Talk:Rick Sanchez (Rick and Morty)/Archive 1

Cleanup and stuff

I cleaned up the page and wikified it a bit. I hope it meets with approval. Please note, this is not part of my ongoing effort to suck-up to the government of Liechtenstein. One must be clear on these things. Wilybadger 05:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop including information bout a matter that happened 17 years ago where Sanchez was not charged. besides, the "acident" did not happend in a "parking lot." This is not factual. The story that you are citing is a satire. It is not a newstory about a "accident." Stop the hating. Also, you are "not charged " with something because the other person is drunk if you hit them. If one is "drunk" and hits someone, they are charged with the crime regardless of the condition of the other person.

-First off, it doesn't matter if it happened 17 years ago, or if it happened yesterday. The accident did happen in a parking lot, the man was paralyzed, and the man did die. The story that is cited is not a satire, it is a news article about Rick Sanchez, his accomplishments, and his past. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING satirical in the article at all. And yes it is possible that you could not be charged if both parties are drunk and the other man walked in front of your car or what have you. He WAS charged with DUI, he just was not charged with the accident, probably because it would have been hard to prove who was at fault considering both parties were drunk. Articles are not only supposed to show all the good things about someone, everyone has a dark side, and if you are to have a truly encyclopedic article, it should show all the information about the person. You haven't given a single good reason why this should not be included other than "Vandalism/Slamming". Last I checked, this is supposed to be a site where you can gather information, good, bad, neutral, what have you. No one is slamming Rick Sanchez, facts are facts. If I was to write "The idiot drove drunk and ran over someone and didn't even care", that would be slamming.

Once again, there was no accident that happened in a "parking lot." This is not factual. Also, the piece you keep refering to is an editorial/satirical piece on Sanchez. Is that all you could find? Where are all these articles you keep talking about? The "too many to mention" articles? Let's see some examples. Can't find any? You are probably someone from Miami. Someone who hates Hispanics. Either way, stop hating and fibbing on these boards. There is no controversy, Sanchez has never charged with hitting anyone. What do you want to put down? That 17 years ago he was stopped for a DUI and plead No Contest? Why is is it you must include this so bad? Agin. let's see some other references before you start slamming this guy in public. As far as I am concerned, that never happened.

- So now you're throwing out racist statements, this is exactly why you should not be editing this article. And by the way, your IP tracks back to Miami as well. The article is NOT satirical, it is a factual article describing Sanchez's past. Yes, it happened 17 years ago, so there is not tons of information out there, but it is cited to a reliable source. He wasn't charged with hitting anyone, that doesn't mean he didn't, nor does it mean that the man was not paralyzed and lated died. Just because he wasn't charged doesn't mean it didn't happen. The reason this should be included is because this is supposed to be encyclopedic content, which means information regarding all aspects of the subject, not just the good, not just the bad. I'm glad that as far as you're concerned, it never happened, but you are violating Wikipedia rules by removing content that is cited and factual. Please stop or I will request this topic be locked down so that you can no longer violate Wiki rules.

You say, “He wasn't charged with hitting anyone, that doesn't mean he didn't.” Need I say more?

You want to refer to something that you say happened 17 years ago, that didn't officilly happen, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen? What are you talking about? Stop the bashing. Your cite is not factual and does not belong on this board. Not because it is unkind, but becuase it is simply not true. Wikipedia is a dangerous place for people like you who makeup stories along the way. Your comments are potentially libelous. Keep that in mind. Your IP can be tracked as well.

Also,

Biased or malicious content

Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of positive or negative claims that rely on guilt by association.

and...

Reliable sources

Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable, third-party sources, a biography will violate our content policies of No original research and Attribution, and could lead to libel claims.

Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all.

These are the rules. Read up.

He hit Smuzinick with his car. That isn't in dispute. There were witnesses. He just never faced criminal charges because his blood alcohol level was tested too late, Smuzinick was drunk, and Sanchez had good lawyers.

-I'm fine with the new wording of the article. You are correct, the wording was not effective, and I like the new layout. Thanks for your help.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Once again, Reliable sources

Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable, third-party sources, a biography will violate our content policies of No original research and Attribution, and could lead to libel claims.

Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of positive or negative claims that rely on guilt by association.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

If you go to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel's web archives and search for "Smuzinick", you'll get a slew of articles about the accident and Sanchez's DUI. Unfortunately, you can't view the complete articles unless you're willing to subscribe, but the headlines and abstracts are free, and provide plenty of information. You can do the same thing with the Miami Herald Archives. Unlike the Miami New Times article, these are not in a citation-friendly format, but they are incontrovertible proof that we're not just making this all up. 70.118.242.25 07:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not include every ticket that every newsman has recieved. This is obviously an attempt to discredit the Anchor. It was 17 years ago for Pete's sake. They guy plead no contest. HE WAS NOT CHARGED WITH HITTING ANYONE! Including a blurb about him hitting someone, when you say the guy he hit was intoxicated, when Sanchez was never charged is innapripriate and should not be included!

Yes, of course, because parking tickets are in the same category as vehicular assault/homicide. Brilliant logic. So basically, your only credible argument (lack of reliable sources) went out the window, and now you don't really have anything left. This has nothing to do with discrediting Sanchez, unless your definition of discrediting means "mentioning anything negative." How long ago it happened is irrelevant; Ted Kennedy's Chappaquiddick incident was almost 40 years ago, and yet it's still part of his Wiki article. You're right, he did plead no contest to DUI; that's relevant. The fact that he wasn't charged with causing the accident doesn't make the accident unimportant; that's like arguing that OJ Simpson's article shouldn't mention his murder trial because he was acquitted. This incident is a matter of public record, a very significant part of Sanchez's biography, and should be part of this article. It isn't "innapripriate". 70.118.242.25 21:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Guys, I will ask you to please re-read WP:Civility when discussing these matters and not to start attacking each other. As I have read it, Sanchez hit Smuzinick and put him in a coma. Am I correct? Kntrabssi 22:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

"innapripriate"???? Oh, you are one of these guys that goes around checking people's emails for correct grammer right? You mention OJ Simpson and what he accused of doing to Rick Sanchez and a DUI. You really are a winner aren't you? For the record, Smuzinick was coked up and ran in the middle of the road in a coke frenzy. No wonder Sanchez was not charged. he didn't hit Smuzinick. If anything, Smuzinick hit him. By the way, it was 17 years ago. Why do you hate Sanchez so much? Just curious? You are one frustrated individual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dittobedittodo (talk • contribs)

Ok, people, if there is another instance of incivility, I will ask an administrator to take action here. If this can't be solved like civil, level headed adults and reverts to mudslinging and name calling, then I will drop mediation on this and propose it to an arbitrator, and issue the appropriate level warnings to both parties. Kntrabssi 05:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You wanted more reliable sources, and you got them. I really don't see why this argument is continuing.

As I have read it, Sanchez hit Smuzinick and put him in a coma. Am I correct?

That's the gist of it. 70.118.242.25 07:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, as much as you to make it so, Sanchez did not "put the guy in a coma." He was NEVER charged with hitting anyone. If you are driving your vehicle and someone darts in front of your car and you don't have time to stop, did you "put the guy in a coma?" Is it responsible to say that? Sanchez was a public figure in Miami. This case was looked at every which way. They found no reason to charge him with a crime. Again, it is well documented that the guy he hit was on coke and darted like a mad man in front of his vehicle. Those are the facts. The problem is that 17 years later, you want to make up your own facts.

There is a difference between between being "coked up" and being drunk. I'll just assume you understand that basic distinction and move on. Sanchez may not have been completely at fault, but blaming the victim entirely is simply the abandonment of anything remotely resembling rationality. There's only one person here making up his own facts, and I must say, I am starting to get curious as to why you're bending over backwards to defend Sanchez and concoct your own personal version of events that, until recently, you refused to admit even happened at all. What's "Slick Rick" ever done for you? 70.118.242.25 09:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I have not seen it mentioned or quoted anywhere that the victim was "coked up" when he was hit. Not saying he wasn't, but if we're going to ask to source things, it would be nice if people didn't just start throwing out random items that are not sourced. Sanchez DID put the guy into a coma, because he hit him. Just because he wasn't charged, doesn't mean he didn't hit him. It is sourced and factual that he did hit someone, they were paralyzed, and they later died. The law has nothing to do with these facts, they are simply that, facts.

As well, I agree that this should remain civil. So far, everyone is being civil except for the person that wants this removed. He has called us racists, accused us of being "real winners", stated that we are frustrated individuals, etc... In the face of this, most of us have ignored the comments, and I would really appreciate if whomever wants this removed actually resort to discussing this issue instead of throwing out names.

We have pretty much given everything to what the person that wants this removed has asked. He asked for sources, he was given them. The article was written in a non-inflamatory way, and citable sources were given. As far as I can tell, we have followed all the rules of Wikipedia. Personally, I don't think that an article should be changed simply because one user, for whatever reasons, does not want something negative included. That basically invalidates the entire article. Nickisis 15:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

---

being that he was not charged with hitting anyone, your "just because he was not charged, doesn't mean he didn't hit him" comment is all anyone needs to know. Take away the fact that he was not charged with any wrong=doing, all you have is that in 1990 he was charged with DUI and plead No Contest. That should not be included in an article that is as vague as this. Just because one person has decided to slam Sanchez does not mean everyone should accept it.

"What's "Slick Rick" ever done for you? 70.118.242.25 09:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)" OK, here we go. Anyone that defends Rick Sanchez must be Rick Sanchez right? Give me a break. I am a Miami Cuban. We have people we look up to also. It is interesting to me as well why someone would take on this fight and care so much about inserting something negative in an article. Maybe you have a hidden agenda as well? Maybe? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

---

First off, please Dittobedittodo, please stop turning this into a flame war. No one is attacking anyone because they are Cuban. You simply are trying to remove something that should be included simply because they are Cuban, or so it seems. This has nothing to do with looking up to people, this is an encyclopedic article, this is not a message board. No one here has a hidden agenda, however, you are not seeing the picture as pretty much everyone else in this discussion is. The facts are, he hit someone while driving drunk, that person was paralzyed and later died. The issue is sourced, cited, and everything you asked for. It has nothing to do with whether or not criminal charges were brought against him, if they were, those would be included as well. Also, pleading no contest to a charge does not mean you are absolving yourself of guilt, as you seem to think it does.

There is nothing vague about the sources. We now have provided four different sources for the story, exactly what you were asking for. However, even now that we have done that, you continue to remove the section from the article.

And who is slamming Sanchez? The only person slamming anyone around here has been you. This event happened, and would be a major part of anyone's life, and should be included in an article about them. No one once has claimed that he maliciously killed anyone, or that he's a slime bag, or that he's done anything wrong. However, the event did happen, and deserves to be included. You are taking something that isn't glowing praise and viewing it as a slam against the subject.

It is also notable that you continue to change the wording of the article stating that Rick Sanchez was "instrumental" in coverage of Hurricane Katrina. The wording was correctly changed by another user to "involved", which is what it should be. You are placing your own personal views and opinions into an encyclopedic article, and that is exactly what Wikipedia is not about. You cannot claim that he was instrumental, since this is nothing but your own personal opinion. I can find someone down the street that would say he wasn't instrumental, which is exactly why it is your point of view, and should not be included. That is why the word was changed to "involved", because no one can dispute that, and it is not an opinion. Nickisis 20:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Anyone that defends Rick Sanchez must be Rick Sanchez right?

I never thought you were Sanchez: he's a journalist, after all. But, judging from the way you kept throwing around "17 years ago!!!" as if 1990 were part of the Precambrian Era, I figured you might very well be one of his kids. But I digress.

If you feel that the current wording of the Accident section is unfair to Sanchez, perhaps you should actually EDIT it to include Smuzinick's sobriety at the time of the incident. (I believe it was there at one point.) Of course to be fair, you'd also have to mention that Sanchez's BAC was over the legal limit when it was tested too. Simply deleting the entire section every time is only causing a pointless edit war.

But I'm probably just wasting my time here. As has already been mentioned, you also insist on the use of the word "instrumental" earlier in the article, even though it clearly doesn't conform to NPOV. It seems like you just want the entire article to be one piece of Happy-Pappy Sanchez Propaganda; go read his CNN Biography if you want that kind of tripe. --Aranak 21:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You still are citing two rags, not acceptable publications. I am still waiting for you to cite a respectable publication. I've only asked about 10 times. The guy had a DIU 17 years ago brother. HHe was never charged with "hitting" anyone. Also, he was instrumental in the coverage. The word instrumental was already there. You changed it. Again, why does it bother you so much my brother?

By the way, you also stated that the "accident" happened in a parking lot, now you say it was on a street near the stadium. You also stated that, "He was allowed to go home and retrieve his license before coming back and filling out the necessary paperwork; this is a service not usually extended to non-celebrities." Is that part of the Wikipedia standards also. Just wondering? No axe to grind huh? lol

I removed he is a liberal. Don't know where someone gets that from since he is conservative on everything but immigration. There he is with Bush. That dang liberal Bush. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.187.156 (talk) 05:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Enough

This talk page and whole dispute has gotten out of control. There are multiple accounts of flaming, personal attacks and namecalling that are not tolerated at Wikipedia. If people could please sign their comments, as well, that would make this whole process much easier. While I am by no means authority, it sounds to me as though this accident, whether he was charged or not, happened, and is notable enough to be mentioned. I lean to the side of including it in this article. The Cabal is an informal attempt at passing judgement without having to go through the long Mediation process, or even the arbitration process. I can nearly assure you that the mediators and arbitrators at the next level will go in the same direction I will. If there is one more instance of flaming or namecalling, I will report the offending party to an administrator who will apply the proper punishment. You have been warned twice now, albeit without formal talk page warnings. I hope this article shapes up to be a very good article. Happy Editing. Kntrabssi 08:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the Cabal discussion, I think this is a fair compromise. I reverted the article back to it's previous state, as well as including the fact that Smuzinick was inebriated at the time of the accident, and that Sanchez was never charged with the accident. Hopefully we can all move on now, this is fair compromise and shows both sides of the issue, thank you for your help. Nickisis 14:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed, I think this is fair enough. Glad to be of help, guys! Kntrabssi 19:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Good going. Also touched the article up a bit with some facts.

• Same here, added a couple more facts to the story for clarification. Nickisis 13:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wish I could meet you in person Nickisis

Adj. 1. instrumental - helpful - providing assistance or serving a useful function

or

In`stru*men"tal (?), a. [Cf. F. instrumental.]

1.

Contributing to promote; conductive; helpful; serviceable; as, he was instrumental in conducting the business.

---

I'm fine with the current wording of the article, since it doesn't try to blame anyone (which was the whole way we were trying to word it to begin with). Although, it is factual that he left the scene of the accident, and later returned (it is present in both Miami Herald and Sun Sentinel articles, I really don't know why you're trying to say that facts aren't facts, except to change the story to how you see fit).

Whoever you are, can you please stop editing it and removing it, just leave it as it is, it is fair, factual, and cited. Since you don't understnand the Wikipedia rules of NPOV, I'm not going to get into an edit war with you over the word instrumental, you can have that, we at least were able to get the accident finally included. Nickisis 14:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. You did right in starting an edit war you can't win. Now at least, the way it is written, one can tell that Sanchez WAS NOT AT FAULT in the accident. He, like many, probably left the game after drinking a few beers like most of the 70,000 that were there. His bad luck came in a poor guy, that was drunk, darting in front of his car. In the end, Sanchez pleaded No Contest to a DUI. It could have happened to anyone...even you. RIP JEFF!

This isn't about winning anything, which is the main problem with Wikipedia, people think that this is some kind of message board flame war. It's not, and as was proven by the Cabal, the article should have been included, as much as some people wanted to gloss over the fact that it ever happened. And last I checked, drinking causes your reaction times to be dramatically slowed down, so who knows if he had been sober if he would have been able to avoid him. In the end, as much as certain people attempted to make it seem like it never happened (and I have my reasons as to why), the Cabal acted fairly. And sorry, once again, you people make up facts like crazy. Yea, 70,000 drunk people all left the game and drove. This is why you lost the Cabal case, because you just make up facts, sorry you couldn't win this war, at least we got it included, now you can go back to pretending it never happened.

---

Ok, re-reading the New Times article, it does appear to be a bit one sided (although facts are facts, the article isn't being cited for it's story, but for the facts that are present in it), so I'll compromise and only include the Miami Herald. Of course, now someone has come in here and ONCE AGAIN deleted the accident entry. If that happens one more time, they are going to lock down this topic, and nobody will be able to edit it. Please not let's get to that point. Nickisis 13:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"(and I have my reasons as to why)" ...Please elaborate? Also, let's not pretend that you are dedicated person who's aim is to make Wikipedia a bastian of truth! My perception of you, after fighting so hard to include this belemish is that it's personal. Of course you will deny it, but just as you have hunches, so do I. You are not a Rick Sanchez fan...I get it. You used to live in Miami before moving to Delray Beach. Let the hate go my brother. Concentrate on positives, not on negatives.

Move on please

You are right brother! You win! I agree that the article that is now include is balanced and fair. I am glad we were able to work together and come up with a solution. Only problem now is some asshole keeps removing it from the site. Looks to me like you are going to be a slave to this site if you want to keep that section included. Good luck and happy editing! :)

P.S. If I see that they remove it, I will most certainly place it back!!! It's only fair after everything we have been through.

---

Well, it looks like someone finally turned this into a semi-protect, which is really sad. We all had a very good discussion, the Cabal was fair, even the problems that some users had we compromised on and came up with a good article. And then some of the same people came in and started vandalizing. Anyways, I reverted it back to the decision made by the Cabal, for some reason Alison (I think that was her name), put this under semi-protect, but also reverted it back to the revision that the vandalizer was putting up, for reasons unbeknownst to me. It makes sense to semi-protect this, but it should remain current with the Cabal ruling, not with unregistered users with multiple IP's constantly vandalizing the article. Nickisis 14:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nick. I think Alison swung by and sprotected the article while it was accidently under the former version. I'm sure that she did it without knowing. I appreciate your reverting it back to the proper stage. Kntrabssi 14:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I was one of the two admins who dealt with the protect request on WP:RFPP. I originally semi-protected the page, as requested but rolled back the changes as another admin decided it wasn't warranted. Kntrabssi then appealed to have the sprot re-instated, which it was. As an admin, all I can do is evaluate the request and determine if the protect is warranted. I usually attempt to NPOV the article but in this case, I have no familiarity with the subject. As with these things, when a protect is placed, an established editor who's familiar with the subject comes along later and puts the article to rights, as happened here. If you wish the semi-protect to be removed at any time, just post a request to WP:RFPP and we'll take a look. Thanks - Alison^☺ 15:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's what I figured had happened, that she probably didn't realize what was going on at the time. No worries, at least hopefully now this will "semi-protect" the article! Nickisis 15:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Back when Rick had the DUI, his co-anchor, Sally Fitz, had some sort of controversy of her own. Anyone remember what it was? --Somedude

- If I remember correctly, she also was involved in a DUI of her own, although no one was hurt in that one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.182.192.71 (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

---

If you wish to edit the accident page, please do not attempt to change the facts of this story. There was a month long Cabal meditated discussion on what should be included, and that decision was final. Recently, a few users have been attempting either remove the section and/or change the facts to fit a person agenda. The facts of the story are all that are presented, any personal bias is removed by either side that adds it. This article is sourced, and because of the recent vandalism by certain users it has to be moved back to semi-protection. Hopefully a few months from now we can unprotect it again, it's sad that we have to go through this yet again. Nickisis 11:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

---

For the record, if a person is caught by the police, for driving under the influence of alcohol, after being involved in an accident that paralyzed a pedestrian, that person would be given the option of pleading "no contest." Us regular folk would, at the very, very, VERY least, have to enter a guilty plea (the courts often do not accept a plea of "no contest," as it is regarded as a lesser plea than guilty). The fact he was allowed to enter a nolo contendre plea, and was not even charged with leaving the scene of an accident (a crime in and of itself), in which he'd struck and severely injured a pedestrian, while driving drunk, is almost mind-boggling. Clearly, Rick Sanchez received extraordinarily favourable treatment from the law enforcement authorities in the respective area. The question is, why? That may be extremely difficult information to obtain, but ideally, this article would present it. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

So tired!

I live in lake charles,la. and am so tired of New Orleans this and New orleans that.What about the rest of the STATE the heck with (NEW ORLEANS) JOHN B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.109.132 (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Because, without New Orleans, Louisiana wouldn't be known in the entire world as it is thanks to NOLA. New Orleans is the second oldest city in North America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruedasox79 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hit and Run Language

I just read this article and was surprised at how stilted the current language in the "Hit and Run/DUI" section is. I checked the citation at the Miami Herald and most of the articles mention that the pedestrian "darted into a road." If this article is going to mention the hit and run incident Sanchez was not charged for, I think it at least needs to mention the pedestrian ran out into the road in front of his car. This helps to possibly explain why he wasn't charged for it. --Mherlihy (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, the line about the pedestrian's 3 year old daughter is not attributed. I did a Lexis of all articles on Sanchez at the time and could not find any reference to a child in the accident. I believe this information is false/ needs to be removed until someone can attribute it. --Mherlihy (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Circumcised?

Do we know if Rick "DUI" Sanchez is circumcised or uncircumcised? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.188.86.161 (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not really relevant... Tyman2896 (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Who cares!! tommytalk2me 01:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)