Talk:Jose Baez (lawyer)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Grammar[edit]

I am unsure where to post notice of grammatical errors under the current structure of this talk page. However, I have noticed a missing comma in this article (The comma belongs between 'payments' and 'extravagant' as shown below), and due to it being locked, I cannot edit it. Therefore, can someone add it?

Current Text:

"2000 citing unpaid bills, including his child support payments extravagant spending and other "financial irresponsibility" in that time frame."


Should be (Change in Bold):

"2000 citing unpaid bills, including his child support payments, extravagant spending and other "financial irresponsibility" in that time frame." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.53.168 (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

This article reads like a hit piece.Scrapbkn (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i agree, but given that he ultimately prevailed, i find it incredibly compelling!

so ironically, it ends up reading like a PUFF piece. 66.3.106.4 (talk) 04:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How? It's a biography.... KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 05:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request[edit]

Section "Casey Anthony Trial": "His motion was denied." should be added to the end of the first paragraph, per the cited source.

The prior section should be ordered chronologically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.144.18.254 (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 65.8.143.232, 7 July 2011[edit]

According to Jose Baez, as reported on 6-July-2011 in an interview with Barbara Walters on ABC, Baez was born in New York County(Manhattan) and NOT in Puerto Rico as reported in your Wikipedia article that is currently in protected state. (Please correct this factual error as stated on your Wikipedia article on Jose Baez) Thank you.

The information listed in your article is incorrect and erroneous. You provide NO cited source stating his PLACE of birth. You only cite a source that confirms his DATE of birth and not the PLACE of birth....

The source for his PLACE of birth is the subject of this article himself! The statement was made by Mr. Baez on a nationally broadcast interview (Broadcasted for millions to see with Ms. Barbara Walters)in which he (Baez) stated " I was born in Manhattan in New York City." (The last time I checked, Manhattan and New York City are NOT IN PUERTO RICO!)

I respectfully request that YOU CITE where it is sourced that he was born in Puerto Rico! Also, I request that you review the transcript from the interview, as broadcast last evening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.198.194 (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


65.8.143.232 (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. According to the source on the current statement, it says that he was born in Puerto Rico but grew up in the Bronx. Jnorton7558 (talk) 03:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please edit your article on Jose Baez so that it is consistent, correct and verifiable. Within the article itself it contains a contradiction. It states that Casey Anthony served 2.5 years and then almost immediately after states that she received credit for the three years that she served in jail. The fact is Casey Anthony served three years in jail. I had previously CORRECTED this falsehood in your article. Your editor and self-proclaimed messiah claimed I had "vandalized" your article and added some asisine statement about the article not being about Casey Anthony. This is true. However, without Casey Anthony there would be no need for an article about Mr. Jose Baez. It would seem that your editors have begun to allow their emotions and personal feeling affect their impartiality and have let it get the best of them. The editors root2011 and miftor may be exceptional people, however, they have consistently used your forum and website for their own purposes. Especially root2011, should be banned and no longer allowed to rfit any article for any reason whatsoever. I had logged onto your chat servor to discuss with your editors and they seemed to think I was some flake and that root2011 was holier than thou. Please correct your inconsisties in order that others may have more respect for your site. Thank you.184.32.2.248 (talk) 03:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If she was booked in October of 2008 and released July 2011, that is not 3 yrs. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To grimlittlez, (the self proclaimed king of Wiki)...LOL! The point of Wiki is to source and cite relevant and verifiable sources. When citing a source it should be noted that it should be done accurately (that is use quotes and do NOT modify the words, other than punctuation. Perhaps, some research on correctly citing of sourcing should be your main objective here). This would include keeping inaccurate and personal mathematical errors out of it. Casey was first arrested in July, 2008. Not October as you have stated. Her indictment or any other incorrect dates have nothing to do with time served in jail. Her arrest dictates the clock starting on this "minor" point. Please check the sources cited and cite them correctly and accurately. Please refrain from vandalizing articles on Wiki as this reflects badly on Wiki and you as well! I will continue to peruse this article and many others as well, in order to be sure that misinformation is not added and that the article properly reflects the sources cited. Thank you and have the day of your choice.74.233.251.158 (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the IP, Casey Anthony was given credit for 1043 days that she spent at the county jail so actually that equals out to 34.7 months. Now, if 12 months equals a year, then three years would equal 36 months. I know she was booked in on July 2008. However she was bonded out after some time and re-booked in October on official Murder 1 indictments. 34.7 months does not equal three years. The current sentence is fine as it states "approx" so there's no issue. Also, I'd like to remind you that here on Wiki we use civility when communicating or handling issues. My edit(s) were/are not vandalism. I also noticed another edit summary where you said I vandalize wiki. That is actually false and could probably be considered a personal attack. If you continue to falsely accuse me of vandalism then we could take this to the ANI board and let proper action take place. Thanks. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grimlittlez your contribution and edit was compiled from unreliable sources and modified a quotation of a cited source that was complete with personal feelings and unsubstantiated data. The source states nearly three years and that is what is contained within the source itself. To edit a contribution with unreliable sources or contains no cited reference can and is considered vandalalism (when done in the manner you did). I am sorry, but that is the facts as I see them. I do not wish to war with any other contributors however, I have corrected many entries that continue with personal feelings and people desire to include erroneous information. My "personal attack" of you was done because the original contribution that you undid reinstituted a conflict in the article. I specifically stated the article contradicted itself and rather than your checking the sources and correcting the article to IMPROVE it, you did what so many editors do and simply vhose to continue the misinformation that was inserted erroneously by undoing the edit done previously. (That is considered warring and is not allowed here.) Now, I ask how has that helped Wiki, the article accuracy, or any person wishing to learn about this person and his memorable reason for his inclusion in wiki? The obvious answer would be it did NOT help anyone. As for the board and asking for a ruling...that would not matter to me because though I dont have a user name does not mean that I can not be correct in my accusations and in calling you out on your sloppy, erroneous and baloney edits (by undoing constructive edits by others) of this article. You have claimed that CA served 33 months one day, without a reliable cited source and the very next day claim that she served 1043 days and that is 34.7 months AND still not cite a reliable source to substantiate your personal data. The article cites a reliable source and the quotation was incorrectly referenced in the article. I pointed it out, corrected it in the proper wiki manner explaining why and your constructive editing contribution is to undo it and continue the misinformation and incorrect quotation from it? That is the truth and that is something that I am not going to hide from, if you desire I would surely welcome the board to review this article and I am sure the result would not result in a neat new badge on your wiki page. So do what you want and appeal it...I welcome your expulsion or censuring by the wiki board for your sloppiness in not checking the sources cited and your erroneous and vandalistic undoing of others constructive correct editing of wiki's articles which actually reflect the sources cited in the article.65.8.137.55 (talk) 04:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you on two different IPs? Either way the sources for 1043 days are here, here, here, here(see editor's note), here, here, here and here. Once again, stop accusing me of vandalism. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 05:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a personal attack...just applying the rules that wiki has implemented and uses to review and expunge editors who do unconstructive edits which include the undoing of others edits that comply constructively with the rules implemented by the board. Rules are rules and guidelines are guidelines. My IP is not static and in fact, can and is changed by me when I choose to do so. Last time I checked the regulations and terms of Wiki state that is not prohibited or in violation of the rules.65.8.137.55 (talk) 05:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with that, I was just making sure I was talking to the correct person. Either way, surely I've satisfied your need for sources, correct? lol. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 05:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, you seem to have chosen to split hairs on this very mute point. If you desire to change the article and cite one of those sources that you have cited, I would not necessarily disaagree. The current article cites a source that states nearly 3 years...also, surely a mute point. I have begun to do research on the fact that though she was charged with four separate charges, of lying to a leo, the sentence for those four counts should really have been served concurrently, which the judge denied due to the fact that would make the state look malicious and unfair in her having spent too much time in jail. Oh well. That seems to be a little picky similar to the masses of people that believes she got off too easy or that the jury was wrong in acquitting her of the main charges filed against her. Americans need to take a refresher course on the justice system in the US. Americans need to stop believing that they know who is guilty and who is innocent simply from their knowledge of the case or evidence. Americans need to realize that sometimes the prosecution or law enforcement screw up. Americans need to realize that the justice system needs to be fair and if that means that a guilty person will sometimes go free in order to safeguard and protect the innocent from being wrongly convicted and punished for crimes not committed, then so be it. Although, I will say that even one innocent person being convicted wrongly is one too many in a justice system that is to have a balance and safeguards to protect those accusted of crimes. I am not liberal, nor do I condone murder, but a case must be laid out beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict in our American justice system. I wholehartedly believe that now and will never waiver on that fine important point.65.8.143.27 (talk) 07:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protected per request[edit]

This page has been protected per request due to war-editing related with the subjects place of birth. Please settle your differences here. Antonio Martin (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed 5 valid references for Baez's place of birth. The anonymous vandal has not. I am still waiting for him to civiliy discuss his findings (if any) to validate his claim that Baez was born in New York.--XLR8TION (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another valid reference of his place of birth from CNN--->[1].--XLR8TION (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For god's sake unprotect it. It was just one anon ip and you already blocked him. A semi-protect would be justifiable overzealousness, but an indefinite full-protect is over the top! --damiens.rf 19:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damien, please wait for block on anonymous user to expire and see if he contributes to a civil conversation on here. I am just waiting for his input on his baseless claims.If he doesn't discuss and continues to revert then we have a vandal on our hands --XLR8TION (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do wiki admins have the ability to grant certain users edit permissions? If so then myself and other proven non vandals should be allowed. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be "unprotected" after a 24 hour cooling-off period. Antonio Martin (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Valid references that all do not cite a reliable source for the subject's dob. Meanwhile. a nationally broadcast interview with Barbara Walters obviously does not convince anyone other than myself that he was born on a specific date and place. I will continue to edit this article for its accutacy and consistency. Furthermore, the repeated undoing of constructive edits is immature and not constructive to the Wiki community. I, for one, totally and completely agree with the Florida University systems decision to disallow any and all references to Wikipedia as accurate, constructive and without prejudice do to the inability of any Wiki (that I have encountered) editor to resolve and confirm correct and incorrect prejudiced contributions. So, if wiki past policy is an indicator of future actions, the article will again be revereted to the erroneous info and a lockdown will occur again. So have at it.184.32.56.216 (talk) 01:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

184.32.56.216, Baez did say during the interview with Walters that he was born in Manhattan and grew up partially in the Bronx. Editors who are interested in watching it can see the video currently at this link; the video plays in a sequential series of five and ten minute segments. In the second segment, Baez mentions his place of birth at 3:09 (3 mins 9 secs), so that is a discrepancy that needs to be explained in this BLP. However, he does not give the year or date of his birth during the interview. Perhaps you should supply some reliable reference citations here on the Talk Page for other editors to check out first, as the preponderant majority of sources indicate it was 1969. AzureCitizen (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am pleased that someone other than myself is capable of being fair and just. I would like to question one other fact of the Jose Baez article that is in dispute and should be addressed, it is his age and date of birth. At one time, there was a verifiable database link to the subject's exact date of birth, as reported by the veromi database. The date given was 10/17/1968.... The link for this tidbit of information can be found at http://www.veromi.net/Summary.asp?fn=jose&mn=angel&ln=baez&dobmm=10&dobdd=17&doby=1968&city=kissimmee&state=FL&age=42&vw=&Search=&Input=&x=72&y=3
I can appreciate the Wiki community when it displays fair and equitable policies and procedures to dispute information. A civil discussion on nearly any point that someone constructively contributes should be objectively reviewed and not immediately dismissed because someone without a login has provided it. My only agenda in my contributions to this community is to report inconsistent and erroneous data and information in order to better the information and articles contained within. I am sure every contributor can objectively agree. Afterall, Wiki is and always will be a work in progress and that is why they provide editing access and a discussion section in order to dispute, discuss and resolve the information contained within. When an editor or editors uncovers erroneous information on the internet that they naively believe (or wish to believe) they are way too quick to edit an article and return the article to yellow journalism, thus putting it again in to dispute. Such editors are many who believe they are above discussion and disputes, acting as if they are almighty and beyond questioning. Please everyone, be aware that the internet contains many errors and contradictions on nearly every subject that one can imagine. That is where reliable and verifiable comes in to play. Thank you to AzureCitizen for his/her objectivity and intelligence. 98.64.246.71 (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Civil discussion and remaining open minded are essential in collaborating on Wikipedia and constructively improving articles. Thank you for coming here to the Talk Page and posting your thoughts! On the place of birth, the video footage of Baez himself saying he was born in Manhattan is compelling despite so many other reputable and reliable news sources saying it was Puerto Rico. Certainly enough to justify editing the BLP with a qualifier that he was born in either Puerto Rico or Manhattan, and give the sources for each. With regard to the date of birth, it's a little bit trickier. I checked out the link to Veromi.net and saw that it shows a database listing for a Jose Angel Baez in Kissimmee, Florida, who was born 10/17/1968. Baez's law firm has a website which gives the street address as being in Kissimmee, Florida. Probably one and the same, right!? But therein lies a subtle verification problem that other editors may reasonably take issue with. Unlike the video in which Baez himself says his place of birth, how do we determine whether the Jose Angel Baez in the Veromi database is the Jose Angel Baez in question? Wikipedia has to function within the framework of proper sourcing and what is verifiable, as opposed to the truth (or what we think as editors to be what is true - see WP:VERIFY for more on this topic). As a result, I'm not quite certain yet what to do with this information, and will think it over. In the interim, does anyone else have any ideas on how to fix this? AzureCitizen (talk) 04:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your impartiality and intelligent manner of addressing my issues with the article. You have restored my belief in civil discussion and impartiality within the Wiki community. 184.32.53.135 (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary Information[edit]

Much of this article includes information that isn't needed and likely added by Anti-Casey editors instead of unbiased editors. It is not customary to add trivial information regarding the subject's personal financial records in great detail when they do not directly tie into his notability. A concise sentence of this information where it pertains to his eligibility as a lawyer would suffice, but using this page as a segue to air his dirty laundry is unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Actually I agree but didn't feel like getting in a fight over it :-) So just put in "financial irresponsibility" so it will be clear what the issue was and both refs. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Place of Birth[edit]

Stop the madness of listening to the b.s. poured by some rogue, anonymous editors who spew false info! Baez was born in Puerto Rico. I have provided more than five references. Furthermore, his date of birth in articles is quoted as 1968. The facts have been layed out and if you can't list verifiable, reputable articles that contradict the info provided in articles by the Miami Herald, CNN, and other reputable news outlets, than LEAVE THE ARTICLE ALONE! Further attempts to pour basless claims will be reported to an administrator. Baez was born in Puerto Rico. Why do you hate this fact? Are you ant-Puerto Rican? --XLR8TION (talk) 01:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel you need to report the situation to an administrator, please do so. Additional eyes on this would be welcomed. In the interim, please take note that Baez himself said he was born in Manhattan. This was broadcast to millions of people on television in an interview with Barbara Walters. You can see him say this in the video by clicking on the link in the paragraph above (did you take the time to read the discussions above? If not, please do so). Unless you're prepared to adequately refute that, please stop trying to remove the information from the article. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, if he gave an exclusive interview with Terra.com interview, I am sure he accessed the website to make sure that his commentary and the article the EXCLUSIVE interview he gave with the Spanish news media outlet were correct. After all on his law firm's website, it says he is fluent in English, Spanish, and Portuguese, therefore a translator wouldn't be required. In the interview's text, it said he was born in Puerto Rico (READ IT!). The text is from August 2011 and has not been changed at all. Stop this nonsense of saying he was born in Manhattan, when he wasn't. When I can provide more than 20 sites from reputable media outlets proving this fact and you simply can only pull something from a blog, your argument is weak. --XLR8TION (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, stop the nonsense. I have asked Tony the Marine, an expert on topics like this to contribute to this conversation. Please do not change the article until he gives his feedback. He is a reputable source and will provide feedback.--XLR8TION (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have e-mailed Tony for his output and am awaiting for his response. Please leave article untouched until he deems what is suitable. Tony is the leading expert on Puerto Rico/Puerto Rican subjects on this site and has been honored by the Puerto Rican Senate for his work.--XLR8TION (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of sources say Baez was born in Puerto Rico. It is also irrefutable that in a televised interview with Barbara Walters viewed by millions, he said he was born in Manhattan. Therefore, it is appropriate for the article to say "he was born in Puerto Rico or Manhattan" until the discrepancy is explained by Mr. Baez (if ever). Take note that I haven't been editing the article to remove Puerto Rico and replace it with Manhattan... instead, I have been editing the article to include both, with appropriate sourcing. By contrast, you keep removing Manhattan and leaving only Puerto Rico identified, while pushing 2RR in a matter of minutes and making no attempt to address the discrepancy here on the Talk Page. Telling me to "stop the nonsense" and that my argument is "weak" does nothing to resolve the issue or encourage rational discussion in clearing this up. Same goes for asking me why I "hate this fact" and "Are you anti-Puerto Rican?"... that's ridiculous, I have nothing against Puerto Ricans. Try to WP:AGF and see it from other editor's points of view. Why should the article omit either of the reported places of birth, given that those facts are both drawn from strong sourcing? AzureCitizen (talk) 02:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, please allow Tony to assess the situation and find a resolution. I have e-mailed him for his opinion as he has edited over 1000+ Puerto Rico-related articles.--XLR8TION (talk) 13:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't stepped into this before. But in general if there is a discrepancy like this you name both facts and sources. In this case, I'd only list Mr. Baez assertion (repeated by TMZ, FYI, plus a Fox News link that's now broken), with a footnote about other sources saying born in Puerto Rico. It looks silly to say we don't trust his account right there in the text. And if he was lying, I'm sure his detractors would have picked that up by now and blared it all over. It's entirely possible the original reliable source wrongly said Puerto Rico and others just picked it up. Assumedly, in time the more accurate information will be found. Maybe Baez even will put it on his web page. Please note that it is WP:uncivil to call someone "anti-ethnic group" based on such a disagreement. Also, if Tony the Marine is an expert, maybe he can get Puerto Rico's birth records and see if this Jose Angel Baez was born in Puerto Rico in 1968. CarolMooreDC 14:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can ask him in a couple of days. Would that settle the issue? Tony the Marine (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would direct contact with Baez's law firm be sufficient? I have had luck in getting correct date of birth/birth place from past people I've written articles on.--XLR8TION (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done! - Despite what the media says, he personally stated (to me) that he was born in "NYC". I hope you all take it from there and that this brings the issue to an end. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Tony. Do you have a link I could use or some source to reference. I will word it in a similar fashion for a singer whose birthplace is disputed. Get back to me before I move forward.--XLR8TION (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no link since it came straight from the Lion's mouth and I am forwarding said confirmation in good-faith since I have no interest in the article. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right now "New York" is referenced by a bunch of sources saying Puerto Rico. Unfortunately my sound is not working this moment and it might be a few hours before I can get to my alternate computer, but if he says on this ABC news official link on Youtube (or someother such ABC video) he was born in Manhattan, that's what we should use, with link and time stamp. Is the problem no one can find it? Maybe Tony the Marine (or any of us) could suggest Baez put at least his birth date on http://www.baezlawfirm.com/Jose_Baez.html since it is being incorrectly reported in so many places.
Then the footnote can mention other sources saying Puerto Rico and list a couple. Also, those sources could be mined for more info about Baez himself. CarolMooreDC 15:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Video references are not really valid as references on this site as they can be disproven by evidence. Take in example the case of singer Luis Miguel, who for years stated on television he was born in Mexico. A local Puerto Rican magazine discovered he was born in Puerto Rico and even published his birth certificate. After being cornered, he had to admit that in fact he was born in Puerto Rico. Baez might say he was born in New York in a video, but that this can be disproven still. While most major media outlets say he was born in Puerto Rico, that will have to be noted in article. I recently worked on another article with a similar case, therefore, I have the proper way to word the birthplace issue. Since there are numerous sources for Puerto Rico as his place of birth and hardly any for NYC, then the first place of birth will have to be Puerto Rico and in paranthesis, the New York claim can be mentioned. However, before that is done, I need at least three valid media sources (no blogs or opinion boards) that show the NYC claim.--XLR8TION (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re worded it listing NYC as alternative birthplace. Although Tony was helpful, Wikipedia does not allow 'word of mouth' or 'original research' to be used in articles. Therefore, until valid media sources that show NYC as birthplace (once again, no blogs or opinion boards), then it will have to be worded in the way I just worded it to avoid confusion and to follow site rules.--XLR8TION (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as you come up with a source that proves Baez is lying, you have to assume he is telling the truth and the sources are lying. There is no reason for him to do so since as article Puerto Rico says being born there makes you a U.S. citizen. A video is fine for this info if a link and time stamp are provided. See WP:V. I still can't do it right now myself (roommate refuses to budge from his computer). To stop this back and forth once link available, I'll bring it to WP:RSN. CarolMooreDC 23:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If Baez said that he was born in Manhattan, and that can be verified, then that is definitive. Contact with the source by a wiki editor is OR and not usable, but if he said so in a TV interview, then that should be used, perhaps with the Puerto Rico birthplace listed in footnotes. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Carolmooredc, Tony the Marine, and ScottyBerg... Manhattan is definitive. Any concerns that an individual is lying can be addressed by simply stating that the individual "said that he was born in..." rather than "he was born in..." etc AzureCitizen (talk) 12:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that a qualification is necessary, unless someone other than a wiki editor feels he is lying. I think that some inaccurate information got out there and was simply bounced from one RS to another. There is no reason for Baez to lie about his place of birth. This discussion reminds me of a discussion on "verifiability vs. truth" on Jimbo's talk page a few days ago. In this situation we have verifiability and truth. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the qualification really isn't even necessary in the article's text in this situation. I amended it accordingly. AzureCitizen (talk) 12:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah team!! CarolMooreDC 13:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Place of Birth Round II[edit]

I see that the X man has decided that although he requested a prolific, decorated and very respected administrator to intervene and weigh in on the true facts of Baez's date of birth, he has buyers' remorse and has decided not to abide by his impartial decision. What is up with you xman? I suspect that you have some very serious issues in which you have chosen to not partake and ingest your meds. Why now, have you decided that there is no reliable sources? The source is ABC News and the televised interview with Barbara Walters that you have removed many times. You know the one, second segment, i believe it is 3m40s in to the second segment. It seems you are incapable of critical thinking and are as stupid as a mule. Do you have an issue with Barbara Walters as an experienced and diligent interviewer/researcher and journalist? Do you have an issue with her religion or her sex? You need some help and should get it right away. I suppose you believed that Tony, the marine would weigh in with you and your demented belief. I will continue to review this article and edit it until I am blue in the face. I have all the time in the world and quite possibly, other editors will see you for what you are... a vandal! 65.8.151.201 (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've reverted all that vandalism. If you've done it before, someone should bring you to ANI. If you do it again, I will. Please be patient! CarolMooreDC 23:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although Tony the Marine did some investigation, the fact that WORD OF MOUTH (aka RUMOR) and ORIGINAL RESEARCH are not allowed on this site. I had to remove vicious rumors that associated Jennifer Lopez with black magic simply because they were rumors and have no source. Imagine if some male escort was to put that he slept with Tom Cruise in Tom's entry with no proof. That would be a major case for Tom's attorney's to sue Wikipedia for sure. All statements MUST have references. Until Baez states it in print (such as in a website), the Puerto Rico claims come first and the Manhattan claims will come in second as they required references/citations from a reliable online source. Enough said!--XLR8TION (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this inflexible view of OR. I agree that what was said to Tony is not verifiable or usable, but it proves conclusively that he was born in Manhattan! Let's not use Wikipedia rules to say something that we know isn't true. What he said on the Barbara Walter program is verifiable, and TMZ.com also lists his birthplace as NYC. It is absurd to take the word of secondary sources over Baez himself. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once agin, while Tony did an inquiry, refrences from an online source MUST be provide. Hearsay and original research are NOT permitted on Wikipedia. Furthermore, any other place of birth must be mentioned as there are numerous articles that state this fact. If there are more than five reference for Puerto Rico and only one for Manhattan, than the references must display the fact that there is another birthplace and references from must be provided. If is ONLY one for NYC, and 6 for Puerto Rico, the one that has more references goes first, until a verifiable source showing a counterclaim that is valid as it comes from a reputable news source goes in paranthesis. Stop the madness already folks! Tony will validate what I am saying when I say that references must be provided--XLR8TION (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is the matter with the ABC interview video? OK, no more edit warring. Please take to WP:RSN. I'm on my out now and will if no one does by to night. CarolMooreDC 16:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Carol, can you provide me the link to that board. Thank you.--XLR8TION (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not make changes to article until a third party resolution is found. I am awaiting a reply from another user before I lodge a complaint. Please discuss on talk page and avoid making changes to this article until third party resolution is found.--XLR8TION (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing the fact that Baez said he was born in Manhattan during a nationally televised interview, XLR8TION. You do not WP:OWN this article. Several other editors above have stated their support for the conclusion that Manhattan is where he was born. It is easily verified and it is not original research. You've also rushed right up to the bright line of WP:3RR in your insistence that the article say what you think the article should say. You have asked others to "stop the nonsense" - so stop it. AzureCitizen (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you read comments or simply bypass them? I am awaiting for a link from user Carolmoordec (see above) to place thir party dispute request. Trying to remain civil and level headed, please refrain from edits as I have already posted a 3RR complaint. If you know where the link is, then please provide it and let's move forward from there. Avoid edit-warring and work on finding a suitable resolution.--XLR8TION (talk) 23:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
XLR8TION, the consensus is to list Manhattan as his birthplace. Do you dispute that? ScottyBerg (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Says here [2] he was born in Puerto Rico. The Last Angry Man (talk) 02:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, several sources do. But he said himself that he was born in Manhattan. The question is, which gets greater emphasis, or should we give both equal emphasis? ScottyBerg (talk) 02:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is`nt Manhattan a rather cool place to have been born? Perhaps he would prefer that to Puerto Rico ). I suppose the best course of action would be to mention both, or use what majority of sources say. The Last Angry Man (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with "majority of sources" is that it is really one source in an echo chamber. I can't conceive of why anyone would lie about where they were born, especially a lawyer. If he is in who's who or a legal directory, which would source back to Baez, then we have a more bona fide conflict of sources. I think that what the man says is definitive. It's ludicrous to maintain that he lied about his birthplace on national TV. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know I am just an anonymous IP address, however, wikipedia has very specific policy on permissive use of a subject using a subjects' own statement (even fb, twitter and blogs) as proper and allowable self sourcing in such instances as this. No, I am not a sockpuppet! (If I could find it and I am not even a registered user, then why do I need to point this out?) If x-man can not even find a link for a 3RR link, is it no wonder that he is unable to comprehend and properly understand such policy? Furthermore, I wish I had a dollar for every time he has said "stop the nonsense" and other statements like "stop vandalizing" and "dude". Moreover, I have a question, why is x-man the self proclaimed owner of this article? Who has elected him to be the all knowing individual in what this article says? Why has this article not been submitted for administrative review and a final judgment, as it should have been long ago? I am sure that this posting by me will be removed and kept from view of all other editors and users of wiki? Afterall, every time I post on the talk page lately it is removed and deleted? Is it because I am just an anonymous IP? I am sorry, but it would appear that there is no Captain or Admiral at the bridge of this ship...why is that? (184.32.2.231 (talk) 02:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC) Update[reply]

  • It turns out that my friend got a hold of his (Baez's) office, but he wasn't there and they told him that Baez was born in NYC. however, my friend believes that they are wrong and that Baez was born in PR. He will get in touch with Baez personally and get in touch with me once more. However, this would be original research, which is not allowed. As I stated before, I do not have any particular interest in this article and I think the best way to go is by what the majority of the verfiable reliable sources state. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But wouldn't that contradict what he told you about being born in NYC? I'm confused. It would also contradict what he told Barbara Walters. ScottyBerg (talk) 06:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly, when I stated that I was told personally I was referring to my friend who is a member of a police organization in Florida and who told me that he knows Baez personally. He told me that he called Baez's office to ask and was told that he was born in NYC. Now, he tells me that Baez was not in the office at the time and that it was his staff who told him that he was born in NYC, but that he believes that Baez was born in PR. Now, he has me confused with his contradictions. I tried to find out, but failed in my attempt. Tony the Marine (talk) 07:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you're trying to assist us, but have you actually watched the video of Baez being interviewed by Barbara Walters yourself? Even if the majority of sources state in casual fashion that "Baez was born in Puerto Rico," it's irrelevant in the face of Baez himself telling millions of people on national TV that he was born in Manhattan. So far, all those of sources simply rattle off his POB as somewhere else without any explanation of where it comes from (and they frequently get the year of birth confused as well, either 1968 or 1969, etc). At this point, editors wishing to challenge this should look for verifiable reliable sources that state that Baez actually lied about his place of birth and investigative reporting has discovered a secret origin of birth somewhere else, as the given sources are just echos reverberating the same flawed information that someone (probably a reporter) failed to properly vet in the first place. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 07:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't watch the Walters interview, but I agree with you in the fact that since Baez publicly stated that he was born in NYC, then it should be left at that (with the source of course) and there is no need for further discussion. I mean, who better then Baez himself to know and state where he was born, right? Therefore ladies and gentlemen, it has been a pleasure, sorry I couldn't be of help and I'm outta here. Tony the Marine (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tony, there is an immense difference between being told something personally by Baez and his office telling something to a friend. However, I am glad it has been clarified. I think the Walters interview is still definitive. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolving Consensus[edit]

Dayewalker has aided the situation by removing the flawed sentence about Puerto Rico entirely and suggesting we work out his place of birth here on the Talk Page first instead. Until we have it resolved and reach consensus, the article can simply omit his POB indefinitely. Here is what I propose we add to the article to solve the problem for the long term:

Baez was born in Manhattan, New York City. [REFERENCES]

Then, for the references, we give the links for 1) the nationally televised interview with Barbara Walters on July 5, 2011 mentioned previously, where Baez himself said (in plain English) that he was born in Manhattan, 2) the TMZ article here, and 3) a footnote indicating that despite the interview, other sources gave Puerto Rico as his place of birth as well, and give a sampling of those references.

I will start off with my reasoning as a "support" comment, then other editors can add their own "support" or "oppose" comments as necessary and we'll see where consensus lies.

  • Support. Baez himself said he was born in Manhattan, New York City in a nationally televised interview with Barbara Walters. Why should we suspect he's lying? Further, Tony the Marine, an administrator, says he personally contacted Baez and confirmed this. Secondly, the Walters interview is easily verifiable. Third and lastly, as other editors have pointed out, the nonsense about Puerto Rico is just source echoing, without any explanations where the information is drawn from. Baez's own words prove them wrong, so why should we give those sources significant attention in the body of the article? As another editor pointed out, it would be best to just put that in the footnotes instead. AzureCitizen (talk) 03:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Same reasons as stated previously. I've taken the birthplace out of the infobox too. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seems the perfect solution. The Last Angry Man (talk) 03:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselvesSelf-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
1.the material is not unduly self-serving;
2.it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
3.it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5.the article is not based primarily on such sources.
This also applies to pages on social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook
The above can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-published_sources_(online_and_paper)#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29
Issue #1: I believe that this will solve the problem once and for all. The very fact that it was a televised interview, I believe would qualifiy as "self published." The real issue with the place of birth sources stating puerta rico as the place of birth is that it directly contradicts the only true expert and the real possessor of the true information, Jose Baez. I believe that all conditions listed above have been satisfied in this particular case. This would not constitute original research as outlined in wikipedia's policy. I mean Baez himself is the ONE and ONLY TRUE expert in this regard (reason #4), meanwhile all other conditions are met, as well. Just imagine, someone other than you or your mother and father telling you where you were born while you are holding a copy of your birth certificate?
Issue #2: Wikipedia policy states that an external link or additional reading should not include links to a company website because it is self serving (reads like an advertisement) I believe that this link or any reference to his website be removed and not included in the article itself. 184.32.2.231 (talk) 04:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but it is not necessary to recite the entire policy. It's really simple: he said he was born in Manhattan. So why can't we just take his word for it, put it in the article, and go our separate ways unless something can credibly contradict it? ScottyBerg (talk) 04:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree to it saying NY, NY.. I just have to take issue with it even including the contradicting information of Puerta Rico as it is really just an echo chamber. Furthermore, I think we need to get x-man to sign in blood so that he doesn'r revert the edit in the future and he truly understands why (I have no axe to grind here). I do not want to encounter this problem in the future with his absolute belief that the number of references somehow should be reflected in the article and in his belief that the number of echos can potentially drown out the only real, true and reputable source in any such instance. I really am not difficult. I have been fighting this battle for two plus months and want it to be a lasting truce. Thank you all for your support on this issue. 184.32.2.231 (talk) 04:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should make some reference to Puerto Rico in the footnotes. We shouldn't just ignore it. There is nothing wrong with one editor disagreeing with many editors in an article if he has policy on his side. Consensus can't overrule policy. But there is no policy issue here. ScottyBerg (talk) 04:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am the newcomer and I want some harmony, so I concur. Thank you! 184.32.2.231 (talk) 04:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All are welcome and entitled to edit here. Our apologies if another editor suppressed your contributions or refuses to acknowledge you had it right all along. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus: Manhattan, not Puerto Rico[edit]

Looks like we already have consensus with 6-0 support in no time at all. Good to see sanity and reason prevail! For those who were growing frustrated with previous efforts to correct the article, it also provides a good lesson on how to handle lone editors with WP:OWNership issues - invite the community in to comment, and everything works out. Per the proposal I made above, I will implement the consensus version. AzureCitizen (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spoke to Tony the Marine who contacted Baez's office. He updated me that Baez DID NOT say he was born in NYC. He states in e-mail " I'm having a minor situation with the Jose Baez issue. It turns out that my friend Joe Sanchez, got a hold of his (Baez's) office, but he wasn't there and they told him that Baez was born in NYC. But, my friend believes that they are wrong and that Baez was born in PR. he will get in touch with Baez personally and get in touch with me once more." With this revelation, the article has been reverted back to Puerrto Rico as place of birth until further proof of his birth place is confirmed.--XLR8TION (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can't be serious. The consensus is clear, and it is based on a verifiable source, a broadcast interview with Baez, not what Tony's friend may or may not have been told by Baez's "office," whatever that means. We had originally been told by Tony that he was told by Baez personally that he was born in NYC. It is dismaying to find that that wasn't correct, but no harm is done because we have Baez himself saying he was born in NYC. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is clear. Glancing at these sections, it appears his first-person information of where he was born is sufficient here, there's no controversy as far as I can tell. As for calling the office and asking, I don't see any way that can be provided as a reliable source. Perhaps if he would post something on his official website, but second-hand (or third, or farther) information isn't reliable enough. Dayewalker (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

?Category listing correct?[edit]

I don't mean to open up a can of worms, but the category list shows Baez as a Puerta Rican attorney. Is this correct or not worth the effort to cprrect or state otherwise. I mean he may be puerta rican...I don't know. I just thought that I would point that out and let someone else know. Does category mean ethnic background? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.32.53.155 (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's correct or not... I think it would depend on whether or not either of Baez's parents were Puerto Rican. Puerto Rico is a commonwealth of the U.S. and persons born in Puerto Rico (since 1917) automatically have U.S. citizenship while also holding Puerto Rican citizenship. Further, if you're born outside Puerto Rico (let's say, Manhattan, for instance), and one of your parents is Puerto Rican, you're eligible to receive a certificate of Puerto Rican citizenship (since 2006-2007 or so). Additionally, it's interesting to note that there are actually more Puerto Ricans living in the U.S. itself than living on Puerto Rico (something like 4.0M and 3.7M respectively), with many living in New York. So if either of Baez's parents are Puerto Rican, I would think it would be appropriate to include him in the "Puerto Rican lawyers" category. Does anyone have a lead on any reliable sourcing as to whether either of Baez's parents are Puerto Rican, or sourcing indicating Baez considers himself to be Puerto Rican? AzureCitizen (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dodgy looking blog sites / bogus accolades?[edit]

The dodgy looking websites/ blogs behind these two sentences appear to be designed to allow lawyers of a certain ilk to claim bogus accolades that are designed to look/ sound like titles bestowed from legitimate/ prestigious professional organizations or journals:

"Lawyers USA voted Jose Baez “Lawyer of the Year for 2011.”[18]The National Trial lawyers association voted Baez one of the “Top 100 Lawyers” nationally.[19]"

1) "Lawyers USA" is actually just a website called "LawyersUSAonline" (it is not a prestigious professional organization or journal); &

2) "The National Trial Lawyers association" is not an even an "association" - it appears to be nothing more than a 2 year old blog site called "The National Trial Lawyers" (it, too, is not a prestigious professional organization or journal and appears, IMHO, to be free riding on the good name of the prestigious, 66 year old "American Trial Lawyers Association"/ "American Association for Justice").

I suspect that someone is trying to pad their resume and hoping that no one notices. Do titles/ accolades bestowed by cheesy blogs and websites warrant inclusion here? I propose that these two sentences be deleted.

Any objections?

MalibuSurfKing (talk) 09:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence Deleted (not supported by the source cited)[edit]

The following sentence was not supported by the link provided: 

"LawyersUSAonline.com website voted Jose Baez “Lawyer of the Year for 2011.”[18]

According to the webpage cited:

1) the only article relating directly to Baez was entitled "Jose Baez: THe Most Hated Lawyer in America"; &

2) the only article pertaining to "Lawyers of the Year" does not mention Baez (or anyone else) by name.

I'm now going to delete the sentence pending the provision of an appropriately linked source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MalibuSurfKing (talk • contribs) 08:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link - needs to be removed[edit]

The 1st reference (it reads, curiously enough: "Jose Baez - a blessing in disguise who let Casey Anthony go free") is based on this dead link:

http://www.caseyanthonyattorneys.com/2011_07_01_archive.html

It should be removed but cannot be edited.

What is going on here?

MalibuSurfKing (talk) 09:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Military Service[edit]

He joined the U.S. Navy in 1986. According to his resume, he spent three years assigned in connection with NATO at Norfolk, Virginia, trained as an intelligence analyst, and held a Top Secret security clearance.[3] His "resume" may say this, but it would be a bit disingenuous, or fluffed at best, but no more then any other resume. As a Navy veteran myself, doing three years total would have him no more then a E-4. To have "Top Secret" in a first enlistment would mean he jumped through "Confidential" and "Secret" first. It's His story, he can tell it.. It is by far his biggest lie ...

"Professor at Harvard Law School" (Inaccurate)[edit]

An editor has repeatedly added that Mr. Baez is a professor at Harvard Law School. This is, at best, inaccurate. The sources relied upon for this fact were a now-dead link to what appears to be a commencement address delivered by Mr. Baez and Mr. Baez's own website. Neither of those are reliable.

Mr. Baez does not appear anywhere on the faculty listing of the official Harvard Law School webpage. See http://hls.harvard.edu/faculty/index.html. Rather, it appears that Mr. Baez has, on occasion, participated for one week as part of the Trial Advocacy Workshop. More information here: http://hls.harvard.edu/academics/curriculum/catalog/index.html?o=65489. On those occasions, Mr. Baez was one of nearly 100 other practicing attorneys.

It is inaccurate to describe him, or any of the other 100+ practicing attorneys who participate for one week each year, as a "Harvard Law School professor."

Aaron Hernandez Section[edit]

It should be added that while Baez initially was skeptical of Hernandez committing suicide, he later stated that he believes that Hernandez took his own life with CTE being a major contributing factor. This information is already reflected in the final paragraph of Aaron Hernandez's page in section of his death. Swanguyguy (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jose_Baez_(lawyer)&oldid=1205610589"