Talk:Sean Yazbeck

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

Old, unsectioned comments

this article just needs some general cleanup, and some updating to reflect outcome of the show. No time right now. See also [1] Isoxyl 20:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the whole lied/misspoke thing -- probably we need to wait and see what Mr. Yazbeck says in light of the end of the show. It seems that he did some exaggerating, but may have been trying to give what he thought to be equivalent honors in the US to those he had earned in the UK? Anyway, I'm sure the truth will come to light; in the mean-time, there seem to be some POV problems with the article as written currently... Isoxyl 13:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


this is a resume posting!!!! someone edit this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.219.8.252 (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Southampton Institute is now called Southampton Solent University. The other University is called University of Southampton.

So both could be reffered to as Southampton University - although the most closest wording is to Solent Uni.

So does anyone actually know where he went? I suppose the Apprentice website could just reflect what he said on the show (and come to the same conclusion as me)

The two places are completely different. Although not in the upper echelon of universities Southampton is a solid uni.Southampton Institute/Solent Uni is of much lesser standing. When Sean was as Southampton Institute it was not even a university. It is therefore clearly a lie. There is also no valedictorian at British learning institutions. It may be that he considered himself the highest scoring graduate and as valedictorians often are that in the USA that he considered it an approximation. However scores are not given out at British Unis/Polys only grades of 1st 2nd and 3rd (and pass). So unless he was the only one with a first , which is once again unlikely considering his course and place of learning , he is basically lying about this as well.

You have pretty solid facts going for you, though I'd like to see links to a story with the verified facts from his Institute/Uni as well when they come out (which they must). One question I have for all Wikipedians reading this -- do we usually call people out for "lying" in their Wikipedia entries? From an encyclopedia perspective, I tend to think that we should soften the language somewhat, saying that on the episode(s) he "claimed" to be from Southampton Uni but was actually from the Institute-cum-Uni, or something like that? I agree that what he said may have been a lie, but it seems stylistically inappropriate to phrase it this way. Perhaps I am just being too soft, but I'm sure he will have to publically clarify his comments at some point. Thanks to all who have contributed. BTW, will all people discussing please sign with four tildes (~) to indicate your name and date when writing, at the end of your comments? Isoxyl 18:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are a plethora of sites that state that he attended Southampton Solent Uni here for example [2], while i don't think it is great lie, it is clearly a lie of sorts and i probably dont think it would deserve mentioning except he added the ludicrous valedictorian stuff. To add to this Southampton Solent was not a university when he graduated so technically he does not have a university degree at all. Its perhaps only of interest because lying about your qualifications for a job are usually grounds for dismissal. Anytime else it would just be rather silly behaviour. 68.71.35.93 12:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Solent University HAS confirmed he did graduate there - althougth it wasn't a Uni at the time the degrees were awarded by Nottingham Trent so he still holds a UK degree. And I am pretty sure he would have put the correct information of the PROPER applications they must have to hand in!
I wonder if he put that he was valedictorian on the application form. What i found most interesting is that in the final interview when the two men's academic records were examined that Yazbeck managed to "trump" an Ivy League graduate with a 4.0 GPA with his first from a college at the very bottom of the British academic system food chain , that aren't exactly frugal with their firsts anyway, and his phoney valedictorian status.
You have a good point there... It does seem like Yazbeck threw his credentials out there quickly so they wouldn't be questioned, and Lee's very impressive performance was somewhat trumped in the process.... but it seemed like that part of his qualification was only a formality, as Sean had done better in the final task and had more people cheering for him. I am still eager to hear if this information of the Uni/valedictorian hits the mainstream media and if Trump has anything to say about. Isoxyl 14:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i wonder that too. my feeling is Trump couldn't care either way and the last thing he wants is any negative publicity for his show. What i also find interesting is that in the final show no mention was made at all about the result of the final challenge or any real commentary on the ultimate performances of the teams. It was merely intimated that Lee's team selection was poor.68.71.35.93 17:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True! Isoxyl 17:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, the clear difference was that the Ivy League produced an idiot and clearly Sean was the better player!
Troll, yes, but I will say this. I don't think Lee was an idiot, but Sean beat him, no question. Isoxyl 14:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Clarified valedictorian comment

This London Times article goes into depth on the valedictorian issue. Sean Yasbeck apparently was the top-ranked student in his class at Southampton Solent University, which was equivalent to the American valedictorian. He used this term to effectively communicate this message to his American audience who was not acquainted with the British educational system.MRM 08:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per my initial statement, I was glad to see that Sean has actually gone on record attempting to make an equivalence between his rank at Southampton Solent and the American valedictory rank. So, that settles things nicely. I changed the link slightly to: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2219970_1,00.html the first page of the article. I think the Times article explains his thoughts on the matter. Despite this, I remain unconvinced that the top student at Southampton Solent is necessarily superior to a 4.0 from Cornell. I am well acquainted with the quality of Cornell and its students and know that getting a 4.0 is a tremendously hard feat. It may be that class rank of #1 is similarly difficult at SSU, but since others have questioned the position of SSU in the British educational system, I at least have that question in my mind. Regardless, clearly Sean was the better player and did not sufficiently 'misspeak' his credentials enough to allow me to imagine that Trump will be revisiting his 'hiring.' Whether or not he was the most "educationally qualified" person, he clearly had more and better work experience and pulled off a better final task -- and I think Trump picked the better player. Isoxyl 14:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid this is not really good enough. As i stated before you do not know who the top ranked student is in a British university class. the marks are simply not disseminated. He would have had no way of knowing if he scored better or worse than someone else who got a first in his year, and i gaurantee you that seeing he as he went to Southampton Institue there would have been others. In terms of comparing the two colleges you may as well compare a Big Mac with a five course meal from Gordon Ramsay. Why Yazbeck brought up the valedictorian statement at all is really the question because claiming to be a valedictorian from a British college means little or nothing, if he thought he was the best rated student he should have just said that.
Sean Yazbeck was the only student in his year at Southampton Solent University to take a first. This was verified by the university in a letter. He simply stated his school and his class standing. There was no intention on his part of equating his education with that of any Ivy League school. For any other concerns on this topic, email [email protected]. I did. I'm satisfied.MRM 09:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see this e-mail.I find it very hard to believe that a Media Studies course at a British Polytechnic only awarded one First in any given year. Further this from wikipedia's own definition of a valedictorian 'This antiquated title is based on the calculated total credits of grades (overall GPA), a senior vote, the amount of dedication to certain extracurricular activities, the academic weight of classes taken, or SAT/ACT scores.' It can be seen that academic success is not the only criteria for being elected valedictorian. Even if we are to believe the unlikely scenario that Yazbeck was the only student with a First in his year this doesn't explain why he invented non-existent awards for himself.
If you want to discuss his credientials, e-mail him at [email protected] yourself.MRM 13:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I know what his credentials are.

Re-inserted the clarification of the valedictorian comment

Feel that this clarification is necessary, given that the preceding statement makes it look like Sean Yazbeck was lying instead of making an analogy to the US system.MRM 12:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was lying.

That unsigned statement is a personal opinion.MRM 06:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please MRM tell me have you ever lived or spent any time in the UK? Southampton University is not the Institute he went to. It is ranked as one of the worst in the UK. He was clearly deceiving Trump, he has no way of knowing he was the top student, just that he got a first. Even if he was its ludicrous to state as he does in that article, that his education is equivilent to Lee's Ivy League one! So he lied, its not an opinion its fact.

The University of Southampton is the older and larger university. He did not say that he attended the University of Southampton. Above comment simply reiterates points that have been discussed and dismissed above. Please sign all comments with four tilde "~" marks.MRM 09:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He states he attended Southampton University, in the UK this would mean the University of Southampton, the same as Birmingham University is the University of Birmingham. Indeed do a search on Wikipedia for Southampton University and you will see where it refers you to. No these points have not been dismissed by you, you have just ignored them. Please explain to me any evidence that proves he was top in his year? Also you ignored my question about your level of understanding of UK academic institutions? As you dismissing other peoples evidence with statements such as "I know what his credentials are", I would like to know where you sourced this information, and can we see it? Ralphthebear 12:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at what has been done to the article it clearly has NPOV issues "Sean Yazbeck’s outstanding leadership and contributions to wins of his teams from the very first task stand out in this season of the Apprentice-even those weeks when he was not project manager" Its bad prose as well but far too gushing as are most of the statements in that section. Think it needs a total rewrite. Ralphthebear 12:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not submitted any unsigned comments in this section. If you examine the history of this page, you will note that the unsigned comment referenced above and all other came from IP address 68.71.35.93. MRM 13:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no published reference for my 6/13/06 comments, but anyone wishing to e-mail [email protected] can perform original research and recieve verification of those statements. What is the published source that provides empirical support that Sean Yazbeck was not the only first in his class or that 'Southampton University' is equivalent to 'University of Southampton' anywhere else other than Wikipedia where extensive cross-referencing on any potential search term is common- whether or not that is in common usage? The history shows that redirect was in place in 2004- long before Southampton Solent University existed.MRM 14:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok the unsigned comment wasnt yours and I apolgise, but you did state "There was no intention on his part of equating his education with that of any Ivy League school. For any other concerns on this topic, email [email protected]. I did. I'm satisfied." Please can you supply us with the content of this email" In the Times article he clearly does equate his education with Lee's (as an aside I am suprised at the Times for not challenging that)

I have emailed [email protected] asking for clarification on these matters, last night Sydney time, as yet no response. The matter of you questioning Southampton University always referring to University of Southampton, shows why you refuse to answer my question on your understanding of the UK. In the UK its just the way it is, indeed do a search in Google and see how the hits line up for Southampton University. The evidence is plain to see to a Briitsh person (myself, born and lived there for the first 25 years of my life) that it is deception. I ask you again what British knowledge are you bringing to this discussion? Ralphthebear 02:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at [3] as you will see the Student Union of the University of Sothampton is referred to as Southampton University Students' Union. Ralphthebear 03:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is taking up a lot of space for an issue that is being raised by only one person as far as I can see. For answers to more of your questions see MRM TALKMRM 10:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok there are actually a few people raising the points, as comments above are nothing to do with me. To be fair it could be thrown back at you that you are the only person defending him? I am confused as to why you are choosing to discuss issues regarding this article on your talk page? Surely it is relevent to this talk page?

If he not willing for what he emailed you to be public record that surely raises suspicion on to the content of his email. As stated I have emailed him on these matters and as yet, no response.

Even supposing he did take the only first a valedictorian is not be default the top student in the year. They are actively chosen by the institution, academia being the main component but also extra curriclum activites and general social standing being taken into account. As this person will address the graduation class.

I personally feel that there are clear lies but I have been convinced by Isoxyl position that we dont call people liars as the language is inapproriate. We point out that he stated this, which is not the case.

Just because Mark Burnett did not veto it, doesnt mean its not a falsehood.

Are you to suggest that because he has been interviewed by all these publications he actually visited all of these nations? Are you aware that interviews can bw conducted by phone etc? Or maybe even syndicated?

I don't care for Yazbeck but neither do I care for Bienstock either, it is very clear that you are a fan on Yazbecks. This is fine in itself but you have to be willing to work towards a balanced outcome, it seems clear you are not.

If Isoxyl could come back and take a look I think that would be apreciated as he/she brings a balanced view to proceedings. Ralphthebear 13:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think we both should stop responding here until there is a third party here. No one has added anything to this discussion page that was not original research or pure conjecture since Isodoxyl's last comment on June 12, 2005. No one but MRM, Ralphthebear, and the single unsigned IP address have added anything else since that time. Nothing that either of us will say could change the other person's opinion- I believe Sean and you do not. Feel that all this discussion since Isodoxyl's last comments on June 12th should be eliminated for these reasons. Feel that we should either leave the education section as is- or remove the valedictorian and SSU comments entirely.MRM 21:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will make a comment on Monday, but I can't until then! Thanks, I will read the comments then. Isoxyl 14:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He said he went to Southampton University he didn't. He said he was valedictorian , he wasn't. Saying he lied therefore isn't an opinion but a fact.68.71.35.93 17:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Rules for Biography of Living Persons

See

WP:VERIFY. Feel that to be in accord with this policy, my recommendations above are conservative.MRM 20:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Article changes

  1. Having looked at the article as it now stands, I would suggest deleting the cleanup-rewrite tag because it looks much better to me in general. I agree that it still could use a little work, but it's not terrible, in my opinion. I won't delete it myself, but suggest that the person who added it, or other participants in discussion, decide if it should be left in place. I would suggest leaving the general cleanup tag though.
  2. I have changed the wording slightly in reference to his claims to be
    WP:LIVING
    , is not the place for supposition of this nature. Furthermore, I believe that using the term "lie" is inappropriate, even if true, based on simple editorial practice for this kind of compendium of information. I agree with MRM's statement that unless he was explicitly convicted of this lie, or confessed to it publically, we should use not that language. I think the way it is worded now allows reader's to discern Sean's (stated) intent and also to infer from that a desire to deceive Trump, if they are so inclined, since both fit the facts. I added some explanation for whether his statement of "Southampton Univ" is a sign of deception as well. See what you think.
  3. I have removed the NPOV tag. I don't believe it is non-neutral at this point, but if you disagree, please argue here. I certainly don't have an agenda.
  4. Added general cleaning and wikilinking to the whole article. Isoxyl 15:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you very much Isoxyl. The article looks much better and is fair. However, there are no external references for the controversy- are there any authoritative sources that raise this issue other than here? Also, cites from the board room scene within the show might help elucidate some of these issues. Don't want to start this war all over again- so will paste my suggested revisions here for comment and wait 3 days. Here are some suggestions:MRM 23:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested text: In the finale he also stated that he had attended Southampton University. There has been some dispute as to the intention of Yazbeck in using this abbreviation of his school's name. Some speculate that he was intentionally implying to Mr. Trump and the audience that he had attended the much older and more distinguished University of Southampton, in order to compete with his opponent's Ivy League qualifications. This is an impression that Trump's action of equating the two candidates educational qualifications appears to justify. Others believe that Yazbeck was simply abbreviating the name for an American audience unfamiliar with the British educational system or that he may have simply misspoken the name in the heat of discussion. Yazback used both names for his alma mater in the board room scene, which leads credence to the latter argument.MRM 23:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, thank you very much Isoxyl.MRM 23:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, hope this satisfies everybody. Minor point, "lends credence" in the last sentence, and I might humbly suggest "lends some credence" because I don't believe it unequivocally answers the point. I suggest going ahead and adding that to the article, but feel free to wait for Ralphthebear or others to comment as well! Isoxyl 01:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I haven't been doing any looking, but I don't know of other sources to cite as you queried. I would suggest that if anyone has them, it would be good to include them here! Forward! Isoxyl 01:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point on the 'some credence' want to maintain that NPOV. MRM 08:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I’m Sean Yazbeck and I’m removing the misleading information recently entered under the heading “controversies” for the following reasons.


I never said I would marry Tammy. In The Apprentice 5 finale (June 5th 2006) Mr. Trump asked in quick succession if I was going to marry Tammy and then asked if I was in love. I answered yes to I’m in love. I never said I was going to marry her.


I graduated not only with First Class honors (the highest degree grade one can receive for a British degree) but also at the very top of my year. It was therefore decided by the show’s producers that it was better for me to translate this achievement to the American audience (who are unfamiliar with the British education system) as Valedictorian. Whilst this term is not in use in the British education system the fact that I received a First Class Honours and I graduated 1st place in my year does not make the comparison “controversial”.


I graduated from Southampton Solent University. This was stated: 1) in the plethora of application forms that all 1 million applicants for the show must fill out; 2) in the very extensive background searches NBC conducts on all applicants; 3) in every biographical marketing material NBC released to the world's media prior, during and after the show (for instance: http://www.nbc.com/The_Apprentice_5/candidates/bio_sean.shtml#main ); and 4) multiple times by myself on the actual TV show. There was never any doubt by Mr. Trump or the producers that I graduated from Southampton Solent University.


The winning margin was referred to as a "landslide". There was no “mixed feelings” from Trump employees. All stayed neutral. All except, Carolyn, who actually chose me as the winner. As for the other contestants, support was pretty evenly split for Lee and I. I received slightly more votes from the contestants than Lee, however, I fail to see how having some contestants support Lee and some support me is a “controversy”. According to this definition of “controversy” the only way it wouldn’t be a controversy is if Lee or I received 100% of the vote. Does the fact that the “landslide” vote I received from the US public not 100% make my winning controversial? This is a moot point.


(seanyazbeck 13:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC))

It has been suggested that this article or a section be merged with The_Apprentice_5. I don't believe this would be of any value to either of the articles. The_Apprentice_5 article is very detailed and doesn't need detailed biographical information on Sean Yazbeck or any of the other 17 members of The_Apprentice_5 cast.

69.84.96.5 05:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Apprentice World-wide WikiProject

Please contribute to the relevant discussion

here, as this discussion relates to this article. Thanks, Dalejenkins | 15:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Isn't he Muslim

Why doesn't the article mention that he is muslim. Whenever someone is a Jew, they credit them, make sure its written in the article, but whenever a muslim is succesfull, its overlooked or not mentioned. Can someone add it? --93.97.181.187 (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiographicial

This article has heavily been written and edited by the subject (distinctly against Wikipedia best practices). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autobiography This leads to an article which is more a resume and advert for the subjects company. Suggest it needs stripping down to cover the Apprentice win (the notable part of the subject) and major rework. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.137.253 (talk) 08:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


User 124.170.137.253: I have noticed that you have never entered into any discussion about any Wikipedia page other than this one. Is that correct?

Whilst I didn’t create this Wikipedia page (this was not a self created article) I contacted Wikipedia via [email protected] on Tue 12/05/06 8:44 PM asking for advice. There was an abundance of information (possible entered by people connected to the contestants of Apprentice Season 5) that was untrue, unsourced and libelous. It would appear the entries came from people with an agenda (please see above talk history).

Wikipedia agreed and posted a warning on this page about the policy on biographies of living persons. They then advised that I enter into the debate and edit the page and give reason and citations for my entries/edits. I did so under the approval of a Wikipedia editor and as part of the rules of editing a biography about yourself in “clear-cut cases”. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autobiography#Problems_in_an_article_about_you).

All the information on this page is factual, available throughout the internet and is verified with citations. The content of the page is very much the same as all other Apprentice winner’s biographies on Wikipedia (Bill Rancic, Kelly Perdew, Kendra Todd, Randal Pinkett, Stefani Schaeffer, Piers Morgan, Joan Rivers); Career; background/childhood, TV filmography etc.

Taking into consideration the unique history of this page and subsequent invitation to editing the biography what is it specifically that you are opposed to? Specifically what information is in dispute? Or deemed irrelevant? Or unverified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanyazbeck (talk • contribs) 00:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Please reread some of the pages you have quoted, it is not approiate for you to decide NPOV matters on your article, you can not have an NPOV on this article, although you may think you do, as is it stated in the guidelines.

There are several issues the most blatant being the list of companies worked with, this is just a pure vanity resume.

I will spend some more time on this article in the coming days and hopefully other editors will as well to improve the standard and NPOV of it.

I suggest the subject follows the guidelines and does not intefere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.21.90 (talk) 11:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sean_Yazbeck&oldid=1201367493"