Talk:Matt Sanchez/Archive 15

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 15

Contents

February 6 edits

Resolved.

Benji, I have a couple questions about the changes you made today. First, the sentence you added says:

Sanchez stated in an interview with Radar Magazine that it "was just the nature of the business, you shoot a lot of films and they use them forever."

It then references a Salon.com article by Sanchez which a) says nothing about Radar Magazine and b) says nothing about shooting film and/or using it forever.

Also, you've listed a bunch of languages that Sanchez may speak and/or be fluent in, but I wonder a) is it relevant? Has he written for any named/notable periodicals in any language? I know he's acted as "Pierre LaBranche", but one hardly needs to speak a foreign language to be an actor in a foreign porn movie b) A Kristen Bjorn blog is not a reliable source.

Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) My bad. The ref I used was the one from a prior revision but it obviously was wrong or moved or something. I've updated the correct ref. And being able to learn and speak several languages would seem noteworthy on almost every other biography so I'm not sure why that's an issue. As you ask though he spoke at least one of those non-English languages in his films and the sentence is right before the mention that he did "writing for travel magazines" where foreign language skills would seem to be an asset. And I believe the blog (from 1999) is a bit misleading in its label. It's an archived interview done with Sanchez, as far as is evidenced he was asked online questions vetted by Bjorn, arguably one of the world's leading gay porn filmmakers. The content seems tame enough but we can qualify with "according to" if it seems exceptional in some way. Benjiboi 01:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
As Rod Majors in Idol Country, Sanchez speaks (fluent) Spanish during most of the sex with his scene partner, Mike Chavez (aka, Mike Lamas, Miguel Lopez). — SpikeToronto (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Image w/Coulter

Resolved. until it can be determined as actually free don't use, also POV issue
Image:SanchezWithCoulter-w.jpg

I was going to recommend we mine a head shot from the Sanchez with Coulter photo but before we bother fixing the photo would someone be willing to look into whether that one is usable? Benjiboi 22:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, according to the information on the image page, the author is "Chris Kulawik, photographer. Copyright owned by Matthew Sanchez". I'd be leery of it - how is Sanchez the copyright owner if the photographer is Kulawik? Should we ask Matt about it over at Commons? Aleta (Sing) 22:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm leery as well, I'm still willing to AGF that he handed his camera to someone so he could get a photo with Coulter; however given the history it would be better to have confirmation. Benjiboi 01:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering that the Spectator confirmed today that they own the copyright to a previous image that was used in this article but claimed owned by Sanchez, I would stay away from images associated with Sanchez unless they come from a source other than him or any other involved users. Additionally, this photo being considered here is not Sanchez's either, even though he uploaded it claiming copyright. On his Commons user page, User:Bluemarine, he says This is a publicity shot I pulled from his (John Avarsis) website.. Again, an issue where he doesn't own the copyright. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 01:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the photo with Coulter shouldnt be used to create a head shot at this stage, as its copyright status is 100% clear, and creating a head shot would be a derivative work. Once the first Commons deletion request has been completed, I think we should also nominate this one, as the photo doesnt contain any camera metadata. While I dont think it is necessary to claim fair-use for Image:SanchezColumbia.jpg, I think that a fair-use claim for Image:SanchezWithCoulter-w.jpg is reasonable. John Vandenberg (talk) 01:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Allstarecho, that note on commons:User:Bluemarine appears to be about deleted image commons:Image:Aravosis-John.jpg. John Vandenberg (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I will correct myself. I will note however that on commons:Image:SanchezWithCoulter-w.jpg, Sanchez stated in the summary:Author: Chris Kulawik, photographer. Copyright owned by Matthew Sanchez. Again, I'm sure a misunderstanding about whether or not he actually owns the image. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 01:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If a positive response is received from the editor of the Columbia Spectator, then the image Image:SanchezColumbia.jpg is the best I have seen for this article. By the way, as this discussion relates (in part) to Matt's comments on images, I want to point out that I have initated a discussion about editors under block being able to comment on articles of which they are the subject. The post is on the discussion page at WP:AC, and here is a direct link. Comment is invited. Jay*Jay (talk) 04:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, the photo is too artistic and IMHO promotes a postive (POV) of him. The style used is "heroic", and he's not known for his heroism universally, it is actually rather contested. It looks like a promo pic. A picture like that is appropriate for Clark Kent but not Matt Sanchez.Boomgaylove (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sanchez & Sattar

Resolved. until it can be determined as actually free don't use, also POV issue

My goodness, this is like the voice from beyond the grave isn't it. We might as well vet these images one by one since there seems to be "issues" with them. Anyone want to tackle this one? Benjiboi 04:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked editors commenting thread

(copying post and giving this subject its own section) If a positive response is received from the editor of the Columbia Spectator, then the image Image:SanchezColumbia.jpg is the best I have seen for this article. By the way, as this discussion relates (in part) to Matt's comments on images, I want to point out that I have initated a discussion about editors under block being able to comment on articles of which they are the subject. The post is on the discussion page at WP:AC, and here is a direct link. Comment is invited. Jay*Jay (talk) 04:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Added emphasis for clarity of this subject. Benjiboi 22:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Has this been resolved? Benjiboi 22:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Apparently so per this. I think all they are waiting on is the actual permission. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 22:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually that's the trigger issue. this seems to be the larger discussion referred above. Benjiboi 07:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think describing this as resolved is a bit optimistic. As FT2's comments at this discussion makes clear, OTRS is not good at dealing with complex or ongoing issues in this area. Jay*Jay (talk) 12:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've cleaned off the resolved tag; could you please update when this is resolved so we can keep clearing off this talk page? Benjiboi 11:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Benjiboi, I didn't mean to sound harsh, and I doubt that a resolution is going to happen. I just thought that "resolved" was an optimistic assessment of the situation. I was hoping we could get something non-disruptive and transparent, but will be surprised if that actually happens. Jay*Jay (talk) 11:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
No prob, my concern is keeping this talk page cleared as much as possible so the sooner we can move this off the better, I think it's resolved as much as our concern for working on this article. Benjiboi 12:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Benjiboi, if you want to archive it, I won't have a problem - I understand the desire to keep the talk page clear. I only posted to ask if people wanted to comment on the issue raised. In the event that there is movement, a new thread can always be started with a link to the archived disucssion. I just wasn't keen on resolved - especially as I felt the issue is worth considering and is being neglected. Anyway... Jay*Jay (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Cheers. I'll archive it then and if anything comes up feel free to re-post on it.Benjiboi 15:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding image

Resolved.

- discussions taking place on thread below

After going back and forth with Columbia Daily Spectator and OTRS, I have uploaded the Matt Sanchez portrait and added it to the article. They've given Wikipedia permission to use the image. DurovaCharge! 02:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Why was it deleted? Aleta (Sing) 12:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm so over the photo drama! I came and saw that it had been deleted so put the "need a photo" place saver. I suggest we refrain from adding any new ones until a clean and completely free photo is available and has none of the subject's unique licensing issues or blessings as that has caused more problems. Benjiboi 12:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
FYI: I contacted OTRS and Columbia Daily Spectator before that addition. DurovaCharge! 03:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I added an image from the wikipedia commons, all commons images are 100 free, so we shouldn't have any problems. I picked the one i found to be most appropriate and representative of the man in general.Boomgaylove (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

All the images there are supposed to be 100% free. Sometimes an uploader may be mistaken though about the exact status of an image. The one that was deleted had for a long time incorrectly been on Commons. After it was removed from there is when Durova obtained permission for us to use it here. I mention all this because I think particularly in the case of images likely to be used in this article we can not be guaranteed no problems simply by virtue of their being on Commons. Aleta (Sing) 04:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Feb 20 edits

Resolved. user Boomgaylove banned
moved from talk pages to here

I don't have a problem with any of your edits, though I've removed the "and porn actor" you added, and I replaced the name of the award he won. The deletion of the "progressive" quote might cause an eyebrow raising, though not mine. Just be aware that tensions run high on that article, so if someone WP:BITEs, it's probably not you specifically. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

He may have become somewhat notable because of his porn past, but having it in the first sentence, a full sentence later on in the lede, a full section of the biography after that, as well as six or eight other mentions in various other sections is probably overkill. I don't care if *he* likes it or not (and he doesn't) - I just want the article (for an almost non-notable person) to be as non-biased as possible, and really, as non-confrontational as possible. As Jimbo says, do no harm. There's no reason to over-state his porn career - it's obvious enough in the article. I'm taking it back out of the sentence.
As for the quote, it's actually a perfect example of the way the man is - attempting humor while still being a bit of a jerk. Like I said, I don't particularly care, but you asked if anything came to mind, and it did, so I mentioned it. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll point out the notice at the top, so people are clear..
 The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.
Administrators: when banning a user from an article, look up this article on the list of active general sanctions, select the relevant Arbitration case, and list the user under the Log of Bans at the page bottom; additionally, make use of {{User article ban arb}}.
This of course includes edit warring, more so when doing it with an admin ;] . - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 05:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone else care about the placement or frequency of the word "porn" in this article? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 07:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I've re-checked them and they presently seem fine, balanced etc. as he had a career as a porn actor and then that was the national spark of fame it effectively doubles the mention. Add to that that Sanchez wrote "Porn Free" where he talks about ... porn and it does add up. I've reverted a few of the changes as well but basically everything seems fine. As Boomgaylove doesn't seem to be engaged on this talk they are unlikely aware of all the drama. Regardless I see most of the changes as good faith. Benjiboi 10:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Strike my own comments as that user has been posting here. Benjiboi 12:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
SatyrTN, the lead strikes me as unbalanced in that regard - not sure the stage names are needed, for example. However, I also think the adult entertainment section needs expansion. We are talking about someone who would have a stand-alone article under WP:PORNBIO, and there is a fair amount more that could justifiably be added and be verified. Just my $0.02. Jay*Jay (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Twice in the lede paragraph plus his stage names is just too much, IMHO. After all, he's stated *many* times that he's not doing porn anymore. I'm taking out the new one. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
He's notable because he's a conservative Republican activist who also happens to be a former gay porn star. To omit or downplay this fact would be like writing an article about Linda Boreman, the anti-porn crusader, that failed to mention she was the star of Deep Throat.Reelm (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not downplaying anything - the information is in the very next sentence. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

let's remember this is about porn star, not the stage names, since he meets WP:PORNBIO and its a list of his major pursuits, and accomplishments, it's bias to not include the porn career which has so much to do with his fame and notability. The news story was that they called him a baby killer which is more or less WP:NOTNEWS territory IMHO but it became a big story was that when he was outed as a porn star the shit hit the fan. So if the less impirtant term political activist is mentioned so should porn actor. Ditto Reelm. To omit or downplay is not being neutral.Boomgaylove (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

For a different view, try this on:
This article is about a conservative writer and military person. He has published works and is part of the conservative political arena. He was once in the news because he had worked in gay porn several years ago.
Both versions include the porn career, one as an element of his past, one focused on it. IMO, political activist could be removed - he's mostly a writer and "milblogger" or whatever. I'm not advocating removing his porn career, I'm advocating focusing on his *current* activities while making sure to discuss his past. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand how anyone could think the porn career is being ignored/ left out. It's there. It's in the lead, and there's a whole section on it. I don't get why this is an issue at all, Boom. Aleta (Sing) 00:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


"Gay pornography career"

Resolved. user Boomgaylove banned

I've change the "Adult entertainment" section back. You can't remove "faggot" because it's controversial and then change the heading to the deliberately provocative "gay pornography career". -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Note

User:boomgaylove is now indefinitely banned[1] for disruptive editing on a variety of fronts. I have not followed his contributions to this article but if they are anything like the edits to the articles I was watching, I would simply revert them all at will at this point unless there is some real support for those edits. He may have believed in what he was doing, but the way he went about it was not operating in good faith. Wikidemo (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Some were helpful and correct, the rest have been corrected already. Benjiboi 13:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Bibliography

Resolved. will post articles on talk so they potentially can be worked into article

Why is this section included? It seems that it serves no other purpose than being a Sanchez-picked collection of his personal favorite pieces. What are the guidelines for this type of section? Aatombomb (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to have outlived its usefulness.Reelm (talk) 06:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, they're pretty standard. The ones I've seen are usually "selected bibliographies", which indicates at least a little POV in which items are selected. But I like having it there as examples of Sanchez' writings and style. I might be okay with trimming out the least notable? I'll take out one of the WND articles and the Columbia Spectator. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the entries under the American Essayists category, I see this type of section used for books, not columns. In the case of a particularly notable essay, a selected works section seems to be used most of the time. However, I don't think these pieces are particularly notable. In particular, I do not think other writers often reference the works cited in this section and don't meet the standard for notability. I think the link to Sanchez's blog and/or to an index of his columns at WND is sufficient. I'm going to remove the section based on this, but if anybody has a reasonable objection, feel free to revert and explain. Aatombomb (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it reasonable to have a few of his publications listed. These are not from his blog, and so just a link to that doesn't cover it. I've reverted you, Aatombomb, based on that. Aleta (Sing) 16:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I've trimmed the section. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you point to another example where a columnist has a select bibliography like the one in this article? Aatombomb (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the section is worth keeping, this is an encyclopedia and anyone wanting to learn more about the subject would be interested in their writings. Also many books are collections of a columnist organized loosely so it's reasonable to think that Sanchez may do the same. Benjiboi 20:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
If Sanchez wrote a book, clearly a bibliography section would be more than justified, but he has not. I'm asking for an example here at Wikipedia, which I could not find. I looked at a few columnists bios and saw no section like this in any of the ones I reviewed - and those were for authors far more notable than Sanchez. If there isn't an established precedent, I think this section should be removed. If people want to read more of Sanchez's writing they can go to WND or his blog, both of which I suggested be included as external links. Aatombomb (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
It's fairly obvious Aa*** intent is to defame, inflate and that he is very biased. The bibliography section makes sense. My writing has been the most consistent part of my public life. Matt Sanchez (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
It's obviously in your interest to have these links, so it's a little disingenuous of you to refer to bias here. Nobody is contesting that you do a lot of writing. However, other bios do not seem to contain these kinds of sections. And if the section stands, what is the criteria for including a link to one piece of writing and not another? Is it based on your preference? Is it a matter of notability? I could pick four other articles of yours completely randomly and post them here. What would make my random selection superior or inferior to yours? Aatombomb (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. Unless there are other bios that link writings in this manner I also am now leaning for removing this section on the condition that a reasonable effort is made to include some relevant and useful quotes or content from some of his work. This would not only provide some much needed balancing but also allow his work to, in essence, speak for itself. I don't think we have to go overboard but, for instance, it makes sense to reference some of the handful of his editorials that were published in the Columbia's school newspaper. We can state he wrote on this subject, etc. Benjiboi 15:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Porn actor in lede

Resolved. lede is a stand-alone summary and has clearly identified Sanchez as former gay porn actor

Adding "former porn actor" to the lede is a BLP violation, IMO, so I've removed it again. Since the man is a writer and in the military, having that phrase in the very first sentence can be considered a violation of "do no harm". Since his previous occupation is described later in the article, I feel it's out of place here. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that he acted in porno movies is already in the lead. I don't think the issue is whether or not it's there, but whether it's in there again. There is absolutely no need for that. BLP aside, it makes for bad writing! Aleta (Sing) 23:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a continuation of the existing dialogue above. Its just prejudicial to leave out one of his major and most notable pursuits while including others. It is NOT a BLP violation. It's well sourced. All over the news. You can buy a movie of him having sex with men. It may be contentious for some but its the way it is. BLP does not apply.Boomgaylove (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Its also not redundant, the intro should list pornographic actor. Much later in another paragraph it mentions that is was gay porn. Much earlier in the paragraph its repeated he is a writer and activist. We being a bit pornophobic here?Boomgaylove (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

But it is redundant - gay pornography is already listed in the lede. Also, he's not currently an actor, so including that in the list is misleading. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
At the risk of being banned, I'm going to have to agree with boomgalove. Matt Sanchez's porn career is an undisputed fact, so I don't see how this would be a BLP issue. As a conservative blogger, he's written numerous articles about his porn career. He even touted his appearance in Tijuana Toilet Tramps in an article that demonizes gays.Reelm (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Reelm, no one has argued (in the above discussion) that Sanchez was involved in porn. What we've been discussing is how to say that. Boomgaylove wanted to add it to the first sentence, even though it's already discussed two sentences later. The duplication is what was being argued against, not the inclusion. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)