Talk:Rick Sanchez (journalist)

Recent edits regarding DUI content by 65.35.161.73 / BLP issue

Under the DUI piece, it says: "Sanchez fled from the location at which the accident occurred" This is not right. Sanchez never "fled" the scene. This is hyperbole that should not be in there. He was never accused of "fleeing" the scene and not one person accused him of "fleeing." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.3.129.47 (talk) 03:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, under the DUI piece, the following statement needs to be removed: "Whereas statements by witnesses say that Sanchez protested in a shrill tone against having his blood alcohol content checked, (because he believed that his reputation would thereby be damaged), and that he gave no help to Smuzinick, Sanchez asserted that he attempted to attract the notice of passing drivers and to render medical assistance."

First of all, the source of the article is a rag called the Miami New Times that has call girl and massage ads making up most of the publication. While it says that statements by "witnesses" it doesn't say who the witnesses were and this information is not on the police report. It's unfair to include this bogus information in the article. As if that is not enough, the reference listed (6) does not collaborate what the statement says in the article. No one said he protested in a "shrill tone." The statement that he "did not want his reputation damaged" is also not collaborated in the article referenced by the non-credible publication. Please remove these statements. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.3.129.47 (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

"Accusations of Anti-Semitism" is more accurate than "Conflict with Jon Stewart", as I think the conflict was obviously with more than one person. One of the statements that is quoted here would obviously be offensive to Jews, even if we give Sanchez the benefit of the doubt that he didn't mean it that way. Besides, why would CNN care if he called someone on a competing network a bigot? 209.91.15.49 (talk) 04:12, 5 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)

Saying Jews are all out of proportion heads of all the various media is no more wrong then saying the NBA is mostly African Americans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.158.212.202 (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2018 (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)

THIS is what I hate most about Wikipedia. People with agendas love to delete truths and then when they cannot win they threaten to ban people like people do not know how to get a new IP address... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.179.161 (talk) 03:59, 4 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)

I don't know what the original comment was here that was removed. But whether or not Sanchez statement actually WAS anti-semitic isn't really the issue. The issue is that he was fired for making these statements, and that this incident is now an important part of the article. I understand it's hard to keep NPOV on these issues. But it is absolutely crucial that everyone do so. If anyone does not understand why Sanchez statements were perceived as anti-semitic, just look up the stereotype of Jews run the media. It's a common stereotype and it is never thrown out as a compliment. Also, I'm sure Sanchez has experienced discrimination. Unfortunately, his comments have overshadowed that. We can't settle these issues here. Our job is to tell what happened. 209.91.15.49 (talk) 12:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

He was fired because he said his boss was racist. It had nothing to do with Jews until some people hijacked this article to disperse their views. Trueshow111 (talk) 12:37, 8 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)

Useless. This article has been hijacked 100% from the incident. Trueshow111 (talk) 12:37, 8 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)

Who accused Sanchez of being Hitler? Please stick to facts when trying to make a point. 71.228.220.125 (talk) 06:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

He said what he said, and for that he was fired. NPOV demands that his statements and the fact that he was fired be included in an article about him. The rest of you trying to dilute that are wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.85.74 (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who first mentioned Jews. What matters is what was said and it was unprofessional at best. This really isn't the forum to defend Sanchez honor, and he said what he said. 209.91.15.49 (talk) 12:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a forum to defend Jon Stewart either and his comments about Sanchez on his show Trueshow111 (talk) 12:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Did I defend Jon Stewart? I don't think so. Nor have I mentioned The Daily Show. And it doesn't matter anyway because Jon Stewart himself is really irrelevant to the incident. What is relevant is what Sanchez said and why he was fired. He was not fired because he insulted a host on another network. 71.228.220.125 (talk) 06:28, 10 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)

 Declined for both. This article will be automatically unprotected relatively soon, but if the vandalism or BLP violations start up again, I'll turn back on the protection again. And why would we add a video of him on CNN International? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of BLP, I'm a little dubious about the amount of space devoted to that drunk driving episode. What do you think? ScottyBerg (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to point out that the reference for this sentence "He once called President Barack Obama a "cotton-picking president," attributed unconfirmed quotes to Rush Limbaugh and misidentified the Galapagos Islands as Hawaii.[12]" is not an actual link to any source online. It's also only accurate in the loosest sense of the word. If this sentence is actually needed at all it would be more accurate for the first clause of the sentence to have it's own sentence and reference, e.g. "He also once stirred controversy in using the phrase 'he is the cotton picking president' in reference to President Barack Obama".(see reference at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/30/rick-sanchez-calls-obama-_n_699616.html). Likewise the next two statements should also reflect sources that reference the original statements and incidences and not a tertiary reporting that "it happened". That would be simply poor ethics. Magnushawk (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis by Sources Re: Firing by CNN

1: The Interview happened the same day as Rick's last show which had been replaced by the Elliott Spitzer show. 2:Klein,The President of CNN and the person who had given Sanchez more airtime, was fired the week before the interview. 3: CNN did not say why they fired him and they wished him well. It is reasonable,I think, to say that it is possible that his firing had little or nothing to do with the Dominic interview, especially since his show had already been ditched. Now, I am not saying it was not the Dominik interview, but I am saying that in our section on the firing that we maybe should not be implying what the Reliable Sources are all implying...which is there was an obvious and primary cause and effect between his comments in the interview and his firing. Could be he was already on the way out the door and the interview just accelerated the announcement, or, it could be the interview had nothing at all to do with the firing.

Our OR policy specifically mentions "synthesis" as something for Editors to avoid; but what's our correct path when article sources are engaging in synthesis? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you questioning the reliability of the sources? You've got Mediaite, CBS, MSNBC and the AP. All of those are reliable except for Mediaite, which may not be reliable. If these were fringe sources or somehow dubious sources otherwise then maybe we could evaluate their claims, but they aren't. So the answer to your question is: there is no path to take when sources are potentially engaging in synthesis. We go by what the reliable sources say, and it's sort of running into OR to take a bunch of sources and compare them against each other or anything like that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that this is not synthesis. Multiple reliable sources say that he was fired. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes he was fired, and the sources are reliable. My point is the Sources are obviously synthesizing the Dominik interview with the firing- as implied cause and effect; and I wonder if we should be doing the same thing? (we are right now,imo). The Dominic interview info belongs in the firing section, but I think the info about Klein and the cancellation Of Sanchez's show belong in that section too (that info is also in the same articles sourced re: the Dominik interview) and let Readers do their own speculations as to cause and effect. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources synthesize all the time, as that's their job, not ours. However, in this particular instance I don't see any major leaps taking place here. While I understand your BLP concern, a far greater issue taking place currently is the addition of a large block of text on his drunk driving arrest. Now that is a BLP issue and an important one we have to watch. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Wake Up Scotty! You deleted that at 15:30 so it was not "currently taking place" at 15:49! AGF and watch yourself. Non-sequitor jabs are not constructive on a BLP discussion page. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Tone it down a notch, please. I was just pointing out to you a genuine BLP issue, while this one isn't. Yes, I did revert that, obviously. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.178.195.33, 3 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Change misspelling on "Jon Quiñones" to read "John Quiñones".

71.178.195.33 (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Stewart Speaks

Jon Stewart just did a bit on his show about the whole controversy where he intimated that he didn't even think Sanchez believed that, and disagreed with CNN firing him for that reason (although basically said his show sucked and he was fine if CNN canned him for that). Of course, there won't be any reliable sources on this for a while, but it might be worthwhile to quote Stewart to balance the article. GRHooked (talk) 03:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It is useless. Anti-Sanchez people have 100% hijacked this article. No use. This is total POV article. Whatever. Trueshow111 (talk) 12:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The facts are anti-Sanchez. Damn the facts! nut-meg (talk) 06:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Sanchez, but came here after watching the Oct25 episode of The Daily Show. In it, Olivia Munn referred to Rick Sanchez as (paraphrased from memory) "The guy on the TV who's not a bigot, who got fired for saying stupid s*** [censored on the episode] on the radio." The representation on the Daily Show, and by Jon Stewart, is extremely relevant, being the target of the statements in question.

By the timestamp of the earlier post, I found the earlier episode. It CAN be used as a reliable source (I haven't watched it) but it'll probably be taken down next week, so hurry up and check it out.

Again, I've not heard of Sanchez outside of the Oct25 episode. --68.161.145.25 (talk) 05:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

New Header Picture

The picture of rick sanchez is horrible, he appears to be as if he had been outside for a week. Could someone please change it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendenhows (talk • contribs) 02:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thats how he always looks though. Yonskii (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Where is He Now?

He had a large following when he was at CNN. Has he moved on to any new positions anywhere?

98.245.150.162 (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Alberto San Pedro incident

Why isn't there mention of the reason why he worked briefly for KHOU in Houston, Texas before returning to an afternoon anchor position with WSVN?

"Twenty four years ago, Sanchez was an up-and-coming WSVN-Channel 7 anchor. Until his voice popped up on police wiretaps talking to Alberto San Pedro, a Hialeah crime figure nicknamed “The Great Corruptor.”

San Pedro was a front page story in 1986. The cocaine dealer boasted he had politicians on his payroll. He also had a relationship with Sanchez that the station apparently didn’t know about until the tapes surfaced.

The two men talked about doing favors for one another. Sanchez, who visited San Pedro in his home, said he was only attempting to gather information for a story.

Later, Sanchez disclosed that he introduced San Pedro to representatives of the Bal Harbour branch of the First American Bank and Trust, where Sanchez was a paid member of the management advisory board, according to a Sun-Sentinel report.

San Pedro served three years in prison.

Sanchez was placed on leave at Channel 7 and eventually ended up in Houston."

source : http://www.browardbeat.com/rick-sanchezs-history-of-trouble-in-miami/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.75.231 (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move the page, treating this as an objection to the undiscussed page move from the original stable title in April. Dekimasuよ! 17:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Rick Sánchez → Rick Sanchez – Per subject's own usage (https://www.facebook.com/ricksancheznews), he also has spoken in favor of immigrants anglicizing their names. (http://www.thehopeforamerica.com/play.php?id=2357) It is also more common Bobby Martnen (talk) 03:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rick Sanchez. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100921220104/http://www.cnn.com:80/CNN/anchors_reporters/sanchez.rick.html? to http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/sanchez.rick.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rick Sanchez. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090124032010/http://cnn.com:80/ricksanchez to http://www.cnn.com/ricksanchez

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The DUI stuff

A couple of IP editors seem hellbent on reinserting this content, which has some newspaper coverage and an update years after the fact from a tabloid magazine. I consider this a BLP violation: the man was not charged, and sticking this back in seems to be nothing more than an attempt to smear the subject. Drmies (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the Sun-Sentinel and the Miami Herald (the sources cited in the edit you reverted), he was charged with driving under the influence, and he pleaded nolo contendere to the charge. Smuzinick's injury as a result of the incident is similarly covered. The Sun-Sentinel and Miami Herald are solid, reliable sources (they have Pulitzers, even) which had contemporaneous coverage of the event. The section clearly stated that he wasn't charged with anything other than the DUI. Smuzinick's later death shouldn't be included unless a reliable source states it was of complications from the accident (if at all), and the section's writing needs to be tightened up, but otherwise, what is the BLP issue, exactly? --Xanzzibar (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2017

Please undelete the section where he was drunk driving and killed a guy. This can never be forgotten. Thanks! 190.150.0.89 (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Rick Sanchez (Rick and Morty) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

He's got a show on the RT America channel right now

He's also got a show on RT America right now. "News with Rick Sanchez".[4] CaribDigita (talk) 03:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 13 August 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

---

• Rick Sanchez → Rick Sanchez (journalist)
• Rick Sanchez (disambiguation) → Rick Sanchez

– According to the disambiguation page guidelines, the title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself (Rick Sanchez), provided there is no primary topic for that term. If there is a primary topic, then the tag "(disambiguation)" is added to the name of the disambiguation page. If there is a primary topic for the term "Rick Sanchez", then this article about the journalist is not it. The article Rick Sanchez (Rick and Morty) about the fictional character receives at least double pageviews, but considering that this is only a fictional character and not a real person it might be inappropriate to determine that one as the primary topic. What i am proposing, is exactly what is already happening for the term "Jon Snow". Jon Snow is a disambiguation page for the articles Jon Snow (character) and Jon Snow (journalist). Similarly, Rick Sanchez would become a disambiguation page for the articles Rick Sanchez (Rick and Morty) and Rick Sanchez (journalist). Radiphus (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nom - no clear primary topic for who readers are searching for. Move disambiguation page to basename. Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Nothwithstanding that page views for the character are greater, the nom's argument is convincing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: I have also added a link to the article of the Puerto Rican basketball player Ricky Sánchez in the disambiguation page. Radiphus (talk) 08:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit request

the RT America status is not relevant since it doesn't exist any longer, and shouldn't be mentioned 2x

in the top line summary of the person's career — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davetheirishguy (talk • contribs)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Please change the protected lede of the Rick Sanchez biography from:

"Ricardo León Sánchez de Reinaldo (born July 3, 1958) is a Cuban-American journalist, radio host, and author. He was an RT America contributor, and was previously a columnist for Fox News and Fox News Latino, and a former correspondent for Spanish language network Mundo Fox.

After some years as the lead local anchor on Miami's WSVN, Sánchez moved to cable news, first as a daytime anchor at MSNBC, later at CNN, where he began as a correspondent and ultimately rose to become an anchor. On CNN, he hosted his own show Rick's List and served as a contributor to Anderson Cooper 360° and CNN International, where he frequently reported and translated between English and Spanish. Sánchez was fired from CNN on October 1, 2010, following controversial remarks he made on a radio program. In July 2011, Sánchez was hired by Florida International University, to serve as a color commentator for radio broadcasts of the school's football team. He hosted The News with Rick Sanchez on RT America for several years."

Change to:

"Ricardo León Sánchez de Reinaldo (born July 3, 1958) is a Cuban-American journalist, radio host, and author.

After some years as the lead local anchor on Miami's WSVN, Sánchez moved to cable news, first as a daytime anchor at MSNBC, later at CNN, where he began as a correspondent and ultimately rose to become an anchor. On CNN, he hosted his own show Rick's List and served as a contributor to Anderson Cooper 360° and CNN International, where he frequently reported and translated between English and Spanish. Sánchez was fired from CNN on October 1, 2010, following controversial remarks he made on a radio program. In July 2011, Sánchez was hired by Florida International University, to serve as a color commentator for radio broadcasts of the school's football team. He hosted The News with Rick Sanchez on RT America, a U.S.-based news channel headquartered in Washington, D.C., from 2019 to 2021." source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_America#Former_personalities Davetheirishguy (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

That removes his time at Fox News, Fox News Latino and Mundo fox. It also needlessly elaborates on where RT America is based and headquartered. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I took a whack at the lead, hopefully it addresses some of your concerns. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

thank you my fellow Celt! It is much better. Davetheirishguy (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)