Talk:Jose Baez (lawyer)

Grammar

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)

NPOV

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)

Edit request

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)

Edit request from 65.8.143.232, 7 July 2011

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)

 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Protected per request

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)

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)

Here's another valid reference of his place of birth from CNN--->[1].--XLR8TION (talk) 18:50, 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)

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)

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)

The article will be "unprotected" after a 24 hour cooling-off period. Antonio Martin (talk) 19:10, 10 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)

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)

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)

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)

Unnecessary Information

Much of this article includes information that isn't needed and likely added by Pro-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.