Talk:Matt Sanchez

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 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 is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
  1. Archive 1
  2. Archive 2
  3. Archive 3
  4. Archive 4
  5. Archive 5
  6. Archive 6
  7. Archive 7
  8. Archive 8
  9. Archive 9
  10. Archive 10
  11. Archive 11
  12. January 2008
  13. February 2008 (A)
  14. February 2008 (B)
  15. February 2008 (C)
  16. February 2008 (D)
  17. March 2008 (A)
  18. March 2008 (B)
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Matt Sanchez, has edited Wikipedia as
Bluemarine (talk · contribs).
This user's editing has included this article.

Readers are encouraged to review Wikipedia:Autobiography for information concerning autobiographical articles on Wikipedia.
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Matt Sanchez, has edited Wikipedia as
Mattsanchez (talk · contribs).
This user's editing has included this article.

Readers are encouraged to review Wikipedia:Autobiography for information concerning autobiographical articles on Wikipedia.
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Matt Sanchez, has edited Wikipedia as
Matthewsanchez (talk · contribs)
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:

Contents

General archive

I've gone ahead with a bold archive of this page. Many of the threads were being used as a platform for insults, or contained copyvio links, and in one case included a link to a very hard X-rated site. These things really weren't productive for encyclopedia building. So in order to move forward I'm giving this a fresh slate.

Some of the copyvio material that was deleted the other day used material that could be citable if it were referenced in a legitimate manner. Does anyone want to find properly hosted copies of those broadcasts or transcripts of those shows?

Overall, are there any remaining concerns about references that might be added or deleted from the article? Please list, and if there's disagreement we can run them by WP:BLPN or WP:RSN for independent evaluation. DurovaCharge! 19:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The Alan Colmes radio interview where Matt Sanchez admitted working as a prostitute was posted on YouTube by John Aravosis with permission from Alan Colmes. It is not a copyright violation. Here's the link that shows Aravosis had permission to use that clip.
Aravosis is the blogger who broke the story about Jeff Gannon's gay escorting career. Howard Kurtz used Arovosis as a source in his coverage of the Jeff Gannon scandal. Arovosis is also a frequent guest on Kurtz's CNN program Reliable Sources.
There's something seriously wrong going on here if Wikipedia censors information from John Aravosis even though a well-known journalist like Howard Kurtz treats him like a reliable source.
Again - Rachel Marsden.Reelm (talk) 05:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Would you quote the place where Alan Colmes gives John Aravosis permission to repost to YouTube? DurovaCharge! 09:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
John Aravosis plainly states that this clip was given to him by Alan Colmes. You can find this on the blog post that I linked to and on his YouTube post.Reelm (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean "Colmes was kind enough to send me a clip of his interview"? That's not permission to post to YouTube. And it looks like Comedy Central and CNN both had issues with his YouTube postings. And I have to ask - AmericaBlog is RS, but WND isn't? Doesn't that seem .. lopsided? I recognize certain journalists might be notable and reliable, but personal blogs still don't have any fact checking, and are often mostly opinion pieces. I'm not sold on WND being RS at all, but from my (admittedly waaay left-leaning) perspective, AB is just as questionable from a reliability standpoint. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
CNN and Comedy Central's copyright issues are irrelevant. The audio clip that Alan Colmes gave him hasn't been deleted, so it's fair to say this post wasn't a copyright violation.
John Aravosis worked in the US Senate. He was a political consultant for over a decade. And before he launched his own web site, he was the guide on US politics at about.com, a web site that's owned by the New York Times. He has a solid reputation, which is why Howard Kurtz and so many other journalists frequently use him as a source. So, yeah, I say he should qualify as a RS on certain issues here at WP.
WND, on the other hand, is primarily known for its extremist, crackpot political slant. It's also been known to publish plagiarized articles. A couple of years ago rightwing blogger (and former WMD columnist) Debbie Schlussel made a convincing case that WND plagiarized her blog. And just last week she found evidence that "World Nut Daily" (her words, not mine) was stealing material from someone else.
Frankly, I'm a little shocked to see a prominent WP admin touting a discredited web site like World Net Daily as a reliable source. But it certainly explains a lot about what's going wrong with this article.
There are other issues related to this that I'd like to address - such as the blatant conflict of interest that comes with using sources that have a professional relationship with the subject of an article without acknowledging this blatant COI. (Matt Sanchez works for WND.) But it's late, and I'm tired, so I'll get to this tomorrow.Reelm (talk) 07:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree with SatyrTN. And to clarify, it's the legitimacy of the hosting that's the issue here, not the content. You could contact Alan Colmes and have him send a permission statement through OTRS or you could obtain an official transcript of the broadcast and cite that. DurovaCharge! 20:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
If the content of the interview isn't disputed does that mean we can cite the Marine Corps Times' reference to Sanchez's admission that he worked as a prostitute? Because the MCT article that's used as a source says Matt Sanchez admitted working as a prostitute during the Alan Colmes radio interview.Reelm (talk) 07:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Reelm, I would welcome a WP:BLPN opinion on the Marine Corps Times piece. The source satisfies WP:RS but its WP:BLP compliance is open to question. Specifically, that piece fails to note that Sanchez retracted the statement one week after he made it. Given the highly derogatory nature of the material, my opinion is to submit this for independent review at the noticeboard and accept its findings.

Also regarding the copyright issue, Reelm, yes the permission status of the YouTube hosting is very relevant. See Wikipedia:COPYRIGHT#Linking_to_copyrighted_works. We have no evidence that Alan Colmes gave republication permission to John Aravosis. That is what matters, not Aravosis's employment history. This is a bright line policy issue, but it merely applies to that hosting and should not hinder you from using and citing substantive material from the interview. I have already suggested policy-compliant alternatives you could pursue.

I am an administrator on Wikimedia Commons where a working knowledge of relevant copyright issues and WMF policies is vital for any sysop. Contributory infringement has already been discussed at this talk page in depth and JzG called it blindingly obvious when he fulfilled my WP:AE request. If you don't trust my assurances, the place to take your questions is Wikipedia:Copyright problems.

According to WP:V, the burden of proof rests with the editor who wishes to include material in an article. So when we don't see eye to eye, I will seek independent opinions at noticeboards about material I propose including and I ask you to do likewise about the material you propose using. Respectfully, DurovaCharge! 18:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Change embedded blogger to embedded journalist

According to the following two citations, it looks like Matt Sanchez's proper job title would be embedded journalist. See Editor's note: Reporter Matt Sanchez, currently embedded in Iraq and Matt Sanchez...is currently embedded as a civilian journalist in Iraq. I suggest we reflect this in the article wording. DurovaCharge! 07:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Matt Sanchez runs a blog and mostly writes opinion pieces. The term blogger is more accurate. But why are you pushing for this change when my suggestion about adding information about his military career has been ignored? The way this article is being handled reminds me of the Rachel Marsden case. I suppose it's just a coincidence that Matt Sanchez was a recent guest on Marsden's old Fox News show Red Eye.Reelm (talk) 12:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Sticking to the content question at hand, "embedded journalist" seems to be an accepted title (~150 hits on Google books) while "embedded blogger" seems not to be (only 1 hit on Gbooks). Also, he seems to have press credentials from the military. Even if nothing of his gets printed by the New York Times, it does seem to be an accurate title. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake.com got full press credentials when she live blogged the Scooter Libby trial, but she's still identified as a blogger, not a journalist. I don't expect anyone to back me up though since anyone who disagrees gets topic banned.Reelm (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Reelm, do you have any source that describes Matt Sanchez as an embedded blogger? DurovaCharge! 05:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
No. But I did find a New York Post article that says he's a "well-known gay conservative pundit." The New York Post is a reliable source, right? So we can identify Matt Sanchez as a "gay conservative" without violating WP:BLP now, can't we?Reelm (talk) 05:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's keep the discussion organized by discussing one change per thread. If you've got another topic then we can consider that separately. So since there are two sources that directly support the job title change, and no sources that support the current wording, would you accept the change? DurovaCharge! 09:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
That NY Sun article isn't a news story. It's a partisan op-ed piece written by a woman who has a reputation for being a bigot and a rightwing crank.
World Net Daily's not a realiable source either. It's an extremist web site run by rightwing crackpots -- producer of such gems as Soy is making kids gay. Joseph Farah, the founder of wnd.com, thinks murder is an acceptable punishment for adultery. And, no, he wasn't kidding. He honestly believes it's ok to kill people for cheating on their spouses. Just to underscore how off the rails crazy World Net Daily is - Joseph Farah thinks it's ok to run over your cheating husband with a Mercedes and then back up and run over him again just to make sure he's dead.
Since WP:RS discourages the use of extremist sources the term blogger should remain.Reelm (talk) 12:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, more sources:

  1. Matt Sanchez, a recipient of the Jeane Kirkpatrick Award for Academic Freedom, is a student at Columbia University and holds the rank of Corporal in the United States Marine Corps. He is currently embedded as a civilian journalist in Iraq. - weeklystandard.com
  2. Matt Sanchez is a reporter on race and politics in the United States and is a war correspondent for Worldnetdaily. - humanevents.com
  3. Matt Sanchez is currently embedded in Iraq, as a member of the media. He is also a corporal in the United States Marine Corps reserves. - nationalreview.com

DurovaCharge! 20:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the criticisms of the first sources, but with these additions, I support the use of the term journalist. Aleta Sing 20:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Aleta. It's been a day since I listed these sources and Reelm, who originally objected, commented on another thread without responding here. I'm not sure whether his original objection still holds so I'll clarify this proposal and wait a little longer: I'd like to post an edit request template to change the job title and use the Weekly Standard as the citation. That seems to be the most reputable source among the five that specifically uses the phrase embedded as a civilian journalist. DurovaCharge! 18:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Any objective reading of Sanchez's blog shows that while he may have been embedded at one time (refer to the dates on the sources above), this is no longer the case. Seems to me that the article reads just fine as is. His contributions to WND have diminished significantly over time—"war correspondent" seems like a significant over-reach in any case. These past activities of course would still be open to characterization I suppose.Dale720240 (talk) 03:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
No one is proposing to call him a war correspondent in the article. And what is your previous account? The above is the only edit on Dale720240 (talk · contribs) and this is a semi-protected page. So you waited four days just to disagree with something nobody asked for? DurovaCharge! 04:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Outside view: I came here after reading Durova's post on WP:BLPN and am not sure I understand the debate. To wit: The only place I saw the term "embedded blogger" used on the page is in the sentence:

According to self-published posts on his blog, Sanchez was an embedded blogger from May through July, 2007.

with a citation to a pay-site I don't have access to. Is this the place where the suggested change is to be made ? If so, since the sentence only reports what Sanchez claimed on his blog, why are we looking at what other sources call him ? We only need to see what he said on the cited blog post and report that (I am ignoring the issue of primary/secondary sources for now). Am I misunderstanding something here ? Abecedare (talk) 03:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is the place where the suggested change is to be made. Most of the proposed sources are the bylines and editors' notes of pieces Mr. Sanchez has written for well known publications. Embedded journalist is a recognized professional job title, while embedded blogger is a neologism. That obscure subscription site is not Matt's blog and probably wouldn't pass WP:RS. So the claim isn't properly referenced and the proposed change is well referenced. Since potential employers may read Wikipedia's article, getting the job title right is a BLP issue. DurovaCharge! 15:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the background information. Would a compromise along the following lines be acceptable?

The bylines to some of his blog posting online articles in 2007 identified him as an an embedded civilian journalist in Iraq.

which is verifiable using the WS link; or,

According to the by-lines to some of his blog postings online articles in 2007, he was embedded with the US military in Iraq as a member of the media.

which is verifiable using the NR link. I prefer the second version; the main idea being that we can avoid using "embedded journalist" as a job title (which though an acceptable neologism, has little currency outside the US or Iraq war, and will be unfamiliar to many readers) and instead describe his role/activity. Hope that helps, and is not considered too radical a change for this article. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Sanchez clarified the matter on his actual blog yesterday.[1] The article misattributes the location of his blog, and those other cited bylines aren't blogs but regular articles where he has published as a regular credentialed journalist. DurovaCharge! 18:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I have changed the wording in the above two proposed texts, from "blog postings" to "online articles". Are there any comments, objections or preferences with regards to the two versions above ?
Matt Sanchez also left a message on my talk page; since I am unfamiliar with the history of this article and the editor, other editors more familiar with the issue may wish to look at his message ad respond appropriately. Abecedare (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Question: If you're going to label him a journalist, does that mean we can quote directly from his published articles without being punished for violating BLP?Reelm (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
That's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
I support the phrasing collaboratively created by Durova and Abecedare. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
As an outsider, here in response to the notice at WP:BLPN - I, too, support the phrasing created by Durova and Abecedare. Insistence on the bizarre and inadequately sourced phraseology "embedded blogger" strikes me as an attempt to diminish sourced professional accomplishments, which is POV. Wow! I can't believe something so obvious and clear cut as the man's profession is the subject of such heated debate. Quick! Get me off of this page! LOL! Never! Never to return! LOL! You all have my sympathies!May the Wiki force be with you! Cleo123 (talk) 05:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A change along the lines of this discussion was made by an anon, who I presume to be Matt, so I have reverted and blocked the IP for an indefinite period of time. I have no opinion on the proposal, and have reverted the changes as banned users do not have the right to move discussions forward. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggest semiprotection on the article. DurovaCharge! 22:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protected and anon edits rolled back. John Vandenberg (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, and btw we don't do indef blocks on IP addresses. IPs change hands occasionally, so the longest we ever do is a year. DurovaCharge! 00:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've reblocked for a year. John Vandenberg (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Media Matters is a reliable source submitted by Matt Sanchez

Media Matters has been used as a reference over 100 times on dozens of Wikipedia articles. So why is this Media Matters article being censored on the Matt Sanchez bio?

If it's being censored over BLP concerns or over objections from Matt Sanchez, I'd like to point that Matt Sanchez is the editor who added this article to the references list. First he called attention to the article using a sockpuppet account, Rightwingerpride. A short time later he added a reference to the Media Matters article using his main account, Bluemarine.

Sanchez is banned from posting under both accounts. This is just another example of the gaming that been going on here.Reelm (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well those two sock postings happened months before his ban. JzG's edit summary says he thinks the statement is already adequately referenced. He removed only that citation, not the information it supports. Suggest you query JzG directly at his user talk. DurovaCharge! 17:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed one statement per WP:BLP and WP:RS

I've made this edit[2] in compliance with site policies (throw in WP:V). Mr. Sanchez claims that was a spoofing attack and that claim looks credible: the forum has no way of confirming poster identities and - particularly telling - the website listed for further contact is not Mr. Sanchez's. DurovaCharge! 17:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The web site listed for further contact, Cplsanchez.com, is in fact, owned by Matt Sanchez. That domain redirects to his blog. According to Whois, it was registered by Matthew Sanchez on Apr. 09, '07. The e-mail address is Matthew.a.sanchez@gmail.com. This is yet another of his fabrications that's been taken at face value.Reelm (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Also it looks like the statement that you removed per his request that he now denies making was posted on his blog on the same day as the Marine Corps Times post. Do you suppose his blog is being run by an imposter too?Reelm (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Reelm, you've presented the whois for a different domain. Nobody is challenging who owns cplsanchez.com; it's cplsanchez.info that's under discussion. If you'd like to source Mr. Sanchez's blog directly, that's a different discussion, but I object to using an anonymous forum where anybody can pretend to be anybody. Per WP:V and WP:RS, the burden of evidence is on you to substantiate this. I object, so you can take this to WP:BLPN or WP:RSN for impartial review. DurovaCharge! 21:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Cplsanchez.com is the domain that appears in the profile for mas2178, not cplsanchez.info. I'm not going to waste my time on this farce at BLPN. I'm just pointing out for the record that Sanchez is lying again. I think he's told so many lies he's lost track of what he actually said. He's now denying a comment that's a cut-and-paste job of something he posted on his blog.Reelm (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) And if that forum account is owned by someone other than Sanchez, the owner can of course change .info to .com at any time. This page is under arbitration probation. If you would rather open a request for comment than a noticeboard thread, the choice is yours, but I'd most like to turn down the temperature of this discussion. When an article has become the subject of a hot controversy, the most successful approach is for editors to set aside their opinions of the subject and look at the matter in dry policy terms. Nobody is trying to portray Matt Sanchez as a living saint. He's done controversial things. Undoubtedly, unflattering material should be in this biography. Some of the editors have been interacting as if I had an agenda to whitewash it; that's not what I'm here for at all. All I ask is that we adhere to relevant policies, which means the bar for sourcing negative material is rather strict. Those standards are the same whether the biography is Matt Sanchez or Michael Lucas or Michael Moore. DurovaCharge! 02:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't ask, Don't tell

Sanchez has pretty much nothing to do with the DADT policy, and the policy has almost nothing to do with Sanchez. The DADT policy is specifically about sexual orientation, and while Sanchez has done gay porn, he has consistently maintained that he's straight. Including him in the cat is misleading and unnecessary.

I propose:

One

Remove the Category:DADT.

Two

The third paragraph of "National recognition" has way to much about Merritt. Reword that to be:

In response Sanchez wrote Porn Free, a Salon editorial in which he notes comparisons were made to another Marine in gay porn films, Rich Merritt, who authored Secrets Of A Gay Marine Porn Star.[20] Sanchez added that he sometimes considers himself a progressive stating he "progressed from being a liberal to a conservative."[20] He also noted comparisons to Jeff Gannon, whom he met at the CPAC convention and had advertised as a gay escort and was later outed as part of a media scandal.[20][23] Sanchez noted that "porn is just ... porn" and he considers his adult career an identity outgrown.[20]

The reference to DADT is specifically about Merritt, not Sanchez. Sanchez doesn't mention DADT in Porn Free. And the two references (removed in the reword) are to the same piece by Merritt that doesn't mention Sanchez, as far as I can tell.

Three

Reword the first paragraph of the "Marine Corps inquiry" section to be:

On 2007 March 16, John Hoellwarth, a staff writer for Military Times Media Group, reported that Sanchez was the subject of a Marine Corps inquiry about his appearances in gay pornographic videos and related allegations.[2] Of concern was whether "Sanchez had enlisted prior to the end of his film career", and "if Reserve Marines were prohibited from doing porn when not in a drilling status".

The reference provided for that section mentions DADT, but only in the last sentence and doesn't explain how it's related to Sanchez or the investigation.

Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

  1. Yes, remove the category. It is not appropriate.
  2. Your proposal looks reasonable.
  3. I think that's fine as it is. The question is asked... it's ok if it wasn't given a specific resolution. Aleta Sing 15:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
No objections here. DurovaCharge! 17:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The DADT category should remain, because it most certainly DOES apply to Matt Sanchez. In addition to prohibiting people who identify as "homosexual or bisexual" from serving in the military, it's aimed at preventing people who have a "propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving. You do not have to identify as gay to be separated from the armed services under DADT. Sanchez has talked about DADT in multiple interviews. There's enough material out there to warrant a whole section on DADT and how it applies to him. Incidentally, Sanchez has flip-flopped on the DADT issue. During an interview with Michael Singorile on Sirius radio he said he was against DADT, but in subsequent interviews he said he was in favor of it.
The Rich Merritt reference should be removed because it's based on a falsehood -- that people were comparing Matt Sanchez to Rich Merritt. I've only found one instance of a person comparing Sanchez to Merritt, and the person making the comparison was Matt Sanchez. Most of the people who covered this story compared Sanchez to Jeff Gannon. So many, in fact, that if you google the name Jeff Gannon, "Matt Sanchez" comes up as a related search term. The reporter who first covered this story in the mainstream press linked to the excellent-top.com escort page, which had nude photos of Matt Sanchez and a list of his hourly rates. This was exactly the kind of evidence John Aravosis discovered about Jeff Gannon, so the political writers who covered this drew an obvious comparison.Reelm (talk) 08:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and remove the Rich Merritt stuff. And I'm removing the category for now.
I'm not convinced there's any RS material on Sanchez and DADT, but I'm willing to do some more research to see what I can find. If others have any RS to back that up, please bring them forward - the current version has nothing on it at all except the Merritt stuff, which is why I removed the cat. If we can agree on something to put in the article on the subject, we can put the cat back. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 13:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm adding the category back in. SatyrTN seems to be running a campaign to scrub the article of several relevant, yet controversial aspects. When Sanchez 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. This is a case of Res Ipsa Loquitor, neverthless, there is a source, the Hoellworth article, which states "Though potential enlistees are not asked about their sexual orientation during the recruit screening process, there is still the matter of whether Sanchez committed erroneous or fraudulent enlistment by failing to tell officials during the initial screening process that he had appeared in porn movies." Aatombomb (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Aatombomb, surely you can find one reliable source to substantiate DADT? DurovaCharge! 21:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I quoted one above. Aatombomb (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
This page has gotten pretty full. Would you post the link here please? DurovaCharge! 21:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/03/mcsanchez070314/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aatombomb (talk • contribs) 04:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The category got deleted yesterday. And for the record, I had no idea that was underway until I saw the redlink. There's still a see also link to DADT and a new category has been created with a slightly different name and purpose. So I've gone ahead and filed Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Matt_Sanchez.2C_again. Proposing we replace that see also link with a link to identity politics. DurovaCharge! 18:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Per feedback at the noticeboard I have removed the see also link to DADT. DurovaCharge! 07:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Citecheck template

I've added the template to discuss a particular article claim that the source does not support.

Sanchez's blog is occasionally syndicated on WorldNetDaily

The actual editor's summary doesn't say it's syndicating Sanchez's personal blog. It calls him an embedded reporter and says he writes dispatches for them.

Beginning today, reporter Matt Sanchez, currently embedded with the U.S. military in Iraq, will provide WND readers with a glimpse into the Iraq war most Americans have never heard from a press increasingly hostile to the war effort.

Let's get the article more in line with the actual source. DurovaCharge! 02:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been a few days and no one has objected. I've that sentence in the article to read Matt Sanchez reported on the Iraq War as an embedded journalist, which is consistent with the cited source. DurovaCharge! 17:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

academias?

The "Early life" section contains the statement ...where he taught English at academias, an informal language center for students.' Is academias a proper noun, which should be capitalized? Is it a plural, in which case the following verbiage should be changed to reflect plurality? That sentence bugged me for a while, but when I stopped editing this article I forgot about it. Horologium (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I checked the source and I doubt it's even reliable. The citation goes to somebody's private bulletin board. DurovaCharge! 03:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The source (which is actually for the following sentence) doesn't say anything at all about Sanchez teaching English; that site is the discussion forum for Kristen Bjorn, the director of his first two films, and is of limited utility for the article in its current form. It was formerly used by both Sanchez and his critics to bolster various claims, such as when he stopped making films (Sanchez) and whether or not he was gay (the comment about another actor being attractive was being used by Sanchez detractors).
Sourcing is still a problem with this article, with a couple of sources of dubious reliability being used where there is no need (The John Edwards website link isn't needed, as it is used as a second citation backing up a CNN article; the innweekly citation is apparently a gossip columnist of some sort, referencing Sanchez's association with Bjorn, which can be cited from more reliable and NPOV sources; and many of the sources near the end of the piece are blogs, which at least were written by Sanchez). Horologium (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Reported service as an escort

This seems to be a major point of contention--did Sanchez, or did he not, serve as a male escort? The article, properly sourced, has not come out and actually said that he had. I've made an edit here that has added two sourced facts, one from his own article "Porn Free", so it is autobiographical in nature: Sanchez explicitly does not deny having done that escort work. If that source is wrong, or this is not the intention of his words there, he should have a retraction printed or have the original report changed. The second is sourced to the interview given in Radar, which says he has indeed done this work. I'm pretty much a BLP zealot, but this is sourced out the wazhoo, and even I can't see anything wrong with this edit. Thoughts? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Jesus, here we go again. Please self-revert that until we can have a rehash of the 20 or so pages of discussion on this issue. Horologium (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I just did. A lot of the previous chatter was poisoned by Sanchez's attacks, and partisans going nuts. I'm doing an objective review based on my own pretty tight BLP standards, which people routinely tell me are probably too tight. The footnote about him doing this is 1) notable, as he even commented on it in his own Porn Free article; 2) it's mentioned in the lead of a comprehensive interview with Sanchez; 3) the over-sourced sentence I put in (the sourcing/ref characters are almost as long as the sentence itself) is wholly WP:BLP compliant and then some, especially as it's self-sourced directly to Sanchez himself. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, the Salon article neither confirms nor denies the allegations, and the Radar piece doesn't mention the escorting allegations in the actual interview with Sanchez. The problem with the sourcing in this article is that there has been almost no reliable source coverage of this issue; it's been confined to blogs and similar discussion fora. Sanchez has repeatedly denied the allegations (here, and on his own blog, and in other blogs), but because they are not reliable sources, they have not been used to substantiate the claims that he has denied the allegations. (Adding some of the blogs would actually make the issue worse, since the VLP violations and positively toxic invective directed towards Sanchez would far outweigh the benefit of allowing his denial to be justified.) I will see if I can find some links to his denials, but they are not going to be RS-worthy. However, in the interest of BLP, the allegation should not be allowed to stand without some sort of response indicating the later denials. There is some background information on this at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 17#Contradictory information, which was started over the precise issue we are discussing again. Note that the Max Blumenthal article cited in that thread is not an acceptable source; Blumenthal simply states that a blog said a bunch of nasty things about Sanchez; there is no independent reporting nor any assertion of truth. (Trying to head off that line before it starts up again.) Horologium (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
These are all good points. From the BLP and RS standpoint, how do we square up Sanchez in the Porn Free article addressing the escort issues, writing,
"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."
Autobiographical statements like this usually are acceptable, aren't they? If he then denied it after the fact, we can certainly make a notation of that as well. The "accusation" as he does not deny it, and is covered in at least two RS, seems notable enough for a one-sentence inclusion. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe he also denies it outright on his blog, I am sure the link is in one of the many emails he sent to OTRS. I would say that there is so little reliable information in respect of this that it falls under WP:UNDUE anyway. The porn is probably sufficient to be going on with. Guy (Help!) 17:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The arguments by both of you are compelling. OK. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I have just done a LexisNexis search for the keywords "Matt Sanchez" and "escort" and the only hits are three transcripts of an MSNBC program in which Sidney Blumenthal says, "BLUMENTHAL: According to several gay bloggers, these are one and the same. I never saw the original pictures, so I`m just going on these accounts and Matt Sanchez has given an interview, where he essentially confirmed that yes, he is Rod Majors, the gay porn star and, yes, he was a male escort." So the source is According to several gay bloggers. I would be happy to verify any other sources if you have questions. Thatcher 18:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Thatcher, LexisNexis is not the world. The escort evidence has been hashed out East and West before you arrived on the scene. A scan of the archives might help you out here. Otherwise, there are published transcripts where he states flat out "You were a male prostitute?... Yes that as well". He states it quite clearly, his own voice, published in audio format on a radio talk show. Wjhonson (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
In the article we source to a Marine Corps Times article already. Within that article is this <quote>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.</quote>

<quote>“It’s something that was a part of my life, but it’s in my past,” he said.</quote>

Wjhonson (talk) 23:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

I have rolled back all of the edits that were added by User:Brianlandeche, as they were implemented without any time for meaningful discussion and several of the edits were problematic. Please do not edit this page without thorough discussion, as it is under Arbitration Committee probation. Horologium (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't help but wonder if Brianlandeche is a sockpuppet of Bluemarine. The editorial style seems similar. Aleta Sing 15:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Bluemarine about that, and a Checkuser request has been filed. Horologium (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, H. Aleta Sing 15:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed all of the talk page contributions from User:Brianlandeche, in accordance with Wikipedia:Banning policy#Editing on behalf of banned users, as per his statement at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Bluemarine, where he states he was editing for Sanchez. Horologium (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a bit exaggerated don't you think? I resent banning the comments. I made edits, I suggested the edits and you just take them off? What happened here? I can't believe this. I did not state that I am "editing for Sanchez". I am annoyed Horologium would say that. Who are you anyway? Matt Sanchez asked for editors to come in and help, I looked at the issues and made an edit. Where did I go wrong?

Now, I've had a conspiracy theory about me? What's going on here?

Brianlandeche (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm reverting the rollback. Horologium is showing biased and is being abusive. You either deal with the edits or suggest something else, but to just ban me is insulting. Brianlandeche (talk) 07:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've rolled back the article edits again. You are editing on behalf of a banned user, and that itself is against policy. Since he is banned, he's not allowed to get others to do to the article what he wants. He can use the OTRS system, but he can't get you to come edit for him. Aleta Sing 10:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
And I have reverted the talk page edits again. OTRS is this way. Horologium (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm convinced Aleta is editing on behalf of the Cplsanchez.info site, where these edits are followed and reported. Aleta is showing enormous bias, by insisting that I am proxy editing. I have made changes based on fact and it's obvious Aleta has an agenda. Brianlandeche (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I have absolutely no affiliation with that site whatsoever. You stated that Sanchez asked for people to come work on the article. That means you are proxy editing for him. Aleta Sing 16:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
<sigh> I am ---> <--- this close to protecting this page again. If Sanchez is really asking folks to edit on his behalf, I really worry that we should protect the page. I'm not there yet, but I'm leaning that direction. - Philippe 16:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom

We should have a section which discusses the history of editing and ArbCom actions within the article. Wjhonson (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Before adding content to this article, please find a reliable source which covers it. John Vandenberg (chat) 18:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Jay. Generally that sort of information belongs on the talk page, not in the article. Accordingly, I have undone your addition, Wjhonson. Well, I thought I did, but apparently Jay's reversion beat mine. Aleta Sing 18:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you stating that our own internal ArbCom actions cannot be reported within Wikipedia unless they've been reported outside Wikipedia?Wjhonson (talk) 07:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course. BLPs are limited to material that are worthy of print. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
You don't think it's worthy to state that ArbCom found that he should be site-banned for one year? If that's not worthy, than are you suggesting that no ArbCom action is worthy of being reported anywhere on the site? That's seems awfully extreme. Wjhonson (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
There are a number of Wikipedia articles on individuals who have been site-banned from Wikipedia for various reasons; none of them discuss ArbCom decisions. Even in the rather extreme case of Daniel Brandt (whose article has been deleted and salted), there was no mention of his ban, only of his activities offsite. Read WP:SRTA to understand why this does not need to be discussed in the article. And (as addressed by Jay above), there are sourcing issues; it's likely that you are not going to find any reliable sources that discuss Sanchez's Wikipedia ban, because his involvement with the project is a trivial intersection. Horologium (talk) 10:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Falls under avoid self-reference. Whether or not someone is able to fit within the Wikipedia community is trivia of the most trivial kind, as far as the real world is concerned. Guy (Help!) 13:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I suppose I have a conflict of interest in this dispute, as one of those who wrote the arbitration finding. Horologium is right to point out parallels in other articles. Not only would it be a self-reference, it would add to Matt Sanchez' partially legitimate concern over his biography article without significantly informing readers about his life. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Marine reservist

There is zero evidence that Matt is currently a Marine reservist. The counter-evidence, that he has removed any indication of his status or title from his postings is persuasive. I recommend we either expunge that, or alter it to say that he "was" a Marine reservist. Wjhonson (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we could phrase it as "has served as a Marine reservist", leaving the question as to whether he still is or not open-ended. Aleta Sing 03:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. We'd need to also remove it from his "occupation" user-box. Wjhonson (talk) 05:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I think it can stay in the infobox, which can (and should) include both current and past information. Hmmm... although I suppose that begs the question of adding the porn career to it as well. Opinions, anyone? Aleta Sing 14:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the infobox is for past occupations. The term "occupation" is used in the present tense. Can you cite other examples of people with known past occupations, who have those listed as "occupation" in their infobox? Also I agree with your feeling that occupation of "porn star" should be listed, if we're listing all past occupations as well.Wjhonson (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Jimmy Carter has "Naval Officer" listed in the occupation field of his infobox (as well as a bunch of other stuff), and John McCain is listed as a "Naval aviator". I agree that if the Marine Corps thing is listed in the infobox, we should include Pornographic actor as well, particularly since the combination significantly contributes to his notoriety. Horologium (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Unless I'm quite mistaken, we list occupations in infoboxes of dead people; those occupations are all by definition in the past tense. Aleta Sing 02:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Alan Colmes

After Sanchez appeared on Hannity and Colmes, he did a follow-up interview on Alan Colmes radio program. There Alan asked him specifically about his excellent-top website and about his "No Regrets" massage advertisements. That interview is not mentioned in the article even though less important ones are. The interview and the questions asked should be mentioned as they go to the very heart of why this case came to ArbCom at all. Wjhonson (talk) 05:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

We need a transcript of the program from a reliable source; no blogs or self-published sites. Horologium (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
We could link the actual audio file as the source. The audio is the most relevant source in this case as each reader/listerer could hear the exchange for themself.Wjhonson (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Where is it hosted? Remember, YouTube is not an acceptable source, because of the potential for edited mischief. Unless it's from an official site, it's not going to fly. Horologium (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The proposal to mark YouTube as a blacklisted site was defeated. You are welcome to re-open it should you choose. According to one report, we have over a hundred YouTube links being added daily. The audio was posted with the permission of the Alan Colmes' Show. We should need no more than that. Wjhonson (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The very first footnoted item was retrieved from YouTube as you can tell from the original link preserved in article history. Are you proposing removing it now because it could have been subject to "edited mischief"? We should be consistent correct?Wjhonson (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
If the YouTube file was uploaded by Alan Colmes himself then it's acceptable. Otherwise that cannot be used as a citation because of the contributory copyright infringement clause of WP:COPYRIGHT. An official transcript would be fine. DurovaCharge! 05:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Note that the transcript is also copyright if the questions were written down in advance, which is normal. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Whether the questions were written down in advance or not is irrelevant: of course the transcript is under copyright as a derivative work of the broadcast. Quoting or paraphrasing small exerpts of copyrighted printed material is routine fair use. DurovaCharge! 06:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The videos cited were all viewed through YouTube. If we are here going to impose super-human obstacles to citing an audio show, then we should impose those same super-human obstacles on citing a video show. So far no one has addressed directly the issues this creates and the videos are still cited in the article. Wjhonson (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Wjhonson, are you aware that you are attempting to reopen a discussion that concluded two months ago at arbitration enforcement with the topic ban of the editor who advanced your position, and that the administrator who ruled called it blindingly obvious?[3] The issue is even more relevant now than it was then, as this week's Wikipedia Signpost reports: the Mormon Church has lodged a contributory copyright infringement claim against the Wikimedia Foundation. You have the legitimate alternative of obtaining and citing a transcript--an option that exists not to generate super-human obstacles, but because it is compatible with site policies and the law. And btw suggest you double check the article and the talk history regarding those videos. DurovaCharge! 23:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
You are misunderstanding my position Durova. That enforcement was over a convenience link to a YouTube Video posting which btw has not been fully removed from the article and still exists as a footnote. The first footnote is to that same YouTube original posting, all the edit did was remove the convenience link giving it the appearance of valid sourcing when in-fact the original editor sourced from the YouTube posting, not from the underlying source. So that's a bit of scholarly disenguinity (spelling?), as we all know that you must source to your source first, not to their source solely. However leaving that aside, we have no revealed transcript for those links and so they should be removed and any supporting statements thereby attached as well. Otherwise we are being internally inconsistent. The law Durova does not state that you must have a transcript. I'm fully aware of the law on citing videos and audio programs. The word transcript never appears therein. The point is, those video citations are still there, and were originally cited from YouTube, as you may be aware. Wjhonson (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually I'd been away from the page for nearly a month. Several changes have taken place since then, and catching up overnight I see RS and BLP issues crept in again. The only remaining YouTube link was to Matt Sanchez's channel and I've removed that because the lead video is a news broadcast of uncertain copyright status. Other than that, several citations had entered the page that claimed to have been checked on April 22, but coyly refrained from mentioning where. I've removed them because the only known online versions of those broadcasts were the same copyvio YouTube uploads that were previously deemed unacceptable as reliable sources due to the possibility of digital alteration. Also in accordance with talk page archives, I have removed the Marine Corps Times because it depended upon a statement from the Alan Colmes show that Sanchez had retracted the following week without mentioning that Sanchez had withdrawn the statement: Per JzG, an unbalanced and cherry picked presentation of these highly damaging assertions is not acceptable. Also I have removed material that had been cited to a non-notable bulletin board, plus the IMDB cites, because those aren't reliable sources either. DurovaCharge! 01:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There wasn't really anything about his Television appearances, but we do have reliable sources that he did at least appear on some. Whether we have the video or not. The so-called "blog" for Countdown is actually the official rap-sheet of what the show's going to be about. It's not really a blog, just under that weird name. It's by the "cast and crew" of the program. Previous examples of this type over at RSN have been vetted as being acceptable as they are merely using the term "blog" in a non-standard fashion. Wjhonson (talk) 05:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Please be more specific. Which source exactly do you mean in that comment? You write the so-called "blog" for Countdown but I don't recall referring to any of today's deletions as blogs. DurovaCharge! 05:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Ha, I wasn't addressing what you did ;) I was just expressing, here, what *I* did. That is, I added a citation to a page where they use the term "blog" to actually describe a "Here's what the show's about" speel. From the crew and cast of the show. To me that's not really a "blog" but you can see how the word could be misused. It's more a "table of contents to tonight's show" and it's on their official page. Wjhonson (talk) 06:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh on a second note, I added a quote from an article by Michelle Malkin where she states that he appeared on a few other shows as well. Since she is a known journalist, published in her field by third-party publishers, I think her personal "blog" or research site, passed our WP:RS requirements. We make an exception for known journalists and researchers previously published by third-parties... etc. Wjhonson (talk) 06:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Michelle Malkin is notable enough that I don't see a problem with citing her blog, and a show's official blog hosted on their site seems fine too. Thanks for the additions. DurovaCharge! 06:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, apparently some folks offsite have an objection to your Michelle Malkin addition, Wjhonson. Care to run that through the reliable sources noticeboard? I'll accept whatever determination they make there. DurovaCharge! 05:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
What? Who are "some folks offsite"? (Sanchez? Someone else?) What is the objection? Where is this debate happening? Shouldn't this discussion be taking place here? (I have no leg in this issue, but I would like to see discussion happening on wikipedia, not off, unless a good reason can be given, and "some folks offsite have an objection" is awfully vague, Durova.) Aleta Sing 12:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
No comment? Aleta Sing 00:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
To be a bit less vague, a sitebanned editor (not Sanchez) has posted a complaint to his own off-wiki site blaming me personally (not Wjhonson) for Wjhonson's use of Michelle Malkin. Do you have a comment on the matter? DurovaCharge! 02:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah. That gives me enough information to investigate further. That I will have to do before commenting more as I don't really know anything about Malkin. (I meant what I said about not having a leg in this issue; at this point I have no opinion about whether or not that's an acceptable site. I'll have to look at it.) Thanks for clarifying, Durova! I'll take a look at both the use of the Michelle Malkin site and the criticism thereof (which I should be able to find now). Aleta Sing 03:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Striking through my earlier suggestion. If you see a need to do anything, Aleta, then be my guest. Otherwise I don't view this as an issue. DurovaCharge! 19:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)