Talk:Matt Sanchez/Archive 7

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 6 |
Archive 7
| Archive 8 →


Contents

DADT is not factual

And skews this article. It does not pertain to my case nor service with the Marine Corps. I move to have it removed from my article

Also, I am a writer and currently serving as a journalist/reporter in Baghdad. Matt Sanchez 14:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Who is paying your salary and expenses? What was the finding of the Marine Corps investigation into the $12,000 and the gay videos charges? Thank you. Bmedley Sutler 04:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I think DADT is relevant, given that Matt Sanchez has had gay sex on film and is in the military. The fact that Sanchez is still in the military would seem to me to be a direct contravention of the DADT policy. Aatombomb 03:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Having gay sex for a fictional production is not the same thing as being gay. Do we have a consensus on DADT? I still vote for it to be taken on. Matt Sanchez 23:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The sex doesn't look fictional to me. Looks like homosexual sex to me. Aatombomb 06:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Great, I'm a great actor and there are plenty of gullible people out there. Matt Sanchez 20:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You are a great actor, but at pretending to be straight, not the other way around dude. Kudos for the USMC for not kicking you out though, thats awesome, although I've never heard of a marine complaining about being called a killer, my dad makes a point of it. DADT should stay. But please go on, what about it is not factual?CholgatalK! 11:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

PS even thought this article is about you, it is not your article, not anymore than it is mine or anyone else's, you don't own it, the community of which you are only a part of does, see WP:OWN.CholgatalK! 12:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Just want to say "Great, I'm a great actor and there are plenty of gullible people out there." haven't laughed so hard in months. brilliant line! Towers84 09:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Salon.com Article

This article illustrates the culture war and I'm not sure why it doesn't appear in the article. I suggest it be one of the "Articles" cited since it actually crosses over to a liberal publication: Salon.com and was one of the most commented articles in Salon.com history.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/03/08/matt_sanchez/

Matt Sanchez 14:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, this is the article that you said you were a gay prostitute in. I totally agree, we should quote it. Aatombomb 06:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
i agree too, especially if it was the most comment in history, that fact alone should be mentioned if sourceable.CholgatalK! 12:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

yeah he was a homosexual prostitute, probably still is one, sergent donkey dick chasing flaming holes, that diaper wearing ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msapacman (talk • contribs) 03:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Journalism and Criticism

I've been an outspoken critic of the coverage of this war by the Mainstream media. I have written an article on the matter for the National Review.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzQ3ODUyNGZmNTAxODJkYjMxOWU2MTRlN2UxY2ZiNmU=

I also sourced as the reporter for the Baghdad Diarist Scott Thomas Beauchamp story, which lends itself to the charges of liberal bias of The New Republic.

Whether you agree with the criticism or not, these activities are sourced facts that have appeared in the national media and should be a part of my article. Matt Sanchez 14:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Will see how this all turns out. If Wikipedia was a newpaper, we would print this too. Link And the many other articles just like it. Bmedley Sutler 04:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I cannot figure out how to edit this article, but I think it should be noted that the "Jeanne Kirkpatrick Academic Freedom Award" was bestowed on Mr. Sanchez by the American Conservative Union, a right-wing political group. Perhaps someone could make such an edit? I think it's an important addition, since it's obviously an award that comes for following a political agenda.71.97.19.75 17:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You cannot edit the article because it has bee semi-protected, due to vandalism from IP address-only editors. Register if you wish to edit the article. As to your statement about the ACU, you are only partially correct. The award was given to Sanchez at the Conservative Political Action Conference, which is sponsored by the ACU and several other groups. The conference is wikilinked in the article, and its article clearly states which groups sponsor the event. In any case, the name of the conference makes clear that it was a gathering of conservatives, so the additional information is unnecessary. Horologium t-c 18:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
This shouldn't even be much of a discussion. By the subject's own admission in previous discussion, he is not a professional journalist, but a writer of opinion and "features." I've seen no indication of even the most elementary training in sourcing information, proper quotation attribution, an understanding of interviewing techniques or a working knowledge of when and how to support information. Moreover, publications regularly publish the work of amateurs in a variety of opinion/feature capacities. While your criticisms of the "mainstream" media's war coverage may be an opinion, I see very little in your bio or in the samples of your work which reflects an understanding of that same media beyond that ideological opinion. Harvey 8710 23:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Huh? What are you ranting about here? Horologium t-c 23:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Your answer is in the "Journalism" entry below. The subject continues to make this assertion, even though there has already been discussion in the archives.Harvey 8710 16:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Note the claim to be sourced as the "reporter."

Journalism

"Journalist" should be added to my categories.


1. I'm here working as a journalist. I am also currently being paid as a journalist and rather well, I might add. My official badge says "journalist" and Member of the press on it. I go to press conferences that are reserved for journalists.  :) 2. I don't know who Harvey is or why his opinion on "journalism" should even matter.

3. This is Webster's definition of journalism: 1 a : a person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news medium b : a writer who aims at a mass audience.

I'll take Webster over "Harvey" any day. 4. I just wrote an article for another notable, national publication. The Weekly Standard.

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/992ucbed.asp Matt Sanchez 23:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

how about 'hack journalist?' I'd agree to that categorization. Aatombomb 06:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I still propose that journalist be added. Matt Sanchez 20:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

See the discussion above and previously for an explanation why this category will not be added. Aatombomb 12:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

just because you dont like hime doesn't mean he isnt right bomb, maybe i'm just more objective than you but even as you say a "hack journalist" is still a journalist... in this case "hack" is just opinion. Towers84 10:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hispanic Category

I'd like to get Hispanic as one of my categories. I'm of Puerto Rican origin and it's well documented. Thanks Matt Sanchez 23:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

WTF? You screamed bloody murder when it was in the article before. Talk:Matt Sanchez/Archive 5#Object to the Describes himself as Puerto Rican Heritage Now you want it back in. This is bloody insane. I'm getting to the point where I am going to start ignoring your input, because your PoV on everything appears to change from day to day. Horologium t-c 23:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to the exciting and dramatic world of Talk:Matt Sanchez. I predict that someday these archives will be a chapter in a good read on problems with user generated encyclopedias. Benjiboi 00:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Benji, I've been involved in this drama since mid-May, when I accidentally stumbled into this while doing a little new change patrolling, and got sucked into the alternate reality here. Between Sanchez's capricious attitude and the ever-changing sea of WP:SPAs who duck in here and slander him before disappearing, it's no wonder that this article is in the crummy condition it is in. I've tried several times to suggest changes, but every single one of them has been opposed by one or more editors, so I never implemented the changes. The last time I made a major change, I had to back down when the correct citation was identified (a cite which has since changed with no indication that it was corrected, which makes the whole exercise even more fun). It's probably evident by now that I am somewhat predisposed to support Sanchez, but it can be mighty difficult sometimes. Horologium t-c 01:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
You wear your stripes well! I have a pile of links and references that I was hoping to do a mini overhaul of the article but stopped after some formatting changes when attacked. I don't fault Sanchez for wanting to put a positive spin on his past choices but have to wonder if his concerns wouldn't have been simply dealt with and the article in a much better state had he left it alone. We can still dream! Benjiboi 01:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between Puerto Rican, as it was originally worded and I am not, and Hispanic. Nuance is a problem for you guys.

I just found a bio of me online, that claims I'm of another origin.

from the mini bio:

"Born Pierre LaBranche, this hunky French-Canadian started his movie career in hard-core porn videos for Kristen Bjorn and the late William Duffault back in 1993. The following year he moved to San Francisco, changed his name to the more American-sounding 'Rod Majors', and worked successfully in several gay and bi videos for Catalina and Falcon. His most memorable titles are Idol Country (1994) and Built Tough (1995). Very sexy looking, dark skinned, fluent in several languages and extremely well endowed, Rod was often marketed as an 'exotic' sex performer. He took a break from the porn industry at the peak of his career and has subsequently lived in England and Germany."Matt Sanchez 02:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The original line to which you were objecting was: "Sanchez, who describes himself as being of Puerto Rican heritage, was born and raised in San Jose, California, graduating from Independence High School in 1988." (Emphasis added.) Please explain to me how this differs from your current position. I understand the concept of nuance quite well, thank you very much, and there is absolutely no dichotomy to resolve. As to the online bio, it says you are French-Canadian. Are you now trying to say that you are French-Canadian? We understand that Kristen Bjorn came up with a French-sounding name for you for the two films you made while you were living in Canada, which reduces the online bios for the porn vendors to dubious accuracy. Horologium t-c 03:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought you didn't live in England viz. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Matt_Sanchez/Archive_2#Comments_by_Sanchez—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.83.136 (talk) 03:29, 17 August 2007

No "positive spin" on my past, I want to stick to the facts. I have been extremely up front in articles and radio shows. Also, I'm sure the 2nd Alan Colmes show is out there where a caller asks much of the same questions that have been asked and I'm far more direct, since subtlety originally escaped certain segments of the population. Matt Sanchez 20:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not French Canadian, my point is that you cannot believe the bios you read on the internet. The reporting on the internet ESPECIALLY for the porn industry is extremely shoddy. Matt Sanchez 20:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Scott Beauchamp

Shouldn't there be some mention of my reporting on the Baghdad Diarist? Matt Sanchez 02:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Nah, it's not really reporting anyway. Aatombomb 05:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

My role in the Beauchamp story is properly sourced in both the Washintong Post and Weekly Standard. I move to have it included in a section. :) Matt Sanchez 20:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Acting as a source and reporting are not the same things. Aatombomb 12:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
His involvement in the Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy was also a source of controversy, because the Weekly Standard used Sanchez as a source without disclosing his dubious past, which includes a recent fraud investigation. On Time Magazine's Swampland blog this mini-scandal was called "insane and hysterical" because of the role Matt Sanchez played in it. JMarkievicz2 19:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why WS should have said, "He was in porn and someone accused him of fraudulently taking money" with regards to his journalism. These are not only in the public record, but irrelevant. TNR wouldn't even disclose Scott Thomas Beauchamp's name at first, and then only that, and then that only part of his story was false. Those aren't on the public record, so the nondisclosures of these and other facts were relevant. But if TNR neglected to say, "Scott Thomas Beauchamp has an anti-military blog in which he related events similar to those in Iraq before visiting Iraq," that would be understandable. That's in the public record, and not something they'd be hiding. Neither is WS hiding details about Sanchez's past. Calbaer 20:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
okay okay we get it, he was in some porno films people have sex all the time, sometimes on film sometimes for money, what with the dumb stigma?CholgatalK! 12:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Dumb stigma is from angry gay men like AAbomb and JMark. Beauchamp? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.40.86.166 (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

LGBT Bias

The most vehement non-sensical and biased sites have been from the homosexual media. I don't see how anyone from the LGBT "studies" can be unbiased here. The fact that this slanted group even has interest in my bio is already a bias.

Matt Sanchez 02:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I take offense to the fact you think bi men like me belong to a slanted group, and a passing interest is not bias, if anyone is bias it is you since its nearly impossible to be impartial about one's self, but i do commend you for discussing all your concerns so (usually) civilly and cooperativly. But you comments about the "homosexual media" and "slanted group" might be better phrased as gay or lgbt media and "impartial" theres lot of good suggestions at WP:DBADCholgatalK! 12:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Only three of the regular editors here are part of that WikiProject; one of those three devotes most of her edits here to adding {{unsigned}} tags when you don't sign your posts; another of them was directly responsible for the indefinite ban of Pwok, and has consistently ensured that the more speculative allegations against you have been kept out of the article. Just because an editor is gay does not mean that he or she is out to lynch you, which is something you might want to keep in mind. Assume Good Faith, and all that. Horologium t-c 03:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
It's true, all us homos are biased! I guess you should't be editing your own article either. Thanks for reminding us Mateo. Aatombomb 06:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
And then, of course, we have editors such as Aatombomb, who seem to go out of their way to provoke Sanchez with loaded statements such as the above (and the rest of the drive-by comments left in the last batch). The difference is that Sanchez is not specifically attacking any editor (and his last comment specifically excludes Aatombomb), while Aatombomb has left several personal attacks against Sanchez (and it's not the first time it's happened). FWIW, Sanchez's last edit to the article was on 27 June, and that was a simple URL correction to his personal website. His last substantial edits were on 8 June. Horologium t-c 11:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Although I won't defend Aatombomb's provoking Sanchez I will note that Sanchez probably isn't specifically attacking any editor because he was given a final warning not to after doing so repeatedly. He is however, still making general disparaging remarks about the very editors who are in a position to improve the article about him and somewhat surprisingly still put up with nonsense. As for the drive-by comments, I feel they are a part of the very core of wikipedia being neutral and verifiable. There seems to be plenty of folks who are absolutely convinced that Sanchez was a gay prostitute and this is held in tension with his current political writings and actions as well as his statement that he wasn't. Eventually a good article will appear. Benjiboi 12:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, this is such nonsense. I used to bother trying to edit this article until it was turned into a farce. My edits have been overruled for various bogus reasons which were discussed here in these talk pages. Let's take the Salon article, for example. The article was quoted in more than one revision, until it was removed at Sanchez's request. Sanchez claims that Salon twisted his words around and he published his 'original' version to prove it. Ironically, now he's asking for the article to be added back in - provided it paints him in a positive light. As for the 'alleged' gay prostitution, I have personally seen his website with my own eyes. Aatombomb 19:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you about the Salon article, which was the first flip by Sanchez; I have argued that either the entire article is a valid source, or none of it is, leaning towards the latter, since Sanchez has repeatedly claimed that Salon changed the article. This is not a buffet, where one can pick and choose which parts of an article are acceptable; either a source is a reliable source, or it is not. Since Sanchez has expended a good deal of effort to discredit a portion of the Salon article, I am inclined to disallow the entire thing. I have also noted the requests for more categories, some of which are not really reasonable. The "Christian" category, for example, is irrelevant, since he is not a religious figure, although he may be quite devout. The "Hispanic" category is being addressed a few sections up, and the "Journalist" category is also under discussion. I'm not going to offer an opinion on that one right now, but it is one of about five cats Sanchez has requested to be added. As to the website, you saw SOMEONE'S website, with photos of Sanchez that were already available on the web; there is absolutely no conclusive evidence that it was actually Sanchez who operated the site. Horologium t-c 20:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, but on the website, it was in fact registered to an address that Sanchez resided at. These two facts are easily verified. It's extraordinarily unlikely that somebody registered the site several years ago coincidentally an address that Sanchez resided at. The pictures were not 'readily available on the web,' the pictures are shots taken by Sanchez's friends. It's original research, so it doesn't belong in the article, but it's very, very clear that the site was his. Aatombomb 22:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Indent reset. I think the Salon article is fine. As stated previously unless we have proof of a retraction of items in the Salon article from Salon or proof that Salon has altered other writers work to a defamatory degree then the article is fine. As far as the escort website and escort ads are concerned their inclusion will have to wait until a reference up to WP standards is produced. Until then forget it. Benjiboi 01:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Quote from the Salon article: "Some of the sites were comparing me to Rich Merritt, a Marine Corps captain who appeared in gay films. 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." You can't get too much clearer than 'it' referring to 'advertised my services as a male escort.' Aatombomb 02:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. We cannot, in good faith add detail beyond what is there, like the name of the escort website, etc. The blogs can (and probably will) go into mucho details (price per hour, names, dates) that we can't touch unless it's sourced AND done to WP standards. I'm repeating this here for all those "drive-by" editors who might not understand or agree with those differences. Benjiboi 03:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The issue has been that Sanchez doesn't want even that detail in there. So, I'm intrigued by his suggestion that we reference the Salon article again. Aatombomb 06:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
That's not his choice so to me it really isn't an issue at all. I'm not swayed by any of his suggestions but simply put his statements in the pile with what all the blogs say. Interesting but useless unless verifiable to WP standards. A good ref is a good ref. Benjiboi 07:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The address of the site is not where I lived. That is simply not true.Matt Sanchez 20:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Why then, pray tell, do public records indicate that you lived at the address that excellent-top.com was registered to? Aatombomb 00:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I originally only wrote Rich Merritt, Mark Schone Salon editor in chief added Jeff Gannon, someone I wouldn't compare myself to, but Schone said no one knew Rich Merritt. Beyond that, it's hardly an admission, just a "no comment" at best. I have to wonder why Aatombomb and Benjiboi are so desperate for this. It's amusing in a stalker/groupie sort of way.

Matt Sanchez 20:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, it's what the article says that makes it a source, not what you say about afterwards. Aatombomb 00:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it is possible that a member of the Klu Klux Klan could edit a chapter of black history, I just think the group lends itself to an inherent bias. The "homosexual community" has been by far the most severe (and perhaps compromised) critic of me. It is the avowed homosexuals, Max Blumenthal, Joemygod and several others who have been the most critical and the least accurate.

Matt Sanchez 21:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It hardly matters who is doing the editing provided they stick to reliable sources and keep a neutral point of view. Aatombomb 00:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Lots of gays hate Sanchez. It shows in their reporting and in the Gay press. He has a point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.40.86.166 (talk) 07:05, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

No, he doesn't have a point, since none of these so-called 'Gay press' sources are cited here. Aatombomb 11:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like PWOK is back

The article should reflect my current activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Matt Sanchez 21:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

What are those activities and what makes them noteworthy and are there reliable sources for these activities?CholgatalK! 12:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

WorldNetdaily.com

Just an update

Beginning today, reporter Matt Sanchez, currently embedded with the U.S. military in Iraq, will provide WND readers with a glimpse into the Iraq war most Americans have never heard from a press increasingly hostile to the war effort. In this, his first dispatch, Sanchez takes readers into one of the most dangerous areas of Baghdad.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57237 Matt Sanchez 22:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This comment was posted by "Matt Sanchez" but refers to Matt Sanchez in the third-person voice. In an earlier part of this discussion "Matt Sanchez" bragged about how much money he was being paid for his reporting. Also, he writes for The Weekly Standard, which is owned by a major media company, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. Are these comments being posted by Matt Sanchez, or are they coming from someone who's been paid to promote Matt Sanchez? JMarkievicz2 06:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That comment is the copy from Worldnetdaily. You sound a bit paranoid JMark

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57430

Move to have these sentences removed

This paragraph is incongruent and doesn't make sense. It starts under the Adult Entertainment and then, for some reason, goes to the Marine Corps. Also, I'd move to have the bold sentences removed since they basically say the same thing and repeat it twice.

Scenes from some films have been re-released as part of compilations which is common in the porn industry. The compilation Touched by an Anal was released in 1997; a more recent release was in 2006, Mansex Meltdown.[7] 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."[8] Though he has appeared in gay and bisexual porn films, Sanchez identifies as heterosexual and has stated that he has had no homosexual contact since joining the Corps in 2003.[2]

It makes no sense to add these comments and gives the impression that I did a film in 1997 or 2006.

When I read it it implies to me that you have not had sex with (an)other man/men since 2003. Or do you mean that you feel it is not clear enough that "Touched by an Anal" (ghastly title) i suggest it simply be rewritten to codify that the Sanchez has not performed since the early or was it mid 1990s but that portions of his films continue to be rerealesed in new anthologies and mixes.CholgatalK! 12:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The compilation Touched by an Anal was released in 1997; a more recent release was in 2006, Mansex Meltdown.[7] 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."[8] Though he has appeared in gay and bisexual porn films, Sanchez identifies as heterosexual and has stated that he has had no homosexual contact since joining the Corps in 2003.[2]

My sex life is not what is notable in this controversy, but rather performing in adult films. I move to have the entire comment removed. Matt Sanchez 22:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This semantic argument between what "sex life" means in light of the subjects several-years-long career as a gay porn actor is just silly. The language should remain as written.Typing monkey 07:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Current Status

Why is this persons current status noteable? The paragraph cites his own blog as a source. He seems to be noteable for a specific event, any section other than that seems to be for vanitys sake. 134.53.176.203 01:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

precisely. Aatombomb 07:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Which "specific event" would that be? I thought I was "noteable" as a conservative.

At any rate, along those conservative lines is the Scott Beauchamp and Worldnetdaily and the trip to Iraq. Matt Sanchez 22:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The subject of this article is notable for breifly gotting media attention for claiming he faced discrimination as an American Solider in an ivy league school. The fact that his past caused embarasment for conservation pundits who rallyed around him is also noteable, however whatever he's doing now is not. 134.53.176.203 23:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Disagree, you got everything wrong about the subject. He's a Marine, not a soldier, he didn't "embarrass" conservatives, they embraced him and the fact that he's writing for the top conservative publications is also important. Case in point

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57430

Sanchez' latest work in Iraq is very pertinent to conservatives, the War in Iraq, his military status everything. His "Current Status" should be updated.

That is too funny. If you think that Sanchez was 'embraced' you need to read these 46 pages of posts on the Military Times 'disgrace to the corps'. World Net Daily the 'top conservative publication'? I think not. •smedleyΔbutler• 03:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a lot of comments by three people. None of whom are actually Marines.

Worldnet Daily

Time to update.

On August 23, 2007, Worldnetdaily.com announced a series of dispatches by Matt Sanchez as a reporter.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57237 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.40.86.178 (talk) 06:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

What were we talking about?

I think Sanchez has been doing a very good job at smokescreening - creating non-issues for argument and making people angry and nitpicking and diluting the debate about what really matters: Is the information notable? Why is there an article about him in the first place? It is not a fan page, he does not have ownership over the article, and he cannot dictate every bit of information that goes in it. He has admitted to being a prositute in the past. This, along with his past as a gay porn actor, and his current attempts as a political commentator, are the sole reason there is an article about him at Wikipedia in the first place. If the admission of prostitution is not included, and he is allowed to continue to use this page primarily as a vanity article about himself, then this article should be deleted as it doesn't meet notability guidelines. The "Military History" category, for instance, is laughable and discredits the encyclopedia.

The timidity about the "controversial" aspects of the controversial article in question go way beyond what the cautions in WP:BLP were intended for, imho. I still do not understand why the Colmes interview, for instance, is not allowed under WP:BIO since it is not "invasive" and the subject is "notable". WP:BLP, I think, doesn't want us putting up birth certificates and driver's licenses, not interviews on nationally broadcast news programs. I genuinely do not understand why that is an unreasonable interpretation and no one has offered an explanation.Typing monkey 03:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It is exactly this reason I think this article is ripe for a Request for Comment. Typing monkey 04:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

An "interpretation" is not a fact. What is the obsession with the Prostitution stuff? Isn't doing pornography kind of the same thing?

I heard the Colmes interview he didn't "admit" to anything. He kept saying "no". How weak is your argument?

Rightwingerpride 18:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

He very clearly did not say no. He admitted he was a prostitute on direct questioning. Aatombomb 02:22, 16 September 2007

(UTC)

Agreed. He clearly admitted working as a prostitute more than once during the Colmes interview. And he compared himself to Jeff Gannon, a fake reporter notorious for working as a male escort, in his Salon article. Working as a prostitute and working as a porn actor are two completely different things. Generally a prostitute performs sex acts in private on a person who pays them. Whereas a porn actor has sex with other actors as part of a performance. Porn acting is not illegal. But prostitution is, which is why it's a big deal. JMarkievicz2 03:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Matt Sanchez gained notoriety for claiming abuse as a University student by anti-war protesters. He has been championed by war supporters. He has made hateful statments about gay people. He has made gay porn films. He has admitted that he used to be a gay prostitute. He has edited his own page as a sockpuppet before being exposed. He now, under his own name, in the discussion pages, tirelessly campaigns for vanity inclusions on his bio page. His page is included in several tangential, at best, categories, including "military history." Request for comment as to a) his notability for inclusion b) whether his past as a gay porn star and gay prostitute is relevant to the topic. Typing monkey 04:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Type Monkey is not assuming good faith and is frankly out of the loop, disrespectful and hateful. He also seems fixated on "gay".Matt Sanchez 00:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Matt's in Iraq reporting on a fluid situation. He's made suggestions to the article under his own name. He has criticized the "gay community" a community that has smeared him in every way possible. It's time to update this article. Matt's working for a major news service as a reporter.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57585

He's broke national news as the source behind Beauchamp

And all this despite doing gay porn. The funny part is that the conservatives have overwhelmingly accepted Matt the liberals are still stuck in the past on this one.

The "hateful statements" about gay people is your opinion. I thought his article The Taliban of Tolerance was one of the funniest I've ever read.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/09/taliban_of_tolerance_by_matt_s.php

Just an opinion. By the way there have been plenty of "hateful statements aout Matt, in this discussion group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.40.86.166 (talk) 14:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Like this hateful statement made by yourself perhaps? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Aatombomb&oldid=157948177 Aatombomb 03:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
My request for comment is factual, not hateful. This is not a "discussion group." Matt has not only made suggestions for inclusion to this article, he has made the edits himself in violation of WP:AUTO. He now uses his real name but only after being exposed as a sockpuppet. I am not aware that he works for any "major news source". I am not fixated on "gay," this article is incomplete without reference to the subject's history and the reason for his notability. This article should only be included if the subject is notable, and his notoriety stems from his appearances in gay porn videos and his admissions of being a gay prostitute.Typing monkey 05:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
216.40.86.166 is Matt Sanchez, right? JMarkievicz2 21:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Based on the edit he made to my user pages and comments here, I believe that the IP is his. Aatombomb 23:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
It is an IP used by a company (OIFNet) that provides internet access out of Al Asad. When I got on this morning and before logging in I got a message for the IP since I use it as well. Alot of people on the base (and possibly at other locations in Iraq) use it. NeoFreak 01:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Based on the edits made from the account and the proximity in time to other edits, I believe Bluemarine was using the IP. Aatombomb 02:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Add Scott Beauchamp

Matt Sanchez was revealed to be the "source" behind the debunking of the Scott Beauchamp the Baghdad Diarist, a series of appearing in The New Republic. The story came to national prominence when military bloggers (milbloggers) raised a red flag and Weekly Standard editor, Michael Goldfarb raised doubts about about the details of the Baghdad Diarist, and Michelle Malkin aired a report on the matter on The O'Reilly Factor.

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/08/03/sanchez-army-concludes-beauchamp-investigation/

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/03/the-scott-thomas-beauchamp-saga-the-fallibility-of-tnrs-fact-checkers/

http://mediamatters.org/items/200708020003

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2007/08/tnr-versus-beau.html

www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=scottbeauchamp

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/07/reporting_from_fob_falcon.asp

Rightwingerpride 17:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Worldnetdaily

Worldnetdaily has hired Matt Sanchez as war correspondent for the Middle East.

"Beginning today, reporter Matt Sanchez, currently embedded with the U.S. military in Iraq, will provide WND readers with a glimpse into the Iraq war most Americans have never heard from a press increasingly hostile to the war effort."

Given Matt's tie to the military, this should be added.

Rightwingerpride 17:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Remove "Gay" Films

I think we did this once before, and for some reason accuracy keeps getting blunted. Matt Sanchez 00:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you name a single straight porn film that you appeared in? Or at least name a female porn actress that you did a sex scene with. JMarkievicz2 03:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Moreover, Wikipedia has an article on Gay pornography Aatombomb 03:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't even name the same-sex porn or bi-porn I did. I also couldn't name a male actor. Hey, maybe they don't exist. I'll let the little people look for the titles. I'm too busy moving on.Matt Sanchez 03:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

But you remembered Tijuana Toilet Tramps because you mentioned appearing in that video in your Right Wing News article about Larry Craig. You also remembered that the name appearing on checks issued by Falcon Studios was “Falcon Entertainment.” And you must’ve remembered details about Kristen Bjorn because you edited his WP bio.
So let’s see if I can help narrow it down. Can you name some of the straight porn studios you worked for? It shouldn’t be too hard to remember because there really aren’t that many. JMarkievicz2 06:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I want the "gay films" removed, since there were several non-gay films, and it singles out "gays" as if gay porn were more perverted than straight porn. I'm quite an egalitarian in this matter, since I think they are equally perverted. "Adult Films" would be fine since that's what the current smut industry calls itself. Matt Sanchez 03:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You cannot name it because it does not exist. All of the films you were in were gay content and by studios noted for producing gay content. Aatombomb 03:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Typing monkey 05:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The gay porn is relevant to your notoriety. You were given an award at the same conservative convention where Ann Coulter said faggot. That’s the only reason political bloggers bothered to comment on you. This article wouldn’t exist without it. JMarkievicz2 06:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I frankly don't remember Tiajuana Toilet Tramps. Films are named after you make them. My critics use Tijuana Toilet Tramps because it is the most graphic and embarrassing of the films. It also happens to be a perfect illustration of homosexual depravity, since it is gay men who find "Toilet Tramping" erotic. So erotic, in fact, that videos about "glory holes" and cruising in the bathroom are all the rage. This is part of gay culture which is always pornographic. The Taliban of Tolerance is straightforward and direct as can be, and I have the experience to give the opinion.

213.255.230.131 12:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sanchez's Changes

I'm reverting most of Sanchez's changes. Discussion on these items isn't closed and Sanchez himself should be making decisions about that should or should not go into his bio. Aatombomb 02:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm reverting them back, they're all sourced and I've posted them for discussion for the past week. No one challenged them.Matt Sanchez 03:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, Aatombomb has shown nothing but disrespect and bias in his editing. Matt Sanchez 03:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The content you are removing is also sourced. I suggest you rethink your position. Aatombomb 03:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Sanchez is in violation of WP:AUTO. I have opened another Request for Comment for user behavior (Repeated violations of WP:AUTO, WP:SOCK, WP:OWN, WP:NPA, WP:CIV, WP:NPOV) here.Typing monkey 05:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is not taking place. The recommendations to add Scott Beauchamp have been sourced for well over a month. Matt Sanchez 13:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Autobiography

Unlike the flurry of people who have come to "edit" this article, I've always used my name and my profile. Blue Marine. I'd also like to site the rules:

"Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, unless your writing has been approved by other editors in the community. Editing a biography about yourself should only be done in clear-cut cases."

I've sourced everything I've added and it's all subject to the same editorial standards. The information is on the table, hopefully we can get past the quibbling and continue the editing. Matt Sanchez 13:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, many of us believe there is more than one conflict of interest with your edits. Since you haven't been able to build consensus around your edits, I suggest you desist editing your own bio. Aatombomb 23:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Military History project?

I'm not sure how this fits in military history. Who suggested this?

WikiProject Military_History may be able to help recruit one. If a more appropriate WikiProject or portal exists, please adjust this template accordingly.Matt Sanchez 15:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a member of it, but it is my understanding that the MilHist project has all militarily-related biographies as part of its purview. Aleta 20:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion of U-Haul, Veteran's group Investigation against Sanchez

amy.thomas@usmc.mil

Major Amy N. Thomas, USMC Defense Counsel Marine Forces Reserve 4400 Dauphine Street New Orleans, LA 70146 (504) 678-1470 Fax-(504) 678-1447

Thomas Maj Amy:


To date there is no pending Marine Corps action, punitive or otherwise, in existence as to your dealings with "U-Haul". Therefore, I cannot advise you as to how you should proceed in this area. Col Jones' investigation states "I conclude that the questions over deployment and fund solicitation were misunderstandings, not misrepresentations. All parties were acting in good faith." Therefore, as to this topic, there really isn't anything further to discuss.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.255.230.131 (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for deletion

It gives the impression I was doing films in 2006---patently false. Covers information that is already covered elsewhere.

Other films included Man to Men and Jawbreaker.[2] Scenes from some films have been re-released as part of compilations which is common in the porn industry. The compilation Touched by an Anal was released in 1997; a more recent release was in 2006, Mansex Meltdown.[7] 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."[8] Though he has appeared in gay and bisexual porn films, Sanchez identifies as heterosexual and has stated that he has had no homosexual contact since joining the Corps in 2003.[2]

Matt Sanchez 19:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It's clear from the text that the movies in question are re-releases. Aatombomb 23:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


The text says "Scenes have been re-released" which explains exactly why you have credits up to 2006. The other statement is directly related to the activities the Marine Corp investigated you for. Namely, your well-documented homosexual acts. Aatombomb 04:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Worldnetdaily

"Sanchez's blog is occasionally syndicated on Worldnetdaily.[21]"

This is a false statement and I'm not sure how or who wrote it, or why they wrote it in a way that seems to diminish my contribution to Worldnetdaily.

I'm FEATURED on WND, and this is one of the top 20 traffic sites in the world.

"Beginning today, reporter Matt Sanchez, currently embedded with the U.S. military in Iraq, will provide WND readers with a glimpse into the Iraq war most Americans have never heard from a press increasingly hostile to the war"[1]

My schedule is currently between 1 and 3 articles PER WEEK. Not "occasionally". This should be changed.

I question whether writing for WND is notable. Aatombomb 23:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
We don't need all these details, one should ask the question is someone who has written for say the San Francisco Chronicle weekely or daily noteable or are people who have decades of tenure and have front page work and are notable outside of the "by Jane Doe SF Chron" moniker, if so the latter may be of note, but if the former its really quite irrelevant if youve written some article for a major newspaper when you are famous for being Rod Majors the Montréal [sic] Man" and being caught for being a conservative hypocrit latter which is not notable either but it is because it made the news, however this little piece in some blog just doesnt cut it, some anecdotal references to hometown and where is he now may be of light interest as mostly filler, but such details are irrelevant at the current time. I would say that a simple setance such as he makes contributions to some weblogs as a self-professed reporter would suffice, and that objective is allready met in other sections of the article so i say, remove this WND nonsense which is essentially boosterism by and for Matt Sánchez or is it Sanchez im not sure. Mr. Sanchez i suggest you get a myspace page or blog, you may get both free and you will be free to say anything you want there. I am sure you might prefer to write a bias article supporting yourself on Conservapedia which is a bias conservative version of wikipedia which may be friendlier waters for you.CholgatalK! 04:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again, Aatomboob shows his girly bias. My writing for WND is notable because.

1. It is one of the most conservative sites 2. It combines everyone else I've done regarding military and conservatism. 3. Wiki has much bias, which is why I'm here to counter it.

There's already the obligatory Coulter and Sanchez picture. She's really fond of that picture by the way. My name is not spelled with an accent over the "A".

Cholga, with all your "contributions" you may want to check out Myspace. Matt Sanchez 11:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that any of reasons stated above make it notable. Aatombomb 17:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Specific details about a subject do not need to be evaluated for notability independently - it is the subject of the article itself that needs to meet WP:N. Salient information about a notable subject is de facto notable and should be included. Avruch 03:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

SanchezColumbia.jpg and NPOV

This image seems to promote an point of view, the pose and the person who submitted it want to make the user look good. But quite honestly when you think of Matt Sanchez you think of the sullen repentant conservative pundit caught with his pants down. We should replace this with such an image as soon as possible or one with a more natural look like of him on FoxNews in a suit being interview, something more common and relating to his "notability", perhaps a still from one of the porno's should be included also.CholgatalK! 04:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL. LOL

Ok, this picture is taken from The Columbia Spectator and is the image that started pretty much the whole chain of events. I don't think I've ever been described as "sullen".Matt Sanchez 11:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The image objection is ridiculous. Its a high quality image of the subject- clearly what one wants for the intoduction. The picture with Coulter is a good image for later in the article, but subject are usually depicted by themselves first. Also, a still from a porno would obviously be a copyrighted image and therefore couldn't be included anyway. WjBscribe 11:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Cholga ridiculous??? isn't it obvious this guy has an ax to grind? "Sullen"? Me sullen??? He also tried to remove the picture. Matt Sanchez 11:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


Worldnetdaily.com

There's a factual inaccuracy in this article.

Sanchez's blog is occasionally syndicated on Worldnetdaily.[21]

I'm not "occasionally syndicated". I do exclusive work for Worldnetdaily, the web's leading conservative website and I'm scheduled for 1 to 3 articles per week. Matt Sanchez 14:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


Please provide a cite for this information and I'd be happy to correct the language in the article. Significant details or details over which there is disagreement should be cited, particularly in the case of the subject of a WP:BLP disputing non-libelous information. Avruch 03:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Update on USMC investigation

The results of the investigation are in, the article should be updated.

Major Amy N. Thomas, USMC Defense Counsel Marine Forces Reserve 4400 Dauphine Street New Orleans, LA 70146 (504) 678-1470 Fax-(504) 678-1447

Thomas Maj Amy to me

show details Sep 7 Cpl Sanchez,

To date there is no pending Marine Corps action, punitive or otherwise, in existence as to your dealings with "U-Haul". Col Jones' investigation states "I conclude that the questions over deployment and fund solicitation were misunderstandings, not misrepresentations. All parties were acting in good faith." Therefore, as to this topic, there really isn't anything further to discuss. Matt Sanchez 18:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be sourced. When its been published, other than by you, post the cite on the talk page and someone should add the results for you. Please don't directly edit the article, particularly if you don't have an outside source to cite for verification. Avruch 03:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Unless the Marine Times writer writes a follow-up story, it is unlikely that anything will be published, since the only discussion of the investigation was by the Marine Times and a bunch of Sanchez-hating sites of dubious reliability, which in any case are unlikely to publish anything that portrays Sanchez in a non-negative light. I've sent off a message to the Marine Times asking if they are going to write a follow-up story on this issue. Hopefully, they'll follow through and we can use that article as a reliable source if Sanchez's claims are true. (I could easily contact MAJ Thomas myself, but that would constitute original research, which doesn't cut it here.) Horologium t-c 03:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Just remember the "major research" prohibition when the haters present the "evidence" of prostitution again.

Matt Sanchez 10:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Worldnetdaily.com

Worldnetdaily reference:

Beginning today, reporter Matt Sanchez, currently embedded with the U.S. military in Iraq, will provide WND readers with a glimpse into the Iraq war most Americans have never heard from a press increasingly hostile to the war effort.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57237 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs) 08:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

WND Not Notable

Being featured on worldnetdaily.com is not notable, IMO. (See webtracking sites like Alexa.com and other similar sites for info.) WND is currently 5,819th in the Alexa rankings and has been in readership freefall, no matter how you slice it, since 2003. Check it out for yourselves.Dortruben 03:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, now that I've had a chance to look at this article more carefully, it seems to me that a lot of this could/should be cut out--the article is just way too long for the subject matter. Were not trying to write a bio here; just because something can be sourced doesn't mean it necessarily should be. About 1/2 of this reads like a publicity packet.

Basically, the Sanchez's 15 minutes of fame (if that) have come from the CPAC controversy and the events surrounding it. So:

Columbia activism: should stay in because it's relevant to why he received the CPAC award. Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy: not notable, imo. Adult entertainer: relevant to CPAC controversy Marine Corp Inquiry: not relevant--should be removed. Not everyone subject to a Marine Corp inquiry deserves a Wiki. Media embed: not notable--not every military blogger deserves a Wiki. Hasn't been a media topic either that I can see. Filmography: should stay because it's related to CPAC [Worldnetdaily activity: see above. With these changes much of the excessive/obsessive linking will disappear as well. Dortruben 22:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Since the title of the article is Matt Sanchez, it is a biography, and deleting sections that you feel to be irrelevant is inherently PoV. Removing all of the sections you want to remove turns the article into an incident, and would require a rename of the article to comply with the restrictions of WP:BLP. I am not opposed to a refocus to the CPAC incident, but only if a suitable title can be arrived at by consensus. The article, in its current form, satisfies nobody, and is neither NPoV nor encyclopedic. The Alexa ranking of WND is frankly irrelevant; however, WND fails WP:RS on several other levels. Nonetheless, if we are doing a bio on Sanchez (as indicated by the title and the current scope of the article) it is relevant to his bio, as is the Scott Beauchamp fiasco. The Marine Corps investigation is still in progress (although he has been cleared of the charges relating to soliciting funds from corporate sources), so we cannot be entirely sure of the relevance of the investigation until it is complete. In short, I oppose removing any of the information currently in the article (under its current title), but am willing to work to create an NPoV version of the current (substandard) article. Horologium t-c 00:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Where is the evidence that he has been cleared of anything? Aatombomb 02:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
If you doubt the veracity of Sanchez's claim (above) you are free to confirm it with Major Amy Thomas. I have received confirmation through a third party (reliable) source that two of the three charges against Sanchez have been dropped. The third charge is still under investigation. However, noting that in the article is WP:OR, which is why I have not added the information to the article. Horologium t-c 02:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Article protected

Due to edit-warring. Sorry, but can you folks discuss the issues here rather than constantly reverting over that 'prostitution or not' issue. Let me know, or request unprot on WP:RPP when you have come to resolution. Thanks - Alison ❤ 02:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see what the BLP issue is here. I just listened to the interview, which includes this exchange (about 1m, 45s in):
Sanchez: It just wasn't gay porn, by the way.
Colmes: What else...?
S: It was more than that...
C: Did you work as a male prostitute?
S: That as well, yeah
C: You were a male prostitute?
S: Yes, that was one of the worst years of my life.
Now, neither the interview nor the cited source say anything about prostitution being the subject of the investigation, as indicated here, so if this does go in, it's at least debatable whether the IRR is investigating prostitution specifically (any more recent sources on that?). Although my own tentative opinion is that BLP isn't implicated here, I don't yet have an opinion on including this as an editorial decision.--Chaser - T 08:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The original Marine Corps Times article that was cited here did say he was being investigated for prostitution. But Sanchez got them to revise the article several months after it was published. The original draft of the article is still online at the Army Times web site. You can see for yourself. JMarkievicz2 15:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The Marine Corps Times' copy has the same paragraph [2]. I can't find any revised copy.--Chaser - T 18:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Nevermind. Having read some of the archives, particularly this subthread, I now see the BLP issue.--Chaser - T 22:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Back to this one again? The "prostitution" posting on Marine/Army Times, the same publication, was dropped when I revealed to writer John Hoellenworth that there was no allegation of prostitution. He quickly took down the page.

  • I also showed the original allegations to Elonka, there was never an allegation of prostitution. I'd be willing to dig up that same original list of allegations for someone to verify here. Changing the page was considered a "correction" by Marine Corps Times Editorial staff, Katy O'Hara. Feel free to verify that with her.
  • It should be noted that the same crew of people are beating the same drum.

I am a reporter for Worldnetdaily. They are currently credentialing my stay here. If this is a biography, that fact is pertinent. Worldnetdaily is in the top three conservative posts. I am a conservative and Worldnet proves it.

  • They pay me a decent chunk of change for my two weekly articles. And I know my website traffic has increased 100X since I signed up with them, which is just an added bonus.
  • I am embedded as a journalist/reporter. I was the source and did the original reporting on the "Baghdad Journalist" Scott Beauchamp scandal. That is a fact that has been noted by both leftists and right leaning news sources. It's notable that Michelle Malkin has been my partner in this. That goes back to the CPAC days. I've also been asked to attend CPAC and speak next year. Matt Sanchez 20:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Male prostitute

Well, gee, I was marketed as Rod Majors you figure out why. I got paid to do the films. Homosexuals voted me the most promising actor in 93 or something. So, yeah, I do consider that male prostitution, although I really did do it to feel superior to people like [personal attack removed - WjBscribe 21:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)]. Now, I'm just glad to have progressed to being a Christian and a conservative. Matt Sanchez 21:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Mercury News

Mercury News just named me the most notable Alumnus from Independence High and has also confirmed that I a Northern Cal wrestling chmapion. I thought that was funny. I'm sure it will anger some in this discussion room, so here's the link:

http://www.mercurynews.com/hssports/ci_7001665 Matt Sanchez 20:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is this notable? Aatombomb 04:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ask the Mercury News 213.255.230.131 12:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You are not more notable than Khaled Hosseini —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.241.29.196 (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

In fact the article you linked does not say "Most Notable". But I'm certainly glad you are finally admitting that you attended Independence, and while there were a wrestler. Two facts I had added to this article months ago that kept getting removed even though well-cited. Wjhonson 01:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sheik Sattar

I'm also on record for being the last person to interview Sheik Sattar who was recently killed in Ramadi.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57722

What was notable about this interview? Typing Monkey - (type to me) 02:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Sheik Sattar has been key to the Anbar Awakening which has served as the model for the future of Iraq. I was the last journalist to interview Sheik Sattar on September 2nd.[1] His vehicle was hit by a major explosion the following week.

Matt Sanchez 15:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't asking what was notable about the person, I was asking what was notable about the interview.Typing Monkey - (type to me) 02:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

2nd Colmes Interview

Colmes apologizes for ambushing me with false information and possibly the wrong phone number.  :)Matt Sanchez 20:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This interview never happened. Aatombomb 04:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I've never heard of it, either, please provide a source.Typing Monkey - (type to me) 02:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
In fact up until a few months ago, that same phone number from the No Regrets Massage ads from 2004, if you call it, you get this "Hello this is Matt" in Matt's voice. Pretty clear to me. Wjhonson 01:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

USMC Investigation

Concluded. Nothing more to say, since it was just an allegation. I'm still a corporal and I'm in the Individual Marine Augmentee program Matt Sanchez 20:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Source? Aatombomb 04:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Aatoms's bias

He's a "blogger" who has written several hateful articles on me at his blog: http://www.aatomsmith.typepad.com/aatombomb/

Shouldn't he be barred from contributing like the weird guy from "Cplsanchez.info"? 213.255.230.131 00:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Get a job. Aatombomb 04:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Be civil.Avruch 05:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I mean it, he should get a job. Aatombomb 13:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

If AAtombomb is so hostile shouldn't he be barred from contributing. Most of his posts have not only been belligerent, but he makes personal attacks and seems pre-disposed toward bias. He also fits the profile of the homosexual media that has purposely targeted me. Personally, I doubt I've ever even met this person and his "interest" in editing someone he has disdain for is questionable if not sad. Matt Sanchez 15:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. Aatombomb 22:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Aatom: Why do homosexuals think the shrilly charge of hypocrisy applies to everything you people don't agree with? It's one of the weakest arguments. How did you get so fixated on this article?

Matt Sanchez 21:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Rest assured I take you with a grain of salt. I just don't approve of liars. Aatombomb 00:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Here goes the "blatant bias" example again. I'd move to have a hater like Aatombomb removed. He (she?) not only has an agenda, he seems desperate to prove his "point".

66.36.208.218 22:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Obvious Bias

It's obvious that there are several biased editors on this board who are picking and choosing the quotes. Even the Colmes "transcript" isn't verbatim. Another question is if this is "notable". I don't think it is at all, except for the people on this board. It obviously has not been an impediment for the many conservatives I've written for. [unsigned]

The Colmes transcript is actually verbatim. I have a copy of the audio and did the transcription myself. The audio is still available on the net for anyone to hear and prove that I did it accurately. Wjhonson 01:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)