Talk:Matt Sanchez/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents 1 No response on War Correspondent? 2 Brief summary 3 Suggestion 4 Suggestions 5 Reliable Source 6 Disruptive Editing 7 PWOK JMark Relationship 8 Time Magazine Blog 9 Porn Free quotes 10 Randy Thomas 11 mediamatters.org link 12 Category:War correspondents 13 Scott Beauchamp Conclusion 14 American Spectator 15 Franklin Foer Insult 16 Ant-Gay bigotry

No response on War Correspondent?

Horologium: Am I asking the wrong questions or not submitting the sources correctly? How do i get this issue discussed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs) 06:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The category you want is Category:War correspondents. I have no objection to that category being added, but there needs to be some sort of consensus before an administrator will add it to the article. I know that there are several people watching this page; if a few more of them agree, any administrator can add the category. Horologium t-c 17:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

How does one poll for a consensus?

Who is the administrator on this article?

How many people are "watching this page"? I've included the sources for Category:War correspondents

I am not familiar with the OTRS procedure, how does one initiate it?Matt Sanchez (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:OTRS for a brief overview. You used OTRS when you verified the source for your bio photo, although you may not have realized it. Horologium t-c 13:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I've included the sources for the category War Correspondent

I'm only providing Huffington and Malkin to show "ideological diversity" for the sake of remaining fair and balanced.

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 ...^[1]

Here is another "reliable citation" for it in Michelle Malkin HotAir.com for whom I occasionally report. ^[2]

Another source for war correspondent ^[3]

Matt Sanchez (talk) 23:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Your Huffington Post citation is a verbatim quote of the item posted at Michelle Malkin's site Hot Air. It's even credited to the Hot Air writer Bryan Preston.

But I'm glad you think Huffington Post is a reliable source, because that means we can cite the Max Blumenthal article that made you notable in the first place -- CPAC's Gay Porn Star Honoree, Ann Coulter, and the Politics of Personal Crisis. Citing the Blumenthal piece would also resolve the issue some editors had with using a YouTube video as a source. JMarkievicz2 (talk) 05:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there actually any such valid category? The one shown one this talk page does not exist except as a red link. Aleta (talk) 02:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The appropriate category name is Category:War correspondents (note the use of the plural). There are quite a few people in that category. (about 134, as of this evening) Horologium t-c 02:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks, Horologium! Aleta (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's another source citing me as a war correspondent.^[4] Matt Sanchez (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Added - Rklawton 13:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Brief summary

Before I archive all of the old discussions, I thought I'd attempt to summarize the current issues with the article in its present form.

• Sanchez objects to the characterization of his work for WorldNetDaily, and wishes to be identified as a reporter, in line with his credentials issued for his trip, and in line with other comparable media embeds. This proposal has not been endorsed or opposed by any editors.

• Sanchez wishes to be added to Category:War correspondents, and has the support of one other editor. There have been no objections voiced to this suggestion so far.

• Sanchez has expressed concern about the characterization of the USMC investigation, and notes that some of the charges have been dismissed. He has been informed that a reliable source for that statement needs to be produced before that portion of the article can be changed, and has been referred to OTRS for possible office action if necessary on that issue.

• Sanchez objects to the current composition of the "Adult Entertainer" portion of the article, and has requested a significant rewrite or outright deletion of much of that section. One editor has expressed some interest in restructuring the section, but not deletions on the scale proposed by Sanchez.

• JMarkievicz wishes to reintroduce the allegations leveled against Sanchez by Max Blumenthal. Sanchez has denied the allegations, and they were removed from the article with the support of several editors and administrators.

Have I missed anything? Horologium t-c 19:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That about covers it.

According to WP:BLP regarding public figures, quoting Blumenthal's Huffington Post article would be perfectly in bounds.

"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."

We also have Sanchez's own words to back up these allegations. I also think we should reinstate quotes from his Alan Colmes interview as well as this quote from his Salon.com article "Porn Free:"

"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."

One other important point about Max Blumenthal... A Media Matters article written by Blumenthal is already being used as a "reliable source" -- Weekly Standard used alleged former male escort Matt Sanchez as source to attack credibility of a TNR "Baghdad Diarist". A similar Blumenthal piece was a featured article at Huffington Post -- The Weekly Standard's Reliable Sources: Male Prostitute Matt Sanchez and Web Weirdo "Throbert McGee".

So the escorting allegations are fair game, because Sanchez's WP bio is already linked to a source that deals with this topic. JMarkievicz2 (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Horologium: You missed the part about banning JMark as an editor with an agenda. Matt Sanchez (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

I found out about this article through a content WP:RFC. Why not try formal mediation? Durova^Charge! 07:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Trouble is we've been down this road before, because Matt Sanchez keeps making wildly inconsistent statements. More than once, he's disputed information that appears in the article. Then weeks after the conflict has been resolved, he'll come back and try to add information that contradicts his original complaint. JMarkievicz2 (talk) 08:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

There's always WP:DE. Matt (hello there), try to work this out. Durova^Charge! 08:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Check the contribs for Bluemarine. Matt Sanchez himself has vandalized and made disruptive edits to numerous WP articles. He usually targets articles about openly gay public figures. JMarkievicz2 (talk) 08:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

We've been down this road before and obstructionist like JMark would like to keep going down the same road.

JMark should be ban, this is his very own comment:

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)

This man has an agenda and he's EXTREMELY biased. He's probably PWOK or that other guy under a different screen name. Check his contributions and see where he has actually contributed. He keeps insulting me, and making has several times called me a liar. I've noted that no editor on here has reprimanded the guy for being such a jerk. He's doing his "own investigation" citing anonymous sources in chat rooms. He has no name, no proof and he's some kind of gay porn fanatic.

It's obvious he's not contributing anything to this besides slowing the whole process down. Matt Sanchez (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions

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]

To this:

Many scenes from older 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. This is not a "radical" change, but a much more accurate change. I understand that some older scenes will be released as Rod Major films have become more popular. Matt Sanchez (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Reliable Source

Blumenthal is not a "reliable source".

1. He has never spoken to me despite having written several articles about me. This has been his choice.

2. He has solely cited homosexual blogs who have been overwhelmingly hostile and biased. Matt Sanchez (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

In addition to speaking to gay bloggers, Blumenthal verified his reporting by citing primary sources (ex. the archived copy of excellent-top.com) A Media Matters article written by Max Blumenthal is already being used as a source (ref #23) for this article, so his status as a reliable source has already been established. JMarkievicz2 (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Just remove ref 23. Blumenthal is socialist shill with an obvious chip on the shoulder. He claimed I was part of a White House conspiracy, should that be put in the article as well? Matt Sanchez (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Blumenthal has never claimed that you were part of a White House conspiracy. If he ever said anything like that, I'd like to see you back it up with a citation. He only used you, Ann Coulter, Ted Haggard and Jeff Gannon to make a larger point about the Republican Party: That it spreads a message of hate and intolerance towards gays in public, but in private some of its most prominent figures are either secretly gay or they engage in homosexual behavior such as "gay-for-pay" and down-low hookups. This point has been proven correct over and over again this past summer by Republican closet-cases like Larry Craig, Bob Allen, Glenn Murphy, and Richard Curtis.

Everything Max Blumenthal reported was verified in his original articles, so the link should stay. His reporting about your gay past has even been noted by other reliable sources like Time Magazine's blog.

If we're going to talk about deleting sources we should be talking about whether or not it's appropriate to use Michelle Malkin's web site and the extremely partisan Weekly Standard to make contentious, derogatory claims about a third party (Scott Thomas Beauchamp) that are based on your self-published smear campaign. JMarkievicz2 (talk) 08:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing

This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree. A disruptive editor is an editor who: * Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors. * Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research. * Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators. In addition, such editors may: * Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act in spite of policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility,Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.

JMark has done all of the above. He even says he's bias. He is counter-productive and is simply ignoring EVERYTHING that has been stated before. he's also related to PWOK and another editor who has already been booted. Matt Sanchez (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not affiliated with Pwok or any other WP editor. And I'm not sure how I could be accused of disruptive editing when -- except for one minor edit -- I haven't made a single change to this article. I've merely fact checked some of the claims made by the subject and verified some of the information that appears in the article. JMarkievicz2 (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I do not have access to checkuser, but I firmly believe that JMarkievicz2 is not Pwok or Truthjusticeamericanway (Pwok-sock), or Ryoung122, all of whom are now indefinitely blocked. His editing style differs markedly from Pwok and Pwok-sock (who seemed to be physiologically incapable of composing a post in a single edit), and I further note that his mainspace contributions consist of one minor edit to Matt Sanchez and three edits to Gordon's Gin; all of his other edits take place on discussion pages. (His previous account, JMarkievicz, was used solely to edit this talk page.) The others were/are very active on mainspace pages as well as talk pages. The only thing he has in common with Pwok and the others is his open hatred for Sanchez, which he has clearly articulated on more than one occasion. Horologium t-c 19:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Horologium, I don't think that JMarkievicz2 and Pwok are the same person. Matt, if you're going to make charges like that, you really need to provide proof. How exactly do you think that JMark and Pwok are related? --Elonka 20:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

PWOK JMark Relationship

The conversation in this talk page is being recorded in a hate site that was run by PWOK or someone of his ilk:

More Wikipedia hijinks... sid said: Joined: Jun 16, 2007 Posts: 44 November 27, 2007 10:25 PM Looks like Sanchez put his foot in it again. In his mad dash for self promotion he's been touting any source that mentions his name... including sources that were once considered off limits by Team Sanchez (Elonka, et al). He's been trying to cite huffingtonpost.com because of an item that referred to him as a "war correspondent." And somehow a link to a mediamatters.org article that refers to Sanchez as a male prostitute is being used as a reference for another scandal Sanchez was involved in. HuffPo and MM are the sites that first exposed his lies. And by citing them as reliable sources Sanchez just kicked the door wide open for a restoration of the gay hooker allegations that he managed to scrub from the article. Wilson said: Joined: May 4, 2007 Posts: 195 November 28, 2007 10:09 AM It's been a while since I checked back into this whole thing. I see that the article continues to censor the evidence of Sanchez's prostitution, while adding to his self-promotion, and reducing the mention of his pornography career. Interestingly enough, the on-line databases now list 41 gay porn vids showing Sanchez. Wikipedia mentions just four of them, or less than 10% of his output. sid said: Joined: Jun 16, 2007 Posts: 44 November 28, 2007 5:01 PM No one's bothered to challenge his revisions until now. But it looks like that's about to change. I don't see how anyone could credibly argue the escorting allegations are off limits when Sanchez linked to this story... Weekly Standard used alleged former male escort Matt Sanchez as source to attack credibility of a TNR "Baghdad Diarist" ...to promote his involvement in the "Baghdad Diarist" controversy. ^[5]

But the fact that even Horologium can site JMark's "hatred" for me should already earn JMark banishment for bias.

Read Sid's comments and compare them to JMark.

JMark has also used "sources" from this site: Cplsanchez.info in several of his entries. The site is run by a "journalist" who goes under the pseudonym "Willy Wilson". He's an AIDS patient with a horrible dislike for conservatives. He also insists that I am a "black man" who will not accept "my place" and that I have pretended to be in Iraq. Elonka has had several "conversations" with this guy. Matt Sanchez (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Kicking up dust again. Anything to keep us from talking about whether or not what I posted is accurate and verifiable.

Most of what I've posted here comes directly or indirectly from sites like Americablog, Huffington Post, Media Matters, and Salon.com. Except for the tip about Alexa's domain registration records, I've made a point of NOT relying on Cplsanchez.info. Since Cplsanchez.info is compiling information about you there's obviously going to be some overlap. But we shouldn't exclude information that comes from a reliable source just because it happens to be listed on the Cplsanchez.info attack site. JMarkievicz2 (talk) 05:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

He could just as easily be drawing from this extensive biography at a geneology site. Aatombomb (talk) 06:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

APom is another person who should be banned. His bias is also on record. Looking up the CountyHistorian is "own research" isn't it? What "clue" does my birth certificate give to this desperate accusation? Why are these people: Aakomhom and JHark so eager to continue in this? Why are they so biased? Why are they ignoring the volumes of conversations that has gone on for months on the talk page?

Matt Sanchez (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Matt, STOP the personal attacks. If you post another personal attack on any editor here, I personally will report you on AN/I and lobby to have you blocked. I have redacted the personal attacks, and remind you once again that personal biases alone are not grounds for banning; if that were the case, you would have been booted long ago, subject of the article or otherwise. Horologium t-c 16:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a personal attack and I stand by what I wrote. It's obvious both A-Bum and J-Lark have a personal vendetta against me. You've mentioned it yourself. I've never met either of these guys(?) They could be women, I suppose. Is that the personal attack you're talking about?

I still move to have them eliminated, as biased. Their bias is on these pages. That should be addressed. Matt Sanchez (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The last two sentences of this diff—[1] are not acceptable. They were the portion I excised. Horologium t-c 17:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Time Magazine Blog

Unfortunately, the Time Blogger, a woman I have never spoken to, used two rabid homosexual smear sites Media Matters and the tedious Wonkette.^[6] I had never seen this, very amusing. Matt Sanchez (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not quite right; Ana Marie Cox was Wonkette. She started the site, and blogged there until her first book was released; she later got the gig with Time. She doesn't reference the new wonkette blogger in the linked piece. Horologium t-c 16:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Media Matters is not a "homosexual smear site." According to the edit history Matt Sanchez added the reference to Max Blumenthal's Media Matters article on Septemeber 16. The title of article is "Weekly Standard used alleged former male escort Matt Sanchez as source to attack credibility of a TNR "Baghdad Diarist"." He didn't have a problem with Media Matters back then, so it's odd that he finds it objectionable now. JMarkievicz2 (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Another "alleged" not at all justified, by a left-wing homosexual smear site. There are plenty of other sources that cite me as a source for Beauchamp. I agree to strike Media Matters from the references. This one by the Weekly Standard is much better.^[7] And this article, that has already been sourced and the journalist did interview me. ^[8]Matt Sanchez (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Media Matters like the HRC are shills to support the homosexual agenda. The fact that they allege something is worthless and , like the homosexual activists editing this article, only shows that Media Matters is really attempting to discredit me. Although I'm not sure why they think an alleged prostitute is any less credible than an avowed liberal.

What is noteworthy is that they RECOGNIZE that I was the initial source. Let's see if what they write now that The New Republic has admitted the story was a fabrication.^[9] Matt Sanchez 22:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Matt, perhaps you could stop making personal comments about the editors here, and only comment about edits? Please. Aleta 23:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Porn Free quotes

These quotes should be integrated into the article since they explain my stand as well as illustrate the transition between pornstar to conservative.

   * "Porn reduces the mind and flattens the soul."
         o As quoted in "Porn free" Salon (8 March 2007)
   * "In porn, everything taboo is trivialized and everything trivial is magnified."
         o As quoted in "Porn free" Salon (8 March 2007)

Matt Sanchez (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Both of these quotes are already linked to in the article, through the wikiquote link at the bottom of the page. Further, you went to great lengths to have this article removed, claiming that Salon changed your words (re: "I won't deny it", in reference to the allegations of prostitution.) You CANNOT cherry-pick through articles and sources, allowing them only when they suit your purposes. Either a site is reliable, or it's not. In the case of "Porn Free", you are trying to split a single article, claiming that part of it says something you did not say, and using another part of it to reinforce your preferred version of the narrative. You've done the same thing with the Huffington Post, which is not a reliable source (It's a blog/gossip site, with only a passing appearance of journalism and integrity). Horologium t-c 17:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Huffington Post is a news and opinion site. Many of its contributors are respected, professional journalists with established reputations. Ex. Margaret Carlson of CNN/Time Magazine, Charlie Rose of PBS, Bob Franken a veteran reporter who was inducted into the Society for Professional Journalists Washington Hall of Fame.

These contributors are far more credible than people like Michelle Malkin. Yet Malkin's blog and her Hot Air web site are being used as sources to attack the character of Scott Thomas Beauchamp in this bio.

Also, an interview from Michael Smerconish's radio show is cited as a reference for this article. Smerconish also happens to be a regular contributor at Huffington Post. The standards for what constitutes a reliable source have been all over the map here. JMarkievicz2 (talk) 17:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Huh? "I won't deny it" means that I am guilty? Who is making the allegations? People like Pwok or losers like Blumethal? Why even bother addressing those types of allegations? Consequently, there's another interview with Colmes where I get him to admit that he was fed that 'telephone number' that supposedly belonged to me. Matt Sanchez (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a link to a transcript of this interview. You have claimed it exists on several occasions, but nobody has ever seen proof of its existence, either on video or by transcript. Further, the manner in which Colmes acquired the phone number is irrelevant. Fox felt that the information was sourced well enough to allow Colmes to discuss it on the show; you apparently feel differently.

As to "I don't deny it", Paula Jones' lawsuit against Clinton was dismissed, therefore Clinton was not found guilty. That doesn't mean that he was found "Not Guilty", or that he was innocent. The construction of that sentence is very carefully worded to neither confirm nor deny the allegations of the bloggers referenced in your article. In fact, the way the paragraph is constructed, "I won't deny it" can only refer to the escorting allegations, since you address the films separately in the last clause of the sentence. Horologium t-c 17:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Interviews back home and I'm in a foreign country right now. I'll provide it when I get back as I have to digitize it.

It's the citations that count. The Huffington post article was Blumenthal sourcing homosexual smear sites. It's the same Blumethal that verbatim repeated posts by the gay bloggers. The argument that all Huffington Posts are illegitimate is just silly.

I did not "deny" my Porn Free article. it's an outstanding piece with excellent quotes that explain much. There is, however, a discrepancy, that I explained and substantiated by posting both version. My version and the Mark Schoner revision.

Horologium. Maybe you should ask yourself why you feel it necessary to "interpret" and "discover" arguments instead of just sticking to the facts.

The "allegations" are obviously politically motivated and sourced by web phantoms on phantom homosexual sites who for some reason have an ax to grind with me--as per the JWark.

If you think you're a prosecuter, what are you doing here? As for the other editors, they are in obvious violation of the bias rules. Maybe you could turn your prosecuting skills on them.

Smerconish actually INTERVIEWED me. We spoke on the radio.

"I don't deny it" means I didn't want to legitimize the charge with an answer. Of course, if I knew there were fanatics who hanged on every word I would have flat out denied it just to save myself the monotonous grief of having to deal with the little people on this editorial board.

Matt Sanchez (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I'm done here. Between the tendentious editing (on both sides), the relentless self-promotion by the subject of the article, and the essentially SPA accounts who seek to destroy him, I've had it. I try to stay away from political articles here on Wikipedia; I've been here far too long for my own good. You guys can war all you want, but it'll be without me. I have removed this article and the RFC from my watchlist, and I won't be back. Horologium t-c 20:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say your work is done here. Along with a few other insiders here, Horologium, you made certain that this article was increasingly promotional in favor of Sanchez, that it excluded a bunch of material about him, and that Sanchez was never effectively dealt with for his personal attacks. The result is a Wikipedia article that is not only false, but is protected from editing. Thanks. Nice job. 24.18.134.216 (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Randy Thomas

This is as clear as it gets.

Randy: There were several posts around the blogosphere claiming that you were also a "male escort" ... even as recently as two years ago (I think, I can't remember where I read that) is that true or not? Matt: Not true but if you read it on the internet--it must be true :) No, listen, it's quite amazing how all this information has come forth so conveniently. I was just reading the Alan Colmes interview and like a fool, I wanted to make a point about sin and about how it was all bad. So, I made these blanket statements about "owning up to all of it.” That's what got the bloggers going to prove a point at all costs including lying. So, let me say it again. Not true.^[10]

Matt Sanchez (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Provide a reliable source. This is not a reliable source. Aatombomb (talk) 00:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a very reliable source. It's a first person interview, far different from a Media Matters biased smear piece. Matt Sanchez 22:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You also gave an interview to Alan Colmes and admitted working as a prostitute for male clients. The Colmes interview is just as reliable as the Randy Thomas interview. JMarkievicz2 16:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

mediamatters.org link

This link should also be included.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200708020003

Matt Sanchez added this reference on Sept. 16, now he wants it removed. JMarkievicz2 (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Media Matters recognized me as a source, but none of that matters now that New Republic Editor in Chief Franklin Foer recognized that I was the source.^[11] This is a direct acknowledgment of my role in the Beauchamp Affair. Matt Sanchez 23:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it matters a lot since the Media Matters article that you provided questioned your credibility. And several other prominent web sites, including Time Magazine's Swampland blog, noted your own credibility issues. JMarkievicz2 16:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Jmark, you have credibility issues. You've made no attempts at re-writes, you're obviously hostile, and just a little too motivated to gratuitously smear me. You should be banned from contributing given your uncivil, unprofessional and unhelpful "insight"

There are plenty of notes and comments on the Alan Colmes interview and the interpretations that followed. The Randy Thomas interview is very clear and answers the question very succinctly. Furthermore, you have yet to prove how the false charge of prostitution adds too my celebrity. You'll note, ladies and gentlemen, that when detractors such as Media Matters have attempted to slur me they have always used the term "alleged" to avoid lawsuits, and have usually sourced biased homosexual blogs that simply cannot pass the credibility test.

  Matt Sanchez 18:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The point has been made numerous times that the prostitution allegations are part of the reason why you're notable. And these allegations are supported by comments you made in the Alan Colmes interview and an article that you wrote for Salon.com. JMarkievicz2 19:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:War correspondents

I've added this to the article since no one appears opposed and citations of press credentials and war reporting make this one obvious. Rklawton 13:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Great, this was the right move.

Now, there is a factual inaccuracy involving my dispatches to Worldnetdaily.com. My "blog" is not "occasionally syndicated".

I do "exclusive" dispatches to WND and am their war correspondent in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Matt Sanchez 23:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Scott Beauchamp Conclusion

Finally, a capitulation from editor Franklin Foer on the "truthiness" of their Baghdad Diarist article. This should be added to the conclusion of the Beauchamp section, although I believe it's not over yet for The New Republic. There will probably be more fallout and hopefully Foer will be fired. I'm just happy I was at FOB Falcon to actually verify this and keep the Army from getting another black eye from a limp-wristed media activist. ^[12]

If this article is going to contain any information about the Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy, it needs to include both sides of the debate in order to maintain NPOV. So far it only includes information from partisan, rightwing sources. Sanchez linked to a Media Matters article that offered an opposing point of view, but he cherry-picked the source to exclude damaging information about himself and questions about his own credibility. Sanchez's involvement in the Beauchamp scandal added to the controversy because of the prostitution and fraud allegations. JMarkievicz2 16:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The best way to do that is to add the article Fog of War which is first person account of New Republic editor, Franklin Foer, humiliating himself with a retraction of his original article and admitting that I "scooped" the information.^[13] I believe Foer will resign by the month of December.Matt Sanchez 17:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

American Spectator

This is a great little article in an excellent magazine called the American Spectator^[14]

Foer also, rather ludicrously, accuses the Army of trying hide the results of its investigation, which concluded that Beauchamp's stories were fraudulent. Foer's evidence is that a blogger scooped traditional media outlets. Really: The Army didn't announce this [finding] to The New York Times or even The Weekly Standard, let alone in a public report. It first gave the story of Beauchamp's supposed fraudulence to a former porn actor turned blogger named Matt Sanchez. Apparently, the Army wanted the matter to quietly fade away. That's one interpretation. Another would be that Sanchez got the scoop first because he was reporting on the ground in Iraq and was thus in a position to ask the right people the right questions. (Funny how Foer gratuitously noted Sanchez's past but somehow left out this relevant fact.)

Matt Sanchez 17:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Franklin Foer Insult

Amazing how an "Editor-in-Chief" can't control himself. Here's his comments about me during his swan song.

The Army didn't announce this to The New York Times or even The Weekly Standard, let alone in a public report. It first gave the story of Beauchamp's supposed fraudulence to a former porn actor turned blogger named Matt Sanchez. Apparently, the Army wanted the matter to quietly fade away. Several days after Sanchez's scoop, the Standard reported, based on an anonymous military source, that Beauchamp had signed a statement admitting that all three of his pieces were "fabrications containing only 'a smidgen' of truth. "

^[15]

Sanchez lived in Quebec in the 1990s, working in the adult entertainment industry both there and in Los Angeles, after which he moved to Germany. Sanchez worked as a performer in adult films which were targeted towards the gay market. Starring in videos for Catalina Video, Bijou Video, and Falcon Studios, Sanchez spoke several languages and appeared in Other films included Man to Men and Jawbreaker. 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.

Suggested Re-write

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

His last film, "Idol Country" co-starring Ryan Idol and Marco Rossi and directed by Chi Chi LaRue won three AVN Awards in 1995.

Scenes from many films have recently been re-released as part of compilations; Sanchez stated in an interview with Radar Magazine that it "was just the nature of the business, you shoot a lot of films and they use them forever." Matt Sanchez 17:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you're technically right to say, "Not all films were targeted toward the gay market." Because one of your videos -- Conflict of Interest -- won an award in the "Bi, Gay, or Trans Video" category. Found this in the WP article about the AVN Awards that you provided. The award was given to Sharon Kane for a non-sexual performance. JMarkievicz2 23:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I recommend the above change to the article. Is there anyone who disagrees? Matt Sanchez 03:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks okay to me. Some minor quibbles on copyediting/refs: "1990s" not "1990's", you can't use a Wikipedia article as a ref, etc. So I'd recommend:

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

His last film, Idol Country, co-starring Ryan Idol and Marco Rossi and directed by Chi Chi LaRue, won three AVN Awards Awards in 1995.

Scenes from many films have recently been re-released as part of compilations; Sanchez stated in an interview with Radar Magazine that it "was just the nature of the business, you shoot a lot of films and they use them forever."^[16]

--Elonka 05:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That's an excellent re-write...show off. Matt Sanchez 17:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Except Idol Country wasn't your last video. Here's a link to the videos you appeared that were reviewed by AVN. They list 18 titles. They all appear to be original releases, not compilations. Their list includes release dates. Idol Country hit video stores in February 1995. You appeared in three other movies that same month and seven other videos later that same year. One of your videos -- Hard Body Video Magazine 5 was released in January 1996. JMarkievicz2 23:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Also there's a problem with sourcing. Your link to the AVN Awards site doesn't support the information you added, because it only lists straight porn titles. JMarkievicz2 23:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The re-write is excellent, if we could come to a vote, I'm all for it. Matt Sanchez 03:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Based on the above, it doesn't appear that the re-write tells the whole story - and that's a problem. Rklawton 04:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

What changes would you make? Do you want to do a re-write? Idol Country was the last video, there is a difference between the production date and the release date. I wasn't even in the country in 1996.

Awards can be seen here.^[17]
Jawbreaker won best video for 1995.^[18]

Ant-Gay bigotry

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

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

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

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

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

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.