Talk:Rick Sanchez (journalist)

Recent edits regarding DUI content by 65.35.161.73 / BLP issue

Cleaned up edits on the attempts to draw a bit more attention to a DUI than NPOV might allow.

It just seems to be something that was brought up in a manner that cannot be explained well (if at all) by good faith. If someone wants to attack this person's reputation, there are plenty of places they can air their dirty laundry. Bringing it here isn't something I'm aware that Wikipedia permits.

The IP named above had a history of adding these new edits; while it may be someone who indeed wants to edit anonymously, the issue is the content that has come from them about the issue.

If you're going to insist on keeping it up there, put it in controversy until things get sorted out. Secondly, the current revision of DUI material is written in such a manner that it appears to go a bit off course. It goes from talking about an incident to an attempt to get people to notice it by appeals to sympathy. If you want to write about the incident's details that do not appear to be within the scope, that might be best served in another article.

This appears to be something of an issue of BLP despite the reversion of a BLP tag off the board and the issue of the material itself.

Sethstorm (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

So you elect to not mention the DUI at all? The editor is right; it does take away from Wiki's credibility, one reason I'll never donate. You'll publish made up quotes about Rush Limbaugh, yet won't mention that he killed a man and left the scene. No credibility problems here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.76.234.250 (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that to remove ANY mention of the incident is not fair.-Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.43.79.171 (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Did not the original posting also link the headlines from the newspaper as well? Can I complain and have my past erased too?

A simple search on Miami Herald website for RICK SANCHEZ DUI brings up 11 stories about Sanchez and his DUI, accident and the death of the man he ran down while driving under the influence.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.64.159.143 (talk) 14:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where the controversy lies. This is an undisputed fact not a supposition. Why should it possibly be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.48.236 (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, someone as a POV.Also not mentioned are his numerous "worst broadcaster" awards fom his Miami days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.76.234.250 (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Try to avoid getting personal. While I agree that his DUI is a fact, the discussion is really why a 20 year old incident should be included in the article. Personally, I don't understand. What significance does a DUI have now, 20 years later? A8UDI talk 21:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

See, using that logic, we might say "what significance does a Limbaugh quote from 1988 have?" or "what significance does a broken first marriage in so-and-so's biography have?" It's more a matter of consistancy and trying to be credible. Sanitizing his biography is not something that should be done here, as opposed to Sanchez' or CNN's own websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.76.234.250 (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

18 years ago Sanchez was driving drunk and hit a pedestrian. The pedestrian was paralyzed and subsequently died from his injuries. Sanchez pled no contest to driving while intoxicated. These aren't opinions, these are facts that are easily verified from numerous published articles. Does anyone believe that if Limbaugh or Beck had killed someone while drunk driving no mention of it would be permitted in their Wikipedia bio? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.234.91.203 (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I wish wikipedia would follow its own rules. This article is a biography, an account of a persons life. Are you seriously saying that hitting someone with a car, paralyzing them, then leaving the scene isn't an important event in a person's life ? Of course it is, and it should be included in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.33.165.214 (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The inclusion of the DUI content has consistently gone one direction - an event for which invites attacks on Sanchez. A check of the history is the verification for that event.
Can this be introduced without it turning into a "bash the media/bash Sanchez" moment? It would be a good challenge to justify and write it while denying any agenda one might have with the incident.
Finally: Where is the non-anonymous opinion here that it should be included or is content that is included in good faith? While it is fine and routine to be anonymous, where's the objection from signed(non-IP) accounts?

Sethstorm (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

How can anyone question including this in the article? It happened and is a significant event because a person died. Period. There should be no argument about including it. It isn't an attack on the guy. It is just the truth. It would be POV if the article said, "Rick Sanchez struck a pedestrian with his car, and therefore he is a terrible person." That is POV. Just stating that it happened is neutral. By the standard sethstorm raises, we should mention the Holocaust in Hitler's biography, because it paints him in a bad light. If the facts of a person's life happen to cast a shadow on them. That isn't because editors are picking on them. It is because they have lived a bad life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

In all fairness, a person can only plead Nolo, "no contest", once in their life and only if they have a perfect record. A Nolo plea, if accepted by the Court, is a NOT GUILTY finding. Some states have passed laws allowing points to be accessed against a person's license when they plead Nolo anyway, but these laws would likely not stand if taken to the High Courts. So, the question becomes: Is it right to include an offense over 20 years old of which the person was found NOT GUILTY? If the answer is "Yes", then do we start bringing up the Arrest Record, instead of the Conviction Record, to paint people in the worst light possible? I don't see that as the job of the Wiki and would be the fastest way to undermine all credibility. This should be fact based, not slanted to meet personal agendas or as a vehicle for folks who feel they were somehow cheated of the vengeance due to someone they dislike. Fudoki (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Important Note: Sanchez never took a breathalizer test. This is false and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.161.35.48 (talk) 02:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Content is restored

It is back and is in a form that should be as close to NPOV as possible.

Sethstorm (talk) 04:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

More issues with 65.35.161.73

There seems to be a consistent pattern with edits from this address that may not be in good faith. Feel free to look at the edit history of 65.35.161.73. Their talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:65.35.161.73 also provides some more information as well.

Sethstorm (talk) 23:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of Anti-Semitism

There is currently an edit war going on regarding the controversial comments made by Rick Sanchez on Pete Dominick's show. The section has been repeatedly created and deleted. I consulted WP:BLP, then attempted to resolve this situation by substituting better sources & cleaning up the section in question. The section was immediately deleted again. Perhaps we should attempt to resolve the disagreement on this discussion page rather then engaging in repeated reversions. What are the specific objections to this topic being mentioned? Can we reach a consensus about how to present it that is NPOV and acceptable to all? 0x539 (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The incident has been covered by numerous reliable sources, so I think it's pretty obvious that this information should be included in the article. Under "Controversies," the subsection title should be something like "Accusations of Anti-Semitism" or "Conflict with Jon Stewart." The focus needs to be on the specifics of what Sanchez said, not the inferences and analysis that subsequent pundits have made. Uncle Dick (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree that it needs to focus on what Sanchez said. Though it's a controversial phrase, the subsection title should mention anti-semitism, rather than Jon Stewart, as that is the core of the controversy.

I've asked User:ResidentAnthropologist on his talk page to add his comments here, as he was the user deleting the subsection. If there is a WP policy that legitimately prevents us from mentioning this topic, we need to be aware of that. If he is simply removing this information because he's a Rick Sanchez fan, that's another story. 0x539 (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Please Assume Good Faith, I have never even heard of this guy until today. Issue here is WP:UNDUE weight in a Biography of Living person. most are not stating anything about antisemetism but rather simply calling Jon Stewart a Bigot USA TodayMSNBC Time Alanta Journal Constitution. I objected more to the slanted "allegations of Antisemitism" non NPOV way were spinning it than the content as its clearly talking about white privilage not Jews as an ethinic group or Religion. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Might i also point out the WashPo source was not a "article" but some dudes opinion in an editorial? The main stream press is practically ignoring him being anti-Semite which if is he is would be highly unusual The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Mediaite is now reporting that Rick Sanchez has been fired from CNN. I'm reluctant to add this information to the article without further corroboration, but I'm sure it is directly related to the fallout from this incident. Uncle Dick (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree wait for RS, we already had some make WP:OR about why he was fired The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll jump on in, since I protected the article. Since this is a BLP we obviously have sourcing to consider here. Having said that, the guy was fired, so we're probably out of undue weight territory. But let's see what the sources say about why he was fired. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Good to see you I have added in the firing bit more neutrally, its a tricky situation we have to balance fact with pundit opinion The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Evans1982 just made a very NPOV solution that I just wanted to recognize here on Talk The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, his use of "many" is weasely. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

it said "Many" i read "may" ug not my day :-) The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

There are a few dozen sites reporting this now, including Politico and CBS News [1] Jredwards (talk) 22:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, now that I'm looking at the lede, I think mentioning antisemitism directly there is inaccurate. It's basically taking a source that points out that he said that CNN is run by Jews, and saying "well that's antisemitic". He may not have been fired for being antisemitic, but perhaps because he spoke harshly against his employers. As the sources don't directly say antisemitism, it seems a bit WP:ORish to say that it is. It's not clear, so until the sources come in, I'm going to change it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I find the following two sentences nearly incomprehensible: 'His view that led to the firing was because he lost his 8PM slot that he anchored to the new CNN show Parker Spitzer and said he felt a discrimination from CNN leadership probably because of his ethnicity. His comments on Jews that was brought upon by the radio host was relative to the discussion concerning whether Jews are discriminated because of their ethnicity in the United States relative to extend where Latinos face possible discrimination.'

Is someone attempting to say that Sanchez thinks he lost his 8PM slot to the new show Parker Spitzer because CNN leadership discriminated against him on the basis of his Latino ethnicity? Perhaps the second sentence is attempting to say: Sanchez said that people like Jon Stewart don't know what it is to be a minority. His host pointed out that Stewart is a Jew and therefore a member of a minority, but Sanchez argued that Jews do not not suffer discrimination given their representation in news media? I'm hesitant to mess with this myself, and I don't know if I can, since the article is semi-protected, but I think it needs a rewrite.Juglice25A (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you pulled that quote from, but I removed the comment in the article about him losing his spot due to discrimination. It's not in the article, and we shouldn't be using the primary source of the interview as a source either. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It is saying that Jews are discriminated, but Latino discrimination is more. Example most executives are Jewish, but there isn't much Latino executives. Trueshow111 (talk) 02:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not anti-semtism

[off topic comments removed by Peter Karlsen on 02:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)]

This is not meant to be a forum, and comments like the one above are unhelpful. We are here to discuss what is in the article and its sources, not about speculation on races. Remember that offtopic comments can be removed. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't remove valid discussion just because everything is anti-semitic. That discussion was to remove confusion and disagreement happening on Sanchez article to make the article more comprehensible.Trueshow111 (talk)

Please see Wikipedia:No original research. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No original research here. Just interpretation on something written and common sense paraphrase. Don't be swarming and removing all alleged anti-jewish statements. This is becoming a Jewish supremacy in this article at the expense of Latinos. Trueshow111 (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want to be banned, then just continue your accusations of "Jewish supremacy"... Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand you are sensitive to anything Jewish, but Latinos are facing discrimination here also. Look at both sides. Don't silence. Latinos and Jews are both facing discrimination. Have open mind. It is not just Jews facing discrimination it is also Latinos being discriminated and got fired. Trueshow111 (talk) 02:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This quote:

"and then himself made bigotted comments"... "and with sarcasm that Jews were a "very powerless people.""... "The anti-semitic demonization expressed by Sanchez, suggesting that Jews must collectively be responsible for or in charge of a variety of circumstances or entities, has fueled bias and violence against Jews, dating back centuries"

is subjective and should be modified to avoid the appearance of sympathy for either side of this debate. I suggest using direct quotes and allowing the reader to make any inferences rather than providing them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.78.186.126 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 2 October 2010

I've removed the sentence [2]. Tabling for another day issues of the reliability of a generally credible, but nonetheless sometimes political organization such as the Anti-Defamation League as a source (their description of "The Myth of Jewish Control" is an accurate one; the only possible issue is whether they can be cited for it), this is within the penumbra of original research since the ADL article doesn't relate to Sanchez' comments specifically. While acceptable in more innocuous contexts, in BLP's we need to be exceedingly careful... Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Unlock

Even if vandalism or edit warring exist  : Unlock the page ! --93.82.8.98 (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Sanchez didn't bring up Jews first

The host did. That should be included in there. Stop trying to defame people. Trueshow111 (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

All of these people out trying to destroy Rick Sanchez name I hope will include a sentence or two in Jon Stewart wikipedia article about his subtle humiliation of Rick Sanchez, that Sanchez probably took racially, and include the word "bigot" in Stewart's article. Trueshow111 (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Chill out. This is not a place to grind your axe. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No one is grinding anything. Just making a point to make sure the article don't accused Sanchez of being Hitler and committing a holocaust today. Trueshow111 (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The host only brought up Jews because he was saying that Jon Stewart does know what it's like to be part of a minority - Jews. The host wasn't being anti-Semitic at all. Rick was. 76.105.6.113 (talk) 05:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

CNN Blog Dead

I believe CNN pulled his blog, so the link at the bottom is kinda pointless now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.86.55 (talk) 03:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Good call. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Only CBS news?

The lead is fairly misleading; his statements were construed that way by numerous media outlets. I tried adding another ref earlier, but it kept disappearing. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This article was a multi-edit-conflict mess earlier. I'll try to add another source for that. Peter Karlsen (talk) 07:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Since at least MSNBC had the same interpretation of the comments, I've mentioned them in the lead [3]. We need to be careful: not every, and perhaps not even most, media organizations actually stated this construction of the comments; many simply assumed that this would be obvious, which we can't use for controversial claims in a BLP. Peter Karlsen (talk) 07:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I have moved this part down to the main part of the article. Lead sections should reflect the content of the article themselves; the interpretations of his comments by others seems to be a secondary consideration. On another note, it seems to me that the expression in the "Comments regarding CNN" subsection are very unwieldy. I moved one or two bits around to try to make things clearer, but it still needs work. Cyril Washbrook (talk) 10:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Jews

I'm sorry but I have to point out that not mentioning int the article that Rick's comments were basically about Stewart and "everybody who runs CNN" being Jews is totally biased. This is just classical "jewish controlled media" anti-semitism. He was obviously fired because of those comments and not for calling Stewart a bigot. 87.103.30.150 (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No Sources for Pro-Sanchez edits in current version

Somebody sympathetic to Sanchez added "context" for his comments about Jews in the Media with no sources (e.g., that Sanchez had just been demoted to a different time slot by a Jewish CNN official). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.90.163.226 (talk) 10:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Was he fired?

According to all sources including CNN themselves, Rick was FIRED, he did NOT quit.

That is an important piece of info that should be changed on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CuriousNic (talk • contribs) 17:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times also reported that he was fired. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

ACCORDING TO ALL MEDIA SOURCES, INCLUDING CNN, HE QUIT. I HAVE NOT SEEN THE WORD FIRED EXCEPT ON WIKIPEDIA! Does Wikipedia have a political agenda now?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.13.147 (talk • contribs)

You've forgotten to shut off your 'capitalizing' button. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

At least two reliable sources, The New York Times and Associated Press, say he was fired. The AP headline was incorrectly characterized as saying that he "quit," when it actually said he was "fired." I don't know of any reliable sources that say he quit. If you know of any, please cite them. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The section about the firing from CNN is horribly written and the first graph is flat out wrong - his show wasn't replaced by Parker Spitzer and that show was announced well before Sep 25 - try months ago. He was doing the 8PM primetime show on a temporary basis UNTIL the Parker Spitzer show was to start, but his two hour 3-5pm show was never in question until he got fired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.32.190.189 (talk) 02:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Emphasis and slant

I don't see any problem at the moment, but I think that we have to be alert to the slant of the article slipping over to an excessive emphasis on the firing and other negative aspects of his life. Just something to keep in mind. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Requests

First: Unlock the page for everyone. Second: Provide a video of him appearing on CNN International. --93.82.8.84 (talk) 08:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I second that . --Ftsw (talk) 09:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)