Talk:Mark Sanchez

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mark Sanchez article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1


[edit] The arrest section redux

The current version of the arrest section reeks of Wikipedia:Recentism and should probably be reduced to a few sentences within the 2006 year. Using Google News: only one article appears associated with ""Mark Sanchez" USC arrest", and has nothing to do with Sanchez' arrest; however, searching ""Mark Sanchez" USC" brings up 130 hits in Google News. Here's what is most troubling: the current version of this article, in the sum of its parts, makes him out to be a criminal who "got away from justice". I, for one, find this to be absurd since we could probably create similar dedicated sections on a large portion of all athletes: so is Wikipedia a flawed rap sheet of accusations, or is this an encyclopedia? --Bobak 14:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The wording used has to be the official wording used by law enforcement and not those used by an editor that creates POV. I do not even see how this is an argument. Official wording or editor's use of POV? It has to be the official wording and how can anyone disagree that official wording should not be allowed? There is no reason for irrefutable information to be removed and replaced with an editor's own wording. Caffehamp 07:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
"Official wording used by law enforcement" vs. an "editor that creates POV". Bold claims, repeated several times. Please take the opportunity to elaborate exactly what you mean. --Bobak 15:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
This is the official wording of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office.
On June 3, 2006, the Los Angeles district attorney's office announced it would not press charges against Sanchez due to a "lack of sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt" as a result of medical exams proving inconclusive on the issue of force; thus making the case "essentially a 'one-on-one' allegation."
That is what they said. It cannot be refuted. It simply cannot be. They did not state that they would "not press charges against Sanchez due to a lack of evidence." That is simply not the case. This is irrefutable.
On a controversial issue, it is imperative to use the official wording rather than your own wording in order to prevent libel, an agenda, or because you wish the subject of the article be presented in a certain way that takes away neutrality, because you do not like the way he is being presented.
For the sake of neutrality, it is imperative that the official wording must be presented, not an editor's own wording that leads the reader to a perspective that is different than what has been established and is irrefutable.
If you do not believe that official wording from the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office should be included, but your own wording that is different and open to interpretation, then we can elevate this to the Wikipedia Foundation and present the issue to them. I simply cannot see how anyone will take the side of writing an article that does not include an official explanation and wording from the final report of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office but rather their own wording, especially on a controversial issue. Caffehamp 15:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
All right, now assuming you can find the citation, exactly how does this add to the article? The student was charged and charges were dropped within short order. There was some press coverage surrounding that time, but it also died down when he was never prosecuted. A search on Google News shows that nothing has been written on the subject this year. So please explain why this extended visit on the subject is necessary? How is this "controversial" --does anyone dispute the facts (if so, where)? And please do not lecture me on libel, it does not apply here. If you want to escalate this through the proper channels, as you are threatening, I will ask another administrator to help us. Right now, your actions are putting us both into 3RR country. --Bobak 16:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I fixed the dead links with some that are still active. Regarding whether the issue has shown up in the media lately, within the past few months, I know CBS Sports mentioned it and it was also mentioned in the Los Angeles Times (and other outlets) following the 2007 Rose Bowl, after a comment from Brent Musburger on the telecast, which became a significant media issue, receiving numerous complaints from various parties. However, these citations should put this issue to a satisfactory conclusion and take out the controversy. Caffehamp 16:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
You still have not been able to explain why a person reading this article needs that much detail --as I said "what does this add to the article"? He was charged, then charges withdrawn. Why do you need specific play-by-play detail for something that's moot? You can't seriously argue that I'm asking all information to be removed from the article, as these two versions show there isn't much difference other than your desire to detail the incident out --again, how did your additional information change what I wrote? You've made this article surround an incident that happened and ended in 2006. There are also references used in both versions that allow a curious mind to read more on the subject if they choose. So: why am I the one who is necessarily biased? --Bobak 18:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Too much anger here.128.241.41.9 11:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] arbitrary section break 1

Now that you've brought it up, I'd like to revisit and discuss your statement above: That is what they said. It cannot be refuted. It simply cannot be. They did not state that they would "not press charges against Sanchez due to a lack of evidence." That is simply not the case. This is irrefutable. You're actually wrong, and you even quoted why above it: I summarized the dismissal of charges as due to a lack of evidence. You state that I'm wrong, yet you quote the DA right above that which said "lack of sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt" --they mean the same thing. Now you've got me curious: exactly what are you adding to this point with your additional information? Where is the "POV" you're accusing me of? You go on to say that the idea that it was "essentially a 'one-on-one' allegation" adds something to the fact that there was insufficient evidence, that is not the case: the fact is merely a way for them to further explain the fact that there was a lack of evidence. It only pads the section and, again, makes the point longer than it really needs to when it could easily be summarized in several lines. So please, Caffehamp, I require further explanation of your actions and motivations. Also, please explain why you deleted my comments on your talk page earlier this month. Is there a reason you find discussing this in public uncomfortable? --Bobak 18:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It is quite simple. You say that one version gives the impression that "he got away with it" as opposed stating he is innocent. Now, I do not know if "he got away with it," or he is guilty, or he is innocent. I do not know, one way or the other, and that is not my concern. The DA's Office did not state that he was either guilty or innocent. They stated that there was a "lack of sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt" as a result of medical exams proving inconclusive on the issue of force; thus making the case "essentially a 'one-on-one' allegation." That is what they stated. No statements of guilt or innocence. Just why they reached the conclusion they did.
You, on the other hand, are saying that he is innocent and you do not want something written about the subject that could lead anyone to believe anything else, because you do not want him portrayed in a certain way.
Again, I do not know if he is innocent and I do not know if he is guilty. That is not my concern. My concern is that accuracy be presented in the article, not a personal agenda because of a vested interest in regards to someone's future which is not your concern and it is not your place.
You did not want a separate section for the arrest and decided to incorporate it into his college career. It has now been incorporated into his college section, but now you do not want official wording because it does not give the impression that he is innocent. Having said that, it does not give the impression that he is guilty, either. It simply states what was declared by the DA's office regarding why charges were not filed. This is an ideal summary that does not take sides, has no point of view, and only states irrefutable facts about a very controversial subject. Anything else would lead the reader to believe guilt or innocence from a personal point of view, and that cannot be allowed to happen.
There is nothing to argue about here and I do not see why you keep prolonging this. If you do not agree with me that official wording should be presented and wish to replace with your own wording, as I said, we can elevate this to the Wikipedia Foundation and I will have no reservations about that. I simply do not see why anyone would take issue about an accurate description with the official wording being presented in favor of their own wording, unless they have their own agenda. Caffehamp 18:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Fundamental principle of the American criminal law system: Innocent until proven guilty. That is our concern. The official wording does nothing to add to, in the barest terms, "He was accused of sexual assault, however charges were dropped due to lack of evidence." Obviously it helps to add context: he had a series of prior university-related infractions that caused the university to enforce a stricter punishment. What else needs to be added? Explain to me how my version is significantly different, other than length? Also, you keep calling the charges "controversial" when no one has disputed the substance (outside of our positions on how much is necessary to explain the situation in this article)? And, since you keep bringing it up, you do not elevate things directly to the Wikimedia Foundation, we go to RfC and/or eventually to Arbcom. That is our process: open, not by private emails (implying odd relations), and in the open. --Bobak 20:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, why did you delete my comments about this subject on your talk page earlier this month? I find it interesting that it took me until this point to get you discuss this in a public arena. --Bobak 20:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I hardly think something as extremely controversial as sexual assault should be discussed on a public forum in great detail, especially when it can have negative consequences for the person whom the article is about. There are news stories that detail the DA's evaluation worksheet in very, very graphic detail, including the process of the charges they were going to press, but I have chosen not to put these on a public forum for the world to see. If you genuinely want to, I can put all the information from the DA's office, with news references, that highlight every graphic sexual detail of the night in question, and that will, without a doubt, lead the reader not to believe there is a case of innocence or guilt, but reach a very specific conclusion. I simply do not believe this is appropriate for a public forum, but if you disagree, then we can change the arrest section into something several times longer and far more detailed. I can also start asking you certain questions regarding why you do not want certain information on this article, but I am not going to call you out nor embarrass you on a public forum. But again, if you want me to start asking very specific questions about your motivations, I will not only ask them, but I can raise them with other entities involved with Wikipedia. I have no interest in calling someone out when something can be resolved civily. Caffehamp 21:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Wait, if you don't think it should be discussed on a public forum, why are you trying to expand the section? You're actually trying to say that if I don't agree with you, you'll "make the section worse". Please, Caffehamp, ask me public questions right here and now: I admit I'm an alumnus of the university, but I've also been on both sides of the inclusion/removal debate. For instance, I support the inclusion of information that was OTRS removed from Mitch Mustain that apparently did not paint him in the perfect light; I have no interest in who takes the eventual USC QB spot, so there's no other reason for my point on this article than to say I believe that a short summary of his criminal charge is all that is necessary. While you've decided to step forward with the odd indirect threats (e.g. "I can raise them with other entities involved with Wikipedia" comment), I will not threaten you. --Bobak 22:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not mean to butt in on your arguments here, but I do find this to be an interesting discussion. There is a lot being presented here and in my humble opinion, if you can present as much information as possible without taking sides and it can not be refuted, then hey, what's wrong with that? Do not deny or deprive the Wikipedia readers knowledge. Just my 2 cents, for what it's worth. 65.254.54.98 19:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion is welcome, this is the purpose of having discussion pages. To allow discussion over content that help provide light on the article. This article and Mitch Mustain were the subject of an attack by trolling sock puppets so this discussion isn't old. --Bobak 20:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the current version is fine. Covers important information and does not include worthless PR nonsense like which after school clubs he belonged to and his grade in 9th grade geography. That has nothing to do with football. Anything he did as an adult is fair game, though, and should not be hidden or removed. If anything, the arrest section is too brief and does not elaborate enough on the situation, but if this is the consensus reached, then so be it. 208.109.239.20 21:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Dude, Bobak just got schooled! That's what happens when you are an an ugly lardass with a stupid beard. Spend too much time in front of a computer arguing with strangers because you have no friends and too ugly to have a girlfriend. Douchebag! 71.226.179.206 22:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Bobek's case is completely preposterous. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not current affairs. It is meant to document the past, not just what is currently happening. So by saying that something that happened in the past should not be included because it has not been in the news lately, that would wipe out 99% of all the content on Wikipedia. Since when has the criterion for inclusion been how many recent news stories have been written about a matter? Based on that, since no news stories have been written about Mark Sanchez' junior year of high school lately, then that section should be removed. Preposterous.

The criterion for recent news stories is one that only Bobek has come up with and is not consistent with anything that has been laid down for what Wikipedia considers to be appropriate for what constitutes inclusion in the encyclopedia. Case in point: Eric Wright was another football player at USC who was arrested for raping a student but just like Sanchez, he was never charged. For two years after the arrest, Wright had a low profile and you heard nothing about the rape story in the media. Then in the 2007 NFL Draft, the story came into the forefront of the media once again, to a point that it was the only subject being brought up by the media.

In the case of Kobe Bryant, he was never convicted of rape and there have not been too many, if any, stories about his arrest from a few years ago recently in the media; yet there is an entire article dedicated to the case on Wikipedia, not just a section within his biography. With Bobek's criterion, that entire article should be removed because it has not been in the news lately.

Judging by Bobek's profile, he went to USC, so it seems he does not want anything negative to be written about Sanchez and wants him to be portrayed as some kind of angel, without any mention of anything Sanchez did while as an adult that could be considered derogatory or damaging. There is no impartiality here. This is revisionist history and there has never been a criterion of stating what should be on an encyclopedia based on whether something has been in the media lately. Encyclopedias provide information on the entire past, not what happened in the immediate past. Otherwise, we would just stick to newspapers and not have encyclopedias as references.

So, yeah, Bobek has no legitimate case of removing information because he does not want an athlete at his alma mater to have anything written about him that puts him in any light other than that of a saint or an angel. He wants to put his own wording in and is opposed to the actual documented wording because the athlete does not come across as well otherwise. If recent news stories are what constitute inclusion, Sanchez's entire article would consist of only one sentence - the one where it says he broke his thumb.

This is a bogus claim by Bobek and he is using his position in the thinly-veiled guise of protecting USC athletes at the expense of Wikipedia's historical accuracy and impartiality. People should be informed about this as it sets a dangerous precedent that could compromise information being denied to the masses in order for one person to be portrayed inaccurately due to him being an athlete at the Bobek's alma mater. 69.89.25.182 08:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Bobak is wrong and Cafe Hemp is right. Include all information and use words of official document not Bobak's own words. Only person to oppose that is Bobak. Bobak is engaging in back and forth personal attacks without making any points. After the first few minutes of reading it got old and I now have a headache from Bobak making no sense and having no point. Constant attacks and edit warring from Bobak make this a futile exercise.71.37.15.217 10:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] High School section

I cannot agree with this edit as the materials removed have no harm to the article, and this project is about giving a full picture of individuals so long as it can be cited to credible sources. Indeed, there will be more information to come that will help flesh out this player (and any other player) as such information becomes available. We are fortunate to not have space constraints on this project. --Bobak 20:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

What's to disagree about? Are you going to add the high school GPAs of every college football player? That's information that should be on Rivals or Scout, and it has nothing to do with his high school football career. The grammar changes were necessary due to poor syntax and language. The first high school is not useful unless you have stats. Plenty of people change high schools, but they aren't listed, so what does it matter where he once went if you have no football stats? That's the equivalent of putting information about where someone attended summer school (such as LA Trade Tech for a Spanish class). If you have stats for his years at that first high school, add it and include those stats; I would have no issues with that. Additionally, I removed duplicate information which you added back in. The exact same information is put in twice in your edit. Same text and same links; only once is sufficient. Caffehamp 21:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
This is an article about a person, a biography about who they are and what they've done, and not merely a summary of a football player. Is football what this subject notable? Certainly. However there is no rule under WP:BLP that supports the position that only football-related information should be included in his page; rather the fact that items can be supported by reliable sources allows my addition of them. In an ideal article, anyone interested in a particular subject (be they person, place, etc) would be able to learn a substantial amount of information given our ample space. I contend the very fact that a major news source (SI.com) took time and space to mention such information demonstrates that there is notability to the facts. Why, you have gone out of your way to state that this page is being used by the media (on here and in emails you have sent to me) --thus it would not hurt to include this extra information, and certainly would not harm the subject or the article. As a result, I have moved back to the previous information, but made adjustments to the wording issues you have mentioned. --Bobak 23:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Using your own argument, are you not contradicting yourself by adding information when you wanted to remove negative, yet fully sourced and irrefutable, information regarding the 2006 arrest? Regarding that topic, it appears that I was correct regarding the importance of that section, since it has been back in the media quite significantly the past two weeks, including the Orange County Register, Los Angeles Times, MSNBC, and over two dozen known media outlets (that I am aware of, probably more). When you said it should not be included since it had not been in the media recently, do you now concede your argument was wrong? The Orange Register said within the past two weeks that is what the subject of this article is most well-known for throughout the United States. So you have to take out your personal biases and try to represent a subject accurately, whether they are portrayed positively or negatively. Since there is ample space, as you state, why take out information that provides the reader with as much information as possible? Should there not be as much information regarding the 2006 arrest, as long as it is irrefutable and sourced? You cannot pick and choose what you want included simply because you do not want someone portrayed in a certain way. If you want to be consistent, include everything, or say you do not want information included because you wish the person you are editing to be viewed in a certain way. Caffehamp 23:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
You have changed the subject. Okay, since you want to shift to the old discussion on his 2006 arrest: The issue wasn't about painting him in the best light, it was about how much information violates the principle outlined in Wikipedia:Avoiding harm; you're version seems to ride that line a little too much --implying he somehow did something that was never even charged. But if you want to bring it up, a version very close to the version I advocated was coincidently used by the LA Times' senior sports columnist Bill Dwyre: "In April 2006, Sanchez was arrested on suspicion of sexual assault. A couple of months later, the district attorney's office found there was insufficient evidence, the woman involved left school, and life went on for Sanchez, which was fair, because nothing was proved. Still, he had been drinking that night, was underage and used a false ID to get into the bar." So that's that. --Bobak 01:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)