Talk:Rick Sanchez (journalist)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Content is restored 

message: 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)
thread_title:  More issues with 65.35.161.73 

message: Even if vandalism or edit warring exist  : Unlock the page ! --93.82.8.98 (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Useless. This article has been hijacked 100% from the incident. Trueshow111 (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unlock 

message: The host did. That should be included in there. Stop trying to defame people. Trueshow111 (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Chill out. This is not a place to grind your axe. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Sanchez didn't bring up Jews first

message: 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)
replies: text: . Good call. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  CNN Blog Dead 

message: 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. -- Kendrick7talk 06:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Since at least MSNBC had the same interpretation of the comments, I've mentioned them in the lead . 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Only CBS news? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jews 

message: 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)
thread_title:  No Sources for Pro-Sanchez edits in current version 

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Was he fired? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Emphasis and slant

message: 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)
replies: text: I second that . --Ftsw (talk) 09:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Requests 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Agreed that this is not synthesis. Multiple reliable sources say that he was fired. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Synthesis by Sources Re: Firing by CNN 

message: Change misspelling on "Jon Quiñones" to read "John Quiñones".
71.178.195.33 (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 71.178.195.33, 3 October 2010 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thats how he always looks though. Yonskii (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Header Picture 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Where is He Now? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Alberto San Pedro incident 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Rick Sanchez. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Rick Sanchez. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The DUI stuff 

message: 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)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2017 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

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