Talk:Matt Sanchez/Archive 2

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 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →


Contents

Matt Sanchez writes Matt Sanchez article

This article clearly has been written by Matt Sanchez since many of the stuff is not known to the public.

"Neutral Stance"

Is anyone here going to pretend that Wiki is "maintaining a neutral stance"? Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, unless your writing has been approved by the community. Editing a biography about yourself should only be done in clear-cut cases.

So what is the "clear cut case"? I have seen patently false information by people who are nameless and have no responsibility. Who is Joe-my-god? I have no idea. Who is Ryoung? Would he please identify himself by name? And explain how he has become an expert on my life in three weeks? Or what excellent-top.com has to do with me? Bluemarine 11:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Matt Sanchez


Can we all agree that "Joe my god" is hardly a fair source. The man, whom I have never met, obviously has a personal gripe with me, that reflects much of the invective from gay fundamentalist. Please note that several "editors" are consistently citing joemygod, as a legitimate source.Bluemarine 11:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Matt Sanchez


I have never "admitted" to being an escort and this seems to be a really important point for a lot of very angry gay men.Bluemarine 11:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Matt Sanchez matthew.a.sanchez@gmail.com


Primary Sources and Radio interviews.

I've added two radio interviews I gave, as well as two articles I have written or people who have interviewed have written. There are several more articles coming, I will update this article accordingly.

If I have violated any Wiki rules please advise. I have refrained from giving my opinion, but I have tried to give context to this pseudo-controversy. Any questions please write me: matthew.a.sanchez@gmail.com




I've added several facts regarding places, dates and details.

The CONTROVERSY section is the only reason I can see for even justifying this article. Someone should do a piece on the Culture Wars and how it pertains to the current political situation in the United States. Of course, there are probably several people who feel the "culture war" doesn't exist, which a point worth mentioning.

I added the Escort Controversy, because I dispute it. If you have proof to the contrary, please send me the information matthew.a.sanchez@gmail.com

I've added several articles that are a part of the whole military, adult film career controversy, including a couple of blogs at the Huffington Post, which should have some weight with the silly people who read that crap sheet, but I understand I have a bias in this situation.


Ladies and Gentlemen, my story is ONLY important because of people who see me as a means of criticizing political adversaries. So, it's crucial to put this article in that context. If not, this whole "scandal" is just hearsay and fodder for "beleaguered gays" who feel threatened by anyone who doesn't agree with them.



I've cleared up several dates. I also cleared up several cities. I didn't "move to San Francisco" I traveled to Los Angeles.

I've added two new articles that appeared, one that was written by me and concerns the military on American campuses. It is pertinent since this is what I originally stepped forward on. Another on conservative David Horowitz defending me after the revelations.





I added the CONTROVERSY section to explain the comments of attackers like RYoung. This is the section please verify.

Also, I've added more information precisely because there is a slant on this article. I won't let homosexual jihadist describe me so that they can have a poster boy.

"References to my past" were created by faceless bloggers who not only do NOT know me, but can't substantiate their claims. Obviously everyone has a bias and I obviously have a bias. But I have been more upfront and honest than any of my virtual attackers have been.


1. Matt, sorry but WIKIPEDIA does not run according to YOUR rules, it runs according to Wikipedia's rules. So, you can nominate yourself for deletion if you wish but it would take a majority consensus to agree for it to be deleted. You made yourself well-known twice over.

2. Any film not 'suitable' for children is an 'adult' film (i.e. NC-17). What you did is clearly porn.

3. how about 'gay-for-pay'?

4. Clearly you don't know much about Wikipedia to be making that comment. I've seen a lot worse!

6. What a joke! Anyone can edit Wikipedia, regardless of who you'd like to discriminate against.

7. Deleting documented references to less pleasant aspects of your past is clearly biased.

8. The best way to deflect attention from yourself would be...to STOP editing your own article. If you weren't trying so hard to spin it into a career-plus bio (with a whole lot of references to things no one besides you would know or care to know), then I'm sure no one else would still be interested, either...least of all me.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 06:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Matt you can protest all you like, but your interview with Alan Combes that I've linked (and was posted with Alan's permission) is very clear that you worked as a prostitute for men and also as a masseur. And that your ad, posted in a gay publication, appeared in Nov 2004. If would certainly be interesting to get an old copy and scan it.Wjhonson 20:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to say one thing, and then I'm off this site forever. This issue with a pathetic, self-hating, desperate-for-attention porn star/hooker has completely put me off Wikipedia. If a person can log on and edit out anything he doesn't like about an article (especially one about himself), then we're not dealing with facts. We're dealing only with people's opinions and/or cherry picking. I can't believe this guy actually has the nerve to PUBLICLY argue with people on Wikipedia about things that have been written, verified, and referenced. At what point do enough of us complain and get his IP address banned from the site? If that hasn't yet happened, then I'm afraid that's enough to erase any small hope I had that Wikipedia can be a trusted source of information. So long, suckers!

Comments by Sanchez

There are several things posted that are demonstrably not true.

The LGBT/homosexual "community" has an enormous bias against me and it shows in their "interest" and participation in this post. Their interest in this post compromises Wiki's neutrality.

I am NOT Puerto Rican. I was born and raised in California and served in the American Military. I am of Puerto Rican origin and resent the label of Puerto Rican as my nationality.

Calling me an escort is libel. There have been many false statements against.

I NEVER lived in England. I don't even like England Bluemarine 11:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Matt Sanchez

I did produce the Movie Minute, please review http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYX1wEM3yAs

These projects are an important part of my life and explain my presence in Hollywood at several key points in my life.


I also produced from Reader to Writer for American Airlines, please review http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD-WjB7I924

I am an avid Wikipedia user. I believe you provide an enormous service. Professors HATE wiki because they complain it is run by "amateurs". I disagree, but its obvious that you have a group that wishes to slander me. Please come to the source--ME. I can provide verification and authenticate facts with proof. Matthew.a.sanchez@gmail.comBluemarine 11:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Matt Sanchez

Thank you.





The Gay LGBTProject has a VERY biased Beef against Me (Matt Sanchez) Since they are political and extremely malicious, they will do pretty much anything to discredit and slur me. Their favorite technique is to use homosexual sex. So, they insist I was both "passive" and "active" in the videos when it is a well-known fact that I was exclusively active.

This page needs pictures.

This page should be merged with the much more thorough

http://www.wikicu.com/index.php?title=Matt_Sanchez#Porn_star_revelation

Looking from the Jimbo Wales article, it is generally Wikipedia policy NOT to edit one's own page:


[edit] Wikipedia revisionism In late 2005, Wales was criticised for editing his own biography page on Wikipedia. Larry Sanger commented that "it seemed [Wales] was trying to rewrite history".[26][27][28] In particular, Rogers Cadenhead drew attention to logs showing that Wales had removed references to Sanger as the co-founder of Wikipedia.[28][29] He was also observed to have modified references to Bomis in a way that was characterized as downplaying the sexual nature of some of his former company's products.[26] An article in the July 31, 2006 issue of the New Yorker magazine [4] expanded on this topic:

“ Even Wales has been caught airbrushing his Wikipedia entry—eighteen times in the past year. He is particularly sensitive about references to the porn traffic on his Web portal. "Adult content" or "glamour photography" are the terms that he prefers, though, as one user pointed out on the site, they are perhaps not the most precise way to describe lesbian strip-poker threesomes. (In January, Wales agreed to a compromise: "erotic photography.") ”

In both cases, Wales argued that his modifications were solely intended to improve the accuracy of the content.[26] Wales explained that Sanger had been his employee,[30] and that he considered himself to be the sole founder of Wikipedia. In 2006, Wales told the Boston Globe that "it's preposterous" to call Sanger the co-founder;[31] however, Sanger strongly contests that description. He was identified as a co-founder of Wikipedia at least as early as September 2001[32] and referred to himself that way as early as January 2002.[33][34][35]

Following this incident, Wales apologized for editing his own biography, which is a practice generally frowned upon at Wikipedia. Wales said in the Wired interview, "People shouldn't do it, including me. I wish I hadn't done it."[26] He continues to assert that he is the sole founder of Wikipedia.[31] However, it has been reported that Wales is the co-founder.[36][37][38]


Clearly, Matt Sanchez is violating that policy, even as he calls to exclude persons based on alleged affliations with the LGBT community. Please, Matt, get over yourself.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 04:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:23, 25 March 2007 (edit) (undo) Bluemarine (Talk | contribs) (→Male Prostitution career) Newer edit → Line 16: Line 16: He starred in many gay and videos for Catalina and Falcon. Sanchez appeared in 34 films, including Call of the Wild (1992), Jawbreaker (1995), Donkey Dick (1996), Glory Holes of Fame 3 (1996), Idol Country (1994), Built Tough (1995), and Touched by an Anal (1997). Sanchez subsequently left the porn industry, and lived in England and Germany. He starred in many gay and videos for Catalina and Falcon. Sanchez appeared in 34 films, including Call of the Wild (1992), Jawbreaker (1995), Donkey Dick (1996), Glory Holes of Fame 3 (1996), Idol Country (1994), Built Tough (1995), and Touched by an Anal (1997). Sanchez subsequently left the porn industry, and lived in England and Germany.

Male Prostitution career

Here, "BlueMarine" admits to being Matt Sanchez, putting him in violation of the Wiki: Autobiograsphy policy of NOT writing one's own autobiography.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 04:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Needs major surgery, if not deletion

Is this a criminal indictment? What's this, "Furthermore,..." language? I don't even think this qualifies as a "notable person." He's a private citizen who's made a couple appearances as a guest on news shows because he had a story to tell. So do countless other people. Shall we start writing Wikipedia articles about each guest on news shows, including their sex lives? This is hardly newsworthy. To be perfectly honest, it looks like nothing more than a personal attack (creating new articles to air political opponents' dirty laundry on Wikipedia isn't exactly new). --Beth C. 00:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've done some cleaning up. I haven't even touched the Youth, Porn Career, Alleged Escort Career, or Other Activities narratives, and although it desperately needs cleaning up if this article is to remain, I'm not particularly inclined to dig into these areas. I hope someone who can show a NPOV will do something with it. Frankly, I find the existence of this article not only unnecessary, but IMHO, depressing for what it indicates about the current political climate. --Beth C. 02:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right, Beth. The Wikipedia shouldn't contain anything that you personally find depressing. Do let us know if there are any other articles you want deleted because you find them unpleasant.
My, aren't you charming? --Beth C. 03:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added this baby, which provides some perspective from the conservative side:

So, the ones concerned about a 'rewrite' are pushing an agenda? Who would have thought?→ R Young {yakłtalk} 02:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Physician, heal thyself. --Beth C. 03:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That comment is a red herring. Since you're the one that was 'sick'--i.e. presenting only one biased point of view...then you're the one that needs 'healing.'R Young {yakłtalk} 21:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I happen to know Matt Sanchez and I added the items about his advertising as "Excellent Top" during his escort period and the item about his unsold TV pilot. Ecoleetage 13:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete this article. He is a nobody. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.212.42.109 (talk) 07:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Merge from Matt Sanchez

Please merge relevant content, if any, from Matt Sanchez per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Sanchez. (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 10:55Z

Verifiability and Citations

Given that this is an article about a living person, this article must observe WP:BLP, in particular, "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material". Examples of content I removed:

  • He cites travel and books as some of his main interests, and is rumored to have visited over 50 nations over the course of the past few decades. He is often called "Mateo" by his close friends.
    He is thought to have worked in four major U.S. cities, charging $300-$350 per session. Sanchez regularly advertised his escort services in gay-oriented publications and on the Internet, using the pseudonym "Excellent Top." The advertisements featured faceless photographs of Sanchez's muscular body, and he often posed with a whip in his hands. Copies of his ads are still available on the web.
    Sanchez allegedly optioned several screenplays, wrote for the Montreal Mirror, Time Out Berlin, Musique Plus, Burn Magazine, Teen People and the Los Angeles Times while working in public relations for several undisclosed clients.

"Allegedly", "rumored to", and "thought to have" are simply unacceptable.

Please! These phrases were merely meant to give Matt Sanchez the 'benefit' of the doubt, even though the evidence was clearly against him (i.e. for his being a male escort).→ R Young {yakłtalk} 04:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have claims you wish to include, please add citations (see WP:CITE Wikipedia:Citation Templates, and WP:V about using blogs as sources). See my latest edit citing the Salon article for his admission that he was an escort:[1] From my understanding, the only evidence presented for his escort career have been

  • ads that purportedly look like him
  • Sanchez's own admission that he was an escort.

Given the latter, it is appropriate to say he was an escort, but then to tie these unconfirmed ads to him constitutes original research and is inadmissible. --Mmx1 18:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No. Original research is research a wikipedia does themselves, not research they find someone else has cited somewhere else on the internet or in print. If you find that someone else has cited it, that is source-based research, not original research. Wjhonson 15:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

None of this was 'original research,' it was research that can be linked from other websites, such as:

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2007/03/jeff-gannon-redux.html→ R Young {yakłtalk} 04:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


I've removed "(many of which have been re-released)" after "He starred in many gay and bisexual videos for Catalina and Falcon." Non-consumers of gay porn such as I have no way of verifying this to be true other than taking the anonymous editor (IP 76.19.8.210) at his word. Additionally, user 76.19.8.210 has added several other words/phrases/sentences which might, if one didn't assume good faith, be believed to be part of a specific agenda. --Beth C. 08:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing footnote

I'm going to remove the only "reference" that is in this article, as it links to the Wikipedia page at matt Sanchez, which is nothing more than a redirect to this page. That's not a reference. I am then going to add {{Fact}} to it. Corvus cornix 22:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, okay, now I'm confused. I don't understand how the referencing is working, since the references are not working correctly here. Corvus cornix 22:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Article rename

I've moved this article from the title Matthew Sanchez to Matt Sanchez, per a request at WP:RM, and because that's what he's called in all the sources. There was a non-trivial history already at Matt Sanchez, so I swapped the two, and that history can now be found at Matthew Sanchez. The talk page previously here at Talk:Matt Sanchez, I moved to /Archive 1. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments left by Sanchez

I'm moving the following from the actual article page, which was left under "Gay porn career":

This person is obviously just writing things with no proof. That Salon Quote is NOT in the article I wrote--please consult. Wikipedia is a decent source for research, but when you let it turn into a means of slurring someone, the whole Encyclopedia loses credibility===Matt Sanchez

| last = Sanchez
| first = Matt
| authorlink = Matt Sanchez
| coauthors =
| title = Porn Free
| work =
| publisher = Salon.com
| date =
| url = [2]
| format =
| doi =
| accessdate = }}</ref>

--Beth C. 07:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Photos

Do we really need all these photos? The H&C screenshot photo is too big, breaks up the text, and doesn't seem to be necessary anyway. I've never added photos to a Wikipedia article so I'm not sure how to fix it (i.e. right-align it, use a thumbnail, whatever). Also, PLEASE don't add unrelated photos like the Burn magazine one, the bodybuilder photo, etc. --Beth C. 21:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's a photo of Matt Sanchez, then it is relevant.R Young {yakłtalk} 21:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I've tweaked the H&C photo; see Wikipedia:Picture tutorial, Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images, and particularly Wikipedia:Extended image syntax if you want to make further changes.
I've also asked User:Bluemarine to stop adding information to the article about him; this is a violation of WP:AUTO. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, John. :) --Beth C. 21:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent-Top.com

Here is the whois information for his alledged website http://www.excellent-top.com

Domain Name: EXCELLENT-TOP.COM
Registrar: INNERWISE, INC. D/B/A ITSYOURDOMAIN.COM
Whois Server: whois.itsyourdomain.com
Referral URL: http://www.itsyourdomain.com
Name Server: NS1.IREITHOST.COM
Name Server: NS2.IREITHOST.COM
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Updated Date: 22-mar-2007
Creation Date: 03-mar-2004
Expiration Date: 03-mar-2008

Wjhonson 03:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

And the point of this information is? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The Point of this information is that there IS no point. It is irresponsible to tie me to this site. (the post above evidently by matt Sanchez)

The point of the information is that you have been tied to this site as the owner of it, by reliable sources. Wjhonson 16:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Here is a link to the audio interview, where we can see exactly what the truth of this matter really is can't we. Wjhonson 16:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The odd thing is, I heard this radio interview while I was driving to my office. I'd never even *heard* of Matt Sanchez until that day. When you were cornered on the fact that these ads you aledged weren't placed by you, appeared three years ago with your *same* phone number that you *still* have today, you couldn't explain it. Why would someone else place an ad, using your pictures and your phone number, verified by the interviewer as your phone number? That makes no sense. However you trying to cover it up, makes perfect sense. By the way, you didn't succeed in removing every instance of your original ad from the internet, I still found it yesterday. Wjhonson 19:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Citations of Male Escorting

Again, more innuendo from faceless, illegitimate "web sources" I went to the Blog.salon.com site and there's NOTHING beside a couple of photos from me. This is more insinuations from "Ryoung" a man I do NOT know. Please note, there was also some guy named Andy Towle who claimed to have dated me, which is patently false. --Matt Sanchez

I have never done a "but--confessional" I have been very straightforward in owning up to the films, and telling everyone pornography is prostitution. I said that Colmes, I said it McCullough, I said it on Smerconish radio shows.


Wikipedia is not for publishing 'original research,' but claims of male escorting by Sanchez are not.

We can in fact find many citations on the web, some with documentary evidence and all-but-confessionals from Matt himself: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.219.235.37 (talk) 05:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC).


http://blogs.salon.com/0001517/2007/03/10.html

5. Assuming that it has ended, when did your gig as a male escort end? What services, exactly, did you provide to your clients? Are most male escorts really just escorts?

My "it ended over a decade ago" comment is about porn. Over a decade 1993. That's 15 years ago. I gave a couple of years just to please the "gotcha" bloggers who have a somewhat twisted "pro-homosexual" agenda that they feel I have violated.

Come forward Ryoung--aren't you gay?


Response from Sanchez:

5. It ended over a decade ago.

→ R Young {yakłtalk} 05:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2007/03/jeff-gannon-redux.html→ R Young {yakłtalk} 05:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Information moved here from a user talk page

Note: this information was posted on my user talk page. I'm moving it here because this is where all discussions about the article belong. (I have deleted information about Sanchez "outing" someone else, in another article on Wikipedia; whether or not he did so is irrelevant to what should be in this article. Let's argue about content, not contributors.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Initial posting

I am Matt Sanchez and there are several patently and demonstrably false statements on my "biography".

I never lived in England. I never was a "male prostitute". These entries passed off as facts are just pure slander. 19:02, 25 March 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs)

Greetings,
Blue Marine continues to edit his own (Matt Sanchez) page. I find it amazing, considering his own words in Salon earlier stated "I'm not denying it" and told many that he did it "over ten years ago." It seems that Sanchez wasn't denying what brought him attention, but he's denying it now that the military has begun an investigation into his past activities.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 05:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Second posting: Terms usage and verifying sources

Note: personal attacks and irrelevant additions have been deleted.

1. I never said I was an escort and I'm tired of this argument ...

You said "I'm not denying it" and "it was over 10 years ago." User:Ryoung122 06:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

(Also, you admitted it in the Alan Colmes Interview, March 9, 2007 (User: Jamie Tyler Moore)

2. There's a project called the Movie Minute that belongs in my "other activities" http://youtube.com/watch?v=pYX1wEM3yAs please add it.

3. [Irrelevant].

4. You should add that I've publicly stated that I am NOT gay ...

5. The Columbia University article is another hit job on me, please merge the two articles, or put "disputed facts" or something to that account.

6. I realize this is an annoyance sir, but I AM the subject of this article and the information does NOT reflect my reality, either past or present.

7. I'm sure you can see that this whole article is politically driven. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs) 06:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Please tell me, is Hannity and Colmes politically-driven? Is your appearing with Ann Coulter policitally-driven? Is your 'make-a-story' on Columbia U politically driven? YES YES YES. But most posters here aren't concerned with your politics (I'm a Republican). We're concerned with your pathological lying, denying what you've earlier admitted to, deleting evidence of guilt, etc. You'd do best simply to stop fighting a 'dirty war' and then others would stop as well. Checking the Salon blog, I originally attempted to support your position until I realized that your story changed with each re-telling. Clearly you're just in this for the attention. Sorry, your 15 minutes of fame ended a month ago.R Young {yakłtalk} 21:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Wjhonson is another gay Jihadist.

Name-calling bigotry. I don't see Wjhonson blowing himself up with a bomb,do you?R Young {yakłtalk} 21:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have PUBLICLY stated that I am NOT a Homosexual REPEATEDLY and yet these fags

More name-callingR Young {yakłtalk} 21:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

have never put that into my article, however they have put the "gay hustler"

You don't have to be intrinsically gay to be a gay hustler. You can be "gay for pay"..i.e. you did it for the money.R Young {yakłtalk} 21:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

label on me, although I have clearly stated that

1. Porn is prostitution

And since you were in porn, if porn is prostitution then you are a prostitute, logically speaking. You cannot logically maintain both positions. Either you are a prositute, or porn is not prostitution. Which way would you like it?R Young {yakłtalk} 21:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

2. The films were directed toward men 3. there are similarities between myself and Rich Merritt AND Jeff Gannon. 4 I have only edited when these people have slandered me for their own pathetic agenda.

More name-calling. It looks like you're the one doing the slandering. Posting documentation is NOT slandering.R Young {yakłtalk} 21:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

5. Who are these faceless cowards? I have put my name and e-mail on everything and they call me dishonest. Geez Bluemarine 23:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Matt Sanchez

Most of the other people have signed their posts, and are NOT 'faceless cowards.'R Young {yakłtalk} 21:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

And no Matt I don't "identify as a gay man". Sure I've been a "male escort for men" for years and I've been in "six or seven gay porn films, fifteen... I mean nine years ago". And I run ads in "gay magazines catering to gay men for massage" (wink wink) since I'm a "licensed massage therapist". But no I'm not gay. In fact, I think I'll update my user page, this gives me an idea. Wjhonson 05:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

My comments

First, it's clear that there should be as little interpretation of sources as possible in the article. If there is wording that could be interpreted as saying that Sanchez was an escort, then simply quote that, and let the reader judge.

Second, regarding point 2, I really appreciate the non-editing of one's own article. I'm probably going to have limited access and time in the next couple of days, so I ask that someone else take a look at this. (Youtube.com is a marginal source, but it can be used on occasion.)

Third, if in fact there have been public statements about not being gay, those should be cited (quoted) in the article. (Postings to Wikipedia talk pages and articles don't qualify as "public" or citable.)

Fourth, I don't understand the reference to the "Columbia University article"; clarification is appreciated.

Fifth, it doesn't matter what the motivation was or is of those who have contributed to this article. The goal here is to have an article that is neutral in view; that can be accomplished regardless of political or other feelings on the part of editors, assuming that everyone follows the rules here. I will say that I am a bit disturbed by the tone of many of the comments by User:Ryoung122; there seem to clear violations of WP:CIVIL. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


Obviously, not a neutral article.

Hooker

This is the text that Matt would rather not be in the article and which he keeps removing: "In March, Matt Sanchez was interviewed by Alan Combes for a radio show. In that interview, Alan says "You worked as a male prostitute?" to which Matt replies "That as well." Audio Interview, where Matt states that he worked as a male prostitute for men. Alan states that he contacted Matt that day, on the same phone number that he found posted in an ad for massage services in the New York Blade Nov 2004. (The interview first says the Advocate, but later in that same interview corrects it.) Combes futher clarifies "You marketed yourself as a hustler for gay men."

I invite everyone to listen to the link. Matt repeats three times that he was a hustler in that interview. Hustler as in prositute as in hooker, not as in gay porn movies. It's pretty clear. Wjhonson 04:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


Listen to the interview, all 30 minutes of the interview, not the 6 minutes posted on sites like Joe.my.god. I never say I was a "hooker" like the Wjohnson says. I go into great detail about all of this in the full interview, unfortunately, Wjohnson wants you to listen to the abbreviated version.74.73.183.229 16:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Matt Sanchez

No Matt I posted the link I had. If you have something more than post it, you're welcome to. I originally, in my car, listened to the entire show as it was being broadcast. The quotes are exact, he asks you three times if you were an escort, prostitute, whatever you want to call it, if you had paid sex with men, and you say yes. If you'd like to post full quotations where you clarify that *from this show* be my guest, that's what we're here for right? To get it all out in the open. Wjhonson 17:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


Very funny Wjhonson. You're leaving out a lot of information, namely the 24 other minutes where we talk about this "IN DETAIL". I said "it's all the same," it's all prostitution.

You have an issue with hookers and you're trying to slander me with the terms.

Alan: Tell us what happened. First of all, a number of years ago... and how many years ago was it? You did gay porn?
Matt: It was fifteen years ago and it just wasn't gay porn, by the way. But it was fifteen years ago.
Alan: What else was it?
Matt: It was more than that, but it was porn.
Alan: Did you work as a male prostitute.
Matt: That as well. Yes
Alan: You were a male prostitute?
Matt: Yes, this is one of the worst periods in my life.
How clear does it have to be Matt. You say yes I was a prostitute. Now you want to withdraw it, but it's right there on the audio. Wjhonson 04:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

This article is turning into a joke. How about everyone just agree to take a couple days off it and cool off? It reads like a blog opinion post now, not a well-sourced encyclopedia article. I still say the best thing would be to scrap the entire thing because this is clearly not notable except to a few bloggers, and only because it was a story "broken" in the blogosphere that got some very minor media attention (the Colmes radio interview). If it must stay, then make it a complete bio, not just an article about this ridiculous (yes, that's my opinion) "controversy." (I'd rewrite the whole thing, but I don't have time; I just checked in only because I followed a link to another WP article and saw I had new messages.) --Beth C. 20:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh Beth, Matt has been on a dozen TV shows and two dozen radio spots. (I'm sure Matt has the exact count.) That's hardly just bloggers. And "Matt Sanchez escort" gets thousands and thousands of google hits. That's a heck of a lot more than I get. Wjhonson 04:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


Oh hey WJhonson is this an "envy" thing because I've been on "two dozen radio spots and get thousands of hits while you're just a poorly composed screename?74.73.183.229 06:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Matt sanchez

There ya go ;) You're very clever. You should add some more pictures to this bio from your facercise page. Wjhonson 11:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Wjhonson, Take the pictures from your collection and put them up. Matt Sanchez Escort gets thousands of hits because of people like you, who define your lives through sex. Get a grip Jhonson, you're not a part of this story. [This unsigned edit made 20:11, 28 March 2007 by Bluemarine]

Matt when you told Alan that your days of gay prostitution were fifteen years behind you, did you forget your "Goodbye to escorting" letter that you posted to your own web site in what was it 2002 or 2003 ? You're right that you're pretty bad at Math, to me that's only about 4 or 5 years ago instead of fifteen. Call me picky. Wjhonson 04:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


This article is a joke. Where's the picture that started this all? Who are all these people doing all this "research"??? It's kind of convenient that this information is "falling into place" so conveniently. someone obviously has Photoshop. This is like a bad soap opera. Who's going to kill this article? -GSschool 07:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Just did a big cleanup, need citations overhaul

Came across this mess of an article just now, and have done what I could. I rewrote the intro to include mention of the controversy. It's the raison d'être for a Wiki article on this person, after all. I merged the two controversy sections into one, and cut the most obvious of the redundant text. I cut the minute reference to other job positions he's held, since this is not a resume or a memoir. Only the Marine Corps, bodywork/porn, GS, and the unnamed current employer fall within the scope of relevance. Some of the other background info (such as palces lived, languages, etc.) were also merged and trimmed; it struck me as needlessly detailed, and beside the point at best. I've also tried to fix the generally poor writing and pecked away at some of those double spaces after the periods. All 3 photos were removed. I'm sure the linked articles have or link to the escort photos already, and I found the small photo of a flier on a plinth to be simply perplexing. I've slapped citation requests in the obvious places, but somebody needs to go through the external links, get rid of the redundancies and do a proper footnoted link off of each relevant statement in the article. I frankly don't have time. In addition, I'm not convinced an individual article will even be needed in 6 months. Perhaps it can be merged with other "15 minuters" of the politics-media circuit into an article dealing with the phenomenon itself. wintersmith 13:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Wintersmith: you should insist that the websites "Linked" to me be properly verified and sourced. I believe you'll find that it is pure heresay by the gay jihadist who have become so passionately linked to this pseudo-issue. Bluemarine 09:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I added a link to the IMDb page listing Rod Majors' filmography. If Matt has acted under other names, perhaps someone can provide suitable links so that a complete 'filmography' can be referenced from this page. 24.219.173.93 12:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Is Matt Sanchez Just Ignorant Or Still Whoring Himself Out For Attention

Above he says that he takes offense to being labeled Puerto Rican because it's only by origin. Unfortunately Sanchez refers to himself as just that, and a minority in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFYSmjIUrY0&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Etowleroad%2Ecom%2F2007%2F03%2Fconservatives%5Fl%2Ehtml

He will next claim that he was referring again to his origin. Perhaps Sanchez needs to take an English class as well as a major American history course.

If Sanchez is still here reading this, he ought to be aware that people whom he dated are now coming out of the woodwork. All men. This is snowballing at a speed that is quite scary, and Sanchez better figure out what he's going to do next, because he's now facing fraud charges, possible imprisonment, and being barred from the military. I'd like to personally ask him why he was never sent to Iraq since our soldiers are on their second and third tour of duty. Sanchez dug himself into a hole, and only a psychiatrist can help him figure out why he has tried to totally destroy and rewrite his own identity. Perhaps this was also the reason for the plastic surgery? At any rate, Sanchez is a very shady guy who doesn't deserve to even mention the military. He can throw all the names around he wishes, but the last laugh will be at him. Herewego123 07:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note how personal these "posters" have become. YES, I'm a minority, but I am first and foremost AMERICAN. I take high offense to being singled out as Puerto Rican, when I was born and raised here.09:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Matt Sanchez The people who I "dated" should identify themselves and post if they are indeed a reliable source. I think anyone sane reading this sees how "herewego123" is on some kind of witch-hunt.Bluemarine 09:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Matt Sanchez

I find the "our soldiers" on a 2nd and 3rd tour particularly farsical and have no idea what that has to do with me. 30% plus of Marines have NEVER been to Iraq. It depends on the unit, your MOS, call-ups, activations and a ton of different factors.

Mr. Sanchez is like all whining Republicans who play the victim card to get out of taking responsibility for their actions and hypocrisy. Mr. Sanchez, don't use words that you can't even spell. It is not "farcical" when you're trying to get kids to sign up and join the military when you haven't even served in combat. Perhaps if you got yourself over there, it might wake you up to what's actually going on and how the current situation is being handled. The military cannot make recruitment numbers, and you're sitting home, doing nothing but whining, acting hysterical, and pretending to be a homophobe when you yourself have been seen at gay bars for years. You are a typical Republican wimp. Herewego123 08:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Everyone out of the pool and let me work

Bluemarine, please take a deep breath and go work on another article. The time and energy you are devoting to this talk page can be put to great use elsewhere.

herewego123, please refrain from making personal attacks. This page is for discussing how best to bring the article up to Wiki standards, not for schoolyard insults.

Everybody else here NOT talking about cleaning up this article, please go do something else.

This is a nothing-nothing page and everyone needs to cool down and get some perspective before they're blocked for disruptive editing, personal attacks etc. I'm removing the latest edits, and then look up this whole dordid mess and put together a properly referenced article by Thursday, April 5th. Please hold off on making edits until that time. I will provide commentary on the changes at that point, and we can all talk about it in a civil manner.

Until then, please have yourself a makeover montage at Wikipedia:Etiquette, and come back knowing how to discuss this without using all-caps and words like 'jihadist' and 'whoring'. wintersmith 12:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, the fact that a bunch of politically driven zealots have a motive to play "gotcha" shows how crappy this whole thing is. I was on Colmes and he says THIS IS NOT YOUR NUMBER in this ad, and that is still not enough for the gay fundamentalists on here. I've come to realize this crap doesn't matter, but it's amazing how many people especially the LBGT "community feel the need to be so malicious. It's sad. The "take a deep breath" guy is just being flippant. I'd like to put his life and distort it on a wiki article. The "personal attacks" are rampant by people who are "writing my biography" How balanced is that? There is another Colmes interview, part of which is already available that again clears this up. The CITED Colmes interview is chopped down to 9 minutes. I say FIVE times. "NO" No, that is not me, I did not take out that add. Nevertheless, these people NEED for me to be proven a liar. Why? I gotta wonder. 74.73.183.229 04:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC
I've restore the escorting details. Without these details it would be impossible to source or re-source them. The audio is on the web, the pictures are on the web as well. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away, and censoring it is not wiki-style. Wjhonson 17:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I wonder, with the putative subject of the article commenting at great length here, if it makes sense (and is within Wikipedia rules) to quote some of Matt's comments on this page in the article itself. I don't actually have any particular quotes in mind, but since Matt himself seems concerned over the paucity of first-hand material in the article, it seems that the article might be fleshed out by some of the things he has said here. Are there issues of WP:RS considering that we can't really be certain that BlueMarine is indeed Matt?24.219.173.93 21:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we can use anything BlueMarine has said in the article. However the words of Matt Sanchez are all over the internet in reliable sources. For example the audio I linked to, also he has his own blog. I believe there's also video of when he appeared on the TV program Hannity and Colmes floating around at YouTube. Wjhonson 04:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I will respond when gay male hookers are messaging me to promote their next appearances on television.Herewego123 08:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Escort ads

I removed "and mainstream" from the statement that these ads have appeared in both gay and mainstream publications. We do not know, to my knowledge, that they've appeared in any mainstream publication. We only know that they've appeared in the New York Blade. I've linked some of those ads from my own article on Matt here. I'm willing to be wrong if Matt or anyone else can find his ad anywhere else. Please note that his own *statement* that it has is not a reliable source. Wjhonson 06:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Latest Edit

I've just made the promised edit. First off, the latest round of edits were actually decent, which gives me hope that this article may turn into a usable source of information instead of a headache-inducing "he-said-they-said". That said, I've changed back the introduction because Matt Sanchez is not currently a porn star, nor is it his claim to fame. It's the combination of his current activities and past ones that's resulted in the brouhaha, and I believe an introduction should make that clear.

I have added citations to those statements which I feel constitute the key points in the narratives put forward by Sanchez AND his critics respectively. Where possible, I have cut redundancies, especially interview quotes and step-by-step detective work. It's better to summarize the key points put forward in a source article and cite it than to reproduce large chunks of the cource. One of those key points is the issue of Sanchez' sexuality. I've brought this to greater prominence, because I feel that the point of the article, at this juncture, is to address the 3 allegations that have been brought against Sanchez: 1) that he is gay, 2) that he appeared in gay porn, and 3) that he worked as a gay escort. What I've done is to ensure that the details of the allegations, Sanchez's on-the-record positions on each (not gay, did porn, no escort), and the empirical evidence for or against are front and center in the article. I personally think that further edits should continue with this structure.

I won't be working on this article in the future because I'm far too busy and I find all the ill-articulated insults tiring. (Case in point, Herewego123's latest. What does that even MEAN? Is it some guy thing I'm luckily not a party to?) wintersmith 14:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I edited out 'former' in front of the word 'marine', because he is still in the reserves for the time being. I don't suppose 'once a marine, always a marine' would meet Wiki's standards, though.


Latest Edit

The tone here is not only inquisitional it's really biased. The allegations that he did porn is a fact, not an allegation. The gay issue is really his own business. If he says he's not gay who cares? The escorting is also his business, unless you have proof to the contrary. Do you have such proof? I saw pictures, but his pictures are all over the place on the net, and people use false pictures all the time.

This article needs facts, not wannabe detectives. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shufu (talk • contribs) 01:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

How many sock puppet accounts are you going to create, Sanchez? Aatombomb 08:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:Auto

Removed Auto tag, this article has had a dozen editors plus. It's not an autobiography.Wjhonson 22:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Allegations?

Since when are allegations facts? Who's trying to set this guy up? He did porn, of course his pictures are online! Too much of this stuff is just too convenient. Who are these contributors and what is there beef with this guy?

Where's the picture of him being protested? Isn't that how all this started? I saw a pic of him next to a dead Iraqi baby or something. Someone put that up. Shufu 01:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's not print allegations. That's just crap.

No one has said that the allegations are facts. But the EXISTENCE of those allegations IS a fact, and that fact properly belongs in the article. If we adopt your standard, then we couldn't record that Nixon was accused of a cover-up or that O.J. Simpson was accused of a murder, since they are just "allegations". Your zeal to destroy the mere mention of the existence of such allegations calls your motives into question. Personally, I suspect that you are the subject doing an inappropriate autobiographical edit. If you want to alter parts of the article to clarify what things are facts and what things are allegations, that is fine. If you want to contribute facts that seem to contradict certain other facts or allegations, that is fine. Wholesale deletion of entire sections because you see a non-existent conspiracy at work is not fine. Demesne Lord 03:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


Huh? The mere existence of allegations by whom?? I go to school with Matt and have known him for two years. 1. GS IS a normal undergrad school, NOT an extension school. The students are held to the exact same standards as the other undergrads. They take pretty much the same core and attend the same classes and are given the same degree.

2. Sanchez has told me he never escorted and all I see here are "allegations" and picture that are photoshopped.

3. There's obviously a lot of bias against Matt on this site. Isn't that against the rules? Just a question, don't go sending me junk mail.

4. I served with Matt in the Marine Corps. He's one of the better and most considerate Marines out there. He's also one of the toughest, strongest and most steady. I'm not sure he deployed, but I know he was mobilized. If you dont' know what that means than you shouldn't be commenting on Marine Corps stuff.

5. What is the gay anger toward Sanchez? I don't get it. Aren't you guys supposed to be against bashing or something? It seems like all these really gay guys are the ones saying mostly homophobic stuff. Or am I imagining that? it's confusing. Columbia U is hyper-senstive about this gay trash and here are all these homosexuals basically spouting the stuff.

6. Sanchez dates a nice girl and they seem to have a normal relationship. No, I won't give you her name.

7. This is a non-issue, but there should be some "fair and balance" to the article. It's pretty sad right now.

8. I'm going to put up the original photo that started a lot of this. GSschool 07:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Classmates.com

I've removed the link to classmates.com again; please refer to the following:

Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided:

"Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:
"Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content."

Wikipedia:External links#Sites requiring registration:

"Sites that require registration or a paid subscription should be avoided because they are of limited use to most readers. Many online newspapers require registration to access some or all of their content, while some require a subscription. Online magazines frequently require subscriptions to access their sites or for premium content. If old newspaper and magazines articles are archived, there is usually a fee for accessing them.
"A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless:
  • "The web site itself is the topic of the article."

Thanks.—Chidom talk  06:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

And you will note that you cited the EL page when the reference you removed is in the article as a reference not an EL. The EL page only applies to the *section* titled External Links. It does not apply to any other aspect of wikipedia. Wjhonson 02:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Since you have failed to respond to the above, I've added back the reference to Classmates.com. You will note, that there is no prohibition on using sites that require registration in any of our policies on sources. Wjhonson 20:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
And I have just visited the Classmates.com site for Independence High School. Yes, it lists a "Matthew Sanchez" graduating in 1988; there is absolutely no other information to be found. What evidence is there that this is the same person? "Matthew Sanchez" isn't a very uncommon name. The information is not verifiable; the site is not a reliable source. Anyone could have entered the name on the site, even someone trying to create a reference to be used here. The names are added by people signing in, not from rosters maintained by the school or any other public record.
I disagree about the applicability of the information I quoted, but neither of us is likely to convince the other to change their opinion.
Also, so as to have all the references in one system (as recommended by Wikipedia:Citing sources, you might want to check out Wikipedia:Citation templates. They're not required, but they prompt me to enter information I otherwise would forget.
You might also like to know that once a reference is used and named, using it in another location is really easy. Just type:
<ref name="________" />, filling in the name of the reference.
The only oddity is that the slash goes at the end of the sequence rather than the front: < /> instead of </ >
This avoids having to re-cite the same source over and over; the only requirement is that when entering the intial reference a name is assigned using <ref name=" "> and </ref> on either side of the material being cited.
I use the small Windows application documented in Wikipedia:Wikicite, which is available to be downloaded from http://sunnybar.dynip.com/pub/wikicite.exe. It's really easy to use and once you click the Create Reference button, it puts the entire text on your clipboard to be pasted in the article.—Chidom talk  22:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
It's documented on my site. Matthew Sanchez himself states that he wrestled in High School. Matthew Sanchez in weight class 165 is documented at Independence High School in another web site about famous past wrestlers in that region, in 1988. Matthew Sanchez himself states that he was "born and raised in San Jose" and that "after high school he went..." [elsewhere]. Contrary to your statement, the number of Matthew Sanchez's who were born in San Jose, lived there through High School and wrestled while in High School is exactly... one. And to your argument that anyone *could* signup at classmates, I would point out that while that may be true, it's very unlikely that a person would sign up as someone else. You'd need some kind of strange motive to pretend that someone went to a school other than where they did. I don't see the point in that. Wjhonson 06:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Does this article need to distinguish between Matt's attendance at the Columbia School for General Studies (degree completion) versus Columbia College? Is this relevant to the Columbia controversy (i.e. does he actually attend the institution that he seems to have a beef with? (I'm just asking...)

Facercise

I have documented on my site here where there is actually something even *more* about the Facercising which should go into his article here. His picture, that is Matt's before and after pictures *appear* on the back cover of an alternate version of the book by the same author AND the inside cover has a dedication TO him. That's big. Why didn't he ever mention that? Wjhonson 21:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Escorting Allegations

This entire section is unnecessary to this article. It seems particularly mean spirited and vindictive, is entirely composed unsourced or poorly sourced material, and contains allegations and elements that are entirely contrary to WP:BLP. I recommend that the section should be removed at once until credible sources can be found. Bastique 16:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the whole thing because it looked like someone was going to say it was Colonel Plum in the Drawing Room with the Candlestick. Home detective work, original research whatever. Not up to our quality standards. --Tony Sidaway 16:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

WOW!! Kudos on this major cleanup! This has been an interesting page to follow. While I'd agree this re-write is a HUGE improvement, I think one of the pieces lost and worthy of inclusion is the Escorting controversy. Indeed-this was poorly written and mean-spirited, however Sanchez admitted to the allegations (see prior sourcing to Alan Colmes video) and then later denied them on this page (see above). It seems to me that this information is relevant as it provides insight into the subject's character and is a significant piece of the "Matt Sanchez controversy." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chorister (talk • contribs) 16:23, April 18, 2007

I don't understand the need for insight into Matt's character. The guy made some movies when he was younger. It's not up to us to figure out whether he truly got off on the activities in which he was involved or not; or whether he still does. Speculation is irrelevant. Cary Bass demandez 22:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you misunderstood my argument. My point was not whether he liked or didn't like being in movies (like I care, and actually the "escorting" piece of this doesn't have anything to do with his movie participation), but rather that he: 1) was "accused" of being a male escort 2) admitted to being an escort on TV 3) later denied being an escort above. That was my only point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chorister (talk • contribs) 21:36, April 19, 2007

I'm putting it back in. It's fundamental to the story and the fact that he admitted it initially and then backtracked is well documented. It requires no original research to establish. Aatombomb 04:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking it off. I spoke with Sanchez, he didn't "admit to it" most certainly not "on tv". It's not pertinent to the story, and it makes the website look seedy, if not unprofessional.GSschool 06:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that it just seems mean-spirited. Wiki doesn't want to seem mean-spirited does it??GSschool 06:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that some of the escorting debate should be included, but only if it can be sourced via major media coverage, such as CNN and MSNBC. Anything that's just being sourced to a blog (unless it's Sanchez's own blog) should be left off. And even in the case of Sanchez's blog, it should only be used for statements like, "Sanchez refutes the charges," or "Sanchez's opinion on the matter is...", etc. --Elonka 16:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree completely with Elonka. "Seedy" or "mean-spirited" are highly subjective categories and shouldn't come into play. If the facts/events can be adequately sourced, it should be included because it's part of the story. If it's all nothing more than rumor, innuendo and denial, then it shouldn't.Chorister 23:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Sanchez *did* indeed admit to it. It's clearly documented in my write-up. The audio is online for all to hear, he states quite clearly that he was a male prositute for men. I'm sure he'd like to take it back now, but he can't. Wjhonson 05:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
And P.S. please check GSschool's contributions and remind me again what a Sockpuppet looks like. Thanks. Wjhonson 05:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Check out Wjohnson, I think you'll find that he has quite a bias against Sanchez. Why is he vandalizing the article? Why did he take down the ISO protest pictures (the origin of this whole thing) and put up his doctored photoshop pictures? Why is he so intent on "proving" a point? Where are all the citations? Why is he sourcing blogs? Why isn't he taking Sanchez at his word, and What does any of this have to do with anything beyond an obvious personal gripe?
I'm going to keep an eye on this article, and I'm not going to let some faceless Marine hater disparage a fellow Marine. GSschool 05:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Just out of Curiosity, what does Facercise have to do with this? and why does "Johnson" want it up there? Maybe there should be some comment about how homosexuals seem to be maliciously attacking. GSschool 06:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe a reasonable compromise on this subject is: "In an interview with Alan Colmes, Matt Sanchez admitted working as a male prostitute." (With source). That should be sufficient, I'd think. Discussion beyond this statement seems to be in the category of later interpretations of this admission, which could be included (but then we get into ever-muddier waters if one wants to support [NPOV]): "Matt Sanchez asserts that he was referring to his work in pornographic films while others have presented evidence that Matt worked as a male escort." Both these assertions would then need to be sourced as well. Though, Sanchez's (or others', for that matter) later interpretations can't be confused with the facts at hand. Again, agreeing with Elonka's approach above. Chorister 19:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes Mr Gssockpuppet. You'll see the the ISO protest pictures were not taken down by me, and I had nothing to do with photoshop pictures, but thanks for thinking I'm that clever. I'm not the one who started sourcing the blogs that predates anything I did by a few weeks. And I don't hate Marines. So any more red herrings you want to throw out? Wjhonson 23:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I've listened to the recording, and I've read what Sanchez has said in other interviews, and I agree that there appears to be confusion between the statements. Then again, I also heard that Colmes was asking Sanchez several questions very rapid-fire, so it's reasonable to assume that Sanchez wasn't entirely clear on what he was agreeing to (people do get nervous when in those kinds of situations). It's plausible that he misspoke during the interview, and then later corrected his statements. So I don't think it would be fair to say he was an escort, just because he may have stumbled over his words. We don't have any solid peer-reviewed sources here. Chorister's idea seems reasonable. How about we put wording into the article like, "In an interview with Alan Colmes, Sanchez seemed to admit under high-pressure questioning that he had worked as an escort. However, in later statements, he acknowledged that though he had been in the adult entertainment industry, he had never been a prostitute." Would that work for everyone? If not, please suggest alternate wording. --Elonka 00:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't just under questioning, he also admitted it in his Salon article. That and this interview alone is enough to establish it as fact. Aatombomb 04:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The Salon article simply said, "I'm not denying it." Sanchez has also said that the Salon article was heavily edited, and that that phrase "I'm not denying it," was actually not his original verbiage, but something that was inserted by the salon.com editors. So again, our only source on the statement is Sanchez, who has denied the allegations: "Not true."[3] For the Wikipedia article to state something like this as a "fact," I'd want to see a reliable source somewhere publish "Sanchez was a prostitute," but we don't have such a thing, we just have conflicting statements from Sanchez himself. So my recommendation for wording is this:
Sanchez has given conflicting statements about the escorting allegations. In one interview with Alan Colmes, Sanchez seemed to admit under high-pressure questioning that he had worked as a male prostitute.[4] However, in later statements, he said that the rumors that he had been a male escort were false.[5][6]
If anyone doesn't like this wording, please suggest an alternate? --Elonka 08:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Salon isn't a reliable source? I think this is getting a little absurd. Aatombomb 12:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The article at Salon was written by Sanchez. It was not fact-checked, it was an opinion piece. So it goes into the same bucket as all the other conflicting statements by Sanchez. Now if there were another article at salon.com, written by someone else, who said they'd done research, had proof, and that proof had been double-checked by Salon fact-checkers, then it would be a reliable source. --Elonka 15:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What?! The guy writes an article in which he confirms he was a male escort and yet you call his prostitution "rumors?" Good God, what a sham Wikipedia is. You're not even TRYING to be accurate. Is this the Revisionist History Club, or what?! You know, maybe the thing to do is throw in the towel, delete the article and admit that Wikipedia can't figure out what's true and what isn't. This is really and truly sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pwok (talk • contribs) 01:29, April 25, 2007

Characterization of Films

I noticed that somewhere along the way the description of the films in the article has changed from "gay" to "bisexual". (Sorry, I'm pretty new here, so I'm not sure how to tell when/how this change occurred.) These are really distinct genres. Was this added based on evidence or just an attempt to make the films somehow more palatable (?) to some readers. Also (as the Supreme Court will tell you) "pornography" is in the eye of the beholder. Suggest "Adult" or "adult, gay-oriented"? Can anyone verify the films' content? How would one source that?Chorister 20:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

We could try IMDB or catalog sites that list the videos by category. --Elonka 07:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What?! The guy writes an article in which he confirms he was a male escort and yet you call his prostitution "rumors?" Good God, what a sham Wikipedia is. You're not even TRYING to be accurate. Is this the Revisionist History Club, or what?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.140.80 (talk • contribs) 01:25, April 25, 2007

Please try to keep your comments civil, thanks. --Elonka 04:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You have been given the website that lists 34 gay films that Sanchez appeared in. Apparently that's not enough for you. Unless the filmography appears on the front page of the New York Times you don't consider it evidence. That's not "neutrality," it's a p.r. whitewash job. 71.231.140.80 08:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The article currently clearly states that he appeared in some gay films, and lists them, by name and with the year that they appeares. It also states that scenes from those films were then reused in other compilations. I think that that is a fair and neutral way of stating it. We don't need to list every rerun. If you know of new works that he appeared in, and those films had a relatively wide release within that genre, then I would be okay on including those as well. --Elonka 14:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The article obfuscates the truth through minimization, mischaracterization and fabrication. It states that "Sanchez worked as a performer in adult films which were primarily targeted towards the gay and bisexual market." In fact, Sanchez made 10 to 20 original GAY films aimed at the GAY market. Including recompilations he appears in 34 films. That's more than "some gay films." The titling of one of the 34 movies as "Bi Conflict" in no way supports the statement in the article.

Sanchez has been giving interviews in which is states that he appeared in "a few adult films." You write, "some gay films." That's not anything CLOSE to a "fair and neutral way of stating it." A fair and neutral way of stating it would be:

In the 1990s, Sanchez performed in 10 to 20 original adult gay videos released by Catalina, Bijoux and Falcon Entertainment. A partial listing includes Call of the Wild (1992) and Montreal Men (1992), where he appeared as "Pierre LaBranche",[7] and All About Last Night (1994), Tijuana Toilet Tramps (1994), Jawbreaker (1995) and Idol Country (1994), where he appeared as "Rod Majors". The porn films in which he appeared had original releases no later than 1995;[6] however, scenes from some films have been re-released as part of compilations. Including the compilations, Sanchez appears in at least 34 gay videos, 20 of which were filmed in 1995 or before. The compilation Touched by an Anal was released in 1997;[1] a more recent release was in 2006, Mansex Meltdown.[8] 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."[9]

I would also note that there is nothing dealing with Sanchez's repeated claims to have worked in non-gay movies. There is no evidence that he even worked in one such film. His performance in "Bi Conflict" was gay. Its title notwithstanding, "Bi Conflict" was mainly gay and was released to the gay market. There is no evidence that Sanchez ever performed a heterosexual role on film. But this article never says that, nor does it make note of the contradiction between reality and Sanchez's claims.

Neutral? No way. This article isn't neutral, it's an exercise in obfuscation and revisionism. Pwok 18:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Npov

I've tagged the article Npov. The escorting controversy has been properly sourced to the Alan Colmes show. Alan is a reliable source. The idea that we cannot cite Alan simply because the information is negative is fairly offensive to my sense of factual reporting. Wjhonson 03:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

We can cite Alan, we're just debating the right way to do it. See the above thread, and feel free to suggest wording. --Elonka 06:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It speaks very poorly of Wikipedia that Matt Sanchez has succeeded in sabotaging this article. The facts are these: He appears in at least 34 pornographic films, 33 of which are exclusively gay and on of which is titled, "Bi Conflict" but shows him engaging in homosexual acts; he was a male prostitute for several years, as shown by his advertisements on the Internet and in various publications, and by reviews on web sites; he has dissembled about those and other biographical facts in a number of interviews. If this is the sort of quality control that Wikipedia exercises, then Wikipedia is worthless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pwok (talk • contribs) 07:29, April 23, 2007

Can you please provide reliable sources for your information? --Elonka 07:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I recall the films fairly well. Scenes are re-used, and my photos are freely available pretty much everywhere. My question again, is why are these people, faceless and often nameless 1. trying to slander me? 2. Citing blog as sources, 3. So interested in twisting what I say? There is a second Alan Colmes interview and I'll post it shortly because Alan is forced to recant his whole "This is your phone number" gotcha game that he played. It's called entertainment for a reason folks.Bluemarine 13:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The source for the 34 movies with Rod Majors or Pierre LaBranche is the Internet Adult Film Database (www.iafd.com). Fo a search on "Rod Majors." It shows 35 movies with Rod Majors or Pierre LaBranche, but one of them is a duplicated title. Interestingly enough, the duplicated title is "Bi Conflict" and "Bi Conflict (Gay)." The fact that one title uses the word "Bi" is the basis of Sanchez's claim that he didn't do only gay films, but the facts speak otherwise.
As for male prostitution, he had a profile on the Internet as "Excellent-Top." As soon as links were published to this profile by people critical of Sanchez, someone blocked access to the site in the Internet Wayback Machine. However, I managed to save the page anyway, and its pictures and voice file. If someone can tell me how to make this available on-line, I will do so. According to Alexa.com, the "Excellent-Top" site's creator was Matt Sanchez.
In recent weeks, someone has expunged Sanchez's name from the Alexa "contact" information, but not the address. Cross-referencing with other databases shows that the "Excellent-Top" site was Sanchez's.
Additionally, there are a number of escort review databases where Sanchez's former customers identified "Excellent Top" as "Rod Majors," the porn actor.
Then there are the admissions by Sanchez himself with respect to male escorting. In an article published March 8 by Salon.com, Sanchez wrote:
"Others were comparing me to Jeff Gannon and claiming that I too had advertised my services as a male escort. I won't deny it, or that I acted in several adult movies 15 years ago under names like Pierre LaBranche and Rod Majors."
Also on March 8, in an interview on the Alan Colmes radio show, Sanchez specifically acknowleged working as a male prostitute. He did this before any "rapid fire" questioning:
COLMES: Tell us what happened. A number of years ago, how many years ago was it, you did gay porn?
SANCHEZ: It was 15 years ago and it just wasn’t gay porn by the way. Uh, but it was 15 years ago
COLMES: What else was it?
SANCHEZ: It was more than that but it was
COLMES: Did you work as a male prostitute?
SANCHEZ: That as well, yeah.
COLMES: You were a male prostitute?
SANCHEZ: Yes. This was one of the worst periods of my life
For audio of the entire interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYWPgHccJNM
I don't really know exactly how Wikipedia works, but I do know this: First, this article has been stripped of the facts about the guy. Second, it's been "locked down" to prevent editing. It's all very Orwellian, because what has happened is that the truth has been taken out and replaced with a whitewash job.
Finally, looking through the comments here I can see that Sanchez has been posting under his name and other names. One of his points is that those with negative information about him are "biased," and therefore the information isn't true. The reality is very different: Facts are facts, regardless of who brings them forward.
So, does Wikipedia deal in facts, or is this some sort of public relations whitewash organization? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pwok (talk • contribs) 00:26, April 24, 2007
Thank you for the detailed post. For what it's worth, it's not about white-washing, it's about making sure of our sources, and making sure we get things right. Because of how easy it is for people to insert all kinds of bizarre and poorly-sourced information into biographies here, we have a very strict policy called WP:BLP for "Biographies of Living Persons". Wikipedia is also very strict about what's called no original research. There's a common misconception about Wikipedia, that Wikipedia articles can be used to collect bits of random primary source research, but that's not what Wikipedia's for. Wikipedia is instead a site that summarizes information that has already been published in reliable sources. This means that we generally have to stick with published books, peer-reviewed academic journals, and reputable news organizations. In the case of the escorting allegations about Sanchez, there are obviously conflicting stories here, which is another reason that we're being very careful about what the article says. Yes, we have the one Colmes interview where Sanchez evidently agreed that he worked as a male prostitute. But we also have later statements from Sanchez where he said that wasn't true. So our Wikipedia article has to conform to another policy here, on neutrality, and try to present information in a fair and non-inflammatory way. Also, we have no third-party source that says that Sanchez was a prostitute. If the story is true, then a reputable source is going to print it somewhere, and then we can use that as a source. If it doesn't get written up, then even if it's true, it's still not considered notable. Or in other words, if major newspapers don't think it's a big enough story to write about (or confirmable enough to write about), then it's definitely not something that's "encyclopedic" enough to go into someone's longterm biography on Wikipedia. Now, having said that, I *do* agree that there is sufficient information in reliable sources, that something about the controversy should be included in the Wikipedia article. If you look up a couple threads to "Escorting allegations," you'll see that we're currently discussing the best way to word it. If you have suggestions on the wording that should go into the actual article, please feel free to participate in the discussion. --Elonka 07:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I need to be sure I understand you correctly. Unless a major media outlet says it, then Wikipedia won't regard it as fact? This would seem to rule out mention of Sanchez's 34 gay porn films. The New York Times didn't report it. The evidence consists of a listing in the Internet Adult Film Database. Sanchez wrote an article on Salon.com that made it clear that he was escorting. He told Colmes he was escorting. Did you listen to the entire recording? In a later segment, he described his clients. In that section, he again acknowledges that he was an escort but claims that his clients were women as well as men.

COLMES: What about gay massage stuff? SANCHEZ: Massage stuff. I am a licensed massage therapist

COLMES: And do you cater to gay men? SANCHEZ: No. Not exclusively

COLMES: Are you gay? SANCHEZ: No. Absolutely not.

COLMES: You’re not gay? SANCHEZ: And I’ll be very candid about that.

COLMES: You were marketing yourself as a masseur for gay men and doing gay films and you said you were a prostitute for gay men, so ... SANCHEZ: There’s a different word for that today

COLMES: Hustler, whatever. SANCHEZ: I own up to …

COLMES: Why would you do that if you’re not gay? SANCHEZ: I think people listening probably don’t realize it, but those who are the in know realize that this isn’t as cut and dry, black and white. There are lots of shades in between. Especially a lot of the clients weren’t … wouldn’t have considered themselves gay. … The majority of the clients weren’t openly gay. A lot of them were married. It really wasn’t at all as cut and dried. Most of the people who came to me at that time really wouldn’t have considered themselves as gay.

COLMES: But you were not servicing women, you were servicing men SANCHEZ: Um, there were those as well. Absolutely. There were definitely tons of women.

COLMES: And you took ads in gay publications SANCHEZ: As well as other publications

There is a lot more evidence of this sort, but if Wikipedia is nothing more than an extension of the New York Times, then I'm not sure there's much point in bringing it forward. And, by the way, if that's the case then I'm not sure why Wikipedia even exists. Again, I'm not terribly familiar with how it works here. But I am very familiar with Mr. Sanchez's case, and I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that this Wikipedia biography is utterly ridiculous. Someone had permitted Mr. Sanchez to flush the details of his life down the memory hole and put a fake story on Wikipedia. That's truly a shame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.140.80 (talk • contribs) 17:35, April 24, 2007

You're raising fair questions, and I realize that Wikipedia's policy on this can seem somewhat non-intuitive, so let me try and answer. First, the gay porn videos are not in dispute. Major media has reported that he was in them, Sanchez has confirmed that he was in them, and all sources are in agreement. If there were a video that Sanchez said he wasn't in, then at that point we'd probably pull it out of the article to re-examine our sources. As for the escorting, I've read the capture that you provided, but it doesn't confirm to me that he was a prostitute. Try reading it again with the mindset that Sanchez was a masseur, who realized that he could get more business if he advertised in gay magazines. From that POV, yes, he had "clients," but it doesn't mean he was having sex with them. Maybe he had some clients who would invite him over, thinking they were going to get sex, but instead he just gave them a massage and left. The details just aren't clear, and so it's not reasonable for us to include "He was a prostitute" in the Wikipedia article, with this kind of ambiguous situation. We can include wording that states that he's given conflicting statements -- I still think that's the most neutral way to handle things at this point. --Elonka 18:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This is straight out of Orwell. Sanchez confirmed that he was a prostitute in the first radio segment, and in his own Salon.com article. Later on, he had second thoughts about what he had said and backtracked. And Wikipedia will accept the cleaning up of history by someone who finds it inconvenient. Not only that, but Wikipedia will go so far as to censor any discussion of the issue; not even "allegations" of his escorting appear in the article. With respect to his porn films, you've allowed them to be minimized and mischaracterized. This dialogue is illuminating with respect to Wikipedia and its courage and regard for fact. Your organization is not to be trusted on controversial issues, because it permits the subjects of controversy to airbrush the truth. What a sham, and what a shame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pwok (talk • contribs) 21:31, April 24, 2007

This is the text that we are currently considering adding. If you do not like it, please suggest an alternate, thank you. --Elonka 23:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sanchez has given conflicting statements about the escorting allegations. In one interview with Alan Colmes, Sanchez seemed to admit under high-pressure questioning that he had worked as a male prostitute.[7] However, in later statements, he said that the rumors that he had been a male escort were false.[8][9]


No! First off, his interview on March 8 was not "high-pressure questioning." His admission in that interview -- twice -- to being a male prostitute preceded the host's confusion about which publication he had advertised in. On another show, March 30, Sanchez was pressed harder, but on March 8th he matter-of-factly confirmed that he had been a "male prostitute." Moreover, his March 8th Salon.com article took note of charges that he had "advertised my services as a male escort" and then said "I won't deny it, or that I acted in several adult movies 15 years ago under names like Pierre LaBranche and Rod Majors."

Now, come on. He "won't deny" the "escorting," and includes his non-denial in the same sentence with an identical non-denial of acting in adult movies. You've accepted the adult movies, but you're going to say that his prostitution is a matter of "rumor" and that he "seemed" to admit it "under high-pressure questioning?" In fact, Sanchez DIRECTLY admitted to male prostitution. He later backtracked.

Want to know why he backtracked? Because his escorting raised the legal question of fraudulent enlistment in the USMC. Sanchez has been definitively linked (not by the New York Times, so Wikipedia won't allow it) to the "Excellent-Top" escorting site that appeared between 1999 and 2002. When he enlisted in the USMC in 2003, he filled out a form that required him to list all employment, unemployment and self-employment for the prior seven years.

When he omitted the escorting from that form (SF 86, to be exact), Sanchez exposed himself to potential prosecution for fraudulent enlistment, a felony punishable by up to 3 years in military prison and a dishonorable discharge. As soon as he realized what he had done in Salon.com and on Alan Colmes, Sanchez frantically backtracked in his statements and tried to erase any evidence of his escoring from Internet archives.

So, this is what Wikipedia is about? Allowing someone to erase their history? All I can say is: Wow. Look, the guy admitting his male prostitution in no uncertain terms. You are willfully ignoring it, which is an absolute travesty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.140.80 (talk • contribs) 23:47, April 24, 2007

For best results, please read WP:CIVIL, and keep your comments focused on the article, not on the editors. And I will say again, if you don't like the suggested wording, then please suggest something different. After that, consensus will decide. --Elonka 04:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


In a March 8, 2007 interview with Alan Colmes, Sanchez twice admitted working as a male prostitute. In an article published under his name the same day by Salon.com, Sanchez took note of charges that he had "advertised my 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." Pwok 04:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but that only has one side of the story. It doesn't include any information about how Sanchez later denied the allegations. Could you please provide a version which incorporates both viewpoints? --Elonka 04:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


In a March 8, 2007 interview with Alan Colmes, Sanchez twice admitted working as a male prostitute. In an article published under his name the same day by Salon.com, Sanchez took note of charges that he had "advertised my 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." Sanchez subsequently denied that he had been a prostitute, or that he had admitted to prostitution. 71.231.140.80 08:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we're getting closer.  :) How about this?
Sanchez has given conflicting statements about the escorting allegations. In a March 8, 2007 interview with Alan Colmes, when asked if he had worked as a male prostitute during his time in the gay porn industry, Sanchez replied, "Yes."[10] In an op-ed piece the same day on Salon.com, Sanchez took note of the charges that he had advertised "services as a male escort" and commented, "I won't deny it, or that I acted in several adult movies 15 years ago under names like Pierre LaBranche and Rod Majors."[11] However, on April 9, Sanchez subsequently denied that he had been a male escort, saying, "Not true."[12]
--Elonka 14:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

We are no closer than we've ever been. We are discussing one paragraph of this sham. Fine, I'll discuss the paragraph, but don't kid yourself. The article in which it appears is a sham. There's nothing neutral or authoritative about it. It's a re-write of Sanchez's background engineered to obfuscate the truth through the use of minimization, mischaracterization and outright fabrication, buttressed by the time-honored tool of censorship. You might call it editing, but editors tell the truth. Censors conceal it.

Now let's get to the details. First off, something trivial. " ... on April 9, Sanchez subsequently denied ..." contains a redundancy. In context, April 9 is subsequent to March 8, so there's no need to say it twice in the same sentence. Secondly, your proposed addition fails to capture the reality of his March 8th interview. In one segment of the interview he did the following: a) When asked if he had been involved in gay porn, said, "That's not all it was" and then, b) TWICE directly acknolwdged having been a male prostitute.

In another segment of the same interview, he discussed his "massage" business in detail. He claimed in that segment to be a licensed massage therapist, but there is no record of his license on file in New York, where he lives. Given his lie about the massage license and the manner and placement of his advertising, his "massage" business can be fairly stated to have been a front for prostitution. This is the rule -- not the exception, but the rule -- for masseurs who advertise, as Sanchez did, in The New York Blade. None of this is mentioned in what's called a "biography" here.

The one paragraph should be less truncated that you propose should be less truncated and less of a whitewash:

Sanchez has given conflicting statements about the escorting allegations. In a March 8, 2007 interview with Alan Colmes, Sanchez was twice asked if he had worked as a male prostitute. He replied, "Yeah" and "Yes." In an op-ed piece the same day 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."[13] However, in an April 9 interview published by an "ex-gay" blogger sympathetic to Sanchez, he denied that he had ever been a male escort, saying, "Not true."[14]

But make no mistake, even with that edit the article is utterly ridiculous. It doesn't come close to telling the truth about the guy.

I note that your proposed version now incoporates blog material. This is curious. You will quote his denial of prostitution from the Randy Thomas blog while invoking a prohibition on blog material in backing up allegations. What's up with that? More Wikipedia "neutrality" at work here? Along the same lines, I see that you have placed his prostitution as occurring while he was making porn movies. That's a blatant falsification of the record right out of Orwell.

In fact, there is rock-solid evidence that Sanchez was a prostitute between 1999 and 2002, which is AFTER his porn movie "career" ended. There is also strong evidence that Sanchez prostituted himself throughout 2004 as the operator of "No Regrets Massage" in New York City. The timing is significant for a number of reasons. First, it is simply a fact, and facts are their own reward. Secondly, it fills out an accurate picture of Sanchez. He had been claiming to have been involved in "a couple" of porn movies, very briefly, before turning his life around. But the truth is FAR different.

Matt Sanchez appeared in 10 to 20 original gay porn movies. Including re-compliations, he now appears in 34 gay porn movies. Not gay and bisexual as this "biography" states, but gay. This article has censored out a complete record, and permitted the mischaracterization of the movies. Why? It would seem that the Internet database isn't definitive for you. But a blog maintained by the an executive of the "ex-gay" Exodus International IS authoritative.

Subsquent to his movie activity, Sanchez had a subsequent prostitution career that lasted for many years. The evidence (and timing) of Sanchez's prostitution between 1999 and 2002 is established by multiple Internet sites including his own "Excellent-Top" site. The evidence of his 2004 prostitution is established by radio interviews with Alan Colmes on March 8 and March 30. Given that he advertised in The New York Blade through Nov. 26, 2004, his prostitution behind the figleaf, "No Regrets Massage" almost certainly continued into 2005. There is a hint, in the form of an escort review for someone matching his name and description dated Jun 28, 2006, that he has been prostituting within the past year.

Of course, Wikipedia won't accept Internet evidence. Which for Wikipedia is quite curious given that Wikipedia is itself a blog. Oh, but there's an exception! A blog maintained by Randy Thomas, of the far-right-wing, so-called "Ex-gay" Exodus International, qualifies as evidence. Why? Do evangelical Christian blogs get special treatment at Wikipedia? And you've excluded much of the evidence for his prostitution even from radio interviews on the ridiculous grounds that some of the questioning was "rapid." Moreover, this "biography" hasn't even mentioned a long list of Sanchez's other contradictory statements. Individually, those contradictions are trivial -- such as claiming to have had two girlfriends and to be or have been married -- but when combined with his other falsifications they add up to the man being a congenital liar. No need to call him that in a Wikipedia article, but the evidence should certainly be presented.

As it stands, even with the rewording of one paragraph, this article doesn't even come close to the truth about Sanchez. There is no "neutrality" here whatsoever. There is the illusion of neutrality, similar in nature to the illusion of "candor" that Sanchez put forth in his interviews. You continue to enable the whitewashing of Sanchez's personal history by means of highly selective editing. This article isn't a biography, it's a fabrication and an obfuscation. If Wikipedia can't publish an accurate biography then it should publish nothing, and cede the territory to other bloggers who will then step into the void with the factual account that Wikipedia is unable, or unwilling, to provide. Pwok 16:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

First, I'd say that Elonka's proposed paragraph is a step in the right direction and should be posted. Pwok, you cover so much territory that it's difficult to weigh in on how Wikipedia should best treat each of these. Perhaps going point-by-point would be a better approach and would help people here better absorb what you are saying. A minor example to think about is the question of conflating "escorting" and "prostitution" and "adult film perfomance" which has occurred from time to time in posts here, even by Sanchez himself. Now of course everyone suspects that escorts often function as prostitutes, but for us to reach that conclusion in this particular case, evidence would need to be brought forward--and that's a possibility, surely. I agree that evidence from a blog or site maintained by Exodus International is hardly objective and should be removed--I don't know its context. But better, in my opinon to carefully document Sanchez's verifiable personal statements wherever they appear and let the public draw their own conclusion about prostitution and the inconsistencies of his statement. Letting the words speak for themselves provides a great deal more, I think.
This is what makes this page so interesting to me. Can people, working together, come to a consensus position on something balanced and reasonably objective on a controversial subject while simultaneously excluding the trivial, but not ommitting the important? Whew! A tall order for humanity.
In defense of what I understand to be the method here, this page, and Wikipedia in general, is always a work in process and that we can't expect to solve everything in one fell swoop--patience as the primal virtue. So it seems to me that the question to ask is: is the proposed paragraph above an improvement over the way the article currently stands? I think that it is a big one--after all, the article currently contains nothing on the subject. But it's not necessarily the last word, either. Chorister 19:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
My style has been highly critical, and for good reason. This article is woefully deficient. Someone has to say it. I have done so, and have provided ample evidence and logic in doing so. In fact, I have gone point by point.
Is this hopelessly lost? That remains to be seen. In its current form, even with the one paragraph altered, this article doesn't even come close to presenting an accurate picture. Not even close.
Now, if those who are working on the article will commit themselves to telling the truth rather than fashioning some sort of "compromise" of facts, then it can be saved. I completely agree with the idea of neutrality of tone. But facts are facts, and evidence is evidence. You start with that, and follow where that leads. That's scholarship. When your goal is to craft a compromise by omitting facts and evidence, the result is public relations. In short, you either tell the truth or you don't, and this article does not tell the truth.
This isn't some airy theoretical exercise. We can debate until the cows come home the definitions of escorting and prostitution. In the real world, they are the same thing. To suggest otherwise is pure sophistry. And, in any case, Sanchez was directly asked if he had been a male prostitute, and he confirmed it twice. Even if that wording hadn't been used there is enough evidence of prostitution to include it. But the use of that wording on March 8, and Sanchez's confirmation of it, ought to put that issue to bed, so to speak.
There is a whole lot more to say about this article. I have barely scratched the surface. But the topics I have addressed -- his prostitution and its timing, and the nature and extent of his career in adult gay films -- is still badly misreprented here. Until that's fixed, is there really much point in focusing on the rest?
A work in progress? Well, here we are almost two months after this thing broke and the article is LESS informative than it once was. Along with needed changes in tone, obvious factual information has been omitted and the reasons for those omissions is so logically inconsistent as to render distinctions among acceptable sources opaque and meaningless. In particular, it would seem that some blogs are more equal than others. I recognize the difficulty in handling evidence from blogs, but I see a pattern in which those blogs that minimize or deny Sanchez's activites are accepted into evidence while those that do otherwise are rejected because they are blogs. Radio interviews have been cherry-picked to minimize Sanchez activities. You have created a situation where there's no way of knowing what sources are acceptable and what sources are not. The result of these ad hoc distinctions is public relations and revisionism, plain and simple.
Again, you either tell the truth or you don't. That's the bottom line, or at least it ought to be. Pwok 20:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Chorister. I'd be reluctant to say that we yet have a "consensus" to include that paragraph though. Perhaps some other editors could weigh in? The we could go ahead and include it in the article as at least a temporary measure (since I agree with Pwok that the article is currently deficient on this subject), and then we can continue discussing changes here on the talkpage and improve it later.
Regarding the appropriateness of randythomas.org as a source, I agree that it's a blog site, but the reason that I think that this one link is appropriate is this: The blogger includes an exact capture of a conversation with Sanchez,[15] and Sanchez confirmed on his own blog, that he has read the capture and agrees that it's accurate.[16] As such, I think it's as reliable a source of Sanchez's own words, as though he'd posted it on his own blog (which we would accept as a valid source for Sanchez's statements).
And lastly, Pwok, could you please read WP:AGF and WP:POV? I'd like to believe that everyone who is participating here at this talkpage, has the same goal of achieving a high-quality article here. We may disagree as to the exact definition of such quality, but I think everyone here has good motives. Let's try to all treat each other with mutual respect, eh? --Elonka 20:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Pwok, could you please look into using the PREVIEW button? I'm finding it very difficult to post in this conversation because you keep going back and re-editing your posts. --Elonka 20:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I will refrain from editing my posts. Your statement that you "would" accept Sanchez's own blog as a source of his own words directly conflicts with your earlier refusal to accept his Salon.com article in the same fashion, on the grounds that it hadn't been fact checked. The result is that you're willing to accept only those blog postings that support Sanchez's attempt to minimize, obfuscate and fabricate, while rejecting those blogs that challenge him. The most charitable view of this is that it's sloppy. Pwok 20:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, the paragraph you wrote looks great. Cary Bass demandez 21:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Earlier in this message thread, Elonka wrote: "It's plausible that he misspoke during the interview, and then later corrected his statements. So I don't think it would be fair to say he was an escort, just because he may have stumbled over his words. We don't have any solid peer-reviewed sources here."

Isn't that just fascinating? You have a radio interview in which the guy not once, but TWICE directly acknowledges having been a male prostitute. Wikipedia's editor tells us that he might have been confused. The editor censors mention of a Salon.com article authored by Sanchez in which he acknowledged his "escorting" on the grounds that "we don't have any solid peer-reviewed sources here," but then turns around and accepts as evidence a self-serving "interview" from a blog maintained by an official of the "ex-gay" Exodus International who has taken Sanchez's side in the matter.

In doing all of this. the Wikipedia editor admonishes people that everyone has the same goal of producing a high-quality article here. Forgive me for being unconvinced, to put it mildly. I don't know who has gotten to Wikipedia to induce them to put out a cheesy whitewash job like this, but one thing I do know is that the idea that this article is "neutral" is preposterous. This is an Orewellian p.r. job that speaks very, very poorly of Wikipedia and its "standards," whatever those might be. Pwok 23:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Elonka for the clarification of the Randy Thomas issue. I understanding now why this could be considered to represent Sanchez's own words. Chorister 02:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Randy Thomas' blog is ok but Salon is not? Put another quarter in your ass User:Elonka because you just played yourself. Aatombomb 05:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Please keep your comments civil. Cary Bass demandez 12:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

How can a "Google talk" interview be considered reliable when there isn't a voice file? Is it because Randy Thomas is a right-wing ex-gay Christian, and on Wikipedia those blogs are deemed relaible? Pwok 22:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Section break

I agree with the above, that the changes being attempted by User:Elonka and User:Cbrown1023 are a white-wash job, inconsistent, and utterly fail our requirement to report neutrally. The wording proposed by Elonka is so deficient in neutrality that it actually creates facts that are not in evidence. At no time was this escorting "During the time period" when he was in films. The website he owned and operated, as has been proven, was still in operation as late as 2001. These are facts that are proven. Unless you would like to call Alexa.com not a reliable source as well. Wjhonson 05:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Proof of escort allegations. His office address from the US Public Records Database here. The registered address for www.excellent-top.com here. By the way, "Excellent Top" doesn't mean "I'm a good masseur", just in case anyone is confused on that point. Wjhonson 05:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, but maybe it would be helpful if you summarize (just short descriptions--bullet points or something) what the significant things that you think are missing from the article that you would like to see included and what things you would like to see deleted. ThxChorister 07:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sanchez has given conflicting statements about the escorting allegations. In a March 8, 2007 interview with Alan Colmes, when asked if he had worked as a male prostitute during his time in the gay porn industry, Sanchez replied, "Yes."[18] In an op-ed piece the same day 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."[19] However, on April 9, Sanchez subsequently denied that he had been a male escort, saying, "Not true."[20]

I think you guys are missing a couple of huge points.

1. People like Wjhonson is not "neutral", in fact he has consistently sent me hate mail. He should be disqualified from adding anything to my biography. He has also set up a website where he has meticulously reconstructed my high school life, the birth and death of my mother and several other strange annecdotes.

http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Matt_Sanchez He has sent me a lot of e-mail with pornographic imagery and plenty of creative poetry. Almost two months after this thing began this guy is still kind of fixated on the whole thing.

2. I never qualified myself as an "Male-prostitute" that was Alan Colmes who slipped that in there. I just said I'd "own up to all of it, just to get past the minutia and onto the bigger point that I "wanted to put this behind me".

3. My comparison to Jeff Gannon, who contacted me during this whole episode, was only to draw a figurative comparison, not a literal one.

4. No one seems to take into account how accessible ALL of my pictures have been throughout the years. They were used in advertisments in everything from phone lines to escort ads in various places, including, as I said on the SAME Colmes show in Sydney Australia.

5. I returned to Alan Colmes to set the record straight and I was categoric in my denial of the escorting charge.

6. Not sure if you put my stint as Editor-in-Chief of the Observer in my article.

7. I was also just became a staff writer for the Columbia Spectator.

8. The picture really looks great!!! Thanks Bluemarine 11:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hilarious. Matt you know that I've never sent you any email. Wjhonson 03:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It's irrelevant whether Wjhonson is neutral. Facts are facts.

Mateo, you acknowledged your prostitution twice on the March 8th Alan Colmes show, and once in your March 8th Salon.com article. You backtracked on that issue after the USMC began investigating you and you learned that you could be criminally liabile for your prostitution, which placed you in potential violation of Articles 83 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Even if you hadn't admitted your prostitution, the evidence of it is all over the Internet. Your attempt to block access to your Excellent-Top website failed, and you were definitively connected to the "No Regrets Massage" business that operated in New York and elsewhere throughout 2004. This article has dropped mention of those things, but that's because the Wikipedia editors have decided to put themselves in the p.r. business rather than the truth business. Pwok 17:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with you, Pwok and WJohnson that the evidence is quite convincing. You are also correct in observing that Wikipedia is simply not the forum for you to "get the word out" on these issues (beyond what's already here on the discussion page.) The way I understand the policy is that all the digging you've done constitutes "Original Research" which is great--it's just that Wikipedia is not the place to publish it. NOR. Get it assembled and published and we can happily link to it. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."Chorister 18:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have done exactly one piece of original research, and I haven't mentioned it in this discussion. Everything I have mentioned is verifiable. You and Sanchez's other p.r. agents have cherry-picked the record on his behalf. This article is a travesty. It's not neutral, nor does it represent an accurate summary of verifiable information available. I do credit you in a way for your honesty about Wikipedia'a purpose, i.e., that it is not to tell the truth. I'd like to see Wikipedia formally tell everyone that truth is not a consideration in its work. This does tend to undercut all the blather about "neutrality," though.71.231.140.80 22:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soap box. This is an article, not an "I got you" piece. Cary Bass demandez 13:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Chorister, you're incorrect in what is original research. Original research does not mean "I looked him up in google" that is called "source-based research". So finding his address on Alexa is not original research, it's source-based research which is what we are supposed to be doing. We are not prevented from linking to it. Likewise, we are not prevented from linking to the New York Blade ads, the US Public Database or any other source. Original research means the creating of new ideas, it does not mean "research" of this sort. Wjhonson 03:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, Wjhonson. I would classify what you are doing as original research. For example, I checked your link to the US Public Database--all it gave me was phone numbers, no connected information. Citing this as a source doesn't tell the reader anything in and of itself; it must be accompanied by other information to reach a conclusion about a fact. You are the one "connecting the dots" so to speak, which is great! Go for it! I support you 100%! I think your conclusions are absolutely correct! It's just that Wikipedia is not like a research paper; it summarizes information and conclusions reached in other sources. You need to publish your "dot-connecting" somewhere else first.Chorister 07:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll be putting up a website about all of this, including archival material. There'll be a section about Wikipedia's p.r. job. This article is a travesty. Pwok 16:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I Gotcha =

I think this is amazingly funny. First off, the posters like WhJohnson and some of the other people here have been sending me harrassing e-mails for over a month. They really have reached the level of psychosis that is completely unreliable. Second, I never said Excellent-top was me period, that is you just lying to justify your actions. 3rd, I never said I was a male-prostitute. Period. I may have misspoken with Colmes but I did come back and correct it SEVERAL times in subsequent interviews. 3rd, this whole issue has gotten really silly. I'd like to place a marine flag in my box, beside the American flag  :)Bluemarine 14:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what you said on Colmes, there is plenty of evidence that you were a prostitute. You are the liar. Aatombomb 16:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of Attombomb says, there's plenty of evidence that he's full of it, and is probably one of the people currently sending me "love letters" complete with fresh pornography.Bluemarine 14:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

UGH - Could somebody just delete this entire thing? This is more of a self-serving autobiography than it is an informative Wikipedia entry. This guy isn't important in any way, so why is it here? [Unsigned comment]

Matt you know quite well that I've never sent you one single piece of email. Wjhonson 03:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez lied? Oh, that's a surprise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.237.223.150 (talk) 05:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Wjhonson - Sanchez is paranoid like that. He makes up lies, saying he's being bombarded with "hate" emails, when his 15 minutes of fame are long gone, and people have moved on. There may be a couple embittered ex-fans, but it's funny watching him blame it all on the entire gay community. What a nutjob LOL And he's not straight. Everyone knows that.

New York Blade ads

The article used to say "In this same interview, Colmes also states that he contacted Sanchez that day, at the same phone number that he found posted in an ad for massage services in the New York Blade Nov. 19, 2004. Colmes later admitted he did not know where the number came from."

Those who do *not* wish this added back if you could please explain your reasoning that would help. It is cited to Alan Colmes show, the audio is online and already cited in this article. Wjhonson 05:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez and fellow 6th Comm

I'll be posting the letters Wjhonson has sent to Sanchez. They are as much as twenty per day. You should also note that Wjhonson and his "buddies" have made no fewer than 300 entries onto the Marine Corps community chat room with plans to slander Sanchez. The list is exhaustive, but if you're even remotely interested start here: http://www.militarytimes.com/forums/showthread.php?s=71528c58209bf11c2311455c47aa8f20&t=1558809&page=36

I'm with 6th Comm, Sanchez' old unit, I'm also a GS'er. I'm probably the ONLY person here who has actually met Sanchez. It's my pleasure to set the record straight.GSschool 09:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Way to disrespect the USMC - don't you know several of the thread participants are active and retired military/USMC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.167.230 (talk • contribs)

Another bullshitter. No one in the USMC give a crap about this. It's only the freaky stalkers who care. Oh mighty nameless one.Bluemarine 14:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't WhJohnson thrown off this article already? I have tons of hate mail that this idiot has sent me, and now I'm supposed to let him "write" my biography? When this guy isn't busy smearing me on Wiki, he's sending me love letters. This is pretty sick. How many puppet socks do you have WhJohynson?Bluemarine 14:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's see, there are at least two of Sanchez's alter egos in this thread: "GSschool" and "Bluemarine." The USMC does care about the issue. They've investigated it and written a report, and the results of the report will make their way to the public. As that happens, I think there's a pretty good chance that Wikipedia's "neutrality" will be shown for the revisionist p.r. job it is. Pwok 16:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's see, let me guess, Pwok is another disgruntled blogger who is supposed to be "neutral". What in the world would YOU know about the Marine Corps report? Geez, what is it with you weird people? Matthew Sanchez 17:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


And if there was any doubt who BlueMarine is, i've always been straightforward about that tooMatthew Sanchez 17:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have zero sock puppets Matt. And you know that I've not sent you one single email. Wjhonson 23:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I can't wait until cplsanchez.info goes live and he will be exposed for the massive fraud that he is. Aatombomb 23:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

---

You're funny Matt. Maybe you should have went into comedy instead of prostitution and porn?

Oh Mightly nameless one. It gets tiring changing back and forth from all those different screen namesMatthew Sanchez 03:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Talk about "stalking". You jumped on that one fast. Faster than jumping on that guy in Touched By An Anal.

As for people not caring, I hate to break it to you Matt, but your name will forever go down in history and will be used like Gannon's. (ex: "it looks like this person is pulling a Matt Sanchez").

Article Edit-War

Ok Matt, are you happy with your contorted version of 'reality'? I've never seen someone try so hard to sweep under the rug what was documentably known and so after-the-fact...except maybe Bill Clinton trying to hide Monica Lewinsky. Your deletions of any factual reference that show you in a less-than-favorable light is definitely POV-biased. Your changing of your story, at times admitting to being a prostitute and then denying it, is bewildering at best.

what's bewildering is your hard on for putting a post up, taking statements out of context and then pretending that you're neutralMatthew Sanchez 01:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As for politics, I haven't seen you with Ann Coulter lately. I'm waiting for that next Matt Sanchez segment on Bill O'Reilly or Hannity and Colmes.R Young {yakłtalk} 21:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ryoung: Isn't this what this is all about? you trying to do to me what you think people like Coulter do to you? The "gay community" has been so childish, especially when people like you represent them. As for Coulter, she has wished me well on several occasions. I even added a reply to the "Faggot Controversy" on her article. it's the least I can do! Matthew Sanchez 01:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Matt: One, who said I represent the 'gay community'? I didn't realize I'd been promoted to the head of the HRC. Two, I generally watch FOX NEWS which is how I found out about you in the first place. I wanted to 'support' your right to be a military person on an open campus. However, I soon found out you were a pathological liar who changed his story with each retelling. Wikipedia is supposed to find a 'consensus' (i.e. compromise) that everyone can agree on, but clearly you don't respect that. So, you go about deleting facts and adding your own diatribes (i.e. opinions, not facts). Hiding the truth doesn't make you right. As for Ann Coulter, she actually didn't call John Edwards a "faggot"--what she said intimated that that's a word she'd have to use if she told the viewers what she REALLY thought about him, and so she couldn't say it. But despite not saying it, the liberal newspapers reported that she did.

At least give Ms Coulter credit: she parsed her words carefully before the media spin doctors misreported what she said. You, however, clearly don't have the talent or the brainpower that Ms. Coulter does, and tend to forget what you said last time, which is why the irony here gets so delicious---you can't stop from contradicting yourself.

Finally, so I suppose Ms. Coulter meant that a "faggot" wasn't necessarily a "homosexual" person but one who acted like the "limp-wristed tutti-fruity" stereotype (i.e. cared more about his looks than anything else, weak on defense). You, on the other hand, COULD have been an example that its OK to be homo and manly at the same time. Instead you chose the Roy Cohn strategy of scorched-Earth denial, which is unfortunate.R Young {yakłtalk}02:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


Who in the hell is Roy Cohn and why should I care? Matthew Sanchez 03:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ryoung: Your bias is showing. What a pathetic person you are. You're telling me "You didn't do what I wanted, so I'm going to smear you." No wonder those kids teased you for being a sissy back in elementary school. You could take a lesson from your buddy Edwards and the "I feel Pretty Video" I posted on my blog [17]

Matt, might I say that you are just amusing! Does making fun of others and being the class bully make you feel like more of a man? As for John Edwards: I voted for BUSH. TWICE. The issue I have with you is not about being a Republican, being gay, being a porn star, being a male escort, being with Ann Coulter, etc. It's about LYING. As in, NOT TELLING THE TRUTH. Come on, Matt. Calm down and let's go back to March 8 when you admitted everything already. How about it.R Young {yakłtalk} 03:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You and Roy Cohn have a lot in common. Aatombomb 03:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Matt, I find it disturbing that a student attending Columbia Univ. Doesn't even know who Roy Cohn was or his historical significance. I suggest you read the article. Just lick on the Wikilink: Roy Cohn.R Young {yakłtalk} 03:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Roy Cohn is some gay guy? Why the hell would I know that? and why would they teach this in Columbia? How self-important are you? You really are nuttier than a fruitcake.Matt Sanchez 03:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What's even more bewildering is that Wikipedia is letting this happen. Quite the eye-opener about Wikipedia! Pwok 22:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

PWOK: Always the victim. I just don't understand how you think smearing me is going to make you feel better about yourself. You're like the kid who didn't want to go to the prom, so you spend all your time complaining about how stupid proms are and who cool you are. Get a hobby. Matthew Sanchez 01:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You are as always, entirely welcome to put the quotes within context. Who is stopping you? Nobody that's who. Wjhonson 01:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Matt, when mattsanchez.info goes live on Monday, among other things you'll see an invitation to be interviewed. This time you'll have nowhere to hide. Let's see who's a victim and who's a coward. Pwok 01:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"Nowhere to hide? What is up with you bootlickers? Aren't you supposed to be "gay" happy? You sound like you're all on the rag.Matthew Sanchez 02:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Mattsanchez.info? This gleeful stalking of Mr. Sanchez is reaching disturbing and disgusting levels. Wiki needs to stay out of this. --Mmx1 01:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
All of the information is available from public sources. Presumably the website will also be based on those sources. Aatombomb 01:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


You haven't heard of mattsanchez.info??? These freaks have been promising it for over a month now. I'm titilatedMatthew Sanchez 03:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Methinks he got more than he bargained for, all for a shot at wingnut fame.

There's always the prestigious Jeff Gannon to work with.

---

On this new website, can somebody PLEASE finally answer why Mr. Sanchez continously blames the gay community for something he done "15 years ago" (ha)? What's his medical problems, do you know?


The nameless ones, more biased contributors. Just pathetic, as human beings. Matt Sanchez 03:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Love Letters from Stalkers here

This is the e-mail I'm getting from the persons contributing to my articleMatt Sanchez 03:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Original Message-----

From: Willy Wilson Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 23:47:28 To:Matt Sanchez Subject: Re: Escort Fees

I do know some gay Marines who aren't frauds like you are, Mateo. Come on. You're a fag who says he isn't. You're black and you've presented yourself as white. You call yourself a Marine but you lied to get in, and you accepted compliments for your Iraq service when you never went there. You say you're a Christian when you're just another fanatic.

Mateo, you're a fraud. The right wing is through with you and so, too, will the USMC be finished with you in short order. What then? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs) 03:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC).


Another Letter from desperate bloggers Matt Sanchez 03:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC) mailed-by yahoo.com ... sock puppets on your blog. Do you talk to your stuffed toys, too? Where's the wifey? Do you f*ck her with that thick n**ger cock you have, you ape jigabu?