Talk:Inés Sainz

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

Not Miss Spain[edit]

Different women, it seems, same name, according to this

Inés_Sainz#Jets_interview undue weight[edit]

Note per WP:BLP she is not notable because she was allegedly sexually harrassed. This one incident must not be allowed to overpower the article simply because she is the current focus of the 24 hour media circus. She is either the victim of sexual harassment Wikipedia:VICTIM#Victims if the allegation is shown to be true, or NOTHING significant happened execept the media circus. The content of the article should be whittled down to one or perhaps two concise sentances. Active Banana ( bananaphone 21:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roll up my comments for tl:dr and blp concerns.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I even see a bit of a class war? That is, perhaps that the news media likes to trumpet their sophistication/enlightenment? (Well, true, for some commentators, it's their boorishness; but that is mainly to counter the main thrusts of enlightened media commentary.) You see: News people mostly earn a living wage and that's about it. So, they bandy their bonafides at the expense of the lowly jocks (y'know, that more often earn millions)--and sometimes at the expense of fellow media people that are entertainers/stars in their own right. (Such as Sainz.) Thus, when I read news people's subtle suggestions that Sainz's work is the product of less smarts, ability, education, blah blah, I chalk it up to that. How else could one explain the disparity between a hoard of such comments in the MSM and the fact that a two-second Google search reveals that she is a trained lawyer that has been a broadcast professional for a decade? But then when I read in the next sentence either that she was a Miss Spain or once dressed in a wedding dress as part of her infotainment promotional duties, I simply mutter to myself about the dynamics of pack journalism and filling in the blanks by consensus of other people as ignorant as oneself rather than relying on an ounce of actual, verifiable research.

Likewise, when I read comments remarking on her outfits in foreign venues, I marvel that they can't see the ridiculousness of comparing, say, how someone dressed on a beach in Brazil with how someone dressed at a papal audience. Give me a break. As for what she wore last Saturday to the Meadowlands, it was apparently a pair of high heeled boots, form-fitting bluejeans and a semi-sheer white blouse showing a bit of cleavage and her brassiere. Is anyone implying that management at any sports venue in the U.S. would deny a reporter dressed like that entry? especially one noted from the 2002 and 2010 World Cups (four years ago she was busy having a baby) as one of the sexiest--which means, in part, "sexiest dressed"--television sports journalists? after the Flight Crew, the Jet's cheer squad, enter to practice their routine, we're supposed to be aghast that a woman is wearing stretchy clothes? Gimmeabreak.

That said, I agree with the editorial published by the the National Sports Journalism Center:

The incident unearthed the ongoing, fitful relationship between model-pretty sideline reporters and the sports they cover. ... ...It seems the media world often conflates two issues which don’t belong together when such incidents happen – most notably, when ESPN sideline reporter Erin Andrews was victimized by a stalker who released secretly-taken nude videos of her filmed through a gimmicked peephole in a hotel room.

... For both Andrews and Sainz, it’s tough to dispute that a major factor in their charisma as broadcasters involves their sex appeal. But the issue of how that relates to their work as sports journalists should always be separate from how they are treated by fans, athletes, the general public and the institutions they are covering. ... ...There’s a valid debate to be had about whether sports media outlets are featuring beautiful sideline reporters because of their journalism skills or appearance. But when that image leads someone else to do something that is clearly wrong, then it’s time to deal with that injustice, apart from the larger issue of how some in sports media use sex appeal to sell their products.

That is, I agree that conduct that is uncalled for and unprofessional within a certain context can and does become an issue, on occasion--and this, despite the fact that apparently the object of this conduct or remarks wasn't in actuality any kind of victim. Remarks were made that weren't the kind of thing that people should be making to someone they are talking to within a professional context.

Saintz is a media entrepreneur (like Oprah, she has a major stake in and control of her show, one that promotes her as "the hottest sports reporter in Mexico," for which she does light, jokey, lifestyle/human interest type pieces about sports/sports figures as much or more so than straight-up analyses of games, standing, etc., etc.) What she heard was, "I wannna play with a Mexican!"; « iEres muy guapa! » (translating to Ursoooopretty), etc. Unprofessional but not extreme--comments in reaction to which she likely smiled but to which another reporter lodged a complaint. And thereafter Saintz in-the-moment tweeted in Spanish how she was dying of embarrassment. But her reaction to the remarks themselves, per what she said to CNN was: "It was definitely a joking tone, very amicable. I wasn’t offended," adding, "One female colleague came with me and [told] me, 'I'm so sorry. It mustn't happen. It's not OK.' So I tried to calm her. … I really know that she...heard things that I didn't really hear. So I really appreciate the concern about it."

And, as she told TV Azteca, "I was surprised to wake up on Sunday and have a call from the NFL , saying that they wanted to talk to me about what had happened at the Jets; and I asked… what happened? And they said well there is a pretty powerful accusation of harassment and then it was at that point I realized the magnitude of what had happened."--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arrrrrrghhhh! As a researcher sitting here reading media reports, I'm getting so frustrated at their collective stupidity!

A fable. I'm in the grocery store. A guy butts in line, saying, "Scuse me bub." A reporter friend sees this and goes to the manager. "That guy called my friend a boob." The manager writes up a complaint against the guy, saying he called me a sexual slur. The next day the local newspaper does a piece on rudeness in the town and mentions that I had complained of a sexual slur. I say in an interview, "No, I wasn't bothered. A guy and I got there at about the same time and he apologized, saying, 'Excuse me, bruh.'" Despite what I say, for the next week, every newspaper in the Tri-Sate Area repeats 2,500 times that I'd "complained" of an "ethnic slur", rendering this falsehood verifibly "true." Dumb reporters! As soon as I said I hadn't complained, they should quit claiming that I had. Same here. Once Sainz said she didn't mind and hadn't complained, they should stop repeating over and over and over and over that she had complained of being harassed. End of story. But instead it's treated like scripture from on high that (1) Sainz is slutty acting (2) the Jets' harassed her, and (3) etc. etc. blah blah.

What is in the media is verifiably "true," so the media then repeats it. Then they pat themselves on the back. It's sickening. Randomly, here is the current top-of-the-page media story with the word "Sainz" in it. It's from the Chicago Trib--professional outfit (one would think!). So, here's what Trib writer David Haugh says:

- Article's introduction of Sainz: "...Sainz, the provocatively dressed Mexico TV Azteca reporter who experienced 'discomfort' in the Jets' locker room." -- Um, Mr. Tribune Writer, you've never experienced discomfort? In any case, just because the media has verifiably said this doesn't make it true; in actual fact, Sainz has said repeatedly that she never complained of being harassed, somebody else did, another member of the media. So, according to the media, if someone who is a member of the media offers a complaint of someone's being harasssed, then that equates to that person herself offering a complaint of being harassed? What Sainz had done was to tweet that she was dying of embarrassment to be in the locker room (saying she just looked down, so as not to see anybody naked). She tweeted, "It was an uncomfortable moment because you are in the team’s dressing room and they are obviously changing clothes, showering-doing what they do every day in the locker room." "So being a woman, obviously it was a bit uncomfortable.” That's it! Then, when the NFL telephoned her, she asked, "What happened?"

- The article continues: "This is an entertainer whom Megan Mawicke of WBBM-Ch. 2 interviewed at Super Bowl XLI Media Day in 2007 after Sainz asked Bears players if they would marry her." -- Um, that was Ines Gomez Mont that did that light-hearted stunt for TV Azteca. Ines--Gomez--Mont: notice after Ines are the names Gomez Mont. Gomez Mont. <sighs>

- Next line: "'The bottom line is any woman who has busted her tail in a small market to break into sports journalism and shot her own video like I did in Green Bay would never jeopardize it by wearing inappropriate clothing or being flirtatious,' said Mawicke, who has worked in Chicago for 11 years. 'We are there because we love sports and love telling stories.'" -- I'm so proud of Mawicke, busting her ass, trying to get ahead in the dog-eat-dog world of sports reporting. And here is a hot chick who has her own TV show, wearing slinky stuff. I'm crying for you. But mainly I'm crying that I've got to read your complaint at the Chi-Trib website after the mistatements of Saintz's complaining and her having asked Bears to marry her. And, geez, it was one player that Gomez Mont had done that with: no "-es" ending.

- Continuing: "Trust me, men get belittled and ostracized too by players conditioned to intimidate. I've been threatened with bodily harm and called things that would make Rex Ryan blush. Things happen to both sexes that would warrant a trip to the human resources director in most workplaces. It's arrested adolescence at its worst. It's a locker room. Machismo rules. 'You have to know going into it it's a boys club,' Mawicke said. 'You don't have to be one of those boys but maybe more lenient than in other walks of life. Be sensible.'" -- Um, OK. And Sainz wasn't sensible because----?

- Cont.: "Most disappointing is how the improper behavior of Sainz and the Jets makes this a lousy cultural case study. Clearly more interested in selling sex appeal than gathering information, Sainz consistently shows judgment as poor in choosing a workday outfit as the Jets showed in harassing her. One glaring exception shouldn't test a rule most women in the business, especially those here in Chicago, take great pains not to bend." -- And that's how the piece ends, ignoring the fact that Sainz didn't feel harassed--and her outfit was only so outrageously sexy because she happens to have a very tight, ah, set of assets. (For example, say Pamela David, who hosts an afternoon Spanish language talkshow, showed up to the sidelines like this. She would get ogled, even if respectfully so. Now say that her reputation was for dressing like this.)

I'm outta here.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this NY Daily News article, Sainz says her film crew caught everything on tape and she was never offended. Then, at the bottom of the article, the reporter writes that Sainz isn't the first woman sports reporter to complain about being mistreated. Don 't reporters read their own report before they sum up like that?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 World Cup[edit]

Interviewing international sports stars is certainly notable. As is the safari theme, with regard to her 2010 World Cup reporting IMO: cf. e/g the Stephen Colbert subarticle giving a rundown to his comedy episodes and a slew of additional popular culture articles on Wiki.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that other articles have crud sections is not a valid reason add them to other articles. Is this a segment that had any kind of lasting impact on her career such that (prior to last weekend) when people heard Sainz did they think "That Safari Reporter at the World Cup"? Or when talking about the World Cup 2010 are they thinking "That was the year of the Safari interviews" (or at least after they they think "That was the year of the Vuvuzela") Or has any of her nicknames from that series stuck with the athletes? If so, then we source it and keep, otherwise it is just another puff piece that reporters do all the time. Active Banana ( bananaphone 21:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per wp:NNC:

The notability guidelines are only used to determine whether a topic can have its own separate article on Wikipedia and do not govern article content. The question of content coverage within a given page is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies

--it would be useful to fill in typical examples of Saintz's Spanish-language sports reporting of note, although any content is ultimately dependent, of course, on a determination by the community that Sainz indeed merits encyclopedic coverage.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citing leerinesss of Soccer Training Info blog, Carbuncle removed all mention of World Cup reporting by the subject rather than, at most, fact tagging it. If someone gets around to it, perhaps it could be sourced that

During the 2010 World Cup, Sainz interviewed, among other soccor players, Lionel Messi, Landon Donovan, Spanish midfielder Xavi, David Villa, Sergio Ramos, Argentine forward Gonzalo Higuain, Brazilian defender Dani Alves,Mexican forward Chicharito, and Spain's Pedrito.

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In replacement, I've put in (at random, out of the slew available) a wp:NONENG World Cup ref--this one from 2006--instead.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because stuff is in a reliable source does not mean it is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Active Banana ( bananaphone 16:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because I've made no suggestion of contributing any plot-only description of fictional works, lyrics databases, excessive listing of statistics, a who's who of non-notable folks, or FAQs, I presume you're referring to news reports.

Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.

Which leads us back to an argument based on wp:WEIGHT. The statement in question that has been contributed to the article is this:

By July 2006, Saintz had covered three Champions League tournaments and four NBA Finals, the 2004 Athens Olympics and the 2006 World Cup.

And, my counter argument is going to be WP:NNC, which I'll just initialize 'cause I've already brought it up, and then on to wp:NRVE:

[...T]here must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability.

The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere "flash in the pan", nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.

And, if you want, we can go from there. Ai-aight?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes[edit]

I had contributed two quotes to the article. (Over on right margin--> )

Some believe you're just a mannequin, but I know sports, I am fluent in several languages and as capable as any man.

(«Algunos creen que sólo eres un maniquí, pero yo sé de deportes, domino varios idiomas y soy tan capaz como cualquier hombre.»)

—Inés Sainz, Punto Medio, May 31, 2010[1]

Super Bowl XLI

Ines Sainz, a dyed blonde representing TV Azteca, and wearing that silk tank-top and exceedingly tight jeans hemmed with fringe was, besides Manning [Peyton Manning], the single-most popular person on the premises. When she wasn't interviewing someone, she was being interviewed by everyone. Including Stephanie Sovinar of WTHR, the NBC affiliate in Indianapolis.

'Do you flag them down,' Sovinar said cattily of Sainz's tactics to request a player, 'or do you just bat an eye.'

An eye wasn't all she batted.

—Art Spander, The Telegraph, February 1, 2007[2]

Wrt the second one, I've read just a ton of commentary saying same thing, if less artfully worded, the Telegraph's Art Spander described, so contributed it for the help it provides to understanding the subject's cultivated public image: say if someone was reading this ten years from now that had never heard of Sainz, unlike us. It was removed by Carbuncle as not being about an aspect important to her life. If this was per a BLP concern, I think it may be possible somehow that he could be right. (I didn't really understand his edit summary.) If not...well, I've posted them to the talkpage to possibly elicit other editors' commentary.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those sidebar quotes would maybe be appropriate in a magazine, but do not appear to be at all encyclopedic. Support removal.Active Banana ( bananaphone 16:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "La "veterana" de los deportes da sus pronósticos mundialistas". Punto Medio. May 31, 2010.
  2. ^ Spander, Art (February 1, 2007). "Colts and Bears fed to hungry 4,000". The Telegraph.

Bio info[edit]

This I've read translated from innumerable Spanish-language websites: "Her late father was also a lawyer. Sainz, a black belt in taekwondo, married Mexican television producer Héctor Pérez Rojano and they have three children, María Inés, Eduardo and Hector."

Proper procedure is to {{fact}} tag it but I'm too worn out to struggle against Carbuncle. Ditto the approx. year of her birth: All sorts of places mention her age, through the years. Thus simple math = circa year of birth.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 01:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AztecTV "blog" giving bio info about host Sainz[edit]

Aztec TV's selfpublished website was removed by DCarbuncle as being "a blog." Per both wp:SELFPUB and the guideline with concern to news source's inhouse blogs, the source is appropriate because it is about a subject the journalists at Aztec TV are likely to be an expert about. The reference in question is this: http://tvazteca.blogcindario.com/2010/01/00259-ines-sainz.html --Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That does not appear to be a blog maintained by TV Azteca. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a further note, the TVAzteca Iberia.com page (similar to a company's Face Book page in the US) had not been posted in the article as the official webpage of the company but was used only as a source.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 01:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd thought that you had visited the site and had become were aware it was maintained by TV Azteca. On the left column the site lists TV Azteca's page on Twitter, etc. etc., as well.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 03:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had hoped that after the "DJ Mick" episode, you would be more discerning. That does not appear to be a blog maintained by TV Azteca. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been to this Iberia blog page for a handful of secs once then returned for maybe three times that long a second time. So I can truthfully (almost) claim that I don't know for sure. So, if I were a betting man, it's at this point that I'd be trying to jostle your ego to sucker you into a bet at staight-up odds. Without my having to give ya points. But, I'm not a betting man. So, I'll be straight up with ya instead. <long pause for effect>

Numero uno. Hole card number one. Iberia's is a super-major social networking site in Mexico. Numbero dos. Hole card number two. Mexican national corporates often likely make deals with other emm Hispano-Iberian-Latin American corporations and the communications link between Hispano-European-based Iberia Airlines' social networking site and TV Azteca--the number two TV network in all of Mexico--would seem to me like as not to be drawing my second card into to a strong pair or at the very least a flush. Now's the all-important third card. Numero tres. Think about it, How likely is it that TV Azteca is going to let somebody they are not affiliated with have a page on a major social networking site in TV Azteca's name? linking on its left-hand side bar to TV Azteca's Twitter account? I'm sitting pretty good here. If you wanna get our next card, just Google or whatnot or say I oughtta. We can both bluster all we want at this point but till either one of us does actual research it'd be just talkyn thru r hats.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you get "Iberia" from or what you mean by it. This is the link in question: http://tvazteca.blogcindario.com/2010/01/00259-ines-sainz.html. You seem to be having difficulty making critical evaluations, so I will try to help you out. Go to that blog. Click on the picture of the cat in the left sidebar. That is the person who runs the blog. It does not appear to be an official TV Azteca blog. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please stop editing your comments and section titles after people have responded. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it is a blogcindario.com site, not a blog at tvazteca.com. Active Banana ( bananaphone 23:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently Iberia and TV Azteca are both on the Madrid stock exchange...... Emm, apropos of nothing, I see now. I'd only added uncontroverisal material with that blog reference, btw--material that D.c. hadn't even removed from the article but had replaced with a "needs reference" tag. What this source had said was along the lines of "according to TV Azteca website Ms. Sainz was educated at the University ---- " blah blah; so my all nighter in question had certainly resulted in constructive additions of text to the biography even if this particular source was successfully impeached. Good job, by the way, Delicious carbuncle.

p.s./further note: Well, at least the slight self-mocking portion of the above, in my admission that I hadn't taken the time to check out that blog for over a second or two, worked spectacularly.......

p.p.s./as 1 further note: The other blog source you'd removed, Today24News, does appear to be a news-and-analysis website doing online journalism with editorial oversight and the assertion it was attached to: "Sainz, a black belt in taekwondo, married Mexican television producer Héctor Pérez Rojano and they have three children, María Inés, Eduardo and Hector"--would appear to satisfy a reasonable criteria for non-controversiality, even for a BLP. But, I'm not attempting to second-guess your choices in the quick back and forth of improving this biography. Still, my attempt to inject tension-breaking humor in the face of any particular fellow editor's air of...... exaggerated self-regard was probably a wrong tack or at least failed really phenomenally in execution.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing for BLPs, reliable sources, and outright fabrication[edit]

User:Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden has added the sentence "At the various years' Super Bowl "media day" events, it was reported that Sainz was photographed as much as any player was" with the source being this article in the Telegraph. The stated fact is simply not contained in the referenced article. The closest it comes is saying that she "was, besides Manning, the single-most popular person on the premises", which is not at all the same thing. As an opinion offered offhandly in an article that is really about the phenomenon of American attitudes toward the Super Bowl, it really doesn't belong in an encyclopaedic biography.

WP:BLP has lots of useful and easy to follow advice. I don't intend to debate things here that should be obvious to anyone familiar with our guidelines, but if all contributors paid careful attention to using reliable sourcing, adding only sourced and relevant facts, this would go a lot more smoothly. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd added a template:underconstruction because I only had added one cite so far.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP isn't instantaneous and it simply takes simply more time to add information than to click and remove things, you know? In any case, I finally was able to add the Plm Bch Post cite (which reads, "She was interviewed and photographed more than Peyton Manning at Super Bowl media day")--and btw I've read innumerable other places about her celebrity status among the shutter bugs, too. While I sit here and try to wrap my mind around the thought that someone could think the subject isn't photographed much, I'll remind folks that technically the guidelines ask us to merely fact tag uncontroversial assertions. (I'd essentially put a fact tag on it myself, through having put on the underconstruction tag until I was able to finish my sourcing.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With all the media interviewing Sainz each year there are plenty of articles that mention her behind a pay-money wall. Here's one that isn't:

[...J]ournalists look bored—until everyone discovers Inés Sainz.... 'I think the people are really nice here,' she tells one TV interviewer.... Before long, I find Sainz once again. Now she’s being interviewed by three guys.... ...[O]ne reporter...mutters to a colleague, 'Crazy, she’s getting interviewed more than the players are.'----Newsweek

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outright fabrication indeed. A few issues that arise from the supposed article by Tom D'Angelo

1. "60 seconds with" is generally a weekend feature. 31 January 2007 was a weekday.
2. No other "60 seconds with" articles survive from the period of the article posted here.
3. The link at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_8163/is_20070131/ai_n51949013/ appears to come from http://womenstopix.info/palm-beach-post-60-seconds-with-ines-sainz.html and not directly from the post.
4. The article as posted here http://womenstopix.info/palm-beach-post-60-seconds-with-ines-sainz.html was, strangely enough, added on 13 September 2010.
5. The article "60 seconds with Ines Sainz" is not of the standard one would expect from award winning journalist, Tom D'Angelo. Even if we ignore the punctuation and sentence structures that do not seem to follow Tom's normal work, assuming good faith that this is but a short article, the lead is the sort of stuff you find from someone who's never writting a newspaper article before. "Palm Beach Post reporter Tom D'Angelo spoke Tuesday with reporter Ines Sainz of Mexico City-basedTV Azteca."?? Rubbish.
6. The article "60 seconds with Ines Sainz" is much shorter than any other "60 seconds article". It's not... umm.. 60 seconds.

Clearly some no-good-nik has fooled poor Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.17.207.48 (talk) 07:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC) And.. oh yes.[reply]

7. Every single other article by Tom D'Angelo of the Palm Beach post at findarticles.com has, as one would expect from a journalist of his experience and tenure, his by-line attached. I think it's time for someone to go down to the library and -fake- get a real copy.120.17.207.48 (talk) 07:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any reason to doubt the legitimacy of that particular article (see here). My comment about "fabrication" related to concerns in the example I gave, which have now been addressed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catcalls?[edit]

Point blank, Ms. Sainz never said anything about catcalls, per se. She mentioned calling out to her but when she was called by the NFL's investigator she carefully made the case that she heard no comments that she took to be of a sexual nature. So, there we go. We have people--reporters--who are not Sainz saying that there were sexualized comments made toward her, which conduct they believed to be objectionable for the professional environment of reporters at a sports practice. But, the issues raised were not done at Sainz's request. So, bottom line, we need to be careful how we describe them, I think. So, I'm going to boldly slightly recast in the article @ "catcalls."

Additional comments. I have no doubt that something similar to catcalls were probably made, lol. I simply think it would be more encyclopedically appropriate and also more in keeping with a full examination of the sources to say something a bit different than that. Lexically, catcalls means something sarcastic or derisive. I know, when something is sexual, there is a grey area as to whether such a thing is derisive or is complimentary. Yet please note that I'm not really interested in getting into a discussion of sexual politics here. I will say that I am solidly in favor of a degree of political correctness, at least the component of it necessary to maintain a reasonable standard of decorum, which I think is a very useful thing. Sometimes Wikipedia editors are editing more to put forth some kind of political agenda than simply to write good encyclopedia articles, so I don't want people to think I'm trying to make some kind of political statement at all.

Anyway: Constraints of speech in the interest of decorum philosophically need to be balanced against the need for creative self-expression, within certain bounds. Sometimes a free-for-all work environment causes discomfort for some participants. (Heck, I'm a volunteer Wikipedian of average intelligence and no more and sometimes I feel harrassed by folks pointing out my intellectual deficits, lol, as they quickly second-guess my work. Whatever. It's part of the environment necessary for each of us to say what we think and hash out facts, issues, practices and processes. So, it's all kosher. Not to be politically incorrect and use a word that should be specific to a certain religious subset.) But, all that said-- In the case at hand (and speaking about the need to maintain a reasonably comfortable work environment): I think that the young, attractive, Northern "Joisey"-area newspaper sports-beat reporter that lodged the complaint about the sexualized work environment in East Rutherford that day did a good thing. The Bleacher Report has this piece that talks about the creative need for freedom balanced against individuals within that environment's need to be able to enjoy a pleasant and not-overly-sexualized work environment (in light of what its author says is the coming entertainment-mixed-with-reporting that is tending more and more to be the norm in the coming media environment). Anyway, this piece mentions how California's State Supreme Court ruled in Lyle versus Warner Bros. that if sexualized stuff is not directed at the complaining party, but is itself a part of a creative work environment that is known from the get-go to be somewhat sexualized, that in such cases no sexual harassment, as legally defined, takes place (in my layman's terms, obviously). Of course, California is not New Jersey, but I think the issues raised are important, nonetheless.<end ramble>--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the source currently used in the article: "...she was, she says, reportedly the target of catcalls and rude comments". May I suggest that you read more and write less? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have contributed most of the words in the article--kudos, of course, is not necessary for that but still I think it would be great if things could be taken down a notch on the talk page as far as mutual disparagements of various contributors' editing styles and whatnot. I could find a quote at wp:TALK. BRB.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is her biography, we should endeavor to stick with her--as opposed to any other reporters'--story when possible, in the spirit of BLP. She said (I just underlined per se in my comment above) that others said their were catcalls. I didn't deny that. If the article was about the incident itself, then perhaps the reporters' take might deserve more weight than what she herself reported hearing, IMO. Be back with quote from wp:BLP.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try the same quote again with different emphasis: "...she was, she says, reportedly the target of catcalls and rude comments". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Int he spirit of WP:V we report what reliable sources say. Active Banana ( bananaphone 22:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read it, ""...she was, she says, reportedly the target of catcalls and rude comments." Read the rest of the article to see her own words to this effect.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may be missing the point. I've provided you, from the source currently used in the article, a reliable source stating that Sainz herself said she was reportedly the target of "catcalls", which directly answers the point you made at the start of this section. Contrary to your assertion, she did say something about catcalls. All of this should have been apparent to you from my first response. It is a moot point, since there is no shortage of reliable sources using the word "catcalls", as a quick Google search will confirm. I find your focus on this particular word puzzling, since your earlier work on the article appeared to me to be intended to make it as salacious as possible. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my sincere opinion, your comment about my indicating a desire to make the article "as salacious as possible" is a willful mischaracterization of my editing. Perhaps you are just evil. Please provide links. Yes, I wrote the vast majority of the article so I have mentioned this episode before, yet in an exremely respectful and careful manner.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 03:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment[edit]

This is a suggestion to improve this biography in a minor but I believe important way. In the interest of the spirit of the BLP guidelines, the subject's views of how her words have been mischaracterized by the press should be taken into account. (See a rough translation of her op-ed recently published in Mexico here, where she, among other things, complains that the U.S. media has mischaracterized her statements.)

Today I wonder why a well respected association such as the AWSM, within its right to inform about any violations of work conditions for its members, acted so impulsively. Considering that the AWSM was in fact worried about the event and about my integrity as a woman and newsperson, why did I never receive a call from them, and why were all these deeds denounced [by the AWSM] with such certainty? ---- A group of news people and communicators, eager to make an even bigger scandal out of this situation, have moved women's rights backwards at least 50 years. I am surprised by how easily some colleagues skip the basic rules of journalism: one should investigate, inquire, and look at the facts before giving an opinion. ---- I am surprised by the readiness and professionalism the NFL acted with. I feel happy that I wasn't found responsible [by the league] for what happened.

I believe it would improve the article to use the subject, Ms. Sainz's, actual words in the article rather than the media's paraphrase of them.

Her actual words are

But I believe that the rest of the media start to hear the different kind of things that I didn't hear. And sometime in a minute, a colleague [said], 'Come with me, and I'm so sorry. [...] It's terrible. I feel sorry for you.' So I tried to say, 'Don't worry, I can handle the situation.' And that's it. And I don't even try to pay attention." ... I think that the media that in the locker room, what are really upset is about the vocabulary they used to refer to me. I want to say that I'm not the one who made the charge. Because I didn't even say, 'Hey, I feel bad for that, with [to the] NFL.' The ones that say that something is happened there is the rest of the media."

However, CBS News paraphrased these remarks as

catcalls and rude comments.

My suggestion to improve the article is to replace

In 2010, media reported that while Sainz was waiting to conduct an interview in the New York Jets locker room, team members made "catcalls and rude comments". Sainz said she herself did not hear the remarks

--(that is currently in the article) with a direct quote of the subject (that is):

In 2010, media reported that while Sainz was waiting to conduct an interview in the New York Jets locker room, there was improper "vocabulary they [team members] used to refer to me"

[Edited: Note that the article has changed its wording since this RFC was posted.] Rationale: Quotes in an encyclopedia should always be indicated in a way so that there is no confusion who is being quoted. As the article now reads, the reader is misled to believe that Ms. Sainz herself is being quoted. Rather than insert the words "According to CBS News," it would be better to simply quote Ms. Sainz herself. I'll return in a bit with what I hope will be a trancript of Ms. Sainz's complete interview with CBS, if I will be able to find it. In any case, either way, I hope some editors will chime in with their thoughts and analyses of this issue. Thanks.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically after Ines sexual harassment incident, she was approach by Hugh Hefner's people with a big deal and cover of Playboy Magazine, it is believe that TV Azteca prohibits their reporters this kind of exposure, either way Ines Sainz said she will never pose naked for Playboy or any magazine

not go with my principles.She said

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mivalle (talk • contribs) 21:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Evidently, I know this came about due to the boom of the Jets story and that my pictures were being searched for and in the United States the repercussions were complete. I think that they said that it's always good to have a young image that is in vogue at the moment with a good body or with a certain type of body that will interest them and with that they made an offer. All I will say is simply that that does not go with my principles and my values and nothing else."---SAINZ, to Azteca America's Ventaneando America - translation at Latin in America website--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Sainz's own words; NFL interviews of eyewitnesses[edit]

Note per something I said in the section directly above: It turns out that CBS transcripts are apparently a pay-money affair. In lieu of the full transcript of Ms. Sainz's appearance on the CBS morning news show, I've assembled print news reports of Sainz's comments about the affair, below, followed by the NFL's report made after it interviewed 17 witnesses to the events at the Meadowlands.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 08:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sainz said she was not given the chance to know what the allegations were and that the media mischaracterized her words. Thus, what follows is what she has said to the media in her actual words. (As reported in the NY Daily News:

"I believe they are taking it seriously and it's only going to be one bad experience and no more," Sainz, a reporter for TV Azteca of Mexico, told reporters outside New Meadowlands Stadium just before kickoff [in game 2 days after incidents]. ... Sainz said she "never heard something sexual" from the players, but noted one called her a "bonita señorita."

(Reported in NY Daily News) that Sainz said to DeporTV:

I want to make clear that in no moment did I even feel offended, much less at risk or in danger while there. I entered the locker room and there were some comments and some games. A colleague came up to me to apologize for what was happening, for the things that were going on, since obviously they were making jokes about me. It was simply a situation that got out of hand. I waited for the interview with Mark Sanchez, we did it and it turned out great...the next day the press is reporting that I was a victim of harassment and inappropriate behavior by the Jets. The owner, Mr. Johnson called me to apologize for his team’s behavior. In no moment did I feel attacked or subjected to anything really offensive. ... I gave them[NFL security] a detailed explanation of what happened I even showed them our tape where you can see how everything happened.

Via Twitter:

What I can tell you is that in the moment I didn't want to give it any importance and I wasn't paying attention, but ... the other media clearly heard and in a show of solidarity made a complaint, looking to ensure that there's always an environment of respect!! // Some of the media are saying that I was dressed inappropriately with the Jets! I was (dressed) exactly like this.

(Some quotes from CNN.com) to CNN:

I accept the apologies [from Woody Johnson], and I said thanks to him for the concern and all the rest of the team, because he promised that he is going to make everybody on his team respect … women. And I think the important point is that women deserve respect in any profession, so I think it's going to happen. ... I think that it’s not good that this kind of thing happened, and it mustn't happen anymore. I'm agreeing with the idea that it's good that everybody knows that a woman or a man deserve the same treatment in the locker room. ... I try not to hear anything, try not to pay attention. My cameraman told me, 'Don't look on the right, don't look at the left. But I really feel the noise and all the environment was talking about me. One colleague – one female colleague – came with me and [told] me, 'I'm so sorry. It mustn't happen. It's not OK. So I tried to calm her. … I really know that she [heard] something that I didn't hear, and the rest of the media … heard things that I didn't really hear. So I really appreciate the concern about it.

Wrt Sanchez's joking tone, in Sainz's words to her colleagues:

It was definitely a joking tone, very amicable. I wasn’t offended.

To TV Azteca:

I was surprised to wake up on Sunday and have a call from the NFL , saying that they wanted to talk to me about what had happened at the Jets; and I asked… what happened? And they said well there is a pretty powerful accusation of harassment and then it was at that point I realized the magnitude of what had happened.

(Some quotes at in FoxNews.com): According to Sainz, things players said:

(1) "I want to play with a Mexican," (2) "Eres muy guapa" (Spanish for: "You are very beautiful"; about which, Sainz commented): I didn't want any part of it. I heard the noise. I knew they were talking about me. I was just focusing on my job and hoping that Mark Sanchez was coming soon so I could interview him.

To recap: Sainz heard jocularities she was not offended by; reporters complained of sexual comments she had not heard.

Op-ed by Maegan La Mala, published by 2 Mujeres Meda:

(La Mala): "Why is the U.S. media showing pictures of Sainz in bikinis and not the actual interview she did with Sanchez or any other interview for that matter? ... ...Sainz has said in every interview I have seen, and I have watched interviews in English and in Spanish, that she did not hear everything that was said, that she heard a few comments and noticed the tense atmosphere but that other women in the locker room heard offensive comments."

(Quotes in USA Today) to the AP:

Of course you feel it when you are being stared at and when you are being spoken of in a certain way. I opted to ignore it ... I tried to not even pay attention.

Part 2: NFL's conclusions:

According to the AP (continued):

"The NFL came to its conclusion after interviewing 17 people who were present — including Sainz.... ---- Goodell said Sainz explained that her postings on Twitter while in the locker room reflected her 'general lack of comfort in that setting, and were not related to any specific act, comment or gesture directed to her by any member of the Jets organization.' He said she also told the NFL she had not seen or heard any catcalls, sexually explicit or offensive comments or gestures directed at her, 'and did not believe she was subjected to any improper conduct.' Goodell's letter said Sainz 'did not believe that the activity in the locker room interfered with her ability to do her job (namely, obtaining an interview with Sanchez), and did not identify any member of the Jets organization who did anything that was in her view improper. That being noted, Sainz did state that the locker room environment "could have been better."' ---- The letter said other reporters in the locker room described the atmosphere as 'juvenile, immature, high school,' but 'not over the top.' ---- 'Others agreed that the atmosphere was not hostile, that no obscene or lewd comments or gestures were made and that nobody had physical contact with Sainz, that Sainz did not appear concerned, disturbed or troubled by what was going on around her, and that nobody had difficulty doing his or her job.' However, the letter also said the atmosphere in the locker room was described as 'unprofessional, uncomfortable, and disappointing.'"

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 07:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] 

On October 15, 2010

It was release that Ines said she won't go into locker rooms anymore. "I'm not going into the locker rooms anymore. It's not a good place right now for me. I don't want to be in there. I need to wait one month to work again because I don't want to be the focus," she said. "I'm not looking for that kind of publicity. It affects my career and development in the States." "I like to look good, but that in no way makes me any less dedicated to the sports journalism world," she wrote to Goodell. "I'm proud of being a woman and I'm not shy about hiding it. However, this in no way makes me any less of a professional."

Comment[edit]

Another point. Ideally a translator or even a linguist would be utilized when taking testimony even in cases where the witness's English proficiency is good but not perfect. For example, Sainz said "never so rude" when asked during her interview on CBS if she had ever heard such comments before, and later CBS News selected this lone quote from out of everything else Sainz had said to use in their headline of the news piece they published on the intervew. I know a lot of people whose native language is Spanish and almost all of them, prior to a high-level of mastery of English, use "so" to mean "very," which in this context produces a meaning at variance to what would normally thought to be indicated by this word. Theoretical example:

Q) "Have people previously ever yelled out comments to you?"

A) <using a substitution of the word very for so> "Never very rude."

Such difficulty in determining the degree of precision applicable to Sainz's individual responses in English to questions asked of her provide yet another reason to take all of Sainz's comments in totality rather than interpret too much from one phrase or response taken alone. Therefore, I think teensy snippets drawn from Sainz's random interviews about the events should be given less weight than the intensive and careful examination of Sainz's experience and reactions as conducted by the NFL.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

Shouldn't this article be called "Inés Sainz" rather than "Ines Sainz"? Her name seems to be written as Inés throughout the article, and in references. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 21:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

see [1] - although I dont know if that is a valid representation and application of Wikipedia policies. Active Banana ( bananaphone 22:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant guideline at wp:EN confused me:

The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works).

--because, since English doesn't use diacritic marks, where are these sources supposed to exist that would use them? Which, I suppose, answered my question: That is, I guess if a subjuct is known in the English-speaking world, don't use them; if s/he isn't, go ahead? (Actuallly, I'm still confused here.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further down the page says, "...[F]ollow the conventions of the language in which the entity is most often talked about (German for German politicians, Turkish for Turkish rivers, Portuguese for Brazilian towns etc.)"--so my guess is right. Still, that information should be right in the lede, I think. I'll mention this on the guideline's talkpage.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
English does sometimes use diacritics (for example, François is normally spelled with its cedilla); in other cases, this English wikipedia should avoid them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ines Sainz → Inés Sainz — wp:EN#No established usage says to "[F]ollow the conventions of the language in which the entity is most often talked about (German for German politicians, Turkish for Turkish rivers, Portuguese for Brazilian towns etc.)" Sainz is primarily known as a Spanish-language media personality and only very secondarily as someone responding to questions in the English-language media. Hence, per the guideline above, the diacritic mark as her article's title name would be most encyclopedically appropriate.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • [Very strongly] Oppose. That sentence applies to a rare condition, which does not occur in this article: "It can happen that an otherwise notable topic has not yet received much attention in the English-speaking world, so that there are too few English sources to constitute an established usage. If this happens, follow..." That is not the case here, and the several English sources for the article spell her Ines. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, PMAnderson. --Well, then, if no-one objects, I will [eventually] withdraw the request.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. It is possible that other sources exist which show that it is normal to use the accent, even if the newspapers don't. But if nobody finds some, the request will be closed next week anyway. 19:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong support That's her name, I wanted to move this yesterday, but the page needed to be deleted. TbhotchTalk C. 23:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    1, 2, and most important 3 show that her name is Inés. If people does not have the ´ is not the problem of Wikipedia. TbhotchTalk C. 23:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those share a common factor: none of them are in English. By the same reasoning, we could demand that es:Londres should be moved to es:London, "because it's the name of the city". So it is - in English; but that's why our article titles aren't names; they are what it is convenient to call the article for readers in the lanquage concerned; Spanish for the Spanish wikipedia; English here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you are saying that we should move Felipe Calderón to Felipe Calderon because this is English wikipedia, oh really onteresting. BTW, you want an English source is not difficult to find them. TbhotchTalk C. 02:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a straw man; it is not difficult to show that Calderón is the normal spelling in English. It is policy to consider such matters case by case; we should ignore those who inflexibly insist on Spanish spellings and those who inflexibly reject them - and follow what English sources actually do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I really, don't understand why you are trying to keep this as it is, if you justify yourself saying that "This is English Wikipedia" or "Those are the rules", JUST IGNORE THEM, this change won't stop the world. You said that "we can request that Londres must be moved to London on es.wiki; no one on the Spanish world call Londres "London", unlike Inés Sainz in the English world. TbhotchTalk C. 18:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • People always ignore the very important second portion of that policy: we can ignore the rules if they are preventing us from building a better encyclopedia. Dont see that that actually applies here. Active Banana ( bananaphone 17:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's her name. Multiple examples of Latin American people like her on Wikipedia. --John KB (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The first reference is to a New York Daily News article. The Daily News seems to have a policy, perhaps implicit, of indiscriminately stripping diacritics, even when it is common to include them. For example, in the top 50 pages returned by doing a Google search for site:nydailynews.com "felipe calderón"[2], only two of them spell his name with the diacritic. So the absence of a diacritic in Sainz's name in Daily News references tells us only that that paper doesn't use diacritics generally, and tells us nothing about how Sainz's name in particular is written in English.
        The only instructive sources, then, are those that include diacritics where they are generally included in English, such as in Felipe Calderón or Besançon, but omit them where they are generally omitted in English, such as in Mexico or G.F. Handel. I haven't checked any of the other English-language sources that have been argued to support Ines Sainz over Inés Sainz, but until someone shows that these sources do not simply strip diacritics arbitrarily--or use them in words even when the conventions in English for the respective words is not to use them--we have no basis to argue that there is a convention for writing Sainz's name in English either with or without the diacritic.--Atemperman (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-Article in NY Daily News: "Motley Crue Frontman Vince Neil Arrested on Suspicion of DUI in Las Vegas"
-Article in NY Times: "Mötley Crüe Files Suit Against NBC for Banning It Because of an Expletive"
-Blurb from HarlperCollins, publisher of an autobiobiography of the band: "Motley Crue was the voice of a barely pubescent Generation X"
-Text from the book itself: Mötley Crüe
-From entry for "heavy metal" in the Encyclopædia Britannica: "A wave of 'glam' metal, featuring gender-bending bands such as Mötley Crüe and Ratt, emanated from Los Angeles beginning about 1983...."

-Book sold by Amazon: Ines of My Soul
-Book authored by Allende: Inés of My Soul

-From the NYT: "'I do think The [Hollywood] Reporter lost a lot of its luster,' said Lorenza Munoz, an adjunct professor of journalism at the University of Southern California...."
-From the NYT: "Andrew Muñoz, a public affairs official at the Lake Mead National Recreation Area, said that the economic downturn had led to a steady influx of repo men hunting Lake Mead’s marinas for craft whose owners are delinquent...."

-How the NYT styles names of Mexican reporters: "The authorities have confirmed only one of the disappearances, that of Miguel Ángel Domínguez Zamora of Reynosa’s newspaper El Mañana, who disappeared March 1. ... Ciro Gómez Leyva, the news director at Milenio...."
-An example of how it occasionally styles the name of a person that we thought apparently had slightly anglicized his name's orthography: "José Canseco [the former baseball star] was detained by authorities for nine and a half hours Thursday after they found a small amount of human chorionic gonadotropin, a controlled substance, in his possession as he tried to enter the United States from Mexico...."

-This is how the NYT styles Cesar Chavez.
-This is how Wikipedia styles César Chávez.

-From The New Yorker: "...since President Felipe Calderón’s aggressive drug offensive..."
-Also: "...Jose Canseco: former American League M.V.P., Madonna’s onetime 'bat boy,' best-selling author..."
-Again: "...not...a “matinée idol, ... Catsimatidis was wearing White House cufflinks given to him by Ronald Reagan, but a few of the pictures on the wall—of Fidel Castro (for whom he built a Greek Orthodox church) and César Chávez—seemed to hint at a more left-leaning past. 'I supported César,' Catsimatidis said. 'His people still call us. It wasn’t the unions. It’s that the pesticides they were using on that food were killing my customers.' Another photograph showed Bill Clinton talking closely with an attractive blond woman—Catsimatidis’s wife, Margo. 'That one was in the National Enquirer,' Catsimatidis said. 'I’m sitting on the other side. They cropped me out.'"
-Again: AVATAR ... "An ex-Marine (Sam Worthington) in the shape of a Na’vi—an avatar—is sent to spy, but he falls in love with a warrior princess (Zoë Saldana).... ... NINE ... The singers are a distinguished company: Sophia Loren, Penélope Cruz, Nicole Kidman, Kate Hudson, Fergie, Judi Dench, and Marion Cotillard, with the laurels divided between the last two."

-Profile in NYT: "One of Spain's foremost leading ladies of the 1990s, Penélope Cruz has managed to make her mark with international audiences as well."
-Lede of Britannica bio: "Penélope Cruz, in full Penélope Cruz Sánchez (b. April 28, 1974, Madrid, Spain), Spanish actress known for her beauty and her portrayal of sultry characters. She achieved early success in Spanish cinema and quickly established herself as an international star."--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • oppose move We follow what reliable sources do. The English language sources that we are using in our article do not use the diacritic version. Active Banana ( bananaphone 17:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an experiment, I'm going to search each publication listed above and list its most recent hit in 2002 for "Penelope" [C.].
  1. Sep 22, 2010 LATimes: " Quiz: Who won Oscars for foreign-lingo roles? Seven actors...two women speaking Italian and Penelope Cruz...."
  2. Feb 11 WSJ Speakeasy: "Actress Penelope Cruz may team up with Johnny Depp for 'Pirates of the Carribbean: On Stranger Tides'...."
  3. Sep 14 WaPo Celebritology 2.0: " Penelope Cruz and husband Javier Bardem are expecting their first child...."
  4. Sep 20 Daily Telegraph's Stars & Stories section: "...while Spain was still revelling in its dramatic World Cup win, Javier Bardem was...celebrating his recent marriage to...Penelope Cruz."
  5. July 14 Latina magazine: "When we heard about Penelope Cruz and Javier Bardem's top secret Bahama's wedding...."
  6. (Note: I couldn't find any hits from CBS's Sports website, so I've substituted their news site.) July 18 CBS News 60 Minutes: "Penelope Cruz. In a rare interview, the Spanish starlet opens up about her life, career and childhood. Charlie Rose reports."
  7. Sep 14 NPR Monkey See blog: "...Penelope Cruz and Javier Bardem are now expecting the world's best-looking baby."

  1. Sep 24 Miami Herald's People section's Celebrity Roundup: "Spanish stars Penélope Cruz and hubby Javier Bardem are expecting their first child (but also note that in the piece's headline, the "acute" over the second e in Penelope's name is lacking).
Score, 7–1; obvious conclusion: Generally, no accenting over vowels in English, even in Spaniard's names.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have recreated Inés Sainz as a redirect to this article, just as an aid to readers searching for that name. It can be deleted in the event that this article is renamed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sainz's 1st English-language gig[edit]

--Is to be the upcoming pay-per-view Pacquiao--Margarito fight.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth[edit]

Please keep her date of birth: September 20, 1978. It is found on Espanol Wikipedia. http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/In%C3%A9s_Sainz_Gallo

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. And that article doesnt have any reliable source for their claim. Active Banana (bananaphone 21:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Inés Sainz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Inés Sainz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Inés_Sainz&oldid=1207056515"