Talk:Matt Sanchez/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 12


Contents


Lede should indicate controversy was due to gay pornography

Resolved.

The entire (national) dust-up was due to the fact that he had actively engaged in gay sex in gay porno films and this is held in tension with his current affiliation as a cultural hero in conservative circles. Glossing over this in the lede and mitigating his extensive gay porn career as an adult entertainer is extremely unbalanced. Benjiboi 22:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm bringing this section out of the archive. It looks like it was shelved before anyone had time to address it. Incidentally, I agree with Benjiboi's suggestion.Reelm (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Other sections may have also been prematurely archived.

Also it's unclear, also in the lead, when it states his current affiliation with conservative interests is due to "this community", does it mean the LGBT, gay or gay porn community? Benjiboi 22:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The "entire (national) dust up" was not due to "the fact that he had actively engaged in gay sex in gay porno films", this is the homosexual- centric point of view. The conservative community did not have a problem with me, it was the homosexual activist community that caused the "dust-up". If Benny'stoy wants to make his point, he should write an article and get it published in a "verifiable" source. You should all note that these comments all fall under the rubric of self-research and once again show the inherent homosexual, LGBTQRSTUV bias against me from a mostly homosexual editorial board with dull ax to grind. Matt Sanchez (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it's well established that Sanchez's connections to gay pornography are in a large part the source of his notoriety. It was exposure of these connections that led to Sanchez's coverage in mass media and directly to Sanchez authoring a defensive editorial in Salon titled "Porn Free." Since this event, Sanchez has had a considerably lower profile with respect to the mass media. Aatombomb (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. If it wasn't for all the gay porn pictures that were floating around the internet, there would've been nothing to write home about. Also, Ann Coulter's homophobic comment about John Edwards should be mentioned in the lede.Reelm (talk) 06:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Why in the world would Ann Coulter's comment about John Edwards need to be mentioned in the lede of an article that is about neither one of them? Oh - or was that sarcasm? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Because Ann Coulter's faggot remark at CPAC is what prompted so many people to comment on Matt Sanchez's gay porn past. But you don't have to take my word for it. Google the name "Matt Sanchez" and you'll get a related link to "matt sanchez coulter." Follow this link and you'll find plenty of third party sources that explain why Ann Coulter's homophobic comments about John Edwards are relevant.Reelm (talk) 07:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. Disagree that the "faggot" remark needs lede coverage in this BLP, that would definitely violate a few rules. I simply think we should start cleaning up what is currently there to be accurate and clear. I think the lede should reflect that it was his gay porn past in light of his rise in conservative circles that brought him out f the conservative universe to more mainstream coverage. Not sure the best wording but since Matt has got himself blocked for a short time could someone try to address it, if not I'll come back to it.

What rules would it violate? Aatombomb (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Good question.Reelm (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Well for starters WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE, even if something is true we should avoid placing undue weight on it and BLP's need to err on the side of caution. I see nothing wrong with referencing what seems to be a pivotal chapter in the lede (which should be an accurate summary) and then expand with the Coulter remark in the appropriate section. Benjiboi 20:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
(grabbed this comment from the new section below) The current draft makes it seem like he was outted as a gay porn star because he filed a harassment complaint at Columbia U. But that's not the case. His past was outted because Ann Coulter was applauded for using a homophobic slur against John Edwards at the convention where Sanchez was given an award. Some bloggers thought it was ironic that a gay porn star was honored at an event that was attended by so many homophobes.
There's a reference in the lede to an "ensuing controversy" that doesn't really make sense. The incident at Columbia had nothing to do with his past being revealed. However, the controversy that followed Coulter's homophobic slur was directly related to his outting.Reelm (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Coulter inferring Edwards was a faggot unleashed the homosexual smear machine in Media Matters et al. I wasn't "outed" at all, I immediately wrote "Porn Free". Matt Sanchez (talk) 08:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
After reviewing thing I'm retracting my previous assertion that the "faggot" comment was adding undue, it seems apparent that that comment was the spark that brought national mainstream attention to the event and as a result Sanchez's past career was brought to light. If tried to concisely summarize the whole story but parts of the sentence structure are clunky. Benjiboi 08:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Faggot is very important as it's a symbol of how desperate the proponents of the gay agenda have become and how homosexuals typically use identity politics as a justification for pretty much anything. No part of smearing me made sense except in the venereal diseased mind of radicals on a self-righteous jihad. Matt Sanchez (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It's also to be noted that the controversy never really hit the mainstream and even spurred conservatives to rally around me. Everyone from Human Events to The Weekly Standard have all welcomed me with open arms--despite or perhaps even because of the controversy. The reason why this article remains, I believe, is because I haven't been defined by this controversy, quite the opposite. Matt Sanchez (talk)
The 'faggot' remark was important because, ironically, at the same meeting CPAC presented an award to Matt Sanchez, a man who has had sex with other men on film. Aatombomb (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed then, "faggot"'s use is important. Benjiboi 14:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

formal harassment complaint at Columbia (possible date correction)

Resolved.

(moved this thread into its own section). Benjiboi 20:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Another problem/question about the lede. It says Matt Sanchez filed a formal harassment complaint at Columbia in early 2007. But this December 5, 2006 post from The Bwog, a Columbia U blog, says that Matt Sanchez's dispute with members of the ISO happened in 2005. He waited two years after the incident to file a complaint? The complaint must've been filed earlier than that if The Bwog wrote about it before 2007. (moving a comment to the above section)

Whatever the case, can we all agree that a major clean up and revision of the lede is needed?Reelm (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

OK so I found an answer to my question in the "Political activism at Columbia University" section. The complaint was filed in 2005 after the incident occurred. I'm making this minor correction to the article, but still think the lede needs a clean up. Also found another problem with a source in the "Political activism at Columbia University" section, but I'll comment on that later.Reelm (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"this community" in lede

Resolved.

Starting a section just to address this phrase: Also it's unclear, also in the lead, when it states his current affiliation with conservative interests is due to "this community", does it mean the LGBT, gay or gay porn community? Does anyone know where this came from or what it addresses for sure? In the April military article Sanchez talks disparagingly about the gay porn community (left it behind and the military should focus on my future). Does anyone know for sure, if not we can tie it to that for now. Benjiboi 20:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

He is referring to the gay porn community. I'm not sure what the 'gay porn community' is and suspect it is a Sanchez invention which he uses for strawman type attacks. I think this phrasing is odd and should be changed. For example: if I chose to quit being a fireman, would I blame the 'fireman community' for my disillusionment? Aatombomb (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Well clearly there is a gay porn community so we should state that rather than generalizing to the larger gay or even larger LGBT community. Benjiboi 19:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Update. done. Benjiboi 19:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


"This community" is NOT "clearly the gay porn community" or even the homosexual community. That comment was meant for liberals as a whole. The editors should be more critical of their own homosexual biases here. I made that comment on Colmes and in Salon about being a "progressive" and progressing from liberal to conservative values. I've made it fairly clear that I was never a part of the "gay community" at all. Matt Sanchez (talk) 06:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
So doing gay porn isn't "part of the gay community" ? -- ALLSTARecho 08:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you link the specific source in this thread so we can check it and pull a quote. Also, please WP:AGF as many editors have been quite patient with your statements and POV issues so it's not only considerate to do the same it also follows WP:CIVILty. Benjiboi 09:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Update. ambiguous statement pulled and replaced by sourced quote. Benjiboi 14:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Bluemarine aka Matt's archiving his own page

I suggest Matt desist from further archiving this page as he's obviously already dealing with WP:COI issues. I'll leave it to other editors to reinstate any talk items which may have been archived before their due. Benjiboi 22:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like these discussion pages have been protected from edits from new users because of vandalism. Trouble is Matt Sanchez/Bluemarine - aka the subject of this article - is responsible for most of the vandalism. Whenever a WP editor brings up a topic Matt Sanchez/Bluemarine would rather not discuss, he archives the discussion before anyone else has time to comment.Reelm (talk) 06:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Yikes, between that and voluminous postings he's effectively stonewalled improving the article. If you're in the mood please look through the archives to see if anything constructive should be reposted. We can always re-archive if not. Benjiboi 20:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
There are 11 archived pages. I only archived the last two. The first 10 were archived by someone else in the interest of space. wp:coi Matt Sanchez (talk) 06:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Well it's apparent that you've prematurely archived at least one thread so please let other editors take care of that bit of housekeeping so no one can further suggest WP:COI issues in that regard. Benjiboi 09:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

External links

Errumm, we don't do ref lists on talk pages but anyway, shouldn't the personal blog link and liveleak link be removed from the External links section? I'm under the understanding that such links aren't allowed but maybe I missed the memo that says otherwise? -- ALLSTARecho 06:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No clue what liveleak is. But the blog is his "official" site, so there's no issue there. Blogs aren't generally acceptable as sources, but they are acceptable as WP:EL. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 07:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This talk page sometimes has many reference links because of discussions of proposed article revisions. Since sourcing of this article is contentious, we need to be able to see refs when they are there. Hence, the references section on the talk page. Aleta (Sing) 16:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, OK. I thought it was an anon that posted it since it didn't have a signature. Sorry. -- ALLSTARecho 17:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem.  :) I don't know who put the one that's there now, but I have previously put up similar sections (with my sig). Aleta (Sing) 17:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"Gay Porn Community"

Resolved.

It took a pseudo-writer to invent this artificial term. There is no such thing as a "gay porn community" nor have I ever referred to one, although gay culture, entertainment and pass-time is by definition pornographic. Matt Sanchez (talk) 10:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This matter has been addressed already please refrain from characterizing me or other editors as a "pseudo-writer". By the way there certainly is a gay porn community and it's uncivil to suggest that "gay culture, entertainment and pass-time is by definition pornographic." Please stop. Benjiboi 05:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Block

Resolved.

Just an FYI, User:Bluemarine/User:Mattsanchez has been indefinitely blocked from editing per this ANI discussion. -- ALLSTARecho 17:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Block reduced to a week, I believe; case referred to arbom and User:Bluemarine/User:Mattsanchez presently going through that process. Benjiboi 15:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

BlueMarine Statement

Resolved.

I was reading that a late night comedian asked members of his audience to make entries at Wikipedia and the consequences of that request was that quite a few items were vandalized, because the newbie editors had a different goal in mind rather than trying to contribute to World's Free Encyclopedia.


A similar call has gone out over the article on me and the result has been just as predictable, persons with ulterior motives are attempting to make a "point" and establish some sort of "authority".

There are several in factual inaccuracies in the article as it stands. I did not star "in over 20 videos" as currently stated without considering scenes that are re-used, but the fact that the number 20 is a point of debate and that there are entrenched camps who insist on it, reveals a disturbing trend among many of the editors contributing to this article.


As someone who makes a living by what I write, I repeat that I stand behind what I write, even if some may find my words offensive. The issue is probably less of what I say and more about how the reader interprets it. Nevertheless, I stand behind and support what I have written. Unlike the majority of my virtual detractors, I'm a real person whose information is justly or misrepresented in this article.


The late night groupies following the commands of an activist comedian had no respect for what Wikipedia is trying to accomplish. Only those with an invested interest in the integrity of this online experiment in education can hope to live up to the claim of an unbiased encyclopedic endeavor. After the stunt the comedian pulled, it's great that many of the distorted articles were restored and I hope the latest attempts at vandalism on the Matt Sanchez article will prove the need to maintain a higher standard. Matt Sanchez (talk) 07:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to leave your statement at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine where the case is taking place, not here. Thanks. -- ALLSTARecho 14:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Update Thomas Scott Beauchamp

Resolved.

{{editprotected|Matt Sanchez}}

A December 2007 article by Franklin Foer lengthily addresses the issues of the controversy, concluding:

“ "In retrospect, we never should have put Beauchamp in this situation. He was a young soldier in a war zone, an untried writer without journalistic training. We published his accounts of sensitive events while granting him the shield of anonymity–which, in the wrong hands, can become license to exaggerate, if not fabricate.

"When I last spoke with Beauchamp in early November, he continued to stand by his stories. Unfortunately, the standards of this magazine require more than that. And, in light of the evidence available to us, after months of intensive re-reporting, we cannot be confident that the events in his pieces occurred in exactly the manner that he described them. Without that essential confidence, we cannot stand by these stories.[1]

 ”
N Template not applicable. The {{editprotected}} template must be accompanied by a specific description of an edit request. Sandstein (talk) 12:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
This article is about Matt Sanchez, not Scott Thomas Beauchamp. The Beauchamp Affair is a controversial subject. It's not appropriate to include contentious claims about Scott Thomas Beauchamp in this article.Reelm (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing "contentious" about Foer abandoning Beauchamp. It happened, it's over. It's the end of the "controversy". Matt Sanchez (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, however, this quote is excessively long for something only tangentially related to an article about you. Aleta (Sing) 03:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Which is why I shortened it considerably in the edit I made and that someone took down, without an objection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs) 03:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I am reverting Bluemarine's edits made to the section. Sanchez should be seeking consensus before making these edits. Aatombomb (talk) 05:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What version works for everyone? Perhaps no quotation? Simply: "A December 2007 article by Franklin Foer lengthily addresses the issues of the controversy and confirmed the accuracy of the initial Sanchez report."[1]
Does that work? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how the Foer "confirmed the accuracy of the initial Sanchez report." What Foer does in the editorial is confirm that there were inaccuracies in their reporting of the story. The wording above makes it sound as if Foer is directly addressing some piece of writing by Sanchez. Aatombomb (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Foer was directly contradicted and debunked by eyes on the ground reporting.Matt Sanchez (talk) 06:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
That is not the point - Foer makes no reference to you. Aatombomb (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
That is patently false. Foer acknowledges that I was the source in Fog of War. He lied consistently and he was debunked. He's lucky Michelle and Michael didn't publish most of what we learned about him. Matt Sanchez (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
No, actually what he says is that the Army gave the story to you hoping it would get buried. Aatombomb (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

January 1 Edits

Resolved.

{{editprotected}}

Regarding the edits just made and just reverted:

  • All the articles I've read say that Sanchez is a reservist. Has this changed? Is there a reliable source that says so?
  • Doing a search on Google for "matt sanchez" "war correspondent" turns up 200+/- hits. "matt sanchez" "milblog" turns up 3,200+. I think that description should stay.
You're saying that Google is the barometer for Wikipedia? You haven't done a qualitative search, over a quantitative one? Are you disputing that I am the war correspondent?
Yes. As far as how others describe you, there are more sources that say "milblogger" than say "war correspondent". Note that I'm not disputing that you *are* one, just the description of you in the lead paragraph.
  • Until and unless a reliable source can be found for the alleged September 7th statement, that really shouldn't be added to the article as it's original research.SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
It's on my blog. It's in the RWN article. My blog has been used as the source several times, how or why are you disqualifying it now, it's a first-person account.
Why would you disqualify Rightwingnews.com?
Matt Sanchez (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Your blog is a reliable source for things you say about yourself or how you describe yourself. It is not a reliable source for anything else - especially factual information about the Marine Corps and their business with you. You might want to re-read

Verifiability. The RWN article is an interview with you, therefore is not a third-party source. Until and unless a reliable source can be found for the alleged September 7th statement, it should not be added to the article. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Satyr is correct. The blog of an article subject may be used for non controversial material about them. It shouldn't be used as a source for (a) material likely to be challenged or (b) information about anything other than the person the article is about. Similarly, an interview of you is a good source for saying that you made statements in an interview, but not for asserting that the content of those statements is true. WjBscribe 16:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Satyr: Who disputes the result of the Marine Corps inquiry? Where is the supposed controversy? You two are advocating a standard that would not apply to any other articles on here. Matt Sanchez (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Matt, I'm not disputing the Marine Corps. As you probably know, Wikipedia doesn't deal in the truth - we deal in verifiability. As such, if a reliable source can't be produced, it doesn't go in Wikipedia. That isn't a rule for your article - that's a rule for all articles. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you not see the problem with the source for a statement that the subject of an article being cleared of certain charges being (a) the subject's own blog and (b) the subject's own statements in an interview? We need a third party report of the findings you want to cite. Are they reported in some military publication - i.e. some sort of official record - that you could give a reference to? Alternatively, has a third party source confirmed that Colonel Charles Jones made the report you claim he did? WjBscribe 19:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Without independent confirmation, I suggest this phrasing [1] to reflect the source for the results of the inquiry. WjBscribe 19:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable way to handle it, unless & until an independent source confirms the information. Aleta (Sing) 19:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I can agree to that wording. BTW, I've removed the "editprotected". Since the article isn't protected, that tag is unnecessary. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
This story has been vetted and verified by RWN. Who are you, the editors of Wikipedia to contradict or demand more verification? By sourcing RWN, you've already put the onus of verification on them. Matt Sanchez (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Matt - RWN has indeed vetted an interview with you. In that interview, neither the magazine nor its reporter said anything about the case except that there was one. Other than that, the magazine reported what you had to say, which, as quotation, stands as is and doesn't need to be verified by them at all. So now we have two webpages that have your words - your blog and quotes from you in RWN. Are there any reliable sources that say the same material but come from someone else? Otherwise it's just like saying you were President - RWN could have an interview with you where you said that. But it wouldn't be from "multiple third-party reliable sources", which is what's required.
Sorry to be such a stickler - I'm trying to keep your article to high standards :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Bluemarine went ahead and made these edits. I have reverted them, as there is no consensus on his edits as discussed here. Aatombomb (talk) 05:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Update. Per WjBscribe's edit the self-referencing blogs, labeled as such have been included and can be replaced if independent sources can verify any outcomes. Benjiboi 15:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit protected.

Resolved.

{{editprotected}}

Please remove the adult entertainment sections until multiple, reliable sourcing can be found. Thanks, M-ercury at 19:44, January 6, 2008

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Sanchez#Adult_entertainment M-ercury at 19:46, January 6, 2008

Y Done - I've removed the section due to WP:BLP - it really wasn't sourced will enough. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Unbelievable. You might as well delete the entire article if it's not going to explain his adult entertainment career, because Matt Sanchez's gay porn career is the only reason why he's a notable figure. He's admitted it. He doesn't deny it. And the sources for this are already posted in the lede.Reelm (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, post the section here, with some better sources and it can be readded - the link to a store was not reliable in any way. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll start with what's already here. But I can easily find additional sources later.
This reference says that Matt Sanchez admitted working as a gay porn actor under the names “Rod Majors” and “Pierre LaBranche.” It also says that Matt Sanchez "acknowledged working as a male prostitute" during a Fox News radio interview with Alan Colmes.
Here's another reference that says Sanchez "acknowledges gay porn past."
This reference is a link to Matt Sanchez's mea culpa. In this article Sanchez also acknowledged comparisons to Jeff Gannon. Gannon (aka James Guckert) is a notorious White House reporter who was linked to several gay escort sites. Sanchez notes that some people have accused him of also working as an escort and says, "I won't deny it, or that I acted in several adult movies 15 years ago under names like Pierre LaBranche and Rod Majors."
And this external link provides a partial list of movies he's made under the name Rod Majors and Pierre Labranche.Reelm (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Basically, what I'm asking you to do is to recreate the section and with the required references and I'll simply copy and paste it across - obviously I'll attribute this to you. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll repost my proposed revision for the adult entertainment section. But I'll have to look through the archives. Matt Sanchez buried it, along with several other active discussions, when he vandalized the talk page.Reelm (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
In fact, no. Either use the last revision of the page, or leave it out altogether - I removed that one section soley because it was a BLP violation - if you want the section readded, then use the same text as I removed but with better sources - I'm not helping you win an edit war. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
How can it be a BLP violation? The section you deleted was based on suggestions made by Matt Sanchez. He and the guy who runs his web site were the ones who provided the sources you objected to.Reelm (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Because it wasn't anywhere near a reliable source, come on - links to an online store where you can by a porn movie?! Regardless of who suggested it, it's a potentially libelous statement without reliable evidence to back it up. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)`
One more - the Advocate's summary of the entire affair. According to this article Sanchez said, re: Ann Coulter's homophobic slur against John Edwards, "I, personally, wouldn't have used the word 'faggot' in public like that," Please note that Matt Sanchez has repeatedly used the word faggot here on these talk pages.Reelm (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
(deleting my own response because I put it under the wrong comment)


Per request:

In the early 1990's, Sanchez performed in gay pornographic movies under the direction of Kristen Bjorn[2] and worked under the stage names "Pierre LaBranche" and "Rod Majors".[3]. Majors starred in over 20 videos, LaBranche in at least two.[4][5]

Some of the original text was trimmed due to not having sources. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for that, I've readded it and attributed you for the edit. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Unbeleviable. It's protected from editing, and yet one admin decides to remove an entire section anyway. Pairadox (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
It's unbelievable? Have you read WP:BLP? ANY editor should remove unsourced or poorly sourced material, especially if it's controversial or defamatory. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
What's unbelevable is the fact that the poorly sourced BLP violation was in the article in the first place. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
This revision looks ok to me. I looked for some additional sources and found an article at AVN that also supports this information. AVN is an adult industry trade publication that reviewed most of Matt Sanchez's videos when they were released twelve to fifteen years. His Rod Majors profile is posted here. The AVN article also confirms that Sanchez worked as an escort using the nick name "excellent top." It provides a link and a description of his escort page.Reelm (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Dang - I should have thought to look there as well. Nice :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I thank everyone for working together. We should proceed slowly and thoughtfully on these BLP things. I appreciate everyone working together to ensure independent and reliable sourcing. Regards, M-ercury at 23:16, January 6, 2008

War Crimes (book)

I was honored when author Robert "Buzz" Patterson interviewed me for his latest work "War Crimes". The Random House book recounts my initial incident at Columbia. Buzz was exhaustive in his research speaking to members of the faculty and attempting to speak to the ISO, who refused to be interviewed.[6]

TOC.jpg

War Crimes Credit
P39.jpg

"I joined the Marine Corps because..."
P61.jpg

Recounting of Columbia University Incident as verified and cross verified by Buzz
P62.jpg

2nd Page of recounting
P259.jpg

Glossary and references
P260.jpg

Glossary and references
Certainly seems like the incidence was blown well out of proportion from this account. Also, no reference to "baby-killer" or "stupid minority." Sounds like Sanchez spun this as a major event when there was really nothing to it. Aatombomb (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree, it seems like Sanchez simply restating the same version to another sympathetic ear. Nothing in the image pages or the ref link to Random House confirms anything but what Sanchez said happened and there is no statement that anyone else was even asked to confirm or refused to be interviewed. In light of this, I also support the "baby killer" comment being removed. Benjiboi 15:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Gee, and the picture of the protesters posing me next to a dead baby must have been a figment of my imagination too. These editors are engaging in outright bias. It's sad they are even allowed to contribute to the article. Matt Sanchez (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
"War Crimes" should be listed in the references. It's not definitive but I submitted it for consideration. Matt Sanchez (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't use it as it seems to be extremely POV, the material it recounts is already covered by other RS and it seems the author never checked the story's accuracy or tried to present it unbiased. Benjiboi 06:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't ask, don't tell duplicate in See also section

Resolved.

{{editprotected}} Hi, Please remove the extra Don't ask, don't tell link in the See Also section, it's already in the article. Benjiboi 15:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Howdy. I would prefer that no content changes be made to the article until protection expires. It is a short protection, I appreciate the patience. See the above rationale on [[2]]. Thanks, M-ercury at 23:32, January 9, 2008
This article is currently incredibly controversial. It seems we may even have an ArbCom case for it. Ugh. The general rule is that editprotected requests are only done on controversial pages for small things (i.e., typo fixes, blatant errors, etc.). This is removing content; while other articles could possibly receive different treatment, under the current circumstances, this article should remain as untouched as possible, except for the need to remove material which violates the BLP policy. Otherwise, for the moment, full protection should do what it was intended to do. I apologize for the inconvenience. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Hi, Please remove the extra Don't ask, don't tell link in the See Also section, it's already in the article. Thank you Benjiboi 23:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

N Edit declined, currently no consensus for it. Sandstein (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Arrrgh! I shouldn't have to build consensus to follow our own guidelines. Please see WP:SEEALSO. Please remove the extra Don't ask, don't tell link in the See Also section, it's already in the article. Benjiboi 23:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

YDone. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

BLP cleanout

Resolved.

As a result of the recent AfD, I've stubbed the article down a bit, (yes, I've knocked out a bunch of refs..would some admin who can catch what I missed fixed the article, thank you). Please, let's move forward with high regard for the BLP, NPOV and RS policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SirFozzie (talk • contribs) 05:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Err, scratch what SirFozzie said. He restored his edits due to the article being protected, the Arbcom case and recommendations by other admins not to edit it while protected and under Arbcom. I just think he forgot to come back here and followup. ALLSTAR echo 08:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove request - please see arbitration

Resolved.

The subject of Matt Sanchez has asked for it's deletion. Please review:

As the subject has clearly demonstrated notability, and the matter is very contentious, I strongly recommend that this be done via a definitive Articles for Deletion request, for the community to evaluate fairly. Thank you. Lawrence Cohen 18:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Protected edit requested

{{editprotected}}

Please add the AFD template to the article. AFD is at:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Sanchez (3rd nomination)

Thanks. Lawrence Cohen 20:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
AfD underway. Benjiboi 23:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Censorship in this article

Resolved.

Sanchez appeared in 41 gay porn videos. This is documented at Internet Adult Film Database and Internet Movie Database. This article says "over 20" videos at Rod Majors, when in fact it was 39 videos under that stage name. You've removed all but four titles, even though Wikipedia is full of articles that list porn actors' entire videographies. Why is Wikipedia giving special treatment to Matt Sanchez? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.37.158 (talk) 05:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't comment on other biographies, but WP:WPPORN says there should be no more than six films listed in a porn actor's bio. If others are listing more, they are either violating that rule, or there are reasons why the other films are named. There are, as you stated, other places on the web where the whole list can be found. We don't need to reproduce it here. Aleta (Sing) 05:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This article lists four of his videos, not six. That's censorship even by your definition. Elsewhere on Wikipedia there are complete porn videographies. Only in this censored article, which from start to finish has reflected the Wikipedia cabal's special treatment of Matt Sanchez, is a limit imposed. And the total number is also reduced, which is not only censorship but a lie. Why does Wikipedia lie and censor and behalf of Matt Sanchez?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.37.158 (talk)
Firstly, you are spinning your wheels because Single Purpose Accounts - of which yours seems to be since all of your edits are regarding Sanchez - are also being reviewed in the Arbcom case. This means that, and this is me being honest here, no one is really paying much attention to your points because to us, you're just another anonymous IP with an axe to grind. Secondly, and in relation to the first, stop the incivility. I think most people know how I feel when it comes to some of the content being left/taken out of this article. But attacking others and Wikipedia in the fashion that you are, isn't the way to go about making sure you're heard or that the content is included under sensible guise. ALLSTARecho 17:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
To what AllstarEcho has said, I'll add that there is a a difference between censorship and being indiscriminating in listing of information. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information. I don't know the reason for the difference in number of videos; perhaps it has to do with the recycling of scenes that has been mentioned. It's not because a cabal of editors wishes to lie about it, however. You could perhaps benefit from reading about assuming good faith. It does not advance your cause to insult every editor here. Aleta (Sing) 18:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Anyone who spends any time with Wikipedia is familiar with the many guises here for excluding input that the insiders don't want. The fact is that Sanchez made 41 gay porn videos, and that the article gives a total of half that. It's also a fact that Wikipedia lists full videographies for other porn actors, but not Sanchez. It's also a fact that this article has been reducing the number of titles listed below even the six you've mentioned. It's also a fact that Sanchez has been given carte blanche to violate every rule Wikipedia during the editing of this article. And, finally, it's a fact that you say nothing about that, and then turn around and threaten and attack anyone who points it out. Is it any wonder that Wikipedia's reputation is falling so rapidly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.37.158 (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Wrong, lots of people, including me, have commented on his behavior, as well as that of others. Aleta (Sing) 18:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. Your assertions of wikipedia's failing reputation can be addressed elsewhere, this talk page is only concerned with this article. I checked out IMdB and it indeed doesn't speak of 40 but of 20 videos. If you have a reliable source up to wikipedia's standard that says otherwise then please link it on this page so editors can check it out. We're aiming for accuracy. Also to address other articles that lists multiple videos and filmographies beyond the guidelines there are a number of explanations; they simply haven't been cleaned up yet, they have been added and no one who'se an authority or is able to tell which handful are notable; the listing could be for a director or studio so covers multiple actors. In any case this article is not going to be allowed to vary too greatly from guidelines on its porn content but if you think we should include particular videos more than the ones listed then post your ideas and supporting sources here so other editors can sort out if changes should be made. Benjiboi 18:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This is obviously special treatment. Nowhere else on Wikipedia has there been such an effort to twist the rules on behalf of one person, to censor truth from an article, and to eliminate objections. It begs the question: what does this guy have on Wikipedia? The article is a lie, and the insiders here are fighting tooth and nail to preserve it. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.37.158 (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
And further, there was some question as to how many videos he actually performed for and how many he performed in.. there is a difference. Many of the videos were simply material that was re-used from previous productions. ALLSTARecho 18:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The article says the following: In the early 1990's, Sanchez performed in gay pornographic movies under the direction of Kristen Bjorn[7] and worked under the stage names "Pierre LaBranche" and "Rod Majors".[1]. Majors starred in over 20 videos, LaBranche in at least two. This is a lie. In fact, Sanchez appears in 41 videos. As for Sanchez's behavior, nothing has been done about it, yet anyone who comments on it has been routinely threatened by Wikipedia's insiders. The end result is an article that doesn't get it right (supposedly something that Wikipedia wants to do, except when it's protecting someone) and which has been insulated from factual input from anyone who doesn't have a connection to Wikipedia's cabal. All of this is painfully transparent to anyone who looks at this ongoing fiasco. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.37.158 (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, your issues with wikipedia as a whole aren't welcome here. I will again invite you to present any reliable sources that contradict what we have in the article. Your case will be won by proving content not characterizing wikipedia as flawed or editors as engaging in some cabal. Benjiboi 19:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The IAFD list is incomplete, so it shouldn't be treated as a definitive source. One glaring omission from that list is the best-selling video Jawbreaker - a video that figured prominently in the coverage of the Sanchez scandal. About half the videos listed at IAFD are compilation videos and aren't worth noting. It would be like compiling a filmography of Harrison Ford and counting Star Wars (1977) and Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (reissue title) as two separate movies.Reelm (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I cannot agree that we *know* which videos are compilations and which ones aren't. Matt, is not a reliable source for that factoid, since it's in his own best interest to push his porn career as far into the past as he can. I do agree that the list isn't complete, I'm not sure what the *standard* is for completion of lists of porn stars. Wjhonson (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
We can know because the IAFD listing says whether or not a video is a compilation.Reelm (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Well then you'll notice at IAFD that he appeared in Uncut Cocks from 1997 and it states that this is *not* a compilation. So if we all agree that IAFD is a reliable source that would sort of tell us that he was still an active porn star as late at that movie. Wjhonson (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that same reference also quotes a running time for that film—0 minutes. Something tells me that there might be just a *few* issues with that particular film. I also had no luck tracking down any further information on that film and the studio which released it. The title of the film suggests it is a compilation. Horologium (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Like I said before, IAFD can't be treated as a definitive source. Its lists are sometimes incomplete. I'm also fairly certain that its gay porn database is still under construction. They didn't even keep track of gay porn until fairly recently. If you want a verifiable list, look at the Rod Majors profile posted at AVN. It has a list of videos AVN reviewed back when they were first released. AVN lists 18 titles under his Rod Majors profile - all of them original releases, not compilations. And we know he did two additional videos as Pierre Labranche.Reelm (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a link for this AVN thing? I've not yet heard of it. If they have other movies than what I detail, I'd like to add those as well. Wjhonson (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
AVN (magazine). Aleta (Sing) 04:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's a link to a "Reviews Archive" of videos starring Rod Majors. And here's the link to AVN's coverage of Matt Sanchez - Porn Star Turned Republican Poster Boy Exposed.Reelm (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that link. I've now been through it and compiled it all into my site. I'm now up to 49 films credited to him. Wjhonson (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Iraq/Afghanistan

Sanchez is a senior at Columbia University, and according to posts on his blog in May through July 2007, is currently an "embedded blogger",[7] first with an American military unit that has traveled from Kuwait into Iraq, and then in July 2007 he switched to a unit in Afghanistan.[8] Sanchez's blog is occasionally syndicated on Worldnetdaily.[9]

The paragraph is entirely off:

  • I'm not an "embedded blogger" there's no such designation in the military. I'm not even a blogger. The military issues press credentials for "embedded journalist" and that is precisely the credential I hold. I also hold a New York City press pass. I have no idea who or why anyone thought it was correct to call me an "embedded blogger", but I suspect it has to do with attempting to downplay the calibre of my work.
  • I was embedded with more than 50 units in five countries, a fact that is easily accounted for by all the units I cite throughout my work.
  • My blog is "not occasionally syndicated" I am the Worldnetdaily combat correspondent. This includes advising other writers on Middle Eastern affairs and making an average of three "call-in" dispatches to WND affiliate radio station.
  • My blog was never "syndicated" and I'm not sure where that information came from. WND owns the first run of the "Dispatch Series". We are currently negotiating the book. Several publishers have requested re-print rights, but that is not to be confused with "syndication".
  • I did have a 15 episode syndicated radio program. "In their Own Voices" Not sure if these two got mixed up.

Matt Sanchez (talk) 06:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"I'm not even a blogger... My blog is... My blog was..." Uhhhh? Slightly inconsistent there. Aleta (Sing) 20:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Military Status

Resolved.

This was posted recently (and archived almost instantly by Sanchez:)

THE LEAD ON THIS PAGE IS NO LONGER TRUE, and Mr. Sanchez's motion in the discussion forum that his page be ammended to reflect being cleared of all Marine Corps allegations is misleading at best and a lie of omission at worst. Let me explain. My name is John Hoellwarth, I wrote the articles for Marine Corps Times that are cited as sources #1 and 2 for this Wikipedia entry. But what is most important to this entry now is information I didn't get a chance to publish before starting a new job elsewhere. I'm holding in my hand a copy of Mr. Sanchez's publicly releasable personnel information, which was given to me by Marine Corps Forces Reserve in response to a Freedom of Information Act request I submitted on behalf of Marine Corps Times. The most important detail to now consider when editing this page is that Mr. Sanchez is no longer a Marine, which makes the first sentence of this wikipedia entry false. Though it is true that the allegations of wrongfully soliciting funds were found to be baseless, the Marine Corps ultimately concluded that failing to tell his recruiter about past participation in gay porn constituted an omission of fact that would have rendered him morally unqualified for military service. As a result, The Marine Corps discharged him for "fraudulant enlistment." That said, again, this wikipedia page is now flatly false. And unfortunately, I no longer work at Marine Corps Times, so I can no longer get this information published. So, I call upon you experienced wikipedia folks to help me out here and ensure accuracy prevails. What can be done? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NotebookNinja (talk • contribs) 00:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

NotebookNinja, absolutely nothing can be done. Please read Wikipedia's Verifiability policy. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This casts some doubt on his status. Is there any publicly available source for Sanchez's current status? Aatombomb (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Another fake. Where do these people come from?Matt Sanchez (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Seems like a good question for the Military history project to me. If not I'm sure the reference desk might have some ideas. Benjiboi 15:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like B** is stretching to write a novel and not edit a encyclopedic entry. Matt Sanchez (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
If you're going to restore, please restore the whole comment, Aatombomb. And you're dangerously close to baiting here. A single-use account used to add inflammatory statements like this is close to useless - why bring it up again? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, there has been plenty of doubt cast on his actual status long before this, considering his film career. If he did not provide the information to his recruiter, he would have fraudulently enlisted, if he did provide it, I'm not sure how they could have let him in in good faith. Single-use account aside, this has the ring of truth to it. I am going to attempt to contact John Hoellwarth. Aatombomb (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Source it. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
It's actually a reference in the article, but here it is again [3] and a quote from the article directly addressing the issue of fraudulent enlistment: "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." So, if he didn't tell them when he enlisted, he enlisted fraudulently, if he did tell them, then he would be in violation of (another quote from the same article) "...section 654 of U.S. Code Title 10 states, “The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.”" Since his pornographic career is well-established his continued service would be very notable as it would constitute a de facto reversal of "don't ask, don't tell." Aatombomb (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately SatyrTN is wrong that "nothing can be done." If the information is available from a government source, it can be sourced to that. When the government creates a document it is "publishing" it. I.E. making it available to the public. As long as we have a full bibliographic citation, it meets the requirements of verifiability. Wjhonson (talk) 09:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, Wjohnson - *IF* the information is available from a government source. The one-off account hasn't provided a source or the means to find that source, they've just spouted off hearsay. So my statement stands - nothing can be done unless / until a reliable source is provided. By the effort you've put in to the countyhistorian, perhaps you could find something? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 07:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

BLP thread

Resolved.

Since there's some disagreement about whether admitted then denied information can be included, I've started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Contradictory information to solicit opinions of other editors. Aleta (Sing) 19:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Article protection

Resolved.

I have requested protection on the article due to WP:OTRS correspondence. While BLP issues are being worked on. I do not expect protection to be a long term thing. Thanks for your patience. Regards, M-ercury at 19:06, January 5, 2008 19:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It never fails. Aatombomb (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Protection extended to coincide with Arbcom case. Benjiboi 22:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)