Talk:Matt Sanchez/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 11


Contents

Edit Request

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

NotebookNinja, absolutely nothing can be done. Please read Wikipedia's Verifiability policy. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure there are plenty of publications that would be interested in the conditions of Sanchez's discharge. Aatombomb (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}Matt Sanchez}}

The Marine Corps Investigation has been updated, I request that the following bold text be added to the current section. Please note, I've duly sourced the edits and have collaborated on the text with some of the editors on this board.

On March 16, 2007, John Hoellwarth, a staff writer for Military Times Media Group, reported that Sanchez was the subject of a Marine Corps inquiry about his appearances in pornographic videos and related allegations.[1] In an article published April 1, 2007 by the Marine Corps Times, Hoellwarth wrote that the Marine Corps was also investigating reports that Sanchez had "wrongfully solicited funds to support your purported deployment to Iraq." According to the article, a Marine investigator accused Sanchez of "coordinating a $300 payment from the UWVC (United War Veterans Council) and $12,000 from U-Haul."

Sanchez told the newspaper that the charges were "demonstrably false." However, in a subsequent comment on the Military Times's website, Sanchez wrote that the organizations offered him money for a trip "as a reporter overseas, and their sponsorship in exchange for promotional consideration." Sanchez maintained that he never actually collected any funds from those organizations.

On September 7th, Marine investigator Colonel Charles Jones concluded that "the questions over deployment and fund solicitations were misunderstanding, not misrepresentations. All parties were acting in good faith. There fore as to the topic, there really isn't anything further to discuss."[1] [2]}}


Matt Sanchez (talk) 08:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I support the addition, though I wonder if the whole section couldn't be shortened. There was an investigation, it has been closed, done - maybe a sentence or two? Properly sourced, of course, but it seems like a small event that might not be worthy of a full section on the page. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I lowered the protection level on the article; you should be able to make the changes yourself. Please take care to ensure your edits have consensus and meet our policies. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not support this edit. Sanchez says the investigation is concluded, but there is no reliable source that says the investigation is concluded. Mateo's blog and RWN have been discussed at length already and have not been considered reliable sources. Aatombomb (talk) 06:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
SatyrnTN: Why not post an edit and see if it works. Matt Sanchez (talk) 06:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Autobiography Rules

If Wikipedia already has an article about you

It is difficult to write neutrally and objectively about oneself (see above about unconscious biases). You should let others do the writing.

Contributing material or making suggestions on the article's talk page is considered proper—let independent editors write it into the article itself or approve it if you still want to make the changes yourself.

In clear-cut cases, it is permissible to edit pages connected to yourself. So, you can revert vandalism; but of course it has to be simple, obvious vandalism and not a content dispute. Similarly, you should feel free to correct mistaken or out-of-date facts about yourself, such as marital status, current employer, place of birth, and so on. (Note it on the talk page.) Be prepared that if the fact has different interpretations, others will edit it.

Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it should be a secondary or tertiary source—it should not contain any "new" information or theories (see Wikipedia:No original research) and all information should have checkable third-party references. Facts, retellings of events, and clarifications which you may wish to have added to an article about yourself must be verifiable by third parties.

If you are a regular Wikipedia editor, you can identify yourself on the article's talk page with the notice.

Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Matt Sanchez/Archive 11, has edited Wikipedia as
Matt Sanchez (talk · contribs)

Non-LGBT??

Are there any non-LGBT affiliated editors on this board? Matt Sanchez (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean every other editor here is LGBT?Matt Sanchez (talk) 08:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No, but why? Avruchtalk 18:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't identify as LGBT. Aatombomb (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Adult Film Career 4.0

Succincter version:

In the early 1990's, Matt Sanchez worked in the adult entertainment, for prominent gay pornography directors John Rutherford, Kristen Bjorn and Chi Chi Larue. For French-speaking films, Sanchez, fluent in French, was assigned the stage name Pierre LaBranche, for English and Spanish Sanchez was given the name Rod Majors.

Sanchez starred in several films that subsequently won awards including Call of the Wild[3], Jawbreaker[4] and Idol Country co-starring Ryan Idol and Marco Rossi. [5]

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." [6]

This isn't more succinct. It's bogged down with information that's not relevant to your notoriety.Reelm (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
"Bogged Down" is a poor talking point. The information is all pertinent to the Adult Career section and everything stated is qualified with a source. Your opinion is worthless here, everything I've written above is a fact. Matt Sanchez (talk) 04:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Matt, are you constitutionally incapable of maintaining civility? Aleta (Sing) 06:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
This is not a matter of civility. I am correct, his/her "opinion is worthless here" is a factual statement. The current Adult Career has several non-sequitors, tangential and "bogged down" information, yet Lesbian/Gay/Transgender/Bisexual/Queer or troll of the week "editors" like Reelm who mysteriously appears to edit this article, insist on his expertise.

Matt Sanchez (talk) 08:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

  1. Yes, it is a question of civility. You can say why you disagree wih the opinion (which you've just done), but that's very different from saying the opinion is worthless.
  2. As far as I know Reelm as never, either here or on his/her user page, given any information as to sexual orientation, nor does it matter, and your continued apparent obsession with other editors' orientations is a distraction at best.
  3. "His expertise" - huh? Whose?

Aleta (Sing) 17:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

His "orientation" is very important and if deny that then you're just being ridiculously naive or exceedingly insulting.

  1. The homosexual agenda is a political movement, first and foremost, most of the editors on this page are homosexuals engaged in the radical movement. There is no "debate" in the LGBTQ movement, it is monolithic in opinion and purpose and completely biased.
Those comments have nothing to do with the article or your proposed change.
  1. No one cares less than I who does what in privacy, but I only know of your and his orientation because of the comments you and he have on your talk pages or the comments they have made. Obviously orientation does matter, that's why so many of these homosexual editors have self-selected themselves to participate in the editing of this article.
Those comments have nothing to do with the article or your proposed change.
  1. Just stick to the editing, the problem here is all the lack of editing. This process has been made difficult because of editors with an agenda, and you ALETA are far too selective in your criticism. You haven't even identified the role you play here, but you're pretending to be some sort of school teacher. Show some backbone.
    Matt Sanchez (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Those comments have nothing to do with the article or your proposed change.
Perhaps, Matt, you could also stick to editing the article? Building consensus might make the editing process you say you're looking for actually move faster. And before you ask, yes, I'm gay. I care nothing for your videos or your article or what you do, but as an admin I have to point out that if you keep bordering on attacking other editors, either for their sexual orientations or for their opinions, you may be blocked from participating in the discussion at all. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
might and may sound suspiciously like nothing. My point that no one wishes to address has little to do with who is taking what up which orifice, but rather how a political agenda has attracted JMark, AAbomb, Aleta and other, under the rubric of LGBTQ issues to "assist" in editing this article. Despite many edits and many votes, no changes have been made. Which shows the ultimate weakness of how petty politics can skews Wikipedia. The fact that you, ANOTHER homosexual, found your way to this article is hardly chance. As an admin or editor, if you can't recognize bias, you have a problem. If someone like Ann Coulter were writing Bill Clinton's article on Wiki, that would raise a flag, although I believe Ann is very capable of doing a good job, she would be seriously compromised.

Or maybe wiki is really skewed toward attracting gay editors.Matt Sanchez (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe you're totally missing my point? Keep insulting editors, then it won't be anyone's fault but your own what the article says. You're hiding behind politics again instead of addressing the content. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Matt, I respectfully request you strikethrough that comment. Comment on content, please, not the contributors. DurovaCharge! 03:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I stand by what I write, why would I strike it through? What are you, some kind of censor? Content is obviously dictated by the editors. There are SEVERAL facts that just have not been posted due to the bias of the mostly LGBT agenda driven editors. The stuff that is indisputable remains uncommented and unchanged, but there are plenty of tangents. Durova, why don't you stick to your own ability to read, write and think and stop trying to bully people who don't agree with you? My comments are entirely valid and I stand behind them. Matt Sanchez (talk) 08:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
As for insulting editors, how is pointing out sexual proclivities and political affiliations an insult? I only know who does whom/what because of the User details in the profiles. If you're going to tell me that they're actually fair and balanced despite their political/social affiliations, then there's a bridge I'd like to sell you in Brooklyn. Matt Sanchez (talk) 08:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Deflecting to an editor's sexuality and indeed characterizing as "proclivities" is hostile and violates the spirit of wikipedia. You have been made well aware of this on several occasions. Everyone has a POV and this wiki takes that into consideration. This is also part of th reason we focus on content not the contributor. If you are unable to abide by wikipedia's policies on WP:Civility then you will be blocked from editing your own article. A step many patient editors have avoided taking thus far. Please remain civil and focus on content. Benjiboi 21:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not a "deflection" it's an observation that places the editing into context. No one here has reflected on content that is simply a lie. Matt Sanchez (talk) 08:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Adult Film Career 3.0

  • Here's a new version to vote on. I've place the add ons in bold

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


During his brief career, Sanchez starred in several films that subsequently won awards including Call of the Wild[7], Jawbreaker[4] and Idol Country co-starring Ryan Idol and Marco Rossi. [5]


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." [6]


  • Not sure how to add the wikilink. Matt Sanchez (talk) 02:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I corrected a typo in it (stared --> starred). It seems fine to me now. Any one else have any comments? Aleta (Sing) 15:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it's cluttered with too much extraneous information. The first sentence is especially awkward because of the phrase "he worked in the adult entertainment." Why not simply state that he was "a gay pornographic actor" like every other porn star bio? I'd go with something more streamlined:
Matt Sanchez appeared as a pornographic actor in nearly two dozen gay adult videos released between 1992 and 1995. In his first two roles, Montreal Men and Call of the Wild, both produced by director Kristen Bjorn, Sanchez used the stage name "Pierre LaBranche." For all subsequent videos Sanchez adopted the nom-de-porn "Rod Majors."
Even though Sanchez ended his adult video career in the mid-90s, footage from his older titles has been recycled in recent compilation videos, such as the frequently cited Touched by an Anal. 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."
Reelm (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Here we go again. "The frequently cited?" By whom, for what and why? I wasn't in "nearly two dozen films" and this re-write is just meant to smear me. Again. "Nom de porn", how old are you? I'm serious how old are you? Is it at all surprising that Reelm is part of the LGBT community? There's a bad bias with homosexuals editing this article. Matt Sanchez (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure you know exactly what I mean by "frequently cited." Touched by an Anal is mentioned in just about every article that's been written about you. You even complained about it in one of your interviews. My suggested edit actually clears up a widespread internet rumor - that you were acting in porn videos after 1995. And "nom de porn" - as in "better known as Michael Lucas, his nom de porn" - an example I borrowed from The New York Times.Reelm (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Re: "nearly two dozen" videos. The Rod Majors profile posted at AVN lists 18 videos. It doesn't include the two videos you made for Kristen Bjorn under the Pierre LaBranche alias. I also know of one other title you did - a prison flick co-starring Joe Romero. That's 21 videos - nearly two dozen.Reelm (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Another gay porn groupie. I personally have not even watched 20 porn videos, much less participated in them. Like the re-write says, scenes are re-used, by my account and I've gone on record with 9 to possibly 12 original scenes, including Kristen Bjorn. The fact that the number is even an issue for you is what's disturbing. There are far too many people on here who are trying to "keep me honest", because they derive some sense of authority from it. This is silly and counter-productive. Again, there are far too many people out there, mostly LGBT protesters who want to say i did 200 films and be as sexually graphic as possible, because they feel sex is humiliating. They are correct, theit sexuality is humiliating, but they should really concentrate on going to therapy or religion, rather than smearing me. I don't even know who Joe Romero is nor do i understand why he even matters.Matt Sanchez (talk) 04:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Update to Marine Corps Investigation

This should put the matter to rest. Misunderstanding

Earlier this year, there was a bit controversy. U-Haul and a the United War Veteran's Council had agreed to sponsor my trip to Iraq and Afghanistan. Later, allegations of "wrongful fund solicitations" were made and the Marine Corps investigated. After quickly dismissing the allegations, I began the battle for getting a public statement on the results. The constant reply was "There was no charges, so there's nothing to make a statement on." After a lot of hemming and hawing, a J.A.G. officer sent me the following statement from Colonel Charles Jones. [1]

Contrast to other Porn Stars

Look at my buddy's article Marc Donnais or Ryan Idol[8] This article, in contrast, has become a stomping ground for lunatics.
Matt Sanchez (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Or look at Simon Rex article in contrast. They just stuck to the facts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Rex
Matt Sanchez (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The one major difference I see is that these two (and every other) porn star bio uses simple, direct language when dealing with the subject of pornography. Your bio, on the other hand, skates around the topic.Reelm (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
This by the guy who writes, "frequently cited". The big difference here is that the editors of these other bios don't have editors with agendas. Matt Sanchez (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Revisions on the table-

  • Revision of the Adult Career Section.
  • Update on USMC investigation
  • Consideration of the Musa Qala report.

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 adult films including Call of the Wild[9], Jawbreaker[4] and Idol Country co-starring Ryan Idol and Marco Rossi. [5]

For "Call of the Wild," I think we should also list the themes as listed by the film studio: Uncut Cocks, Interracial, Big Cocks, Big Loads, Orgy Scenes, Facial Cumshots, Threeways. And since Sanchez went on to join the Marines, we should take note of this being his first filmed experience in uniform: To wit, in a Royal Canadian Mounted Police uniform. In one of his old movies, Matt was tied for "best analingus of 1994," and this should be noted as well.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.134.216 (talk)
To what purpose? Aleta (Sing) 15:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
To the purpose of supposedly humiliating me. That's what this "unknown" person wants. He's an angry male homosexual who knows that gay sex is humiliating, even though that's what he lives for. This person is aligned with "editors" on this board, whose sole purpose is to "get me back", whatever that means. I never heard the "best analingus" nomination, but I think it's funny that a pervert would have problems with something as basic as analingus. Next he'll be protesting against culingnus.


Matt Sanchez (talk) 23:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


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." [6]

  • Support - Rewrite is more detailed, direct and references other articles on Wikipedia. Mattsanchez (talk) 05:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • As I said in my archived comments, I mostly support the revision as proposed, except that I think it should be noted the films were gay porn/ for the gay market. Aleta Sing 05:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote "all-male adult film". "For the gay market" makes no sense and seems prejudicial. Porn is not the industry term. They prefer Adult Film. Mattsanchez (talk) 06:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

(EC) True, I see you did. It should say explicitly (no pun intended) and should link to link to gay pornography. Aleta Sing 06:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
If Wikipedia is going to play fluffer to Matt Sanchez and call his gay porn videos "award-winning," then I think it should include a full videography. He appears in 35 or 40 of those flicks. The full lists are verified by the Internet Movie Database, and the Internet Adult Movie Database. Also, the specific nature of the awards should be listed, such as "best ass on someone wearing a cowboy hat," or whatever it is that they award in that "industry."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.134.216 (talk)
It already links to people appearing in gay pornography in the categories below.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.253.106.157 (talk)
So what? That's not enough. The article should include Sanchez's complete videography and the titles of the "awards"—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.134.216 (talk)
Why should we list every one of his films? WP:WPPORN says filmographies should be limited to six at most, with any additional listings having to meet certain criteria. We can certainly link to someplace that does have the whole list, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Aleta (Sing) 15:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Good thing about the re-write is that it includes more films and gives more information. It also links to the websites that have a more exhaustive list. The kook that keeps advocating to show the whole list is probably PWOK or someone who shares his agenda. Matt Sanchez (talk) 23:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Aleta: Why not make a suggestion on the re-write or submit an editing of it so we can move forward. Matt Sanchez (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Matt, I've said what I have to say about it: that it's fine, except that I think should should still specify gay pornography. Add that little bit back in, and I'm fine with it. Aleta (Sing) 02:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
So, we can make the change if we add in that information?Matt Sanchez (talk) 04:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Update on USMC investigation Conclusion

Great, the source is vetted, we should be able to resolve the issue with the Marine Corps investigation.


: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. DurovaCharge! 19:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Revision:


Marine Corps inquiry

On March 16, 2007, John Hoellwarth, a staff writer for Military Times Media Group, reported that Sanchez was the subject of a Marine Corps inquiry about his appearances in pornographic videos and related allegations.[1] In an article published April 1, 2007 by the Marine Corps Times, Hoellwarth wrote that the Marine Corps was also investigating reports that Sanchez had "wrongfully solicited funds to support your purported deployment to Iraq." According to the article, a Marine investigator accused Sanchez of "coordinating a $300 payment from the UWVC (United War Veterans Council) and $12,000 from U-Haul."[15]

Sanchez told the newspaper that the charges were "demonstrably false." However, in a subsequent comment on the Military Times's website, Sanchez wrote that the organizations offered him money for a trip "as a reporter overseas, and their sponsorship in exchange for promotional consideration." Sanchez maintained that he never actually collected any funds from those organizations.

On September 7th, Marine investigator Colonel Charles Jones concluded that "the questions over deployment and fund solicitations were misunderstanding, not misrepresentations. All parties were acting in good faith. There fore as to the topic, there really isn't anything further to discuss."

Those who oppose/support the update of the Marine Corps inquiry

  • Support The inquiry has run its course, and the update is part of the inquiry.Mattsanchez (talk) 05:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Unless Sanchez produces supporting documents for this information. He has his own web site. He could easily publish them if he wanted to. Sanchez works for Right Wing News. This "interview" is little more than a published e-mail exchange with a co-worker. And this interview was NOT fact checked before it was published. Check the comments section. A reader points out that the article contained misinformation about the elections. It looks like this article was rushed into print just so Sanchez could use it as a source for his bio. JMarkievicz2 (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Does this qualify as doing your own research for the article?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.253.106.157 (talk)
  • Support - Rightwingnews is listed as a news agency and this just seems like overkill from some of the editors here. The guy's in Iraq and it's obvious this was a set up or "misunderstanding".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.253.106.160 (talk)
  • Oppose - This is not a reliable source. Aatombomb (talk) 06:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
208.253.106.160 is Matt Sanchez, right? He resorted to the same type of personal attack Sanchez is known for. JMarkievicz2 (talk) 20:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
No, Matt Sanchez is right here and there's no need to personally attack you, your comments speak for themselves. RWN is a reliable source and it's a great first person interview. Is there any other possible reason for not including this source? Matt Sanchez (talk) 23:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
"This interview with me is a great interview and it should be included!" Do you understand how ridiculous this sounds? Aatombomb (talk) 08:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
The interview is great because it applies to the article. 08:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Matt Sanchez (talk) 11:26, 25 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]
  • Agree - We don't hear enough about Afghanistan and eye-witness reports on this are hard to come by.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.253.106.160 (talk)
  • Agree - Musa Qala, is the single most action to take place in Afghanistan since the initial invasion back in 2001. Matt Sanchez (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree - This doesn't meet the standard for notability. Aatombomb (talk) 08:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Revision to Marine Corps Investigation

Marine Corps inquiry

On March 16, 2007, John Hoellwarth, a staff writer for Military Times Media Group, reported that Sanchez was the subject of a Marine Corps inquiry about his appearances in pornographic videos and related allegations.[1] In an article published April 1, 2007 by the Marine Corps Times, Hoellwarth wrote that the Marine Corps was also investigating reports that Sanchez had "wrongfully solicited funds to support your purported deployment to Iraq." According to the article, a Marine investigator accused Sanchez of "coordinating a $300 payment from the UWVC (United War Veterans Council) and $12,000 from U-Haul."[15]

Sanchez told the newspaper that the charges were "demonstrably false." However, in a subsequent comment on the Military Times's website, Sanchez wrote that the organizations offered him money for a trip "as a reporter overseas, and their sponsorship in exchange for promotional consideration."[16] Sanchez maintained that he never actually collected any funds from those organizations. [15]

Marine Corps investigator later concluded that the allegation had a been a "misunderstanding" and no charges were filed. Matt Sanchez (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That bolded bit would make a useful addition to the article. However, it needs to be sourced. Rklawton (talk) 01:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
It is sourced. This is from a recent interview with RightWingNews.com
“ 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.[2]
 ”


This is already published and from a reliable source. I recommend adding the above interview to the article. Matt Sanchez (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

All things considered, I don't think the published interview counts as a "reliable source" since they are only reliably reporting what you e-mailed them. A published (e-mail) interview is significantly different from a journalists article. In an interview, the reporter need only verify that you said these things - and not that the things you said are actually true. That said, I have no doubt of several items: 1) the "investigation" was over a trivial matter, 2) the "investigation" is over, and 3) the whole matter is actually too trivial to reference in this biographical article. Therefore I suggest we remove all references to the Marine Corps investigation over this particular matter (unless, of course, something more develops - like a lawsuit against the Corps). I do think it would be interesting to learn whether or not the Marine Corps has expressed an official opinion over Matt's former adult movie career. If no such official opinion exists, then that point is moot, too. So, in an effort to sort this bit out, I propose the following:

Those who support/oppose removing references to the Marine Corps inquiry over funds solicitation, please so indicate below.

  • Support - removal pending a change in the inquiry's notability. The inquiry over funds solicitation appears to be trivial, was resolved as a "misunderstanding", and adds little to this article. Rklawton (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The Marine Corps inquiry is notable. It got a lot of coverage at the time and became an issue later on when Matt Sanchez was used as a source in the controversial rightwing smear campaign against Scott Thomas Beauchamp. JMarkievicz2 (talk) 05:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It's ridiculous to even ask if the inquiry should remain. Again, faux-editor JMark calls the disgraced Beauchamp expose a "right-wing smear campaign" and once again he exposes himself to be dishonest or just flat out clueless. Not even Beauchamp's editor is standing by Beauchamp.
    Mattsanchez (talk) 05:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Question - so you agree with JMark that this article should include a section about the investigation and its results? Rklawton (talk) 06:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This has been a part since the beginning. The investigation should stay and the results should be published as well.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.253.106.160 (talk)
  • Oppose - I oppose the proposed revisions to this section of the article. Aatombomb (talk) 08:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


Why were ongoing discussions put in the archive?

It looks like some issues that were still being discussed got shelved in favor of other discussions that were going nowhere. JMarkievicz2 (talk) 05:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a good question. Matt created the archive. Perhaps some things should be pulled back from it? Aleta Sing 05:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
What discussion? The anti-gay smear was going nowhere. If you have "reliable source" put it up, if not, you're just faking. I created the archive when the scrolling got tiresome. Mattsanchez (talk) 05:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
You shelved the discussion of your proposed revisions to the adult film section, which you yourself list as being part of what's "on the table" still. Aleta Sing 05:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the anti-gay bigotry discussion and the "Recommend mediation" discussion should be brought back. JMarkievicz2 (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
You have to have more than just your opinion JMark. It's obvious you have some kind of crush on Sanchez. If there's not a reliable source than what will you base the anti-gay bigotry claim on????—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.253.106.160 (talk)
We can continue this discussion after someone reverses your vandalism to the talk page by restoring the sections that you tried to shut down. JMarkievicz2 (talk) 20:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
JMark has a crush? LOL. JMark, you've got to come up with a source for your claim other than your own biased, unsubstantiated and weak opinion. So far, you haven't submitted anything other than your angst, venom and distaste for facts.

All the previous accusations you made are in the Archives #10 talk page. This Talk page was getting too long, because of far too many conversations and accusations that have nothing to do with the article. Matt Sanchez (talk) 23:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That's because you keep starting irrelevant tangent comment threads , Mateo. Aatombomb (talk) 08:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record, I don't like being called Mateo. Especially not by someone like Aatombomb. I'd ask that no one here adress me by that name. Sanchez or Matt will be fine.
Matt Sanchez (talk) 08:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I prefer Mateo. Aatombomb (talk) 06:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, come on, Aatombomb! Can't we be polite and not call names? What does that accomplish? Aleta (Sing) 20:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ a b "Misunderstanding". Matt-Sanchez.com (2007). Retrieved on 2007-12-24.
  2. ^ a b Hawkins, John (2007-12-12). An Interview with Matt Sanchez. Interview: Commentary. Right Wing News. Retrieved on 2007-12-12.
  3. ^ Grabby Award 1993 (1993). Retrieved on 2007-12-04.
  4. ^ a b c Probe Awards 1995 (1995). Retrieved on 2007-12-04.
  5. ^ a b c Video Awards 1995 (1995). Retrieved on 2007-12-03.
  6. ^ a b c Matt Sanchez (2007-04-08). Porn Free. Salon: Opinion Editorial. Salon. Retrieved on 2007-03-08.
  7. ^ Grabby Award 1993 (1993). Retrieved on 2007-12-04.
  8. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Idol
  9. ^ Grabby Award 1993 (1993). Retrieved on 2007-12-04.
  10. ^ Sanchez, Matt (2007). Kicking the Taliban Out. Retrieved on 2007-12-15.
  11. ^ Sanchez, Matt (2007). Combating Afghans, Poppies and IEDs. Retrieved on 2007-12-15.
  12. ^ editorial (2007). Shushing Victory in Afghanistan. Retrieved on 2007-12-15.
  13. ^ Rahimi, Sangar and Shah, Taimoor (2007-12-09). Taliban Haven is Hemmed in by NATO and Afghan Forces. New York Times. Retrieved on 2007-12-15.

Lede should indicate controversy was due to gay pornography

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

January 1 Edits

Regarding the edits just made and just reverted:

  • All the articles I've read say that Sanchez is a reservist. Has this changed? Is there a reliable source that says so?
  • Doing a search on Google for "matt sanchez" "war correspondent" turns up 200+/- hits. "matt sanchez" "milblog" turns up 3,200+. I think that description should stay.
  • Until and unless a reliable source can be found for the alleged September 7th statement, that really shouldn't be added to the article as it's original research.
-- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ban Aatombomb

I've asked him several times not to refer to me as Mateo, but this guy obviously has no respect for my personal wishes, nor has he shown any respect for the other editors on this board. I move to have him banned from this article

  • Support: He's an impediment to the editing, juvenile and obviously biased.Matt Sanchez (talk) 06:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I did read an article where you told people to call you Mateo but agree that if you wish to be referred to as something else that should be respected. Not sure if that alone calls for banning someone however. Benjiboi 12:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
What do you personal wishes have to do with anything? This is a web encyclopedia, not an (ego) massage parlor. Aatombomb (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.