Talk:Matt Sanchez/Archive 3

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 2 |
Archive 3
| Archive 4 →


Contents

Edit warring

OK, the edit warring stops. I have protected the article. This is not an endorsement of the version at the time of protection. WjBscribe 04:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Fresh start

I am unhappy at the way the concerns of the subject of this article appear to have been dismissed. I think a full discussion of "how best to comment "neutrally" on the issue that have been the centre of this dispute is needed. Please could all editors who have an opinion on the merits of this version or any oher recent version please explain:

  1. what content should be added/removed from this article
  2. if added where is it sourced from and why this source is reliable
  3. Any issue about the wording of the article and problems with neutrally

Please keep all discussion civil and respectful towards other editors. WjBscribe 04:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel that your characterization is fair. We have listened to what Matt has said, however, the information on his escorting career is cited to reliable sources like the Alan Colmes show and Matt's own article at salon.com. A subject's statements about themselves, have a much lower bar to pass, then someone else's statements about them, as you're well aware. The main issue here, is that Matt does not want those statements to be used. BLP is not about allowing a subject to dictate what we do or don't say, it's about stating the facts neutrally.Wjhonson 04:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the issues here are more about whether we are presenting the information in a manner that is totally fair to him. For example should "Escort Allegations" really be a large header that means it shows up in the TOC at the top and making it the other main section other than "Biography". It appears that Matt is willing for their to be mention that he acted in adult films and worked as an escort. What needs to be decided is how much detail of his work in this areas needs to given to be:
  1. accurate
  2. informative
  3. encyclopedic
It seems to me that the details of his early life in adult film and around that have been allowed to take over this article. They are the main part of the introduction. They are discussed in the subheading "Adult film career" and then discussed again as "Allegations". It seems most of the article is taken up discussing the five years of his life from 1990 to 1995. Does that not strike you as raising problems of "undue weight"? WjBscribe 04:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is what one section states "Critics charge that Sanchez has given conflicting statements about rumors from anonymous bloggers. In a March 8, 2007 interview with Alan Colmes, when asked repeatedly if he had worked as a male prostitute, Sanchez dismissively replied, "I own up to all of it"[23]. In that same interview, Colmes also stated he contacted Sanchez that day, at the same phone number that he found posted in an ad for massage services in the New York Blade Nov. 19, 2004. Colmes later admitted he did not know where the number came from.[citation needed]"
Here is how it should really read "Sanchez has given conflicting statements about his escorting career. In a March 8, 2007 interview with Alan Colmes, when asked repeatedly if he had worked as a male prostitute, Sanchez replied, "That as well" and "I own up to all of it"[23]. In that same interview, Colmes also stated he contacted Sanchez that day, at the same phone number that he found posted in an ad for massage services in the New York Blade Nov. 19, 2004."
The other things added are not citable, that are opinions and argumentative language to downplay what occurred, i.e. they are original research and point-of-view language. The Blade ad should also be linked in the external links section as it is online on their own web site, and they are certainly a reliable source to what they themselves have printed. Wjhonson 04:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
To address your other issue, I would be extremely happy if this was a full biography. However, there is a reliable source problem with that. He simply wasn't significant enough to be mentioned during certain parts of his life. So what can we do about that? We really can't do anything, we just have to use what we can. Wjhonson 04:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
My own feeling is that when it comes to allegations of prostitution, that this is a major claim, and per WP:BLP we should take extra care to make sure of our sources. Regardless of whether or not the story is true, the question is, Are we 100% sure of our evidence? And so far, our evidence is pretty weak. We've got some statements by Sanchez that he made in a Colmes interview, that he later disputed. We've got his salon.com op-ed, which he also disputes, saying that the salon.com editors changed his original wording.[1] We've got a lot of other people's blogs pulling up bits and pieces of information and trying to connect the dots. If this were a court of law, we might or might not have enough to convince a jury past a reasonable doubt. But that's not what Wikipedia is for. We're here to summarize information that's already been published in reputable sources. And to my mind, we just don't have any third-party reliable source that says it. The best we've got, in my opinion, is a collection of conflicting "Sanchez says" statements, that are good for probably a single paragraph. Here's my current recommendation:
Sanchez has given conflicting statements about the escorting allegations. In an op-ed piece on March 8 on Salon.com, Sanchez took note of the charges that he had advertised "services as a male escort" and commented, "I won't deny it, or that I acted in several adult movies 15 years ago under names like Pierre LaBranche and Rod Majors."[2] However, on the same day he posted in his blog, disputing the salon.com version of his words, and saying that the salon.com editors had added the phrase, "I won't deny it."[3] In a March 9, 2007 interview with Alan Colmes, when Sanchez was asked if he had worked as a male prostitute during his time in the gay porn industry, he replied, "Yes."[4] However, on April 9, Sanchez subsequently denied that he had been a male escort, saying, "Not true."[5]
The randythomas.org source is a bit iffy, I agree, but I still think it's usable because Sanchez confirmed that it was an accurate transcript.[6] Ultimately though, I think that we have to remember that Wikipedia is not here for "investigative journalism," we're here to provide an encyclopedia. We're here to summarize information after it's been published somewhere else. If any of the bloggers really feel that they've got a "slam-dunk" case on Sanchez, take it to Associated Press. If AP publishes it, we'll summarize it. But if AP says, "Not good enough," or "not interesting enough," then it's definitely not notable enough to go into a Wikipedia article. --Elonka 05:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As usual, there are several points my "prosecutors" want to dismiss. 1. Colmes asked me "I have an ad here with your number". I said "No" at least six times. 2. The Salon article did not run the same day, I had written it earlier in the week and we referenced that article in the Colmes interview 3. Many of my critics seem to absolve themselves of any malice, when in fact they obviously have some kind of emotional connection to this. This is strange, since I don't believe I've ever met any of them personally. 4. My personal information has been posted all over the place 5. The picture in the "Blade" page isn't me. Although I have seen people use my photos in the past and I mentioned that to Colmes. 6. I have yet to have someone "confirm" I was an escort with "I hired this guy and I have proof". If the nameless were willing to put themselves on the line, the way they wish to put me on the line, then we'd at least have something more than conjecture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs) 00:24, May 2, 2007

Why would we need further proof it you yourself admitted it in the same Colmes interview? Aatombomb 01:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

(RfC) My first impulse was to respond that the porn industry content is being given undue weight; however, it would appear that a great deal (if not all) of Matt Sanchez's notability derives from being in the military and having appeared in gay porn. Still, I don't think an Allegations section (Marine corps inquiry included... "considering an investigation"? come on!) has any place in a biography of a living person. I think removing that section would address weight and neutrality concerns, and improve the article. — Demong talk 02:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

True, but they didn't just consider an investigation, they investigated him. And this wasn't in some random blog, this was reported in the Military Times. Aatombomb 02:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
wiki:"...reported that the military was considering investigating Sanchez..." ref: Corps may investigate cpl’s gay porn past (emphasis mine) — Demong talk 03:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and then they did investigate him. ref The reference in the article got mangled somehow. Probably by Bluemarine. Aatombomb 03:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Instead of having a section entitled "Escorting allegations", I think we should just include the "conflicting statements" paragraph (see above), inside another section such as "Political activism". As for the Marine Corps investigation, the only place that I've seen that covered has been in the Marine Corps press, and it hasn't been picked up mainstream. As such, I think it's iffy whether or not we should even mention it in the Wikipedia article. If we did, I wouldn't give it more than one or two sentences, until there are actually some published results. --Elonka 17:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The Military Times is a Gannett newspaper and has a circulation of close to 300,000. It's mainstream. Aatombomb 03:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll accept Hoellwarth's articles as reliable sources, and agree that the "Marine Corps Inquiry" paragraph should stay. --Elonka 01:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This says it best:

"I'd like to point out that I'm just an aggregator of information. Credit goes to the bloggers before me who brought it to light. In particular, Will Johnson, a professional geneaologist, obtained records that leave little room for doubt about Matt Sanchez's activities as 'Excellent Top' and 'No Regrets Massage.' His website is the most authoritative I've seen. Without Mr. Johnson's work, this site probably wouldn't exist.

"By contrast, the Wikipedia page on Sanchez is a disaster. Wikipedia has allowed Sanchez to edit his own biography to minimize the evidence of his pornography and prostitution. It has included material from an evangelical 'ex-gay' blog while systemically excluding evidence developed by Will Johnson and others. In going along with all of this, Wikipedia has abandoned any pretense of neutrality and objectivity in its work. I urge readers to register at Wikipedia and file their comments in the discussion section of the page dedicated to Sanchez."

Elonka, et. al., you fool no one. I don't know what the rest of Wikipedia's record is on things of this nature, but the Sanchez entry is unbelievably bad.

refPwok 02:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Proof of escort allegations. His office address from the US Public Records Database here. The registered address for www.excellent-top.com here. By the way, "Excellent Top" doesn't mean "I'm a good masseur", just in case anyone is confused on that point. Wjhonson 02:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This is proof that Matthew Ayala Sanchez had the exact same address as http://www.excellent-top.com Wjhonson 02:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
ORly? hehe — Demong talk 02:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Those are both what's called "primary sources" which means we're straying into the realm of what's called "original research." The primary policy that we have to respect here is Wikipedia's policy concerning biographies of living people. This means that we should not include potentially negative information in a Wikipedia article, unless we can prove that this information is notable and verifiable, meaning that the information has appeared in multiple reliable secondary sources. Please also read Wikipedia's "no original research" policy to learn the difference between a primary source and a secondary source. If someone can come up with a reliable secondary source that says that Sanchez was a prostitute, please do post it here. --Elonka 03:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok kids, let's read the policy, shall we: "...research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Aatombomb 03:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The efforts by Elonka, et. al., to ratify this laughable whitewash of an article are just ludicrous. There is utterly nothing "neutral" about what Wikipedia has puked out onto the Internet about Matt Sanchez. ref 71.231.140.80 06:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Rather than attacking other editors, it is more useful to actually suggest alternate wording for the article. So far I have suggested a paragraph (see above). If you don't like it, please suggest something different, and then we can discuss it. --Elonka 20:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Elonka, I don't recall you being in the debate when we settled on the language about sources, but it appears you are confused about when we can and cannot use primary sources. I suggest you read the section again to familiarize yourself with the issue you seem to trying to lecture me about. Since I was quite deep into the discussion for some time, I think I understand it fairly well. Please address the issue again here, after you re-read the policy. Wjhonson 23:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
There is absolutely no requirement on Wikipedia to only use reliable secondary sources. Even though Elonka is making the effort to convince us that is so. It simply isn't. Wjhonson 23:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Elonka cited the wrong thing :) There is a requirement not to synthesize sources of any kind. — Demong talk 00:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I've read the BLP policy and the SYN policy in more detail. I think the Military Times articles pass muster, but few of the other sources do. Aatombomb 01:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
While this article is protected, I've created a draft version at User:Elonka/Sandbox. Anyone who wants is welcome to come in and edit it. Let's see if we can maybe come up with a consensus version? --Elonka 01:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that looking someone's name up in a public database is "synthesis". It's source-based research. Wjhonson 06:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Replacement paragraph

Here is my suggested replacement paragraph. If anyone doesn't like it, please suggest alternate wording. If you do like it, please say so. --Elonka 00:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Sanchez has given conflicting statements about the escorting allegations. In an op-ed piece on March 8 on Salon.com, Sanchez took note of the charges that he had advertised "services as a male escort" and commented, "I won't deny it, or that I acted in several adult movies 15 years ago under names like Pierre LaBranche and Rod Majors."[7] However, on the same day he posted in his blog, disputing the salon.com version of his words, and saying that the salon.com editors had added the phrase, "I won't deny it."[8] In a March 9, 2007 interview with Alan Colmes, when Sanchez was asked if he had worked as a male prostitute during his time in the gay porn industry, he replied, "Yes."[9] However, on April 9, Sanchez subsequently denied that he had been a male escort, saying, "Not true."[10]

Looks good. Reiterate suggestion: put this under "Porn career", remove "Allegations" (WP:BLP) including "Marine Corps inquiry" (arguably not notable even if results are published, certainly not in the mean time) — Demong talk 00:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I dispute the phrase "during his time in the gay porn industry". Nothing in Alan's question denotes that. If you want to fine-tune that, you should quote the question and the response exactly. Exact quoting would skirt the feeling of POV language.Wjhonson 03:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I have changed that in my sandbox version. --Elonka 03:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I would also add that during this interview Alan stated that he had found an ad where Matt is advertising massage services two years ago and Matt responds by saying "I am a licensed massage therapist". It's a bit unwikipedian to pick and choose just for the purpose of *proving* the actions were in the distant past. Wjhonson 03:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Language to be added "During this same Colmes interview, Alan stated that he had found an ad that he said showed Matt advertising Massage services in the New York Blade Nov 2004. Matt responded by claiming that he had not placed the ad. To which Alan stated that the phone number in the ad was the same number they had contacted Matt on, that day." Wjhonson 03:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not so sure that the ad passes the level of notability. If he is or isn't a massage therapist, is that really relevant to the article? I'll go along with consensus though. What do other editors think about whether we should include that bit from the Colmes interview? --Elonka 03:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
It rises to the same bar as the fact that he is aledged to be a partner in a marketing firm doesn't it? That statement is in your version. In fact, many statements are in your version that really don't reflect his notability. Wjhonson 06:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Can you please be more specific? --Elonka 17:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Your concern that each individual statement must itself be notable or address why he is notable is not policy. In fact on the notability guideline page, we discussed this very point a few months ago. Once a person's notability has risen to the point where they get a page, then each statement on that page does not itself need to pass notability seperately. It only needs to pass reliable source *if* the statement is actually challenged. You can check for yourself, that what I'm saying is what the guideline states. See WP:Notability#Notability_guidelines_do_not_directly_limit_article_content. Wjhonson 01:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're saying you'd like to challenge the "partner in a marketing firm" statement, I'll go ahead and remove it. Or if there are other statements you'd like to challenge, let me know and I'll either find a cite, or remove them. I'd like to get the article as accurate and referenced as possible. --Elonka 04:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

While it is not normally true that each individual statement in an article must be notable, it is true in the specific case of biographies of living people.

WP:BLP#Private figures: Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not public figures. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability. Ken Arromdee 17:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Sanchez is a public figure by any possible definition of the term, including Wikipedia's. He injected himself into public controversies, including those about his pornography and prostitution careers. A contrast to Sanchez would be Richard Jewell, the security guard who said nothing while the media falsely accused him of involvment in the Atlanta Olympics bombings. All articles about anyone should aim for factual and narrative accuracy, but the libel standard applying to Matt Sanchez is actual malice. This means that, to be libelous, an article must be false and have been prepared with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. Pwok 02:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox version

I have tried to address everyone's concerns, at a new version of Sanchez's article which is currently at User:Elonka/Sandbox. In my opinion, it may not be perfect, but it's better than the current protected version of the main article. If we can prove consensus for an update, we can at least get the current article at Matt Sanchez replaced with my version, and then continue discussing things from there. Is this acceptable to everyone? --Elonka 23:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks OK to me and seems to represent matters fairly and in an encyclopedic manner. I am disappointed by the lack of input from Bluemarine into these discussions. WjBscribe 23:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I am glad that you've re-added the claim that he advertised his masseur services. I would like to add a direct link right to the ad page which is online. It was in the original article before the article was gutted and I think it would be useful to link it. Wjhonson 06:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Link added. I'm a bit iffy on it, but it does link to a PDF of the ad page that was referred to in Coulter's interview. If it were just up to me, I'd say leave it out, but in the spirit of compromise, I'm willing to accept it if this means we now have a consensus version.  :) So, can we get my sandbox version moved in, in place of the actual article? --Elonka 19:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure it's fine. Wjhonson 22:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll add Elonka's version and unprotect the page. It seems to represent a valid compromise between the parties. It goes without saying that the page will be protected again if edit-warring resume. I disappointed that Matt Sanchez has not contributed more to these discussions. Please be sympathetic if he takes issue with changes to the article, though he really does need to discuss his concerns here... WjBscribe 21:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What is your definition of "edit-warring?" I would like to know, so as not to break an implicit rule. Pwok 01:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Edit war: "An edit war is when two or more contributors repeatedly revert one another's edits to an article." Competing editors who disagree on what should the article include often violate core Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Generally, when there is a conflict, it should instead be resolved peacefully. The "three revert rule" should be observed by all editors, which states that no one "must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period." +A.0u 01:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a provision in Wikipedia's rules to provide for the replacement of editors in such cases? Pwok 06:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

In the case of an edit war, editors can be temporarily blocked from editing. In more egregious cases they can be banned entirely from editing in certain topic areas. Please also see: Wikipedia:Single purpose account. --Elonka 06:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No Regrets Massage

I looked at the ads and they're not me. I said so on both Colmes interviews and the fact that the homosexuals want to pin a 5'7" 165lb masseur ad to me a 6' 200lbs guy is just hysterical. The "controversy" surrounding me is really limited to four or five homosexuals who send me daily love/hate mail. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs) 00:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

And that has already been noted in the article. Wjhonson 05:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Stats Box

the whole "controversy" is bogus. This box with my "ethnicity" and aliases is stupid. My weight is not 160lbs. I'd be skin and bones. I weigh 200lbs. My "ethnicity" is not Puerto Rican, that's just stupid. I'm Hispanic, but I don't see what that has to do with anything. This "box" should be eliminated, it looks like yet another attempt from gay men to turn me into a fetish symbol. What's next? Penis size? These people are perverts. Matt Sanchez 05:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and fixed the weight, though if anyone disputes, we can just delete that line out of the box. --Elonka 05:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Elonka, FWIW, I think Sanchez is jerking you around now. In the article "A Firm Stance" Sanchez identifies himself as Puerto Rican. From the article:

"My last name is Sanchez. I'm Puerto Rican. I'm a minority. Zach Zill is blonde and blue-eyed. I said, 'Look, I'm a minority. I know I enlisted; I don't feel like I'm being used at all,'" Sanchez said. "[Zill] said, 'Well, you're too stupid to know that you're being used.'"

This information has been part of the public record since he first went public in conservative circles. Seems odd that he's disputing it now. JMarkievicz 06:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Elonka, I hope you don't mind (you can restore it if you do) but I've taken out the infobox. Given that we don't third party sources for the weight stats (which was the reason some of the unfavourable content had to go earlier) I'm not happy with it. The rest of the information in the box is already in the article. I didn't really feel it looked right or added much to the article. Dunno what others think but I prefer the article without. WjBscribe 09:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I have no strong preference either way. I was going for consistency (in other topics, where an individual has multiple careers, it's routine to include the multiple infoboxes). But I agree that much of the information was duplicated. Either way is really fine with me. --Elonka 16:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"I was going for consistency," you say. An interesting choice of words, given that, in the case of the unabridged listing of Sanchez verified filmography, you have departed from the practice for every other gay porn actor. I realize that consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind, but invoking "consistency" in defense of your words while rejecting it when your words are criticized is, well, let's just call it bigger hobgoblin. Pwok 04:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there some reason why the article lists only five of the 38 videos known to include Rod Majors or Pierre LaBranche in their casts? The article states: "The films in which he appeared had original releases no later than 1995; however, scenes from some films have been re-released as part of compilations." In fact, there are 25 videos with those two names in the cast that were released in 1995 or before. This fact is no more or less "verifiable" than the list of only five films that is presented in the article. Why not list all 25 titles, and why not mention that, when compilations are included, the total is 38 videos? To do presents a much more accurate picture of Sanchez's gay porn career; the existing article implies a brief interlude, while the full list presents a different reality. To find the complete list of his films, check this link and this linkPwok 21:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I chose to include the videos that were specifically listed in secondary sources. --Elonka 22:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Your main secondary source (footnotes 16, 17 and 18) is TLA Entertainment, an on-line retailer. It lists 19 videos with Majors or LaBranche in the cast in '95 or before. Another secondary source you cited, the Internet Movie Database, lists 14 videos in 1995 or earlier. Yet, you chose to include only five titles from those secondary sources. Why? The secondary sources I listed are on-line archives of adult films. One of them, the Internet Adult Film Database, lists 22 movies with Majors or LaBranche in '95 or before; the other, the Internet Movie Database (which you also cited) lists another 3 videos that IAFD had missed. Why use only five titles -- one fifth of the verifiable total through 1995, and less than one-seventh of all videos including compilations -- when even the sources that you used cite many more? Pwok 22:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be worth listing all of the videos that he appeared in, which were "original" videos, and then a couple of the compilations. That would give us a total of about 10 or so. --Elonka 01:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
How are you determining which ones are "original" ? Wjhonson 01:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Usually that can be discerned by reading the description. An original one will usually have a single director, have a press review or two, and may have been nominated for awards. Compilations usually either don't have a director listed, or list it as, "Various." And the compilations will usually have shorter descriptions like, "The best of," or "4 hours of," etc. --Elonka 01:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Wikipedia has a "no original research" rule. It would rule out the idea of classifying the movies by speculating about their titles. Elonka, you are the one who set a 1995 cutoff date; I am applying your standard. There are 25 videos released in 1995 or earlier, and 38 total. This is verifiable and verified fact; to list only five titles minimizes the totality of what's out there and in doing so leaves a misimpression of the man's porno career. All titles should be included because that's all that can be verified. The compilation issue is secondary, but in any case it is addressed within the article. Pwok 02:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think there are serious "undue weight" issues with having this article dominated by a list of adult movies Sanchez has appeared in. A representative sample (ie. selective filmography) plus a link to where people can find out more seems an appropriate way to present this information. It may be that more should be listed but I strongly oppose the addition of all 25 (or 38) titles. WjBscribe 02:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a list at the end of the article. It represents one-seventh of the man's documented activity. The article omits even any MENTION of the number of films that he appears in. Wikipedia's standard is "verifiability," and the number and titles of his videos are verified. Omitting the information twists the account. Let us recall why Matthew Sanchez has a Wikipedia entry to begin with; it is because of those videos. They are what made him a national public figure, as evidenced by the fact that they were Topic #1 of every interview he gave after Wikipedia's article first appeared. They are not tangential to his story, they are integral to his story. Pwok 02:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If the number of videos is listed in one of the secondary sources, I'd say it was reasonable to include the quantity. However, I'd be opposed to listing every video, as I just don't think the information is that useful. As WJBscribe said, if someone's really interested, they can go to the directory sites. The section header in the Wikipedia article says, "Selected works." This means we list a representative sample of his writing, plus a representative sample of his videos. Listing all his videos would be along the lines of listing all his articles, which would also be excessive. Some porn stars have appeared in literally over a thousand videos -- only the most notable ones should be included. Since Sanchez has a relatively small body of work, as porn stars go, I could see expanding the list to include all of the "original" videos that he appeared in, and I'll add, where he was listed as one of the key performers, but not a list of every compilation that then used one of those scenes. If he starred in an original video, let's include it. Otherwise, no. --Elonka 13:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Counting is not OR Elonka. You need to rethink that argument. Using sources is not OR, creating sources is OR. Using them is "source-based research" which is what we are encouraged to do on the no original research policy page. Wjhonson 20:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. :) --Elonka 23:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

So Wikipedia's practice is different for actors in porn films than in non-porn films? Wikipedia's entry on, for example, Katherine Hepburn, lists every stage production, film and TV show she was in. See link Remember, Sanchez has a Wikipedia writeup to begin with because of his film career; his videos are integral to his story, not tangential. To abridge his filmography when the complete one is available is very odd. Those films might not be "The Philadelphia Story," but they are films and he was in them. We have verified their titles, and Wikipedia holds itself out to the world as a reference work.

Wikipedia claims to be an "enyclopedia." An encyclopedia displays encyclopedic knowledge, i.e., the most complete knowledge. You are advocating the exclusion of verified fact on the basis of your opinion -- backed by nothing else -- that it's "not useful" to publish an unabridged article. Does Wikipedia aspire to be an encyclopedia, or is it merely a magazine masquerading as an encyclopedia because the word "encyclopedia" has more cachet?

Given that it's the Internet and space isn't an issue, the listing of 38 videos is hardly excessive. A complete listing at the end of the article doesn't interrupt any narrative flow. To say that a complete list gives "undue weight" to his videos is wholly illogical, given that the videos are at the center of his story to begin with.

Thus, if you aspire to write an encyclopedia article for an encyclopedia, you should change the heading from "Selected works" to "Filmography" and include every title, just as has been done for other actors. And if someone appeared in 1,000 films and the information could be verified, of COURSE all of them should be listed. You can't know which of those videos will interest a future researcher, and why. That's the purpose of a reference work: to include all available and verified information about a subject. Anything less is a feature story.

As for the number of videos, it is listed in the secondary sources I have already mentioned. Porn videos don't list "key performers," to my knowledge. And why your need to have "one" of the secondary sources list all 38 videos? Does it violate the original research rule to combine two lists? And you're saying that it violates the original resarch rule to count the number of entries on a list? Well, okay, even under that interpretation, the most comprehensive secondary source says "36 Titles." See link

As for his articles, if all of them could be found, then yes, of course they should be listed. You cannot predict, for example, whether a future researcher might have wanted to draw a connection between an article and a film that you knew about but had (for whatever reason) declared "not useful" and therefore omitted from the "encyclopedia." Wikipedia claims to be a reference work; it is not up to you or to me to decide what verified facts are "useful." Our idiosyncracies should not drive the result here. If the information is available and verified, it should be included. Pwok 18:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you Elonka or WJScribe oppose having the article state "thirty-eight films", without necessarily listing them all? And if so, is there a wording you'd prefer that still allows us to mention the sizable number? There is a vast difference you can agree between five and 38. Wjhonson 20:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article on another gay porn actor, Charles Peyton (a/k/a "Jeff Stryer"), includes the names of 42 videos in which he is listed in the cast. So, Elonka and WJScribe, why is it that Wikipedia should mention only five of the 38 gay porn videos that include Matt Sanchez? Both men are in Wikipedia for the same reason, yet we are told that Sanchez's verified filmography is "not useful."

In the "Jeff Stryker" bio, I note the picture of a dildo made from a casting of Peyton's famous (oops, I meant to write "notable") pecker. Sanchez, as you might or might not know, staked his claim to fame on the same body part, but in his case claimed (and I emphased "claimed") to be even larger. Is that what is meant by "undue weight?" Why the sudden, and to me remarkable, outbreak of squeamishness at the people's encyclopedia? Pwok 21:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Number of films

(starting new section) I would be opposed to listing all 38 films, because most of them were just compilations. I see it sort of like the issue of whether we should list an actor's name on every film that ever used a clip of his. "Original edition DVD" "Director's Cut DVD", "Remastered," etc. It's not appropriate to list every version -- just the name of the original film. We've also discussed this on other actors' pages, especially those that have had multiple appearances in many television shows -- it's just not appropriate to add every thing that they've ever been in -- only the most notable shows or films should be included. Ditto with categories: Just because an actor has appeared as a guest star in a TV show, doesn't mean they should be added to that TV show's category. To my knowledge, Sanchez was in 7 or 8 "original" films. If he was one of the key performers in that film, then I'd be okay on including it here at the Wikipedia article. If he was just an extra, or if the film was a rehash of earlier films with no new scenes, then I don't think it should be included. --Elonka 22:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You do not know how many original videos Sanchez was in. Your statement has no factual basis. Sanchez himself has made a variety of statements about the issue. In one interview, he said a dozen. In another, he said seven. In another, he said "a couple." In your prior comment you said 10 films, and now you say seven. The fact is that the number of originals cannot be verified, only surmised.

Your writeup sets a cutoff date for originals of 1995, by which point he is listed in the cast of 25 gay porn videos. How did you arrive at 1995 to begin with?

"Jeff Stryker's" Wikipedia bio lists 42 films. It does not distinguish between compilations and originals in the list, but to look through that list one can easily surmise that many of the titles are compilations. It is not appropriate to abridge a verified filmography. It is inconsistent with the purpose of an encyclopedia, and it is inconsistent with Wikipedia's own practice with respect to other gay porn actors.

Please tell us why you want to treat this particular gay porn actor differently than Wikipedia has treated other gay porn actors, and which Wikipedia rules specifically allow such a thing. Pwok 22:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's guidelines are, "What is notable." In the case of non-porn actors, many of their films are already notable, meaning that they can be linked. In the case of porn, I could see that an original film might be worth a Wikipedia article, especially if it had won awards. But I think it's pretty clear that a compilation video is generally not notable. Just because a director spliced together some old scenes and put a fresh title on a videotape, doesn't mean that it should be given the same status as an original film. As for "how other articles do it," the Jeff Stryker one obviously needs some cleanup, so I don't think you should look at that as a clear example. Show me one that's made Good or Featured article status though, and I'll be more inclined to consider precedent. --Elonka 22:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia publishes articles with all ratings, so your refusal to compare to articles rated other than "Good" or "Featured" is not grounded in any Wikipedia principle. Similarly, please cite the specific Wikipedia rule that backs your declaration that compilations aren't "notable" enough to be listed or mentioned. Absent a rule, it would seem that you are imposing an idiosyncratic standard. When an idiosyncratic standard is used to omit verified facts, that's indistinguishable from censorship.

Here is Wikipedia's list of male performers in gay porn. Click through the bios on the various actors. Videographies aren't necessarily complete for all of them, but I see no bio in which there is any sign that videos that the authors were aware of were omitted. It is impossible to verify which of Sanchez's films are "original" via secondary sources. To my knowledge, this article is the only bio of a porn actor that omits a verified videography for that reason.

Doing this for only one gay porn actor is potentially a violation of Wikipedia's "neutrality" principle. The main article mentions the issue of compilations; that ought to be fair warning to a reader that not all of the films are originals. Ideally, the main article would mention the compilation issue along with Sanchez's shifting answers as to the number of them.

To wit: In this interview, he said: "I believe I did some 12 videos, but its not uncommon for guys to do way over 50." In this interview, he said: "Look, I know I am going to get bashed for this, but I don't remember doing a film called Touched by an Anal. That was just the nature of the business, you shoot a lot films and they use them forever. I know how many [gay porn] films I did—roughly seven, not 40." On March 30, 2007, he told Alan Colmes: "I’m not a sex worker. I did a couple of adult films." If you are prepared to note these various answers, I will put a recording of the March 30th Colmes interview on the web so you can link to it as a secondary source.

You didn't answer my other questions, so I will ask them again:

1. What is the basis of the 1995 cutoff date that you used in the article?

2. What is the basis of your first declaration that Sanchez acted in "10 or so" original videos? I have extensively investigated this case, and nowhere can I find any secondary source that uses this number. Did you invent it, perhaps?

3. What is the basis of your subsequent declaration that Sanchez acted in "7 or 8" original videos?

You see, if I were to accept your 1995 cutoff date beyond which point no new originals were distributed, I count 25 videos whose titles say "original production" to me. On my own website about Sanchez, I've written that he made "at least 15 originals." I think that's conservative, but for Wikipedia it's too loose because it depends on processes that Wikipedia defines as original research. That's why you should list all the films; note the presence of compilations on the list; explain and justify the 1995 cutoff date; and note Sanchez's own conflicting statements on the issue. This would be honest, comprehensive, neutral and fair, and since his notoreity is based on his gay porn career, it would be as relevant as relevant gets.

Also, with respect to your version of this article, what is Wikipedia's rule with respect to further editing? Finally, I will note that there are other errors in your edit. Once we're through with this issue, I'll move on to the others. Pwok 00:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

For best results, please try to keep your comments focused on the article, rather than targeted at the editors who are working on it. See WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. If you disagree with information in the article, the best thing to do is present, here on the talkpage, a suggestion of how you would change things, and then we can discuss it. For a start, it might be useful to list here all of the videos of Sanchez's which you feel are original, including a link to information about that video, and then we can try and reach a consensus decision of which or how many of them should be included. Also, it is probably worth reading Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information., WP:WEIGHT, and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Filmographies. --Elonka 05:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please try to cite the comments that you feel to be "targeted at the editors working on" the article. Be specific. Thank you.

As for your invitation to present those videos that I "feel" are original, I remind you that I reject the distinction you propose. Please re-read what I have written on this issue. There is no "consensus" here that only "original" films should be included. This is your personal opinion, unsupported by any Wikipedia rule or other Wikipedia articles dealing with other actors in pornographic moves. Please address the issue. Thank you.

There is nothing "indiscriminate" about including Sanchez's entire catalog. I remind you that his career as a gay porn actor is responsible for the article in the first place; I am not proposing the inclusion, say, a list of every baseball card he collected.

Please answer the other questions I have repeatedly posed. I consider it impolite to ignore them. Thank you. Pwok 06:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the 1995 cutoff date was in the article before I started working on it. I'm not certain where it came from, so if there's a legitimate concern that it's incorrect, I would support removing it from the article. --Elonka 06:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please provide your definition of "legitimate concern." Thank you. And please answer ALL of the questions I have posed. I consider it impolite to force me to repeat my questions. Thank you. Pwok 06:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Pwok, can I please ask you to make more use of the "Preview" button? I am finding it difficult to reply since you keep editing your posts. Anyway: If the year is challenged and is not properly sourced, it can be removed, per WP:V. Also, I really strongly recommend reading Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography#Filmographies. They recommend a cap of six films, unless certain criteria are met. That sounds reasonable to me. --Elonka 06:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You have cited a "project" organized by "some Wikipedians." They have personal opinions, but those opinions carry no particular force. In this article, Sanchez's filmography has been reducded from 38 verified titles to five. This is directly at odds with verified fact and current practice on Wikipedia, as I have demonstrated. You have no way of knowing which films are original and which are compilations; for instance, you cite "Touched By An Anal" as a composition. This assertion is unsupported by any secondary source.

Beyond that, once again, please answer ALL of the questions I have posed. I consider it impolite to ignore my questions, thereby forcing me to repeat them. Thank you. For example, I have asked you several times how you came up with varying numbers of "original" films that Sanchez was in, and why you changed your claim regarding the number. You have not answered me. Why not? Pwok 06:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: This conversation is now being continued at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography#Request for comment --Elonka 00:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Dates

Yes I have a legitimate concern that 1995 is incorrect. I don't see any evidence of the exact date Matt stopped acting in porn, other than his own statements. I do see, in 1999, an interview in which he is asked who he'd like to work with. That seems to imply he is still working. And I'd support the inclusion of that quote to balance any attempt to imply that he stopped so early. Wjhonson 02:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'd support removing the "no later than 1995" claim since there's no clear source on it. As for the 1999 interview, could you please provide a link? --Elonka 02:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Kristen Bjorn, one of his directors, has a website where the interview is posted Interview with Rod Majors. You can see he states that he is "...28 years old and my next birthday is on Dec 1st." So the interview was in 1999. Wjhonson 02:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
That link actually muddies the waters somewhat. The answer to the third question pretty clearly states that he was already retired when the interview was conducted (apparently in 1999). However, the answer to the fourth question states that he has never appeared in a bisexual video. Horologium talk - contrib 03:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
How about rewording the section like this?
In the 1990s, Sanchez worked as a performer in adult films which were targeted towards the gay market, starring in videos for Catalina Video, Bijou Video, and Falcon Entertainment. He appeared in Call of the Wild (1992) and Montreal Men (1992) as "Pierre LaBranche," and Idol Country (released in 1994), as "Rod Majors." Other films included the 1991-1992 Man to Men and Jawbreaker. According to a 1999 interview on the Kristen Bjorn Video website, Sanchez (as Rod Majors) said that he was retired by that point, but believed that he had made a total of 12 videos during his career. In a 2007 interview with Radar Magazine, Sanchez said he believed he had done 7 videos, from 1992-1993. Scenes from some films have been re-released as part of compilations. The compilation Touched by an Anal was released in 1997; a more recent release was in 2006, Mansex Meltdown. In his Radar interview, Sanchez said that it "was just the nature of the business, you shoot a lot of films and they use them forever." Though he has appeared in gay porn films, Sanchez insists that he is not gay, and has had no homosexual contact since joining the Corps in 2003.
--Elonka 19:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
There's a problem with the dates. "Man to Men" and "Jawbreaker" were produced in 1994. (Links are NSFW) The production dates are noted at the top of the page for each video. Some helpful info on sorting out the dates... A porn statute called 18 USC 2257 requires porn producers to keep proof of age on file. Since they have to prove their models are of age, porn producers are legally required to list a production date on sexually explicit content. The production date refers to year the video was actually shot. In spite of his previous claims, Sanchez was working in the business as late as 1994. Also, using Rad Video as a source, I was able to find 11 original titles that featured Rod Majors/Pierre LaBranche. ("Bi Conflict" and "Conflict of Interest" are the same movie apparently, so I only counted them once.) Compilations were helpfully noted under the categories header in the product info. JMarkievicz 05:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
That works for me, but we need to hear from the others who have been editing this article on a regular basis. Horologium talk - contrib 19:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure on the issue of the dating it sounds fine, post it. Wjhonson 22:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I think I have updated the article per consensus. I also moved the IMDB link out of the lead and down into the External Links section, since we have more reliable sources available than that one (IMDB is routinely cited as being full of errors, since pretty much anyone can edit it). As for the dates, I removed them from the main section on those two videos, but added them down in the Filmography list. I also added text there to clarify that this is just a "more notable videos" list, and not something comprehensive. How does that look? --Elonka 17:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree to your edit. It is not editing, it is censorship. Your article lists 5 of his 38 verified porn titles. Omitting verified information is censorship. The argument about not listing all of the titles because some are composites is bogus, as is the idea that a complete filmography is the claim that it's somehow too much information or distracting. Look at the entry on Miles Davis, a jazz musician. It lists 112 titles, including many composites. By what criteria and the five videos "notable?" How have you verified that 12 of his videos were original? I think the article is a censored and misleading at best. It violates core Wikipedia principles of neutrality and verification. It is a feature story reflecting one editor's imposition of personal opinion. It is not a reference work. Pwok 23:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not one person's opinion, it's a group consensus. If the consensus of Wikipedia editors was to include every video, that's what we'd do. As for Miles Davis, many of his works were notable enough to be the subject of their own articles. If Sanchez had videos which had their own articles, or were notable in some other way, then I'd say to include them. But as it is, we don't even have articles on all of the studios, let alone the works of those studios. We do, however, link to lists on the internet that do provide comprehensive lists including compilations. I think that's adequate coverage. If you still disagree strongly, the thing to do is to build a consensus of opinion here on the talkpage. See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Elonka 00:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the following statement should be omitted: "In a 2007 interview with Radar Magazine, Sanchez said he believed he had done 7 videos, from 1992-1993." This statement is misleading, and it contradicts previous claims made by Sanchez. It also happens to be untrue. One of the original titles he appeared in, "Everybody Does It," was produced on 11-28-1994 -- a fact that also contradicts his initial claim that porn was only a "summer job." At one point Sanchez said he did porn over two consecutive summers in '91 and '92. Given the evidence and Sanchez's own comments, I think it's fair to say he made a number of porn videos (20) between '91 and '94. By my count, based mainly on his iafd.com listing, he's appeared in at least 20 original porn flicks. The number of original titles is worth mentioning in the article, but the compilation videos aren't all that relevant since they merely recycle footage from the original videos. As for which videos are notable... "Idol Country" and "Jawbreaker" are noteworthy because of their popularity. TLA Video's review calls "Idol Country" the biggest and most hyped release of 1994. Similarly, "Jawbreaker" was "the biggest release of 1995" -- popular enough that it was re-released on DVD as a special "collector's edition" at the beginning of the DVD boom. The still photographs and video clips used in the coverage of this story came from these two videos. "Call of the Wild" and "Montreal Men" are notable because he appeared in them using the alias Pierre LaBranche. "Bi Conflict" is also notable because it's the only bisexual video on Sanchez's resume. However it should be noted that Sanchez only appears in the gay sex scenes. A gay only cut of this movie was released as "Conflict of Interest." Also, several years ago Michael Musto made a humorous reference to "Tijuana Toilet Tramps" in one of his Village Voice columns. JMarkievicz 14:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I have time now. You can reach me on Google Talk as pwok20
The "group consensus" here, such as it is, concerns only the dates of the productions you cited. By claiming that a consensus is reached on the other issues, you've misstated the facts here. WJohnson limited his agreement to the issue of the video dates only.
How did you judge the particular titles of Sanchez's "notable?" What are your criteria? Be specific. I want to know whether Wikipedia's purported neutrality "pillar" has been honored. I think each of the 38 is equally notable. So, what determines the outcome? That an "editor" decided? If so, then what of the purported "user edited" "encyclopedia?"
What explains your use of three different estimates for numbers of original videos?
Have you done any verification of any of the numbers you have cited?
Pwok 00:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
(replying to JMarkievicz) I would support removing the Radar quote. --Elonka 22:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I added "Tijuana Toilet Tramps" to the filmography. I continue to have serious doubts about the censorship of the complete filmography here, along with the inclusion of unverified information about the number of films that include Sanchez's alter egos. There is no evidence for the number of 12 videos given in the article. It is verified, however, that Sanchez appears in the cast lists of 38 videos. Pwok 18:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept the addition, in the spirit of compromise, even though I haven't seen any reliable source proof that that particular title is one of the "notable" ones. But if it helps towards having a stable article, I say leave it in. --Elonka 19:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As you know, Wikipedia's so-called notability rule does not apply to the content of an article, so it is incorrect to block content on the purported grounds that it is not "notable." To wit: "The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standard of the notability guidelines." Even with the addition of "Tijuana Toilet Tramps," the list of Sanchez's videos is woefully incomplete. He is verified to be listed in the casts of 38 videos. All of the titles should be included in Sanchez's filmography. In my opinion, to do anything else is to engage in censorship. I do not endorse this article unless it includes all relevant, verified facts. My participation here is purely a matter of damage control. Pwok 21:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Pwok, perhaps you might want to take a look at some of the Deletion Reviews that are underway right now. People who are a LOT more notable (such as Crystal Gail Mangum, of the Duke University Lacrosse Incident) are getting deleted right now, and if you are going to try and turn this article into a clone of your personal website/Matt Sanchez attack page, I will submit the article for a deletion review in accordance with the new, more stringent policies that some of the administrators are enforcing. WikiProject:Pornography specifically states that no more than six films should be listed unless they are notable, and you cannot justify why these films are notable. They may be well done (such as the Kristen Bjorn films), but they haven't won awards, and they don't have Wiki Links. Limiting the list to six is not "censorship", it is "editorial self-restraint". If you don't get that, look at the Talk:Crystal Gail Mangum page, or WP:DRV#Robyn_Dawkins_and_Gavin_Clinton-Parker; the issues in those two cases will make nuking this article a done deal if you cannot remain objective. Take care to note Wikipedia's limitations on undue weight. Horologium talk - contrib 21:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If Wikipedia decides to exercise censorship, so be it. Wikipedia purports to have principles and "pillars." Either they should be honored, or Wikipedia should throw in the towel. Verified facts are objective; please point out where anything I've added to the Sanchez article is anything other than verified fact.

Wikipedia's "project" on pornography is a work in progress. It does not have any force, notwithstanding spurious claims to the contrary; if and when it does have force, then Wikipedia will have formally endorsed censorship. That will be a sad day; at the very least, I hope Wikipedia will have the honesty to say what it is doing, and why. In the meantime, I'll be including verified facts in the article.

The "undue weight" argument is a transparent dodge. Actors in pornographic videos are no different than other actors and authors. Only porn filmographies have a "project" dedicated to the censorship of the titles of their work. I consider that "project" to be illegitimate, at least until Wikipedia formally repeals its "no censorship" policy. "Editorial self-restraint" is a euphemism for censorship. Pwok 22:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No, "censorship" is when a governmental agency steps in and tells the media they shall not publish something. Wikipedia's administrators and the WP Foundation Board deciding that they do not subscribe to the same set of beliefs as you is not the same thing. You are free to write what you want, on your own site. Here, at Wikipedia, you have to abide by the rules and conventions that are in place. WP cannot tell you what you may or may not have on your site; likewise, the same restrictions apply. Horologium talk - contrib 22:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you look up the meaning of censor in Webster's dictionary. You are flatly wrong to assert that a governmental agency's involvement is necessary for deletion of content to be censorship. As for Wikipedia's conventions, I am citing them and complying with them. The porno project is, at the moment, a set of opinions. Nothing more. Please tell me exactly where I have not complied with Wikipedia's so-called "conventions" in my additions to this article. Also, please provide the Wikipedia principle or "pillar" that advocates, requires, defends -- and, most importantly, defines -- "editorial self-restraint." Thanks much. Pwok 22:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"Scenes from earlier videos"

I've reworded the argumenative language, to a completely neutral position. The current wording, as I have it, makes no comment on the unsupported claim that the scenes were shot earlier. Please do not revert it. The claim that the scenes were done earlier, is only supported by Matt's own statements, long after the fact. The current wording does not comment on whether they were or weren't. To me that is a neutral position on the issue. Wjhonson 22:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel that the language was argumentative, but the current version seems fine to me too. --Elonka 22:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't feel it was argumentative either, but the new version is much better; less wordy. Horologium talk - contrib 23:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
What I meant was it used the word "original" a few times, and also stated or implied that the other videos were all spliced together compilations of scenes shot earlier. We don't actually know that. And other than Matt, we have no source for the contention that the scenes were shot earlier. You can see, I think, that he has a certain vested interest in trying to push his porn career as far into the background as possible, so I don't feel like he himself is a reliable source for the dating of the videos. That's why I support a neutral position where we don't state one way or the other whether the scenes were earlier or current with the release year. If the producers themselves don't pipe up, I'm not really clear on how we'd ever really know. Wjhonson 02:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually I just thought of one way. This could be someone's rainy-day project. If we could identify the people sharing his scenes, and then cross-check *their* careers, we might find movies where he appears in a scene, for example, with someone who could not have been there in 1992 or 93 or 94 or whatever. Wjhonson 02:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
There's really no need for this. If you want to find out when a porno movie was made, you only have to read the legal notices posted on the box. Look for a 2257 compliance statement. Movies produced after July 3, 1995 will have a production date. You can also find 2257 info on adult web sites. The link can always be found at the bottom of the main page. Porn producers are legally required to keep track of production dates and dates of birth for all participants. Here's an example of a 2257 page from one of the companies Sanchez worked for. JMarkievicz 19:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a rule that prohibits "original research." You must use secondary sources to verify facts, not primary research. Consulting boxes would be a form of primary research. Pwok 22:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

So if someone is the star of a movie, and their name is printed on the box cover of a DVD and you see this DVD in the video store, you can't include that information in a wikipedia article because it's primary research? That's absurd. JMarkievicz 23:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
OR is not using sources like boxes. OR is creating sources from thin air. So the fact that I like banana pie is OR because I'm the source saying it. However if I graffiti it on the overpass, then the source is the overpass not me. Wjhonson 05:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
And again *primary research* if you are defining it as research in primary sources, is not prohibited. Rather it is *original research* which means the creation of a source, which is prohibited for wikipedians to cite. That is, you cannot cite your own creations. You can however cite the creations of your crazy aunt. Wjhonson 05:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. However, in this case Sanchez was in a bunch of videos produced prior to July 3, 1995. How should they be handled? Pwok 22:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Look for a 2257 notice even if they were produced prior to July 3, 1995. Some producers provide this information even though it's not required. For instance, "Idol Country" gives a 7/94 production date. JMarkievicz 04:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Three problems, one theoretical and two practical. The theoretical problem is that unless ALL pre-'95 vids have the notice, that technique is unreliable. One practical problem is that some of the vids are listed as out of print, so reading boxtops wouldn't work anyway. The other practical problem is that there's no way in hell that I'm going to prowl the video stores of Seattle in search of all 38 Matt Sanchez videos. I'm interested in this subject, but not THAT interested. Pwok 06:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

All adult videos currently in print will have a 2257 compliance statement printed on the box cover and at the beginning of the video. If it was produced after July '95 it's required to list a production date. If it was produced prior to July '95, the production date is optional. If it doesn't have a production date, it'll have an exemption notice that says something along the lines of "This material was produced prior to July 3, 1995 and is exempt from the recording keeping requirements of 18 USC 2257." The 2257 compliance statement can confirm whether or not a video was produced recently -- or 12 to 15 years ago as Sanchez claims. There's no need to start trolling porn shops. Most of Sanchez's videos are available online as pay per view downloads. Video clips that are posted online are also required to include a 2257 statement. You can also find a 2257 statement on websites that publish explicit photos of Sanchez. I did a little googling and found production dates for his Pierre Labranche movies -- "Call of the Wild" and "Montreal Men". Also found a production date for a Rod Majors title, "Power Trip". JMarkievicz2 01:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The operative phrase in your post is "most of." It is impossible to verify the number of Sanchez's "original" videos. Beyond that, I think it's a secondary issue anyway. Wikipedia is now censorsing pornographic filmographies, so that aspect of this article will NEVER be anything but a joke. I'm going to spend a few hours on Friday figuring out the arcane editing conventions here and edit what can be edited, but unfortunately Wikipedia's principles are a sham when it comes to telling the full story about anyone involved in pornography. Pwok 05:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed edit

I propose to replace the section titled, "Adult film career," with the following. It uses material already cited, with some additions:

1. Gives the total number of films, which is verified at 38.

2. Corrects the misimpression that his videos were anything other than gay.

2. Includes Tijuana Toilet Tramps and Buttcrack Mountain among the titles.

3. Cites the varying estimates of films given by Sanchez in 1999 and 2007.

4. More thoroughly discusses the compilation issue.

5. Includes his 2007 claim to have performed in non-gay films, and its contradiction with his 1999 claim to have not played any bisexual roles.

6. Includes his 2007 claim to not be gay and to have never been gay, and his 1999 naming of two male actors that he found sexually desirable.

7. Improves some wording. I removed the word "starred" because I'm not certain he ever got top billing in any video. I think he was always a supporting cast member.

I omitted the sourcing from the proposed wording so we can concentrate on the wording as if it were verified. Which it is. Prior to making the edit, I'll present the verification. I'm doing it this way not to evade the responsibility to verify, which I consider necessary and reasonable, but to focus on one thing at a time. All in all, I think the new wording is factually accurate, and gives a truer picture of the whole.

Sanchez appeared in 38 gay adult videos, an undetermined number of which are compilations of previously-recorded material. The videos, distributed since 1992, were issued by Catalina Video, Bijou Video, Falcon Entertainment, and others. They include Call of the Wild (1992) and Montreal Men (1992) as "Pierre LaBranche," and Idol Country (1994), Man to Men (1995), Jawbreaker (1995), and Tijuana Toilet Tramps (1994), as "Rod Majors."
In a 1999 interview published on the Kristen Bjorn Video website, Sanchez (as Rod Majors) said that he had ceased performing in adult videos, but believed that he had made a total of 12 videos during his career. In interviews in 2007, Sanchez said that he had performed in the videos during two summers in the early 1990s, and revised the estimate of original performances downward. In one 2007 interview, he stated that he had made "roughly seven" videos, and in another he said that "I did a couple of adult films."
Scenes from some videos have been re-released as part of compilations, including Touched by an Anal (1997), Buttcrack Mountain (1999), and Mansex Meltdown (2006). Of the mixture of original films and compilations, Sanchez stated in an interview with Radar Magazine that it "was just the nature of the business, you shoot a lot of films and they use them forever."
Though he performed in gay porn films, Sanchez insists that he is not and never was gay, and that he has had no homosexual contact since joining the Marine Corps in 2003. In 2007, he told two interviewers that he had also appeared in non-gay adult videos, but declined to provide their titles. In the 1999 Kristen Bjorn interview, he had stated that "I have personally never appeared in a bi-video." In the same interview, when asked which of his male co-stars were his favorites, he cited one performer as "really nice," and another as "really attractive."

Pwok 01:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


I should note that my last posting was vandalized to render it virtually unreadable. It had consisted of four paragraphs, not one big block of type. Pwok 06:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, it's just Wikipedia not handling line breaks properly. I have fixed. --Elonka 06:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Overall I think the rewording is pretty good, though I'd recommend that we only include the names of those videos of his which have appeared in secondary sources. I also think it's not worth listing every single one of his quotes on the matter. I'd include the one about his retirement, the Radar quote, and the one about whether or not he's had homosexual contact since 2003. As for the others, I don't think they add much. Whether or not he thinks that another performer was "nice," isn't really encyclopedic. As for listing the 38 number, I'm okay on that, but maybe we should say, "as of 2007." The number will probably increase, as other compilations are issued. --Elonka 00:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason for the quotes is to establish his contradictory statements on his sexual orientation and the extent of his participation in gay vids. Same goes for his comments about his male co-stars. Using quotes rather than paraphrasing seems appropriate in the case of an article that has been the subject of controversy; as long as the quotes aren't out of context (and they are not), it's hard to argue with his own words. I agree about dating the number of vids, i.e., 38 as of 2007. As for which vids to mention in the body of the article, I can live with the secondary-source logic; while I believe that omitting a single title from the filmography is censorship, I see no need to list particular vids in the body of the article. Pwok 01:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Error needs fixing

In the section titled, "Marine Corps inquiry," the paragraph states that Sanchez was investigated for fraudulently soliciting money from U-Haul Corp. and United War Veteran's (sic) Council for a forthcoming deployment to Iraq. It states that Sanchez denied the charges, and stated that he never collected any money.

There are several problems with that version:

1. Sanchez spoke to an employee of Army Times Publishing Co., which publishes the Marine Corps Times, the Army Times, the Air Force Times, the Navy Times and the Military Times website that offers all four publications, a comment board and other information. Hoellwarth would correctly be identified as a writer for either Army Times Publishing Co. or (for clarity's sake) Military Times. As the articles appeared in the Marine Corps Times, the stories themselves should have that attribution.

2. There is no apostrophe in the name of United War Veterans Council.

3. Sanchez made conflicting statements about the matter. He told the Marine Corps Times that the charges were false, but he stated on a Military Times comment board the following: "I have e-mails from the parties involved detailing what the money they offered is for. Namely, my trip as a reporter overseas, and their sponsorship in exchange for promotional consideration. That information is pretty cut and dry."

4. The Marine Corps accused him of soliciting money, not collecting it. Collecting and soliciting are not the same; denying that he collected money did not deny that he solicited it.

5. Additionally, I propose that his current claimed trip to Kuwait and Iraq be mentioned in this section, given that it is the trip for which he was accused of soliciting the funds.

Therefore, the passage should read as follows:

On March 13, 2007, John Hoellwarth, a staff writer for Military Times, which publishes a newspaper for each service branch and a website that contains all four publications, a comment board, and other military-oriented information, reported that Sanchez was the subject of a Marine Corps inquiry about his appearances in pornographic videos.
In an article published April 1, 2007 by the Marine Corps Times, Hoellwarth wrote that the Marine Corps was also investigating reports that Sanchez had "wrongfully solicited funds to support your purported deployment to Iraq." According to the article, a Marine investigator accused Sanchez of "coordinating a $300 payment from the UWVC (United War Veterans Council) and $12,000 from U-Haul."
Sanchez told the newspaper that the charges were "demonstrably false." However, in a subsequent comment on the Military Times's website, Sanchez wrote that the organizations offered him money for a trip "as a reporter overseas, and their sponsorship in exchange for promotional consideration." Sanchez maintained that he never actually collected any funds from those organizations.
In late May 2007, Sanchez published comments on his personal blog implying that he had traveled to Kuwait and then to Iraq with American military forces. While he is there, Sanchez wrote, he will produce two radio programs, Hometown Heroes and In Their Own Words. He did not discuss financial, promotional or sponsorship arrangements for the trip.

Here is the source for the subsequent comment. Pwok 21:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

errors to be corrected

Wow, where to begin.

1. The Marine Corps has not "accused" me of anything. they are investigating "allegations" which stem from a complaint. A complaint filed by an unknown person or persons. Two of the allegations have been thrown out.

2. What I tell a newspaper and what a paper decides to print are two entirely different things. John only has so much space for his column, but we chatted for about two hours.

3. I didn't "imply" I had traveled to Kuwait. I said I had traveled to Kuwait. I'm currently in Iraq, in the Green Zone. I'll put up more blogs when I have time  :)

4. The additions to this column are just flat out slanderous. PWOK obviously has issues. He currently is in denial that I am in Iraq. LOL

5. I strike to have the article changed to where it was before the gay jihadist like PWOk were allowed to promote their propaganda. This piece has lost its credibility.—Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueMarine (talk • contribs)

Responses:

1. The wording of the Marine Corps' letter to Sanchez was an accusation.

2. Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, not what someone claims to have said to a reporter.

3. That helps. The wording of the blog left room for interpretation.

4. "Slander" is verbal defamation. "Libel" is written defamation. To collect damages for defamation, the material must be untrue, and, in the case of a public figure, published with reckless disregard for truth or falsity. I believe you meant to write that the additions are "libelous." Please say which additions are not true, and why.

5. LOL! Pwok 20:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Response

Not quite sure what most of the above is about. The word "accused" appears in the current version of the article only in connection with Sanchez's on-campus activism at Columbia; "John" appears to refer to coverage of the subject by various military outlets, in relation to which the importance of how long any interview was seems minimal; the article does not say that the subject "implied" anything; and if, by "flat out slanderous", one means thoroughly sourced and agreed upon by a variety of editors who have worked toward consensus, possibly. "Issues" on the part of an editor, apart from NPOV material that actually appears in articles, are fairly irrelevant. In any case, reading the subject's blog as it now stands indeed provides nothing except his own statement that he is in Iraq, and so skepticism might be seen as valid. Finally, referring to any editor as a "gay jihadist" smacks of personal attack. Robertissimo 18:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be best if "BlueMarine," a/k/a Matt Sanchez, would specifically list what is untrue. Accuracy matters a great deal to me, and if I've made any errors I'd like to know what they are. Pwok 23:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

In Iraq

This is where the inquisition-style tactics of "editors" truly shows itself. The article is a personal attack and the "skepticism" that I'm currently in Iraq just shows how farcical this has become. Wiki has rules for neutrality. PWOK and his ilk are anything but neutral. 64.110.169.173 21:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

From your wording, I'm guessing that you are Matt Sanchez. I remain skeptical that you are in Iraq, but in view of your statement here I'd support a mention that you've claimed to be there. Please say specifically what in the article is, in your opinion, a "personal attack." Thanks. Pwok 23:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Editorializing

This is an example of the type of editorializing that slants this article rather than sticking to the facts:

"The story became popular in the blogosphere, with rumors and speculation circulating about the details of Sanchez's past." The story has not become popular in the blogosphere. It's only two or three people who are hardcore psychophants people like PWOK AKA Wilson. The blogosphere is huge, two obsessed internauts are simply insignificant.

there's also a tone of accusation which is, of course, entirely out of Wiki's realm. I was specifically asked by the wikipedia administration to contribute to this article. I'm pointing out factual inaccuracies that should be corrected.

The above comment is unsigned, and as I don't know how to separate it from my response I used a line. My comments are those below the line.

The commenter makes three points. The first is that Sanchez isn't notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article. I accept the article's existence as a fact of life. It was here before I became involved; my interest is that it be accurate and comprehensive. The commenter's second point is that there is a "tone of accusation" in the article. I disagree. I think the article is dispassionate, though flawed in certain respects that I've been seeking to correct.

The commenter's third point is that (s)he is "pointing out factual inaccuracies that should be corrected." As someone who is vitally interested in facts, I wish the commenter would do this. Instead, I've seen a slew of personal insults here. Which, by the way, I'm equipped to handle, except when someone not only misuses the word sycophant but misspells it too.

Say whatever else you will, anonymous commenter, but I don't think that too many people who've read my comments about the Matt Sanchez matter and the issues emanating from it would term me "a servile self-seeking flatterer" for what I have had to say. Pwok 00:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I can also address the issue of whether it "became popular in the blogosphere". Just google for "Matt Sanchez". Almost every hit is of the one in this article. When I wrote my own article, I had to limit myself to half-a-dozen blogging references because there were just too many and mostly faintly redundant. It's not limited to two bloggers, there's many times that number. Wjhonson 02:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the wording "became popular in the blogosphere" seems appropriate. A video titled "Conservative Award Winner is a Military Gay Porn Star" was posted on YouTube. This video features a segment from Countdown with Keith Olberman in which a blogger, Max Blumenthal, discusses Matt Sanchez's gay porn career. As of right now this video has been viewed 1,047,728 times and favorited 732 times. The five sites that sent clicks to this clip are all blogs. Also, a technorati search on the term "matt sanchez gay porn" produces nearly 800 blog posts. Incidentally, I found this clip by clicking on a video posted by Matt Sanchez on his blog. It was listed first in the "related links" section at YouTube. This to me constitutes proof that this story was popular in the blogosphere. JMarkievicz 04:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The dispute over whether the Sanchez story was "popular on the blogosphere" goes to notability, the chief criterion for whether or not an article is justified. Given that Sanchez himself has been an active participant in editing the Wikipedia article, and given that he's given numerous interviews about the issues that led to it, I'd have to say that notability is beyond dispute. As for justifying the word "popular," I think Wjhonson and JMarkievicz have nailed it. Pwok 18:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

culture war

I believe a segment should be added linking this whole episode to the on-going cultural wars.

The above comment is unsigned, and as I don't know how to separate it from my response I used a line. My comments are those below the line.

What are "the on-going cultural wars," and how are they relevant to the Matt Sanchez article? How about posting a sample section that would address this factor? Also, you should sign your postings so we know who you are. Thanks. Pwok 00:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

New Information. Should be added

[Note- the first comment in this thread is hidden due to BLP concerns to prevent appearance in google- WjBscribe 22:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)]

I see nothing at that URL which confirms such information. --Elonka 01:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
It's a blog with an agenda, and even one of the more outspoken critics of Sanchez has commented there, noting that there is not a whole lot of substance to the allegation. It *is* scurrilous gossip, but I'm not going to get into a revert war over this. I'll let one of the admins take care of it, because they have a better history of making decisions stick. Horologium talk - contrib 04:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, for what it is worth, the IP address that was used to post these allegations here has been used only for vandalism against articles on conservative figures; no constructive edits at all. I'm thinking that this was not a good-faith contribution. Horologium t-c 04:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it's interesting that Sanchez saw and made a remark in that thread under his matthew.a.sanchez@gmail.com address. Wjhonson 04:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
"A reader swears..." is not gossip? Really?? I was the one who deleted the comment as gossip, and I do think it violates WP:BLP, but I'm not going to play revert-war over it, or argue about it further. Aleta 21:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes really. There's a big difference between gossip and evidence that cannot be verified. Gossip is not evidence. Gossip is "I heard it somewhere", not "here is the actual conversation recorded off an IM". It might be unverifiable, but we don't wipe talk comments simply because they are discussing some potential new evidence. Wjhonson 06:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
And that article, as Pwok says below, is unverifiable, and it is essentially "I heard it somewhere" in the form of "a reader swears". --Dropping it now, Aleta 22:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree it's unverifiable. I do not agree that it's "I heard it somewhere". Rather the form is, "here is the evidence I'm going to paste it right here for you." That's not the same thing. Wjhonson 01:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The queerty.com article is unverifiable, because the hookup website in question is anonymous. Anyone could post pictures of Sanchez there and claim to be him. Sanchez has lied about a whole range of subjects, but when it comes to Manhunt nothing can be nailed down. As for it being "scurrilous rumor," I'd part company with Horologium. Matt Sanchez is a former porn actor, [removed controversial negative comment about living person per WP:BLP- WjBscribe 22:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)]. It's difficult for anything about him to be described as "scurrilous" given his verified track record. Pwok 05:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Pwok please be careful with such strong comments about living people. They are just as unacceptable on talkpages. WjBscribe 22:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)