Talk:Rick Caruso

BRD and ONUS
and, WP:BRD says "be bold", "revert", "discuss". It does not say "be bold", and "if you get reverted, revert right back". The WP:ONUS for including new material that has been contested is on you, not, who has been clear in their edit summary that they are objecting to this on WP:BLP grounds, which seem fair as your content does not address Caruso, only behavior on his yacht. I have increased page protection to deal with this edit war. Naturally, your report against Fettlemap on WP:3RRNB is off-base and you're lucky I haven't applied WP:BOOMERANG. That said...

, do you think these accounts are also socks? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * While there has been some socking at this article, I think that this is more likely to be a case where there was some off-wiki discussion somewhere that led new and revived accounts to try to push the disputed content into the article.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Forgive me. I am still not understanding.  I don't understand how material is "contested" if it has never been previously discussed?  Does this only apply to biographies?  I did not write the original Rick Caruso entry, but how would I know, going forward, if something I write could be considered "contested"? HedgeHogPower (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * By reverting your edit, Fettlemap contested it. Simple as that. There was no requirement for Fettlemap to initiate a talk page discussion. ONUS is on you. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Really? Is that it?   Not to be a jackass here, but if I see something on wikipedia and delete it, I don't have to discuss it first?  The person who puts it back has to initiate the discussion?  Is that correct? If so, that seems so counter-intuitive.  If that is the correct understanding,  my apologies. HedgeHogPower (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In the case of long-standing content, the person removing it would be the one needing to justify it. I forget if that's just custom or if that's enshrined in policy. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Caruso Invictus Controversy
Regarding the section that keeps getting deleted and reinserted. The only thing I believe that is important is in the very begining: "Brentwood School students chanting rap lyrics with racial slurs aboard Caruso's $100 million yacht, Invictus, went viral, prompting an investigation from the school, and condemnation from celebrities including Major League Baseball player Barry Bonds." For me, that shows a clear lack of judgement from a man always maintained a high profile and who is now running for mayor. The rest of it, Barry Bonds actual tweet, or the stuff about Olivia Jade, feels like mudslinging. I mean, I guess you could make a case about Caruso's daughter getting into USC after her father gave a donation. But she didn't get in illegally, as Forbes magazine said. Anyway, those are my thoughts.HedgeHogPower (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Can you demonstrate that Caruso was involved at all? Beyond it being his yacht, I mean. Was he filming the video? Was he singing the lyrics with them? Mentioning Olivia Jade's scandal here is a WP:COATRACK. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * you said "that shows a clear lack of judgement from a man always maintained a high profile and who is now running for mayor" It doesn't matter what you think. Reliable sources are needed that clearly explain that opinion. It then needs to be clear that is an opinion, not a fact. By reverting and engaging in an edit war, you also added a lot of irrelevant content to the article that you now call mudslinging. The sources show the event and quote are accurate but Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. The media put Rick Caruso's name in the headline to attract more eyeballs; that is not how Wikipedia operates. Fettlemap (talk) 04:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

This is not about creating clicks or attracting eyeballs. I agree with HedgeHog that the important thing is as follows: “ Brentwood School students chanting rap lyrics with racial slurs aboard Caruso's $100 million yacht, Invictus, went viral, prompting an investigation from the school, and condemnation from celebrities including Major League Baseball player Barry Bonds.” Everything else, including the specific language of the Barry bonds tweet, and the Olivia jade story, is irrelevant. I think it’s worth noting that the only user who really wanted to add that information was a sock puppet with inappropriate usernames. He/she/they do not represent the views of other users (e.g. myself and hedgehog).

But those users firmly believe that this content satisfies all of Wikipedia’s policies. This is not “coatrack” content, which is content that “fails to give a truthful impression of the subject.” Nothing about the language that HedgeHog and I agree on fails to give a truthful impression. The content simply states that this scandal occurred on Caruso’s boat. I am not sure why a limited and accurate statement to that effect provokes such strong reactions. Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles, only the article itself. Of course, this does not mean that all accurate content is fair game. For example, what Rick Caruso eats for breakfast is irrelevant. But this was a well-covered incident that occurred in Los Angeles’s highly prestigious private school scene. The incident involved one of the most discussed issues of our day: racial bias and insensitivity. And the incident occurred on Rick Caruso’s boat, who obviously gave these students permission to use the boat. If this doesn’t belong on Rick Caruso’s page, then why does a single lecture at Harvard University belong? Why does a single award from Ernst & Young belong? I simply don’t see an objective reason for keeping this content off of the page. (And, again, to be clear, by content I mean the limited content that HedgeHog quoted) Redchili2022 (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * To your WP:WHATABOUTisms there, a "single award" from Ernst & Young was awarded to him. He lectured at Harvard. That's part of his biography. According to TMZ, Caruso was not on the yacht when Olivia Jade was. This is not the Wikipedia article for Caruso's yacht and we don't do guilt by association. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The boat is his. No one disputes that. The party occurred on that boat (i.e., his boat). Again, no one disputes that. Racial slurs (a topic of critical importance in society today) were used by white students on HIS BOAT. Again, no one disputes any of this. To the contrary, Fettlemap expressly agrees: “The sources show the event and quote are accurate.” And while this is not an article about Caruso’s boat, the sentence preceding the proposed content expressly states: “Caruso owns a SuperYacht named Invictus.”

Much like an award from E&Y or a lecture at Harvard are part of his biography, Caruso allowing these students to use his boat for a party—and students then chanting racial slurs during that party—is “part of his biography.” The scandal happened (no one disputes that); it happened on his boat (undisputed); and the party was for Brentwood school students, a school that the article already says Caruso made significant donations to.

This is not about “guilt by association.” No one is attempting to say he is guilty of anything, or express an opinion about his morals/judgment. Please keep that in mind. The only thing that I think should be added are undisputed facts supported by multiple reliable sources: “A video of Brentwood School students chanting rap lyrics with racial slurs aboard Caruso's $100 million yacht, Invictus, went viral, prompting an investigation from the school, and condemnation from celebrities including Major League Baseball player Barry Bonds." There is no commentary or opinions there.

Ultimately, this simple fact is highly similar to other content in the article about events on his property. For example, the article discusses public protests at Americana at Brand. To use your language, this is also “not the Wikipedia article for Caruso’s [malls],” yet the protest is noted in the article. Its unfair and biased to prevent this content from appearing on this page, particularly in the limited form that HedgeHog suggested. Redchili2022 (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , Your statement, "And the incident occurred on Rick Caruso’s boat, who obviously gave these students permission to use the boat." is very clear. The sources have establish the people and items involved and that doesn't include Rick Caruso. An article about a person is not based on editor's assumptions about that person's actions or thoughts. You have also made it clear that you are unable to accept the consensus of experienced editors for your first and only contribution to Wikipedia. I hope you are able to move on and use your energy to improve Wikipedia. Cheers, Fettlemap (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * From looking at a few articles, I've seen that Caruso rents out the yacht. He is responsible for white kids using the n-word on the yacht after he's rented it out to them? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Once again, this has nothing to do with personal opinions about Caruso. No one is attempting to publish such an opinion. Instead, multiple editors are simply trying to add content supported by multiple reliable sources: “ “A video of Brentwood School students chanting rap lyrics with racial slurs aboard Caruso's $100 million yacht, Invictus, went viral, prompting an investigation from the school, and condemnation from celebrities including Major League Baseball player Barry Bonds."

It makes no difference whether Caruso allowed the students to use the boat for free or rented it to students, because the content does not assert that he allowed them to use the boat for free or for money. The fact of the matter is that he allowed the students on his boat, either for free or for a charge. And the content simply states that a video of white Brentwood school students (where his children went to school, including one child when the incident occurred) shows the students rapping racial slurs while on Caruso’s boat. Some members of the public (such as yourselves) might think that doesn’t mean much, either because Caruso wasn’t on the boat, didn’t know it would happen, etc. But other members of the public might view the accurate content and conclude that it is problematic, for example, because Caruso never released a statement condemning the behavior or otherwise assessing it (unlike the protests at the Americana about the Armenian Genocide, for which he DID release a statement). But the public won’t be able to reach either conclusion if they do not even know the incident occurred.

I therefore once again request that you stop censoring the content and publish the limited, accurate information the HedgeHog suggested: “A video of Brentwood School students chanting rap lyrics with racial slurs aboard Caruso's $100 million yacht, Invictus, went viral, prompting an investigation from the school, and condemnation from celebrities including Major League Baseball player Barry Bonds." Redchili2022 (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC on Caruso Controversy re Party on Yacht
Should the following statement be included in Rick Caruso's article:

In 2016, according to multiple sources, a YouTube video of white Brentwood School students chanting rap lyrics with racial slurs aboard Caruso's $100 million yacht, Invictus, went viral, prompting an investigation from the school, and condemnation from celebrities including Major League Baseball player Barry Bonds. Redchili2022 (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * No, it's an WP:UNDUE WP:COATRACK of guilt by association. If he had done it, that'd be different. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not about “guilt by association.” No one is attempting to say he is guilty of anything, or express an opinion about his morals/judgment. The content simply states facts supported by multiple reliable sources. Redchili2022 (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Three of the four that you presented (Salon, LA Times, ABC) don't even mention Caruso at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it's an WP:UNDUE WP:COATRACK of guilt by association. If he had done it, that'd be different. Very succinctly put by Muboshgu, the sources don't even appear to mention Caruso, so it's probably WP:OR, or at least WP:SYNTH - I had difficulty working out what Caruso's supposed connection to this incident was until I read the discussion above and below. Pincrete (talk) 11:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * How is this WP:OR? There are multiple reliable sources establishing that the incident occurred on Caruso's boat.  Makes no sense to characterize it as WP:OR.  Also not WP:SYNTH, as the content is not implying or reaching a conclusion that is not stated by a source. Redchili2022 (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes. This was a well-covered incident that occurred in Los Angeles’s highly prestigious private school scene. The incident involved one of the most discussed issues of our day: racial bias and insensitivity. The content is supported by multiple reliable sources. The content is not "coatrack" content, as it is not content that “fails to give a truthful impression of the subject.”
 * Rather, the content simply states that a video of white Brentwood school students (where his children went to school, including one child when the incident occurred) shows the students rapping racial slurs while on Caruso’s boat. Some members of the public might think that doesn’t mean much, either because Caruso wasn’t on the boat, didn’t know it would happen, etc. But other members of the public might view the accurate content and conclude that it is problematic, for example, because Caruso never released a statement condemning the behavior or otherwise assessing it (unlike the protests at the Americana about the Armenian Genocide, for which he DID release a statement, as indicated elsewhere in his Wiki article). But the public won’t be able to reach either conclusion if they do not even know the incident occurred.
 * The boat is Rick Caruso's. No one disputes that. The party occurred on that boat (i.e., his boat). Again, no one disputes that. Racial slurs (a topic of critical importance in society today) were used by white students on HIS BOAT. Again, no one disputes any of this. There does not seem to be an objective basis for keeping this content off of the page. Redchili2022 (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * While it's true that racial bias and insensitivity are oft-discussed issues of our day, WP:SOAPBOX discourages this as reasoning for hosting content. What matters is that reliable sources explicitly mention Caruso in the incident, and describe his involvement non-trivially. Using Salon, LA Times, and ABC would count as WP:SYNTH as they don't mention Caruso at all. The LA Weekly article mentions Caruso's ownership of the boat in passing at best -- most of the weight in the article is on the incident itself and Brentwood School. My recommendation is that going off these four sources alone, the statement, in some form, is appropriate for inclusion in the Brentwood School article, but undue weight in this article. tofubird 08:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

No Many yacht owners rent out their boats to the public, literally like a pricey water-based AirBnB. That’s the most pathetic case of guilt by association I’ve ever heard of. Whoever tried to add this should have their edits scrutinized; I doubt they are capable of contributing here. Sorry if that sounds mean. 2600:1012:B053:FD92:8D76:8FE9:85CB:86F2 (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * No, as per all the above comments. It might be worth including in a different form, but this seems like a bit of a rushed RfC to try and get something in instead of thinking what exactly should be in. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 April 2022
replace current profile image with this image

https://imgur.com/a/ckoLdSs TorchWarrior (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: There would need to be an image with an acceptable license uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Replace profile pictures with this picture.
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rick_Caruso_Profile_Image.jpg
 * Rick Caruso Profile Image.jpg TorchWarrior (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "Acceptable" license. That's not your own work, is it? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Crime stat might be wrong?
The article says “ During Caruso's tenure as president of the Police Commission, the crime rate in Los Angeles dropped 37.3% from 2002 to 2006 a much smaller decrease during his 5 year tenure than the previous 5 years or the following 5 years after he left.”

However, the sentence links to violent crime stat page that seems to show violent crimes decreased by more (in absolute terms) from 2002 to 2006 than the two other five periods (1997 to 2001 and 2007 to 2011). I may be misreading. Thanks 2600:8806:4000:2:0:0:0:EB (talk) 03:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

This article is an embarrassment
It is like Wikipedia is endorsing him. JSFarman2 (talk) 06:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Agreed. For example:  while the Wiki's last-edit date is June 14, Footnote 69 uses a June 8, 2022 reference to claim falsely that the subject prevailed in the recent election primary.  Not only was that reference itself rendered from a June article, but the article stated clearly that only one third of votes been counted at the time of the report.  In fact, over 400,000 ballots received remained uncounted at that time, with a then-unknown number still in postal mail, due by June 14 (coincidentally, the Wiki's own last-edit date).  Further, the County Registrar/Recorder's June 8 report clearly stated that initial election results would not be issued until June 10.
 * Had Wikipedia not locked out all but a handful of editors, updating the page with accurate numbers - or even a link that auto-updated - would have properly and timely informed the reading audience.
 * As things stand today, such articles erode trust in Wikipedia's concept and execution. Jetpower (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

He was independent before running in 2022, info incorrect.
Inaccurate regarding timing from republican to independent to democrat 108.185.97.19 (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The information says he is a former republican and that he changed to democrat before running.. both items are correct. The info box provides more clarity on the timing of those changes. Spanneraol (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Controversy section
I reorganized the article so that it more closely adheres to the BLP format. I also moved the controversies that were covered in the body of the article to a controversy section and removed some editorial related to USC. No new content (such as the controversy referenced above). Strictly a copy-edit thing. JSFarman (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 July 2022
Please change the sentence "Since no candidate received more than 50% of the vote, a November run-off between Caruso and Karen Bass, who placed second in the primary, became necessary." to "Since no candidate received more than 50% of the vote, a November run-off between Karen Bass and Caruso, who placed second in the primary, became necessary."

Please also replace the citation:https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/la-mayors-race-rick-caruso-takes-slight-lead-over-karen-bass-in-early-returns/ar-AAYcBeY with the citation: https://www.cnn.com/election/2022/results/los-angeles/primaries/mayor for this sentence.

The current sentence contains outdated information regarding the result of the LA mayor primary race, as Karen Bass placed first with Caruso placing second. Trumpeteer4601 (talk) 05:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Spanneraol made the change. (Thank you!) JSFarman (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Billy Crystal Chanukah (cropped).jpg

"He was previously a registered Republican."
He was actually NPP (no party preference AKA independent, and not the far-right "Independent Party") most recently. There is no shame in being a Republican, but this isn't even accurate. He turned in his GOP card while Trump was president. BATTLECRUISER OPERATIONAL (talk) 22:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)