Talk:Matt Sanchez/Archive 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents 1 Removed military expert tag needed 2 (Sigh) OK, Is this image OK to use? 3 Page Protection re: Image 4 Rm Military Expert tag 5 Sanchez is not a "Writer" 6 Work as an escort

Removed military expert tag needed

I don't see the need for this tag, it possibly infers the subject's involvement with the military which seems a strong point of debate and doesn't seem to have done anything as of yet for whatever reasons. Anyone object or have alternative ideas? Benjiboi 13:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the point of the tag is still valid - to get someone from MilHist to review the article from a military perspective. There are questions (that you may have already archived) about Sanchez' current military status. There have also been questions about the inquiry and its' status. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Tag re-added. Benjiboi 00:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure of any outstanding talk item concerning the military aspects being archived? The two issues seem to be 1. What is the outcome of the various investigations and 2. Has he been dismissed because of them. Unsure how any of that can be addressed without a RS to back up anything we use. Benjiboi 00:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Right - those issues. And whether or not he's *still* in the marines. I've left another message with MilHist to see if they have access to (or even just know better) info on a person's status in the armed forces. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

(Sigh) OK, Is this image OK to use?

This image is presently on the article. I find it problematic as it shows him as somehow in the military and that seems of a point of ongoing debate (as in we can't prove he isn't so we're going with sources he is). I'd still like to get a head shot but before i take this to the image lab does it seem like this one is stable and free? Benjiboi 10:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have doubts that it is clear of issues. Matt says he is the author here but he made the same claim about the ID image actually belonging to the State (NY, IIRC). Now, it could have been his camera with the photo taken by someone else as a favour to him; but it could also be a photo taken by someone else on their camera, and thus Matt doesn't own the copyright and isn't able to provide the licence. On the image itself, I agree the military theme is problematic. I still would prefer the Columbia photo, which I thought Durova had sorted out. What was the problem? Jay*Jay (talk) 11:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure and have little energy to invest in those aspects of Sanchez drama. Benjiboi 12:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I can understand completely - I'm not going near that either. I just think that heroic assumptions would be required to accept there is no problem without greater clarity. Jay*Jay (talk) 13:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's problematic because it's misleading. Sanchez is frequently misidentified as an Iraq war vet even though he was never deployed. This photo would only add to the confusion.Reelm (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Jay*Jay, according to the deletion log:

21:01, 2008 February 18 Calliopejen1 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:SanchezColumbiaa.jpg" ‎ (replaceable: wikipedia's goal is to produce free content, having permission to appear here and the preference of the subject is not enough)

I happen to think this was poorly done on the part of the deleter. It should have been discussed first. Aleta (Sing) 21:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, is this a valid deletion reason? Having an image of Sanchez is desirable for the article. I think the chopper photo is inappropriate, because (as Reelm notes) it's 'military' emphasis has a POV slant - just as bad would be a photo from his porn career (even if one were obtainable with a licence). If Durova got an appropriate licence for the Columbia photo, can we overturn Calliopejen1's deletion? It sounds to me to be based on opinion, rather than policy. Jay*Jay (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have invited Calliopejen1 to come and discuss the issue on this talk page, and to reconsider the deletion. Jay*Jay (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'll reconsider if someone can explain why this isn't blatantly replaceable. In general, if there is no free image available of a living subject, the article remains without a photo until someone can take or find one. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I readily concede that I don't know much about image policy or practice. However, I don't see in WP:IUP where it talks about replaceability. Durova states (above) that she was back-and-forth between the copyright holder and OTRS, so I would have thought that an acceptable licence was been obtained. If we have an image and permission to use it, I don't understand why we can't use it? Jay*Jay (talk) 02:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that as it turns out, the person who gave permission to OTRS (Sanchez) was not the copyright holder, so we have no free license. And the relevant policy is WP:NFCC1, which says that a free image must not be obtainable in order to use a non-free image. On WP:NONFREE, one thing you are not allowed to include is non-free "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career." Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

A bit to explain more: "Further research determined that that Spectator and photographer John Davisson actually own rights to the image. Per OTRS Ticket#2008020910013442, the copyright holder has granted republication permission to Wikipedia." (From Durova) The problem is that Wikipedia-only permission is still considered nonfree by wikipedia standards. If you want to try to get a truly free license (can be used by anyone for anything), go for it--but I don't think you'll succeed. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, permission still hasn't been received by OTRS. I'd suggest everyone participating in this conversation see the discussion at Commons before proceeding. And this isn't canvassing - this is just pointing out where the process has been and where it's at now. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 03:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Permission for this (the helicopter) picture at OTRS isn't required. He uploaded it himself. There's no reason to assume that because he mistook owning copies of pictures for owning copyright, that he is, in fact, lying about having taken this photograph with his own camera. Unless you have evidence that copyright for this picture belongs to someone else, there's no reason to delete it. Bastique | demandez 00:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, regarding the Spectator portrait, I've lobbed the ball back into Matt Sanchez's court. He's on campus and can visit their offices if he wants to persuade them to copyleft the image; I live thousands of miles away. Durova^Charge! 01:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Eleemosynary on this. Sanchez's credibility with uploading images is quite suspect and frankly I'd rather use no images than anything from Sanchez or related socks (which he now seems to be employing elsewhere). Maybe Shankbone is willing to meet up with Sanchez? Benjiboi 03:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

If shankbone is willing to do that, that is fine, however, it does not excuse us from the requirement to assume good faith in regards to the picture. There is zero evidence that this picture is unacceptable. The only reason to reject it is based on Matt Sanchez's prior actions, which have nothing to do with this picture here. With no evidence to the contrary, there is no justification for excluding the picture when we don't have an acceptable replacement.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, I don't intend to be further involved with this page.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing, your assertion that Sanchez's prior actions have nothing to do with using an image which he likely did not take (as he is the one photographed), and uploaded as one he owned, which he has misrepresented in the past, doesn't ease my concerns, at all. If there are no further objections though I will send this to image lab so we can pull a head shot out. Benjiboi 12:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what that means, so I cannot note any objections or not. I will, however, say that I have dozens of photos from the military that were taken of me by other people, on my behalf. If you give someone your camera, they take a picture of you on your behalf, and give it back to you, do you really think there is a copyright infringement issue there? Do you have proof that the camera wasn't set on top of something, and the picture taken in timer mode? Almost ever digital camera has that ability now. But, no, he must be lying, I mean come on, it's Matt Sanchez! Sigh. The assumptions of bad faith on this page are absolutely staggering. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 16:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

ROFTL! You're right - there's a bit of "bad faith" going on. Read through the archives at some point, though - you'll notice that there's a reason for it. Misdirections, misleading statements, even outright lies have been spread both in the article and on the talk page, not to mention abrasive attitudes and outright harassment. I'm not excusing any behavior, but when when you've been shot down 2, 3, 25 times, you tend to get "gun shy" :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so, but the same can be said of both sides. It's a human reaction, but it doesn't excuse us from our duty to assume good faith. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. Limiting our good faith to those who have not continually proven they don't deserve it for their disrespect to the wikipedia community would seem to show common sense. When a user, the subject of this article, and uploader of the image in question, violates the trust of other editors and somehow is able to misunderstand, conveniently, the protocols of wikipedia including standards of verifiability and the various issues they were banned for, there is good reason to recheck their contributions. Despite having some military experience and living on at least three continents the user somehow still isn't able or willing to abide by and follow basic directions. So, again, before I waste the time of other wikipedia volunteers at the image lab to pull out a head shot to use in the infobox. Does anyone find it unstable or otherwise unfree? If not I'll go forward so we can resolve this issue. Benjiboi 02:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Good faith is fair to extend here. The issue with the Columbia portrait was a very understandable mistake and probably done in good faith. Since there's no evidence of prior publication or a competing copyright claim on the current image, and it looks like an informal snapshot, it really comes across over-aggressive to pursue this complaint. Please let it rest, unless you have evidence to contest its legitimacy. Durova^Charge! 02:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I would appreciate your extending that good faith to me as well. My aim has continued to be getting a good head shot for his bio and the last image I presented for that purpose was deleted while the request was in process. Ergo, I asked here to see if this image was indeed stable and free. It's one thing for me to spin wheels trying to get progress on the article but another to enlist others to contribute if their efforts are wasted. I correctly asked on the talk page to ensure that the image was stable and free. I'll treat this similar to his military status - we can't prove he doesn't own it so we'll act as if he does. Benjiboi 15:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is the latest missive from banned vandal Matt Sanchez. It is the third [1] known sock he's used to evade his ban, for nothing other than spewing hatred, his stock-in-trade. Honestly, the protestations that we need to "assume good faith" about any of Sanchez's ongoing efforts to edit his page -- including his flailing attempts to upload photos to Commons, and then lobby sympathetic editors to upload them to this page -- are ridiculous. Plain and simple: Sanchez lied, several times, about "owning" the copyright to the Columbia Spectator photo. When the truth was revealed, he continued to lie about it. This was not a "misunderstanding," as a few on this page have strained credulity to suggest. There is simply no reason to take Sanchez at his word, and the catch-all "assume good faith" does not mean "assume good faith in spite of Sanchez's ongoing lies, attacks, vandalism, and ham-handed attempts to game the system." -- Eleemosynary (talk) 01:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Page Protection re: Image

I've fully protected the page while we sort out the image situation. Please discuss here instead of edit warring. Thanks. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Rm Military Expert tag

According to WP:MILHIST, there doesn't seem to be a publicly available record of who is currently serving and in what capacity. I've removed the tag. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sanchez is not a "Writer"

Though he's a blogger, his opinion piece for the New York Post does not merit him the professional title of "Writer" in the article. I've removed it. --Eleemosynary (talk) 04:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on this either way. I will point out he has that Salon.com piece, too... not sure how much other writing that's not blogging he's done. Aleta (Sing) 04:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The Salon piece was a one-time, online response to the unearthing of his porn career. The Post piece was a single editorial. Sanchez does not make his living as a writer, and has never published anything other than his blog posts, which have been occasionally cross-posted on worldnetdaily. If someone would like to make the case that labelling him a professional "Writer" is valid, feel free. --Eleemosynary (talk) 05:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Just by way of comparison, neither Michelle Malkin nor Glenn Greenwald are listed as "writers" on Wikipedia, despite the fact that they are both prominent bloggers and published, best-selling authors. They are listed, rather, by their principal professions. -- Eleemosynary (talk) 05:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Michelle Malkin is listed as a columnist (i.e. writer) because she write columns for Jewish World Review and occassionally for National Review online. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 10:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

First, wikt:Writer: A person who writes. Nothing about "professional title". One *could* say he's a "published author", since at least two pieces of his have been published. Note I did not say he was a "professional writer".

Second, you're changing the information, so if there is any controversy about the change (i.e. someone reverts you), you need to convince other editors why the change is necessary from the current consensus. So why do you feel it needs to be removed, when he has been published at least twice? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Eleemosynary is under a 24hr block for violating 3RR for his reverts on this topic. You'll have to put it on hold until he gets back. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

An anon is now removing the same info. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 10:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Article semi-protected. Sanchez has written plenty I believe we have at least a dozens sources that support that. If we have any that say he isn't then post them here for others to review. Benjiboi 02:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Per checkuser, this edit was not made by Sanchez. Thatcher 20:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks Thatcher, I don't think anyone's suggesting that Sanchez wants to remove "writer". Benjiboi 01:18, 29 February 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: [2] 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 [3], at the same level as possession of fireworks [4], possession of graffiti instruments [5] (actually producing graffiti is a Class A misdemeanor [6]), or Fortune telling (yes, fortune telling is a crime under New York state law [7]). 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)