Talk:Matt Sanchez/Archive 10

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 Ant-Gay bigotry 2 Adult Film Career Revision Proposal 3 Re-write for Adult Career 2.0 4 For or Against the re-write? 5 Beauchamp Press 6 Result of Marine Corps Investigation 7 Charles Wilson 8 Musa Qala 9 Recommend mediation 10 Notes

Ant-Gay bigotry

The article should have a section noting Matt Sanchez's rabid anti-gay bigotry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.230.191 (talk) 10:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The poster above has never contributed to an article before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.40.86.238 (talk) 19:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Another anonymous editor out of the blue???Matt Sanchez (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources for this, or is this your own original research? Rklawton (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster. His homophobic attitude is worth mentioning. Matt Sanchez's own words can be used as a reliable source when describing Matt Sanchez, correct? One of the links that he posted here says that he's writing a book called "Gay Jihad: What the radical homosexual movement has in store for you and your family." He also has a post at YouTube titled "Homosexuals: a Threat To The Nation, Culture, Themselves".Reelm (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"Homosexuals: a Threat To The Nation, Culture, Themselves" is actually Michael Savage speaking. I did put the video together to illustrate the text. The Savage monologue is a criticism of the culture and does not deal exclusively with the homosexual agenda. It is, of course, astounding that gay activists only see a anti-gay criticism here, when Savage mostly speaks about sex in society.Matt Sanchez (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The title you chose for that Michael Savage rant speaks for itself. It's telling that you went out of your way to make something that wasn't specifically about gays all about gays. JMarkievicz2 (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's "homophobic, the Savage text is pretty accurate. 216.40.86.238 (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of in his own words...Rklawton: How about just checking out his frequent homophobic comments catalogued in the ongoing (forever, apparently) RfC, opened, in part, due to his bigotry...(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Bluemarine) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.174.251 (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The book hasn't even come out yet. Jeez, wait until it comes out, I'm sure there'll be tons of publicity. But the fixation on "homophobia" is very revealing about what type of person is editing this file. Especially if you're looking for things to add to the article, rather than concentrating on what's already there. Matt Sanchez (talk) 23:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

When is the book coming out? 216.40.86.238 (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we can acknowledge his homophobic bigotry without promoting his book for him. He's left plenty of evidence all over the internet. Homophobia is relevent to his notoriety, because Ann Coulter's homophobic slur at CPAC is why his gay sex career got national attention. Oddly enough, his conservative defenders accused liberals of homophobia for outing him. And in his early interviews he pretended to be put off by Ann Coulter's remark. But if you check the comments he's left here you'll find that he's said much worse. JMarkievicz2 (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

We can acknowledge pretty much anything so long as it's supported by reliable, verifiable sources. We can not, on the other hand, rely on primary sources except to serve as illustrations to the point. In short, we aren't permitted to use what he has written on this talk page. We'll have to find such support from secondary sources or hold off adding this subject to the article until such sources emerge. By policy, we simply do not have license to conduct our own original research. Rklawton (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you be willing to come togeher and mediate this point? I realize this may be difficult because it could represent an ethical imperpative to some people. Durova^Charge! 01:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

An "ethical imperative". What are you talking about? I stand behind what I write, particularly about the homosexual agenda. If some of you can get your work published in a "reliable source". Maybe the JMark the staunch homosexual activist.
As I've said from the beginning, it's obvious the homosexualists, gay activists, are running this editorial board and you can barely fake it.
Matt Sanchez (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we should first put forward a proposal and see if we can achieve some consensus. Only if we fail to achieve consensus would I recommend mediation. Exactly what changes are we proposing at this point? Rklawton (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

To get get back to an earlier discussion about sourcing... Evidence of Matt Sanchez's bigotry isn't limited to these talk pages. You can find it on his blog and in articles he's written for ultra-conservative web sites. Every time a Republican with an anti-gay voting record gets caught up in a gay sex scandal, Matt Sanchez publishes a screed about "sodomites" and "gay jihadists." JMarkievicz2 (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a prosecution more than an editor's board. It's pretty pathetic, when editors are trying to punish the subject of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.40.86.238 (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Adult Film Career Revision Proposal

This paragraph needs editing. It has several problems

• Moving to Germany had nothing to do with Adult films.
• This sentence is superflous: "Other films included Man to Men and Jawbreaker."
• This sentence seems to be selling the films or gratuitously promoting them. "Scenes from some films have been re-released as part of compilations which is common in the porn industry. The compilation Touched by an Anal was released in 1997; a more recent release was in 2006, Mansex Meltdown."
• This sentence has nothing to do with the Adult Film Career heading: "Though he has appeared in gay and bisexual porn films, Sanchez identifies as heterosexual and has stated that he has had no homosexual contact since joining the Corps in 2003."

Re-write for Adult Career 2.0

So, we could re-write:

In the early 1990's, Matt Sanchez lived in Montreal, Canada where he worked in the adult entertainment industry in all-male films for prominent directors John Rutherford and Kristen Bjorn and Chi Chi Larue at the studios Bijou, Catalina and Falcon Video. For French-speaking films, he used the stage name Pierre LaBranche, but all of his titles in the United States were under Rod Majors.

During his career, Sanchez stared in several award-winning films including Call of the Wild^[1], Jawbreaker^[2] and Idol Country co-starring Ryan Idol and Marco Rossi. ^[3]

Scenes from many films have recently been re-released as part of compilations; Sanchez stated in an interview with Radar Magazine that it "was just the nature of the business, you shoot a lot of films and they use them forever." Sanchez later wrote, "In porn, everything taboo is trivialized and everything trivial is magnified." ^[4]

Any votes or suggestions on this re-write?

Matt Sanchez 17:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Are there no objections to this edit? If not, let's correct the current badly written text. Matt Sanchez (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Support Rklawton[[ (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Support Matt Sanchez (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Support ScottLanter (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: this vote is ScottLanter's only edit to Wikipeda. Durova^Charge! 22:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Scott Lanter is the "webmaster/producer" of Matt-Sanchez.com. JMarkievicz2 (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean Scott's vote is worth half as much or less? Are you going to vote Durova? Is there a time limit for this to run before it gets approved? could someone explain this process? Matt Sanchez (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It's appropriate for us to know about any conflicts of interest. Indeed, due to this conflict of interest, his "vote" should not count at all. Rklawton (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is that a conflict? How many votes are "needed"? Who can make the change? Who objects to the revision? On what grounds? How are these changes normally effectuated? Who is in charge here? Matt Sanchez (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

See WP:COI:

“

COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. ... Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for advertising or self-promotion, or a vanity press. As such, it should contain only material that complies with its content policies, and Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia first. Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest.

”

JMarkievicz2 (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

To Rklawton: Who is the "us" you're referring to? Is there a set amount of members? Are they all identified as ScottLanter identified himself?

For or Against the re-write?

Is there anyone against the re-write? Matt Sanchez (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I disagree with the statement in your above where you opined that "not all films were targeted toward the gay audience." I'm fairly certain that "All films were targeted toward the gay audience." Wjhonson (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Great, show some proof for your disagreement. As the re-write stands, the marketing doesn't really matter, but even you have noted that there's are several "bi-sexual" films in there.

Any other "substantiated" objections?

Matt Sanchez (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually there's only one bisexual video on the list. And based on the reviews, you only participated in the homosexual scenes. If you did in fact film a sex scene with a female this could be easily verified if you would simply tell us the name of the actress you worked with. Bisexual videos are never marketed to heterosexual audiences. Bi videos are a subset of the gay niche. JMarkievicz2 (talk) 02:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"Bi videos are a subset of the gay niche" the same way kiddie porn is a subset of the gay niche. You may have a point there.

If suggestions could be made on the actual re-write, that would be great. As it stands here's what we're discussing:

In the early 1990's, Matt Sanchez lived in Montreal, Canada where he worked in the adult entertainment industry in all-male films for prominent directors John Rutherford and Kristen Bjorn and Chi Chi Larue at the studios Bijou, Catalina and Falcon Video. For French-speaking films, he used the stage name Pierre LaBranche, but all of his titles in the United States were under Rod Majors. During his career, Sanchez stared in several award-winning films including Call of the Wild^[5], Jawbreaker^[2] and Idol Country co-starring Ryan Idol and Marco Rossi. ^[3] Scenes from many films have recently been re-released as part of compilations; Sanchez stated in an interview with Radar Magazine that it "was just the nature of the business, you shoot a lot of films and they use them forever." Sanchez later wrote, "In porn, everything taboo is trivialized and everything trivial is magnified." ^[4]

This seems reasonable, except that I think reference to the the gay market should remain. Aleta (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we should call it the "homosexual market", gay sounds too political :)
Frankly, I don't even think Falcon, Catalina, or Kristen Bjorn call their films "gay films". The majority of films are solos and there's a couple of bi films. "Gay" is not inclusive. There's also an unspoken bias here. Many if not most "straight" films have homosexual female/female sex. I don't see the LGBT banner being flown over those films nor do I see members of the homosexual community trying to lay claim to those films.

 Matt Sanchez (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Gay marketing is the phrase for which there's an article. I seriously doubt your assertion about female-female sex in so many "straight" films, but I don't care to pursue it. Aleta (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Most straight porn videos do contain girl-girl sex scenes, but these movies aren't considered gay because they are made by and for straight men. But that's not really relevant anyway. He's just kicking up more dust. If you visit any web site that stocks his videos you'll find them in the "gay adult" section. To use any other term would be misleading. JMarkievicz2 (talk) 03:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Falcon, Catalina or any those producers have not read the gay marketing article since that is not how the market their own product. Aleta: Same-sex female scenes are STANDARD in "straight porn", it's astounding that you don't know that. The point is that these video companies specifically AVOID terms like gay. Do the research. JMark apparently believes all Bisexual people are closeted gays. I believe we have a problem of sad gay activists trying to increase the ranks by inflating the numbers. It's a simplistic point of view that has more to do with labeling and social engineering than reality.

The fact that women participate in gay sex and are not classified as such is, in itself, a testimony of how much more "diverse" sexuality is than either Aleta or JMark would care to believe as representatives of the homosexual activists. This is a bias that keeps tainting the article.

In the end, the real judge of these films are the producers themselves, and they do not "market the films to the gay market". I also went on record saying that most men and fans of gay porn weren't gay. Many people who watch all-male porn are not gay or don't consider themselves to be gay, it's just that simple.

It's known that homosexuals consume more porn, it's part of the sex-addict culture, but some of the biggest consumers of gay porn are in places like Saudia Arabia. Hardly a hotbed of LGBTQ activism.

Both Aleta and JMark continue to give their opinion with absolutely no source or back up or proof of their expertise. I sincerely think Aleta and JMark are unqualified to know what they're talking about and are imposing simplistic homosexual templates on this article. Is there an expert on porn here? Matt Sanchez (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2007

I make no pretense to have any expertise on pornography. I have just posted a request at Wikipedia talk:Pornography for editors there to come weigh in here with their opinions. Aleta (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

And now I've posted the request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography which is where I should have put it before. Aleta (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that you're attempting to shoehorn this article into some kind of homosexual template and it's skewing the narrative. Over 1/2 the guys doing the same-sex films aren't gay and it's the prejudice to the contrary that has fueled the animosity by activists here trying to prove some kind of pathological self-serving point.

If there's someone else who has done these types of films, then let that person speak, but those who are giving their myopic opinion just aren't cutting it. 80.76.243.115 (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This is in response to my saying I'd issued a request that knowledgeable people come comment??? Aleta (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This is in response to the blatant activism that's causing even the most self-evident of edits to become a long drawn out bottomless process. The hold up here is that you want to say "marketed to gay audiences" or something like that? I just don't get the significance, other than redundant homosexual activist template that everything is supposed to fit in to. What is the "expert" supposed to say in this matter and how would he/she word it in the context of the article?

Previously you said: "I seriously doubt your assertion about female-female sex in so many "straight" films, but I don't care to pursue it."
Now you're saying we need a "porn expert" to verify the assertions on straight films that you "don't care to pursue". Could you be any more conflicted?

Most films have women going at it, even an avowed homosexual like JMark knows that, but labia action in a "straight film" does not mean these films are "marketed" to a specific "lesbian/gay/transgender/sexual deviant of the week" community.
Matt Sanchez (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Might I remind you, Matt, that you are the one who requested a porn expert? I simply followed up on it by putting the request where such folks would be likely to see it. Aleta (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're taking request, why not put up the revision to the article, so we can move on to something more important. It makes no sense that everyone has agreed to the article and someone like you wants to add something on, but all know that the current version is poorly written, and has little to with the Adult Career section. Matt Sanchez (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography#Matt Sanchez for comments posted there. Aleta (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this "expert" a homosexual male? Doesn't that discount him from knowing what "a straight man wants to see"? I don't think anyone would call these videos, "hardcore". Has this person performed in videos himself or produced them? What qualifies him as an "expert", as opposed to a porn addict watching gay videos? Matt Sanchez (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Beauchamp Press

Separate press stories surrounding the Beauchamp/Foer and me as source controversy:

U.S magazine backs off article with some outlandish claims from Iraq ^[6]

New Republic Disclaims Baghdad Diarist. ^[7]

My Op-Ed Piece on the Foer Fibs:

The Lying Dogs of War ^[8]

Matt Sanchez (talk) 08:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

These links all contain the same AP article written by Ellen Simon. I think one link is plenty. JMarkievicz2 (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• The links above contain different addresses, but no surprise since you haven't contributed anything to this article. That's not a "personal attack" but rather a statement of fact, just review all the talk pages stored on this site.

Does anyone disagree with the re-write? Matt Sanchez (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Result of Marine Corps Investigation

• Results of Marine Corps Investigation sourced

“

Major Amy N. Thomas, USMC Defense Counsel Thomas Maj Amy to me show details Sep 7 Cpl Sanchez, To date there is no pending Marine Corps action, punitive or otherwise. Col (Charles A.) Jones' investigation states "I conclude that the questions over deployment and fund solicitation were misunderstandings, not misrepresentations. All parties were acting in good faith." Therefore, as to this topic, there really isn't anything further to discuss.[9]

”

Matt Sanchez (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As you well know, private correspondence cannot be used as the basis of any changes here. Our sources must be publicly available, at a minimum, so that we, can check that what you're saying matches the source. Wjhonson (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Not private correspondent. It's a published article on a news site. The source is the actual interview, just like Marine Corps article who reprinted a letter I gave the reporter, John Hoellenworth. The source is listed, and publicly available Major Amy Thomas USMC
Nice try though.

Matt Sanchez (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Charles Wilson

Come on, if "Charles Wilson", the star reporter, is against the re-write...:)

You should leave the Wilson Essay posted, it's so thorough and I know he's physically very ill, so it probably took a great effort to write all that.

The re-write has some great pluses

• It is factually correct.
• Avoids opinion
• It gives far more pertinent detail
• It links to other known articles
• Far better written than the current amateurish and disjointed version.

Does anyone else object to the re-write before it goes up?

Matt Sanchez (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Matt, you need to avoid BLP violations as well. Keep your thoughts about CW's health to yourself. Someone's already taken care of his commentary; so your snarky remarks don't help. Aleta (talk) 01:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Aleta, snarky editing is also not appreciated. Wilson's desperate physical situation explains alot about someone who has devoted so much time to distorting the record. You'll note, several editors on this page have parroted his points verbatim. Matt Sanchez (talk) 09:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

My point is that we shouldn't be discussing his health at all. We need to discuss edits, not editors (and especially not banned ones). Aleta (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Aleta: Do you approve of the re-write on the "Adult Career"? You can write "approve" or "disapprove" up above. We've made several corrections to the re-write, do you have an opinion or contribution? Matt Sanchez (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Musa Qala

I covered Musa Qala, in Afghanistan last week. It is a major turning point in Operation Enduring Freedom and I'd like to submit the articles for consideration war correspondent section of the Matt Sanchez article:

• Kicking the Taliban Out^[10]
• Combating Afghans, Poppies and IEDS^[11]

This is how other publications are citing some of what was reported:

But have we seen any "V-A Day" headlines, or anything approaching that? As Matt Sanchez reported for World Net Daily this week, "Members of the Taliban boasted of holding ground and occupying territory. They even invited the international press to come visit the town (Musa Qala) under Taliban control."^[12]

Taliban Haven Hemmed in by NATO and Afghan Forces ^[13]

No comment on this? Matt Sanchez (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks reasonable to me. Rklawton (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks reasonable to me too. Matt Sanchez (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Recommend mediation

In the month since I responded to an article content request for comment the situation at this article really hasn't improved. A user conduct RFC on Bluemarine hasn't worked either. The proliferation of single purpose accounts and IPs is not a good thing and this situation not going to continue forever. I recommend formal mediation to the editors at this page. Here's the link: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. It would be in the best interests of everybody here to work out some compromise that way because I am close to opening an arbitration request for this dispute. The likely result of arbitration would be editing restrictions on both sides.

Please address biographies of living persons concerns through the biographies of living persons noticeboard and/or OTRS requests. Vandalism to article space, talk space, or user space can be remedied via the administrator intervention in vandalism board. Slurs and other personal attacks may be reported at administrators' noticeboard/incidents.

I am willing to mentor anyone at this dispute who meets the following criteria:

• 1 month or more of Wikipedia editing.
• 250 or more edits on the same account or IP address.

Please contact me at my user talk page or via e-mail if you are interested.

Best wishes, and please work things out without arbitration. Durova^Charge! 17:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Durova, didn't you just get busted by Wikipedia for using secret mailing lists and proprietary, undisclosed criteria for banning an editor? Now you're asking people to contact you via e-mail rather than in public where everyone can see the discussion. Didn't you learn from your last experience, or do the insiders at Wikipedia figure they are untouchable no matter how often they do whatever they please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.134.216 (talk) 07:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

One reason Wikipedia offers an e-mail option is to hold a productive discussion without sniping distractions from single purpose accounts and IP addresses. The "secret" mailing list was not hidden and I wouldn't wish anyone an invitation to it: it was about cyberstalking. If you believe there is something inappropriate about my efforts to resolve this dispute then I invite you to try one of two options: open a thread at WP:AN and solicit independent review, or continue to thwart resolution until this enters arbitration and submit evidence against me there. Durova^Charge! 08:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Durova, worry not. I know all about how Wikipedia works. Challenging you would be automatic evidence of, I don't know, um, sarcasm? But you know, maybe all of Wikipedia should be edited and administered by private e-mail list, to prevent "sniping distractions." Not that there's a "cabal" or anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.134.216 (talk) 09:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The single purpose accounts show how many weirdos are interested in this article.
Matt Sanchez (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, one of those was a single purpose account and you made no attempt to distance yourself from it. I'd be happy to see another content request for comment, or a third opinion, or mediation. Bear in mind that it would earn tons of goodwill for you to strikethrough a few statements you've made about homosexual men. I'm really doing my best to be neutral here. And in the interests of total disclosure I have a few things to restate and add. I am a female Columbia University graduate, a United States Navy war veteran, am straight as an arrow (how did this become relevant?), and support gay rights. That said, I'm also willing to endeavor to mentor anyone, from either side of this debate. I've been through a lot of arbitration cases, as my user space shows. If I requested an arbitration for this dispute right now I'd guess it would probably be accepted. What I want to do is offer everyone here another chance to work things out on your own, without external restrictions. Please pursue one more try at formal dispute resolution. And on all sides, to the extent that you're able, please discourage direct intervention from non-Wikipedians. Anyone who wants to contact me can reach me privately through Special:Emailuser/Durova. The person might have to register an account and enable e-mail first, but doesn't actually have to edit. Problems have gone on here long enough. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 00:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Why should I care that you support "gay rights" and why is your sexuality relevant? Both comments are irrelevant and unbecoming. If you want to write an article about your views and post it on Wikipedia good for you. If you want to win a gay award for being a straight person fighting for the gay agenda, good for you, but what the hell does that have to do with my article?

I understand Columbia is dogmatic in its inculcation of the gay agenda, or as you say, gay rights, but I didn't abdicate my right to express myself nor am I compelled to please a faceless editor on Wikipedia. The fact that you have to try to be neutral here means that you are not succeeding. If you're trying to author a gay apologia here for "the cause", you're barking up the wrong tree. It's truly insulting that someone "in charge" is so pedantic. Matt Sanchez (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• I have never used a fake account, I'm very open about who I am. In fact, I'm one of the few editors on here who uses his first and last name. Matt Sanchez.

I stand behind what I write and it's unfortunate you feel it's ok for you to impose your pedantic point of view on others.
Matt Sanchez (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:COI, I have offered proactive disclosures. None of this means I'm here to promote an ideological agenda and Columbia had no effect on my personal views about LGBT rights: correlation is not causation. Please assume good faith. The problems at this page involve WP:BLP, WP:SOCK, WP:VANDAL, WP:COI, WP:OWN, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT#Not a battleground. Not all of those issues exist on both sides. After Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bluemarine and an article content WP:RFC ArbCom would probably take the case. Please take this in the spirit it's intended: a shot at solving the problem on your own terms. Durova^Charge! 17:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

How am I supposed to assume good faith when I have mostly LGBTQ activists on this board taking cheap pot shots at me. Even the simplest of edits are ignored.

If Columbia didn't effect your personal view, you should get your tuition money back. Matt Sanchez (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

My major was history; I learned a few things about that. Anyway, you're a controversial figure and some of your statements are inflammatory. You've also chosen to be directly involved in the article, which attracts attention. Have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate - it's got some parallels to this. Durova^Charge! 18:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You think I'm "inflammatory or controversial" I have two million readers on worldnetdaily.com who think I'm great. I'm directly involved because LGBTQ activists are entirely biased in their editing. The fact that you think I should apologize for my writing is, once again, pedantic, insulting and just down right hysterical.
Matt Sanchez (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Two million readers? From a site that only gets around 700,000 unique hits a month? I think it's obvious by now that you've insulted editors who are neither gay nor activists. Most of us are just trying to keep this article factual. And we're trying to keep you from vandalizing other WP articles by loading them with misinformation and self-promotion. JMarkievicz2 (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The results of the Marine Corps investigation are in, I recommend amending the current article. Matt Sanchez (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

To Bluemarine, some of your statements on-wiki have been inflammatory. As a gesture of goodwill, would you look through them and do judicious strikethroughs? To Jmarkievicz2, would you be willing to agree that some of the userpage vandalism at User:Bluemarine has been over the top?

I don't wish to take sides here. Wikipedia readers are intelligent human beings. They can read material critically and form their own conclusions. This site's mission is to provide sufficient material to do so. So one the one hand, the official Marine Corps findings are citable. On the other, citations to the actual credits (if any) of the pornography where Matt Sanchez is alleged to have appeared are equally citable. Both of these are primary sources so it is imperative that editors refrain from drawing inferences from either set of material. Matt Sanchez's own published statements on the subject are citable at this article per WP:RS#Self-published sources. Rebuttals (if any) would have to come from vetted sources. Site policy does give some advantage to Matt Sanchez in this respect, yet this site allows other editors to publish their own analysis in reliable vetted sources, which may then be cited at this article. Durova^Charge! 19:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want the USMC investigation's results cited in this article, that's easy. Start by scanning the entire file, then set up a website and publish it there. This would make the investigation a primary source, which is usable under Wikipedia rules. But you'll need to publish the whole thing, not bits and pieces. I'm sure there are plenty of people here who will want to read all of it. 24.18.134.216 (talk) 02:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that his userpage has been vandalized. But I don't see how that has anything to do with what I'm saying. My arguments have nothing to do with his userpage. And it looks to me like his userpage vandalism was committed by a straight, homophobic troll.

The main problem with this article is that relevant, properly sourced information, based on published statements from Matt Sanchez himself, has been scrubbed simply because Matt Sanchez changed his mind and decided he wanted to bury certain details about his past. Another problem is cherry-picking. References to his admissions of prostitution/escorting have been purged from his bio even though it links to a source that deals explicitly with this subject. JMarkievicz2 (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Notes

Since people are using footnote-style citations on this page, we need to be able to see them. I'm adding this section for that purpose. Aleta (talk) 02:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

216.40.86.238 (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

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.