Talk:University of Florida Taser incident

RE: Notability

After finally reading the allegations I've come to this conclusion: University Kids are attention hogs. If we exclude the "conspiracy" aspect, what is truly notable? The fact that he was Tased? Students KNEW officers had Tasers, any debate over Officers using Tasers is ex post facto. The fact that his freedom of speech was violated? There are millions of such cases, BETTER cases, that freedom of speech was violated. Or is it simply because a viral video gave him internet fame? The meme "don't Tase me bro"? Yes, this is what Wikipedia is for, viral videos and internet memes...

What we have here is an article featuring a SINGLE STUDENT. A student who none-the-less spawned a media scandal over nothing. Making allegations over whether or not he orchestrated it is speculative at best (NPOV). The facts are simple:

Meyer attempted to antagonize Kerry. No matter how you spin it, a series of rhetorical questions is an ad hominem attack (and debatable straw man attack to prevent your opponent from correcting the inconsistencies with your argument).

Meyer Resisted "Being Escorted off the Premises." Violation of your civil rights? Maybe, but thats what the Legal System is for. The "police" just uphold the law, you can't argue with them... even if you're right.

Meyer Resisted Arrest. Lets see, MLK, most famous for riots right? Rosa Parks famous for beating the crap out of officers right? No, famous Civil Rights Protesters knew better than to break any law but the one they protest. If they were found guilty of breaking it, so be it, but giving someone reason to become aggressive only leads to a media scandal and your cause is lost because of it.

Meyer Further Resisted Arrest. It SHOULD go without saying that the LONGER you resist arrest the more trouble you get into. It SHOULD go without saying that the MORE you resist the more force that will be used. It SHOULD go without saying... Unfortunately it doesn't.

Meyer Further Resisted Arrest and Made a Scene. The reason Meyer was Tasered probably had little to do with him resisting arrest as to WHERE he resisted. While it can't be argued if it was intentional or not but Meyer WAS making a scene of his arrest. Human Behavior tells us the longer it takes for him to be arrested the more likely people are to start rioting... it can't be ARGUED if he INTENDED to start a riot but the consequences of his actions would LIKELY cause one. THAT is why Meyer was Tasered so quickly, and if this information about requiring six officers to subdue him is accurate I don't see the problem. Which is greater? The safety of the officers or the safety of Meyers Bowels?

Again I press that this article is merely about a student who tried to antagonize his opponent, who got irritated and resisted being escorted out of the premises, further resisted arrest, and made a scene which may have induced a riot. The subsequent protests against Tasers were, undeniably, moronic***. Which really just leaves the internet meme.

My suggestion is to simply change the title to "Don't Tase me Bro" and scrap all this non-NPOV material revolving around his actions. Simply informing people that a guy was Tasered for resisting arrest is enough given most everything else is speculative and mearly attention getters. If knowing some clown was Tasered is STILL needed you can merge it with something like "list of clowns who were Tasered" (violates WP:List but w/e.

Bahh, the only reason I care is because after hearing this for the upteenth time from my roommate I finally checked it out and found out what I expected. Sure, I'm grounding my argument of notability based on Meyer's actions making him appear to be little more than a media puppet, but if "fame" is measured by the ability to do stupid things we are heading for a deep decline.

• • • University Students have no integrity... they weren't protesting against TASERS, they were protesting against the police's handling of Meyer. Why? Probably because they lead sheltered lives and have never seen police brutality (I'm quite serious here).

The simple fact that these protestors did not imagine what would happen if the police officers did not have Tasers only proves their protest was a function of popularity rather than reason. Tazing doesn't have as a residual effect as being beaten with a baton. Mace is even more hazardous than tazing. So if Tasers are banned, all that remains are hostile weapons. (And don't quote that BS Wiki Article about Taser Controvery... thats simply abuse of tasers, or police not being educated on propper use. There are additional complications with weak hearts, high electrolytes, pacemakers... but when you have how many deaths due to "police brutality" tasers are a gift.)

64.238.178.124 (talk) 01:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

State investigation

An executive summary of the report is available here. Revolutionaryluddite 21:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Police cleared

Police cleared http://www.miamiherald.com/top_stories/story/283492.html

Quotes:

• "The report from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, released Wednesday by the university, cleared UF police of wrongdoing in subduing Meyer, 21."
• "Gwen Kaster, a UF religion major, agreed. They should have beat him with some batons while they were at it, Kaster said."

William Ortiz 10:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone come out to criticize the police report? Seems pretty controversial, saying he staged it somehow, he would have had to magically know that the police were going to do that.76.182.88.254 21:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read anything like that. If you know of any reliable sources criticizing the report, go ahead and add them to the article. Revolutionaryluddite 00:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I read through the 17-page summary. On page 3, it describes an incident on September 11, 2007 when Meyer had an interaction with members of Gators for Rudy (Giuliani). Meyer had a verbal exchange/confrontation with a female student. Following this exchange, Meyer allegedly told an unidentified friend "that he should go to the Kerry Speech and he would really see a show" (quoted from the summary, not directly from Meyer). I don't know if "staged" is the correct wording, as 76.182.88.254 notes. I think the summary means that Meyer may have planned/intended the disruption, but not necessarily the Tasing. Flatscan 02:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are right, I don't think anyone thinks Meyer staged the tasing. I changed it to reflect more closely what the newspaper article says. If anyone still thinks it is wrong I propose finding a different source or saying "according to the Miami Herald" first. I think it would be better to avoid summing up the report summary on our own if we can get a secondary source. Ken E. Beck 02:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Meyer staging the tasing specifically, I inferred (perhaps incorrectly) that from 76.182.88.254's comment. I had read similar comments re: the UCLA Taser incident, e.g. "How could he possibly have known that the cops were going to Taser him?" In my opinion, "staged" implies a greater control over the situation than the summary states. Since the description in the summary is not compact, I agree that we must rely on secondary sources for concise wording. I would prefer an alternate source with wording more along the lines of "planned", "intended", or "purposefully caused" the disruption. I like your edit replacing "incident" with "disruption". Flatscan 04:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I edited the wording to "Meyer may have staged his disruption of the forum" to try to make it clear that, allegedly, the screaming and swearing by Meyer was an attempt to get attention while the tasering was not planned (again, allegedly). Revolutionaryluddite 05:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that original research? I thought he just became upset that, following Kerry's lecture (and the UF administration members' long response), the event organizers allowed so few student questions. He must have had his questions prepared for some time, and been dying to hear Kerry's answers to them, then saw it wasn't likely he was going to have an opportunity to ask them, and got agitated and decided he was going to speak up and insist that the event wasn't cut off before he got to ask his question. Badagnani 05:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Not OR, the Miami Herald article opens: "Andrew Meyer, the University of Florida student who was Tasered by campus police in September, may have staged the disturbance in an effort to disrupt a political forum at the Gainesville campus, a state police report concludes."[1] As Ken E. Beck suggests, we have the discretion of adding "according to the Miami Herald", but I think the statement is consistent with the released summary. Flatscan 12:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - The Miami Herald's being a notoriously right-wing newspaper notwithstanding, any newspaper editorial can say anything it wants. I don't know what proof they have that it was anything other than what it appeared to be, but, yes, if it seems necessary to repeat their conjecture, it should be stated who said it and in what context. Badagnani 18:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not an editorial, its an article by a Miami Herald staff writer. I don't think that including something like "According to The Miami Herald" is really necessary, but I really don't have much of an opinion on it. Revolutionaryluddite 21:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Student protest signs

I came across a photo of the "Taze Pigs" sign. [2] I searched and found an article with a list of signs:

The same day, about 300 UF students conducted a protest march at the Emerson Alumni Hall with signs such as, "Stop police brutality," "Taze Pigs," "Freedom of Speech not a Felony," "Tasers Kill," and Meyer's words, "Don't Tase me, bro." Their demand was the complete ban of tasers on campus and filing of charges against the involved police officers.[3]

There was a sentence listing the various signs in the Student response section, but it was eventually removed. If the lack of a source was the only reason for removal, I intend to restore it. Flatscan 13:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, perhaps it is time to overhaul the article, shorten the incident to a few lines. Are the police reports still needed as we know have fresh sources? Ken E. Beck 15:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

From the UF President's comment on the released summary [4], it sounds like the full report will be released once all personal information is redacted. I think we should prepare to do heavy editing, but starting now may be premature. Flatscan 00:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the sentence in the student response section about the various signs just because of the lack of sources. If you want, go ahead and restore it. Revolutionaryluddite 15:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Signs were depicted in photos that appeared in several articles. You removed all mention that signs were carried? That seems excessive and unnecessary. Badagnani 00:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The sentence only had one reference, which said that signs were carried but did not say that the signs read things such as "Tase the Pigs!". An extreme statement like that needs an RS, which Flatscan just recently found. Revolutionaryluddite 01:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The signs' text were added with these edits: [5] [6] and removed with these: [7] Looking at the sources cited in the historical revision, the removal was proper. Flatscan 04:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You removed text saying that signs were carried? That still seems excessive and unnecessary. Badagnani 04:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A sentence stating that Flordia students made the extremist message "Tase the Pigs!" needs an RS. Revolutionaryluddite 23:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I asked. I asked, "You removed text saying that signs were carried?" Badagnani 23:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Please look at the edits Flatscan pointed out. Revolutionaryluddite 23:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The sentence's content was not supported by the reference-- so the sentence was truncated. Revolutionaryluddite 23:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)H

Here is the Gainsville Sun article that says students yelled tase the pigs [8] Ken E. Beck 12:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I finally made the change, adding back the signs' text. Flatscan (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Meyer apologizes in letter

AP article at MSNBC

The Independent Florida Alligator has more detail:

[Robert Griscti, Meyer's attorney] said Meyer didn't plan his outburst, as the UPD report might have suggested. However, Meyer's remark to officers in the police car, when he said they "did nothing wrong," was accurate. Meyer had no animosity toward individual officers, Griscti said. [9]

Flatscan 22:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

His police car video has also been released: Click 128.227.50.17 03:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

According to The Gainesville Sun, Meyer's letters of apology are specified by a deferred prosecution agreement:

Meyer, according to the agreement, also is required to submit an apology to the UF community and the UF Police Department for his actions. Robert Griscti confirmed Monday that his client would issue multiple letters of apology Tuesday and withdraw from school until January. [10]

Flatscan 03:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Put it in the article. Meyer has also said that he is taking a leave of absence from his studies but plans to return to UF in January 2008. Badagnani 03:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Is a forced apology, under the threat of prosecution and punishment, anything other than a sick way to force a "confession" out of someone? Isn't this considered a very sinister form of oppression when it's done in other countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.31.178.226 (talk) 12:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps... but unless we have a source that discusses this aspect of the matter, we can not discuss it in the article. Blueboar (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Sarcastically

I don't agree that "Sarcastically" needs to be or should be in the transcript. For one thing the reader can watch the video and decide for himself. Secondly if the article shows that Meyer meant "thank you" sarcastically what about his question "Didn't you want to be President?" This likely may have been meant sarcastically as well. By not showing this was sarcastic do we mean to imply that it was meant in earnest? Rather then go through the transcript and assign meaning to each line, better just leave it out altogether. Ken E. Beck 14:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with this statement. The written word can provide only so much context in a transcript and this particular notation is essential to convey the exact meaning of what was said (in this case, the direct opposite of the words that were uttered). Badagnani 18:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

People make mistakes all the time in trying to assume they know what someone's tone of voice signifies. It's beyond subjective, it sounds extreme for an encyclopedia to project meaning beyond the face value of his words, at the end of the day no one can know what is in the heart of others, which is why there must be Freedom of thought as a human right. Slide Maintenance 18:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with, Badagnani. Taking out the word "sarcastically" inverts the meaning of the sentence and gives a blantly false impression of what he said. Of course, interpretation is subjective, but there isn't much room for other interpretations here. Revolutionaryluddite 02:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Meyer asked Kerry "Didn't you want to be president?" and Kerry's "So, you want to come up here?" ? I assume that these are sarcastic as well, and I make that judgment on my own without any editing help. By putting (sarcastically), in one sentence it implies that all the other statements were meant to be taken at face value which is likely not correct. Ken E. Beck 01:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Meyer's "Didn't you want to be president?" wasn't sarcastic. This is exactly why we say it is sarcastic when it is and why we don't say it when it isn't. Sarcasm doesn't communicate well in print at all. It does communicate well in audio. The reader will be confused if he reads "Thank you" without the sarcasm note to guide him. It's a nice aid. I say keep it. To User:Slide Maintenance, I would say that absolutely no one who watches the videos would ever disagree that Meyer was being sarcastic when he said thank you to the police officers he was being sarcastic. It's not subjective, it's a fact. If it wasn't, as is the case with the Kerry question, then we wouldn't put it in, which we haven't. Wrad 01:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "sarcastically" adds correct guidance to the reader, but I believe it fails OR. My objection applies to the transcript in general, but I haven't had time to compose an argument - I hope to write it as a new Talk section tomorrow. Flatscan 16:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, The thank you should say <ironic> (implies an attempt to be amusing or provocative by saying usually the opposite of what is meant) but I still think that "Didn't you want to be president", to a man who is know to have wanted to be President most of his life is sarcasm (sarcastic implies an intentional inflicting of pain by deriding, taunting, or ridiculing). What about "You spent a lot of time talking to us here today"? Ken E. Beck 02:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of seeming rude, I feel the need to ask whether you have seen the videos. Have you? I'm just trying to determine whether you're asking from the perspective of not having seen the videos and reading only the text, or whether you are using the videos in your interpretation, that's all. Either way is fine. Wrad 02:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"Ironically" might work; that's when the literal meaning is the opposite of the implied meaning. That is the case in this context. Badagnani 03:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If we want to show Meyer did not literally mean what he said, a source should be found and it should be explained elsewhere in the article. The transcript should be just that, the text of what was said. Ken E. Beck 17:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC

The source is the video. Anybody who sees it will know it was sarcastic. Wrad 21:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have watched the videos and I agree with you that there is little question, if any, that Meyer was being sarcastic (saying ironic is probably too pedantic)but we shouldn't be using the transcript to show what was meant, only what was said, if that.

Are we implying that, when he turned and thanked Kerry he was being sincere? Why is that? Tone of voice? or are we assuming he would not be rude to Kerry? In the case of the police the context makes it clear he wasn't grateful to have the mike shut off. In the case of Kerry context is less helpful. He may have been finished and sincerely thanking Kerry or he could have been blaming Kerry in part for having the mike shut off. Oddly we can only assign meaning when the meaning is already clear. Ken E. Beck 23:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Youtube video

Timneu22, if you read the comments for that video and watch it you will realise that it is biased. Please see WP:NPOV. Even if it wasn't it was posted in the wrong place in the article. It does not belong on here. DoyleyTalk 00:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

A third party's opinion: Yes, it is very NPOV - an opinion piece rather than a factual recording of the whole incident. Sbowers3 13:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll add also that for the most part, YouTube should not be linked in articles, per the external links guideline, which states: "Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media." (and this article clearly is not about rich media). Additionally, copyright policy applies, and videos that are copyrighted by other organizations may not be linked to via Wikipedia. Ariel♥Gold 14:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

John Kerry's Statement

I feel John Kerry's statement afterwards was extremely lame. By the way, he never did answer Meyer's questions. Interesting. BobCubTAC 10:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

That's John Kerry for ya. Enigmaman (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Transcript, Original Research

I believe that the transcript is OR and thus not suitable for inclusion in the article. I believe that the transcript does have value, so I propose that it be presented on its own page in the Talk.

There is a brief discussion that mention WP:V and WP:RS in this archived Talk section. The video is not a written source and cannot be treated the same way. Any links to relevant Wikipedia guidelines would be appreciated.

As an example, the UCLA Taser incident article quotes the video only from reliable sources: articles and the transcript released in the independent report. I had suggested including a transcript in this Talk section, but there was no discussion and ultimately no action taken. After its eventual release, the independent report provided a reliable source for the information I wanted to include in the article. Flatscan 22:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think a case could be made the the transcript is not OR and its inclusion is acceptable but I agree at this point it would improve the article to move it to the talk page as there are other sources available or becoming available. Ken E. Beck 12:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Are there any objections to removing the transcript and putting it on the talk page? Ken E. Beck 12:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. We have one of the best resources on this subject, to which people all over the world refer. Impoverishing our content isn't something to which we should aspire. Badagnani 17:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Another problem is that it is incomplete. According to the police report and eyewitness Meyer said "I have been listening to you for two hours..." or the like and on the longest video Kerry can be heard, presumably the answer, "If your tired of listening to me talk, why do you want to ask me a question?" With out this the transcript is biased. Ken E. Beck 22:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If material does not conform to WP:OR/WP:V, its value is irrelevant. I would like to discuss whether the transcript conforms to those policies. Flatscan 00:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

video clips published on YouTube may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed seems to be the relevant section. It goes on to say they should be used with caution. So I believe it may be ok to use the video, I don't see how we can justify using a transcript. Ken E. Beck 20:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for quoting that, I think I've read that before. Are IRC, MySpace, and YouTube reliable sources? Flatscan 03:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The answer is generally no with exception that "if their authenticity can be confirmed" , in this case I would say that it has been reported by reliable sources that the video is authentic. The transcript is another matter of course. Ken E. Beck 12:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It is essential to a complete understanding of this event. We have built what is perhaps the most comprehensive article anywhere on the Internet about this subject, and impoverishing the content doesn't make sense. Badagnani 20:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Moving it under "External links" is very non-standard and just plain weird. Badagnani 20:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is verifiability not truth. It was an error to have used it in the first place because readers and editors confused the subject of the article, which is the incident, with the contents of the video. Ken E. Beck 20:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

external links

The two links I deleted are either a blog and a personal website. Note that WP:NOT#BLOG and WP:NOT#LINK say that "Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links" and that "Wikipedia is not a social network." Besides, This article is not about Meyer and Meyer's personal site has nothing to do with this incident. Chris! _ct 23:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree; the Meyer official site is highly relevant. Badagnani 23:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

How is it relevant? Please at least provide a reason. Chris! _ct 23:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

1. It is the official site of the subject of the article. 2. It provides text about the event. Badagnani 00:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

1. No, it is not the official site of University of Florida Taser incident. It is an official site of Meyer. This article is not about Meyer. 2. It provides a large load of info written by someone (could be Meyer himself, but who knows). It might not have an unbiased POV about the subject matter. Chris! _ct 00:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Subject" in this case means the "individual" in question. Badagnani 00:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No, Meyer is not the subject of the article. The Taser incident is the subject of the article. Chris! _ct 02:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Chris! that the article is about the Taser incident, not about Meyer. If this were the Andrew Meyer article (which was merged into this one), it would be relevant. If the site has relevant text, the relevant text should be included in the body of the article. I think that there is no POV issue with simply including its content since the site is clearly attributed to Meyer. Flatscan 03:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of Meyer's web page, evidently Meyer posted a article he had written called "How I pissed off Ken Griffey, Jr." which is [11], linked from Michelle Malkin. [12] This seems relevant, is this a reliable source? Ken E. Beck 12:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so since it looks like a blog to me. Chris! _ct 00:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is a mess

It is repetitive. It is poorly written and the wording is not always clear. Obviously there are formatting problems and many relevant links have been removed. It is quite discouraging. Is this the best that WP can do?--Filll 15:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Your remarks are too vague to be of any value and the tone is to discourage, rather then encourage improvements. Ken E. Beck 12:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked over the whole thing but the following jumped out at me: "The video shot with Meyer's camera had 2.6 million views by October 19, 2007 and was considered a viral video." Who considered it a viral video? Is it even necessary to state when we already know the camera had 2.6 million views? Where did the 2.6 million figure come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.12.88 (talk) 05:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the introductory paragraph extensively. It was a nightmare. All the original information is left in tact, but restructuring now allows the opening paragraph to be read with a normal once-over. Anthson (talk) 06:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There's more than just one video circling the net

The beginning of the article only mentions one video circling the net. Why aren't the other videos mentioned?--Comdot 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It says "several videos." Badagnani 09:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

How many times was Meyer Tasered?

How many times was Meyer drive stunned with the Taser by Mallo? Badagnani (talk) 05:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

All the police reports say once or don't specify. I skimmed them before doing the reversion. The insertion of "at least three times" could be OR (incorrectly) counting the individual pulses. Flatscan (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Great, it would be wonderful to have a report other than the police report as well. I think there are some of those. What do those say about the number of times he was drive stunned with the Taser? Badagnani (talk) 05:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Question about bias / neutrality

Sections 1.1 to 1.5 do not seem to follow wikipedias usual neutral standpoint, my impression from reading was that Andrew Meyer was 'in the wrong'. Pherhaps this bit of the article can be edited to come across as more neutral?

Also, already mentioned by Flatscan, Meyer wrote apologies as a part of an agreement where he woudnt get sent to jail. This article makes it sound like he wrote the apologies because he considered himself in the wrong, this needs ammendment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.219.186 (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Because someone reads the article and is left thinking that Meyers was in the wrong doesn't prove that the article is not neutral. Are important facts being left out? Is there undue weight on some? Please be more specific. As to the apology, Meyers own lawyer has said that it is sincere. If you have a reliable source that says otherwise add it to the article. Ken E. Beck (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: NPOV, I agree with Ken E. Beck's comments. I don't see a POV problem in the current article. Re: the apologies, both points - part of agreement and stated sincerity - should go in the article. I haven't taken the time to do the insertion myself. Flatscan (talk) 04:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I find the majority of the "facts" stated in the Article are blatantly false. If you look at the tape it is clear that the crowd starts cheering immediately after Meyers says I'm not going anywhere, after he had been detained for a more than noticeable amount of time. It does not mention the numerous shouts from to crowd directed at the police to stop it. It does not mention that it is clearly audible that the police are very vocal in keeping people in the crowd at bay. This article is clearly a case of misinformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poleske (talk • contribs) 01:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The entire article is a "case of misinformation" because it doesn't go into great detail about the specifics of the video? I think we can assume people will watch the video. What facts in particular are "blatantly false"?Elle (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Man in a suit and sunglasses

Clinton was impeached, for what, a BLOW JOB?! Why don't we impeach Bush?! All right? Also, are you a member, were you a member of Skull and Bones in college with Bush? Were you in the same secret [Meyer's microphone is cut off] society as Bush? Were you in Skull and Bones?" [turns to side and says, sarcastically]: "Thank you for cutting my mic [A man in a suit and sunglasses makes a throat-slitting motion towards police and walks offscreen]. [turns to Senator Kerry and says] Thank you."

(bold added)

When I first read the part in bold, it conjured up an image of a sinister Secret Service-type goon calling for Meyer's 'removal'. But in the Gainsville Sun video and the video from the front left, the man in the suit is clearly not wearing sunglasses, nor did the gesture occur after his microphone was cut. And, as is apparent from the Gainsville Sun video, he accompanies the "throat-slitting" gesture with the word "cut" (I can't read lips very well, but at least that word is clear). Then, seconds later, his microphone is cut. It's very common to signal "cut their mic" with this gesture. So, unless there is an actual sunglasses-wearing man who performs the same gesture at nearly the same time, and who isn't in any of the six videos of the event linked at the bottom of the article, I assume the description was just inaccurate, and I've changed it accordingly. -kotra 02:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the cutting motion was as if to say "cut off his mic." He wasn't suggesting that someone eliminate Meyer. Enigmaman (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I find the majority of the "facts" stated in the Article are blatantly false. If you look at the tape it is clear that the crowd starts cheering immediately after Meyers says I'm not going anywhere, after he had been detained for a more than noticeable amount of time. It does not mention the numerous shouts from to crowd directed at the police to stop it. It does not mention that it is clearly audible that the police are very vocal in keeping people in the crowd at bay. This article is clearly a case of misinformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poleske (talk • contribs) 01:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Notability revisited

First let me state that I am not trying to reopen the old notability and deletion debates. Back when this story first broke and this article was being written, I expressed the opinon that it was too soon to properly assess the notablility and importance of this story. Now, several months later, I think we can better come to grips with it without the hyperventalating that occured at the time. So my questions are: 1) Is the story still notable and encyclopedic (I assume it is, but the question does need to be asked)... 2) If so, what parts of this story are still important? 3) Now that it is no longer "Hot News"... What parts of the article need to be re-written and re-structured? I notice that the article has a "not current" tag... that does tell me that interest in the story has waned. We should shift it to reflect a more "historical" focus. Summarize the event itself more, and focus on its impact on society (if there has been one). Blueboar (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this needs to be rewritten to better reflect the historical context; but I'm not sure what the historical context actually is. Did this event have any lasting impact or political repercussions? I'm guessing not... it still seems notable in my view, but more as an example of ongoing electroshock weapon controversy than as a political event or attack on civil liberties, so perhaps that's the perspective to take. Terraxos (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Blueboar (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Besides "Don't tase me, bro", finding historical significance defies me as well. I agree that the article should be shortened a little, particularly the details of the event: the transcript should be removed from the article (I previously suggested that it be archived somewhere in the Talk namespace) and the prose description of the action should be pared down. On the other hand, I don't think that any particular reference to Taser controversy should be added — for a number of reasons, this incident was less controversial than the UCLA Taser incident or the recent Robert Dziekański Taser incident. Flatscan (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... if it isn't important to the Taser controversy... what is the long term notability of this event? We all seem to feel it is notable in some way, but is it really? I suppose what I am asking is this: are we reacting to the fact that it was considered highly notable at the time, when in reality it ended up not being all that notable. If the only thing we can think that gives this event notability is that it resulted in a brief popularity of the catchphrase "Don't tase me bro"... I am not sure that this is really of enclyclopedic value. (seriously, when was the last time you saw a "Don't tase me bro" Tee shirt or heard reference to it?). Surely there must be something that makes this notable a few months after the event? Blueboar (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I think that this incident merits a brief mention in Taser controversy, but not vice-versa. I've never seen/heard the catchphrase in person, but on the online forums I read, every Taser-related thread has it or a derivative, roughly once a week. Flatscan (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Object to "shortening" of this article. Notable event, possibly the highest-profile event in a notable ongoing controversy. Badagnani (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Badagani... could you explain what the notable ongoing controversy is? I think we all feal that the event is in some way notable (or at least was notable at the time).... but we are all having difficulty figuring out why it is still notable. Without explaining why it is still notable (ie notable in the long run), we end up with an article about an "old news" event that nobody cares about anymore. We need to explain why this event still matters several months after it took place. Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

'Don't tase me, bro!' named year's top quote by editor of the Yale Book of Quotations. I don't know if this particular "award" is notable enough for inclusion, but it contributes to the incident's overall notability. Flatscan (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

We have an article on The Yale Book of Quotations, so it's notable. Badagnani (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

OK... "Don't tase me, bro!" can be considered a notable catch phrase... and by extension the event that caused that phrase to be notable is notable itself. I am satified on that score. But that leads to another issue... if it is the existance and popularity of the catch phrase that makes this topic notable, then we should focus on the catch phrase a lot more (at the moment it is hardly talked about). We still need to summarize the event itself, and focus on the aftermath (the growing popularity of the phrase). Do we really need a minute by minute breakdown of the event any more? Blueboar (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. This is one of the highest-profile events in a notable ongoing controversy, and we owe it to our readers around the world to present the best possible article on it. There is a reason why people turn to Wikipedia, and it is because of articles like this (which contain everything important about the incident), which can be found nowhere else. Badagnani (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to add a section titled "Don't tase me, bro!", although I'm not sure about its positioning. As I've written before, I support trimming the text somewhat and archiving the transcript. I think we need to retain enough detail to avoid something like the edited video that made it seem that Meyer was tackled and tased immediately after asking a question. Flatscan (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Consistency

The name of the organization is ACCENT, not Accent. The correct quote is “They acted independently of ACCENT." If you want to name it "Accent" because of an incompetent writer's mistake, then change every "ACCENT" to "Accent". Enigmaman (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotations, any changes to the text should be noted. Possible solution: "They acted independently of [ACCENT]<!-- "Accent", capitalization corrected -->." I don't have a strong opinion on whether the capitalization should be made consistent throughout the article. Flatscan (talk) 04:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not change this direct quote again. I have examined the source again today, and it is "Accent" with a capital "A" and the rest of the letters lower case. It does not matter whether you believe this to be spelled incorrectly, it is Wikipedia policy that we do not alter direct quotes. Badagnani (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the link too, and the writer got the quote wrong. Like I said, it's a matter of consistency in the article. Either the organization is ACCENT or it's Accent. You can't have it being called one thing in one part of the article and another thing in a different part. I haven't changed it again since your last edit, as per your request, but a change needs to be made. Enigmaman (talk) 05:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You just have to become used to the fact that direct quotes from print sources will not always match in spellings or capitalization. In this case, it's a mild mistake but if it's egregious and you don't want it to appear that we (the encyclopedia writers) got it wrong, you can put a "sic" after the incorrectly spelled word. Badagnani (talk) 05:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty bad, because you can often have organizations where the capitalization makes all the difference. For example, Ball and BALL. In the latter case, they're making it clear that the name is an acronym. If you spoke to the people of ACCENT, I'm sure they'd tell you that it's an important distinction. Enigmaman 06:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC) Enigmaman (talk • contribs) {

Cleanup

I just came across and read this article for the first time, and it looks really good to me. I don't understand why there's a cleanup tag, nor do I see any mention of it on the talk page. For now, I'm going to remove it, but if you object to that please state why here, then put it back up. --Pwnage8 (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is really a question of updating and summarizing as opposed to true cleanup. As time passes since the event, some of the details have become less important that others. The article needs to shift slightly... focussing less on a minute by minute account of the event, and more on the impact of the event on society etc. Blueboar (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There is already the update tag for that. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't edit me, bro! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.134.45 (talk) 03:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Transcript of video from Meyer camera

WIBNI a link to the video was added to this section. 77.125.129.33 (talk) 05:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

What does WIBNI mean? Badagnani (talk) 05:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a dumb acronym (sorry, Anon, but that is true). It means Wouldn't it be nice if . . . http://www.acronymfinder.com/Wouldn't-It-Be-Nice-If-(WIBNI).html . Regretful that people just can't write without using jargon, I am sincerely yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Unilateral removals

It's not a good idea to go through and make massive removals of sources and text from this article without first utilizing "Discussion" and developing consensus for such. Many of these issues have already been discussed here, at some length and with great seriousness and dedication of many editors. Badagnani (talk) 07:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. One way to spark discussion is to make a change and see who reacts, and why. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, a typical reaction would be a revert asking to seek consensus, and subsequent discussions would probably be more aggressive and less productive.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 09:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal

What doesn't make sense in this removed text? Badagnani (talk) 04:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"They restrained him and drive stunning him with a Taser." Of course, the bad grammar that your additions suffered from is not the only reason I reverted. It's debatable why they tasered him. As pointed out in the article, it was only after Meyer mentioned Kerry's involvment in Skull and Bones that they began to use force. So a very good case could be made that they did not want him discussing that. In any case, it's not appropriate to give the reason why they tasered him since that is not entirely known. Best to let the facts speak for themselves. --Pwnage8 (talk) 05:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the reverted additions were not substantial improvements. However, I support an expansion to the lead briefly mentioning Meyer's behavior, without going as far as calling it "disruptive". Flatscan (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Transcript leaves out main quote

Why does the transcript end before the "Don't tase me" quote? Should there be an explanation of the reason? Mark Foskey (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It should probably be in there. Badagnani (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed from article

I removed the following section from the article:

The ACLU has since come out and apologized for mistakenly thinking Meyer's rights were violated. They confirmed they were unaware that it was a forum that was being ran by a private source. An ACLU representative was quoted as saying, "We apologize for our statements involving the Andrew Meyer taser incident. We made a mistake by offering an impetuous opinion before all of the facts were revealed in their entirety."

I couldn't find any sources to back this up, and it's highly suspect that the ACLU actually said that. I Googled the direct quotation as well and couldn't find a source. JazzMan 19:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the inserted text is dubious and should be excluded pending a reliable source. Flatscan (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Issues raised section

This section should also probably mention something about being arrested without a reason given for the arrest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.202.89.125 (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)