User talk:Benjiboi/Archive 15

This is an current talk page .

Thanks for letting me know, I saw a couple of other actors that had used the imdb which is why I used it. I'll look for some other source. Solid Reign (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is allmovie.com a reliable source? Solid Reign (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looked promising but I wouldn't use it; they cite a bcklog of six weeks for correction and Simmons' bio is all of "Executive Producer, Actor, Choreography; Birth - Jul 12, 1948 - New Orleans, LA; Genres - Health & Fitness" so it hardly seems well-informed and there is no statement or assertion they check facts or sources. Try People magazine they love celebrity birthdays.

boi 18:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

notable new vid and advocate link

added to todo list.

boi 13:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Needs refs asap!

added to watchlist for now, rescue if needed.

boi 13:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

done.

boi 14:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

add archive and clean-up talk.

too much drama for now.

boi 14:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

format archives and ?, clean-up talk and archive

also too much drama.

boi 14:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

move 3 trivia items into text.

Done.

boi 14:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

clean-up talk and post notice at BLP if not addressed.

Done.

boi 13:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Done.

boi 09:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I am the filmmaker who made the documentary on Lonnie Frisbee. Unconstructive edits? I am trying to take down things that are unconstructive... and you keep putting them back up.

He was not a "closeted gay man"... that doesn't aptly describe what he was. And since it is my work that has defined him, I think that I should get the last say on this.

STOP CHANGING MY CHANGES! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barkonst (talk • contribs) 14:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STOP CHANGING MY CHANGES! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barkonst (talk • contribs) 14:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually reliable sources, including the documentary you claim to be creator of, disagree with you. If you were the documentarian, which I doubt, your behavior would unlikely be as such. If you are the documentarian you could perhaps link us to some reliable sources that he wasn't gay or closeted. Then we could sort out how to reconcile conflicting sources.

boi 01:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Umm, Benjiboi? Calling Matt an escort, even on the talk page, is still a violation of

Again no one would care that much if he weren't now a seemingly homophobic mouthpiece for the "Republican agenda".

boi 02:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

As has been argued many times on the talk page, we don't have outside sources that say Matt was an escort. And since he has both "admitted" it and denied it, his statements cannot be counted as reliable on this issue.

You're absolutely right - I don't give a fig for him or his politics, but I do give a fig for the integrity of Wikipedia. BLP is a policy I agree strongly with, so I'd like the whole encyclopedia (including his article) to be as clear as possible of statements that can harm individuals. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he has harmed himself and unclear why he would make those statements to the military if untrue. Regardless they are not yet into the article so we don't have to sort out how to reconcile those conflicting sources as of yet. We do have a source that Sanchez denies being an escort or prostitute don't we? I don't recall seeing one but we should certainly find one if it's available.

boi 02:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

It's in the Hannity & Colmes (or however that's spelt), which is the exact same place your quote comes from. He's denied it several times, both regarding the H&C thing and elsewhere. Benji, I'm very uncomfortable leaving that on the talk page given everything that's happened on the article. Would you mind removing it? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually my quote come from The Army Times's article here which seems to confirm that Sanchez did admit to being a prostitute, "It’s something that was a part of my life, but it’s in my past," he said.

boi 02:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Everything in that Army Times article is based on his H&C interview. An interview in which he said two opposite things. And which he later denied - for example here. All of this is stuff we've been over on the talk page - he "admitted" it once, during the Colmes interview. He has since (several times) denied it. No other sources have been found. Therefore it doesn't pass the "do no harm" clause of BLP. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree,

And this is referenced in that denial link you posted above and, again, seems to suggest "an illustrious part-time job as a male prostitute -- facts he has acknowledged "leaving ... off my curriculum vitae."

boi 03:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

← Benjiboi, read that Army Times article closely - it is all from the Colmes interview. The quote you just put right there starts "During a radio interview with.. Colmes". That's from the same interview as every other discussion of this issue. And the Blumenthal article is a blog - neither the claim nor denial there are considered reliable. Please, as this is a BLP issue, please remove the "and escort" from Talk:Matt Sanchez. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, you might want to recheck that article. "In an interview Tuesday with Marine Corps Times ..." who, by the way I think he also wrote for. The prostitution statement is made, he is interviewed, again, about it and the only denial is that he "hasn’t had homosexual sex since he joined the Corps in 2003".

boi 03:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay - YOU recheck the article:

Sanchez confirmed his performances in such movies as...

Followed, in the next paragraph, by:

During a radio interview with Fox News Channel’s Alan Colmes last week, Sanchez acknowledged working as a male prostitute...

I've asked nicely now three times. I'm removing the BLP violation from the talk page. Please do not re-insert it. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Screw it. On reviewing the talk page there are three dozen statements about escorting. I give up. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From: Duralde, A. (2008). The Sissy Awards. The Advocate. Issue 1000 (Jan15, 2008), pp. 56-59:

"After he posed for pictures with the sulfur-reeking Ann Coulter and took his conservative-victim shtick to Fox News, it turned out Sanchez was already a celebrity in gay circles - as mon-on-man porn star Rod Majors and as (shades of Jeff Gannon) an escort."

This sentence is quoted in its entirity. No qualification follows this statement. It was published in print by a third-party source. I have a PDF of the article, directly from The Advocate, and this is a verbatim quote. Why can't we use this to end the escort debate. We note the quote above (or maybe the entire thing, which allows the anti-Coulter perspective of the publication to be seen clearly), and also note Matt's statements have been reported in Marine Times (etc.), that he has since denied them. Jay*Jay (talk) 10:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I usually like using the Advocate as a resource (and the article is here, by the way), are you seriously considering a fluff piece about "Sissy Awards 2007" as a reliable source? Would you also like to add "Devil" to Pope Benedict XVI's article, since that's in the story as well?

Benjiboi, please again consider taking out the escort phrase from your comment on the talk page. I know it's discussed elsewhere, but I'm very uncomfortable with how close that comes to a BLP violation and outright slander.-- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Satyr, this whole debate has little to do with reliable sources in any sensible way. The notion that WP is under any legal threat from MS for using the H&C interview material (whilst noting subsequent denials) is unjustifiable. Here we have a source that protects WP legally, because we are simply reporting what another source says. Is it a good source? No - we've already got one of those, and it's been rejected. The question is whether this source meets the letter of policy. Please explain why you believe I am in error about this. Also, do you seriously believe that The Advocate would have printed this if it thought MS had any hope of suing over this statement? BTW, on the Pope suggestion - nice change in capitalisation; pity it changes the meaning. Jay*Jay (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay*, my whole point is in respect to

WP:BLP. We have one instance of him saying he was an escort, several instances of him saying he wasn't. All other reports about his being an escort are shaky at best and plain rumors for the most part. For us to include information about any part of that situation, we have to hold ourselves to the highest standards, which means the best sources. And per BLP, saying he was an escort (even on the talk page) is irresponsible. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Hmm, we have Matt himself saying he was in the Salon piece he wrote and on the H & C interview; we also have lots of blogs (mostly non-usable but some borderline), The Advocate, The Army Times et al and Adult Video News. I'm uncleat which sources we have stating he wasn't but (yech!) will force myself to listen to the H&C interview if he indeed does later deny his own statements. I'm really in no rush but at some point we should sort out what sources we have, vet them and introduce an appropriate sentence.

boi 01:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

FWIW, Matt didn't say he was an escort in the Salon piece. He said he wouldn't deny it, which may be splitting hairs, but there ya go. I've just put together User:SatyrTN/Matt sources. I'd be interested in any other sources you have to add to that. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your table but would feel more comfortable if the thesis wasn't "to show that there are no reliable sources saying that Sanchez is or was an escort."

boi 00:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Prove me wrong. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in proving you anything at the moment. If you're so determined that he's never been an escort and prostitute then good luck with that.

boi 00:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I wouldn't worry too much, Bailey is old school. If I were you start at Google books - he's that old!

boi 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

You have no right to classify this article as resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooljuno411 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged discussion as resolved but I'm happy to remove it if there is some issue. As the alleged murderer in the incident is a minor I doubt there name will appear but very happy to discuss as long as we stay on point.

boi 02:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I recommend that the "suspect" is referred to as a suspect in the article, and not referred as the killer in-till he is proven guilty/innocent by the state of California. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooljuno411 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please save it for the article talk page. I marked a section prematurely as resolved, you removed that and kept talking about an issue you obviously care about. Let's keep the content discussion there please.

boi 02:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Benji, and thanks for your message on the

Hi, I will reply both here and on your talk as you request. I feel the major POV problems with the article currently are the gender issues and the propagation of Catholic interpretation of all things nunly verses everything else. I applaud our Catholic editors and those who persist in this POv for sharing their views however I feel that on this article, like others I have encountered we have veered away from encyclopedic into moralizing. For instance, if transgender nuns existed and succeeded as such it should be a testament to all those who choose or are compelled to be nuns not seen as an attack against women as has been suggested. I see it as a triumph of the individual to serve their community.

boi 14:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, people aren't simple is the short answer. I see the dress blues image way more problematic than the helicopter image which many seemed to agree wrongly implied he was in the military. Given Sanchez's quite problematic history with accurately sharing facts including the rights to images I'm convinced we need an image from Shankbone or someone completely independent and somewhat trustworthy to upload so we have a non-POV-problematic image.

boi 15:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

It was pretty rhetorical. :) If we could get an image from someone like that where we could truly know its status, I agree that would be best. I'm skeptical that'll happen. Who knows though? It might. If David were to get a chance to try to meet with Sanchez, I wonder if he'd consent. Hmmm... maybe we should ask David to try?

(Sing) 15:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I've asked him on his talk, add a pretty please might help sway! I officially hold you responsible for bringing Sanchez drama to my attention by posting it on the LGBT board but forgive you as it's been extremely informative and entertaining. LOL!

boi 15:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

LOL! Ummm... I'm sorry? I'm glad it's been interesting? Errr...? heehee I'll go look at DS's page now. <g>

(Sing) 15:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

LOL. Yes. Everytime I "waste" energy there I try to remember I'm learning lessons that I should "get" this time around so as to not have relearn them elsewhere ... thanks!

boi 15:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, I've posted to David's page as well. :D

(Sing) 15:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Coolio. I'll avoid stating what I really think will happen in that meeting so as not to influence a potential romance!

boi 16:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

ROFL!

(Sing) 16:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I think your changes to that are OR...the part that says "so is believed to be gay". What do you think?

Yes, could use clarity. "So would be defined as gay by contemporary standards"?

boi 03:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't know...I kinda of have a problem calling him gay at all. Yes, I'm sure he is, but who knows what he did in the closet, lol, ya, I'm sure he had sex with Mr. P. I mean it's like calling

^talk 04:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

"In many ways, Smithers represents the stereotype of the closeted gay man, and numerous overt allusions and double entendres to his homosexuality are made" seems to cover Smithers adequately until something else confirms otherwise.

boi 00:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

That was a highly personal comment, verging on attacking. I'm sorry if I offended - that was not my intention. I would like to point out that your entire post was on me and my wording and did not address the content of the article at all.

And besides that, it totally feels like an attack. What's up? Your comments to me have been very mean lately. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I was thinking very similar of some of your posts. Painting me as "grasping at straws" and "screaming" seems a bit unencyclopedic but I certainly could be off-base there.

boi 17:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I fixed those. They may have been over-done. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing that. The article probation, as pointed out elsewhere, is rather silly as it compels editors and admins to do exactly what we're suppose to be doing anyway but I feel in this case license to go "overboard" in favor of the subject is occurring. Material that would hardly cause one to blink elsewhere is dissected to the point of repelling the very folks who would like to make meaningful contributions to the article, IMHO. I look forward to when the subject will be treated neutrally in line with all the other BLP on wikipedia.

boi 00:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Benji. I left a response for you at Talk:Nun. If you could be concrete in your POV concerns it would be easier to improve the article. I'm definitely not pro-Catholic or anti-LGBT, infact I'm gay myself, but I just don't think the article has a POV problem. It's an article about a religious subject that focuses its content on the relious aspects of the subject. Dgf32 (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I thought I had already done that previously but will try to do a general summary to answer your concerns. In general I see this similar to an artcile on doctors and priests where multiple issues and cultures converge and see our job as to not emphasize one dominant POV over most or all others. As a suggestion it might be smart to not jump right into religious sects/religions directly after the lede but instead take a path of showing the commonalities of nuns then later showing how Christian nuns are unique, etc.

boi 00:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I've had a careful look at the article and at your list of concerns. However, I maintain the the article currently has NPOV. If you would like to remove the POV tag from the article, that would be simplest. However, since you have reinstated the tag once already, I have suggested a discussion to build consensus on whether or not the article has NPOV. That discussionc an be found at Talk:Nun#Neutrality_Tag. Thank you. Dgf32 (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. None have my concerns have been addressed in the months the tag has been in place yet now the article is NPOV. Quite an interpretation.

boi 01:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Barnstar for you

		Civility Award
		I award you this barnstar your civility and rationality in debating on the List of bisexual people talk page. Asarelah (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply ]

Thank you! I'm no

boi 20:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

You're welcome. Take care now. Asarelah (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]