This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jose Baez (lawyer) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Jose Baez (lawyer) be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
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)
This article reads like a hit piece. Scrapbkn ( talk) 18:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
How? It's a biography.... KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ ( talk) 05:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
65.8.143.232 (
talk)
02:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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]])
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)
Yeah team!! CarolMooreDC 13:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 ...
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."
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jose Baez (lawyer) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Jose Baez (lawyer) be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
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)
This article reads like a hit piece. Scrapbkn ( talk) 18:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
How? It's a biography.... KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ ( talk) 05:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
65.8.143.232 (
talk)
02:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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]])
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)
Yeah team!! CarolMooreDC 13:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 ...
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."
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)