Talk:Matt Sanchez/Archive 4

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 3 |
Archive 4
| Archive 5 →


Contents

Back to original re-write by Elonka

It really should be obvious by now that pwok has some sort of fixation. There are several really bad misrepresentations of me, Matt Sanchez, on this blog.

1. The Kristen Bjorn interview is not me. The editors made that up and used as they do with the majority of their models, many of whom do not speak English.

2. The tone of the article is biased, accusatory and prosecutorial. It "did not become public knowledge..." I in fact, was very quick to respond in this "controversy".

3. Pwok and his two or three "friends" have pretty much orchestrated this campaign against me. I am the primary source, PWOK is an anonymous internet "personality".

4. I did no films after 1993. PWOK wants to create the illusion that I did.

5. John Hoellworth, a former Marine, is a staff writer for the Marine Corps Times, NOT the Army Times.

6. My response was "this is demonstrably false".

"the United War Veteran's Council and U-Haul, in order to fund a deployment to Iraq which he never actually made. Sanchez has denied the charges, saying that he never collected money from either organization"

7. There's too much bias in this article and that goes against the rules. I submit that we go back to the revised version before PWOK started making revision as a form of entertainment. He is using this article as a means of character smearing. Wikipedia needs to be held to a higher standard than some virtual bomb-thrower.

8. Please note, I'm currently in Fallujah. The radio shows will be on until September, and there will soon be several articles published. Thanks  :)

Matt Sanchez 17:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

1. This is the first time you have claimed that the Bjorn interview is a fabrication. Your claim should be noted, but the material should not be stricken.
2. That's your opinion.
3. You are the subject of the article, not "the primary source."
4. You claim to have "done" no films after 1993. Your claim should be noted, but not accepted as fact.
5. As I noted.
6. That was part of your response.
7. Wikipedia has rules against personal attacks. Let's see if any of the administrators (such as this WjBscribe character) decide to enforce them. I consider your statement a personal attack.
8. You claim to be in Falljuah. You have provided no independently verifiable evidence that you have been in Kuwait or Iraq. Pwok 05:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Since Sanchez has denied the Kristen Bjorn source (which was a bit iffy to begin with), I have removed the following sentence from the article:
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.[1]
In my opinion the sentence didn't add that much information, so it's not a huge loss. All it does is remove a definite date (1999) by which Sanchez had retired, and a self-reported quantity of # of videos. Is the removal okay with everyone? --Elonka 08:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm convinced Sanchez is lying when he says he stopped doing porn in 1993. Sanchez appeared in "Power Trip," a 1994 Studio 2000 release. This title is currently available as a PPV download at Maleflixxx.tv. According to the 18 USC 2257 compliance statement, "Power Trip" was produced on 2/1994. "Idol Country," another 1994 release, is also available as a PPV download at several adult video web sites. The 2257 page at a PPV site called Naked Sword, lists "Idol Country's" date of production as 7/25/1994. The 7/94 production date also appears in the 2257 compliance statement that's printed on the back of "Idol Country's" box cover. I also think we have more than enough proof that Sanchez appeared in well over a dozen gay porn videos. I've already provided a clear explanation why downthread under "Number of flims." So I disagree with any edit that implies he made fewer than a dozen gay porn videos. JMarkievicz2 06:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I do NOT agree to your edit. Sanchez has claimed it to be a fabrication; that should be noted, but the material should be used. To allow the subject of an article to invalidate sources is tantamount to allowing the subject to edit the article. Pwok 04:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Folks, could everyone please try to adopt a more civil tone? The more that everyone is yelling at each other, the harder it is to actually get work done around here. For example rather than saying that "Sanchez is lying," couldn't it be possible that he simply mis-remembered things by one year? I know that I would have trouble remembering exactly what I was or wasn't doing in 1993, since it was some time ago. Sanchez, would you agree that it's more accurate to say that you continued making films through 1994, or do you have some other explanation for the date discrepancy? --Elonka 09:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Sanchez has a track record of falsification on a range of issues. As a result, I think it's reasonable, and in fact necessary, to approach his current statements with skepticism at best. He should NOT be permitted to pass judgment on which sources are acceptable. Your pleadings for "civility" are curiously one-sided, given that Sanchez has viciously attacked this effort and some of its editors and you've written nothing about that. I consider being labeled "some virtual bomb-thrower" and having "some sort of fixation" to be personal attacks.
As you know, I am intensely skeptical of Wikipedia's ability to handle this sort of thing. This article was essentially vandalized by Mr. Sanchez at earlier stages, and turned into a joke as a result. Now, he's coming back with an effort to cherry-pick out sources, and to attack editors. I have my issues with the article, too, particularly the censorship of film titles. At a future point, I'm going to have things to say about the prostitution issue, which I consider to be poorly addressed here.
In the meantime, however, if "civility" is to be desired, then let it be desired across the board. As I have said in a different context, if Mr. Sanchez wants to mix it up I am perfect capable of doing so. If Wikipedia truly doesn't like that sort of thing and wants a sort of armistice, then let it apply to all. Pwok 15:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Number of films

I did not make a "dozen" films. This edit is really bad and is heavily biased.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs)

By my count you've appeared in at least 16 videos using the name Rod Majors, plus two additional videos using the name Pierre Labranche. I used TLA Video as a source and excluded any video that's listed as a "compilation" in its product description. For example, "Butt Crack Mountain" appears on the Rod Majors TLA filmography, but I excluded it from my count because it's listed under the compilation genre. So I agree. To say that you appeared in "a dozen" films is incorrect. Because it's an under-count. You appeared in at least 18 gay porn videos. JMarkievicz2 19:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Matt Sanchez is verified to have appeared in 38 pornographic videos. Facts are never biased. Pwok 01:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

culture wars

The gay bloggers who have categorically slammed me are mostly secular-progressives who want to create radical change. I believe the term gay-jihadist describes them well. These radicals abhor Fox News and are partisans of the personal defamation. I also appeared on Bill O'Reilly, the man who coined the Culture Warrior phenomenon. I believe the Coulter comment with my winning a national prize has made me a prime target because even though my prize has nothing to do with Ann's Comments.

It should also be noted that MSNBC sourced bloggers and innuendo to run their story, which is an all time low. This desperation is characteristic of this period in time when media has turned to sensationalism and public "news" has been outsourced to anonymity.

I submit that this should be noted somewhere in my article and I'd like to link it to the greater Culture Wars article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs)

"Marine Corps Inquiry" edit implemented

I've implemented the first edit that I had proposed, of the "Marine Corps inquiry" section. Note that the discussion of the USMC's accusations with respect to Mr. Sanchez's dealings with U-Haul and the veterans charity hinge to a minor degree on his posting on a Military Times comment thread. Because Mr. Sanchez continues to try to edit this article, and has attempted to erase and/or invalidate evidence of his history, I wanted to mention that I've saved the original Military Times comment page. If he goes into the comment thread and alters the content of his comment there, I'll post the original on the Internet and link to it as a source.

I am going to make a minor edit to the "Current status" section to reflect that Mr. Sanchez's current trip to Iraq, and his production of audio and video there, is his claim, as there is currently no verification that he's actually there or has produced the segments he has published. Pwok 17:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Reversion

I have reverted all of the edits made by Pwok, because he has started pushing his PoV again, and attempting to bury the changes with a flood of minor changes later on. The most egregious change was claiming that Sanchez was under investigation for his pornographic activities, which is something that is totally unsupported by the Military Times link accompanying it.

Further such edits will result in me sending this article back to AfD, where it will most likely get nuked. There are three two editors here (User:Pwok, and User:bluemarine and User:JMarkievicz, who are SPAs pushing their PoV, one of whom is the subject. This has to end NOW. Horologium t-c 17:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to echo Horologium's caution that there is a very real possibility that this entire article is simply going to be deleted outright, as a violation of WP:BLP. There are many other "controversial" bios on Wikipedia that been deleted recently, and I would hate to see that happen here as well. I strongly encourage anyone else who wants to make controversial changes to the article, to please discuss the changes here on the talkpage first, to ensure that there is consensus for the additions. Thanks, Elonka 17:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I very strongly object to Horogolum and Elonka's vandalism and censorship. Please tell me how to escalate this to arbitration. I posted the proposed change here a couple weeks ago, and there was ample opportunity to comment on it. In fact, the Military Times article did specifically state that Mr. Sanchez had been investigated for his involvement in gay porn:
"Jones wrote that Sanchez’s participation in porn films was part of the investigation, but that two of the three allegations against him involved lying “to various people, including but not limited to, representatives of the New York City United War Veterans Council and U-Haul Corporation” about deploying to Iraq at the commandant’s request."
It is abundantly clear that Horogolum and Elonka object to ME, as opposed to my edits. There is no point-of-view language in my edits. They've deleted factual information, and falsely claimed that the sourcing is inadequate. We need editors who are willing to set aside their personal dislikes and work on a factual and neutral article. If that's impossible, then yes, this article should be deleted on account of Wikipedia's inability to live up to its purported "principles" and "pillars."
In the meantime, I will restore my edit, as Horogolum's objection has shown to be contradicted by fact. Pwok 18:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Edit warring is an absolutely ineffective way of getting changes implemented. Also, you did not propose a change "a couple weeks ago," you posted a change one week ago, which was refuted by the subject of the article. I didn't see anyone else comment pro or con, but it was difficult to follow the discussion because the posts were very long and fragmented. That's not exactly a consensus to add information to the article. Next time, propose a change, keep your comments brief, and ensure that you have a genuine consensus in support of your change, and things should be alright. As for escalating things, please review the page at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Elonka 18:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The subject of an article is not allowed to edit it. That's a so-called Wikipedia "pillar," or is it a "principle?" Elokna, you have shown your personal bias against me, including calling me "drunk," "obsessed," "sick" and "having a crush on Sanchez" in private conversations. At the time I laughed it off as you know, but when it extends to your vandalism of an article it's no longer funny. Horogolum came up with one objection to justify his vandalism (which you have supported), and that objection is factually incorrect.
See if you can stick to facts here. I have. Editors are not forbidden from having opinions about the subject of an article. It is the articles themselves that must be neutral and verifiable. Exactly what in my edit was not neutral or verifiable? Be specific. Again, once I can figure out the ancana here, I'll be changing it back. I'll consider not doing that if you can come up with fact-based objections. Simply reverting my edits without fact-based objections is tantamount to banning my contributions here. It is not in your power to do that, so please don't try.
Also, I will be implementing another edit that I have proposed concerning his adult videos. In the future, please read the proposed edits. Thanks. Pwok 18:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hold on now. I haven't made any edits to the article. I merely posted information in the discussion when I felt someone was trying to make inaccurate or misleading changes. I thought that was the whole point of an article discussion. I'd also like to point out that a Marine Corps Times article did, in fact, say that Sanchez's "participation in porn films" was investigated. Marine Corps Times is owned by the Military Times Media group. JMarkievicz2 23:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that Horogolum's reversion is without basis. His mischaracterization of the Marine Corps Times article is the only basis that he cited, and it is wrong. I invite Horogolum to list his factual disputes with any of my edits. JMarkievicz2, what do you think of my edit that Horologum erased? I had put it out there for a week (Elonka was right that it was a week, not two weeks) for comment here. The only objection I got was from the article's subject, and his objections weren't to facts but rather a mixture of personal attack and assertions that I've violated the neutrality "pillar?" What do you think?
Note: I've changed my mind about re-reverting. I'm going to let this "mediation" thing play out, and see if Wikipedia is interested in living up to its "pillars" and "principles." Pwok 00:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
My own opinion about the new information[2] is that it was too much expansion in relation to the described incident. It is verifiable that Sanchez was under investigation, but beyond that we really don't know much aside from Hoellwarth's articles. To my knowledge the story wasn't picked up outside the military press. I'm also concerned that Hoellwarth may have just been writing about the allegations as they were news-worthy at the time, but is never going to publish a follow-up story saying that the investigation was dropped. His most recent article was on April 1, "Sanchez investigation wraps up today", but we haven't heard a peep out of anyone since then. In my mind, the fact that Sanchez is now in Iraq, implies that the investigation was dropped. But I agree that that kind of conclusion would be original research, so we can't remove the allegation from the article. But, because there's been no clear announcement either way, I say the most appropriate thing to do is to leave a brief mention of the investigation in the article (what we've currently got), and leave it at that. The accusations may or may not be unfounded, but until we know one way or the other, we shouldn't give them a lot of room in a Wikipedia article unless they're getting a lot of mainstream press. --Elonka 18:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
If the Marine Corps Times story was never relevant, as you now contend, then why did you quote it to begin with, and why does it remain in the article? That's inconsistent with logic, although not with your unfortunate pattern of applying one set of rules to yourself and another set of rules to others. As for Sanchez being in Iraq, that is his claim, which is currently not verifiable. Need I remind you that verifiability is a purported "pillar" at Wikipedia?
The investigation has not been "dropped," as you suggest without a shred of evidence for such a thing. In fact the investigator finished his work in April and wrote a report. Its recommendations are under review by the Marine Corps. As for your contention that "mainstream press" coverage is somehow necessary for an element to be mentioned here, then why are you so eager to accept unverified information from blogs posted by the subject of the article and his supporters? Please remember that "neutrality" is a purported "pillar" at Wikipedia, and that the "pillars" apply to you just as they apply to anyone else. Thanks. Pwok 23:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Another Reversion

I have restored the following, removed by Elonka a few days ago:

According to a 1999 interview on the 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 the discussion of Horogolum's unwarranted removal of my edits, Elonka wrote: "I strongly encourage anyone else who wants to make controversial changes to the article, to please discuss the changes here on the talkpage first, to ensure that there is consensus for the additions."

Elokna did not follow that procedure removing the sentence. Instead, Elonka went ahead and did it without asking anyone. Two editors have since objected. I agree that controversial changes should be discussed first. As there was never a consensus for the removal of that sentence, I have restored it. Pwok 20:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree and feel that the Kristen Bjorn quote should be removed. My reasoning is as follows: (a) It's from a dubious source, a message board of an adult video producer;[3] (b) The quote we want to use isn't that useful, it's just Majors/LaBranche stating that he's retired by that point, and a guesstimate from him on how many videos he'd made;[4] (c) The subject, Sanchez, has said that the quote wasn't from him, but was just made-up text from the video producer.[5] Taking those in combination, I don't believe that that interview qualifies as a reliable source. The quote from it should be removed from the Wikipedia article. What do other editors think? --Elonka 18:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The interview has been on the Internet for years, but there is no record of Sanchez having disputed its authenticity until now. He has had ample opportunity to do so in the many interviews he has granted since his porn acting and prostitution became public knowledge. Therefore, I think that Sanchez's disavowal of the interview should be noted, along with the interview's contents when relevant.
I intend to revise another section of the article, and in that section I intend to reference that source. In doing so, I'll note that Sanchez's accusation that the studio fabricated it. The subject of an article should not be able to invalidate sources solely on his word. Pwok 21:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Please review: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves. The Bjorn interview cannot be used because it fails two elements: (1) It is contentious; and (2) there is a reasonable doubt about who wrote it. When it originally came up, I felt that the Bjorn interview was a "source of dubious reliability," but it measured differently then. It wasn't contentious, as no one was arguing about the information we wanted to use, and there was general acceptance as to who the quote was from. Now that Sanchez has refuted it, it no longer meets that standard. As for whether the subject of an article can invalidate a source, it depends on the source. If CNN or TIME magazine said something about him and Sanchez refuted it, well, too bad, those are still reliable sources, and could be used in the Wikipedia article. But a collection of quotes from a message board cannot be regarded to be a reliable source. --Elonka 04:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Once again, you have inappropriately cited a purported Wikipedia "principle," or was that a "policy?" First off, what you cited refers to "articles about themselves," i.e., material contributed by a subject in an article about the subject. That is not the case here. Elonka, please refrain from misrepesenting Wikipedia's rules. Thank you.
Secondly, even by the standards of the rule you misrepresented, the Bjorn interview is not "contentious." The tone is agreeable throughout. Sanchez claims that it was fabricated; you want to accept his claim, which has the practical effect of allowing the subject of a controversial article to remove verified sources. I'm perfectly okay with noting Sanchez's objection to the source, but not with deleting the source.
Finally, you have not reponded to me about your habit of applying different standards to blog material that supports Sanchez, vs. blog material that doesn't. Please explain why you use one standard for certain material, and another standard for other material. To me, this is a violation of Wikipedia's purported "good faith" "pillar." Thanks. Pwok 00:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

A Test for Wikipedia

This article is controversial enough to have aroused intense debate here. Controversy tests "pillars" "principles" and "policies." We'll see if Wikipedia's rules are real.

I didn't know this article existed until late April. At that time, I was weighing how to handle the issue of Matt Sanchez. When I saw this article as it existed then, replete with edits by the subject that embodied his point of view and denied verifiable facts, I vigorously protested what I viewed (and still think of the version as it existed then) as a partisan hack job. After being suspended for the manner of those protests, I created my own website on the case, which was written from a point of view supported by numerous verified references.

In mid-May, after my suspension expired, I came back here to see if this article couldn't be improved. In doing so, I have scrupulously avoided putting my point of view into the article here; unlike my website, Wikipedia has a different editorial voice and I have followed it in my edits. I have followed all of Wikipedia's so-called rules in editing it, including giving proposed changes and allowing for discussion of them.

The article is somewhat improved, as my analysis on my site indicates. However, there remain a number of problems, including a dispute over how many of his videos to list; the total number of videos he made; his claim to currently be in Iraq; the nature of the Marine Corps' accusations against him and his responses to them; the subject's desire to remove valid secondary sources from consideration; and the nature and extent of Sanchez's activities as a male prostitute

In seeking to correct the errors, I have run into one editor, Horologum, who has deemed all of my proposed and actual edits invalid because I have a point of view about Sanchez. In fact, an editor is not prohibited from holding a point of view about a subject; it is the article itself that must be neutral and verifiable. Yet, as I have noted, Horologum has deemed all of my edits unacceptable, in effect seeking to exclude my input here. There is no Wikipedia "pillar" or "principle" or "policy" that allows one editor to summarily block the contributions of another; therefore, I consider his having done so vandalism under Wikipedia's rules.

A second editor, Elonka, has applied differential standards to herself and me. Elonka has made controversial edits without first establishing a consensus, while admonishing me that I must first establish a consensus before doing so. In fact, I have made no controversial edits without first proposing them well in advance. Additionally, Elonka has supported Horogolum's vandalism of my one significant edit thus far.

I believe personal dislike motivates Elonka. In private conversation, the transcripts of which I have available, Elonka accused me of being "drunk," "obsessed," "sick" and of "having a crush" on the subject of the article. My motivation is irrelevant; all that matters is the article's content. But, just for the record, I'd like to say that my motivation is not what Elonka has claimed. An accurate synopsis of my motivation can be found here.

Finally, there is the question of my tone on the discussion page. It has been notably harsh. That comes mainly from an experienced journalist's amazement at what has gone on here. The version I found here in April was terrible. If a writer or editor (I was both during my 12-year career) had tried to defend it in a newsroom, (s)he'd find (him/her)self on the layoff list in short order. My comments reflected a professional's intense disdain for what was a rinky-dink effort here.

Wikipedia purports to have a series of "pillars," etc. Wikipedia says it wants to "get it right." It claims to be an encyclopedia, and to be neutral, verifiable and comprehensive. It's easy to do this when there's no argument. When it comes to those anodyne World Book-style articles, Wikipedia is pretty good. When it comes to controversy, it has a real problem. Let's see what happens here.

I'm still a little rusty on the editing arcana here. I'll be submitting this to Wikipedia's so-called "Mediation Cabal." Let's hope that's not a grown-up version of high school. I ain't running for Prom Queen here, so if congeniality counts then screw it. But if the so-called "pillars" and "principles" count, then we can fix this. It might not look like it, but in fact I have a long track record, both as a journalist and in a subsequent career, of harmonious relations with editors, including when they proposed wholesale revisions.

What I don't go for, though, is disregard for fact or accuracy. Anyone who knows me knows that I am God's own triple-checker. Nor do I cotton to the implementation of personal grudges through the editing process; in spite of my definite personal views of various issues here, none of that has appeared in my article edits. Those things -- disregard for fact and personal grudge holding -- are the hallmarks of failure. If Wikipedia can't see that this article lives up to its "pillars" and "principles," then I think it ought to be deleted. Better to have nothing at all than a vandalized hack job. Pwok 20:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez on Right Wing News

I'm new to wikipedia and don't want to make an edit on what appears to be a relatively controversial page, however, I just wanted to make the editors aware of Mr. Sanchez' newest article which was done as an embed in Iraq (or so the site that picked it up claims). Here's the link http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/06/exclusive_to_right_wing_news_e_1.php . The editors can make whatever changes they want. I just want to clear up as well for any worries about bias, that I don't have a particularly positive or negative impression of Mr. Sanchez, but instead came across the article because I'm a politically interested ex columbia student who met him once or twice. 141.157.239.191 04:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)newbie

Thanks for the link, and please, do consider becoming a regular Wikipedia editor. We could definitely use more neutral voices on these kinds of situations.  :) --Elonka 17:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Sanchez's political perspective is an element of what made him controversial to begin with, and then prompted someone (not me) to create this Wikipedia article. To wit: He was a gay porn actor and prostitute, both activities scorned by conservatives, and then aceepted an award from a conservative group. But his continuing right-wing activity is a relatively minor thing, worthy perhaps of mention as part of his overall profile.
But it doesn't bear upon "bias" here; or, to put it differently, the fact that Mr. Sanchez is a right-winger doesn't by itself invalidate his allegations that this article is biased. Nor does it support his view. The article ought to stand on its own; is it neutral, factual, comprehensive and relevant? That's what "getting it right" is about.
I don't think it matters whether editors are personally "neutral" about Sanchez. Elonka isn't personally neutral, in my judgment. I view Elonka as a supporter of Sanchez. I don't care about that. What matters is whether the article meets Wikipedia's standards, and whether editors follow the rules in editing it. I'm hoping Horologium and Elonka can be persauded to conform to the so-called "pillars" and "principles" that Wikipedia claims to live by. Pwok 21:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

neutrality doesn't matter!!!!???

That's hilarious! I posted a Martha Zoller interview. There are several more, but I haven't received the audio yet. I'll keep you guys up to date---Matt Sanchez from Fallujah  :) 194.164.213.141 12:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality does matter. An article must be neutral. The author(s) and/or editor(s) need not be. Pwok 00:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

A pair of mea culpas

Yesterday, I posted a note to the talk page which contained two errors, which I have struck out in the comments above and for which I wish to apologize to the two editors I called out.

Firstly, to JMarkievicz:you are correct that you have not edited the article, only the talk page. When I checked the contributions for both of your accounts, I had noticed they were exclusively focused on Matt Sanchez, but failed to note that they were all on the talk page, not the article itself. For that, I am sorry.

To Pwok: When I read the Military Times article, I missed the fact that one of the three charges was for his participation in porn (perhaps a case of only seeing what I wanted to see). However, I stand by the reversion I made, because you placed far too much weight on the pornography aspect, failing to mention that the majority of the charges were for another set of issues. I noticed your rebuttals last night, but because you invariably edit things multiple times, I waited until today, when I could reasonably assume that what you had posted would remain stable. I would like to suggest that you compose your edits off-line, and after you have arrived at a suitable post, cut and paste it to Wikipedia. It would make following edits and composing responses much easier for all involved.

I rechecked my edit. I changed a mention of an investigation about "his past" to give the complete detail. It was an investigation about his participation in pornography, plus the financial accusations. That's verified fact. You deleted verified fact. Go back and actually read my edit. Your argument is that any mention in that section of the actual subject of the investigation places undue weight on his porn. In fact, it was his involvment in porn that was the main focus of the investigation; the financial accusations were add-ons.
I consider your revert to have been motivated not by a desire to "get it right," as is the purported "principle" at Wikipedia, but rather by your dislike of me and my participation here. If you had been editing in good faith, you'd have commented about any mention of the porn investigation during the week that my proposed edit was out there for comment. If you'd somehow missed that and wanted to make a change, you'd have edited the one mention rather than reverting the entire passage.
Moreover, your deletion of the edit of the next section of the article, about his current activities, doesn't match your stated objection, as it contained no mention of porn. Please make your edits in good faith, rather than as a means of personal attack. If you actually believe in any of the Wikipedia's "principles," you'd restore my original version. Pwok 21:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)



As to the idea of mediation, I strongly support such an action. Pwok stated that he was going to pursue mediation, but so far I have not seen it in the Mediation queue. I will wait a couple of days, but if he does not follow through, I will, because I don't think that I am objective at this point, and its obvious that my feelings are the same in regards to some of the other editors. Inviting a mediator will ensure that any biases that we (collectively) are expressing are minimized, and the resulting article is both factually accurate and within the scope of WP:BLP. Horologium t-c 18:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

He chose informal MedCab instead of formal mediation: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-04 Matt Sanchez. --Elonka 18:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I am still becoming familiar with Wikipedia's arcana. I'll see how this "informal" mediation goes, and take it from there. In the meantime, it would be good if editing would focus on the article itself and nothing else. That has not been the case here thus far. Pwok 21:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit Wars continue

It seems these days that 'unequivocal proof' is not enough. From Justine 'I didn't put my hand up' Henin-Hardenne to Barry 'I didn't know it was steroids' Bonds, there is a history of denial, even when the evidence is strong. Again here we have some people choosing to delete and/or minimize the 'escorting' text, despite such proof as Alan Colmes calling Matt Sanchez's number in the New York Blade and Matt admitting it himself initially. Remember, sometimes people have to think to lie; initial statements are often closer to the truth than later, contorted spins invented to keep one out of legal jeopardy.R Young {yakłtalk} 02:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't actually seen references to sources where Sanchez denies that he was a prostitute. There is one source where he denies being a prostitute recently, though it's phrased in such a way that one could easily interpret it as a denial of both being a prostitute recently and in the more distant past. He does say that Salon changed his submitted text, but he doesn't say that the escorting claim the changed text made was false. -- Beland 04:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
As is referenced in the article, he said "Not true". The source there is an interview at randythomas.org,[6] which Sanchez affirmed was an accurate transcript of his statements. My main consideration here is respect for WP:BLP, where it says that poorly-sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed immediately. Before we go listing someone as a prostitute in a Wikipedia bio, we had better be 100% sure of our sources. So far, all I've seen are a bunch of rumors in the blogosphere, and a "Yes" from Sanchez, when he was under rapid-fire high-pressure questioning by Colmes, which "Yes" he later refuted. So the closest thing we have to a reliable source, is a set of conflicting statements from one source, Sanchez, and no other solid sources from any direction. The Blade ad is not confirmed to have been Sanchez's ad, and even if it were, all it would prove was that there was an ad for massage services. Which still is not enough of a source to prove prostitution. If CNN or TIME magazine or even the Military Times said, "Sanchez was a prostitute," then I'd be okay on quoting that in the Wikipedia bio, with proper attribution. But barring that, I don't think it's proper for us to be making original research assumptions. --Elonka 05:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
A March 16 Marine Corps Times article refers to Sanchez's "admitted prostitution and gay porn past." This article uses the March 9 Colmes interview as a basis for stating Sanchez admitted he worked as a male prostitute. Even though Sanchez was interviewed by the Marine Corps Times for this article, it does not contain a denial of the prostitution allegations from Sanchez. Sanchez also participated in a 3-09-2007 Military Times discussion using the screen name mas2178. This discussion is linked to the Marine Corps Times article. Several posters on the Military Times thread criticize Sanchez for working as a prostitute/escort. Sanchez does not deny these allegations. However, in a response posted on 3-11-2007 Sanchez does say, "I want to be perfectly clear, that I own up to everything that has happened, and have yet to blame anyone." These non-denials re: prostitution are consistent with the statement that appeared in the March 8 Salon piece attributed to Sanchez. JMarkievicz2 19:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the link to the Military Times thread, I found it interesting. There are definitely many accusations made towards Sanchez, but I found no quote from him that affirmed prostitution, except where he said, "Pornography is prostitution."03-21-2007, 11:20 PM As I understand it, that is what he meant when he said, "Yes" in the Colmes interview to the concept of being a gay escort: That since he had been in gay porn, that meant that he felt that he had been a prostitute. However, I feel that this is not an accurate definition of the word prostitution, and for us to put in the Wikipedia article that Sanchez was a prostitute, would be an inaccurate statement. Or to put it another way: Just because someone has appeared in porn, I do not believe that this means that we should list them as a prostitute. We might or might not have enough to convince a jury, we do do not have WP:BLP's "multiple reliable secondary sources". --Elonka 21:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
There is abundant evidence of Sanchez's prostitution. It includes his op-ed in Salon.com, his statements to Alan Colmes, and his archived prostitution website combined with the evidence that he was its author and owner. All of those things are verified facts. Elonka, is it unfortunate to see you continue your effort to exclude verified facts from this article. Please remember that "getting it right" is a purported "principle" at Wikipedia, and that "neutrality" is a purported "pillar." Wikipedia's "pillars" and "principles" apply to everyone, including you. Thanks. Pwok 00:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem with his "porn is prostitution" explanation -- aside from the fact that few people use the terms interchangeably -- is that in the Colmes interview, Colmes clearly and repeatedly makes a distinction between doing gay porn and working as a male prostitute. Colmes uses a common slang term for male prostitute -- the word hustler. And Sanchez responds to Colmes by saying "That as well, yeah." and "I own up to all that stuff." Similarly, in the Military Times discussion, posters refer to prostitution and porn acting as two distinctly different things. Someone even uses the word escort -- another common slang term for prostitute.
I think it's also worth considering -- at least for the purpose of this discussion even if it's not up to wiki standards for inclusion in the article -- that credible evidence of his prostitution career does exist. At the time this story broke, there was a web site called excellent-top.com that had nude photos of a man with a similar build to Matt Sanchez. The heads were cut off of the nude photos, and Sanchez used a head shot on his original blogger profile that fit one of the escort nudes like a missing puzzle piece. A graphic that demonstrated this was posted on an earlier version of this article but has since been removed. There was also an audio file posted on the Excellent Top site that sounded like Matt Sanchez. Posters on an escort review site in a thread created in April 2001 identify Excellent Top by his real name, Matt. Several posters point out that Matt/Excellent Top and "Rod Majors/Pierre Labranche" are one and the same.
So at the very least, I think this article should include a mention that Sanchez was accused of working as a prostitute and that he's made conflicting statements about it. JMarkievicz2 02:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you on that, at least for now. The funny thing about all this is that I figured the edits of the Marine Corps inquiry and Adult film career sections would be easy, so I had intended to save the tough issues -- his prostitution career and the full list of his porn vids -- for later. There is a whole lot more to say about those things, but unfortunately we're now in a situation where some editors here are making bad-faith changes in what should have been pretty non-controversial stuff.
Frankly, I'm not sure how to treat the prostitution stuff right now. At the very least, I think a good-faith effort would leave the current content alone while we settle the other stuff. I've refrained from restoring the material censored by Horologium, and didn't implement my proposed edit of the adult film sectuion, in hopes of settling things before moving on.
But now we're confronted with full scale bad faith efforts here that look to me like they are aimed at restoring this article to the p.r. job for Sanchez that it was when I arrived here in April. It's a tough situation when you have people who want to exercise censorship and simply run roughshod over every so-called "pillar" and "principle" that Wikipedia claims to have. Pwok 02:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Assumptions or Allegations or Accusations

I've categorically denied the "prostitution" charge. I also did not call myself a prostitute in the Salon article no matter how badly some of the people on this board would like that.

Colmes invented the telephone number routine to catch me off guard and spice up the show. What person puts in a telephone number and voila it shows up with "incriminating evidence to surprise someone online. The number wasn't even mine, and the person's stats on that page don't even come close to me. they are off by 40lbs and 4 inches.

PWOK swears I'm still in Manhattan

By the way, one of the "editors" swears I'm still in Manhattan, so take that into consideration as he (she?) requests mediation  :) Matt Sanchez in Fallujah 194.164.213.141 12:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't "swear (you're) still in Manhattan." I think you have claimed to be in Iraq. I neither accept nor reject your claim, although in view of your track record I am skeptical of it. I note that your latest IP address, 194.164.213.141, shows evidence of having been used by other people to post on other websites. This is a characteristic of so-called "open proxies," which are often used for the purpose of camouflaging a poster's identity and/or location. You can clear all of this up very quickly by providing the means to independently verify your claim. If you're in Iraq, I not only have no objection to saying so, I insist upon saying so. Pwok 00:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Pwok, if you look at the articles that have been edited, there is a clear inference that several of the edits were from American military types in Iraq. Take a look at the edits on "Haditha Killings" and "Weapons of Mass Destruction", which are almost certainly from American soldiers; the first discusses specific responses to the issue in a unit deployed in Iraq, while the second is vandalism which calls out a soldier by name and rank. The edits to "Arabesh" could be from someone in Iraq posting (it has to do with typing in Arabic with a Western computer keyboard) and the others are relatively random. The IP trace says it originates in the UK, but I don't know how the Army has internet access set up over there. It might well be subcontracted out to a British ISP. Horologium t-c 05:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Sanchez has posted from a variety of IP addresses lately, which is another characteristic of someone using open proxies. 194.164.213.141 traces to the UK as you noted; another address he used recently traced back to Thousand Oaks, CA. In any case, nothing on Mr Sanchez's website can be verified as his own content originating in Iraq. There is every reason to be skeptical, as Mr Sanchez recently was caught passing off a recording of an author's voice and his own spliced-in questions .as a personal "interview." Footage of military operations from Iraq is freely available on the Web. Until independent verification can be obtained, Sanchez's claim to be in Iraq must be characterized as his claim. Pwok 09:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Corrections reverted, mediation

So I came to this article after reading the request for mediation. I decided to go through the article and look for non-neutral statements. I didn't find anything terribly out of whack, but some of the claims did not accurately represent what the referenced sources said. I corrected these issues, and noted some points that need additional references. Ryoung122 reverted all of my edits, with the summary, "reverting wholesale, biased POV deletions".

I also notice that some factual and grammatical corrections made by Pwok, have also been reverted. This includes things like the mistake which says that Sanchez says he is in Kuwait. If you read his blog, he actually says that he is in Iraq, but travelled through Kuwait to get there. Pwok in the past attempted to add more detail about what Sanchez says about the UHaul/United War Veteran's Council affair. I'm not sure his edit accurately captured the claim that Sanchez made - he was saying they offered him money, but that he didn't take it. This is different than claiming that someone is making the whole thing up, which is what the article currently implies. I find that somewhat misleading. I would correct the article, but I am concerned that my work will simply be reverted again.

I do not know what POV it is that I am supposed to be supporting. I am concerned that the article has been reverted to a revision which does not accurately represent its sources. I also put the article in chronological order, which I thought made it easier to digest, and this too was reverted. Could someone please explain in detail why they have a problem with the edits I made? If the resulting text did not sound neutral, that's a problem we should work together to remedy.

The article is overall relatively neutral, which is something of an achievement for such a potentially controversial issue. Once the sourcing issues are addressed, it will be in very good shape, and I don't think there should be any worries about deletion.

There are two possible areas for expansion. One, I'm left a bit curious about what sort of "pro-military" activism he or his group engaged in. Was the university non-discrimination policy their main project? Two, the results of the Marine Corps investigation, which apparently aren't available yet.

As for the inter-editor conflicts that generated the request for mediation, it's certainly true that edit warring is not a technique that tends to facilitate forward progress. It's not always possible to know in advance what other people are going to object to, or find controversial, and Wikipedia does encourage people to "be bold" when they think it's appropriate. It also advises us to assume good faith. For instance, I assume the editor that reverted my edits has good reason for doing so, even if I don't understand exactly what it is yet. Which is why I'm asking for an explanation here, rather than simply re-inserting my changes. There is also sometimes the problem that good changes are reverted along with objectionable (in the eyes of the reverter) changes, which is easier but not quite as friendly. Some people are asking for more justification on the talk page when making insertions. That's not necessarily a bad idea, though for example I thought the justification for the edits I made should be obvious, either inherently, or from reading the referenced sources. It's also helpful for forward progress, if people are making substantive reversions, to put an explanation on the talk page. -- Beland 04:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Normally talk page discussions are most productive when focused on article content, but since mediation was requested, I'm going to go out on a limb here and comment a bit more on talk pages and consensus-building techniques. I don't mean to criticize anyone personally, but just point out some common patterns which may cause disharmony, and for which there is some standard advice which may bear some regurgitating.
With regard to some of the comments made about personal attacks and whatnot, various edits and comments on edits have offended some of the editors. Unfortunately, this has resulted in escalating tension. The only advice I can give is that the best response to a personal attack is to ignore it, and address the substance of what the other person is trying to say with regard to the text of the article. If the attack is particularly nasty, other editors will come to your defense. Or at the very least, it will be self-evident that the attacker is being mean, if that's really the case. Ignoring attacks is somewhat disarming, in that it breaks the cycle of angry escalation, and gives the perceived attacker the opportunity to revise their opinion of you, if they see you suceeding in negotiating a reasonable compromise text for the article. I would also say that it's almost never a good idea to accuse another editor of vandalism, unless they are replacing the article with "poop" or writing "John is gay" in it for no particular reason, or something like that. Not all "bad" edits are vandalism, and the difference lies in the intention of the editor, which is usually not clear from the edit itself. Calling a "bad" edit vandalism is basically accusinging someone of intentionally screwing up the article, which most people who aren't fond of "poop" and the like are of course not trying to do. Phrases like "If you had been editing in good faith" and "if you actually believe in any of the Wikipedia's 'principles,'" are not helpful, because even if in a given situation you might think they have merit, (and I'm really not expressing an opinion about that) they are basically saying to the other person that they are acting in bad faith, and that they aren't good Wikipedia patriots, and that's exactly what "assume good faith" is telling you not to do. Not because everyone always acts in good faith, but because a.) people often misjudge other people's motives in the heat of editing and b.) if someone is being unreasonable, the best way to get them to calm down and negotiate a compromise is not to scream at them, "You are being unreasonable!" but to politely pretend that they are being reasonable, and engage them with reasonable objections to their changes. -- Beland 05:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not so wedded to my prose that I can't accept criticism and correction. I understand your point about U-Haul and the veterans charity. I don't agree with your interpretation but I'm not bent around a tree about it either. One reason I'm not is that, once the USMC is finished processing the report about Sanchez, the investigation will be released to me and I expect this issue to be settled once and for all. In the meantime, I'm fine with waiting. Of course, once the investigation is released I can count on Elonka, and perhaps you, to invent reasons why its results shouldn't be mentioned here.
As for the rest, I am highly skeptical of the good faith of the editors who I've called out. I think they've abundantly demonstrated their lack of good faith. Similarly, there's no "compromise" to be had when it comes to facts. You don't split the difference on facts. If something's factual and verified, as long as it's relevant it belongs in the article. If it's disputed, then you include it and note the dispute. That's the way it ought to be, anyway. Pwok 00:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Deletion

The following section is a complete fabrication

"Sanchez has given conflicting statements about the escorting allegations."

I've never given conflicting statements. the Salon.com never mentions that I "advertised services as a male escort" that is a complete fabrication. I compared myself to a former Marine who was in adult films and the editor changed it to Jeff Gannon, whom I had never met and would not compare myself to. Although I do think there are similarities, but that wasn't an admission to anything.

The Colmes "surprise" was a fabrication

It is completely unsubstantiated to link me to "No Regrets Massage" That isn't my phone number and I told Colmes "No" six times in a row. Go back and listen to the audio.

Please note, I also explained to Colmes that it was obvious I had had money for sex that was what adult films were about--duh.

I strike to have the following paragraph removed.


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."[11] 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."[12] In a March 9, 2007 interview with Alan Colmes, when Sanchez was asked if he had worked as a male prostitute, he replied, "Yes."[13] However, on April 9, Sanchez subsequently denied that he had been a male escort, saying, "Not true."[14] During the Colmes interview, Colmes told Sanchez that he had found an ad which showed Sanchez advertising massage services in the November 19, 2004 issue of the New York Blade, and that the phone number in the ad was the same number on which they had contacted Sanchez. Sanchez, for his part, insisted that it was not his ad, and that he had only had his current cellphone for a year.[13]

Discussion

I agree that the claim "Sanchez has given conflicting statements about the escorting allegations." is not supported by the cited references. I attempted to change this paragraph to more accurately represent the referenced sources, but my work was reverted. I have removed the entire paragraph per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons until this dispute can be settled. The version I proposed was:

---

A Salon.com op-ed piece on March 8 attributed to Sanchez Salon.com 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."[1] However, in a blog post the same day, Sanchez claimed that the Salon.com editors had added this language, and posted his own version of the editorial.[2] In a March 9, 2007 interview with Alan Colmes, when Sanchez was asked if he had worked as a male prostitute, he replied, "Yes, this was one of the worst years of my life."[3] On April 9, Sanchez denied other allegations that he had been a male escort in more recent years.[4]

  1. ^ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named salon1
  2. ^ http://www.matt-sanchez.com/2007/03/saloncom.html
  3. ^ Hannity and Colmes (video) (March 9, 2007). Retrieved on 2007-05-05. Partial transcript:
    Sanchez: It was 15 years ago, and it just wasn't gay porn, by the way. Uh, but it was 15 years ago...
    Host: What what else did it, what else was it?
    Sanchez: It was more than that it, but it was porn ...
    Host: Did you work as a male prostitute?
    Sanchez: That as well, yeah.
    Host: You were a male prostitute.
    Sanchez: Yes, this was one of the worst years of my life.
    Sanchez goes on to describe how many of his male clients did not consider themselves gay, and how he had both male and female clients.
  4. ^ Interview with Matthew Sanchez. randythomas.org (April 9, 2007). Retrieved on 2007-05-05.

---

I can't vouch for the bit about the Blade ad (thus not included above), because I haven't listened to the entire interview yet. (Perhaps we can start with just getting agreement on the first claim.) The randythomas.org page isn't entirely clear about what is being denied. I haven't seen any other published sources in which you've clearly denied that you were ever a male prostitute, Matt, but if you could point us at them, I'll be happy to note that in the article. Wikipedia can't be the medium of first publication for facts we report. -- Beland 15:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Also from the Colmes interview...
COLMES: You were marketing yourself as a masseur for gay men and also doing gay films. And you said you were a prostitute for gay men so...
SANCHEZ (overlap): Yeah. There's a different word for that today.
COLMES: Hustler. Whatever.
SANCHEZ: I own up to all that stuff.
COLMES: Why would you do that if you're not gay?
During the March 9 Colmes interview Sanchez mentions the salon.com article, but he doesn't challenge its accuracy. JMarkievicz2 17:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I support the temporary removal of the paragraph for now, while we discuss what to do with it. Once we come up with a consensus version, it can be put back in. Personally I don't think it's appropriate to put in primary-source transcripts, because they can be manipulated by only quoting selective slices. I also think it's inappropriate to try to do all this original research about whether or not Sanchez was a prostitute, when the only source we have on this is his own statements, and his public statements have been clearly contradictory. In other words, we should stick to reliable secondary sources, rather than trying to build an article section out of primary-source interviews. And there's not a single secondary source that says that he was a prostitute. The closest we've got is the Military Times piece that says he was being investigated. So, let's report that, report that the media was covering rumors, and leave it at that. --Elonka 19:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Once more, you are manipulating and misrepresenting Wikipedia's purpored "pillars" and "principles." It is NOT "original research" to find the evidence that Sanchez was a prostitute. It is supported by his own article at Salon.com; by his statements to Alan Colmes; by the combination of his archived escort page and the evidence that he was that page's owner. Your claim that his prostitution isn't verified is simply wrong. Moreover, you are going further than that; you are censoring any mention of his prostitution. That, in my opinion, is evidence that you have departed from Wikipedia's purpoted "pillar" (or is it "principle?") of "good faith" in the editing process. Pwok 00:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I found another inconsistency with Sanchez's claim that Salon added the reference to Jeff Gannon. In this discussion Sanchez says, "I compared myself to a former Marine who was in adult films and the editor changed it to Jeff Gannon, whom I had never met and would not compare myself to." But no such reference to a "former Marine who was in adult films" appears in the draft of the Salon article posted on Sanchez's blog. However, the Salon article does mention Rich Merritt as well as Jeff Gannon. This glaring inconsistency is enough to cast doubt on Sanchez's claim that Salon substituted one name for another. JMarkievicz2 22:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

REQUEST FOR DELETION Kristen Bjorn "interview"

I NEVER gave this written interview to Kristen Bjorn. He fabricates those interviews. Most of his models don't even speak English. I attest that I didn't give the interview, and it should be removed. His comments about Barbara Streisand are just a fabrication.

Other films included Man to Men and Jawbreaker.[1] 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.[17] Matt Sanchez 15:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted this sentence because:
  • The authenticity of the interview is disputed (on this talk page, but that doesn't negate the existence of the dispute) by one of the participants
  • The source does not have a reputation for objective and reliable journalism, and has a financial interest in fabricating the material, and thus does not seem to be a reliable source.
  • At least one other editor agrees with the assessment that the source is not reliable.
  • There are more reliable sources for determining when Sanchez retired from the porn industry and how many movies he has made. Some of this information is already in the article, such as the list of movies and release dates.
  • WP:BLP requires strong references.
Wikipedia should not be censored at the request of the subjects of its articles, when reporting verifiable facts from reliable sources. However, the challenge to the factual reliablility of the claim in question seems to be legitimate. It doesn't matter whether it's the subject of the article or some other editor that raises the challenge; it should be evaluated in the same way. -- Beland 15:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I object! For starters, this is a bone of contention. You have made an edit that it NOT supported by consensus here. As I've suspected all along, Wikipedia's purported "pillars" and "principles" are free to be ignored at will. What a joke. Secondly, at no point until a few days ago did Sanchez raise an objection to the interview, nor is there any record of his objection for the many years that the interview has been on line. Thirdly, if there are other reliable sources for the material in that interview, as you claim, please tell us what they are. You state that "Wikipedia should not be censored at the request of the subjects of its articles," but that it exactly the effect of your NON-CONSENSUS censorship of verified material. Pwok 00:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you read Wikipedia:Five pillars, "consensus" is not listed among them. It's a nice goal, and it's certainly helpful to listen to everyone who might have helpful input on an article. You're right that there was no consensus about this material, but a lack of consensus doesn't automatically mean that the status quo must be preserved. For this article, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is a fairly strong policy which favors the removal of disputed material. And as it happens, there are more editors in favor of removing the material than keeping it. Just because this particular call came out the same way as the subject of the biography wanted it to doesn't mean that it was automatically wrong. The policy sets a relatively high standard for verification, which this material doesn't meet. Wikipedia can be sued for libel by printing material that doesn't meet that high standard. I don't think enforcing high editorial standards for verification is censorship; it's responsible journalism. As for finding sources, the list of videos that Sanchez has appeared in is already referenced in the article. If you're looking to nail down the date of his "retirement", that's somewhat disputed, and might never be proven. I would suggest looking at documents related to the Marines' investigation if you want to find counterclaims. The policy does not allow the retention of unreliable claims until reliable sources can be found for them; it requires their immediate removal. So it is not necessary for me to produce additional sources before removing the material. -- Beland 03:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I support the removal of the Bjorn quote, for the same reasons that Beland has articulated. It's not a reliable source, the authenticity is disputed by the subject, and we're dealing with a WP:BLP issue, which requires that we only use the very highest-quality sources. The Bjorn interview doesn't measure up. --Elonka 19:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

New Archive

The talk page was getting huge, so I broke the older stuff into a new archive. It's still over 61K long, but it was about 118K before. Horologium t-c 01:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Addition to Aatombomb's edit

Aatombomb went ahead and re-added the info about the investigation into Sanchez's film and escorting history. I read all of the Military Times articles, not just the one link already in that paragraph, and discovered that the first one was the appropriate link, not ref (14), the one that gives an overview of all three charges. The first reference is primarily about the porn and escorting issue. The second one is Sanchez's acknowledgment of the porn film charge (it does not address the escorting issue, however, which is only covered in the first article). That should bolster Pwok's assertion that Sanchez was indeed investigated for the escorting claims. This was the link that should have been there in the first place.

As for the films issue, I put all of the film data into a spreadsheet, and I have determined that with one exception, all of the "original" films that Sanchez acted in were from 1992-1995, with one exception. That film, for which I cannot find any additional information about, is for some two-bit outfit called Wildside Productions, entitled Uncut Cocks. The IAFD site does not note it as a compilation, but it also lists the running time of the film as 0 minutes, and doesn't have any director info, so it's probably safe to say that the data might be a bit faulty for that film. The title itself sort of implies that it is a compilation, rather than an original story. Every other film released after 1995 was a compilation, so even if we include that (I don't think we should), Sanchez hasn't done any porn films for at least 10 years. Horologium t-c 05:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

So, Horologium, what basis now exists for your censorship of my edit a few days ago other than your evident belief that I should not be editing this article? Let's see if you can come up with yet another justification. Absent one, I see no reason why my original edit shouldn't be restored. If you were operating in "good faith," another so-called "principle" at Wikipedia that you haven't followed here, it would be you who'd make the STET of my text. ("STET" is proofreader-ese for "restore text." Journalists, who in the day also knew how to separate their work from their personal biases, are familiar with the terminology.)
As for what to include in his filmography, my position there is that, as there exists a verified list of each of his 38 videos, all of them should be listed. Anything less is, in my opinion, censorship. I do realize that some editors of Wikipedia are in favor of censorship, i.e., you and Elonka. I am against it. Wikipedia claims that it does not censor content, but like the rest of its purported "pillars" and "principles," I think there is less than meets the eye to the claim from Wikipedia. Pwok 10:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow, how blunt do I need to be? Let's try this, since you obviously missed the point of my post--I FUCKED UP. Did my original post not spell it out clearly enough for you? I clearly acknowledged that I was wrong, and I even added cites that properly bolstered your original claim, which I noted here on the talk page. I was trying to bury the hatchet, but it's apparent that you can't let my inaccurate but good-faith edit go. And despite your assurance that you have no personal biases at work here, the almost single-purpose account nature of your editing belies your claim. (Until three days ago, when you started editing James Kim (about whom you ALSO have an accusatory website), you had only two edits that didn't relate to Sanchez, out of over 300 edits. Take a look at the contributions from Elonka and me; Elonka is one of the most active, productive and broad-based editors; I have significantly fewer edits, but they cover a fairly wide breadth of issues, most of which have nothing to do with this subject. I came across this page while checking recent edits on May 11th; I saw some grammatical issues and fixed them, not realizing the contentiousness of the page.
As for the filmography, you've made your position clear. Let me make mine clear--either follow the WikiProject Pornography guidelines (no more than six films, unless they are notable), or cite only films for which Wikipedia has entries (if the films are important enough to be listed here, they should be important enough to have entries in Wikipedia). Once again WP:BLP is an issue; pages which contain overwhelmingly negative information or serve as attack pages can (and have) been deleted, even if they are factually accurate and well-sourced. I am hopeful that the informal mediation resolves the issue; if it is unsuccessful, I will take it to formal mediation. Horologium t-c 15:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
It is good for you to acknowledge your error. Seriously, it is. Now I am asking you to fix it by restoring my text. If you want to "bury the hatchet," you'd go a hell of a long way to doing it by taking that action. No one should ever be too proud to fix their mistakes. That's what I do with those multiple "after-edits" that you have mentioned. It's all about triple-checking.
Now, as for the "SPA" nature of my contributions, I'd say a few things. First, even Wikipedia acknowledges the value of so-called SPA participation. The acid test is the article, not someone's motive. Secondly, today's "SPA" editor can become tomorrow's broader contributor. You start by writing about things you know and care about, and then go from there. Thirdly, as to the James Kim article, if you actually would bother to read my edits there and compare them to the website, I think even you could discover that I have scrupulously kept my POV out of the Wikipedia article about the Kims. In fact, some of my editing there has been to remove material that I think tended to criticize them.
As for the filmography, I realize the contentiousness of that issue. I've been trying to save the hardest crap for last. I am adamantly opposed to the censorship of filmographies. I think it is a stinking, steaming pile of hypocrisy and horseshit. That said, I had been hoping that, before we return to that particular argument, we could solve the easier stuff. Your unwarranted shitcanning of my edits a couple days ago truly shocked and angered me. Pwok 18:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)I have reverted the Marine Corps inquiry section to what you originally posted, with one change: I removed some of the excess verbiage about the Military Times Group in the first paragraph. It was needlessly wordy. I also added the CORRECT reference, as I pointed out earlier. (The Marine Corps Times piece from 3/17, not the 4/1 piece referenced later.) I am not particularly happy with the last paragraph in that section, but let's see if we can come up with something that is acceptable to all concerned, and assume good faith on the part of Sanchez claiming he is in Iraq. I think that if he were not there, there would be an uproar everywhere, since he is still in the cross-hairs of the political left wing. A look at the comments threads at Right Wing News indicates that a lot of trollish comments have been deleted, which indicates that Sanchez's detractors are aware of the reports he is filing, so it's not like it's something that's classified Cosmic Secret. Horologium t-c 01:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Filmography

The Filmography doesn't make sense and does not reflect the films I did. Also, the majority of films were (solo) meaning just me. You should add that on. Please note, one film is listed as "bi", as the scene was bi. I also did approximately 9 scenes all together.

These are your claims. Where is the verification? Verification is one of those purported "pillars" at Wikipedia. Pwok 18:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Most of the original titles on Sanchez filmography are available online as a PPV download. Screen caps for these videos are also posted online. Sanchez is frequently depicted with other men. Examples: Powertrip, Call of the Wild, Montreal Men, Idol Country, Wet Dreams. The one bisexual video on his filmography, Bi Conflict, was re-released as "Conflict of Interest," a gay only title. A screencap on this page shows Sanchez performing oral sex on another man.
More photographic proof (NSFW) can also be found here, here and here.
Aside from the ample photographic evidence, video reviews are also available that give explicit descriptions of Sanchez's performaces. Ex: Jawbreak, Built Tough, Man to Men, Hard Body Video Magazine 5, Northern Exposures, Woody's, Conflict of Interest.
That's more than nine scenes BTW. JMarkievicz2 19:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, in the Kristen Bjorn interview that Mr. Sanchez has only recently described as a fabrication, he stated the following: "I think there is a totally different dynamic with bi videos that you can't get in gay videos. I have personally never appeared in a bi-video."

Reader to writer

There's no mention of the series we developed and I produced. From Reader to Writer was for American Airlines. I can submit the necessary information on it as well as the audio.

Verification is the key. Pwok 18:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for correction of Marine Corps Investigation

The investigation NEVER included "escort" charges. I can submit the ORIGINAL e-mail from the Lt. Colonel to Elonka. Matt Sanchez 11:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you have a track record of falsifying e-mails. And, in any case, an e-mail isn't a reliable source. Here's an idea: Military law requires that you be given a copy of Col. Jones's investigation and recommendations. How about posting the complete investigation on the Internet, by which I mean jpegs of each page? And make it complete, because as soon as the Marine Corps completes its review that investigation will be released. You say you want the facts out. That's quite easy to accomplish, and you know it. Pwok 18:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Deletion

There are some huge problems with the accusations lobbed against me.

1. I never even mentioned prostitution for the Salon.com article.

2. I have NEVER said I was an escort or a prostitute. I request that you remove all mention of either of those terms, as they are implied, inferred or supposed by third parties and NOT by me, the source.

3. During a subsequent Colmes interviews a caller asked me if I had been an escort and I, for the record flat out said "No".

4. The "accusations", allegations are simply not there. Also, the Marine Corps never accused me of prostitution/escorting. I have the original e-mail. Matt Sanchez 11:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You have made conflicting statements about your prostitution. You confirmed it in your Salon.com article and in your first interview with Colmes. Then, after you read Internet commentary noting your potential criminal liability under the UCMJ, you backtracked. Ever since, you've been trying to erase the factual record. My obsession is not with you, Mr. Sanchez, it is with accuracy. Fact is king in my world, and I will tirelessly promote fact against anyone and everyone who wants to ignore it, erase it, alter it, or censor it. Pwok 18:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't read the Salon article as either an affirmation or denial of prostitution. Its authenticity is also disputed, and Salon is something of a left-leaning media outlet without a long-standing reputation for impeccible ethics, so it's not inconceivable that the disputed material was added based on previous interviews. However, during the interview I listened to, Sanchez clearly said that he had worked as a male prostitute. I don't see why that should be removed from the article. If you have a citation, Matt, for the interview in which you specifically denied being a male prostitute, we can also add mention of that, after verifying it. E-mails sent to Wikipedia from the subject of a biography are not really admissible for encyclopedia content. However, the article currently does not claim that the Marine Corps has filed charges of prostitution, so it is not really an issue. (I'm not sure why they would have jurisdiction over an alleged crime that was committed by someone before they joined, unless they lied about it on their application or something, but whatever.) -- Beland 03:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the article DOES mention the prostiution charge, as Aatombomb added it back in earlier tonight. Horologium t-c 03:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

In Their Own Words, Hometown Heroes

I'd like to submit the graphic for the two radio programs we are currently producing as well as a list of the radio stations who are playing them.

Thanks.

Matt SanchezMatt Sanchez 12:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I support mentioning the titles of the programs, but I think including graphics would turn the article into a promotional tool for Mr. Sanchez's fourth career. (Pornography, prostitution, marine, and now radio personality.) Wikipedia shouldn't function as a public relations tool. Pwok 18:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Request this statement be DELETED

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."[11


1. I never "took note of the charge" of prostitution. That is completely false. At that point, no one had charged me with anything.

Please delete the above comment as it it does not reflect the reality of my words.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs)

You claim that it doesn't reflect the reality of your words. Anyone can read the Salon.com article and see that you indeed "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.' " You can argue with history, Mr. Sanchez, but you cannot erase it. Pwok 18:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Alan Colmes Interview=

Please note, I said "No" to Alan's accusation at least four times.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs)

This was after you said "Yes" in Salon.com and after you said "Yes" to Alan Colmes. The appropriate way to handle this is to note your conflicting statements. Also, there is ironclad documentary evidence that you created and maintained a prostitution website between 1999 and 2002. At some future point, I'll be seeking to add mention of this in the article. Mr. Sanchez, this is about facts and nothing else. Pwok 18:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I said "No" to Colmes several times.. I also never said "Yes" in Salon.com and no one has even cited Salon.com here. There is no "ironclad" anything. You have a website that could be one of thousands and no link to me. I strike to have this removed from the article. Mr. "Pwok" isn't using facts, he's using vitriol. Matt Sanchez 04:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

A Challenge to Mr Sanchez

You claim that the Marine Corps never investigated your prostitution. As you know, the Marine Corps investigator, Col. Charles A. Jones (note that he's not a Lt. Col. as one of your recent posts implied), completed his investigation in April and then wrote a report that included his recommendation on how to handle the matter. The report is currently under consideration by senior USMC officers, and will become releasable to the public once they make their decision.

Military regulations require that you be given a copy of that report and be allowed to respond. In other words, you have a copy of the report right now. Your release of its full contents would provide the truth as to which elements of your life the USMC's investigated, as well as the investigator's evaluation of your conduct and credibility, and his recommendation concerning your future with the Marine Corps.

You have repeatedly claimed to desire a factual account here. I am skeptical of your claim, but I'd be less skeptical if you scanned the entire report into JPEG files and posted them on the Internet. Be aware of course, that once the USMC releases it to the public, I'll be comparing what you provide to what the Marine Corps releases to the public. I suspect that the Marine Corps Times will do the same.

It's all about the facts, Mr. Sanchez. So let's have them. Pwok 21:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Lack of Neutrality

I submitted the original list of charges to one of the editors. Prostitution is not one of the charges, so that term should be completely removed from this article. Thanks for the help in setting this article straight194.164.213.141 03:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Matt Sanchez 04:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't care if you are straight or not, or whether you are being charged with prostitution or not. The fact of the matter is, you admitted to it on tape, and more than once. Not only that, but your phone number matched an escort ad in a local gay magazine. Trying to change your story now only bespeaks a pathological liar, not a pursuer of fairness.R Young {yakłtalk} 05:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"Neutrality" means telling the story objectively, not removing all evidence that one doesn't like from the article.R Young {yakłtalk} 05:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Facts. Move to Delete all "insinuations" and rumors as they are not Facts

The "rumors" from the blogosphere are self-perpetuating. I move to stick to the facts of this article and not the "rumors" as the rumors. Please consider striking the following:

"The story became popular in the blogosphere, with rumors and speculation circulating about the details of Sanchez's past. Contents"

"his sparked public attention and controversy, during which Sanchez's earlier career as a star in gay adult films was brought to light. The story received a great deal of attention in the blogosphere, where rumors circulated that Sanchez had also been a gay escort. Subsequently, the revelations and rumors were reported in major media, such as MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann[3] and the Marine Corps Times.[1]"—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs)


Uh, since when are FACTS mere insinuations?R Young {yakłtalk} 05:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete the following Text on "Claimed Trip"

this is entirely inappropriate.

"In May and June 2007, Sanchez claimed to have traveled to Iraq with U.S. military personnel, and to have produced the audio and video accounts of American military activities published on his personal website. He did not discuss financial, promotional or sponsorship arrangements for the claimed trip."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs)

Revision of History

Greetings,

Mr. Sanchez has been documented on taped interview, in the printed word, and in the visual media (i.e. such as photos in the New York Blade) as having been a male 'escort' (i.e. prostitute) in the past. Aside from the rule-breaking edits of Matt Sanchez editing his own article, there really seems to be a battle between reporting the facts and agenda-driven reporting, mainly from the right. Had the rules of Wikipedia been followed properly, there wouldn't be a controversy. Wikipedia is not an advertisement and it is not a political propaganda piece. Mr. Sanchez chose to make himself notable, not once but in two ways: first as a porn star and then as a political activist. As it was said about Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton: "If it's on the dress, he must confess." Likewise, Matt Sanchez is on tape admitting to past prostitution. He is simply taking advantage of people that either have not followed this case closely or are partisan activists. Such agenda-driven rewriting should not be allowed.R Young {yakłtalk} 05:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'm thoroughly confused at this point. Pwok had added information into the article, Horologium removed it, Pwok complained, Horologium put it back in the article, Pwok was happy, I was happy, but now Ryoung122, who I thought was more aligned with Pwok, has reverted Horologium/Pwok's edits out of the article?[7] Ryoung122, you also deleted my own newer changes, and things are getting really tangled. Can we please stop the reverting? It's not helping matters. --Elonka 06:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to get into a revert war over something that I don't fully agree with in the first place. Pwok, you're on your own now arguing with R Young over his removal of your original edits. You two are supposedly on the same side; I'm not going to take one in the back for either of you. This is why the article needs mediation, badly. I don't know if the informal mediator is even looking in on this case, but he hasn't said anything at all yet. Horologium t-c 07:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Well actually, Pwok has been blocked for a week, so he's not going to be arguing anything at the moment. How about this though. I would support switching the article to this version.[8] It has everything, including Pwok's changes, Horologium's changes, and my changes. It doesn't have the escorting allegations paragraph, but that's just temporary until we figure out a consensus on that. So, can I get show of hands, is it okay to switch back to version [9]? --Elonka 07:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I can live with that. The question is can the other editors live with it? Horologium t-c 07:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any objections, so I'm going to go ahead and restore the article to this version.[10] -- Elonka 03:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No Proof and Fewer Facts

1. I flat out denied the escort charge in print, on radio and in several blogs 2. I move to allegations removed as before and stick to the facts. Thanks

Matt Sanchez 20:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Is Matt Sanchez really "notable" enough to be on Wikipedia?

During the initial controversy surrounding him, it may have seemed (to some contributors) reasonable to include him here in an encyclopedia. But now that the story has "aged" some - does it still seem useful to include him here? Obviously, I do not think so. I don't think that Matt Sanchez warranted an inclusion here on Wikipedia in the first place. I think that the entire entry should be deleted because it is not notable enough. If people would like to get info on him, they can Google it - they do not need an encyclopedia like Wikipedia to provide that information. The subject is more suitable for a tabloid source - not an encyclopedia.

Furthermore, there is a real possibility that Mr. Sanchez himself (as already seen by him advertising his radio clips, etc. here on the discussion page) could use Wikipedia for "self-promotion" and "advertising" - which is not what an encyclopedia is all about. Look under "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not -- not a soapbox/for self-promotion or advertising" as well as "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons -- Articles about living people notable only for one event; 'The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry.' "

These policies sound correct to me. It is not an issue of censorship but of genuine notability. Some contributors have used the thin linkage of him to Ann Coulter (who is notable) as evidence of his notability. I just don't think this is strong enough - previous gay porn actor or not.

Any others have thoughts on the possibility of complete deletion due to lack of notability of a living person? Eric USA 22:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

He is notable for more than just his porn career and tenuous link to Ann Coulter. Actually, I think he probably has stronger professional ties to David Horowitz. Before his past was uncovered, Sanchez was on his way to becoming a spokesman for the rightwing in exactly the same way Jeff Gannon was a rightwing spokesman. This similarity was noted by Max Blumenthal and several other prominent liberal commentators. I don't think he deserves a lengthy bio, but a more concise article that focuses on the public aspects of his life is warranted. JMarkievicz2 23:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that he's probably more notable for the porn career than the political activism. One possible way to handle this though, might be to move the article to the "Rod Majors" name, and then include the non-porn information in a subsection of that article. --Elonka 01:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, if previously being a porn actor (gay in this case) is enough to make an individual notable enough for inclusion (as a distinct entry) in Wikipedia - then I think your idea, Elonka, is a reasonable one. That is: this article being listed under the Rod Majors name instead of Matt Sanchez with a subsection of recent events added. Would there be any consensus on this, though?
I also agree that categorizing Rod Majors as a political spokesman is more than a bit of a stretch. If he is, in fact, considered a spokesman for the political right - one would think we would see him quoted in mainstream political news articles providing analysis from the right side of the political spectrum, etc. I also suspect that the "rightwing" would not agree that he is a spokesman for them - or that he has ever been known to form his own cogent, political opinions to share as a legitimate pundit in the mainstream political media. Eric USA 05:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Eric, are you implying Fox News isn't a fair and balanced news organization?
But seriously... it might not be considered "mainstream," but Fox is the highest rated news channel in the U.S. -- for what that's worth -- and Sanchez was profiled on two of its highest rated shows -- "The O'Reilly Factor" and "Hannity & Colmes". He also managed to get published by the New York Post. Dubious journalistic distinction or not, it does have a very large readership.
And let's not overlook the significance of CPAC. Ronald Reagan delivered his celebrated "City Upon a Hill" speech at CPAC in 1974. Matt Sanchez was awarded the Jeane Kirkpatrick Academic Freedom Award at the Ronald Reagan Banquet. Laura Ingraham was the MC. Lt. Col. Oliver North presented another award at this dinner. Jeane Kirkpatrick is a dear and departed icon in conservative circles. Some other notable speakers at CPAC 2007 -- Dick Cheney, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, and Ron Paul. In other words, Sanchez won an award at an event that was attended by a sitting Vice President of the United States and five major Presidential contenders. Never mind what Ann Coulter said about John Edwards.
And after the scandal broke David Horowitz and Michelle Malkin rushed to his defense. They might not consider him a spokesman, but at one point they were proud to count him as one of their own.
Moving the article to "Rod Majors" might still be a good idea though. I wouldn't object. JMarkievicz2 08:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I do understand what you are expressing, JMarkievicz2, but at the same time: there are many guests (much like Matt Sanchez/Rod Majors) that appear on the network (or in the tabloid paper) you mentioned that do not have articles about them on Wikipedia. These undistinguished, "average-folk" guests (like Matt Sanchez/Rod Majors) are often whatever "poster child" Fox/New York Post can find to use as political pawns in order to advance whatever talking point (propaganda) they'd like to sell. In the Matt Sanchez/Rod Majors case, it was the "military is abused by the left-wing campus crazies" propaganda angle they used him for. This, of course, backfired on them (Hannity, O'Reilly, etc.) when the Rod Majors gay porn past came to light. This is clearly why he is not welcome back on any of the programs you mentioned - and as far as I know, Horowitz and Malkin have never mentioned his name since the first sting to their pride caused their faux defense of Matt Sanchez/Rod Majors - all in order to mask their extreme embarrassment. I suspect (at this point) they'd simply like us all to forget it ever happened!
As for the award, once again, there are lots of award winners in this world who do not manage to have a Wikipedia article about them. This award may sound prestigious due to the name attached to it - but there is not much of a history for the award being that it is new - so it is not particularly notable at this time, in my opinion. Unfortunately for the award committee, the beginning history of the award is that a previous gay porn star was the first to be awarded! Not a good beginning...and if revoking the award would not open it all up again in the media, they would probably take it back from him in a heartbeat.
Now, you did write that you wouldn't object to having the article name listed under Rod Majors - so there are three who agree. Not sure that is a consensus - but it could be a start. :) Eric USA 09:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Disputed paragraph

(starting new section)

This is the paragraph that is temporarily removed from the article while we discuss it. The simple question is, who likes it, who doesn't like it, and who wants to see it changed? --Elonka 03:47, 10 June 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."[1] 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."[2] In a March 9, 2007 interview with Alan Colmes, when Sanchez was asked if he had worked as a male prostitute, he replied, "Yes."[3] However, on April 9, Sanchez subsequently denied that he had been a male escort, saying, "Not true."[4] During the Colmes interview, Colmes told Sanchez that he had found an ad which showed Sanchez advertising massage services in the November 19, 2004 issue of the New York Blade, and that the phone number in the ad was the same number on which they had contacted Sanchez. Sanchez, for his part, insisted that it was not his ad, and that he had only had his current cellphone for a year.[3]

This paragraph can be condensed and streamlined. But more on that later. One major problem I have with it is that the explanation for Salon's supposed revisions doesn't match what's posted on Sanchez's March 8 blog -- specifically this part...
the salon.com editors had added the phrase, "I won't deny it."
Sanchez's blog simply states, "What I wrote, without any editing, is below. The Salon version has some definite differences." But he doesn't explain what those differences are.
This blog post is also at odds with something else Sanchez said here in this discussion thread. (I mentioned it earlier, but I'll bring it up again.) Under "Request for Deletion" Sanchez said, "I compared myself to a former Marine who was in adult films and the editor changed it to Jeff Gannon, whom I had never met and would not compare myself to." The problem with this explanation is that no such reference appears in the draft of the article that's posted on Sanchez's blog. Which means the draft that appears on his blog is not the same draft that he submitted to Salon. Note, however, that the Salon article does contain a reference to Rich Merritt, a former Marine who was also a gay porn star, in addition to the reference to Jeff Gannon.
So the line that accuses Salon of fabricating the Jeff Gannon reference should be removed because it's an unverified claim. I'm just wondering where this explanation came from since there doesn't seem to be anything out there to back it up. JMarkievicz2 05:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Want to take a stab at rewriting the paragraph, and listing it here? Just put it in italics, don't worry about the refs. --Elonka 06:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll take a stab at it later today. JMarkievicz2 18:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Points from me:

  • The claim that Salon printed his article with alterations, perhaps based on past interviews plus what he submitted. This in of itself is an interesting incident, speaking to either his character or that of Salon's (the reader can decide which). The article doesn't make strong claims one way or the other about prostitution; some readers seem to be overinterpreting it. I wouldn't bring up any of the substance of the article, since neither version is a reliable source and the dispute seems to be relatively minor.
  • The claim referenced to randythomas.org is not supported by the source. It's unclear whether he's denying being a prostitute in the recent past, or ever. Given that, I don't find the claim that he has made contradictory statements to be supported by the sources cited so far.
  • I listened to the interview to verify the claim that Sanchez said he had worked as a prostitute. It's crystal clear. Here's the reference I added, which was reverted:


Hannity and Colmes (video) (March 9, 2007). Retrieved on 2007-05-05. Partial transcript:
Sanchez: It was 15 years ago, and it just wasn't gay porn, by the way. Uh, but it was 15 years ago...
Host: What what else did it, what else was it?
Sanchez: It was more than that it, but it was porn ...
Host: Did you work as a male prostitute?
Sanchez: That as well, yeah.
Host: You were a male prostitute.
Sanchez: Yes, this was one of the worst years of my life.


Sanchez goes on to describe how many of his male clients did not consider themselves gay, and how he had both male and female clients. The fact that he had female clients may be what he meant by "not just gay porn", as in "it was gay porn in additon to straight porn" but the host thought he was talking about prostitution, prompting the juicy confirmation (twice) from Sanchez that he had worked as a male prostitute.
  • The bit about the Blade ad in the same interview (which I have now listened to) was about massage services, which is sometimes used as a euphemism in advertising for prostitution, and sometimes not, though there are usually code words like "deep massage" or "tantric" I think? In any case, running a massage ad in a gay magazine does certainly not make a concrete connection to prostitution, and I'm not sure that's the point that was at issue. The host seemed to be concerned about whether or not Sanchez was "gay" and whether or not he was advertising in a "gay" magazine. Of course running a massage ad in a gay magazine doesn't necessarily mean you're interested in gay sex, just that you're interested in advertising to gay clients - not unlike the car dealership down the street that also has an ad. Sanchez says that even more recently than the Blade ad, people who are not him have run ads with his picture and phone number, and he gets calls about them. Sanchez tries to make the point that in ads for gay "services" people sometimes use other people's pictures without permission, to enhance their own businesses. This is certainly true in gay personal ads. The fact that someone might be running ads in a gay paper pretending to be a controversial figure in current events is not implausible. He does say in the interview that he's currently licensed massage therapist, though he doesn't confirm that at the time of the interview he's still in business. It's also plausible he's running the ads but doesn't want to admit to it publicly. I don't find any of this particularly firm. I guess some people might want to make the claim that he's still having gay sex? It doesn't sound like there's conclusive evidence that this is the case, and I wouldn't print any of the insubstantial allegations. Does anyone want to try to claim that he was still doing massages at the time of the interview? That might be a notable biographic fact relatively unrelated to the prostitution controversy, but we would need some additional references to support that.
  • On this talk page, Sanchez says that there is a later interview in which he denies being a male prostitute. For neutrality and balance, I think we should make a good-faith effort to find that or any other concrete denial, at which point we could print both at let the readers make up their own minds about The Truth. Matt, it would help if you could give us a date or a pointer to a published recording or transcript.

-- Beland 04:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Reading Tea Leaves

This reaches absurdity--again. In the Colmes interview I said "no" to the man 5 or 6 times, but no one writes that when they "transcribe" the interview. Subsequently, I spoke about this with Colmes AGAIN and said FLAT OUT for the record, categorically "NO". That's when PWOK called on the phone and asked the question and AGAIN I said no. But no one wants to reference that and this is just grasping at straws. So, stick to the statements. No five times with Colmes, no on Randy Thomas, No, again on Colmes.  :) Nothing even resembling a "confession at Salon. And my CONTINUED no here in the discussion group. i"ve been asked to participate in this process, so if I'm the original source why am I not being consulted? This is beyond the level of absurdity a nd this does not merit this much attention. Matt Sanchez 20:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Professionalism

There seem to be more than one editor who think that Matt Sanchez has lied about various things, or who otherwise have a negative opinion of him. Wikipedia is not a forum to debate with him about the facts of his life, or to vent our feelings or frustrations. We're here to discover published sources, summarize them, and verify that the summaries are supported by the references. This would probably go a lot easier if we focused on doing that. We aren't a forum for expressing personal opinions, unsubstantiated facts, or personal attacks, and "you're a liar" is definitely in the red zone. It's fine to have that opinion; you can use it to help keep the article from reporting as true things which should be reported as claims. But I think it might be helpful if to express that sort of skepticism as something like "if we only have a single source, we need to report the claim with attribution rather than as simply true" instead of (permit me some dramatic license here) "source X is a stinking liar, and I won't believe anything it says if I can't confirm it with my own eyes!". The subject of the article has also disparaged the reputation of at least one editor. Whether or not this is deserved, it's also a personal attack, and really quite unnecessary. We don't put things in the article because some random editor on Wikipedia says they're true. We put them there because we find published sources that report them. It doesn't so much matter whether someone is a good editor, bad editor, neutral editor, or biased editor; it matters whether or not reliable published sources support their claims. It would be better, for a variety of reasons, to focus more on what editors say about claims in the article and in sources (ignoring the rest, as I try to do), and not so much on which editor is saying it, or what their baggage is. If someone is being intolerably disruptive, or really is just engaging in slander, we can complain to an uninvolved administrator. But I think keeping things a little more professional will help keep editors with strong feelings on task and productive and will prevent disruptive incidents and distraction from the task at hand. -- Beland 05:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

jean kirkpatrick

It should be noted that it was the FIRST Jean Kirkpatrick award.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs)

The article as currently written states, "...was awarded the first ever Jeane Kirkpatrick Academic Freedom Award." Eric USA 23:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Buzz Patterson "War Crimes"

The author of "Dereliction of Duty" has cited my incident in his just released book "War Crimes". This is significant because Buzz is a cornerstone of the Right wing pro-military movement. He's also a good friend.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs)

Rumors in the Blogosphere references should be struck.

It's just an insignificant reference and should be struck from this article. It makes the wikipedia article seem biased (which it is). There are a handful of bloggers who persist in this witch hunt, and they are disproportionately represented among the editors.

There's also a rumor that I'm in New York, and a rumor that I know Karl Rove, and that I date Ann Coulter and that I faked the whole Columbia incident. These rumors don't merit mention unless substantiated. Once again, for the record

1. I did not run an ad 2. Colmes dramatized an issue for effect 3. I denied it several times Matt Sanchez 21:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Does the article as currently written mention these rumors you speak of (that you're in New York, know Karl Rove, date Ann Coulter, etc.)? I could not find them. If the rumors do not merit mention (and are not in the article as of now), why are you mentioning them? Eric USA 23:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I am mentionnig the rumors because they are in the article. I move to have "rumors" "allegations" removed from the website. There is tons of information there that is simply not factual. Matt Sanchez 20:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that the Wikipedia article as currently written (that you are the subject of) has these rumors: that you're in New York, know Karl Rove, date Ann Coulter??? Which paragraph or section do you see these in? Remember, if you are wanting the article to be an accurate and fact-based account of you as the subject, you yourself also need to be accurate and fact-based here on the talk/discussion page. Eric USA 22:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Misleading statement

This "However" statement gives the impression of a contradiction

"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." [15] Sanchez maintained that he never actually collected any funds from those organizations. [14]"

1. I was originally making this current trip with U-Haul as sponsor. 2. The having lied to U-Haul about a deployment is demonstrably false since it was U-Haul who wanted to fund this trip for promotional consideration. 3. No, I never collected funds from U-Haul, when the CPAC "controversy" broke, U-Haul was bombarded by gay activist who were "indignant" with their support. The PAO (Public Affairs Office) of the Marine Corps was also bombarded by gay activists. Subsequently, ALLEGATIONS were made against me. One of the allegations was regarding U-Haul. The identity of those who filed the allegation were to remain unknown unless charges were brought up within a 30 day period. That period has passed (since April 4th, 2007) Allegations are non-binding in the UCMJ and I do not expect more activity on this matter.

The above section of the article continues to beat the prosecutorial drum. It is misleading. Matt Sanchez

Quote from War Crimes by Lt. Colonel Robert Buzz Patterson

"Marine Corps Corporal Matt Sanchez, a junior at Columbia University, agreed. “I joined the Corps not because I couldn’t make it elsewhere or because I needed money to go to school. No signing bonus was going to turn me into a soldier. I became a Marine because I wanted to be among the best, just as I applied to Columbia because I wanted to be among the brightest. I knew both required a high price.”71—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs)

Suggestion to split Rod Majors/Pierre LaBranche into separate article

It's a much better idea to split the artiles into two.

Please note, there is a huge flaw with me advertising as an escort. Most porn stars do porn to further their escort careers. So far, I've heard no one claim that they have seen a Rod Majors ad. Matt Sanchez 21:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually think this is an interesting idea. Have two articles, one for Matt Sanchez, and one for Rod Majors (Pierre LaBranche could redirect to Rod Majors). Then each article could mention the alter-ego, like on the Rod Majors article, say, "Rod Majors is a pseudonym for Matt Sanchez, a political activist." And Sanchez's article could say, "During the 1990s, Sanchez was an actor in gay porn films under the name Rod Majors." I think this split would be unusual, but would solve a lot of WP:BLP problems. Has anything like this ever been done before? --Elonka 22:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Interesting indeed. Not only is Matt Sanchez/Rod Majors (up to this point) apparently notable enough to some contributors to be on Wikipedia - but he's notable enough to be on Wikipedia twice? I do not think this is a good idea. From my perspective, there should only be a Rod Majors article (if any at all). Matt Sanchez, in spite of a controversial incident, is not notable as a "political activist" or as an author or blogger or reporter. Eric USA 23:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
No, he is not, at least so far, on here twice. Rod Majors is a redirect to Matt Sanchez. The suggestion above is to split the article into 2. I don't think it's a particularly good idea. It doesn't strike me as particularly useful, and I don't see that it would help resolve any BLP issues: you have to follow BLP regulations no matter in how many articles a person is discussed. Aleta 00:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Aleta, just to be clear: I'm not saying that he is (at the moment) listed twice. I'm referring to the suggestion that he be listed in two separate articles - one as Rod Majors and another as Matt Sanchez. I mention this just so you know I'm aware of what you are saying - but it is not what I was referring to in my previous comment above. :) Eric USA 04:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, sorry for the confusion, Eric! Aleta 21:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Splitting the Article

I recommend splitting the article with references to Rod Majors and then a seperate one for me, Matt Sanchez. No one knows who "Rod Majors is' they know who Matt Sanchez and have an idea of the past. So, I think splitting the two is a great idea. Matt Sanchez 20:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Didn't you already make this suggestion in the section above? Do you want us all to re-iterate our viewpoints as well? Mine is that you should barely have one article with you as the subject, much less TWO!
As well, if people did not previously know about Rod Majors - then how would there have ever been a controversy about you in the first place? Do you really think there would have ever been an article with you as the subject here on Wikipedia otherwise? You are not otherwise notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia.
In my opinion, not only should you not have two articles with you as the subject - but the one article with you as the subject should be listed as Rod Majors (as originally suggested by Elonka, I believe). The article should be an emphasis on how a previous gay porn actor, Rod Majors, would later become involved in a relatively minor controversy related to the conservative movement. That would be a very short article - but all that is required to convey the facts. It is not notable enough otherwise. In fact, in the mainstream media - your story is all but forgotten. This, in my view, helps to determine the lack of notability as it relates to this article with you as the subject (of a biography of a living person). Eric USA 22:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Eric is revealing his bias. Gay porn may be notable in his life, but my personal experience is that no one outside of that very limited world even cares. The only reason why this article has been difficult to write is precisely because of the relatively small group of people who feel the need to inject some sort of personal invective. Matt Sanchez 12:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave it to other editors (who are not the subject of the article this discussion page is for) to judge whether they think I have shown some negative bias. I think, considering the emotional impact this process most likely has on the subject (Matt Sanchez/Rod Majors), it is difficult (if not impossible) for him to see what editors have to say about this article without taking it personally on his part. It seems like it would be better for him to have a representative make his case here on the talk/discussion page so that this tendency to overreact emotionally would not get in the way of the discussion.
As for the issue of "Gay porn may be notable in his life": I have never been an actor in gay porn. However, Matt Sanchez/Rod Majors has. This makes it certainly a notable event in his life. This is the issue of the article: that he was a previous gay porn actor who would later become involved in a relatively minor controversy related to the conservative movement. That is the only thing substantially notable about the article on Matt Sanchez - this is why I think it should be listed under Rod Majors. This is not personal invective, Mr. Sanchez. This is the primary fact of this article with you as the subject. This is why there is an article on you in the first place. Eric USA 00:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
If we're taking yet another consensus tally on this I'll cast another vote for filing this article under Rod Majors. One brief article is more than enough. Two articles would be one too many. The whole thing could be covered in three concise paragraphs. One for Sanchez's gay porn career, one for his stint as a rightwing media darling, and another for the controversy that erupted when bloggers uncovered his past. We might need to make room for a fourth paragraph, though, depending on the outcome of the military investigation. If the military allows him to continue serving in spite of his well documented gay past this might be a first, and it should be noted here and also in the "Don't ask, don't tell" article. This would be especially relevant to DODT, because Sanchez claims his recruiter knew about his gay porn career when he enlisted.
Also, I think Eric USA's contributions to this discussion are perfectly valid even though Sanchez has singled him out for an attack. JMarkievicz2 06:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Monique Dols

Please note. The ISO leftist group who accused me of recruiting was Monique Dols who is also responsible for the Minutemen Fiasco and appeared on Hannity and Colmes.

The ISO accused me of being a recruiter when it is obvious that I'm a combat engineer (1161) and not a recruiter. The ISO flat out lied about me "recruiting" on campus and that should be said in the articleMatt Sanchez 21:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Move to Strike the statement below from the Article

"Sanchez, who describes himself as being of Puerto Rican heritage,[4]"

The "describes himself as being of Puerto Rican heritage" is just awkward silly and does not reflect me at all. I'm of Puerto Rican origin, period. This is only important insofar as the ISO incident. It should be mentioned there, not sure why it's written this way at all. Matt Sanchez 20:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

In Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, one synonym listed for origin is heritage (as well as ancestry, descent, extraction and others).Can you explain what you feel the qualitative difference is between these two terms, origin and heritage? Or at least tell us why you feel one is more accurate or suitable than the other? Eric USA 23:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


I don't know Mr. Roget and couldn't care less about what heritage roughly means. The sentence is awkward, tedious and doesn't add anything to this. There's no need to add this the information period.Matt Sanchez 12:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The editors here very much care what words mean. The talk/discussion page is an opportunity for everyone, including yourself, to weigh in on these issues. I simply asked you why you felt that one word was better in this context than another. Are you saying you do not want the Puerto Rican issue mentioned at all? If so, why? Eric USA 00:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Move to strike the comment below

"The story became popular in the blogosphere, with rumors and speculation circulating about the details of Sanchez's past."

Again, the "rumors" is not a fact and not reflective of reality. Matt Sanchez 20:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

move to strike the comment below

"This sparked public attention and controversy, during which Sanchez's earlier career as a star in gay adult films was brought to light. The story received a great deal of attention in the blogosphere, where rumors circulated that Sanchez had also been a gay escort. Subsequently, the revelations and rumors were reported in major media, such as MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann[3] and the Marine Corps Times.[1]"

Same comment on "rumors" as a fact. Olbermann sourced blogs and that should be mentioned too. It should be mentioned that "Sanchez has strenously denied these rumors" or somethiing that reports the fact that I have strenously denied these rumors. !!!Matt Sanchez 20:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


New Article Please add

This article came out today.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/06/oil_oil_everywhere_but_not_a_d.php?comments=show —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs)

Does the link above (that you ask to be "added" to the Wikipedia article that has you as the subject) help to strengthen the neutral facts in the Wikipedia article about you? Or is this simply unduly self-serving on your part?
Remember that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a trivia collection, a soapbox, a vanity publisher, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory, nor is Wikipedia a dictionary, a newspaper, or a collection of source documents; these kinds of content should be contributed to the sister projects Wiktionary, Wikinews, and Wikisource, respectively." (from the Five Pillars)
I realize that you may feel the strong need for free advertising and self-promotion (in order to make yourself more notable, perhaps), but that is not allowed here on Wikipedia. It is an encyclopedia - not a "springboard". Eric USA 23:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)