why?
And third, any allegations of breaking the law - whatever law it is - need to be reliably sourced. The better the source, the better the chance all of us can agree the info is important and/or belongs in the article. Yeh, I heard the Colmes interview, and I wasn't impressed. If I say I'm Queen of England on the radio, does that make it true? Does that belong in my article, even if I'm notable for being a Queen?
I have no idea if the AfD will succeed or fail. IMO, it should succeed, this article should be salted, and we should all find better ways of spending our time than hassling over a blogger, no matter how many porn films he was in.
But if the AfD fails, can we try to work this article in a way that is balanced and well sourced?
-- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 07:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
A) Sure I agree, I never said *every* facet of their life has to be included. What I said what that *each* statement itself does not need to pass our notability barrier in order for that statement to be included. It is the article which must pass notability, not each statement within. Those statements need to pass Undue Weight.
B) Yes I believe this article could be salvaged. I don't think it's likely as long as Sanchez is around. I think his editing here and elsewhere in the project have made it clear that he is not interested in working with others.
C) The reference to his prostitution is not a reference to his "breaking the law". Wikipedia isn't about "Truth" whatever that means, and you know this already. It's about what evidence is presented and from what sources. He said it in an interview. Ninety-nine point nine percent of all radio interviews don't have the question at all. That his did, and that he said yes twice, makes it weighty enough to be here-presented. I'm sure you can agree with that. Contrary to what you said above, *if* we had an article about you, *and* you said you were the Queen of England, I'm sure we can all agree that would be a weighty-enough statement to include in your article if only to show that you're apparently unbalanced.
D) Yes we can try to work on the article in a way that is balanced and well-sourced. In fact, prior to certain disruptive editors appearing, we were doing just that. Of course I've been here a long time. There have been *times* of lucid and well-balanced editing here. Wjhonson (talk) 08:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine. We'll do it this way.

  1. No one has edited on in this thread for a month and a half.
  2. If new sources appear that indicate something about escorting, a new thread will probably be needed to discuss them.
  3. This thread is 23K and slows down the page loading of this often lengthy discussion page.

So can we move this thread to the archive? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagree completely. This seems to be the main concern central to the subject of this article - that he was a gay escort/prostitute held in conflict with him being the poster-child marine hero of the conservative movement which has traditionally demonized gays. I simply see this issue as back-burnered as even the smallest changes have resulted in heated debate. I see no rush to resolve this now nor do I see this as quickly resolvable by any stretch unless Sanchez is outed as such by an exception RS that even die-hard supporters would concede as conclusive. Benjiboi 01:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
As SatyrTN is currently campaigning to scrub the article from mentioning Sanchez's escort career, his proposal to "archive" this section reads like an attempt to scrub a valuable section where his arguments against inclusion have been soundly refuted. --Eleemosynary (talk) 10:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


Where is the source that Sanchez is currently in the military?

I'm reading accounts on other sites (mostly blogs that don't measure up to Wiki RS rules), that the Marines discharged Sanchez after his porn/escort career came to light. Of course, we shouldn't put this in the article unless we have reliable sourcing, but we also shouldn't write that he's in the Marines unless we have a source for it.

Anyone have a reliable source? --Eleemosynary (talk) 04:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You go first. Find a reliable source that states he is not in the Marines. The burden of proof is on you to find it. Horologium (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Wrong again. I'm not asking to place anything in the article stating he's not in the Marines. I'm asking for a reliable source that states that he is. Let us know when you find such a source. --Eleemosynary (talk) 05:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay - how about the very first source on the page - [7]. According to that, he's "Marine Cpl Matt Sanchez". If that's not reliable enough, how about the Marine Corps Times, which also calls him "Cpl Matt Sanchez" [8]. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The Marine Corps Times is a better source than Gay.com. Thanks. --Eleemosynary (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Many titles are typically retained even after a person leaves the position. "President Carter" "General so and so": saying "former/retired/inactive Marine Cpl Matt Sanchez" rather than "Marine Cpl Matt Sanchez" would be considered a deliberate insult and is not done. Further, even after leaving active duty, certain obligations and privileges remain as does the rank. You can't judge active/inactive status from "Marine Cpl Matt Sanchez". WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Sanchez has removed all military designations from his blog. Stay tuned for whether the Marines have expelled him, and invalidated any rank of his held prior to the revelations about his past. --Eleemosynary (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Sanchez was in the reserves right? Would the place where he served have an actual list of personnel? And would that be a public document? I didn't really do that much looking into that part of his biography. Wjhonson (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Just out of curiosity, why is that Marine Corps Times article considered a reliable enough source for his marine rank, but not reliable enough to document he was a prostitute? The article states that flat out. Jeffpw (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, none of the three Marine Corps Times pieces cited in the article say that at all. (I just checked again to make sure.) Horologium (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Check again. This article clearly states that Sanchez admitted working as a prostitute on the Alan Colmes show. But I noticed something fishy about this article. Another version of this article appears on a Marine Corps Times sister site, the Army Times, but the wording is different. The second paragraph at the Army Times site also mentions that Sanchez admitted working as a male prostitute, but this line was redacted from the Marine Corps Times article. According to Matt Sanchez's web site, he's a featured writer at the Marine Corps Times. It looks like Matt Sanchez called in a favor and got someone to revise this article for him. They didn't do a very good job though.Reelm (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Good catch, Reelm. We now have an acceptable source on Sanchez's prostitution history. --Eleemosynary (talk) 21:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought we already had the source on that. But do realize that those articles are all still primary sources - meaning I think they all say "Sanchez says he did such-and-such", which is not the same thing as "Sanchez did such-and-such". -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I can address that. It is a common misperception that a "primary source" means the first source "I've seen" which reports a story. In actual fact, the way we use primary sources on-Wiki and the way it's use standardly off-Wiki is "the first souce which states some particular thing as a fact." Full stop. If you report, or if it can be generally understood, that a source is reporting, what some other source states, then the source is not primary. I believe we can all agree that the Army Times, or the Marine Times is not creating this statement from thin air. They are reporting on a situation, statesments, facts, etc which have already been made known in some fashion generally. If for example they are reporting based on a document from an active investigation, it is that document which would be the "primary source". Remember that primary sources do not need to be published in order to be "primary" even by our definitions. If primary sources are not published, we generally do not and have halted their use on-Wiki. That does not mean they are not still considered on-Wiki to be primary. It only means that they are not published, and thus hard to verify if not impossible in some cases.Wjhonson (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
OK take a breath... We do not need to *prove* that a reporter used a specific particular source if we can infer that they must have in order to make their report. So if you attend a speech, your ears hear a primary source from the air. When you report what you hear in a newspaper, even though no other person has reported it, your report, since you are not the creator of the fact, becomes a secondary source. If a newspaper article is a letter-to-the-editor, that is a primary source since there is no second party involved before it's publication. A reporter is always a secondary source with the exception that Op-Eds are considered Primary as the opinion of the editor. CONFUSED YET?? Yes. But seriously, editors on-Wiki have been fighting on this for years and years... its one of our biggest goals in life.Wjhonson (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Oops I have to slightly amend this. IF your report of the speech is *merely* a faithful transcription without any additional comment, selection, correction, modification, then you are merely doing the *mechanical* work of changing its form from temporary to permanent. That does not change the type of source, it would still be a primary source, just now a transcription in paper form. But interviews (as opposed to speeches) are always secondary sources because the statements of fact of the subject are being extracted by an *author* who is not the subject, and then those bits are cut and spliced together with intros and exits and music and whatever else to create a brand-new creative thing that was not merely the subject speaking. It's a synthesis of new material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjhonson (talk • contribs) 08:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The Marine Corps Times article says "During a radio interview with Fox News Channel’s Alan Colmes last week, Sanchez acknowledged working as a male prostitute. That makes it a secondary source, right? It's all right there in the link SatyrTn provided earlier in this section. 23:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Jeffpw (talk)
That's right Jeff. Actually in light of perhaps a certain wittiness on-Wiki, some editors might call it a "tertiary source" but you'll never get me to use that bizarre phrase. The broadcast of the show is the *publisher* of Sanchez who himself is the *primary source* for his own speech on the show. So the broadcast publishes a primary source you might think. But wait because a news reporter also publishes quotes and adds in paraphrasing and questions. So the final drafted report isn't actually, in total a "primary source". It's only primary if it's pristine, rough, unedited, original, without amendation, etc. Once Colmes gets in his back-and-forth you are automatically creating a secondary source. If Sanchez gave a speech it would be primary, as soon as it's an "interview" it becomes a secondary source. You, the reporter, the editor, the broadcaster, are "editing" the source. You remove bits, add sound, filter in and out callers or whatout. The *portion* of his speaking section could be considered primary by tendentious editors, but the entire audio is a secondary source just as much as a newspaper report, or a book of letters your grandmother wrote. Editors who disagree with my long rambling are *quite free* to go to WP:RS or WP:V or whatever and discuss the matter there, and I would highly recommend it.Wjhonson (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I kinda thinks it's a done deal as we have now have three sources, Alan Colmes, Marine Times as well as AVN all referencing his escort past. Benjiboi 04:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
WAIT! No, it's not a done deal. There are plenty of refs that he worked in the industry, that he made films, etc. There are NO reliable, third-party references that state that he was an escort. That is an entirely different matter than doing porn.
The point to my mentioning "primary source" is simply this - every single one of the sources boils down to his word - either for or against. In other words, Sanchez says he worked in one reference, then he says he didn't. On Colmes he says one thing. In the Army article he says another. No one else is stating anything one way or another. No one has provided a reliable third-party source that states he escorted. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 07:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Satyr I know you think this is our policy, but consider what you're here saying. We cannot quote the actual person ever. That is what your statement boils down to. Doesn't that seem rather unusual? Consider an interview. "What is your name" "John". Your position is that we cannot use the interview because the person says, in their own voice, that their name is John, as verification that their name is John. Even you have to pause a minute to consider the chilling ramifications of that sort of logic. Who exactly is going to "verify" that their name is John in some other way than by asking them? Fingerprints? or DNA? Satyr this just isn't how the policy works. We can use reliable published secondary sources. A news report is a secondary source. Full stop. I would suggest to you, that if someone has been teaching you contrary to this, they are not basing their instruction on our actual policy. Wjhonson (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
So quote this newspaper that's saying it and more. From their About Us page: The Boston Phoenix was started in 1966 as a four-page arts-and-entertainment alternative newsweekly. Today, it is one of the largest publications of its kind in the country. The Phoenix is nationally known for its award-winning, incisive journalism... I mean, if you want another reliable source besides the ones already provided that is. ALLSTAR echo 08:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me take a minute to address "third-party source". Some people mistakenly I presume equate this with "tertiary source". They are not the same. When this policy was created we discussed these issues. I was vehemently against the use of "tertiary" IIRC. But all that aside, a third-party source means this: I am not the subject, I am not the author, I *am* the publisher. That is, the publisher is a third party, not the subject and not the author. That's third party. All newspapers are third party with the exception of op-eds by the owner of the paper. Same for radio, etc. That is, an *editor* reviews the article of the reporter who is quoting the subject. The paper (staff, etc) then publish that.Wjhonson (talk) 08:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Wjhonson, reductio ad absurdum is great, isn't it?
You miss the point - *he* says he worked as an escort. Then *he* says he didn't. In such a case, neither one of those is reliable. Unless the information can be backed up by a reliable third-party source, his word isn't good enough. Full stop. And I'd appreciate you sticking to the content rather than who is teaching me what. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 08:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
If he said it then denied it, why can it not be written as : "In an interview, Sanchez said he worked as a prostitute<insert reference here>. Later, in another interview, Sanchez denied it"<insert reference here>? Jeffpw (talk) 08:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) I can see how you might think that Satyr. Mutually contradictory statements must both be unreliable. However this is not what our policy states. In a mathematical way, we'd have to say oh they cancel each other out. However a reliable source does not need to meet logical requirements. The correct interpretation of this contradiction is that *both* sources are reliable. The subject may *always* be quoted for what they said or wrote. Full stop. Always. There are no exceptions in a biography, living or not. :) Wjhonson (talk) 08:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jeffpw for that proactive approach, that's exactly the way I'd handle it. He said this here, and he said that there. It presents the evidence in a neutral way, from verifiable and reliable sources, without original research, allowing the reader to interpret. Wjhonson (talk) 08:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
If the NY Times stated something and then retracted it, we'd use the retraction (though we *might* report on the original statement, if it was notable).
If the NYTimes printed something one day and then printed the opposite the next, stating both as fact, we'd drop their "reliable source" status in a second. Well, maybe not that quickly.
But the same holds true here - either he's reliable (and therefore his retraction supersedes his previous statements) or he's not (and neither of his statements are reliable).
And please stop with the "full stop, no exceptions, always." You know as well as I do that this is a consensus, consensus changes, and there are no hard-and-fast rules. Even our "policies" change over time, so stop trying to assert your will as law. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 08:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Per Jeffpw's suggestion above, I'd like to point out that I already proposed such several sections up and the discussion pretty much died. I just don't see anything BLP violating about a section that says he said "this" with sources and later said "that" with sources". ALLSTAR echo 08:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Since we're talking about a public figure who is notable for being a former porn star and an admitted prostitute, both his admissions (plural) and his denial belong in the article. But here's another question. Are we supposed to pretend the evidence that supports the prostitution admissions doesn't exist? The blogs and web sites that first identified him as a prostitute provided a description, photographs, and a link to his escort page. Check AVN's coverage of the scandal for an example. In his Alan Colmes interview and his Salon article Sanchez was given a chance to respond to these allegations, and he confirmed that they were true.
Re: the NYTimes and retractions. Judy Miller's false reporting on WMD had to be retracted, but that doesn't mean we have to pretend her false reporting never happened.Reelm (talk) 09:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Satyr actually what typically occurs when someone else reports something like this in a news article is they state, "he admitted this but later retracted it", "he confessed and later recanted", "Yesterday Tom Brown was saying he left town, but today he admits he was right here all along..." and so on. You see it every day. This is no different except we source it better than newspaper articles. We don't allow even BLPs to wipe-the-slate by a simple retraction. That wouldn't really be ethical.Wjhonson (talk) 10:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I forget to address one point. Individuals being quoted about themselves, in an article about themselves, do not need to pass a reliability test. An individual can always be quoted on what they said or what they wrote. There is no test to pass. They are not a seperate source from the article in that regard. That is why we allow "self-published statements" to be included without any sort of vetting, sourcing, or whatever. Of course this is limited by undue weight, we don't want a BLP just to be a series of quotes. We've never put a test on a person to ensure that what they say is "true" or "verifiable". If George Bush in on the television saying he was captured by Martians we can quote him, in his own article, even though he's insane and even though it's a primary source speech, unvetted, unverified in the sense of being *true*. Wjhonson (talk) 10:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Satyr, I don't see that you argument applies here. It's not as if the same publication said one thing then another, both reported as fact. Sanchez said something on the radio, which was reported. Later, in other interviews with other publications, he denied it. It seems like he just says what is convenient at the time. It troubles me that standards are not being applied evenly here, and I wonder if it has anything to do with his legal threats. If that's the case, we might as well put a notice on the mainpage saying, "If you are troubled by your bio, please let us know. We'll take no action unless you threaten to sue, then we will accommodate you no matter how ludicrous your arguments are". Jeffpw (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
It troubles me, too, that standards are not being applied evenly. However, BLP clearly states that sources should be high quality.
Jeff, although the claims may not be the same publication for both reports, both reports come almost directly from Sanchez as almost direct quotes. That makes them virtually the same source - Sanchez.
I'm fully within BLP policy here:
  • "Be very firm about the use of high quality references."
  • "BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm"."
Whether or not Sanchez was an escort is a fairly minor point in a fairly minor (and barely notable) biography, especially given that he was in a few gay porn movies. However, as a biography, this article should be sourced well, and as a biography of a living person, it should be sourced even better.
That means "significant coverage by multiple, reliable sources independent of the subject". That statement usually refers to notability requirements, but it can also apply here. Claims about Sanchez being a prostitute have come from one source (Sanchez) who has not proved to be very reliable. If this information is important and/or verifiable, surely we can find sources that are better than tabloid? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
His career as a prostitute and the conflicting statements he's given about it are actually a major issue because he's a journalist who's been involved in at least one controversy where his reporting was used to attack the character and credibility of another person. This source explains why his career as a male escort matters.Reelm (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

SatyrTN, an interview with Sanchez on the Alan Colmes Radio show is not tabloid. Alan Colmes is a respected journalist/talkshow host. An interview with the subject is not subject to a rule to determine if it's truthful. That is, if the subject says X, we can quote X, we do not have to prove X is *the truth*, we do not need to show evidence even that X is "the truth". We do not have to prove that someone did published research on whether or not he was a prostitute. That he said it, is perfectly fine. That he denied it, is also fine and both should be included.Wjhonson (talk) 10:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, I wasn't calling Colmes tabloid. I was calling Sanchez tabloid. If the information is truly notable and/or important, it will be in a source that is much more reliable than he has been.
And you're absolutely right about us not having to prove something someone said about themselves. If Sam Spade says his eyes are blue, or that he was born in Flint, MI, that's fine - we don't have to prove those things to be true.
However, according to BLP, "Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if it is not contentious".
Personally, I have no idea if Sanchez was an escort or not. I don't really care. But since a) it's controversial and possibly damaging and b) he's repeatedly denied it and c) he affirmed it only once or twice, I'd rather make sure we aren't a tabloid. That is, for this kind of claim, I'd rather Wikipedia hold itself to a high standard and only publish material reported by multiple reliable third-party sources. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah but you see the material wasn't *self* published was it? So that section doesn't apply to the Alan Colmes show, nor to the newspaper articles. Wjhonson (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This thread is over a month old. Does anyone mind if we archive it? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I certainly do, although tittled about one subject it quickly delves into the main concern central to the subject of this article - that he was a gay escort/prostitute held in conflict with him being the poster-child marine hero of the conservative movement which has traditionally demonized gays and well-informed discussion about Sanchez's own statements about his work as an escort and prostitute. I simply see this issue as back-burnered as even the smallest changes have resulted in heated debate. I see no rush to archive this thread and resolution of this topic seems a ways off unless Sanchez's past is more fully documented in a reliable source which, more likely, will trigger even more discussion as to why we couldn't/shouldn't include that source. Benjiboi 23:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
No consensus to archive this thread, nor the one above it. --Eleemosynary (talk) 10:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

But which (porno) videos?

So wp guidelines limit an actor's porn list to six or so titles. My preference would be to talk about any in text we have refs for as noteworthy in some way, especially if they have awards, then list a sampling of six of the rest. Does anyone know of any awards his films have gotten? Benjiboi 04:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(copying partial thread which includes sources applicable to this thread)

Do you have a link for this AVN thing? I've not yet heard of it. If they have other movies than what I detail, I'd like to add those as well. Wjhonson (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
AVN (magazine). Aleta (Sing) 04:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's a link to a "Reviews Archive" of videos starring Rod Majors. And here's the link to AVN's coverage of Matt Sanchez - Porn Star Turned Republican Poster Boy Exposed.Reelm (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Please note. I added the above partial thread as it includes sources about this thread. Benjiboi 14:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's a link that can show you which of his movies won awards. The relevant years would be 1992-1995. I tried using it, but it was running slow. I guess it's awards season for the porn industry too, and the site can't handle the extra traffic.Reelm (talk) 04:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Cool, we have time. And AVN just had their annual awards show and major convention in Las Vegas so this is likely their busiest time. Benjiboi 16:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI re awards and choices of notable videos:

  • Josh Eliot won a 1995 GayVN Award [9] for Best Editing for his work on the Catalina video Jawbreaker. The award for Best Sex Scene was shared by Daryl Brock, Chip Daniels, Rod Majors, Scott Russel, and Ty Russell. So, here is a definite 'include' video - two awards, including one shared bt Matt. BTW, I think this fact would end all notions that a page forRod Majors would not be justified under WP:PORN. Jeff Mitchell also tied for the 1996 Grabby Award for Best Support Actor for his Jawbreaker performance. Jawbreaker also tied for Best Video (with The Plowboys) at the Probe - Men in Video Awards in 1995.
  • Idol Country should also be listed - it won 4 GayVN Awards in 1994 - Best Actor (for Ryan Idol), Best packaging, Best Screenplay (for Gender) and Best Videography (for Bruce Cam and Kathy Mack). Chi Chi LaRue also won a Best Director GEVA in 1995 for Idol Country.
  • Don't know if this is notable, but Zak Spears, who won a bunch of awards and has long interviews available on the net, has commented: "My all time favorite top is Rod Majors, besides being a great (and I do mean great) top. Rod is one of the nicest men I've had the good fortune to meet in the biz. He's a very sweet man and very smart, and really has his head together." and also "As for ROD MAJORS, most people know my view on him, I can’t say enough kind things to describe Rod. He’s one of my favorite costars I’ve worked with. He’s polite, sweet, very intelligent, and has a heart of gold. I would love to do a flip flop scene with Rod, but I doubt it very much that we’ll ever see him back on film and unfortunately I have lost touch with him as well. (If he does read these forums I want to say that I wish you (Rod) the very best that life has to offer and I hope you are very happy.)" Possibly we'd thus list the video in which they worked together, although I'm not 100% sure which it was.
  • Call of the Wild, in which Matt appeared as Pierre LaBranche, should be included - it tied for Best Video at the 1994 Grabby Awards. [10]
  • Might be worth noting that there was a bi version of his film Conflict of Interest titled Bi Conflict. I have no idea if this was just a recycling of material, or if he really did a bi scene.
  • Based on dates of release and typical career paths, I would guess first video would be whichever of the Kristen Bjorn films - Call of the Wild and Montreal Men - is first. Both have 1992 dates, and it is common for porn stars to move from KB to US studios.

Hopefully this is helpful to someone working on the main page, when it is editable. Jay*Jay (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(copied partial comment from another thread) He even touted his appearance in Tijuana Toilet Tramps in an article that demonizes gays. - Reelm

Add YouTube channel and content

Not sure why we don't have it but Matt's YouTube channel under mateo1970 includes this video interview which actually seems a reasonable and well-thought out "patriot" viewpoint of free-speech. He did the interview while at Columbia and referenced an event at columbia. This, of the many videos posted, had over 3000 views while the rest seemed to have less than a tenth of that. I think we could incorporate this into the Columbia section and see no reason not to link to his YouTube channel as well, it can wait until protection lifts. There's also a YouTube template for this purpose. Benjiboi 16:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. -- ALLSTARecho 16:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Not opposed to referencing it, but we have to recognize that clip for what it is to put it in the proper context and avoid potential NPOV issues. That video wasn't taped at Columbia. It was taped in Washington D.C. at the Leadership Institute. Even though this looks like a news interview, the Leadership Institute is a Republican advocacy group. The Leadership Institute is a controversial organization. Apparently it teaches a course on how to legally rig an election.Reelm (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, in that case, I don't agree. Wasn't aware of the actual source and it not being a real news interview. -- ALLSTARecho 18:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Then frankly it speaks to Sanchez's saavy use of media so seems appropriate we have to let references speak to what the Leadership Institute is though I appreciate you pointing out out i really was only looking at it a s a decent video of him taking on a relevant subject that could tie the Columbia and military sections together. Benjiboi 18:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see us as endorsing anything one way or another just reporting this is what he did, with whom, etc. Benjiboi 18:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry SatyrTN, we have not resolved this discussion even though we are actively more engaged in other discussions with all the drama going on. Personally I'm ever so cautious about doing anything on this article given what I see as a strong POV to only show the subject of the article in the most positive light. I still feel his vlogs and posts should be considered for use on the article but was hoping the drama on content disputes would have ebbed a bit by now - it hasn't. Benjiboi 00:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
That's fine, if you still want to discuss this. My aim was to try to reduce the number of inactive threads on this page so it was clearer what was still under discussion. Would it be okay to archive all this material and start afresh when things have ebbed? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd rather not. the reason there are so many "inactive" threads, IMHO, is that all efforts to add content to the article seem to be met with swift efforts to delete and dismiss under various reasons which have left me a bit reluctant to bother researching and adding valid content. Almost every change I've made to this article has been met with reverts, criticism and worse from the subject of the article. So now simply awaiting (again) for the article to be unprotected so that any changes can be made. Quite uninspiring at the least. Benjiboi 23:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre Sanchez post on Youtube

Was searching for gay YouTubers for another article and this popped up. Thought it of interest as it confirms Sanchez's asserting that his email has been hacked and he thinks he has stalkers. I guess, I didn't listen to the youtube post only read the article. Benjiboi 20:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

With all that's gone on, it wouldn't surprise me if Sanchez released this as a pre-emptive to the other guy releasing it to prove Sanchez is still engaging in homo-sex. At this point, I don't believe nothing that comes out of Sanchez's mouth. ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 22:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Undoubtedly, Sanchez is circling the bowl. --Eleemosynary (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Allstarecho, your assessment appears to be the correct one. This was covered by Gawker yesterday. There's a link in the comments section to another web site that has an e-mail from the man on the other end of the conversation. Sanchez's explanation doesn't make sense. But the explanation offered by the other man does. Benji, you should listen to recording.Reelm (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Good lord, it's over nine minutes! direct link here. Benjiboi 01:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, based on what the other guy in the phone conversation with Sanchez said in that goodasyou.org link, I was correct. Of course, unless this becomes a big media event, it won't be allowed in the article. ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 01:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) Well that's nine minutes of my life I'll never get back. We can certainly now use the phrase "gay jihadist" that he plastered on the video screen to accompany what, if nothing else, is Sanchez talking with another man, identified as a military recruiter from Iowa about getting together for sex with each other. It may make sense to note that blogs critical of Sanchez allegedly contacted the other man who claimed he was trying to prove Sanchez was still escorting or at least having sex with men and Sanchez claims (? (something)). As Sanchez himself posted it it sure seems usable. Benjiboi 01:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Me personally I agree with AllStar - I don't believe much that Sanchez says. As such, I don't put much stock in his postings, either. Unless he gets actual press, I say we trim this article down to Coulter, a note about Columbia, and his films and leave the rest (most of which was created/spun by him) out. Just my opinion... -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I hear you but basically disagree. These talk pages are testament that his bio is of great interest and even if we did trim as you suggested similar material would soon be re-added. In cases where that seems apparent that the material is of enough interest for readers to edit I tend to lean on at least we get it right. If an article is highly vandalized we have remedies and, to me, the best way to stop most of it is having a well-written, sourced article that speaks to the many viewpoints of interest. Sanchez did this but says this etc. It can sometimes feel like a multiheaded beast but then again people are multi-faceted so can graduate from being an escort or porn star to a milblogger and make many stops before, during and after. Benjiboi 04:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry SatyrTN, we have not resolved this discussion even though we are actively more engaged in other discussions with all the drama going on. Personally I'm ever so cautious about doing anything on this article given what I see as a strong POV to only show the subject of the article in the most positive light. I still feel this posts should be considered for use on the article but was hoping the drama on content disputes would have ebbed a bit by now - it hasn't. Perhaps once it has we can look toward an appropriate use for this Sanchez post. Benjiboi 00:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
See above. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The reason there are so many "inactive" threads, IMHO, is that all efforts to add content to the article seem to be met with swift efforts to delete and dismiss under various reasons which have left me a bit reluctant to bother researching and adding valid content. Almost every change I've made to this article has been met with reverts, criticism and worse from the subject of the article. So now simply awaiting (again) for the article to be unprotected so that any changes can be made. Quite uninspiring at the least. Benjiboi 23:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjiboi (talk • contribs)

Potentially Usable Material?

I preface these comments by noting that I haven't read all of the history, so some of the following sources may have been previously considered - if so, just tell me. I'm not trying to create controversy, but mention these for consideration / use. I noticed that the article already uses material from the website of The Advocate (Matt Sanchez: I'm "bad at being gay"), so I would guess that these sources would satisy WP:RS, although other policies obviously need consideration:

  • Foreman: Sanchez is not the hypocrite is an article from March '07, covering comments made by the Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Foreman's comments note the actions of Senator Sam Nunn in 1993 in support of the adoption of DADT, noting that the real hypocrisy in the Sanchez episode surrounds DADT and the right's views on Matt - describing them as the "important 11 inches in this story"
  • Right-wing darling's alleged gay-porn past from the day before the above-mentioned "bad at being gay" article. I thought this was interesting for its quotation of a man who claims to have dated Matt in 1989 - especially as Matt has stated in another interview I've seen that he has never had a boyfriend. It also quotes blogger Joe.my.god's description of Matt's porn career - which is also quoted in a few other places according to google, but which I would guess fails WP:RS.
  • Matt has been mentioned in an article titled "Blah blah blah faggot" from the April 24, 2007 print issue (number 984, p. 51) of The Advocate, in a piece by Dave White. Also mentioned in an article titled Coolest Straight People 2007 from the November 20, 2007 print issue (number 997, pp. 36,38-41) of The Advocate, in a piece by Michael Giltz.
  • More recently, in an article titled The Sissy Awards from the January 15, 2008 print issue (number 1000, pp. 56-9) of The Advocate, in a piece by Alonso Duralde, Matt is named the 2007 "Sissy Stud". This also includes mention of Matt as an escort, which might influence previous discussions of whether this has been reported in WP:RS beyond the clips of the interview with Colmes.
Note, I have e-access to PDFs of all three of these articles, and can state that they are the same in content as the versions on the advocate.com website.
  • On commons, the discussion of the Coulter image has made reference to a two page piece from Radar (March 30, 2007) by Jack E. Jett in which Matt is interviewed. It includes some interesting answers - for example, the evidence from Jawbreaker shows that his recollections of his career are hazy, and his statement of only seven films is equally factually questionable. Of course, that can't be noted without a WP:RS although the evidence is fiarly impressive. Comments like "[g]ay men are like fundamentalist Muslims. If you leave their religion they have to send out a fatwa and demand your execution." might explain the comments from Dave White (above), whilst the political view demonstrated by "[t]he angry left should be dealt with like a dog on a chained leash, so it can only lunge at you so far before it hurts itself." is fairly definite in tone. I don't know whether there is a print version, or whether 'Radar would be considered a reliable source.

Hope this is useful. Jay*Jay (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to rain on your parade, so to speak, but as a friendly suggestion maybe break each of these into a separate subject, clearly state what you think could/should be added and changed and provide a link to the online source. This will greatly help sort each one out. Benjiboi 15:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Benjiboi, can we at least start by establishing whether the sources described would be acceptable? I think that all of the necessary referencing / description is provided, but please ask if more detail is needed. If the resources aren't reliable / usable, then there is little point in exploring further. Thanks, Jay*Jay (talk) 10:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitely acceptable and Radar (magazine) is print and online. Benjiboi 13:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Bibliography articles

These articles, penned by Sanchez, have been removed as bibliographies are actually for books authored and not essays. These are, however, good candidates for quotes and can help inform other aspects of the articles. Benjiboi 14:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Columbia in lede

In order to keep on topic, I've refactored the below into its' own section

The only BLP issue I see in the lede is the reference to the dispute at Columbia. These allegations were never proven and are potentially libelous. In fact, the accused students have used the words "defamation" and "slander" in published responses to Sanchez's accusations. Here's a response from Monique Dols. And here's another from Zach Zill. Two important points -- 1) according Zill, independent witnesses corroborated the ISO version of what happened, and 2) the Columbia investigation ultimately cleared the accused students. So why does this article keep pushing Sanchez's discredited account?Reelm (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

“ the accusations are a series of defamatory fabrications that serve to misrepresent and discredit the antiwar movement on campus. -- Monique Dols ”
Agree this should be better addressed. Frankly the whole incident should be vetted in the article as there was opinion pieces going back and forth so the briefest of quotes from each side with a closing button that the three accused students were cleared of any wrongdoing would help keeping the focus on Sanchez's involvement. Benjiboi 14:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I've tried to make this more clear in the lede. Benjiboi 14:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
See my post below for more on this... Wall of Shame explained :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reelm (talk • contribs) 05:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Discussion continued at Talk:Matt Sanchez#"Wall of Shame" photo explained Benjiboi 18:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"Wall of Shame" photo explained

Some important background on this photo from a Columbia Spectator article "Sanchez Lodges Protest"...

First, here's Monique Dols explanation for why she posted the photo...

"This was a public photo. The idea that the victims in this situation are military personnel in the context of a war in Iraq ... the idea that he has been victimized is outlandish, so he's become a figurehead because he initiated a campaign of defamation against us," said Monique Dols, GS '06 in a group interview with Zach Zill, CC '06, both ISO members.

Additional info that provides some context...

The Jan. 28 protest by ISO outside the 116th Street gates occurred after Spectator ran an article, "A Firm Stance" (Jan. 25), detailing Sanchez's allegations of verbal harassment against two ISO students and one alumnus.

Here's why it's important to note this flyer was posted as a response to "A Firm Stance." The original draft of "A Firm Stance" presented a one-sided, possibly libelous account of the incident. The CS made note of this in a clarification that was appended to the article.

Clarification: The body, caption, and headline of the article "A Firm Stance" (Jan. 25, 2006) misleadingly represented accusations that Zach Zill, CC '06, verbally assaulted reservist Matt Sanchez, GS '07, as established fact. The allegations were based on interviews conducted with Sanchez and Marine officer candidate Mark Xue, CC '06, and cannot be independently verified. Similarly, the article failed to clearly indicate that Zill and other members of the International Socialist Organization disputed the statements Sanchez attributed to Zill.

Note - The Columbia Spectator never verified Sanchez's account.

The original title of the CS article, still noted here in the refs, was "A Firm Stance: CU Marine Reservist Targeted In Angry Confrontation; No Disciplinary Action Taken." The title that now appears on the CS web site is simply "A Firm Stance." Apparently, the article that's now posted at the site is a second draft.

I know the Wall of Shame photo is up for deletion because of copyright issues, but I think it should be deleted along with every other reference to the "harassment" dispute because this material is contentious, poorly sourced, and it involves claims about third parties. WP:BLP is pretty clear on this. A biography should not include claims about other people - especially if those claims are contentious and poorly sourced.Reelm (talk) 04:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

How does the info about the harassment dispute harm Sanchez? Or Zill or Dols? I'm unclear why you're invoking BLP to remove what is arguably the first time Sanchez became notable? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Since when is "harm" the only standard for BLP issues? WP:BLP says "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles." The primary source for the harassment allegations is an ethically challenged student newspaper article that says the allegations "cannot be independently verified." That, by itself, is reason enough to delete the "harassment" allegations. The "harassment" allegations have never been verified by a reliable source.Reelm (talk) 06:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The deletion nomination for the Wall of Shame photo has nothing to do with BLP. There really isn't any linkage between that and Reelm's suggestion. I suggested that nomination because the images that had been used in that display were derivative works of copyrighted photographs. So since the United States has no freedom of panorama in its copyright law, the photograph was incompatible with Commons policy. En:Wikipedia does allow fair use images so it would be a simple matter to upload that here and use it in the article, if anyone wants to follow through on that. DurovaCharge! 08:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
You're right - harm isn't the only standard. But I'm still unsure why you're invoking BLP? Sanchez claimed he was harassed, which was reported on Fox as well as in the Spectator. All of that is verified - he did in fact lodge a complaint accusing other students of harassing him. Zill himself states that he was investigated for harassment charges: [11]. So what is it about the harassment that is a) controversial and b) unverified? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
To me this seems like much more of a NPOV issue as no one disputes an incident happened, was reported, contested and investigated and then became more known as Sanchez fueled it by writing another op-ed piece and started doing a media circuit paving a path to the award at CPAC. And we correctly have stated in the lede and article text that they were cleared of wrongdoing. Benjiboi 18:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
It's more than a POV issue because the Sanchez bio attributes comments to the ISO students that they flatly deny. The accused students refer to these allegations as "lies and misinformation," "slander," and "a series of defamatory fabrications."
The WP bio also misrepresents the nature of the dispute. For example, the "Political activism at Columbia University" section says that Matt Sanchez was approached by members of the ISO. But that's not what the sources say. According to "A Firm Stance" the ISO students went to the Columbia Military Society table to voice their objections to ROTC recruitment. In Zill's op-ed, "A Conservative Witch Hunt," he also says that his gripe was with the recruiters. Sanchez got involved in the dispute after the argument had already begun. He was not singled out by the ISO students as this bio implies.
And let's not forget Sanchez's accusations were never independently verified by a reliable source. Fox News didn't do any actual reporting on this. They simply put Sanchez on the air and allowed him to make a series of claims about other people. Nobody at Fox bothered to verify the accuracy of these claims. They simply took his word for it. And Laura Brunts, author of "A Firm Stance," suffered a serious lapse in journalistic ethics by publishing Sanchez's account as if it was the undisputed truth even though she didn't verify his claims.Reelm (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I see what you mean now but disagree that it's a BLP as much as semantics and fact checking. We should more emphasize the events as you describe, assuming of course the sourcing supports it and the lede should also be nuanced in some way to show that Sanchez's version was flatly denied, etc. Benjiboi 15:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Just for clarity, I made a few changes before the article protection but this should be sourced and modified further, IMHO. Benjiboi 02:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The 37-Year-Old "Senior"

We need a source that Sanchez is still enrolled at Columbia. I find it hard to believe that a self-proclaimed "embedded blogger" who frequently claims to be posting from overseas is still an enrolled undergraduate in good standing. In other words, yet another part of Sanchez's bio doesn't pass the smell test. --Eleemosynary (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Above we talked about needing a source saying that he was still in the military, since it's been claimed that he isn't. But this article isn't supposed to be a detailed account of anyone's life, and it isn't supposed to be current. Since we're supposed to be relying on third-party sources, which are rarely up-to-the-minute, it seems ridiculous (and stalkerish) to try to document what he's doing at this moment. We can only say "As of such and such a date, Sanchez was..." -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense. Perhaps the "is a senior" language can be excised, but "was a student at" can be used for the Columbia info, as the uncorroborated incidents in question are claimed to have taken place a few years ago. --Eleemosynary (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Just as with the military we have to use RS's so clarity is helpful. Benjiboi 08:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Does Columbia University make publicly available any details on graduates - like who graduated with what and when? If Matt has completed a degree and we can get a reliable source, this educational achievement should be noted. Failing that, SatyrTN's "as at X, Sanchez was ..." type approach seems best. Jay*Jay (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Can someone add a ref showing Sanchez was "a student at Columbia as of ____" or some variation so we can resolve this? Benjiboi 01:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Queerty?

Exactly what is gained by saying Sanchez was in touch with Gannon? And the Queerty blog is not a reliable source. What does this add to the article? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed that for the second time now per WP:RS. Except in very rare circumstances, blogs are self-published sources and are only citable in an article about the blogger. If Queerty had its own article it would be citable there, but not here. DurovaCharge! 04:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
And I'll re-add it. Please AGF Durova and just maybe we'll make some progress here. It shows Sanchez as, ta da a video-blogger producing material on other conservative bloggers at the CPAC, and Qwerty is plenty reliable enough to report that Sanchez was in contact with Gannon while in Iraq. Is this now an exceptional claim that anyone disputes? Let's get a grip people, does this article really deserve such attention? This over-vigilance suggests to me some other agenda than building an article so I'd like folks to remember NPOV and V go every way. Benjiboi 04:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Benjiboi, blogs as sources are a settled matter; I remove inappropriate blog citations all the time. That's unacceptable per both WP:RS and WP:BLP. If you have any doubts about my good faith and fairness, please take your doubts to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. DurovaCharge! 14:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
"blogs as sources are a settled matter" umm hardly. Just because many blogs are less than reliable certainly some are fine. Just wondering are you disputing any of the information as true? If so perhaps you could simply remove the ref that so distresses this strict interpretation as all blogs are bad thinking. Did you notice that the post in question is a video of - Sanchez conducting an interview? Please. The reality police are calling. Benjiboi 01:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) According to Wikipedia's Verifiability policy, the standard we use is verifiability, not truth. That means Wikipedia treats nearly all blogs as self-published sources unless the blogger is a recognized expert in a relevant field. An example of a legitimate exception is the Matt Cutts blog, which is cited at search engine optimization because he writes a lot of the algorithm for Google. That's the kind of status a blogger has to achieve before becoming an acceptable source (even this instance faced serious challenge at featured article candidacy). Videos can be edited and digitally altered in misleading ways, so a video hosted on a blog isn't reliable either. That goes for YouTube too, which is a point I hadn't raised yet. I'm not taking any partisan position here. Count the number of Blogspot and YouTube links I've removed in my last thousand edits. Or double check with the noticeboard. DurovaCharge! 02:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

So to repeat my questions. Are you disputing any of the information as true? Did you notice that the post in question is a video of - Sanchez conducting an interview? And I guess a new one, are you now suggesting that someone has faked this video for some reason to portray Sanchez as a vlogger/reporter? Oh, and I completely don't care the volume of material you have deleted in a quest to rid wikipedia of blogs and youtube links, actually I do care as seems you're likely throwing out good with the bad. I generally oppose deletionism in any form, seems contrary to consensus building, cooperative endeavors and and organic wikis. Benjiboi 03:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Benjiboi that there is a bit of wiggle room in blogs being reliable sources, but it's worth keeping in mind that on an article under editing restrictions we should be cautious. Blogs can be reliable, but they typically are not - content disappears from blogs all the time, critical background information is omitted, etc, etc.

That said, this discussion re blogs being RS is a tangent to the question SatyrTN asked -- why is this in the article. As the passage has been removed, here it is with wikilinks to the important articles mentioned:

“ In February 2008 gay blog Qweerty noted that Sanchez has kept in touch with Gannon while Sanchez was in Iraq and posted an interview Sanchez did with Gannon at the Conservative Political Action Conference 2008 convention, the same event that sparked much of Sanchez's national attention a year prior. ”

There are two facts in that sentence: "Qweerty noted that Sanchez has kept in touch with Gannon while Sanchez was in Iraq" and "Sanchez did an interview with Jeff Gannon at the Conservative Political Action Conference 2008". I can see some value in the second fact (the interview), but it isnt clear why Sanchez keeping in touch with Gannon is so important that it warrants us using a blog as a source. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Benjiboi, those questions are beside the point. Wikipedia settled upon certain working compromises years ago regarding these matters. We're dealing with an article that's under arbitration probation and concerns a living person: the strictest standards apply here. DurovaCharge! 04:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Disagree completely. The world was agreed to be flat at one point as well, now we have better information that just maybe that isn't accurate. New media sources continue to evolve and wikipedia continues to keep up with those changes, sometimes successfully. I again assert that both the video of Sanchez doing what he says he does and the content which no one seems to dispute can be used and if semantics is an issue address those concerns. Dismissing something out of hand doesn't make for better articles. Benjiboi 00:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
You are welcome to take advantage of this full protection to see whether the volunteers at WP:BLPN confirm your proposal regarding sources. DurovaCharge! 00:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Lovely. How special of you to make suggestions for my volunteering. Benjiboi 02:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources (military)

Does anyone have access to primary sources by the U.S. Government that might be relevant, either about the fraud investigation, or about Sanchez's military career in general? These can be transcribed onto Wikisource, which may help shed some light on what is happening. Even if you only have document numbers, please note them here so we can track down the actual documents. John Vandenberg (talk) 06:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a tremendous help. --Eleemosynary (talk) 06:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I left a comment at WP:MILHIST with no promising results - they didn't seem to think it would be easy information to find. Here's the link. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
That link hardly leads to a conclusive answer. We need to ask again, indicating that Sanchez is a public figure who insists he's in the Marines. And perhaps we should pursue other venues, like FOI, as well. --Eleemosynary (talk) 06:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Great! Go for it! Rather than disparaging other editors efforts, I applaud finding new information from a reliable source! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, when you describe other editors as "screaming" and "grasping at straws," you are, in fact, disparaging them. --Eleemosynary (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

In case it helps, here are the military history documents for Bush that were obtained under FOI. John Vandenberg (talk) 06:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing Sanchez as insisting he's in the military so we should be accurate even in our search for proof. I fully support finding some evidence that will put this issue to rest. Benjiboi 00:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
As of this characteristic comment on 12/11/07, Sanchez was insisting he was a Marine corporal. --Eleemosynary (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Benjiboi 00:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup changes

I was looking over some of the less controversial areas of the article and wanted to check for some feedback before requesting the changes:

1. Bare URL for ref 21, change:

<ref>https://johnedwards.com/action/contribute/coulter Flash video on Edwards' website</ref>
to
<ref name='coulter2'>{{citation |periodical=John Edwards for President website |url=https://johnedwards.com/action/contribute/coulter |title=Shame on you, Ann Coulter |accessdate=2008-02-29 }}</ref>

{{tick}} That one's been done. I'm wrong - this hasn't been done yet.

2. Add a note by Jawbreakera with the note at the end of the Selected filmography reading:

<sup>a</sup> <small>Won the 1995 [[GayVN Awards|GayVN award]] for "Best Sex Scene". Award was shared by Daryl Brock, Chip Daniels, Rod Majors, Scott Russel, and Ty Russell.</small>

Anything else? Any feedback on these? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Those sound reasonable. Aleta (Sing) 12:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the awards like 'best video' should also be noted, as all performers contribute to such an award Jay*Jay (talk) 13:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
If I understand your post from a while ago (waay above), "Call of the Wild" tied for "Best Video" Grabby, so that should be noted. Any others? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Jawbreaker tied for Best Video with The Plowboys at the 1995 Probe / Men in Video Awards. In noting such info, I would note the other video in the 'tie'. In the case of Call of the Wild, the Grabby site says this was The Redemption, but the actual title was Redemption - The Abduction Series, Part III as the box cover makes clear. The record at the Falcom Studios website (www.falconstudios.com/main/shop.do) also confirms this. If you want references for these wins, the Probe / Men in Video award can be referenced to the 1999 edition of the Adam Gay Video Directory, the GayVN to the award website (http://www.gayvnawards.com/index.php?center=pastwinners), and the 1994 Grabby to their website (http://www.grabbys.com/winners-1994.html). Jay*Jay (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, something about the shared by in your note makes me uncomfortable - maybe because it could suggest more than one scence? How about:
<sup>a</sup> <small>Daryl Brock, Chip Daniels, Rod Majors, Scott Russel, and Ty Russell won the 1995 [[GayVN Awards|GayVN award]] for "Best Sex Scene" for their scene in the [[Catalina Video|Catalina]] production ''Jawbreaker''.</small>
I'm not going to try and suggest a form for the others, as I'm not sure whether the reference is needed, nor how it would be included in a note. Jay*Jay (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
That looks pretty good to me. Do we need to go in to the details about Jawbreaker? Can't we just say "tied for Best Video, 1995 AVN award" or something like that? The notes section on the films is already longer than the film list :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Some porn films have very similar or identical titles, so studio information is often helpful in figuring out which is which. Perhaps:
<sup>a</sup> <small>Daryl Brock, Chip Daniels, Rod Majors, Scott Russel, and Ty Russell won the 1995 [[GayVN Awards|GayVN award]] for "Best Sex Scene" for their scene in the [[Catalina Video|Catalina]] production ''Jawbreaker''. ''Jawbreaker'' tied for "Best Video" at the 1995 [[Discontinued gay pornography awards#Probe .2F Men in Video Awards|Probe / Men in Video Awards]] with the [[Falcon Entertainment|Falcon International]] production ''The Plowboys''.</small>
<sup>b</sup> <small>[[Kristen Bjorn]]'s production ''Call of the Wild'' tied for "Best Video" at the 1994 [[Adult Erotic Gay Video Awards|Grabby Awards]] with the [[Falcon Entertainment|Falcon Studios]] production ''Redemption - The Abduction Series, Part III''.</small>
These suggestions assume that no referencing information establishing these facts is required. Jay*Jay (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Does the "Probe" award really need to be in there, given that it's a discontinued award? I'm not trying to discount the award, it's just that your notes there are four times as long as the videography itself. Surely we can cut down some of that? Another possibility is we just say "Tied for XXX award" - if people are interested in whatever other movie was in the tie, they'll click the link. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I'd say yes, full details are needed. I think the award should be in the text of the adult section, not in a note hidden at the end - but a note at the end at least has the material included. There would be a pornbio on Rod Majors were it not for this page, so I see no reason to reduce the coverage of that part of Matt's career - and especially not when he keeps lying about it elsewhere. As for the space, here's how it will look without all the coding visible:

a Daryl Brock, Chip Daniels, Rod Majors, Scott Russel, and Ty Russell won the 1995 GayVN award for "Best Sex Scene" for their scene in the Catalina production Jawbreaker. Jawbreaker tied for "Best Video" at the 1995 Probe / Men in Video Awards with the Falcon International production The Plowboys.
b Kristen Bjorn's production Call of the Wild tied for "Best Video" at the 1994 Grabby Awards with the Falcon Studios production Redemption - The Abduction Series, Part III.

Three lines worth. The people who will look at detail on his porn history will probably be familiar with porn, and so may find the information useful / interesting. The fact that the Probe / Men in Video awards have been discontinued seems irrelevant to me - they were active at the time. Kristen Bjorn has a pretty good rep for his work, and being in a KB "Best Video" award-winning production conveys quite a bit of interesting info - including, incidentally, that Matt may well identify as straight, a characteristic quite common amongst KB's models. Maybe we could do with someone else on this page offering an opinion? Jay*Jay (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Whatever. I still think it's overkill, but go for it - request edit for both these changes. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, will do. Jay*Jay (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} - I am withdrawing this request, as I had not noted that the suggested comments were for the videography section. I want to give this some more thought, as I am thinking that some redrafting of the adult entertainment section might be a better approach. I want to read WP:PORNBIO and think some more, and then will post again. If someone wants to make an editprotected request for the reference change - which seems entirely non-controversial - I have zero objections to that edit being made. Jay*Jay (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Caption from deleted image, info probably can be used in Columbia section

“ ISO flyer from January 2006, showing image of Matt Sanchez next to images of a dead Iraqi child and a homeless Vietnam veteran. This image ran in the campus newspaper, the Columbia Daily Spectator.[4] ”

I think something similar to the above could be used in context within the Columbia section. Benjiboi 00:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. DurovaCharge! 01:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
A word of caution - Matt Sanchez's explanation for that photo has been self-serving and extremely misleading. I suggest using this article as a source to explain the photo rather than that entirely one-sided Michael Smerconish interview. Keep in mind the claims made by Matt Sanchez in that live radio interview are contentious and unverified. It would violate BLP/SELFPUB to use that self-serving interview to support claims about anyone other than Matt Sanchez. (Michael Smerconish is misidentified in the reference section.)Reelm (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I've seen the original version. That description is uncontroversial and clearly borne out in the image itself. DurovaCharge! 00:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Reflist

As we are trying to source much debated content please leave this Reference list for others to view sources

  1. ^ Sanchez, Matt (2007-03-08). Porn free: Left-wing blogs gleefully outed my gay porn past after I criticized antiwar zealots. But the truth has set me free.. salon.com. Salon Media Group, Inc.. Retrieved on 2007-01-05.
  2. ^ Alan Colmes (March 8, 2007). Alan Colmes interviews former porn star/hooker Matt Sanchez (video). YouTube Broadcast Yourself: Videos. YouTube, Inc.. Retrieved on 2008-01-05.
  3. ^ Sanchez, Matt (2007). Kicking the Taliban Out. Retrieved on 2007-12-15.
  4. ^ David Smerconish Interview (audio). The Big Talker 1210 (March 8, 2007). Retrieved on 2007-05-05.

Wall of Shame photo edit request

{{editprotected}}

Please add Image:Wall of shame3.jpg to the article. Image was previously in article, but deleted at my suggestion because Commons doesn't host fair use derivative works (The images on the flyer are copyrighted). Now two of the images have been blurred to minimize that and it's hosted properly at en:Wikipedia where fair use can be done. DurovaCharge! 00:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC) (Copy/pasting request): Please add Image:Wall of shame3.jpg to the article. Image was previously in article, but deleted at my suggestion because Commons doesn't host fair use derivative works (The images on the flyer are copyrighted). Now two of the images have been blurred to minimize that and it's hosted properly at en:Wikipedia where fair use can be done. DurovaCharge! 00:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's version, not the one on Commons was deleted March 1. It was deleted per my nom at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 February 22#Image:Wall of shame.jpg. Just FYI. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 00:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the license, "for identification and critical commentary on the poster itself or the political movement it represents, in the absence of free media which could serve such a purpose". Please demonstrate we are abiding by the license's criteria before you attempt to re-add a version of the poster. Benjiboi 02:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    • This is a routine fair use application. The poster was created to attack Matt Sanchez. It's relevant here, DurovaCharge! 02:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
      • That is Sanchez's contention, backed up by him alone. It looks to me not like an "attack" on anyone, but a comparison between who was, and was not, a "victim." Where is the source that the photo was created "to attack Sanchez?" For that matter, what's with calling the thing "Wall of Shame"? That's an astoundingly POV photo title. --Eleemosynary (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Correct. An ISO student responsible for the flyer said as much in this article. The flyer says "victim?" - not "victim" (period). They're questioning Sanchez's self-presentation as a victim. This flyer was posted after Sanchez and other conservative activists used the press to attack the ISO students. Here's an example of one such attack which was published 10 days before the ISO students posted the "Victim?" flyer.Reelm (talk) 03:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, per WP:BLP please remove the gay escort claim from the following:

Sanchez also noted comparisons to Jeff Gannon, whom he met at the CPAC convention and had also advertised as a gay escort and was later outed as part of a media scandal.

This material is referenced to YouTube, which is unsuitable per WP:RS. Even if the hosted video were reliable, the escort speculation refers to another person and not Matt Sanchez. DurovaCharge! 00:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The above statement is incorrect. The "gay escort" material re: Gannon is referenced to a Salon.com essay by Sanchez himself, and another article by the Independent. The claim is not referenced to YouTube. Sourcing for this is correct, meets RS, and the "gay escort" language should not be removed. --Eleemosynary (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, if the article needs another source confirming Sanchez's escort career, here is a link to one, from ThePhoenix.com, the online site of The Boston Phoenix, which also states the rates Sanchez charged. --Eleemosynary (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawing that part; I see what you mean now. Perhaps there's a glitch in the reference setup on this page? Normally a click on the link takes the reader directly to the proper source. In this instance clicking on references 22 and 25 leads instead to note 18, which is a YouTube link (and ought to be removed per WP:RS, but that's a different discussion). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Durova (talk • contribs)

N Not done please establish a consensus for this change. Happy‑melon 20:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible Non-POV photo for article

One option is the photo that accompanies the "Porn Free" column Sanchez wrote for Salon.com, here. It has no political or ideologic slant, does not misrepresent Sanchez's military career (as "Dress Blues" does), and is a flattering photo of the article subject. Of course, Sanchez claimed (on Commons) that this photo should be removed because it was part of his "ID." I find it hard to believe that Salon.com used a photo from Sanchez's ID to accompany an article written by him. Perhaps we should ascertain this information from Salon, and seek permission from them to use the photo. --Eleemosynary (talk) 02:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Caption for Dress Blues image

Resolved. Caption added. Benjiboi 23:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone object to the caption of the Dress Blues image being changed to Sanchez in class "A" Marine Corps Dress Blue uniform in 2003. (nowiki version: Sanchez in class "A" [[United States Marine Corps|Marine Corps]] [[Uniforms of the United States Marine Corps#Blue Dress|Dress Blue]] uniform in 2003. )? It seems to me that the date idea (from above) is a good one, and these wiki-links are more informative. Note, I am happy to be corrected if he is actually wearing the class "B" Dress Blues - I can't tell which it is from the photo, and so have assumed the more formal class "A". Jay*Jay (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I mostly like this suggestion, although if we aren't certain which class of dress blues they are, we should omit that detail. Aleta Sing 21:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. And leave off the class signifier if we don't know. Benjiboi 01:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, given the time allowed for other comment, I think we have consensus. Thus... {{editprotected}} Per above discussion, please change the caption on the Dress Blues image to Sanchez in Marine Corps Dress Blue uniform in 2003. (nowiki version: Sanchez in [[United States Marine Corps|Marine Corps]] [[Uniforms of the United States Marine Corps#Blue Dress|Dress Blue]] uniform in 2003.). Thanks. Jay*Jay (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Just saying

So we might as well discuss that if an image of Sanchez as a marine is to be used then an image of him from his "adult" career would also be appropriate. Benjiboi 21:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could start here - warning adult images which has some photos suggesting Matt's recollections of his porn activities is a little hazy. Recall from the Radar interview where Matt said "frankly, I don't ever remember sucking cock on film, and it is not something that I ever enjoyed". Looking at the images online, maybe the quote could be juxtaposed with a suitable image, to illustrate Matt's recall (or maybe his credibility...). More seriously, perhaps an image of a box cover could be justified under fair use, to illustrate the success of his career in gay porn? Jay*Jay (talk) 13:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

US Marine Corps Service

This section should incorporate the following information:

Sanchez, a refrigeration mechanic who joined the Corps in May 2003 and drilled with 6th Communications Battalion until June 2005, transferred to the IRR 11 days shy of his two-year mark, according to personnel records at Marine Forces Reserve in New Orleans. Typical Reserve enlistment contracts are eight years, with six spent drilling with a Reserve unit and two in the IRR. Sanchez said he was transferred to nondrilling status early because of a medical problem.

This comes from the John Hoellewarth article already listed in the references.Reelm (talk) 04:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Changes

I just removed one redundant source and the word "also", since both gave the impression that Sanchez had worked as an escort, which he denies. OTRS ticket#2008030510024132 refers. This does not materially affect the content or balance of the article, so seems uncontroversial to me. Guy (Help!) 20:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sanchez is on record confirming his escort career. Your removal of that fact, without discussion here, was highly inappropriate. This sourced fact (to Sanchez's own words on the Alan Colmes show) should be restored ASAP. --Eleemosynary (talk) 07:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Sanchez made a statement on Colmes - and if you've listened to that interview, it's far from "confirming". He then recanted a week later on Colmes, and has consistently maintained that he was not an escort. Unless you can provide a reliable third-party source, in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, libelous information cannot be added to the article. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Sanchez confirmed his escort career on Colmes by repeatedly saying "Yes" when Colmes asked him if had worked as a gay prostitute. That is not open to interpretation. Additionally, Sanchez's "I won't deny it" statement about his prostitution career in his Salon.com article, should also be noted in the article. There ya go: two acceptable sources. That Sanchez wants to scrub the article of his escort career has been going on for some time. Why are you abetting it? --Eleemosynary (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
And here's another reliable third-party source, spelling out Sanchez's prostitution career, and the rates he charged, and which also states Sanchez confirmed all of it. --Eleemosynary (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm "abetting" it because it is full-fledged Wikipedia policy! It's not a guideline, an essay, or something you can "ignore the rules" about. This is legal, no-holds-barred, official policy - you must have an iron-clad reliable source for controversial and potentially harmful material.
As has been stated before, Sanchez' own "admission" doesn't hold water, mostly because not even a week later he retracted that statement.
And the piece in "ThePhoenix" is an editorial piece in an "alternative news weekly", which doesn't qualify as a WP:RS.
Several editors have repeatedly tried to add information stating that Sanchez was an escort, despite major objections, and without being able to come up with a reliable source. What I'm really curious about is why? The man is notable for his seedy past and his "clean boy" conservative about-face. Does it really matter if the article states he was an escort or if it points to the several explicit gay-sex movies? What's the diff - why spend so much time and effort trying to add (and prove) the word "escort"? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Nope. The Phoenix is the online site of the Boston Phoenix, completely acceptable as a news source, as news reporting from the Village Voice would be. The "alternative" rubric does not detract from the source's reliability, and suggesting that it would distorts Wikipedia's "ironclad" policy. And the article is clearly in the "news" section, not the editorial one. Check the link again, then retract your false assertion.
Your tiresome campaign of dismissing all reliable sources on Sanchez's prostitution history -- and trying, additionally, to scrub all discussion of it from this Talk page -- is at best a nuisance, at worst a fraud. The sources shown (Colmes, Salon, Phoenix, etc.) all pass WP:RS. Why spend so much time trying to whitewash sourced fact? --Eleemosynary (talk) 03:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

As I mention below, the WP:BLPN would be the appropriate place to take this. If they approve your intended use of this source then we could discuss draft article text on the talk page. DurovaCharge! 03:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the appropriate place to discuss a reliable source is here, on the Talk page. Cease the game-playing. --Eleemosynary (talk) 03:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Another reliable source confirming Sanchez's escort career: The Marine Corps Times, here. --Eleemosynary (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
First let's get one point clear: Cease the game-playing is a breach of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. It's been half a year since I first answered a request for comment and my participation has been scrupulously neutral. I've pursued one consistent goal: the normal application of standard Wikipedia policies. My support of Matt Sanchez's siteban should be proof enough that I have no ideological axe to grind. Today I posted an unusual request for arbitration enforcement, specifically avoiding any request for sanctions against individual editors. I did that because I wish to work with all editors amicably. It is unwise of you to follow on the heels of that by giving me reasons to invoke Wikipedia:Article_probation#Types_of_sanctions. I am not invoking that at this time, but I can and will if that behavior continues.
What I see in the Phoenix article is a passing mention and I found nothing relevant in the Marine Corps Times article (searched under escort, prostitution, and prostitute). Please quote the relevant passage from MCT if I missed it. Based upon the glancing nature of the Phoenix reference and the arbitration restriction, I provisionally oppose its use until BLPN or possibly content RFC brings independent opinions. The tendentiousness of the proposing editor plays some role in my reticence. DurovaCharge! 04:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
From the Phoenix article: "Sanchez also had his own escort service for several years, charging $200 for at-home sessions, $250 for work involving travel to a client’s home. To Sanchez’s credit, he immediately admitted that all of this was true — although he did fudge on the timeline, claiming that his porn and hustling career was over 15 years ago — and denied that escort ads with his phone number and photos that appeared three years ago were placed by an imposter. Sanchez valiantly, and pointlessly, defended himself on these discrepancies to a kind but unrelenting Alan Colmes on the latter’s radio show." [Durova: That is hardly a "glancing" reference.]
From the MCT: "During a radio interview with Fox News Channel’s Alan Colmes last week, Sanchez acknowledged working as a male prostitute, but told Marine Corps Times he hasn’t had homosexual sex since he joined the Corps in 2003." [Durova: a search of the article does yield a match for "prostitute."]
Italics are mine, to aid the reading. Now, we have at least two reliable sources. And note the Phoenix article does not say Sanchez "retracted" that he was a prostitute, it says he mentioned a few "discrepancies" when talking to Colmes. We also have the Salon.com article where Sanchez says he "won't deny" his escort career. That's three reliable sources. --Eleemosynary (talk) 05:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
These are all the same references that have been refuted many times. They are all directly related to his statements on Colmes, and he retracted those statements. You're trying to push one side of a POV - namely, you'll accept Sanchez' statement that he *did* escort, but you won't accept his statement that he *didn't*. I would totally agree to put in something about a career in escorting *IF* there was a reliable third-party source that didn't base it's statements on what Sanchez said in the Colmes interview. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Ridiculous. 1) We have no reliable source that Sanchez "retracted" anything. 2) Even if he did, that doesn't negate Sanchez's original declaration that he worked as an escort (I'd be fine if the article mentioned both his admission and his retraction, provided said retraction was reliably sourced.) 3) You are the one trying to push a POV, by trying to pretend Sanchez's admission on Colmes of his escort career, and his "I won't deny it" in Salon.com, don't rise to a standard of reliability, even though they are augmented by reliable sources such as the Marine Corps Times and The Phoenix, 4) You don't get to rule out the Colmes Interview, the Salon.com article, the Phoenix article, and the Marine Corps Times article because they conflict with your (and Sanchez's) agenda to scrub the page of his reliably sourced escort career, and 5) none of the sources I've mentioned have been adequately refuted; they've been dismissed and ignored (by you), but they hold up fine. To use a word you're fond of, they are "ironclad." --Eleemosynary (talk) 09:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I direct all interested editors to the first section on this page [12], which SatyrTN has tried (unsuccessfully) to archive before consensus. There, you will see many other editors' responses to these same arguments, which SatyrTN was also making three months ago. --Eleemosynary (talk) 10:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
A local consensus that contravenes site policy is not valid. We're talking about policy and guidelines WP:V, WP:RS, WP:COPYRIGHT, and WP:BLP. I don't care one way or the other about the content of this article; I just want to see whatever negative material it does include to be solidly grounded in the applicable policies. Right now it isn't, and if you addressed those policy concerns at face value, rather than responding as if I raised these points as a smokescreen for some other agenda, then we could move forward. DurovaCharge! 20:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahem

Can we please discuss deletions such as these prior to their removal? Benjiboi 21:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The notice given above is adequate for the first part; the second part of the edit is not a reliable source. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. Can we please discuss deletions such as these prior to their removal? The core issues of this subjects notability is that he was a gay porn actor and likely gay escort who now is a poster-child for conservative politics which demonizes gays. If he wasn't a former gay porn star and escort he notability would likely have gotten his article deleted as he seems to be working for, still. In his own words he said he was an escort so at best we should balance that out. Also his universe is the blogosphere so it seems that relevant material would also be appropriate. It's unfortunate he has been successfully stonewalling progress on this article. The first removal is a semantics one, Jeff Gannon was also a gay escort can be reworded to the inferring is removed. Benjiboi 22:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I fully support that edit and don't think it goes nearly far enough. This article still has multiple citations to YouTube, which violate WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:RS as well as WP:BLP. Frankly I've done my best here to work toward some kind of consensus, but these are policy issues and really aren't negotiable, especially at an article that's under ArbCom restriction. I've put off posting to WP:AE as long as possible. Making one last effort here: let's bring this page in line with standard site practice. DurovaCharge! 09:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't, as of yet, handle video content, thus YouTube in a very meaningful way but that hardly means we shouldn't and can't and that would seem to make this article and wikipedia in general worse off. I suppose Sanchez's own YouTube channel is somehow to be expunged as well? Benjiboi 23:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Benjiboi, my thread below edit conflicted with your post. DurovaCharge! 23:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
BTW, Wikipedia does host video content. For instance, this video footage of the Iraq war is a featured picture. DurovaCharge! 23:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia's handling of new media is woefully lagging that in the real world is this is painfully evident in video content with YouTube being a prime example. Universities are starting to post professor's lectures online. I'm sure if we can work hard we can duck our collective heads in the sand but video content on wikipedia remains largely uncharted territory for how best to integrate it with traditional reliable sources. Benjiboi 23:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Benjiboi, the medium is beside the point; copyright infringement is a bright line. We would not be having this discussion if MSNBC hosted the broadcasts at their own website or if an official MSNBC representative had uploaded those videos to YouTube. There is no substantive difference between our discussion and the editorial problem other articles sometimes see when some random person uses a personal website to host what they claim is the full text of a Washington Post article: the link violates copyright and the content may have been altered. DurovaCharge! 23:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • In case it wasn't blindingly obvious, vidcaps of Fox News reports uploaded to YouTube with no evidence of permission are a violation of WP:C and must be removed. We can cite Fox News and we can link video from their site, but we absolutely may not link to YouTube copies without credible evidence of copyright release. I see no evidence that YouTube user mateo1970 is formally authorised to release copyright material. I'm checking them all, and have just found one that has been removed as a ToS violation, which I think proves the point just nicely. Guy (Help!) 13:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Concur with Guy, this is crystal clear. Copyright violations may not be linked to. What isn't as obvious but is also true is that copyright violations may not be used as sources without a link - because they might have been altered. Should an editor wish to use the original Fox News coverage as a source, they must view the original coverage from Fox and/or a transcript published by Fox (or by a transcript service that stands behind the reliability of their transcript, if there are any such). GRBerry 14:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:AE

I've gone ahead and filed a request for arbitration enforcement. It's purely in terms of policy adherence on the article and doesn't request sanctions on any editor. The problems with YouTube citations are as follows:

  • YouTube almost never satisfies WP:RS. None of the videos were uploaded by the broadcaster; we have no way of knowing whether these versions were doctored or adulterated.
  • All of these YouTube videos were copyright violations. According to Wikipedia:COPYRIGHT#Linking_to_copyrighted_works, these outgoing links constitute contributory infringement and are in direct violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy.
  • Footnote 19 is a dead link. The video it references has been removed from YouTube (probably because it violated copyright) and all material that depended upon it is now unreferenced.
  • Insufficiently sourced negative information about a living person violates WP:BLP.

Now to state this for clarity: there are other ways besides YouTube to cite a major news broadcast. It's been nearly a full month since I first raised this point about YouTube in late February so I hope the editors who wish to retain the underlying information have been at work obtaining official transcripts of the relevant broadcasts.

Standard practice at Wikipedia is to remove BLP violations aggressively; I've done my utmost to be accommodating toward those who wish to include sourced criticism. I hope this explanation makes it clear that this noticeboard post isn't about liking Matt Sanchez or disliking him, or approving or disapproving of him. It's about policies. DurovaCharge! 23:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the history activities of supressing content is most telling on it's own. Benjiboi 23:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
And here's another reliable third-party source, spelling out Sanchez's prostitution career, and the rates he charged, and which also states Sanchez confirmed all of it. Accordingly, Sanchez's career as a prostitute should be mentioned in the article, and the cadre of editors hell-bent on suppressing this information should cease immediately. --Eleemosynary (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
That's the same link you provided two sections above, Eleemosynary. I would have no objection if you ran that by the biographies of living persons noticeboard for an independent review of its appropriateness. We can discuss what do do with that if they approve it. That's really a separate issue from this thread so please continue the discussion already at the other thread. DurovaCharge! 03:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I provided the link twice because, the first time I did, you did not respond to it. Funny, but reliable sources about Sanchez's escort career on this page have a tendency to be overlooked. And thanks, but no, I won't be appealing to "gain approval" for an obviously reliable source. The issue is not "separate" at all, and I'll keep discussing it here. --Eleemosynary (talk) 03:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Another reliable source confirming Sanchez's escort career: The Marine Corps Times, here. --Eleemosynary (talk) 03:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • People, Sanchez flat out denies it. There is no point posting newspaper stories repeating misinterpretations of the single source that exists, which is the radio interview; Sanchez denies it and without some credible evidence to rebut his denial, we cannot state it as fact. I have read through Jeff Gannon, in that case we have the claim made by and attributed to Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post, and I can't find a source where Gannon denies it. If, for God alone knows what perverse reason, people are absolutely insistent on mentioning the word "escort", then it has to be attributed to a source and combined with the entirely verifiable fact that Sanchez vehemently denies it. It cannot be asserted or implied as fact. Guy (Help!) 11:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)