Talk:Matt Araiza

tense

Please change are to were. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done Qwaiiplayer (talk) 04:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

STATUSQUO in Lead dispute

 Content warning: this discussion contains content about sexual violence/rape.

Regarding this edit summary left by User:Bluerules, multiple WP:RS clearly and unambiguously call the lawsuit an issue of "gang rape." The first instance of it appearing in the lead refers to it as "gang rape". It said rape before you edited it without explanation. Per WP:STATUSQUO, you should not revert away from the status quo ante bellum until a consensus is established. The situation that existed before the dispute is either rape or gang rape, not sexual assault. Kire1975 (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

First of all, our own article on "sexual assault" literally identifies "rape" as a form of sexual assault. To treat rape or gang rape as completely separate from sexual assault is completely false. Rape and gang rape are sexual assault. Secondly, I never edited "sexual assault" without explanation. And thirdly, you are omitting my earlier edits. I put in sexual assault yesterday with the explanation that is the more proper term. Cornersss changed it to rape without explanation. I changed it back again with the explanation that it is the proper term. Bluerules (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

You declaring something is "proper" without referring to WP:RS is begging the question. Your edit summaries give no reasons, so they are not reasonable explanations. The charge is rape according to AP, USA Today, the San Diego Union-Tribune, NBC, CBS Sports, the New York Times and ESPN. Four edits in one day - here, here, here and here - is more than enough according to WP:3RR. If you are here to WP:BUILDWP, it is time to let the consensus do its work. Kire1975 (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

"The charge is rape"

And therein lies another inaccuracy. There is no charge. This is a civil case, not a criminal one. Anyways, I don't think anyone else would argue that rape is not sexual assault and that sexual assault is not the common legal term. Unlike the editor who changed "sexual assault" to "rape", I have given this reason in all of my summaries. You may not like it, but I gave my reason and "rape" is not the proper term here.

I did extra digging into California and Azaria is officially accused of "sexual battery". The lawsuit cites Civil Code 1708.5, which is when "a person commits a sexual battery". In that respect, I am open to changing the wording to "sexual battery", but if the sources say the claim is "rape", then that means he is accused of sexual assault. In California penal code, the overarching term for crimes of this nature is "sexual assault". Bluerules (talk) 04:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The first cause of action in the lawsuit complaint is sexual battery by "rape" and other "harmful and offensive touching of her sexual organs." The RS's report rape. You being open to "changing the wording" to anything but rape is unjustified WP:ORIGINAL research and it shows you are not here to build consensus. See also WP:NOTCENSORED. Kire1975 (talk) 16:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The first cause of action in the lawsuit complaint claiming "rape" is Civil Code 1708.5. As demonstrated by the official California law code, Civil Code 1708.5 never specifically says "rape". The actual, official code is "sexual battery", not "rape". You repeatedly asked for sources and when I provided one, you disregarded it and shifted to a new a guideline to hide behind. But this is not original research. This is the actual California statue, the code being cited in the lawsuit, and it does not specifically say "rape". It describes what is considered as "sexual battery". You accuse me of not here to build consensus, but won't even acknowledge the information I provided. Bluerules (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

You should also lay off the WP:PERSONALATTACKS like your first two sentences there. Kire1975 (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

You should look at your own comments before telling others to lay off personal attacks. When you make false statements and accusations about me, I'm going to respond accordingly. Bluerules (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Casting aspersions about my honesty is the WP:PERSONALATTACK I am referring to. Warning level 2. Kire1975 (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

You said I edited the page "without explanation" when I gave an explanation for all of my edits on this issue and did not use my earliest edit, making it look like "rape" appeared in the lead before "sexual assault". And I didn't say you were dishonest; I said your statements / accusations were inaccurate / false. You can't hide behind Wikipedia policy when you're not telling the full story. Bluerules (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The lead said rape before it said sexual assault. It said "gang rape" before it said rape. I put that in the top comment in this thread after you threw out the WP:STATUSQUO policy in this edit summary. I'd be happy to correct any inaccuracies in my statements, but you haven't provided evidence of any. Kire1975 (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The lead did not say "rape" before "sexual assault". You did not use my earliest edit on this subject - again. The lead actually said sexual assault first. It was changed to gang rape, then I changed it back to sexual assault. That edit from me predates rape being added without explanation. Therefore, the lead actually said "sexual assault" before "gang rape" and "rape". I changed it back to sexual assault and that's where the dispute began - from me bringing back the older wording. And you said I edited the article without explanation, despite there clearly being an explanation in my edit summary ("Sexual assault is the proper legal term."). That's evidence of inaccuracies, whether you accept it. Bluerules (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

...whether you accept it. That's a personal attack, level 3 warning.

This is the first time I'm seeing sexual assault in the lead first. You could have posted it earlier, instead of accusing me of being inaccurate over and over.

Sexual assault was used once without sources. The very next edit changed it to gang rape with sources and it stayed that way until you decided it was improper. Saying something is "proper" is an explanation, but it's not a reasonable one. Kire1975 (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

1. You've been making personal attacks against me this whole time. Don't pull a policy you're guilty of.

2. You posted "sexual assault" being changed to "gang rape" in the revision history before I did and simply didn't notice it. Furthermore, it was inaccurate to say "rape" was used before my first edit on this subject (which I provided evidence of) and it was inaccurate to say my edit was without explanation when I gave explanation in my edit summaries.

3. Citations are not needed for the lead when they are in the body. If there is indeed a connection between rape and sexual assault, then the existing sources supported the "sexual assault" wording. And, as the California law demonstrates, sexual assault is the overarching crime. Bluerules (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

1. For example?

2. a) I've acknowledged that. b) You are being inaccurate here. c) Inaccurate again.

3. The citations and edits in the body said rape the whole time. Per MOS:LEAD: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. Kire1975 (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

1. "you are not here to build consensus"; "And thank you for acknowledging that you haven't been reading the Wikipedia policies."

2. a) This is not the main issue. b) You cited this edit of me changing "rape" to "sexual assault" when my actual first edit occurred before the change to "rape" and the change to "rape" was without explanation. You did this twice beforehand and edited this response to use the wrong edit a third time. c) Anyone who clicks on these links to the article edits can see the explanations I left for my edits. Your new link is not connected to article edit and was made after you made the inaccurate statement. I don't understand how this can be argued.

3. Per MOS:LEAD: If sexual assault and rape are indeed connected, as you previously implied, then the citations for "rape" support "sexual assault". Like I said, the overarching crime in California is "sexual assault". Bluerules (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

1. You clearly haven't read WP:NPA#WHATIS if you think those are personal attacks.

2. a) Why did you make it one? b) so what? c) Saying something is proper is not a reasonable explanation for an edit. It's a statement of opinion. Why are you talking about me copyediting my own edits?

3. This line of questioning is pure WP:GASLIGHTING. Stop WP:GAMING the system. The consensus has already been decided. Kire1975 (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

1. You clearly haven't read WP:NPA#WHATIS because one example is "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." and that's what those comments were doing.

2. a) That's not about my own edits - why didn't you notice what your own link said? b) "So what?" You linked the wrong edit from me three times (the third time occurring while you claiming I was inaccurate), creating an inaccurate depiction of what occurred. c) You never said "reasonable explanation". You said I "edited it without explanation". That is inaccurate. The links you added were the incorrect edit from me and an edit that is not relevant to the inaccurate statement you made.

3. You flat-out said "no one" is treating rape or gang rape as completely separate from sexual assault. If that is true, then sexual assault is supported by the sources. The real issue here is not about the sources, but which wording is preferred. I'm not arguing against the consensus, but your focus on sources is still incorrect when "sexual assault" was supported by sources. Other editors simply preferred "rape" and that's not for me to argue. Inaccurate comments about me and personal attacks are for me to respond to. Bluerules (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

To treat rape or gang rape as completely separate from sexual assault is completely false. No one is doing that. Kire1975 (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Your argument from the onset was "sexual assault" was uncited. If you're not treating "sexual assault" as being separate from "rape", why was there a citation issue? Bluerules (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Which source did you cite? Kire1975 (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Which source doesn't support the "sexual assault" statement if it's not completely separate from "rape"? Bluerules (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I think you folks are going to remain deadlocked 1-1 until someone else comes along, joins the conversation, and breaks the tie. So I will do so and I am going to side strongly with Kire1975 on this one. I do agree that in general the use of sexual assault has gotten more common in general usage than rape in recent years. However rape IS a legitimate legal term in California that is still in use: California Penal Code (PC) 261. PC 261 is specifically mentioned in the complaint against Araiya--see [1]. Indeed, in the complaint that seems to be driving the recent actions against Araiya, the word "rape" appears 15 times and "sexual assault" appears only once. The lawsuit is not a pro se action but appears to be filed through a competent law firm. As such I would contend, in support of Kire1975 and in strong disagreement with Bluerules, that rape is the correct legal term here, at least in the jurisdiction in question (California). Dash77 (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll also jump in and second this - most news sources clearly identify the accusations as "rape" and the lawsuit too. Using "sexual assault" actually blurs/diminishes the allegations for no apparent reason. The article should be corrected to use the term "rape". AlanTheScientist (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

As I've noted above, the code cited in the lawsuit is "sexual battery". And I do not see how sexual assault, which is the penal code for these types of crimes, "actually blurs/diminishes the allegations for no apparent reason". There is nothing nice or pleasant about the term "sexual assault" - and again, the penal code is "sexual assault". If we were going by the penal code, "sexual assault" would be correct. Bluerules (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Penal Code 261 specifically uses the word "rape", and Penal Code 261 is specifically referenced--twice--by the lawsuit against Araiya, in addition to the word "rape" being used 15 times. ([2]) Dash77 (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Penal Code 261 is not relevant because this a civil case, not a criminal case. As demonstrated on the first page of the lawsuit, the "rape" accusation cites Civil Code 1708.5, not Penal Code 261, as part of the complaint. The official California law trumps an attorney's interpretation of the law. Civil Code 1708.5, the actual law being cited, never explicitly says "rape". It says, "sexual battery". Bluerules (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Like I mentioned above, the lawsuit is citing Civil Code 1708.5, not any penal codes. While the lawsuit says "rape", Civil Code 1708.5 does not. It says, "sexual battery" and describes what is considered sexual battery. Therefore, "sexual battery" is the correct legal term due to this being a civil case. And even if this was a criminal case, "sexual assault" is the overarching penal code. Penal Code 261 is "Crimes against the person involving sexual assault". Bluerules (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I think you may need to revisit the lawsuit again, whose URL I posted above and will do so again now--[3]. In that lawsuit, Penal Code 261 is mentioned twice, and PC 261 does specifically use the word "rape". By contrast Civil Code 1708 is mentioned only once. Dash77 (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The number of times a California law is stated is not relevant to the lawsuit itself. What is relevant is what the defendant is accused of. The lawsuit specifically cites Civil Code 1708.5 as the basis for the "rape" complaint. Not Penal Code 261, but Civil Code 1708.5. Civil Code 1708.5 is what Araiza is accused of violating in regard to "rape" and Civil Code 1708.5 does not specifically use the word "rape"; it uses "sexual battery". Bluerules (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

If an editor consistently demonstrates behavior similar to that shown in the following examples in a certain article talk page, then they probably have issues with page ownership. See examples 2, 3, 4 and 6 here: WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Kire1975 (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I have provided evidence of California law explicitly stating what Araiza is accused of. You keep throwing out Wikipedia policy, but aren't actually contesting the contents of California's official law page. Bluerules (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Your persistent repetition of what you consider to be "California law" does not trump the RS cited above and the language of the lawsuit itself. Kire1975 (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Your persistent refusal to acknowledge the RS for California law does not change what California law says. The RS being cited is not what I "consider" California law; it is the actual, official law. It is what the lawsuit and its language are based off of and therefore, it does trump the lawsuit. It provides the actual statute Araiza is accused of violating. Bluerules (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

And thank you for acknowledging that you haven't been reading the Wikipedia policies. Kire1975 (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

And thank you for acknowledging you don't understand the Wikipedia policies. You're not arguing against my points; your response has been to throw out policies and insult. Bluerules (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

If the relevant thing is what the defendant is accused of, then you need to once again review the lawsuit. The very first word under "Complaint for" is "rape". You seem to somehow be coming up with shifting arguments that somehow Araiza is not being accused of rape. I don't know how much plainer the attorney who filed the case can be--he used the word "rape". You seem to be saying that not only are the three people on here who disagree with you mistaken, but that a competent attorney used the wrong legal term when he specifically used the word rape.

The one thing I do agree with you is that, yes, what the defendant is accused of is indeed relevant. But the defendant is indeed accused of rape, and that precise word was the very first word chosen by the plaintiff's attorney. Dash77 (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

You need to review the statue being cited by the lawsuit. I've never said Araiza wasn't accused of rape; I'm saying "rape" is not the proper legal term. The statute cited for "rape" in the lawsuit is Civil Code 1708.5. Civil Code 1708.5 never says "rape". The description of this statute may be interpreted as "rape", but it never outright says "rape". I don't know how much plainer the actual statute can be. The lawsuit is the attorney's interpretation of the law - the statue is the actual law.

The attorney didn't so much use the "wrong" term as he used an interpretation of Civil Code 1708.5. The wording of Civil Code 1708.5 may indicate "rape", but to outright say "rape" is still an interpretation of the law from the attorney. The actual law never says "rape". Bluerules (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Quick recap for anyone seeing all this now and hopefully to wrap up this discussion:

• Should we use "sexual assault" as a synonym for "rape"? No, one is included in the other but they're not synonyms.
• Is "sexual assault" a more common term to use? Again, seen more often maybe but not the same meaning. Also maybe seen more often because it includes more things.
• In this case what term do the referenced external sources use? Most talk about a "gang rape" or "rape".
• What term is used in the lawsuit? "Rape", 15 times (thanks our friend above for checking).
• What term is used in the law? CA Civil Code 1708.5 uses "sexual battery" as the technical category term and describes acts that could fall under the definition. So "rape" is a "sexual assault" (larger common term) and a "sexual battery" (larger legal term). But sexual battery is not necessarily rape.
• Would using "sexual assault" change/diminish the accusation? Yes, because it's broader and less specific. (Not assuming it was the initial edit intent here.)
• Does it really matter what technical term is used in the law? As pointed above, nobody would call that a "sexual battery" and it's more used as a category of acts. Rape further defines the accusation and there's no doubt will impact the rest of the lawsuit. Also we're not here to decide what ideal term the lawsuit should or should not have used anyway (lawyers and journalists are paid to do this). To give a quick example, I could accuse someone of "stealing blue candies". It wouldn't be for us to determine if it's the correct legal term, if the lawsuit might be rejected on this basis or anything else - it would be true to the lawsuit and to the external sources. That would be my angle of attack. That would be the accurate way to reflect this. We're here to summarise not filter.
• Yes but then we accept any accusation wordings? Well, in my blue candy example maybe some media would find it very strange to have it worded like this in a lawsuit and then external sources would publish articles and discuss the term, in this case we should reflect this. Same here, if any external source wanted to debate about the use of the term "rape" why not, but it's not our job to do so, this is too close to original research.
• So what's the blocker now? Assuming good faith here and it's healthy there's a mix of opinions but we should probably move past the "technical term" argument as I think we have a clear consensus nobody disputes the technical term but most of us (3/4) don't think it should be a blocker based on all the above. The maybe not perfect but most correct term used should be "rape".

Hope it's a fair recap and it will allow us to move on with this. Let's allow anyone who would like to bring new arguments or clarify anything before updating the article. Again assuming good faith here so please let's not engage in an endless yes/no debate around the technical term here as it's already been extensively discussed. AlanTheScientist (talk) 22:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Sexual battery is not the larger legal term. Sexual battery is the legal term for a civil case and sexual assault is the legal term for a criminal case. Since this is a civil case, the civil code (sexual battery) is being cited instead of the penal code (sexual assault). If this was a criminal case, then Penal Code 261 - sexual assault - would have been used. "Sexual assault" does not lighten the nature of the accusations against Araiza.

Under Penal Code 261, sexual assault is the overarching crime. Rape is cited as an example of this crime. If this was a criminal case and Penal Code 261 was the statue used, then the law would at least outright say "rape". The problem is, as noted above, this is a civil case and the statue Arazia is accused of never specifically says "rape".

I'm not going to change the article back to "sexual assault" as the consensus opposes this and I'm open to potentially going back to the earliest revision that used "gang rape" (since other individuals are accused). However, I still think we should at least consider what the law outright says as opposed to interpretations of the law, regardless of how accurate those interpretations may be. Bluerules (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Bluerules thanks for taking the time to engage in this discussion and for agreeing with the consensus - even if it can't be 100% perfect. Healthy debates like this make Wikipedia better! Again, I understand your point but it's not for us to do this analysis. AlanTheScientist (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

And that's fair. Even if I don't I always agree with the consensus, I'm not going to edit against what other editors decided was best for the article. Thanks for your comments. Bluerules (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Y Consensus found for now, article updated. Thanks Kire1975, Bluerules and Dash77 for flagging the issue, discussing it and finding a consensus! As every consensus, it's not set in stone so if anyone wants to reopen the discussion at any point please feel free to do so. AlanTheScientist (talk) 12:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The San Diego District Attorney’s office refers to the incident as “Sexual Assault Allegations’. Any other term by way of media or civil complaint is inaccurate as it pertains to criminal law. Araiza Facts (talk) 10:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Latest evidence

This article needs to make it clear that the DA has found that a video and multiple witness testimoney shows that the sex was consensual and that Araiza was not even present. The lede should say that he was falsely accused of gang rape. 152.130.15.3 (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The accusations are part of an ongoing lawsuit, which is separate from the DA's decision not to file criminal charges. —Bagumba (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Then the lede should say, "The DA concluded that the allegations were false, but the accuser continues to pursue the matter in civil court." This is a man's life here, and it needs to be clear in the lede that in criminal legal avenues, he has been vindicated. 152.132.10.198 (talk) 13:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed! How can this information be added in the "lede" while complying with Wikipedia rules and regulations? 2603:800C:3A40:6400:2945:8B51:2C1D:D8B2 (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I added to the lead that the DA did not press charges. It seems undue to get into more details in the lead, as mentioning one fact would require presenting counterarguments for WP:NPOV on the civil case. The details are in the body. —Bagumba (talk) 07:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Why are y'all like working overtime to hide the accuser's identity? This article does mention that he countersued her. He did that under her real name and the court documents for that are public record. They're not behind a paywall. You don't even have to register an account. And the evidence shows that if anyone was guilty of anything it was her so if anything he should be afforded the right to anonymity and she shouldn't, not the other way around.12.228.217.214 (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Per the WP:BLPNAME policy:

When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context.

—Bagumba (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)