Talk:Matt Sanchez/Archive 8

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 7 |
Archive 8
| Archive 9 →


Contents

RFC response

What exactly are we being asked to comment upon? (Disclaimer: this question comes from a Wikipedia administrator and Columbia University graduate (CC '90) who is a United States Navy veteran). DurovaCharge! 23:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see the Request for Comment.Typing Monkey - (type to me) 13:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
This is the first time I've replied to an article content request for comment and been referred directly to a user content request for comment with no other explanation or information. Whether or not the user content issues are meritorious, this is not the way to conduct a content-focused attempt at dispute resolution. Please explain the separate content issues or I will de-list the request. DurovaCharge! 13:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The user request for comment contains elements of an article request for comment, as is stated in the summary. The RFC has been properly certified. The issues are spelled out in detail on the RFC and don't need to be repeated here. The user in question has not responded. The notice of the User RFC was added to the top of this talk page as a courtesy to editors new to the situation who otherwise did not receive a notice. If you wish to remove it, that's your call. However, it's not reason to "de-list the request." Typing Monkey - (type to me) 18:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
All right, then since there are no content issues to be decoupled from the conduct issues I'm delisting the content RFC. DurovaCharge! 00:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Bigotry against gay people

Matt Sanchez has built up a history over a very short time of saying the most vile and untrue things about gay people. His bigotry against gay people needs to be documented since he used gay people to earn a living in his past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.11.80.99 (talk) 05:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

What comments did he make? Reference? How would this fit in?66.36.208.218 20:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's one recent example where he makes sweeping, negative generalizations about all gay people. There's also this YouTube video that he posted titled "Homosexuals: a Threat To The Nation, Culture, Themselves." And if you check some of the early postings on his blog, you'll find posts where he demonizes gay people. JMarkievicz2 22:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

How is doing porn "using people"? It almost sounds like he was being exploited. 66.36.208.218 20:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If he were underage, maybe. But 23 years old? Come on. How about in 2004, when he was still escorting at age 34...was he being 'exploited' then? No, he was making $$$. This man was a prostitute who sold his body for money. His recent comments such as 'gay jihadists' clearly demonstrate a hateful prejudice of gay people.Ryoung122 23:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Gay Jihadist is a descriptive term, I think it's valid. It's also the working title for my book.

As for the Taliban of Tolerance. I stand by what I write. I'm pointing out trends in homosexual culture. Just because homosexuals equate participation in cruising public toilets with support for homosexual marriage is not "negative", it's a fact--and a funny one at that.

As for the "logic" of me exploiting Falcon Videos et al. Jeez where to begin with that one. Again, homosexuals like Ryoung122 and JMark are biased and should not participate in the editing of this article. It's obvious, once again, that they're trying to "prosecute me" in some limp-wristed way, instead of just reporting the fact.Matt Sanchez 22:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh. I never suggested you 'exploited' Falcon. Look, if someone is a professional baseball player and they get paid lots of $$$ to play the game, and they fulfill the terms of their contract and both sides are happy, then neither side is exploited. The point was NOT that you exploited Falcon...the point was that both sides were rational adults or groups of adults who made business decisions, and each side got something that they wanted. Unless they forced you to perform before age 18, against your will, failed to pay what was promised, etc. then you really weren't exploited. You could have said NO.Ryoung122 09:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
"Gay Jihadist" is a personal attack when you direct it at specific editors. It is also a disparaging term when used to describe anyone. Please do not use it here. The same is true for the Taliban statement. Taliban comparisons are akin to the nazi comparisons popular amongst the unhinged on both ends of the political spectrum, and just as pointless. And few, if any, gay organizations are equating public sex in restrooms with marriage, so let go of that straw man now, please.
And again, stop with the personal attacks (one of which I redacted in the last paragraph of this section). You can disagree with other editors and their PoV without resorting to personal attacks. Your persistent nasty attitude towards gay editors is one of the primary reasons why I no longer oppose blocking you; the editor who was harassing you has been indefinitely blocked; if you don't show at least a little respect for other editors, you may find yourself blocked alongside him. Horologium t-c 05:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This silly. Gay Jihadist is the working title of my book--that's just a fact. Calling someone a gay jihadist is just a modifier to a noun. It's a homosexual activist or homosexualist who is especially aggressive. Homosexual activists equate support for homosexual marriage with sex in public restrooms. It all falls under the rubrique of "freedom" and in fact groups like LAMBDA are advocates for decriminalizing sex in public as well as paving the way for same sex marriage.

It is the homosexual editors and activist who have been the most aggressive against me. Media Matters was founded by a homosexual, the producer of Olbermann is a homosexual as is Max Blumenthal, the gay bloggers have been the reticent etc.... I'm not crying about the "great pink conspiracy", I'm just stating a fact that is easily substantiated.

Given the role of homosexuality in my article and history, I think it's naive or just plain ridiculous not to make these distinctions when addressing these issues. Calling Ryan and JMark homosexuals is not an "attack". It's in their profiles.

Matt Sanchez 00:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC) I still don't understand why some gay activist here want to put "gay bigotry" into this article, but I do think it has to do with the fact that they are homosexuals. Matt Sanchez 00:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

"Gay Jihadist" is far more offensive than "gay activist" or something similar, and really accomplishes nothing except to dilute the term "jihadist" into another synonym for "they don't like me", as has happened with "nazi" or "fascist". I haven't seen anyone detonating themselves in coffee shops or pizzerias over this article, and it's not likely to occur in the foreseeable future. People whose family and friends were killed by such attacks likely don't appreciate having the term misappropriated by someone who is using it as a convenient substitute for more accurate denunciations. You have been using it to attack other editors here; until your previous post, you had not mentioned your book at all in over a dozen uses of the term.
I took a look at the profiles of most of the editors here; only a few of them identify themselves as gay in their profiles, although JMarkievicz and Aatombomb have indicated elsewhere that they are gay; neither Ryoung122 nor JMarkievicz have indicated their sexual orientation in their profiles. Of the editors who have made more than one edit to the main article or to the talk pages since 1 September, only WjBScribe and Benjiboi are members of the LGBT WikiProject or identify as gay. As to Brock, Blumenthal, Olbermann's producer, et al, so what? They're not editing the article, and the only one of the citations in the article from any of them is one you added yourself in this edit, from Media Matters for America. The bloviating from the blogs and the attack sites will not make it into this article, because they are not reliable sources.
You again state that "Lambda" equates gay marriage with public sex. Please provide a citation for your statement, or retract it. I just went looking through the Lambda Legal site, and could not find any policy statements about public sex; and decriminalizing public sex is something that affects both homosexual and heterosexual couples alike; plenty of straight couples get busted for sex in public as well. (Just ask Hugh Grant and Divine Brown about that.) Horologium t-c 02:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Horologium: The fact that there are so many homosexuals editing this article and that the homosexual press: Out, Media Matters, Blumenthal and Americablog etc.. has been so hostile toward me is revealing and worth mentioning in this article. Both Ryoung and Jmark have indicated they are homosexuals. So, currently, the homosexuals editing outnumber the non-homosexuals. I find that astounding considering what a small minority they are in the population.

Mattsanchez 04:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There is diversity of opinion among 'gay bloggers'...those such as Chris Crain and Andrew Sullivan are decidely more conservative. Your suggestion for discrimination against Wikipedia users is ridiculous and offensive. Should we ban Jews from editing articles on Hitler? Should we ban blacks from editing articles on 'race'? Should we ban conservatives from editing articles on the Democratic Party? Hmmm...or perhaps it's the other way around...should we ban you from editing your own article? In most cases, the answers is NO, unless the person has repeatedly violated Wikipedia editing policies, as you have done.Ryoung122 10:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you seriusly suggesting that the sexual orientation of editors here be discussed in the article? That is utterly ridiculous. Aleta 04:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
"the gay bloggers have been the reticent, etc...."? Sometimes I think it's not the subject's sexual orientation that keeps one from taking him completely serious as a journalist/commentator/whatever it is he's morphing into at the moment. Robertissimo 05:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Gay Jihadists and the Book Deal

NOW I get it. Matt Sanchez is the next Rush Limbaugh-wannabee. So, just as Rush used the neologism 'femi-nazis' (and in effect, defanged the term 'nazi' to a degree), so now Matt Sanchez is changing 'gay activists' into 'gay jihadists' (connecting the negatives associated with 'jihad' with the gay-rights movement). Ok, well, if you don't take yourself too seriously, I won't, either. Good. And like FOX news, all you have to do is change the facts a little bit. I don't know ANY gay person who is advocating for 'sex in public restrooms'. And in fact, fewer and fewer gays today are doing it, because the need for the closet is much less than in the past, and it's easier to find someone over the internet. Not surprisingly, it was an older, married man who still couldn't admit to his wife his homosexual urges that got caught in a public restroom. Go figure.

But the bottom line for me is: just as the Larry Craig scandal is newsworthy, so, like it or not Sanchez, gay bloggers helped propel you into fame. So the least you can do is let the facts be stated correctly in your article. Oh wait, I forgot, getting the story 'straight' isn't something you're known for. Ryoung122 09:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


Now, I'm supposed to be Larry Craig? I don't get it. do you have a "source" for that too? Where do you people come from? Matt Sanchez 16:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracy and bias

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


My "blog" is not featured or syndicated. I'm a featured exclusive contributor to WND. This statement is meant to play down that fact especially by using terms like "blog" and "occasionally". Who wrote this and where did they get these terms to describe my contribution to WND, a site that gets 8 million hits daily? and is in the top three website among conservatives?

My column "The View from Here" is carried by WND in a syndication agreement, but my weekly substantial articles are WND exclusives. Here is a citation.[1] Matt Sanchez 22:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Reporter

Please note, I am a reporter here in Iraq. That's what my credential say, it's what I'm paid for and it is my official status. My current profession as a reporter is recognized by both the Right[2] and Left [3]

Editor's note: Reporter Matt Sanchez, currently embedded in Iraq with the 1st Squadron 4th Cavalry out of Fort Riley, Kan. – the 1-4 Cav – has been providing WND readers with a glimpse into the Iraq war most Americans have never heard.[4]

What is the WIKI policy on Biographies of Living Persons, when the subject matter is controversial?

Here's what it says:


[edit] Well known public figures In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

Example "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is it important to the article, and has it been published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. Example A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source.

In this case, Matt Sanchez's 'escorting' scandal was well-documented on national television. Let's not forget that Matt's recent 'fame' exploded after bloggers connected a 'right-wing Ann Coulter awardee' with a former porn-star who was known for a little extra activities on the side. Given it's mention on national sources and its relevance to the controversy, simply deleting all reference appears to be little more than partisan censorship.Ryoung122 08:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Olbermann is hardly a source. And the producer hopes to avoid a lawsuit by saying "reportedly". Innuendo and rumor does not a fact make. Maybe if you produce clients who say "Hey, I was a client." I don't understand where are the real accusers, according to the homosexualists here, I should have tons of "johns" who are angry with me for lying and yet no one has come forward.

Matt Sanchez 16:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for Change

I keep posting this, but it goes ignored. Who would address these factual inconsistencies?

Factual inaccuracy and bias

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


My "blog" is not featured or syndicated. I'm a featured exclusive contributor to WND. This statement is meant to play down that fact especially by using terms like "blog" and "occasionally". Who wrote this and where did they get these terms to describe my contribution to WND, a site that gets 8 million hits daily? and is in the top three website among conservatives?

My column "The View from Here" is carried by WND in a syndication agreement, but my weekly substantial articles are WND exclusives. Here is a citation.[2] Matt Sanchez 22:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reporter

Please note, I am a reporter here in Iraq. That's what my credential say, it's what I'm paid for and it is my official status. My current profession as a reporter is recognized by both the Right[3] and Left [4]

Editor's note: Reporter Matt Sanchez, currently embedded in Iraq with the 1st Squadron 4th Cavalry out of Fort Riley, Kan. – the 1-4 Cav – has been providing WND readers with a glimpse into the Iraq war most Americans have never heard.[5]

Gay Bloggers

The gay bias issue should be shown in this article. The scandal took place in the homosexual blogosphere. Matt Sanchez 16:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Phony Righteous Indignation

I'll stick with gay jihadist, the term is accurate for the type of radical homosexual nihilist who are part of the culture of death. Not the cause of the death culture, just the symptom.

Could we stick to the facts here? It is ridiculous that editors like Horologium et al want to debate the terms I use or why I use them.

Matt Sanchez 16:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

When you say "radical homosexual nihilist" are you saying that all homosexuals are nihilists or only the radical ones? Also are you saying that all nihilists are homosexual? I would think you're prefer the term anarchist to nihilist, it's much more of a typical right-wing response to anything they don't like. There are, by the way, very few true nihilists. Wjhonson 01:15, 12

October 2007 (UTC) The homosexual culture is suicidal.

Taliban of Tolerance

While I was in Afghanistan and in Iraq I've seen plenty of fanatics. They remind me of the vocal, radical gay activists like Larry Krammer and Signorile and all the psychophants who follow them. Horologiums attempts to censor my thought process are sad and fairly weak. If you have a problem with what I say write an article, post it at an acceptable source, and lobby to have it included into the article. But this silly, effete, PC nonsense of "being offensive to a community" is annoying and counter-productive. Stick to the article Horologium.

Matt Sanchez 16:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

didn't you make your name by complaining of bias against the military community at Columbia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.181.203 (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2007

You still don't get it, obviously. Call your book whatever you wish, and post in any fashion that you please on your blog. Write however you wish for the articles you submit to WND (although I suspect they are subject to editorial review before they are published there). This is not a blog, or an internet discussion board; unlike those two fora, there are standards of basic conduct that you manifestly fail to uphold. This is not political correctness, it is common courtesy. You and aatombomb are the primary violators of the NPA policy here; other editors (myself included) may criticize others, but the criticisms relate to specific actions, not perceived sexual or political orientations. Attack gay activists or left-wingers or Islamist sycophants with blanket denunciations to your heart's content in your postings elsewhere, but not here. If you have specific criticisms, post them (as you have), but leave out the personal attacks. I am not attempting to censor your thought process; I'm no fan of the concept of mindcrimes. However, I am attempting to explain to you that you must conform to the same principles as the rest of us. Horologium t-c 20:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you make the numerous changes on factual inaccuracies? The "occasionally syndicated" by Worldnetdaily is a blatant lie, but you haven't addressed that. I don't consider gay jihadist an insult you do, we disagree.

Matt Sanchez 03:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is locked; nobody (including me, a non-admin) can edit it. And "blatant lie" is far too strong an accusation; "factually inaccurate" is more like it, and can be addressed once the article is unlocked. However, until some type of consensus is arrived at on the contentious issues, it is likely that the article will remain locked, and one of the issues is your editing of the article. "Gay Jihadist" cannot be construed as anything other than a slur, and it's rather rude of you to insult our intelligence by claiming that you don't consider it as such; nobody here is going to buy that. As I have said, your tone on Wikipedia needs to be more civil than on a blog or editorial feature, where invective is often expected and appropriate. And it's not just me who has cautioned you about violating the NPA policy; you might really want to step back and assess what you are accomplishing with your attitude. You are alienating people who have gone to bat for you in the past. Horologium t-c 04:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

RYOUNG Letters

I got this letter from RYOUNG. I edited out the offensive parts, but can we ban this guy? I keep getting this type of side comments from my biggest detractors on here. His comments about DADT, Larry Craig and sex in restrooms is just inappropriate. Not to mention the caddy "never bought any of your videos".

Just for your information...I'm a Republican who voted for Bush...three times (1992, 2000, 2004). What I care about is factual accuracy. I admired you at first for admitting the truth...because until we can admit the truth, we cannot be free. However, I see that after the forces that be (i.e. the military's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy) came around---forces that favor the telling of lies, forces that expect Larry Craig to remain in anonymous public restrooms, well then the story line changed. I am an historian and there's nothing worse to an historian to re-write history to make it less honest in order to pander to certain groups...right, left, or anywhere in between. And no, I never bought any of your videos. Sorry! Ryoung122 09:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez 16:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Bluemarine, What you said is a DOCUMENTED lie. Here's what I wrote as it's still written:

It's More Complicated Than You Think

+ Hi Matt,
+

+ Yes I realize that controversy for you drives book sales. Great. "Taliban of Tolerance." I couldn't care less, so long as the other side gets equal time to share their views.
+
+ Just for your information...I'm a Republican who voted for Bush...three times (1992, 2000, 2004). What I care about is factual accuracy. I admired you at first for admitting the truth...because until we can admit the truth, we cannot be free. However, I see that after the forces that be (i.e. the military's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy) came around---forces that favor the telling of lies, forces that expect Larry Craig to remain in anonymous public restrooms, well then the story line changed. I am an historian and there's nothing worse to an historian to re-write history to make it less honest in order to pander to certain groups...right, left, or anywhere in between.
+
+ And no, I never bought any of your videos. Sorry!
+ Ryoung122 09:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I DON'T SEE ANY COMMENTS YOU EDITED OUT. WIKIPEDIA'S RECORDS DON'T CHANGE UNLESS SOMEONE EDITS THEM, AND NO ONE EDITED YOUR PROFILE AFTER THAT MESSAGE. SO, HOW CAN YOU CLAIM THAT "I EDITED OUT THE OFFENSIVE PARTS"--SIMPLY ANOTHER LIE.

And, as we can see above, attempts at conflict resolution/compromise have been retorted by BLUEMARINE with lies, distortion, and name-calling. Simply flabbergasting.Ryoung122 03:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. Sanchez has done this several times in the past to attempt to discredit his critics. Aatombomb 05:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I realize that controversy for you drives book sales. Great. "Taliban of Tolerance." I couldn't care less, so long as the other side gets equal time to share their views.

This is the comment I edited (took out).I took out the offensive first sentence. I call that "editing". What's the matter with some of you people? Don't you have a life? As for those who 'go to bat for me' why don't you just go to bat for the facts and stop with all the "independent research/desperate smear attempts. It's just pathetic, really, and my tone is a reaction to the hostility from immature "editors".

I'm just astounded how silly this whole process has been. Amazing.

Matt Sanchez 21:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That's another paragraph, but besides that, I don't think there's anything wrong with connecting the dots. "Controversy drives book sales"--doesn't sound 'offensive' to me.Ryoung122 02:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez 21:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Expert Military

Why is a "military expert" needed?

Embeds in Iraq

Did you know there are currently 33 Western reporters in ALL Iraq and of those only 3 are in Anbar?[5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs) 21:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Great timing! Did you know a Washington Post reporter was murdered execution style in Bagdad this weekend? A New York Times reporter was assassinated last summer. And a cameraman and a sound man who worked for ABC were assassinated in May. More journalists have died covering the war in Iraq than were killed during twenty years of fighting during the Vietnam War. Most of them were deliberately targeted by insurgents. So what's your point? Are you going to attack the character of real reporters who are risking their lives covering the war? JMarkievicz2 03:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying Matt Sanchez in Iraq is not taking any risks to cover the war?

Student or Not?

Seems to me that it would be difficult to both be embedded in Iraq and a student at Columbia. If he's on leave, then the text should say so. If not, he's missing a lot of class. 172.194.127.159 23:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. You have to be gone a certain length of time to be considered 'not a student.' Being gone for MILITARY reasons is NOT a valid reason, and in fact would be illegal.Ryoung122 00:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Being gone for military reason is protected by state law and IS a valid reason. Sorry RYoung, but do you just make stuff up to conform to your reality?

I'm just taking leave and officially working on my final American Studies paper. It deals with many of the themes I'm dealing with in Iraq.[1] It's flattering that you're concerned.Mattsanchez 17:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


Matt Sanchez as Embed pictured here in Afghanistan 2007


OK Matt, didn't realize you didn't know your rights, but here goes:

http://www.gs.columbia.edu/bulletin_courses/Bulletin98/leaves.html

LEAVE FOR MILITARY DUTY Any student who is a member of the National Guard or other reserve component of the armed forces of the United States or of the state-organized militia and is called or ordered to active duty will be granted a military leave of absence for the period of active duty and for one year thereafter.

Upon return from military leave of absence, the student will be restored to the educational status attained prior to being called or ordered to such duty without loss of academic credits earned, scholarships or grants awarded, or tuition or other fees paid prior to the commencement of active duty. The University will credit any tuition or fees paid for the period of the military leave of absence to the next enrollment period or will refund the tuition and fees paid to the student, at the student's option.

Students in need of a military leave of absence should contact their advisor in the Dean of Students Office.


If you are called to 'active duty,' you are granted a leave of absence and will not have to re-apply for admission if you register for classes within one year of your return. Therefore, you can still be considered a student of Columbia University.Ryoung122 01:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

RYoung, do you ever actually contribute anything other than venom? How many tangents can you jump on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.103.200 (talk) 12:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit protected

{{editprotected}}

One of the references in this article does not work - no.14, after the words 'MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olberman' in the 'National recognition' section. It was accidentally deleted in an earlier revision of the page. It should read as follows: <ref name=Countdown>{{Cite web|url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imH_J2fcp4Y|title=Countdown: Strange Bedfellows. . . "Rod Majors"|accessdate=2007-04-04|author=MSNBC|publisher=YouTube, Inc.|year=[[2007-03-07]]|work=YouTube Broadcast Yourself: Videos|format=video}}</ref> Thanks in advance to whoever fixes this. Terraxos 02:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Y Done-Andrew c [talk] 15:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The reference was restored, but it has been pulled from YouTube for ToS violation; I don't think that is a valid citation. Horologium t-c 15:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Two comments. First, I'd be glad to simply remove the citation and replace it with a "citation needed tag" or even outright delete the clause which the citation supports all together, IF that is what the editors on this page agree to. I also agree now that it is unnecessary to link to a YouTube video of a news show, especially if it has been removed for ToS violation. That said, I believe that it is perfectly valid to cite an MSNBC television program to support what they reported. Without the link to youtube, I believe the citation stands on its own. Is anyone arguing that Keith Olbermann and MSNBC are non-notable and that they are not a reliable source for what they report?-Andrew c [talk] 12:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I should also note that this citation is used in 3 different places, so if we remove it, we need to also remove those other 2 sentences, or add fact tags there as well.-Andrew c [talk] 12:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I would support changing the attribution to Olbermann/MSNBC; while there are definite issues about NPOV, I don't think anyone is challenging the facts of the three instances the link is being used as a citation, but for two of them (Sanchez receiving the award and the statement that Malkin and Gingrinch attended the conference) other sources might be better choices. It's not a pressing issue, but I firmly believe that YouTube should never be used as a citation. Horologium t-c 13:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind removing the YouTube link and all that. Would anyone else mind if I made a protected edit to remove YouTube and replace it with a link to the official show transcript, found [2]?-Andrew c [talk] 21:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
This is the first chance I had to actually read what was said (I never saw the clip while it was still available on YouTube) and a careful reading indicates that everything Blumenthal says is simply quotes from a small collection of activist blogs; he specifically states that he didn't do any research on the matter, but was repeating what the blogs claimed. Doesn't this bring into question the reliability of the source, since blogs from any source other than the subject are not acceptable references? There is no original reporting by Blumenthal, Stewart, or the research staff at MSNBC. As I said, the inclusion of this source can probably be replaced with better sources, although I am not objecting to changing the reference to point to the transcript until something better can be found. I don't think that it is an appropriate source, and since two of the three references are tangential to the thrust of the story, and the third is self-referential, I have to question whether it needs to remain at all. Horologium t-c 22:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
On a policy level, Wikipedia presumes that the producers of a respected news source such as MSNBC do adequate fact-checking and vetting. As a site we live with the understanding that sometimes those respected sources publish misleading or incorrect information and we seek balance by locating other reliable sources that present things differently. We do not attempt to parse the acceptability of individual stories from a reliable venue unless the source published a retraction. I've been through variations on this discussion many times, and you're welcome to open an article content WP:RFC to bring in wider opinions. My only problem with this particular citation is that it was hosted on YouTube, which introduces the possibility that the person who uploaded it might have edited changes into it and altered the original newscast. DurovaCharge! 22:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, easy. I'm not wedded to the idea, just voicing an opinion based on the data available. Since we are now discussing a transcript from the MSNBC site, I think that we can be assured of its veracity as to what was actually said (excepting the spelling errors throughout, of course). I have no desire to open an RFC for this (minor) issue.
With that said, I may go looking for other sources of information, and if I find equally reliable sources, I will post discussion here on the talk page about substitution of some of the citations. A greater variety of sources is usually considered to be a good thing, no? Horologium t-c 22:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The Olbermann piece is not a reliable source, and no one from Olbermann even bothered to contact me about it. I will eventually sue Olbermann, MSNBC and Youtube for this and they are aware of the problem :)

Mattsanchez 14:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you or any of the "reliable sources" that have been used in the Scott Thomas Beauchamp article ever bother to contact Beauchamp before you started attacking his character online and here at Wikipedia? JMarkievicz2 20:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Olbermann has nothing to do with Beauchamp.

2. I requested to speak to Beauchamp he declined. Everyone wanted to speak to Beauchamp.

3. The reliable sources were appropriately source and stood by their word.

4. Beauchamp has been completely disproven now that the transcripts have been made available.

5. I'm happy I broke that story, too many left-wing loons get away with that kind of smear.

6. The New Republic looked like an idiot and homosexual smear site, Media Matters, came after me. I loved it.

7. MSNBC knows they are in trouble with that piece  :)

Mattsanchez 03:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

MSNBC isn't in the least bit of trouble over that Countdown segment, because everything that was mentioned in that segment has since been confirmed by you. First in an article that you wrote for Salon.com and then later in an interview with Alan Colmes. JMarkievicz2 05:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Jmark: Here goes another gratuitous sneer by JMark who knows absolutely nothing about the complaint filed with the FCC against MSNBC, but supposedly JMark, a homosexual activist, has all the answers. This individuals venom shouldn't be part of the editing of this article. Why is he/she still trolling around on this board? Matt Sanchez 20:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not a "homosexual activist." Second, the FCC takes complaints from virtually anyone. According to this Wikipedia article, 99% of complaints filed with the FCC came from a single activist group, the Parents Television Council. And most of those complaints came from individual members who filed tens of thousands of complaints per year. In other words, the PTC AstroTurfed the FCC with "sockpuppet" complaints from a handful of members. An FCC complaint is meaningless now. Even if a show or a network gets complaints from the FCC, that doesn't mean the show/network is "in trouble." JMarkievicz2 08:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you suggesting, Bluemarine, that someone cannot edit this article because they are homosexual?Ryoung122 08:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ryoung: I'm saying homosexual activist have a proven bias against me. The fact that you're a homosexual shouldn't disqualify you at all. Matt Sanchez 03:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Keith Olbermann

Yes, Blumenthal simply quote gay hate websites. Blumethal never spoke to me, Matt Sanchez, before airing this. I'm astounded that Dorova anyone believes MSNBC and specifically Keith Olbermann are a "respected news source". Olbermann is obviously a radical left-wing mouth piece melting down on a nightly basis. Mattsanchez 14:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Olbermann removed

Pending legal action.  :) Matt Sanchez 02:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC) The complaint against MSNBC is just the first step. Matt Sanchez 20:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you post some evidence that you actually filed such a claim? If not, could you stop boasting about it here? Aatombomb 02:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Aatombomb: You're not a judge, you have no jurisdiction, i don't have to convince you of anything. But I do think you should be barred from editing this article. Matt Sanchez 03:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a trial, it's a website. And yes, if you want to make threats, you will need to back them up eventually. I think you are just posturing. Aatombomb 03:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Aatombomb: Who cares what you think? What does that have to do with anything? I didn't "threaten you." Get over yourself. This is why the editing of this article has been so circuitous. Can we can get bombers like Aatombomb out of here?

216.40.89.30 14:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If there's doubt regarding this Matt could file an OTRS request. DurovaCharge! 03:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Aatombomb, Matt's post there did look ambiguous but that's cleared up now. Please refocus on the article. DurovaCharge! 15:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)



"Marine Corp Accused"

The following statement is a factual inaccuracy

According to the article, a Marine investigator accused Sanchez of "coordinating a $300 payment from the UWVC (United War Veterans Council) and $12,000 from U-Haul."[16]

Marine Corp never "accused" me of anything. An investigator, Colonel Boyd, was looking into ALLEGATION that were filed against me. Allegations that have been proven to be without merit. Matt Sanchez 19:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Who is currently in Charge of changes?

And why is a "military expert" required to edit this article? Matt Sanchez 19:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Media Embed Factual inaccuracy

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

My blog is not syndicated on Worldnetdaily. I am the war correspondent for Worldnetdaily where my dispatches are exclusives to that organization. I have an agreement to post my work on my blog after 24 hours.

Those dispatches are not "syndicated" at all. I do write a syndicated column called "The View from Here." Matt Sanchez 19:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone still making additions?

Or is this article permanently closed? -- Matt Sanchez (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Pat Dollard

http://patdollard.com/2007/11/16/pat-dollardcom-exclusive-video-matt-sanchezs-the-haditha-dmv/

Fox News Connections

He's still working with Fox News

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/11/18/hot-air-exclusive-guess-whos-visiting-the-troops-at-bagram-air-base/

Request for deletion

Why is the re-release of films, my sexuality or compilations important?

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 (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a biographical article. These are elements of your biography. Rklawton (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

There are many published "elements" of my biography. These sentences are superfluous. Why are practices common in the porn industry pertinent to this article? Meanwhile you've left other noted facts out. This is a process of editing and I recommend that these sentences be edited. My sexuality has never been part of the pseudo-scandal.

But it has, as you are well aware. It was even addressed by a reliable source. Additionally, removing these sentences introduces a context which is incorrect, as well as something you probably would not appreciate; it implies that you are gay, and that you are still making adult films, as new compilations continue to be released. Do you really want to go there? Horologium t-c 00:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

1. I don't care about implications

2. The notion that these sentences are here to "please me" in some way is ludicrous.

3. Which "context" would be "incorrect".

4. It's obvious I'm not making adult films. That's what the filmography is for.

5. The source of this information is a blog.

Recommended edit: Compilations and re-release are common in the adult film industry, Sanchez said.

Matt Sanchez (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Responding in order:
  • 1. You are the one who has been screaming about implications. It's your bio, not mine.
  • 2. I couldn't care less if they please you or not, but I was warning you of the possible ramifications of removing them.
  • 3. The context that would be incorrect is one that implies that you are gay (you *did* act in gay pr0n, and while that is not always an indication of sexual orientation, it is generally true, at least with American actors; you're not from Eastern Europe). Additionally, the whole gay thing is an issue with the marines, since they don't allow openly gay people to serve. AFAIK, you are the first marine who had (and ended) his pr0n career before joining the Marine Corps. Additionally, since it is likely that films released after your enlistment date will be in the filmography. the implication is that you were doing these films while on active duty, which is misleading, not to mention likely to continue to generate interest that you don't want. You were targeted by all of the gay bloggers because of the gay pr0n aspect; if you had been doing straight pr0n, this would never have been as big a stir, and you probably wouldn't be in Wikipedia at all.
  • 4. Without the link to the source (in this case, Radar magazine), we can't include your statement that pr0n footage is used over and over again, in which case it is not obvious that you are not making new films.
  • 5. No, the source of the information is this story in the Marine Corps Times.
You cannot write your own bio on Wikipedia, and that includes directing others what they may and may not write. Until you realize that, and stop editing the article or splattering the talk pages with repetitive and contradictory requests, there will continue to be problems. Remember that this article has been semi-protected since March, which keeps blocked editors like Pwok and RYoung122 from editing; if it ever becomes fully unprotected, this will all start again. Horologium t-c 01:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Horologium: I think you're out of line. I haven't "edited" my article. I am contributing by pointing things out to better the article. If you have a bias against me as well, maybe you shouldn't be here "editing" the article. I only make "repetitive requests" when the request are ignored, as they are all too often. If there's some kind of discussion, deal with what is suggested, instead on constantly getting on a tangent and making personal attacks. What is the matter with you? As for the difference between Hispanic and calling me "Puerto Rican" one was in the category, the other was in the biography. These are two entirely different matters. A finely nuanced matter, but different nevertheless. If you have a problem with me, just come out and say it, I suffer passive-aggression poorly. Matt Sanchez (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Originally, I was one of your strongest defenders against the blatantly biased editing of (now indefinitely banned) Pwok, but began to tire of your contradictory requests, self-righteous ranting, and ceaseless self-promotion attempts. (One of your recent posts here, with a link to one of your commentaries, is a case in point.The long list of self-quotes you requested to be added to the article Talk:Matt Sanchez/Archive 5#Move to Add Quotes is another example.) Your constant incivility towards gay or liberal bloggers is another issue (I'm not even going to bother linking to examples, as there are far too many to list).
As to the Hispanic category thing, you're making a distinction without a difference. You yourself have stated that you are of Puerto Rican heritage, at Talk:Matt Sanchez/Archive 7#Hispanic Category. Why is it that you want to be added to the category, without any justification (in the article) of why you should be included in that category? It is a requirement that the article must include justification for inclusion in the category; it is one of the reasons why the various LGBT categories that have been appended to you are regularly removed, because there is no evidence that you identify as anything other than straight, despite the documentary evidence that you have had sex with men.
Remember that the article was protected after your most recent spree of edits, which means that no changes can be made without consensus agreement; since there does not appear to be any sort of consensus to make the changes you are requesting, they won't happen. If you had not gone on a tear through the article, the article would not be locked, and editing could proceed. And yes, you quite obviously did edit the article, as a quick review of the edit history for the page will reveal. Horologium t-c 03:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Elements of Biography

Fine, my endowment is also an element of my biography and well-documented, do you want to add that too?

You've made no case as to why those comments above should not be erased.

Matt Sanchez (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If you've got a reliable citation, it can be added. Horologium t-c 01:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Who actually makes changes??

Is there anyone here who is going to address all of the above issues? Why is it that certain "editors" show up when there's some kind of sexual issue, like the one listed above, but the factual inaccuracies regarding Worldnetdaily have not been addressed?

Matt Sanchez (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Samuell?

Who is this guy? and why is he harassing me?

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as described here, you may be blocked. Samuell 00:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC) See this edit. Samuell 15:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Media Embed Factual inaccuracy

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

My blog is not syndicated on Worldnetdaily. I am the war correspondent for Worldnetdaily where my dispatches are exclusives to that organization. I have an agreement to post my work on my blog after 24 hours.

Those dispatches are not "syndicated" at all. I do write a syndicated column called "The View from Here." Matt Sanchez 19:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

War Correspondent

War Correspondent should be added to my categories. Here is a "reliable citation" at Huffington Post, an organization run by a woman who is no friend of mine.

all the news - 11.19.2007 Huffington Post, NY - Nov 18, 2007 former marine, war correspondent for world net daily and embedded blogger matt sanchez spotted fox news channel's bill o'reilly arriving and getting ready ...[6]

Here is another "reliable citation" for it in Michelle Malkin HotAir.com for whom I occasionally report. [7]

Who can add this category? Or can anyone add this category? Is there anyone even editing this article?

Matt Sanchez (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

So you now consider Huffington Post to be a reliable source? The information that aired in the Countdown segment that you're now trying to scrub from this article was first published by Max Blumenthal at The Huffington Post here: CPAC's Gay Porn Star Honoree, Ann Coulter, and the Politics of Personal Crisis. This Max Blumenthal article used gay bloggers as a source, but it also linked directly to the archived version of the Excellent-Top web site, which was still viewable at the time. JMarkievicz2 (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

War Correspondent should be added. Any objections? I put Huffington in there to show "diversity". Huffington is a legit, but the radical homosexualist Blumenthal wrote an illegit article.

Excellent-top probably went down when the nice people who put it up didn't think it was useful anymore as a smear machine :) Matt Sanchez (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's not play games here. According to Alexa.com, you were the person who owned the Excellent-Top domain. Alexa identified you by name as the site owner when Max Blumenthal first published this story. A People Finders search shows that you once lived at the address that's currently listed on the Excellent-Top account.
In his Huffington Post article, Max Blumenthal posted a link to an archived copy of the Excellent-Top site that was hosted on Alexa.com's Wayback Machine archive. A robots.txt file now prevents the archived web page from being viewed, but back in March when Blumenthal's article was first published at Huffington Post, the archived copy showed pictures of you as well as your rates and phone number. It even had an audio file with your voice inviting people to set up an appointment with you.
In short, the information Blumenthal published about your porn and escorting career was accurate and verifiable. He didn't simply parrot rumors from gay blogs. He researched the information and reported what he found in his Huffington Post article. You confirmed the validity of his reporting when you told Alan Colmes that you worked as a prostitute during a radio interview and when you compared yourself to Jeff Gannon in the Salon article "Porn Free."
This Blumenthal article, CPAC's Gay Porn Star Honoree, Ann Coulter, and the Politics of Personal Crisis, is also relevant because it turned an obscure gay porn scandal into a notable, Republican sex scandal. If it wasn't for Max Blumenthal's story, you wouldn't be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. JMarkievicz2 (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's not play games here, you've got an ax to grind.

I did not live at that address, that address is a mailbox. You wouldn't know that because you don't live in New York. There's also plenty of proof that people before Blumenthal were cyber stalking me.

This just proves again that a biased person like JMark shouldn't be editing this article. For all I know, he was one of the original stalkers who has been sending me anonymous letters for the past 10 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs) 06:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So the address belongs to Mail Boxes Etc. Doesn't change the fact that your name has been linked to the Excellent-Top web site.
It's not unusual for a webmaster to use a business address or p.o. box instead of a home address. If you do a People Finders search for the address (331 W. 57th, New York, NY) that's currently listed on the Excellent-Top overview at Alexa.com, your full legal name and age appears in the search results.
Your excuse about the "smear machine" doesn't hold water. If the Excellent-Top web site was created by someone who was out to make you look bad, why would they block the web archive version from public view just as it was starting to get attention?
So the point doesn't get obscured by all the dust you're trying to kick up here, let me make this clear. The allegations about your escorting career and the web site Excellent-Top.com that were reported by Max Blumenthal in his Countdown segment and in his Huffington Post article are supported by domain registration records that link your name to the web site.
And if that's not enough proof, there's also discussion threads like this one with user comments like these:
"These three are big & natural, confident & comfortable real tops: Freddy Mac, Lorenzo, Matt (Excellent Top)"
"Matt (excellent-top) aka Rod Majors (yes, the one in the videos) is recommended. He has it and knows how to use it. He expertly worked that powertool in and I felt no pain what so ever. Handsome, masculine, dominant, great smile and way too cool. If you can catch him in NYC, go for it!"
"Where does one find Matt/excellent top ( aka Rod Majors ) to contact him? Is he the one from the Kristian Bjorn vids? if so,glad to learn he is open to escorting. WOOF! always had a boner for that hot,huge uncut hunk. Does he have an AOL profile or where does he advertise. Thanks!"
"He's actually been reviewed several times on this site. I just did a search for you and here's a link that I'm sure you'll find very useful }>: http://www.excellent-top.com You're welcome and enjoy! (BTW, I'm not sure if he's done any videos, but his reviews and his web site sure got my attention.)"
"Yes, Matt and Rod Majors are one and the same. No doubt. He has that full lip and thick cock you described. I recalled he did tell me he was Puerto Rican. I just pulled out my copy of Idol Country to check out the scene he had with Mike Chavez. It is indeed him. I think I will order "Montreal Men" from kristen Bjorg since you have wet my appetite for more of him."
BTW, I do have an ax to grind. I'm trying to prevent you from publishing false information about yourself and other people here at Wikipedia. JMarkievicz2 (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


Ban JMark

Who wrote this "evidence"? Where did you find it? Do you have a source? Or was it an anonymous blogger, like you, a no-name detractor. I move to have JMark, banned from contributing to this article. His bias is obvious and he's in the league with the other homosexual smear merchants like PWOK and that other guy.

JMark has also, apparently, done self-research by watching all the videos I appeared in, something that is explicitely against the rules. There are plenty of aggressive delusional "fans" of porn, who feel rejected when their advances are not accepted. JMark fits that profile, I've met plenty of these people. Matt Sanchez (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually I haven't watched the videos you appeared in. I just googled the titles to find out when they were made. Porn producers are now required to list production dates. Your original claims about when your career ended proved to be untrue. Most of your videos are available online and appear with screen caps. I didn't have to watch the videos to see that you were doing things in these movies that you said you didn't do.
The gay escort discussion that I quoted can be found here. It occurred back in April 2001. I found this site by doing a search for "Matt Sanchez, Rod Majors, and Excellent-Top."
There's no rule against verifying information that appears in an article or claims made on a talk page. Really though, you're one to be talking about rules when you've broken so many of them. How many times have you used WP as a self-promotion tool in clear violation of WP:SOAP?
Finally, I'm not affiliated with Pwok or any other Wikipedia editor. JMarkievicz2 (talk) 04:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


Edit and Redundancy, Request for Omisssion

There's no reason for the following sentence:

Other films included Man to Men and Jawbreaker.[2]

You can find the complete list of films at the filmography link listed below.

I will support striking this sentence, but not the following. This sentence appears to have been tacked on to add more films to the section discussing your adult film career, and doesn't really add anything. Horologium t-c 17:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Gee, why would anyone want to do that? Matt Sanchez (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for deletion

The compilations can also be found on the link with all the films too. There's no need for the following sentence, I move for it to be struck.

Matt Sanchez (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I cannot support removing this, although I might support changing the named films to the first compilation and the most recent release. In any case, there should be no more than six films (at most) listed, as per the conventions at WikiProject Pornography, as none of these have won any awards. Horologium t-c 17:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Changes

This could sentence here could be changed to this.

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]

Scenes from some films have been re-released as part of compilations released as late as 2006.


Is there a consensus for this change? It cites the compilations and the dates.


Matt Sanchez (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Following Cited An "unreliable source"

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]

John Hoellenworth of the Marine Corps Times cited a homosexual blog for this comment. Matt Sanchez (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Quoting Durova (an administrator) from the discussion in Talk:Matt Sanchez#Edit protected (above):
“ On a policy level, Wikipedia presumes that the producers of a respected news source such as MSNBC do adequate fact-checking and vetting. As a site we live with the understanding that sometimes those respected sources publish misleading or incorrect information and we seek balance by locating other reliable sources that present things differently. We do not attempt to parse the acceptability of individual stories from a reliable venue unless the source published a retraction. I've been through variations on this discussion many times, and you're welcome to open an article content WP:RFC to bring in wider opinions. ”
The same rationale applies here. Since Hoellenworth did not reveal his sources in the article, unless you can find a reliable citation which supports your allegation, it will remain. Unlike Countdown, which has a clear point-of-view, the Marine Corps Times is a fairly neutral source of information. You can always use OTRS if there is a problem that can be resolved with office oversight, but otherwise you are just kicking up a lot of dust. Horologium t-c 23:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Media Con Job

Media has come around on Iraq and the reason why is the milbloggers.

Here's an op-ed representative of the situation.


WND Exclusive Commentary The media's Iraq con job Posted: November 3, 2007 1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Matt Sanchez


I'm convinced that when the United States went to war in April of 2003, the media drew arms as well, and although professional neutrality is key to reporting the news, I'm not always sure how many members of the press have chosen sides.

When I first got to Iraq six months ago, I had my fingers crossed. I literally had no idea what I would find. My biggest fear was that I'd see a group of very discouraged men and women trying to implement a failing policy. I thought I'd see Iraqis poorly coping with an oppressive American military.

What made me more anxious is that I swore I'd tell the full story, the good, bad and ugly. That's what the press is supposed to do. They're supposed to tell the stories of the events that happen. The job of the press is to explain what's going on in places where most readers will never be able to go.

The fact that I am a student of history gave me an additional responsibility. Primary sources, or eyewitnesses to events, are highly valued resources for historians to interpret history. [8]


Matt Sanchez (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


"Marine Corp Accused"

The following statement is a factual inaccuracy

   According to the article, a Marine investigator accused Sanchez of "coordinating a $300 payment from the UWVC (United War Veterans Council) and $12,000 from U-Haul."[16]

Marine Corp never "accused" me of anything. An investigator, Colonel Boyd, was looking into an ALLEGATIONs that were filed against me. Allegations that have been proven to be without merit.

This was in the Marine Corps Times article, but it's obvious John got it wrong.


Matt Sanchez (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can provide a reliable source citing that, it will remain in the article. Again, if you have issues that can be resolved through OTRS, you know the procedure.

(In this case, I believe what you are saying about the two charges about soliciting funds, but you have to get the office involved to have that material removed, as an e-mail from the JAG office does not work as a reliable source in article space, but can be rectified through an office action. However, your case is still open concerning the one remaining charge, which is why the Marine Corps Times has not run a follow-up story yet. As with your claim, I have no reliable source to back up my allegation, which is why it is not in the article.) Horologium t-c 03:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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