Talk:Killing of Sean Bell

message: What difference does the religion of the Lawyers make? I find the addition of "Jewish" to be stereotypical and unnecessary, unless that's how it's referenced. But where is the source that provided that?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.160.237 (talk) 05:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion?

message: It seems to me that this should maybe be moved to "2006 NYPD shooting" or something similar. Precendent isn't really clear here: the Amadou Diallo shooting and Abner Louima abuse are titled with the victim's name, while the hostage taking and shooting in Colorado is under Platte Canyon High School shooting and the Nickel Mines, PA, incident is under Amish school shooting. It seems to me, at least so far, that this incident isn't tied to closely with the victim's name as Diallo and Louima. Is there something I'm missing? Natalie 16:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There were over 100 officer-involved shootings in NY in 2006, so we'd need a more specific title. Since other people besides Bell were shot, that makes some sense, but so far, he is the only person who died. Most of the coverage revolves around Bell specifically. Another recent case with multiple fatal shootings linked to one name is Valentin Elizalde. Perhaps "2006 Kalua Cabaret shootings" or something, but I am of a mind to leave it as is, and redirect the names of other people shot to this page. Thoughts? Jokestress 17:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true, there are a lot of police-related shootings in New York in any given year - it's a big city. At least so far, this seems to be the most prominent one in 2006, if I can judge from the Times coverage. I guess the question would be whether any of the other police-related shootings have articles, and if so, how to properly distinguish between them. I would be okay with a redirect, but it isn't my first choice. Natalie 18:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can appreciate the need for a better name, but cannot think of an appropriate alternative. AFAIK, no one in the press has 'named' the incident (something like 'The nightclub shootings', 'The bridegroom shootings'), and WP:NOR prevents us from naming the incident ourselves. Also note that the article on 'The Runaway Bride' appears under Jennifer Wilbanks, so maybe Sean Bell is the appropriate page name although I have not looked for, or seen any WP policies regarding this issue. So we may have to accept the status quo, unless someone has bright new ideas. Abecedare 18:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True. Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't have naming conventions about crime, but I imagine events covers this, and says the name should be 1) the accepted name for the event, or 2) use a common word that refers to the event, or 3) use a descriptive term. Obviously #s 1 & 2 don't apply, at least not yet. I guess the best thing is to wait and see if this event gets a common name(s). If it never does, I will suggest "Sean Bell shooting", mostly just because the article mostly describes the shooting incident, not the person. Natalie 19:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "conventions about crime" do not apply to this article since the officers involved were exonerated at trial of any criminal culpability.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.111.83 (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move? 

message: I originally started this article as a stub, but it got deleted under A1. However, seeing that this article has been greatly improved after someone else restarted it, I figured that I might as well restore the deleted history. :) --Ixfd64 20:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  deleted history restored 

message: I am removing the following sentence from "Response": "Although many would like to argue that the incident is racially motivated, many including the victims father says it is not." Please source this before putting it back in - since this is a current event it is especially important to keep POV and original research out. Natalie 17:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, WP:BLP probably applies here, even though the victim is dead - everyone else involved in the shootings is still alive. So sources are that much more necessary. Natalie 17:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One or more of the det. was black  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.145.40 (talk) 01:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources, sources, sources 

message: This article is biased against the NYPD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.10.104.105 (talk • contribs).
:How? Natalie 00:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please specify what particular sentences or points you object to, or it will only be fair to remove the NPOV tag. Abecedare 01:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The initial sentence stating that Bell was murdered may be biased, given that the officers were acquitted. Suggest an alternative phrase, for example, "shot and killed." Peter (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: I have removed the following: "Sean Bell had been arrested three times in the past: twice for drugs and one on a gun rap in a case that was sealed. Joseph Guzman has been busted nine times, including for armed robbery. He spent two stretches in state prison in the ’90s. Trent Benefield has a sealed record as a juvenile for gun possession and robbery. .[7]" Because the citation is a blog (www.theurbangrindblog.com) and as per Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources, blogs are not appropriate in this case. Please find a reliable source for this information if adding it again. Natalie 00:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blogs are not reliable sources 

message: Why has the criminal record of Sean Bell been remeoved.  It was sited with a Daily News article.  To say he had "odd jobs" is just misleading.  His job was a drug dealer.  He been arrested twice for narcotics and once for firearm possession.  The NYPD had done 2 undercover buys of crack from MR. Bell and were in the middle of building a case against him for running a drug ring.  The two others in the car were also crimianls who had gun and robbery arrests in the past. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.160.253.104 (talk) 05:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The criminal record of the three people involved has not been removed, it was just moved to "background", instead of incident. From all the news stories I read, their criminal backgrounds had nothing to do with the incident itself, (unless robbery is now a capitol offense) so the information belongs in the background information of the story. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ Natalie 16:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A better question would be why so much slander included? Come on, let's be serious, anyone who's invesitigated the situation knows that there was no forth man (which witnesses also say), and all this garbage about Bell supposedly selling crack to an informant, etc. This is all slander being brought by the NYC and its supporters to discredit a victim of state sponsored assassination.Redflagflying 08:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The criminal records of the victims of this crime are completely irrelevant, yet folks continue to add and update them. Why? Would you post the sexual history of a rape victim? Sean Bell and his friends committed no crime the night they were attacked by undercover NYPD agents, and that's all that should matter. Redflagflying 17:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a lot of talk of this man being arrested, but was he ever convicted of anything?  From my understanding, if you're arrested you haven't necessarily done anything wrong.  The reason being that one is presumed innocent, even in light of an arrest.  Citing this man's arrest record may be considered somewhat prejudicial, as the reality is that, under the law, he is not guilty of anything unless such a determination has been made in a court. Mael-Num 02:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The criminal and arrest records of these individuals is COMPLETELY relevant because it has to do with the issue of CREDIBILITY.  The fact that one or more of these individuals has been arrested in the past for firearms possession and other criminal activity frequently associated with violence GREATLY INCREASES THE LIKELIHOOD that one or more of them DID have a firearm in this case and that there DID exist a fourth person that fled from the vehicle.  This helps to substantiate the detectives' version of events.  Do you seriously believe that any of the other two 'victims' in the car are able to give unbiased testimony, or that they even WANT to give unbiased testimony?  They are career criminals that HATE police.  Of course they are going to lie.  And yes, they will even do it in front of a jury, despite being *GASP* under oath! Some of you really need a reality check. Invario 01:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Invario, the article states referenced facts (including the previous arrests and lack of convictions). You are free to draw your own conclusions, and others are free to do their own. However please keep your analysis off wikipedia (including talk pages) - note that as per talk page guidelines, the talk page is for discussing the article content, not the article's subject. Disruptive remarks that do not contribute to improving the article are liable to be deleted from talk page. Also check up on the civility guidelines. Abecedare 01:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criminal record 

message: I rated this article at current class because of the article being edited during a current event. Storm05 15:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me. Natalie 16:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current class

message: In one section, the 5 shooting officers are named.  Later, it says that four of the five have been interviewed and names them again, but using "an unnamed undercover officer" instead of identifying Gescard Isnora.  Are we reasonably sure that they are indeed the same person and lose the "unnamed" bit? Mangler 21:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, that's a really good question. I have no idea, but I'll look through the NYT archives the next time I'm at work. Natalie 21:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnamed is now named? 

message: Before we learn of the man's life we get "Sean Bell, a convicted career criminal thug...". Nice sentencing...out it goes. Hesperides 01:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was plain vandalism, which lasted roughly 5 minutes. Please feel free to remove it if you see it reappear. Cheers. Abecedare 01:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speaking of POV issues 

message: In the recent afd discussion, several people recommended that the article be moved.  The argument was that, since the subject is only notable with relation to this  incident, the article should be about the incident, not the person.  Suggestions for renaming included Sean Bell shooting incident and Shooting of Sean Bell.  Are there others?  What do folks think of moving the article? Thanks, delldot talk 10:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bit late, I know, but I agree with you. I hadn't heard of this until today but it seems that the shooting itself is notable, as it didn't happen because he was Sean Bell, it happened to Sean Bell. having said that, Amadou Diallo has an article, so it's probably more hassle than it's worth to rename. 81.96.160.6 (talk) 06:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries, nice to get a response at all.  I agree with me too :-P.  Wouldn't be a hassle to more, I'd just click move, more or less. And seeing as there are apparently no strong objections to the move, I'd say we should go ahead.  Now then, what should we move it to? Any preference for either of the two above, or any better ideas? delldot on a public computer talk 08:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree strongly with move as per longstanding encyclopedic tradition for articles involving biographies (or quasi-biographies) of people really notable for only one event, or their intersection with that event, viz. Daniel Pearl, James Earl Ray or Kitty Genovese.  Ford MF (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I have no strong feelings either way.  I did notice that everyone in : Category:People shot dead by police has a name article.  I also notice that WP:BLP#Articles about people notable only for one event says "Cover the event, not the person". Of course, the whole reason we're reading about Bell is that he's no longer a LP.  Seeing as I don't really care, I'll leave it to others to decide.  delldot on a public computer talk 23:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move? 

message: "11-0 record, a 2.30 E.R.A. and 97 strikeouts in 62.2 innings" Does this means he is a talented player? Maybe some explanation would be good for us non baseball fans.F (talk) 04:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baseball stats 

message: Sean Bell was an African American man... regardless if Michael Jackson's page states it or not, this whole incident has revolved around the issue that he is a black man who was shot unarmed.  Perhaps the Michael Jackson article should state that he is African American.  The argument that just because his article doesnt seem to hold firm ground.  Just because someone doesnt leave a hurricane warning area doesnt mean you shouldnt too.  Comments?  Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 15:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I assume this is concerning the removal of African American from the lead by User:Drmagic, with the summary: "so is Michael Jackson. i don't see his header describing HIM as African-American". My opinion is that is that that edit is POV pushing, a flauting of concensus, and should be reverted.  Can we get a quick concensus of uninvolved editors who've contributed to this article in the past, and then keep it or lose it?  T L Miles (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Add it back in Miles... I had added it back after an IP had removed it.  I brought it here because I didnt wanna spark a revert war.  Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 15:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Seriously, folks should form their own concensus on these things (especially those, who unlike me, have been regular contributors here).  This talk page is the place to do it, and I'l cheerfully abide by that.  See Wikipedia:Concensus for those who may be newer to this.  T L Miles (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Sean Bell was not murdered.  The officers were cleared of any culpability in a court of law.  Funny how you insist on wrongfully accusing the officers of a crime, yet want to cover up and exclude from the article Bell's own criminal past.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.111.83 (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is there a source to cite his family descends from Africa?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.145.40 (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[African American]] 

message: i edited in something along these lines in very neutral language, stuck to the facts, i can't imagine that can be anything but constructive -- my edits were reverted by someone claiming they weren't constructive. i'm not going to be headstrong about this and insist on anything, so for now i'll leave the page as is so we can have a meaningful dialogue about this.
PS -- this is a computer lab computer - i operate from multiple computers with different IPs, and multiple people use this computer who may end up editing wikipedia.
128.59.34.151 (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The arrest record is notable, if only because the judge took it into consideration, as well as those of the other two folks who were shot at, when making his final verdict.  Its not our place to censore material.  Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 18:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not saying we should delete info about his criminal record. Look at the edit to the page which YOU deleted... the page should keep the info, as in the edit, but add ADDITIONAL information to clarify that the police were not aware of the arrest record at the time of the shooting. This way the issues aren't conflated. No "censoring" necessary. If that's all it comes down to, then fine, I can re-edit the page to the original edit (see the edit that you deleted, it's just added info about the cops being unaware of his arrest record), which won't involve deleting anything, and that will satisfy your desire that the page not be "censored," OK?
128.59.26.163 (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

text: If the judge considered it in his/her verdict then yes, I would say it should be included somewhere in the article. Were it not for that though, I'm not so sure since it doesn't seem that relevant to the case (the officers were not aware of the record at the time of the shooting AFAIK). In any case, please refrain from bringing up censorship any time anyone discusses whether something is sufficiently relevant and noteable to mention in the article Nil Einne (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So long as the article is titled "Sean Bell" and gives information about him, then information about his criminal past should appear in the article.  If the article is renamed to be about an incident instead of about a person, and other information about the person but not the incident is excised, then perhaps there is then an argument that information about Bell's criminal past does not belong in there either.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.111.83 (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well it seems the article is now titled "Sean Bell shooting incident" and not "Sean Bell" -- does this change things? Anyhow, I maintain my opinion that the arrest record should be kept in there, but a comment should be added to clarify that the officers were not aware of his arrest record, so that the issues can not be conflated in any way by an arbitrary reader. 128.59.34.21 (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: arrest record

message: The description of the events immediately surrounding the shooting are very vague. It currently reads:
 Bell accelerated the car and seconds later hit an unmarked police minivan.
OK so at this point he is apparently still alive. The very next sentence says:
 A toxicology report reportedly showed that he was legally drunk at the time of the shooting.
What shooting? When? Why? Even if this is just "one side of the story" that side's "story" is very incomplete. Is it being alleged that the police shot because of an auto accident? Do they usually shoot people who are involved in auto accidents? Hopefully not. So what did they think was different about this one? This story needs to be expanded significantly. 72.208.61.246 (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: sequence of events

message: I know that I risk being branded many things for suggesting deletion of this article, and I assure you that my heart goes out Sean Bell and his family, but this article clearly violates WP:ONEEVENT, which states the following:
Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them.
If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person.
A similar policy can be found in WP:NOT#NEWS:
Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic.
You may find discussion regarding deletion here.
I know this must disappoint many editors, but the existence of this article runs contrary to wikipedia policy. Screen stalker (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article for delete's entry takes one to the first discussion... which was keep.  Want to change this so we can weigh in?  Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 15:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of Article? 

message: Does any one have any information on the background of the police officers involved? Ages, how long they've been on the force, any past disiplinary problems etc. It seems to me like that would be very pertinent to what is happening.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron, being a smartass isn't helping anyone. Cowicide (talk) 02:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cops bio 

message: I've just made some changes to the article. I was initially motivated to move the birthdate from the introduction after "The Sean Bell shooting incident," but I made a few more changes in the process, just because some stuff was badly placed in the article or redundant with the exact same information in another part of the article. I mean, it's almost as if this article was written by a lot of different people who decided to make a few additions to the article that existed beforehand.
Besides reordering some of the content to more appropriate sections, there was some stuff I removed. Here they are:
Bell was buried in Port Washington, New York.
Some civilian witnesses at the scene support this claim, and pointed to Jean Nelson as the fourth man.
The officers involved in the incident were Officer Gescard Isnora, who fired the first shot, Officer Michael Oliver, who fired 31 of the 50 shots, and  Detective Marc Cooper. The first two faced charges of manslaughter, reckless endangerment and assault; while the last named faced a lesser charge. Isnora and Cooper are African Americans, while Oliver is white.
Two of the five officers involved were black, one was white, one was Middle-Eastern, and one was of biracial black and Hispanic origin (Haitian/Mexican). The first officer to fire was black.(Editorial, Learning From Bell. 14 December 2006. Retrieved 23 December 2006.)
(2 of whom were also African-American)
First statement removed because it's a personal detail not necessary to the article.
The second statement removed because, after checking the citations attached to the statement, I didn't find any mention of the civilian witnesses identified Jean Nelson as the fourth man, only further information about Nelson after he was being discussed as the fourth man. Also, the text with citation following it in the article actually contradicted this statement by claiming that police reports record no witnesses as reporting a fourth man.
The last three statements are basically the same; they explain the racial makeup of the group of officers involved. I understand why this was stated: these explanations are an attempt to refute claims about racial profiling and a biased police department. The only probblem is that the claims aren't even in the article.
If someone wants to re-add the last portion, they need to:
* Adequately cover claims of racism and bias. Attempting to demonstrate why a claim is baseless is useless if those claims aren't even made within the article.
* Find a reference for the racial makeup of the officers. The reference contained within the removed text only states that at least one of the officers was black and that he was the first one to shoot. Details about the other four officers is not given.
-- C. A. Russell (talk) 03:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article cleanup and changes made therein 

message: Why was this 2nd nomination for deletion made to disappear?  I voted there and now, I look at the 2nd link at the top of the page, and poof... my vote is gone.  Did something go haywire here?  The vote went basically the way I had hoped (not deleted), but I still find this odd. Am I looking at something incorrectly here? Cowicide (talk) 05:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That link took you to the first AfD... it is now fixed.  Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 10:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's going on? 

message: Perhaps article should have a "current events" badge or some such thing at the top of it, due to the protest that is scheduled for 13:30 today and because of Al Sharpton's call for a NYC civil strike in the next few days. I don't know how this is done, so that's why I'm posting this message here. Sstteevvee (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I had one up... must have gotten lost in the move and vandals.  Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 18:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Current Events" notifier 

message: If the article is about the incident, not Sean Bell per se, it makes sense to remove "his personal" categories, for example :category:1983 births. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some background info is relevant to those involved in the incident and should be included.  If it makes anyone "look bad" that's not an encyclopedia's problem.  The background info (as long as it is brief, accurate and properly sourced) should stay. Cowicide (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Brew was referring to the cats at the bottom on the article... which have been addressed. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 21:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see now.  Sorry guys. Cowicide (talk) 02:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  categories 

message: I am starting this section to split off discussion on a point that came up in #POV issues. Should we describe Bell, Benefield, and Guzman as "unarmed" or "armed" at any point in the article? The adjective "unarmed" is currently in the lead, most recently added by Ronjohn in this edit. It has been occasionally added and removed in the more frequent editing following the verdict. Prior to the verdict, it appears to have been stable in a slightly less prominent location in the Diallo sentence, e.g., this version.
I oppose including either "unarmed" (Bell drove directly at and collided with Isnora, presenting deadly force) or "armed" (the men did not possess a firearm) in the lead, as both are misleading without further explanation and advance a POV. I would prefer expanding the summary of the incident slightly to cover these points. Something like "The men did not have any firearms, but Bell was armed with a car" would work if the phrasing weren't so odd. Flatscan (talk) 02:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the lede should say neither "armed" or "unarmed". However, later in the article where detail and odd-phrases are more appropiate, it should be noted that they did not have guns but had a car.....--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree on all points.  It is misleading to have in the first couple sentences in the article.  Ford MF (talk) 07:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unarmed versus armed 

message: I'm all for tributes folks, but can we see if there are any references that back up the claims?  I foresee this list getting very long and involved.  Qb | your 2 cents 14:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and if the fact tag goes a unanswered for a while, I propose moving all unsourced tributes to this talk page section until they are verified. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded.  Qb | your 2 cents 23:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is an itemized Tributes section encyclopedic? I don't have a strong opinion, but it may be good to establish consensus now, as opposed to working on something that is ultimately tagged as trivia and removed. Flatscan (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Trivia isn't just removed. If it's related to article's subject and it's sourced it cannot be removed. Trivia can be transformed into prose style, but at this point I have no opinion if prose-style should be preferred over the current stlye.  --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're correct, I just reviewed Wikipedia:Trivia sections#What this guideline is not. Flatscan (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

text: The tributes could always be changed to "Mentions in Culture" (or something less crappy).  I put it in the itemized because as it stood, as prose, everything was one sentence long and it looked bad.  But another thing... a simple reference is not a tribute, correct?  Just want this consensus set now, too.  Qb | your 2 cents 09:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Good point. Being mentioned once in a song shouldn't be considered a tribute. "Mentions in rap songs" might be less vague. Hmmm?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 12:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tributes 

message: In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) 
* "CNN" :
** "Police fire 50 rounds, kill groom on day of wedding", CNN, November 26 2006.
**  Police fire 50 rounds, kill groom on day of wedding CNN, November 26 2006.
DumZiBoT (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 

message: I have removed the tributes section from the article because the "citation-needed" tags have been ignored for like eternity. I am pasting it here. 
===Tributes===
*The Game ft. Lil' Wayne - My Life - Video, features the grave of sean bell, where graces are made towards it.
*Also,The Game's song entitled 911 is a Joke (Cop Killa) refers to Sean Bell. 
*Papoose released a song titled Change Gon' Come (50 Shots) about the Sean Bell shooting.
*[ Jay-Z} made a tribute: his remix of a milli in "a billi"
*Swizz Beatz released a song titled Stand Up (Feat. Cassidy, Drag-On, Maino, Styles P & Talib Kweli) about the Sean Bell shooting.
*Grafh - "Not Guilty (The Peoples Verdict)" 
*Uncle Murder - "Shoot Every Cop You See" is about the Sean Bell Shooting 
*G-Unit - "Straight Outta Southside" is a tribute to Sean Bell
*Chamillionaire- Ridin Overseas 
- --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's needed to go for ages.  Ford MF (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Smart move.  I was getting sick of it too.  Qb | your 2 cents 19:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  uncited tributes 

message: *The Game ft. Lil' Wayne - My Life - Video, features the grave of sean bell, where graces are made towards it.
*Also,The Game's song entitled 911 is a Joke (Cop Killa) refers to Sean Bell. 
*Papoose released a song titled Change Gon' Come (50 Shots) about the Sean Bell shooting.
*[ Jay-Z} made a tribute: his remix of a milli in "a billi"
*Swizz Beatz released a song titled Stand Up (Feat. Cassidy, Drag-On, Maino, Styles P & Talib Kweli) about the Sean Bell shooting.
*Grafh - "Not Guilty (The Peoples Verdict)" 
*Uncle Murder - "Shoot Every Cop You See" is about the Sean Bell Shooting 
*G-Unit - "Straight Outta Southside" is a tribute to Sean Bell
*Chamillionaire- Ridin Overseas 
- --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's needed to go for ages.  Ford MF (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Smart move.  I was getting sick of it too.  Qb | your 2 cents 19:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tributes

message: "Benefield was subsequently arrested during a gambling raid in Harlem after attending the funeral of James Brown, and again in September 2007 for hitting a woman with whom he had a child. The latter arrest resulted in his pleading guilty to a lesser charge, and accepting a conditional discharge along with counseling.Benefield's Plea"
I removed this text from the background section, as it is irrelevant as background, the incidents happening after the shooting. They serve no purpose in explaining and giving background to the incident. While I left the arrests records, as clearly relevant background, I think they way they are sourced and written is dangerously close to OR, and we should consider rethinking how it is done. --Cerejota (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  background section 

message: There was some local coverage this week on Bell's family meeting with federal prosecutors.  I would have written a sentence into the article, but I didn't see an obvious location. Flatscan (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What happened to the civil suit that they themselves filed?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't see anything about that, but putting the suit on hold again and waiting for a verdict would be reasonable. I assume that the new trial would be comparable to the Rodney King federal trial. Flatscan (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I see. I got confused with the civil trial (that is now current) and the civil rights violation trial (that fed prosecutors are now thinking about). I guess we can go with a new section. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure that this relatively minor information warrants reorganization. A sentence might be okay in Sean Bell shooting incident#Investigation and criminal indictment. If/when the case develops further, either a sub-section there or a separate section would be appropriate. Flatscan (talk) 04:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Federal civil rights case 

message: Several of the comments posted in this forum have emphasized the need to be very explicit about the criminal records and activities of Sean Bell and his companions. However, they are mum on the question of the police officers' records (in addition to the officers' racial background, an issue raised by another posting). We know for a fact that in many cases of police brutality, the officers under scrutiny had a previous record of this type of behavior. What do we know about the police officers involved in the case??? 
Whatever information is available should be added to the BACKGROUND section to make that section less biased against Bell and his companions.
156.56.205.194 (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: None of them had fired their gun in action before the incident.JakeH07 (talk) 06:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the OFFICERS' previous record??? 

message: The "Tributes" section is back but now "sourced" with Youtube video links. Are they legit sources? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Youtube as sources for tributes 

message: For this pro police biased entry full of factual errors. --188.23.69.202 (talk) 11:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia  sucks

message: The article is confusing; the title indicates it is about Sean Bell, yet the text begins with someone called Guzman who is not introduced at all or even given a first name. A paragraph should be added in the beginning explaining who Guzman is and what he has to do with the case and Sean Bell.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.22.82.58 (talk) 09:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusingly written / Guzman 

message: I decided to take a stab at a overview of people named Sean Bell on the Sean Bell page.  Added some of the About information from the Sean Bell shot in NYC in 2006, a blurb about myself, and a blurb from the About section of film maker Sean Bell since he was high in the Google search results for Sean Bell.  It needs more work, but it's a start.  I removed the auto-redirect to the Sean Bell shooting incident, but it is of course linked.
GatorForgen (talk) 01:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Sean Bell (main) - Article Reboot 2011-07-29

message: Maybe this bachelor party took place AFTER the wedding, but I don't understand how he was killed at his bachelor party and his wife later commented on the incident. Wouldn't she be his fiancee?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.68.115.77 (talk) 02:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  bachelor party shooting, but wife comments? 

message: Might be needed. First off, Guzman turns up from nowhere. There is no mention of him earlier, so it is a tad confusing to say the least when you first read about him. Second, was Detective Isnora drunk, or had consumed alcoholic beverages prior to the shooting? If not I fail to see why it is mentioned how many drinks he was allowed to consume in his line of duty as a member of the Vice Squad. Pavuvu (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: OTRS received an image :File:Sean bell trial 001-1.jpg whcih may be this article. It is my practice to simply add an image when there is no image in the article, but if there already is an image, to note the existence of additional image(s) and let the editors decide whether replacement of existing images or additional inclusion is warranted.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible additional image 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Sean Bell shooting incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090507082855/http://wcbstv.com:80/local/sean.bell.verdict.2.708645.html to http://wcbstv.com/local/sean.bell.verdict.2.708645.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Sean Bell shooting incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070124011320/http://www.nydailynews.com:80/front/story/475270p-399755c.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/475270p-399755c.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 13:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Shooting of Sean Bell →  – Per WP:Deaths. Inexpiable (talk) 09:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 14 November 2023 

message: Hello! I'm fairly new at editing Wikipedia, so I'm not sure of the process for reverting an edit, but the recent edit to "NYPD edits to Wikipedia article" should probably be reverted. It was changed to say the opposite of what it said before, but the references were kept so they all contradict the current article. Even if new sources were found to support this edit (I couldn't find anything), it's confusingly worded and strangely formatted.
(Not sure if the editor's IP is affiliated with the NYPD, but there's some irony here nonetheless.) Leelubell (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "NYPD edits to Wikipedia article" section may need to be reverted