Talk:Matt Sanchez/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents 1 Eric USA and self-promotion 2 Stick to the Facts 3 Proposed Rewrite of Entire Article 4 Not Gay 5 Move to DELETE the Keith Olbermann Piece as a Source 6 Pwok Contribution!!!! 7 Object to the Describes himself as Puerto Rican Heritage 8 Delete Joined the Marine Corps under an 8 year Enlistment 9 Marine Corps Status 10 Status Change 11 Rumors Line to be Removed 12 Orientation Section 13 Bias in Wording 14 Sourcing Issue: Prostitution 15 Obvious Bias 16 Puerto Rican Heritage 17 Reasonable point 18 Bowing Out 19 Removal of the "Current Status" section 20 Escorting paragraph 21 Problem: Sources for this article are being altered 22 Bad Sourcing and the Current trend in Journalism, sourcing dubious blogs 23 Political Activist 24 Article Missing Enormous Point 25 Gay Blogosphere 26 Move to Add Quotes

Eric USA and self-promotion

I'm attempting to keep the article current and up to date with my current, verifiable and public activities. Currently, the article has lots of "allegations" and rumors that are a violation of wikipedia rules of neutrality.

Your slight that I have a "strong need for free advertising" is unprofessional, but par for the course for the type of "editor" this article has attracted. I understand that possibly no one has ever written anything about you, Eric, much less something blatantly negative, but if you have such a wayward opinion of me, perhaps you should consider recanting any future contributions to the article since your neutrality may be compromised.

There are several sections of this article that I object to because they are slanderous, unsubstantiated and just flat out lies. I want this article on me to reflect the truth and not some left-wing, gay jihadist, hit piece propaganda. 192.156.57.34 12:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again, 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.

Perhaps this would be useful: for you to list all those things in the article which you feel make it a "left-wing, gay jihadist, hit piece". And to list them all together (what you have up to this point that you object to) for all to see in one section here on the talk page. I have tried to look through all the various postings from you here to get an idea of where you are coming from - and it is difficult to put it all together and make clear sense of it.

I think it would also foster a greater sense of fact-based discussion if you would do this all with less animosity - even though I know that is extremely difficult for someone in your position. I do understand that. This is why it might be better for you to have a representative do this for you. And please try to believe that I have no personal animosity towards you, Matt Sanchez. This is all about the article - not the person. Eric USA 01:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Bias is a matter of what appears in the article. Pwok 00:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Stick to the Facts

Editors are breaking the Wikipedia rules when they inject their personal animosity towards conservatives. Matt Sanchez 12:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything in the article as currently written that you feel injects "personal animosity towards conservatives"? Eric USA 01:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the bigger point. The ONLY reason why this issue even became an issue is BECAUSE of the fact that I'm a conservative. If I had posed with Hilary Clinton and this story came out conservatives would not be flaming me with this type of article. Matt Sanchez 22:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason for your notoriety is noted in the current article, and in my proposed rewrite. Pwok 00:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The statement about "appearing on several tv talk shows" is factually incorrect. Sanchez only appeared once on Hannity and Colmes, that was it. He has not made a single television appearance since his gay porn past was revealed.Pwok 00:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Actually, the only reason it was ever an issue to begin with is because you were previously a gay porn actor - not because you are a conservative. In other words, if you had not ever been a gay porn actor prior to winning an award presented in a conservative setting - then it never would have been an issue. You have the chronology backwards - you were first a gay porn actor in the past - then you were a conservative winning an award presented at CPAC years later. This is the only reason you have an article here on Wikipedia listed under the name Matt Sanchez. Eric USA 05:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Rewrite of Entire Article

Rather than argue this point by point, I have completely rewritten the article and posted it for discussion in my talk page sandbox. For the moment, I've omitted sources so we can focus on the content of the article. Naturally, as discussion proceeds we can discuss sources. I invite discussion. As always, facts are not negotiable, but wording is up for grabs. Pwok 00:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You have a pretty good starting point. I am not going to address the controversial areas, but I see a few sections that could use a little tweaking.

• I'd delete the "Current Status" section entirely, because it simply restates what is mentioned earlier in the article.

• The last sentence of the porn career section should be removed, as it is simply innuendo. I can recognize that both Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are attractive without wanting to have sex with both of them (or either of them, for that matter). If you read the intro page for the Kristen Bjorn interviews, he specifically states that many of his performers are straight, and that assuming one's sexual orientation is gay or bisexual from their participation in gay porn is not valid.

• Please remove the word "claimed" from the section about Sanchez's blogging from Iraq. I guarantee that if he was not in Iraq, proof would have emerged by now, considering the fixation on him by certain activists. Using that weasel word requires hard evidence that his presence in Iraq is questionable.

• Add the word "indirectly" when claiming that Ann Coulter referred to John Edwards as a faggot, because it was indirect. Her implied meaning was clear, but she did not say "John Edwards is a faggot".

Let's see what the rest of the editors have to say. As I noted, I am not addressing the areas that will generate more heated discussion, only the relatively straightforward wording choices. Horologium t-c 04:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• I agree about the "Current Status" section, and deleted it.

• I removed the last sentence of the porn career section, but reserve the right to change my mind depending on how the rest of the editing goes. I don't agree that it's innuendo, given that these were his own words. I included the material because it contradicts his recent claims to never have been gay. Of course, I'd argue that the one video of Sanchez giving another man fellatio, and the other video of him performing analingus on another man, tends to contradict his claims as well, but I thought it would be "piling on" to mention all of that.

• "Claim" isn't a weasel word, nor is it identified as such in the article you cited. Webster's defines claim as "an assertion open to challenge." This fits Sanchez's Iraq trip to a "T." He has assrted his presence there, but it's open to challenge on the grounds that he's offered no verifiable or self-evident proof. Until he does so, I oppose language that would accept his assertion as fact. The burden of proof is on him and/or those who say he's been there, not on those who don't believe he's been there. Thus, the lack of "proof" that he was not in Iraq can't be regarded as verification that he was there. That said, I'm not in love with my own prose. If you have a suggestion for a different way of saying the same thing without using the word "claim," I'm open to it.

• I made a change to the wording about Coulter. Rather than saying she "called" Edwards a faggot, the section now says that Coulter "created a national controversy by using the word 'faggot' in reference to former Sen. John Edwards ..." I think this is accurate; using the qualifier "indirectly" would imply that there was more than one way to interpret what she said, when in fact her reference was unmistakable, and widely recognized as such at the time. Pwok 19:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of Pwok's version looks okay to me, but I would like to see a version with references before signing off on it. There are also some spelling and formatting errors, but I'll stick with discussing content for now. For example:

• Where the Coulter statement is discussed, it's not made clear that she made the statement at the CPAC.
• The section that quotes the excellenttop.com website is potentially a WP:BLP violation unless we have a solid secondary source. If we don't have a secondary source, that section should be removed or rewritten.
• Regarding the "licensed massage therapist" section, we can't say, "There is no record of his holding a massage license in New York," because that's OR.
• I'm okay on all of the "Gay porn" section, except for the stuff that comes from the Kristen Bjorn interview, which isn't a reliable source. Pull out those two sentences, and I'm okay on the rest of it (after sources are provided)

--Elonka 23:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• You are correct about the Coulter reference. I fixed it.

• I have primary sources for Excellent-Top. The use of primary sources is specifically encouraged by the Wikipedia "pillar" that excludes original research. To wit: "However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not 'original research'; it is 'source-based research', and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." That said, as I have not yet included the sourcing for the statement about Excellent-Top, I suggest we argue it again once I include the sourcing. But let us have that discussion in light of an accurate understanding of Wikipedia's "pillar" relating to this subject. It does NOT require secondary sourcing.

• I reworded the mention of the licensed massage therapist to say that New York State's database has no record of him. The database is a primary source. Once again, the use of primary sources is specifically encouraged by the Wikipedia "pillar" that excludes original research.

• I disagree on excluding Kristen Bjorn as a reliable source. On what basis do you make that determination? Pwok 00:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Pwok, when you create a post, you may note that at the bottom of the editing window you have three large buttons: Save, Preview, and Changes. Could you please please please try to make more use of the "Preview" button? Thanks, Elonka 00:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Every editor I ever worked with complained about my habit of making revisions right up to the point of final publication. I'd like to tell you that I'll change my spots, but frankly I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. I'll try, but no guarantees. Nothing malicious in my intent. Just being candid. Pwok 00:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

(followup) My objections to Pwok's sandbox version remain the same: The Kristen Bjorn interview is not a reliable source. The information about the excellenttop.com site should be removed as it is not reliably sourced. The "no record of a massage license" line is not sourced, and should be removed. I also think that the lead section can be better written, per WP:LEAD. The rest, I can probably live with, but I do not want to signoff on it until I see an actually annotated version of the article. --Elonka 17:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think it's premature to argue that the Excellent-Top info and the lack of a license is "not reliably sourced" when I have yet to provide the sourcing? As Wikipedia's nomenclature is complex, I haven't done the sourcing yet. That's coming shortly. As for Kristen Bjorn, what about including Sanchez's claim that the interview was fabricated? Check the latest sandbox treatment of that issue. Pwok 18:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I agree that the lead was a little clumsy, so I tinkered with it. If you're still dissatisfied, how about trying your hand at a rewrite? Stick it either here or on the discussion page of the sandbox. Pwok 18:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with the lead in the current Matt Sanchez article, which has gone through extensive copyediting from multiple editors, and appears to be stable. As for lack of sources, I say that because I've seen the sources that you've tried to provide in the past, and they didn't measure up. Blogs and a WHOIS report are not "reliable secondary sources." If you have new sources, I am willing to look at them. --Elonka 19:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of things in the past that I'm not happy with. I am attempting to start new here. Please review the "good faith" pillar at Wikipedia. I think blogs can be reliable secondary sources; for instance, in sourcing Sanchez's denial of prostitution, the only place I can find his denial is on a blog maintained by Randy Thomas, an executive of an ex-gay group. Should we exclude that, too, on account of it being a blog? If so, then I'm afraid we might not be able to mention that he has denied being a prostitute.

As you know, Wikipedia encourages the use of not only secondary sources but primary sources. Please review Wikipedia's pillar regarding original research. And, finally, please be willing to "look at" everything. Thank you in advance for your commitment to Wikipedia's good faith "pillar," Elonka. Pwok 19:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: EricUSA made a suggestion that Sanchez find a spokesperson for his point of view here, given that he's had trouble maintaining an even keel. It occurs to me that you might be willing to fulfill that role. What do you think? If that sounds good, of course I think it would appropriate for you to "recuse" yourself as an editor, given that the subject of an article can't edit it, and you'd be a proxy for Sanchez. Pwok 19:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

As has been previously (and repeatedly) discussed here at talk, the Randy Thomas interview[1] is acceptable because it provides a verbatim interview with Sanchez, and Sanchez has confirmed that it is an accurate interview, both at his blog,[2] and here at this talkpage.[3] And to address your other point, no, I have no wish to be Sanchez's spokesperson. In fact, I'm appalled at the language and personal attacks that he has been using. As much as I would like Sanchez to be able to participate on this talkpage in a civil manner, I also have to say that if he continues to engage in name-calling and personal attacks, that I would support seeing him blocked entirely from Wikipedia. --Elonka 20:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The Thomas site provides something that purports to be a verbatim interview, just as the Kristen Bjorn site does. There only difference between the sites is that one supports Sanchez and the other embarrasses him. Not surprisingly, Sanchez has vouched for the supportive site's content while accusing the embarrassing site of fabricating its content. Nothing makes one site more reliable or acceptable than the other for Wikipedia's purposes. Therefore, if there's any dispute over the authenticity of either site, it should be noted in the article (and has been noted in my proposed edit) rather than allowing the subject of an article to block a source simply by accusing its publisher of fabricating the content.Pwok 22:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Not Gay

I define myself and I have done so. I made a video which means I was acting. I understand that gay men who define themselves by their bodily functions have a problem with that, but that's their problem. Matt Sanchez 17:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's difficult if not impossible to know someone's sexual orientation. The most we can do from the outside is draw inferences from someone's statements and/or behavior. Thus, I have no problem with an article that notes your statements that you're not gay and never were gay, as long as the article also notes statements and behavior that would indicate otherwise. Every version of this article that I've seen does both. Pwok 18:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Move to DELETE the Keith Olbermann Piece as a Source

I have put up yet another comment on the Keith Olbermann piece. I move that it be removed from the article. The piece never sourced me. Never asked me a question, never contacted me. The Olbermann hit job claimed I was part of some "underground gay right-wing agenda" which is totally false and I notice has had no traction in this article. Yes Olbermann is barely part of the Mainstream Media, although i could argue that my website gets more hits than his show viewers. Olbermann sources blog. Olbermann is extremely left-wing. Loonie Left wing. And if you watch the piece you quickly realize it's not about me, but about everything else. I move to have the piece taken out.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs)

Olbermann's program is broadcast by MSNBC and seen by millions of people. It is a fact that he mentioned your case, just as it is a fact that you appeared on the Fox network. Whether those networks are liberal or conservative has no bearing on whether they should be mentioned in an article. But now that you've brought it up, I remember that I need to label the Fox programs where you appeared as conservative (except for Colmes's show, which needs to be labeled as liberal), just as I labeled Olbermann's show as liberal. I have made those changes to the sandbox article. Pwok 18:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete the Olbermann piece. It is not viewed by "millions" of people. It was a smear job. They never contacted me, they sourced unreliable blogs and people who obviously have a bias. They have horrible ratings. Plus, after this whole "scandal" I appeared on Neil Cavuto. The Cavuto piece is nowhere to be seen.Matt Sanchez 18:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I oppose deleting mention of Olbermann's segment. Along with your appearances on Fox, it was instrumental in moving your story from the blogs to wider public attention. As Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information, I don't see a need to mention each one of your television appearances. Pwok 20:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The Olberman show used Joe My God as a primary source for this segment. Sanchez had been in contact with this blog, so the information included in the Countdown segment had already been confirmed by Sanchez. JMarkievicz2 22:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Olbermann's reporting methods aren't at issue here. What's at issue is the sentence, "Within days, the story had been broadcast by Countdown, a liberal news commentary program broadcast by MSNBC." What in that sentence isn't factual? Pwok 00:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Pwok Contribution!!!!

Pwok is not a neutral source. This is a man who constantly e-mails me propositions for sexual acts. He is also quite creative as he insists that I am a black man attempting to "pass" as white and have doctored my photos. Sound strange? This man is not someone Wikipedia should have participating in any capacity. Matt Sanchez 11:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Please give your specific objections to the article, and refrain from personal attacks here, as they are against Wikipedia's rules. Pwok 16:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Pwok is here as an editor - not a source. As well, do the rest of us editors really need to know about these emails about sexual propositions (and such) that you say you've received from Pwok? I know I don't need to know about it - especially as it relates to editing purposes here on Wikipedia. If Pwok has added something to the article that you feel is incorrect, then spell it out here on the talk page in an organized, logical, rational way so that possible changes can be discussed.

As I've written earlier, the subject of the article (Matt Sanchez/Rod Majors) can hardly be expected to be neutral in these matters and should probably have a representative speak here on his behalf if he otherwise cannot maintain a calm, unemotional response to the editing discussions that take place on this page. Will it really be productive to read this rambling, disorganized back and forth "debate" about who is neutral and who is not? Clearly, I do not think it is useful - and I think it is likely to just go on and on and on.

Let us deal only with sourced facts and keep the article as short and simple as possible - for that is all it warrants considering the weak notability of the subject. This is one reason why I think the article should be moved to the name Rod Majors and stripped of all the extraneous, not particularly notable information that is currently written in the article. The article should start with "Rod Majors (born Matthew Sanchez on December 1, 1970) was an American porn actor in the early 1990's." and then briefly mention the "Columbia incident/Jeane Kirkpatrick Academic Freedom Award/Identity Uncovered" issues that brought a fairly obscure previous gay porn actor briefly back into the public sphere. This, to me, is all it warrants here on Wikipedia. Eric USA 07:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you about Sanchez's e-mail claims; I haven't responded to them because I consider them irrelevant and distracting. I disagree about making this into an article about "Rod Majors." Sanchez became notable in his own name, as a consequence of the CPAC award. Therefore, I think that the article ought to be about Matt Sanchez, with the psuedonyms Majors and LaBranche mentioned there.

As for short and simple, I agree. In the proposed re-write, I tried to reduce the word count. It's a bit difficult when Sanchez has disputed so many sources and facts. As Wikipedia's nomenclature is intricate, I haven't yet annotated what's there. That was my planned next step, so we can discuss sourcing. If we achieve consensus on the article, then I can look for opportunities to further reduce the word count. I'm absolutely not married to my prose, so if you have ideas for cutting words out of what's there, please by all means offer them up. What do you think of this approach? Pwok 16:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the approach of coming to a consensus and reducing the article down to only what is notable is certainly a good one. But it might be easier to come to a consensus on the article itself if it is first reduced to the bare essentials. That way there would be much less that editors would disagree about. If I offered all of the cuts that I feel should be made - this would leave the article with not very much substance - and I would like to wait until I am sure a consensus of other editors would agree to such a drastic reduction in the article - both as currently written as well as your current sandbox version. For me, I think that there is currently too much information for a subject with so little notability.

While I understand what you are expressing as it relates to the Award bringing the subject of the article (Matt Sanchez) a degree of notability, the subject was first notable as a gay porn actor (as evidenced by Wikipedia having a list of porn actors and their film information). Therefore, I think that the chronological order of "events" should be maintained. This is one of the main reasons why I think the article should be listed under Rod Majors. If I'm not mistaken - previously the articles for Matt Sanchez and Rod Majors were merged to Matt Sanchez. At the time, given the notoriety of the incident, it may have made some sense to merge it to Matt Sanchez. But, I think now that some time has passed and the incident has faded further and further into the background that the article should have been merged to Rod Majors - not Matt Sanchez. After all, the reason this incident with CPAC, etc. is notable at all is because of what came before (the gay porn career) - not the award itself. In other words, I do not believe that Matt Sanchez - had he never previously had a gay porn acting career would have ever been notable enough for an article on Wikipedia simply based on the Columbia incident and the resulting award he received. Eric USA 05:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I just can't agree with you about "Rod Majors" being the basis of Sanchez's notability as it concerns a Wikipedia article. To me, Majors (and Pierre LaBranche, by the way) are kernels of popcorn, and Sanchez is the whole bagful as it concerns notability. Someone who wants to know what Wikipedia says about this issue will look under Sanchez, not Rod Majors or Pierre LaBranche.

As for stripping the article down, I really agree with your sentiment. I'm about to go out of town so I'm not sure if I'll get enough time this weekend, but if I do get the time I'll try to sharpen the hatchet. If I didn't have to tiptoe around so much with all the attributions and notation of Sanchez's denials it would be a lot easier. That said, when I was thinking about it yesterday I had a flash of insight that I think might lead me to be able to cut out a bunch of stuff.

Meantime, you might take account of my change to the lead. I cut out a bunch of verbiage there, only to be told (without explanation) by Elonka that the original was better. I think the original lead is a sloppy mess. Pwok 16:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I am in agreement that Sanchez is more notable for the Columbia/porn controversy than for just being Rod Majors/LaBranche. As a porn actor he had several videos, but was not really known outside of that particular sphere. It was the Columbia complaints that got him on national TV, and then Coulter's comment and Sanchez's resulting porn history revelation that really brought him to prominence. --Elonka 16:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, you are certainly free to change your mind, but I originally got the idea of moving it to Rod Majors from your previous comment: "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)" In other words, it was you that convinced me of the idea in the first place. :)

Let me ask you two the question this way, would there even be an article on Matt Sanchez if there had never been a Rod Majors gay porn career? Is Matt Sanchez notable enough for an article if there had never been the controversy over his Rod Majors past? I don't think so. Therefore, I agree with Elonka's previous suggestion that the article be moved to Rod Majors. Eric USA 22:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez (or actually Matthew) is his real name, and isn't he, at least now, better known that way? I agree the notability is dependent upon the Rod Majors past, but isn't he notable *as* Sanchez? Aleta 22:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Eric, yes, I've been changing my mind on the topic, after reading what other people have to say. Bottom line though, I don't really have a strong preference on whether the article is titled "Matt Sanchez" or "Rod Majors". I'm willing to go along with consensus, which at the moment seems to be leaning more towards Sanchez. --Elonka 22:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Elonka, I just wanted to make clear that I did not just agree with your idea of moving the article to Rod Majors but also your substantive point about him being less notable for "political activism" than for porn - and therefore having a non-porn subsection (for the now almost forgotten controversy) under a Rod Majors title.

Aleta, I understand what you are expressing - but Matt Sanchez was really only notable for one controversial event. And that controversy was completely dependent on him having been Rod Majors: gay porn star. Matt Sanchez is not notable for anything else - he is not notable as a political activist or as a blogger or as a journalist. Just put his name up against anyone who is notable for these things and you'll see what I mean. The only reason we ever heard about him was due to the controversy.

It is not the case that simply because someone makes it on to Fox News or the New York Post gets them an article on Wikipedia. Had he never been the gay porn actor Rod Majors and had this revealed to the public at large after receiving an award at a conservative event, his minor appearances in the media beforehand would simply not be enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. To answer your question more directly - I think the two names are forever linked and therefore equally known. In other words, anytime the name Matt Sanchez is mentioned the name Rod Majors gets mentioned as well - in order to explan who he is, why he was controversial, etc. Since there was a Rod Majors article previous to recent events (as evidenced by the merge awhile back with the article title Matt Sanchez), why were they not merged to Rod Majors instead, since Rod Majors came first?

Since Wikipedia lists porn actors - even those who are not terribly notable - I could see Matt Sanchez warranting enough notability to be listed under Rod Majors as a previous gay porn actor caught up in a minor controversy at a conservative event. Eric USA 00:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Object to the Describes himself as Puerto Rican Heritage

It has nothing to do with anything. It marginalizes me as an American. I move to have it removed.

Sanchez, who describes himself as being of Puerto Rican heritage,[4] was born and raised in San Jose, California, graduating from Independence High School in 1988. Matt Sanchez 18:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact is relevant, as you made ethnicity (and that of your opponents) in the original Columbia fracas with ISO. How would someone understand your position at that time without knowing your ethnicity?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.115.128.2 (talk)

I agree with that. Sanchez's ethnic background was a significant element of his dispute with the socialists at Columbia, as evidenced by his own mention of it on numerous occasions. Pwok 20:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. It's relevent because Sanchez made it an issue. But I don't understand how acknowledging his Puerto Rican heritage marginalizes him as an American, because Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory and Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens. JMarkievicz2 21:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Than the relevancy of my "heritage" should come up in context of my complaint and not my biography. The fact that you somehow link PR as a territory and that makes it all right, shows that you're not the one who should be making this decision Jmark. If you were, say, Jewish and I mentioned that your a liberal Jew when the fact that you're a jew has no context in your liberalism that that would be objectionable. My issue about race, though pertinent to the person who was shouting at me, is not pertinent for this bio. I move to have it removed. Matt Sanchez 23:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Your ethnic background was a significant element of the dispute that made you notable. You have mentioned it on a number of occasions. Pwok 01:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the ethnic background should be included. Both because it's standard Wikipedia practice to include this kind of information, and because it is verifiably relevant to Sanchez's notability, as he himself brought it up in in relation to the Columbia incident. --Elonka 06:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete Joined the Marine Corps under an 8 year Enlistment

I don't see how it is pertinent.

In 2003, he joined the Marine Corps Reserve under an eight-year enlistment, and was trained as a refrigeration mechanic.[2][1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs)

The details of his enlistment and military career are a relevant element of his biography, as is his separation from the USMCR and the reason (unspecified medical issue) for that separation, as reported by The Marine Corps Times. Pwok 20:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Marine Corps Status

1. I am not "separated" 2. My status is IMA not IRR. I do more with the Corps today than what I did as a reservist 3. My contract was not for 8 years.

Although PWOK reads alot, he still is fairly clueless.

On March 16, 2007, the Marine Corps Times reported that your status was IRR; that a typical USMCR contract was 8 years; that your contract expires on Mar 13, 2011, which is 8 years from your enlistment date. The newspaper reported that you were transferred to IRR status because of a medical condition. Since you say that you weren't separated, I'll change "separated" to "transferred."

There is no secondary source that reports your status as IMA or the length of your contract as other than eight years. Can you provide one, as verifiability is a "pillar" at Wikipedia? In the meantime I'll rewrite my proposed article to note that you dispute the Marine Corps Times article. Pwok 00:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: There is also no primary source that reports your status as IMA or the length of your contract as other than eight years. Pwok 01:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Status Change

So, the Marine Corps status is off. it should be changed and PWOK is once again, wrong.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs)

Please read the proposed re-write again. What is the error? Be specific. If you have verificable sources for your claims about your military status and for the length of your enlistment contract, I'd support including the material as fact. Pwok 16:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Rumors Line to be Removed

I object to this line too. Rumors and speculation are not facts.

The story became popular in the blogosphere, with rumors and speculation circulating about the details of Sanchez's past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs)

I agree, but for different reasons. In my proposed rewrite, the word "rumor" never appears. The relevant, verified details of Sanchez's past are part of the public record. Referring to facts as "rumors" or "speculation" inserts an element of doubt where none exists. Pwok 21:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Orientation Section

The line below shows plain bias and I think it should be removed. There are many women who perform lesbian acts. The "insists" is a weasel comment that calls my declaration into question. I move that it be removed from the article.

Though he has appeared in gay porn films, Sanchez insists that he is not gay, and has had no homosexual contact since joining the Corps in 2003. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs)

I'm not married to the word "insists." It was in the version I've edited into a proposed new article. I've replaced "insists" with "has stated." Pwok 20:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly how does this sentence show bias? You did appear in gay porn films. You have denied that you're gay. And you told the Marine Corps Times that you no longer engage in homosexual sex. JMarkievicz2 21:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Even though I believe it's impossible for one person to know another person's sexual orientation (orientation is a state of mind, and while states of mind are routinely, reasonably, and logically described, deduced, and inferred by others, they cannot be directly observed or truly known and therefore cannot be presented as fact here), Sanchez's sexual orientation is nevertheless a relevant issue in this article. His notability derives from the following facts:

• He received an award from a group that applauded an anti-gay epithet, and which represents a strain of political opinion generally hostile to gays.

• He appeared in gay pornographic videos and was a male prostitute who served male clients, facts which generated a presumption among others that he is gay.

• Liberals thus perceived Sanchez to be a hypocrite for accepting the CPAC award. They made a national issue out of it, establishing the notoreity that justifies the article.

I don't think the Wikipedia article should or can attempt to state as a fact whether or not Sanchez was or is gay, nor do I think it should express or hint at an opinion on whether liberals are correct about hypocrisy. Rather, I think it should mention and explain the controversy surrounding his sexual orientation, including his admissions of homosexual activity and his denials that he was or is gay. Pwok 00:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Bias in Wording

I did not "deny" I was gay, I just stated a fact. I'm not gay, I don't live the "gay lifestyle" I have not had a "gay relationship" and pretending to have sex in a video implies nothing other than pretending to have sex in a video.

The "Though" and "insists" implies a contradiction. It's more tainting of this article and it's biased against me.

I thought Ann Coulter's comments were hilarious, no "hypochrisy" there, although PWOK "homophobic" comments against me are hypocrital since he's an avid homosexual. Many loonie liberal gay jihadist hate Ann Coulter because they want to look like her, or maybe it's the way she flicks her hair.

The "We can't know orientation" BS is more annoying. Again, people who have not done films have no clue what goes on during the filming. PWOK may toss off to this stuff, but it really is just acting. So, I understand there are many homosexuals who get offended, or are very fragile.

I am very proud of the award I received, I'm very much a conservative. I'm very much against Same-sex Marriage, unions etc, gay adoption and the mainstreaming of gay culture. That's not hypochrisy, that's experience and ideology. Matt Sanchez 23:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

As sexual orientation cannot be proven, your denial cannot be considered a fact. I already removed the word, "insists" in my proposed edit. A Wikipedia article about you should not attempt to settle the question of your sexual orientation. Instead, it should report that you appear in 38 gay porn movies, were a gay prostitute and that you deny ever being gay. All of those statements are factual and verified. Pwok 00:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. For some reason, the heavy-subtexted sentence "Though he has appeared in gay porn films, Sanchez insists that he is not gay, and has had no homosexual contact since joining the Corps in 2003" seems to still be there. I'm removing the non-neutral connotations: "Though he has appeared in gay porn films, Sanchez identifies himself as heterosexual and has stated that he has had no homosexual contact since joining the Corps in 2003."--gwc 16:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

gwc, take a look at Pwok's sandbox edit, which is linked above in the "Proposed rewrite of article" section. It's a good deal better than the current version, which everyone here generally agrees is not a good article. Pwok's proposal for that section is a lot more neutral than what was there before your edit. There are also follow-on comments from a couple of the editors (myself included). Horologium t-c 16:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

gwc, there has been a whole lot of controversy on this article. I've not been shy about my own feelings along the way. I'm giving it another shot, and doing so according to Wikipedia's "pillars" and "principles," one of which is editing through consensus. Please have a look at the proposed version before editing what's here. I think if we can get people to do that, there's a better chance of having an article that will attract broad support. I'm not married to particular wording, and am very happy to discuss substantive issues as well. But let's see if we can start from a common reference point. I honestly think it's the only hope of coming up with something that will work. Pwok 17:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Matt, are you saying that the article should state what you've stated above? That you were "pretending to have sex in a video"? Pretending? This is the first time I have read this. In mainstream films, actors will often pretend to have sex in a "love scene". The distinction for pornographic films is that the actors actually have sex on film. Do you dispute this? Are you saying that you only pretended to have sex in the gay porn films you participated in - and that what the viewer of these films sees is only an optical illusion?

Also, you continue to use phrases like "loonie liberal gay jihadist" and "PWOK may toss off to this stuff" in dealing with other editors here on this talk page. This is not helpful - and will not help you in discussing how the article should or should not be written. Certainly you understand that since you have been in gay porn films previously - which is part of the controversy causing this article with you as the subject to even exist - that these issues would come up, correct? Therefore, just deal with it in a mature and rational manner so that you will be allowed here to discuss it at all. Otherwise, many might support seeing you blocked entirely from Wikipedia as Elonka mentioned above - and I agree with that.

This is not about gay against straight - as much as you seem to think it is. It is about getting the article to a consensus on properly sourced facts that are notable. You keep referring to the "gay jihadists" as out to "get you" but this has nothing to do with anything here on this talk page. (Socially conservative people are the ones more likely to have issues with you previously acting in gay porn - not gay people.) In addition to the fact that your personal attacks against other editors here on this talk page make no useful, logical sense - they are also not wanted for they do not help the discussion that us editors are trying to have here on this talk page in order to make the article more accurate and succinct. Eric USA 06:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing Issue: Prostitution

I am anticipating a vigorous discussion of the sourcing for the reference in my proposed rewrite to Sanchez's prostitution through the "Excellent Top" website. This is mentioned in the "Careers" section thusly:

In the late 1990s, Sanchez registered and maintained a website, Excellent Top.com, which offered an escort’s services for $250 an hour for "out calls" and $200 an hour for "in calls."

The is one editor, Elonka, who has stated that secondary sourcing of material is a Wikipedia requirement under the No Original Research rule. In fact, the rule states the following:

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.

The sourcing for the statement in question includes a copy of Sanchez's prostitution site obtained from the Internet Archive; the results of an Alexis.com search that locates the site's creator at an address in New York City; the results of a Peoplefinders.com search that lists Sanchez at the address listed at Alexis.com. The statement in question doesn't interpret, analyze, synthesize, explain or evaluate anything. It states facts taken from the ad, all of which are directly supported by the combination of three primary sources.

In the sourcing footnote, I am not sure who list as publisher. For the moment, I've listed Charles Wilson, creator of a website where the links to the three primary sources are located. I am that Charles Wilson, and I have hosted the HTML code for the pages that show the sourcing. However, I did not create any of the material. I think I should list Internet Archive or Sanchez as publisher of the escort site; Alexis.com publisher of the address verification; and Peoplefinders.com as the publisher of the information that links Sanchez to the publisher of Excellent Top. I invite comment on this technical question, along with the substantive issues inherent in this entire section I've just posted. Pwok 00:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Using the data in the way you propose is a violation of WP:SYN, or if you list yourself as the publisher, WP:No original research#Citing oneself. Get a reliable source to publish it, and it might be usable. Remember WP:BLP. You may present each of the facts as separate data, but you may not connect them yourself. I know you don't agree with me on this point, but it is central to this dispute, and it is rather clearly laid out by Wikipedia policies (OR/SYN) and guidelines (OR). Horologium t-c 00:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

How about the following as a rewrite: In the 1990s, a website advertising a prostitute known as "Excellent Top" appeared on the Internet. The site's creator is listed at the same address as Matt Sanchez. As for the publisher, I'd propose listing the creators of the information as the publisher, not myself. By the way, why would it matter if "a reliable source" published it? Wikipedia specifically encourages citation of primary sources; you seem to be falling into the trap of believing that only secondary sources are valid. Pwok 00:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You are still doing your own research. It isn't one primary sources its drawing conclusions from several, which is synthesis and not allowed. Unless a reliable third party source puts the information together we cannot use it. You are drawing a conclusion from the facts you a choosing - you need someone else to have done so. Even if a source did put it together I would still have concerns about according it undue weight through inclusion. WjBscribe 17:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Now you don't even want to use secondary sources that say things you'd rather not be said. Wow. One sentence is "undue weight?" Please review Wikipiedia's "pillars" concerning good faith and neutrality. They apply to you, too. Right? Thanks. Pwok 18:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with WJBscribe and Horologium. Per WP:BLP, we need reliable secondary sources for potentially negative information, and an alleged prostitution site is definitely negative. I also find it highly questionable that Pwok is trying to use his own website as a source, especially considering that it's an "attack" site which both attacks Wikipedia, and issues personal attacks against Sanchez (calling him a fool). Pwok, some of your other edits are good, but there are neither sources nor consensus on the excellent-top.com site. I recommend, per your own advice, that you drop this particular angle, and concentrate on other sections. --Elonka 19:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, you've done nothing but lie throughout this whole exercise. You allowed me to put a lot of work into a rewrite, and then at the end you pull out a rule that, with respect to articles on living persons, bans citation of any blog or website other than those created by the subject of an article. Not that this prevented you from vigorously arguing in favor of including an evanglical Christian site that supports Sanchez. You have knowingly misrepresened the content I had offered and its nature. This was after you launched personal attacks on me, alleging that I was obsessed with Sanchez, in love with him, drunk, and sick.

I recommend that you stay at Wikipedia and keep telling lies. Wikipedia deserves you, and you deserve Wikipedia. There has never been any sort of "good faith" here. Not from you, or Horologium, or from the various administrators who twist Wikipedia's sham rules on your behalf and never even bothered to address complaints about what you were doing. I tried to do this by your rules, but your rules are a sham. For whatever odd reason, Wikipedia just loves its Christian porno prostitute, to the point of engaging in censorship, shams, and petty lies to protect him. Go right ahead, Elonka. I'm outta here.Pwok 23:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The BLP guidelines do allow views from critics if the criticism is relevant to a subject's notoriety. Since Sanchez is mainly notable because of his gay porn career and the prostitution allegations, we shouldn't delete this information just because it's negative. Since most of his critics compared him to Jeff Gannon and cited the Excellent-Top website, maybe we could include a reference to this by simply quoting one of his critics.

Also, the BLP forbids the use of self-published content from an article's subject if the material is contentious, unduly self-serving, and if it involves claims about third parties. Sanchez's blog isn't necessarily a reliable source. Claims made by Sanchez should be treated with as much scrutiny as claims made by anyone else. JMarkievicz2 01:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Obvious Bias

Pwok runs a site named cplsanchez.info. His bias against me is obvious. He also refuses to accept I am currently in Iraq. You will note that the editors on this article are encouraging PWOK to continue his slander of me and his virtual fabrication of my past.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs)

If you have specific criticisms of my proposed rewrite of the Wikipedia article, please give them. I want this to be an accurate article. In the meantime, please refrain from personal attacks, as they are against Wikipedia's rules. Thanks. Pwok 00:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Who's been encouraging slander against you? Aleta 01:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me note that the appropriate word to use is libel, as it is the term for defamation by means of the printed word. Slander refers to defamation by means of the spoken word. I have utterly no interest in defaming Sanchez. My interest is in publishing a factual, neutral, relevant and verifiable article about him. Pwok 01:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) What Pwok does anywhere else other than on this talk page or the article itself is irrelevant, Matt. If he does inject something false, unsupportable or otherwise not notable into the article - then other editors will dispute and/or change those written statements in time. Trust that. You seem to think that because you deem someone biased, that we should all agree with you and ban that editor. It simply does not work that way. The only person on this talk page who is, without doubt, known to have bias is you. That is because you are the subject. That is why you are not allowed to write the article. This is nothing against you personally, of course - it is just logical that your own self-interest would make the article biased and so it is not allowed - and rightly so. Eric USA 06:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Matt, you'll notice that Pwok is now "Bowing Out" as an editor - as he declares in a section further down on the talk page. Other editors did in fact dispute some of his additions in his sandbox version (like I mentioned above) and so he gave up here in haste. My point: don't personally attack editors on this page. Let the editors work it out - as has occurred here in relation to Pwok. Eric USA 07:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Puerto Rican Heritage

I have objected to the "of puerto rican heritage" line to be removed. Is there a reason why it is there? If move to have it removed. It had been removed before and now it's back.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs)

The reason has been given to you a couple of times in this thread. You have of Puerto Ricna descent. You mentioned it on Bill O'Reilly's program. Your minority status is a significant element of your notoreity. Continuing to ask the question isn't going to change the answer. Pwok 00:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Since we're talking about heritage, I'm wondering whether the article shouldn't also mention what's obvious from looking at a photo of Sanchez, that he's also of African heritage. I believe that Sanchez vigorously objects to being described as black or its equivalents, but given that he made an issue of his minority status I'm wondering whether the facts don't demand mention. Any opinions out there? Pwok 00:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there any evidence to support this assertion? That is, are there any verifiable sources with this information? What may seem "obvious" from looking at a picture is not verifiable on its own merit. Be very careful about WP:BLP here. (With regards to the PR heritage, you have MS's own words. You need something at least as strong to start making sdditional assertions about race/ethnicity.) Aleta 01:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. I consider his being a black Puerto Rican a fairly minor detail. If I run across any source where it's discussed, I'll add it. What would you think about including a picture with the article that would make it clear? That way, readers could decide for themselves. Pwok 01:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's obvious that that is not relevant. Sanchez has confirmed that he is of Puerto Rican descent, and has repeatedly stated that he is not black. Why do you feel it is relevant to continue pushing this point? Sanchez's ethnicity was an issue only with the Columbia socialists, and there was no evidence that it was a "black thing", only that he was a minority, of which Latino qualifies. The only controversy over his racial identity is that which you are promoting. Horologium t-c 01:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

An article ought to be accurate. I might not want people to notice or comment on a particular physical feature, but if it became part of the story then there's really nothing I ought to be able to do about it. Sanchez's ethnicity wasn't "an issue only with the Columbia socialists." Sanchez himself made it an issue in his numerous television appearances. But, as I said in my other response that crossed yours in the editing here, I'm okay if the other editors decide they don't want to believe their lyin' eyes and need an independent source. If I find one, I'll let you know. Pwok 01:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

As for adding a picture - there are already two pictures of him in the article, which seems a gracious plenty. I'd drop this line of enquiry. Aleta 01:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right about the pics. The ones in the article accomplish the purpose I mentioned, i.e., accurate identification. Pwok 01:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: This thread appears to duplicate the topic in the above thread at #Object to the Describes himself as Puerto Rican Heritage. Please post any additional replies there, thanks. --Elonka 19:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Reasonable point

Restored comment:

The military newspaper of record, Stars and Stripes, printed an article in which they stated that Matthew Sanchez was classified as no longer fit for duty because of a medical problem. I would consider that to be confirmed and sourced information. [Note: Removed unnecessary speculation per WP:BLP, WP:NOR and WP:NOT#TABLOID - WjBscribe 17:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)] 75.74.72.79 04:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC) Aatombomb 05:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sanchez's transfer from the active reserves on account of an undisclosed medical problem is noted in the proposed rewrite. Nevertheless, I'd be interested in a link to the Stars and Stripes article that you've mentioned. Pwok 15:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Bowing Out

Elonka has quoted WP:BLP, another Wikipedia gotcha (Wikipedia has more gotchas than a castle has murder slits) that forbids any sourcing of any blog or website except that created by the subject of an article. This would makes the current article on Sanchez, as well as my proposed revisions, invalid. What a waste of time to have ever gotten involved with Wikipedia! I'm requesting that my account be deleted, including the contents of the "sandbox." In the meantime, please don't use any of it. This whole thing is a sham, and it was from the get-go. No one with an ounce of professionalism would ever be involved with Wikipedia, at least not once they figured out what you're actually doing. Nothing here will stand the test of time. Pwok 23:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

(addendum) The Wikipedia story is now on my site, along with a commentary on the accompanying forum. What a joke your operation is. 71.231.140.80 06:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey jScribe: Nice censor job on removing mention of Sanchez's prostitution. This is in spite of his direct admission of prostitution in his article for Salon.com; two direct admissions on Alan Colmes's radio show, complete with details about his clientele; and abundant independent documentary evidence. Oh, and what was that about Wikipedia's procedures on establishing a consensus prior to making edits of a controversial article? Doesn't apply to you. But hey, I'm sure you have a rule for that. If not, you'll invent one. I predicted a long time ago that this would happen. Your "pillars" are worthless shams. "Four legs good, two legs better!" 71.231.140.80 17:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Pwok, if you want to participate in the discussion, please do so under a name. No one here is asking you to leave, and using an anon ID is just going to add to the confusion. I also recommend reading the essay at: meatball:GoodBye. --Elonka 17:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, I'm going to continue to note your blatant disregard for your own rules. I expect that these comments will ultimately be censored, and that you'll find or devise a rule to justify it. It's the Wikipedia way. Incidentally, the censorship of Sanchez's prostitution is even more remarkable given that the Marine Corps Times article that's cited here (in violation of Wikipedia's rules prohibiting citation of any website in a biography of a living person other than the subject's own website) specifically mentions that the USMC investigated his prostitution.

And naturally, you are silent on your jScribe's blatant violation of the purported "consensus" principle that is supposed to govern edits here. Wikipedia's "pillars" are nothing more than eyewash, and you know it. I'd ordinarily suggest that you review the various "pillars," but it's long since been clear that they do not apply to insiders here. 71.231.140.80 19:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of the "Current Status" section

I think that the "Current Status" section of the article should be deleted entirely. It reads like an advertisement - and I feel strongly that Wikipedia should not be used in this manner. As well, I do not see how it adds to the essential facts of the article on Matt Sanchez. It seems to be filler or fluff - and yet I think that the article needs to be considerably more succinct than it currently is. This is a good place to start - removal of the "Current Status" section. Other editor's thoughts? Eric USA 09:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty standard practice on most bios to list some kind of current status, like for actors, "John Smith is currently retired and lives with his family in Compton." In Sanchez's case, I'd agree with the removal of the names of the radio programs, since that does feel a bit promotional. But stating that he's in Iraq seems reasonable. --Elonka 17:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Eric, give it up. Wikipedia is bound and determined to erase as much evidence of Sanchez's activities as it can, and to promote his attempts to become a right-wing media star. All of its "pillars" are useless. Its insiders are acting as Sanchez's agents. There isn't even a pretense of compliance with any of this organization's purported precepts. 71.231.140.80 17:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Pwok's last sandbox version (before he blanked it) was to include mention of the marketing firm and the Iraq stationing, which sounds reasonable.[4] So how about this for compromise wording? "Sanchez is a senior at Columbia University, and in March 2007 stated that he recently became a partner in an unidentified public relations and marketing firm. According to his May-June 2007 blogs, he is currently embedded as a freelance journalist with an American military unit that has traveled from Kuwait into Iraq. According to a June 4, 2007 interview with Martha Zoller, Sanchez said that he will be on the assignment for the next several weeks." Would that wording meet with everyone's approval? --Elonka 19:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's drop the public relations and marketing firm ref. There is no cite or specific name, and Sanchez's imbed in Iraq would seem to indicate that he is not doing marketing or public relations work, but rather reporting. The current wording is accurate but has the dual effect of being both promotional and pejorative at same time, a remarkable accomplishment for such a small snippet of text. Horologium t-c 20:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't be perjorative! Your task is to remove any facts from your article that would interfere with its purpose of obfuscating the truth, and to include any information, verified or otherwise, that would promote your client's ambitions. 71.231.140.80 20:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought you were leaving. Either go, or post under your name, so when I request a block, the admins will have your talk page and your block log as a reference. When you came back from your block, I was surprised at what appeared to be a desire to work with other editors. You quickly reverted to your typical form, and your current crusade against Elonka is rather breathtaking in the double standard you are employing. You are the editor who has an entire website dedicated to the subject of this article; you are the editor who continually wishes to use material from that site to smear the subject; you are the one who cannot cease personal attacks on other editors who have not attacked you personally; and you are the one who has been blocked multiple times for incivility. You are the problem, not Elonka, not WjBscribe, not me, not Wikipedia, and not Matt Sanchez. Horologium t-c 20:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

What's "breathtakingly clear" is your utter dishonesty at each and every phase. You people have already censored any mention of the guy's prostitution. (Quite the trick to censor the prostitution but simultaneously source it with a link to a website -- even though the WP:BLP rule bans such sourcing -- that specifically mentions his prostitution. You get the Orwell Award for that one!) You've tried hard to airbrush out the porn, but you'll try harder. And now you're promoting his new business. Some joint you "Wikipedians" run! Is there a new "principle" called The Wikipedia Trifecta? If not, you should come up with a name for what you've just invented!

Tell me Horologium, do you and Elonka worship at the same wingnut evangelical church down there in Florida, or are you Scientologists? That would certainly explain the willingness to tell such casual lies, but it still doesn't answer my other question: Why is Sanchez your hero? Unlikely hero! 71.231.140.80 20:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) Horologium, good point on the PR work. Okay, how about this then? "Sanchez is a senior at Columbia University, and according to his May-June 2007 blogs, he is currently embedded as a freelance journalist with an American military unit that has traveled from Kuwait into Iraq. In a June 4, 2007 interview with Martha Zoller, Sanchez said that he will be on the assignment for the next several weeks." How's that? --Elonka 21:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Slight rewording of the first sentence: and according to posts on his blog in May and June 2007, he is currently... I dislike the idea of using "blog" to describe individual posts or a series of posts, but that is obviously something that can be developed through consensus. Horologium t-c 21:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that works. So, here's the current compromise wording: "Sanchez is a senior at Columbia University, and according to posts on his blog in May and June 2007, he is currently embedded as a freelance journalist with an American military unit that has traveled from Kuwait into Iraq.^[1] In a June 4, 2007 interview with Martha Zoller, Sanchez said that he will be on the assignment for the next several weeks.^[2]" Everyone okay on that? --Elonka 04:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That is certainly an improvement in that it reads less like promotional material. Eric USA 06:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, I don't want to seem as though I've dropped the ball here (since I started this section) - but I was waiting to see if anyone objected to your compromise wording. Since no one has, should I go ahead and change the "Current Status" section of the article to reflect the wording you have above? Or is it better for you to do it since you formulated it? Eric USA 22:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Escorting paragraph

Alright, we'd removed this paragraph temporarily a couple weeks ago, but I'd like to talk about coming up with consensus wording for it so it can go back into the article. Here's the paragraph, could folks please reiterate whether or not they're okay on it, or if not, what their concerns are?

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."^[3] 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."^[4] In a March 9, 2007 interview with Alan Colmes, when Sanchez was asked if he had worked as a male prostitute, he replied, "Yes."^[5] However, on April 9, Sanchez subsequently denied that he had been a male escort, saying, "Not true."^[6] 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.^[5]

Thanks, --Elonka 21:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm unhappy with including these "allegations" at all in the article. No reliable sources discuss them, but the accusations were sprung upon him in an interview and there is the op-ed piece. I don't think WP:BLP allows us to including allegations that have had so little coverage - certainly not just because the subject has felt compelled to respond to rumours. If national press had discussed this, maybe. But giving such prominence to this material seems rather tabloid to me - its only effect can be poisonous. We shouldn't discuss that "Mr. Smith has denied beating his wife" unless accusations of spousal abuse have had some prominence. In my opinion these accusations are simply not notable and to include them (especially in such detail) gives them undue weight. WjBscribe 22:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with this characterization. The escorting allegations weren't sprung on him during an interview. They were a part of the story right from the start, and they're a key part of what makes this story notable. This is the second time in two years that a conservative blogger/journalist was outted as a gay sex worker. Commentors and Sanchez himself linked his story to the Jeff Gannon scandal right from the start. The BLP does allow criticism of a subject if the criticism is relevant to the subject's notoriety. If it wasn't for the porn and prostitution allegations this article would've never been written in the first place. JMarkievicz2 23:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The pornography isn't an allegation, its a fact that he appeared in a number of pornographic films. But when including allegations about a living person we need to be extremely careful - these should only be included with the highest level of sourcing possible. WjBscribe 03:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

But it's also a fact that Sanchez said "That as well, yeah," when Alan Colmes asked if he worked as a male prostitute. This admission came straight out of the subject's mouth, but still some editors are trying to remove all references to the escorting allegations. How much higher can the sourcing go? I think WP:UCS applies here. JMarkievicz2 08:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

JMarkievicz2, I'm having a bit of trouble understanding your point in the context of the article. I guess I'm saying, does this mean that you like the above paragraph and think it should go into the article? Or do you think it needs changes? And if so, what changes? Thanks, Elonka 21:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Problem: Sources for this article are being altered

One major problem we're having here is that some of the sources used for this article have been changed, revised, or completely scrubbed since this article was first written.

For instance, the Excellent-Top web site, a primary source that contained nude photos of Sanchez that also appeared on his blog as well as an audio recording of Sanchez inviting potential clients to call him if they were serious about getting together, has been shut down. However, references to this site still appear on web sites that covered this story back in March.

Another problem is Sanchez's blog. It's used as a "reliable source" even though he's been known to alter it. This Salon.com item describes incriminating statements posted on his blog and notes that those comments were eventually removed.

But the most egregious example appears in the March 16 Marine Corps Times article about Sanchez's porn past. The original draft of this article featured this quote:

"Col. Stephen Brown’s signature would launch a formal command investigation into admissions that Cpl. Matt Sanchez worked as a male prostitute and appeared in numerous gay porn films under the names “Rod Majors” and “Pierre LaBranche” before joining the Corps in 2003, said command spokesman Shane Darbonne."

But the current version says this:

"Col. Stephen Brown’s signature would launch a formal command investigation into admissions that Cpl. Matt Sanchez appeared in numerous gay porn films under the names “Rod Majors” and “Pierre LaBranche” before joining the Corps in 2003, said command spokesman Shane Darbonne."

Notice how the "admissions that Cpl. Matt Sanchez worked as a male prostitute" has been deleted from the article. I know the article has been altered because the original draft still appears at the Army Times web site. I've preserved a copy of this draft in case it gets altered too.

It should be noted that Sanchez had a professional relationship with the Marine Corps Times that pre-dates the scandal. So it's not unreasonable to suspect he got a friend or a contact to revise the article.

Has Wikipedia ever dealt with a problem like this before? A subject who can alter the sources of an article whenever it suits him? JMarkievicz2 22:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought I was imagining things, as the original version of the article in question was the reason I backed down from my reversion of Pwok earlier this month, and when I went to review earlier today, I was unable to find the statements that supported Pwok's original edit. I'd suggest an e-mail query to the Military Times Publishing Group, asking them for an explanation of why the story has been altered with no disclaimer, as it is a significant change (as it relates to the debate here, at least; I doubt that 99% of the public cares about the case.) I don't think that Sanchez's one editorial with the Military Times is a basis for the change (IOW, I don't think he was behind it), but somebody obviously changed it, and I'd be interested in the justification used for the change. Thank you for your footwork finding the original version of the article. Horologium t-c 22:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Do any of them, such as perhaps the Marine Corps Times, appear in hard copy format? I'm guessing the answer's "no", else it wouldn't be a problem. Aleta 22:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I think I can explain the change to the Times article. Sanchez had been complaining that the article misquoted a primary source, the letter from the commander. According to Sanchez, the letter didn't say anything about prostitution, and the Times article had gotten it wrong. He'd sent me the letter as proof, and I can confirm that it didn't say anything about prostitution. However, I also pointed out to him that we couldn't use the letter since it was a primary source. I recommended that he contact the Times about the error, and see if he could get them to correct the error. Looks like they have done so,[5] in which case we should modify the Wikipedia article to match, and remove the "prostitution" mention. --Elonka 22:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)All of the Military Times newspapers appear in hard copy, but I don't have access to them. (Anyone who can go to a library on a Marine Corps (or maybe a Navy) base should be able to get a hard-copy version of the article, since they invariably have subscriptions to the paper. However, I don't know if any of the articles appeared in the actual dead-tree version of the paper, especially since two of the articles are dated one day apart and would not have both appeared in the same issue of the paper. Maybe someone who has access to a USMC base can check it out for us. I don't know if anyone who is watching this page falls into that category, however. I am not sure, but big city public libraries might carry the paper, too, but I don't think that little sleepy Gainesville has a subscription. Horologium t-c 22:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) On a related note, I think a complete rewrite of this article is in order, but I would suggest holding off until after the investigation opened against Sanchez is completed. I have no doubt that either Sanchez (if he is exonerated) or Pwok (if he is found guilty) will provide us with excruciating details once the final results are released. Only then would I suggest a total rewrite. Horologium t-c 22:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. JMarkievicz2 23:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we're probably not going to be hearing from Pwok for awhile, at least not on the article talkpage.[6] --Elonka 23:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless and until this decision is overruled by another admin, we shan't be hearing from Pwok again at all. WjBscribe 04:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Bad Sourcing and the Current trend in Journalism, sourcing dubious blogs

The Marine Corps Times article was sourced from a blog, which is why John changed the electronic edition. The actual article went to print in an abbreviated form. The Marine Corps Times article had several factual errors.

1. I am not an IRR Marine 2. I did not leave for a "medical condition" 3 I was not of prostitution, as verified by Elonka, I gave her the list of original allegations. Allegations that were non-binding.

I complained of the shoddy reporting, I've had several exchanges with the MCT and there will be some follow up. Matt Sanchez 00:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure its pretty frustrating that the article got things wrong, but we're not in any position to correct that. We can only report what is said by other sources and not engage in our own research. If the MCT correct their story, then we can make those changes here. WjBscribe 03:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The MCT did correct their story as regards the prostitution charge, and have removed that word from the article.[7] --Elonka 04:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Political Activist

I'm not a political activist as per the intro of the article.

I am, however, a staunch conservative and veteran's advocate. Matt Sanchez 00:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, what are you usually described as when people write about you. It seems to me that a "staunch conservative and veteran's advocate" is a political activist as these issues are inherently political. But we can certainly describe you as the latter if you can point to reliable sources that describe you as such. WjBscribe 03:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Article Missing Enormous Point

The rumors of prostitution came out of the gay blogosphere (joemygod). These gay bloggers on a virtual jihad, have systematically attempted to smear me. Charles Wilson, a declared homosexual, and his site, www.cplsanchez.info, frequented by homosexuals are exemplary of this trend. This is as important a distinction as "gay" pornography.

Max Blumenthal is also a homosexual, see his article in Wikipedia. These men are using a pattern of homophobia to discredit and marginalize me. Please note, Wilson's attempt to insinuate that I have AIDS.

Both Marine Corps Times and Olbermann (who has a homosexual producer) have sourced the same homosexual blogs. it is also notable that it was initially a gay blog site, BEFORE Ann Coulter's comments that began to raise attention about my appearances on Fox News.Matt Sanchez 00:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's worth noting the gay porn rumors came out of the gay blogosphere, too, and those rumors turned out to be true. The photographic and video evidence produced by these blogs is incontrovertible.

And it seems the prostitution rumors are based on the Excellent-Top web site, which contained pictures that you posted on your blog. There was also an audio recording on that site with your voice. How do you account for that? Your admission of prostitution during the Alan Colmes interview also helped fuel these so-called rumors in the gay blogosphere. In fact, the Marine Corps Times also cited this interview when it reported the prostitution allegations.

The test for what constitutes a reliable source should be based on the quality of evidence, not on what type of media was used to relay the information. JMarkievicz2 01:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually that isn't the case - we cannot judge the quality of the information - that is why we need the source that relay it to be reliable. The need for the source to be of a certain quality also impacts on notability - if no source of reasonable standing has bothered reporting the info, it is prob not significant enough for us to include. WjBscribe 03:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Matt, your continued insistence on using the term "jihad" or "jihadist" coupled with the terms gay, homosexual, etc. simply will not be tolerated on this talk page! If it continues, I will ask that an administrator have you blocked from Wikipedia. You should be perfectly able to make your point without the offensive combination of these terms. I would hope that other editors agree with me on this - regardless of their sexual orientation. Eric USA 06:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Max Blumenthal, a journalist who writes for The Nation, broke this story (as far as traditional media is concerned) on Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Michelle Malkin and John Aravosis, two nationally recognized bloggers who make frequent appearances on Fox News and CNN, have both commented on this story.

Notice the links? If the people who've commented on the Sanchez controversy are notable enough to warrant Wikipedia articles, and if the publications and TV networks they work for are also the subject of Wikipedia articles, the Sanchez imbroglio is significant enough to warrant inclusion. The notability standard has been met. At least for now.

Also, the reliable sources guideline isn't "set in stone." The reliable sources page says common sense should apply. It also says there can be occasional exceptions. In other words, there's still plenty of room for debate here. We shouldn't delete information just because it hasn't been reported by the Washington Post. JMarkievicz2 07:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Gay Blogosphere

It should be noted that the story became popular in the GAY blogosphere. That is a well-documented fact. I move to have that added to this sentence

The story became popular in the HOMOSEXUAL blogosphere, with rumors and speculation circulating about the details of Sanchez's past.Matt Sanchez 00:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was a pretty popular story in the general "blogosphere." Aatombomb 03:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[Note: Personal attack from Aatombomb's post above removed. WjBscribe 03:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)]

Matt, if you can point to reliable sources that describe the story as being popular in gay blogosphere (or even to sources that confirm such a thing exists) we can add this, otherwise we cannot. By the way, the emphasis in your post above reads as overly aggressive towards gay people - such a tone is unhelpful and I suggest strongly that you avoid it in future. WjBscribe 03:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I second WJBscribe's comment above concerning the need for Matt Sanchez to tone down his adversarial approach to the issue of homosexuality. If he does not, I move that he be blocked from Wikipedia for however long an administrator deems necessary. It is offensive and disruptive to our purposes here on this talk page. Eric USA 06:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Move to Add Quotes

Sourced

• "Porn reduces the mind and flattens the soul."

         o As quoted in "Porn free" Salon (8 March 2007)

• "In porn, everything taboo is trivialized and everything trivial is magnified."

         o As quoted in "Porn free" Salon (8 March 2007)

• "because if an Ivy League student cannot understand the difference between the commandant of the Marine Corps and Osama bin Laden, than higher education has sunk pretty low."

         o "Missing the Big Picture" [1]

• "Gay Jihadist"

         o Quoted on the Michael Signorile to describe homosexual bloggers who attacked him. 3/12/07

• "A lot of things about my life don't add up, but then I always was pretty bad at math"

         o Quoted Matt Sanchez' blog

• "Fighting the liberal downward spiral, one flush at a time"

         o Quoted Matt Sanchez' blog

• "If the Press are the Eyes, Ears and Voice of the Nation, We are Currently Deaf Dumb and Blind"

         o "[2]." Right Wing News

[edit] External links Matt Sanchez 00:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sourced quotes may be added to the wikiquote:Matt Sanchez page, which is already interlinked with the Wikipedia article. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Matt, you are advertising again. These quotes do not add anything substantive to the article in conveying notable facts about the subject. As mentioned above, they can be added to Wikiquote - that is if you really want your name associated with these quotes... Eric USA 07:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)