Talk:University of Florida Taser incident/Archive 1

message: *Someone added a "neutrality" tag to the article.  However, whoever it was does not seem to explain here what the alleged problem is with the article.  I am removing the tag.  If someone wishes to reinsert it, please explain here what they believe to be non-neutral about the article. Thanks, Johntex\talk 02:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section just above this, Details of the incident, is mostly about NPOV. The only facts presented here are the ones which show Meyer completely cooperating with the police, such as "with his arms raised in the air to show his nonviolence". Several facts are omitted, including him shoving police officers and struggling against them repeatedly. Ajonlime 02:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Ajonlime. Notable facts have been removed from the article. The original wording of the article has been altered and a lot of subjective interpretations added without sourcing. Was he nonviolently resisting? It's a matter of opinion. He pushed and shoved against the other officers. Revolutionaryluddite 02:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is due to the early reporting done for the story. If you check the revised updated versions of the AP article, many balancing details have been added yet this page is slow to correct the details as the AP has. 128.227.79.72 02:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: As mentioned in the comments above, "Why are you doing this?" and "Leave him alone" do not seem to represent the overall reaction from the videos I've watched. The overall audience reaction is applause when Meyer is first dragged away and laughter when he is Tasered. The more sympathetic comments are most audible on the tape belonging to the girl Meyer asked to film him. I have no idea if that's her voice on the video or if she was "in on" some kind of attention-grabbing scheme, but it seems like *most* people were sick of the guy. See Jay 02:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you sure the applause is to one of his questions? There's enough distance between when his questions are done and when he's being taken away that leads me to believe the applause was more for Meyer being taken away.  You can see people smiling and looking back and watching as this happens in the videos.  \u2014Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.66.242.127 (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This is right. The applause came right after Meyer said Kerry should have been president. 128.227.79.72 02:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality tag

message: Some editor named "Mike.lifeguard" is repeatedly deleting hidden editing comments addressing important unresolved points in the article. This is wrong and you need to restore those immediately, thanks. Badagnani 03:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I believe these comments are not helpful since no discussion can take place on the article page. It would be more prudent for you to put your grievances with the writing on the talk page rather than on a page where no one can refute or discuss them. Gdo01 03:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the comments are not helpful as hidden text.  It is better to place them here. Johntex\talk 03:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They seemed like a ploy to get content with a particular bias into the article so as to be hidden from scrutiny. As there have been so many vandals and vandal fighters on this page, it was tough to tell who had added them. Seeing as how the talk page is for discussion of the article's content, it seems obvious that any unresolved issues would be discussed here - never hidden in the article itself.  – Mike.lifeguard | talk 03:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: FYI, I have requested 1 day of semiprotection at WP:RPP  – Mike.lifeguard | talk 03:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:Mike.lifeguard's deletions 

message: Kerry's "joke," partially audible in some versions of the video, is that, once Meyer is on the ground and about to be Tasered, Kerry says that he wants to answer Meyer's "very important question" but that Meyer seems to be "not available." That seems to be the essence of it. Badagnani 03:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kerry's joke

message: This letter is as biased as the wiki article, though in the other direction. However, it does provide more clarity as to why the police officers seemed clustered around the microphone area at the start of the video and possibly why they were so willing to "detain" Mr. Meyer. I'm new at posting on Wiki so please forgive the sloppy post.
So I went to the John Kerry town hall forum this morning trying to get students registered to vote. I run a student government organization called Chomp the Vote. Anyway I went inside to watch the event. Senator Kerry took the podium and began delivering a speech about the Middle East, Iraq, dimplomacy, etc. Anyway, after he was done, a university ambassador asked Kerry a few premade questions. Once that was over, Senator Kerry announced he would take questions from the students. There were two microphones placed on each side of the aisle. One on my side and the other on Andrew Meyer\u2019s side. Senator Kerry began answering the student\u2019s questions from each aisle. Eventually it was announced that there would only be a few more questions answered. Since Meyer and I were both in the back of each line, it did not seem likely that our questions would be answered.
However, while Senator Kerry was responding to a student\u2019s question, all of a sudden Meyer rushed to the microphone with cops in pursuit. At that point no one knew what was going on. Could he have a gun, a bomb? Immediately, Meyer began yelling into the microphone that he had been waiting in line forever and that Senator Kerry should \u201cspend time to answer everyone\u2019s questions!\u201d Senator Kerry tried to calm the student down by telling him that he would \u201cstay here as long as it takes to get the questions answered.\u201d The police * approached Meyer who began taunting them by saying \u201cwhat! are you going to taser me? are you going to arrest me?!\u201d The police grabbed Meyer, but Senator Kerry asked the police to let him go and that he would answer his question. Senator Kerry finished answering the other student\u2019s question and then proceeded with Meyer. (*This entire scene is not in any video I can find so far. This is why 2 cops are seen right behind Meyer at the start of some videos*).
Meyer approached the microphone and began to talk about a book he had which stated that Kerry won the 2004 election because of disenfranchisement of black voters and faulty voter machines that produced \u201cBush\u201d as the winner. He then posed another question about why President Bush had not been impeached. \u201cPresident Clinton was impeached because of a blowjob, why not Bush?\u201d. The third and strangest question he posed to Senator Kerry was asking him if he was part of the skull and bones society with Bush at Yale. Meyer\u2019s mic cut off after that, probably because he had mentioned the word \u201cblowjob\u201d.
...I don\u2019t know if this is relevant or not, but Andrew Meyer is a former sports writer for the school newspaper The Alligator. In his columns, he has been known to make ridiculous statements in order to gain attention for himself. Was today a publicity stunt?
The letter is useless to Wikipedia unless it is featured in a reliable source (newspaper, magazine) and is referenced.--Gloriamarie 16:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not true.  It can be used as a reliable source for an opinion that is attributed to the person who wrote it. \u2014 Omegatron 23:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it can't, unless it was written by someone notable and/or appeared in a reliable source.--Gloriamarie 09:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, ok.  Eyewitnesses are not notable... \u2014 Omegatron 23:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Witness Reports 

message: These sloppy edits/blanking, from an editor who wants this page deleted, just don't make any sense. Please restore the blanked text and fix the tortured grammar and non-standard use of italics. Badagnani 07:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not blanking - I'm replacing original research with text based on cited reliable source, text that also happens to match up to the objective reality viewed by millions of people on video. Please don't replace material that cites reliable sources with original research.  Dlabtot 07:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: PS, if I've used italics incorrectly, you could just fix that instead of reverting. tia Dlabtot 07:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Why don't you go ahead and include whatever you want from one of these 1000 sources?  That would go a long way towards helping the article achieve WP:NPOV Dlabtot 07:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I didn't 'fool with' the References section, which consists of nothing but the reflist tag. However, my editing  of the Details  sections certainly did mess it up somehow and I'm sorry but it's late and I cant figure it out.  Revert to your hearts content. Dlabtot 07:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sloppy edits/blanking 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Florida_Taser_incident&diff=158904066&oldid=158903880 Badagnani 07:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd ask you to refrain from continuing to mischaracterize my edits as 'blanking'. I'd please ask you to remain civil and assume good faith. Your disagreement with me does not give you a right to make personal attacks. Dlabtot 07:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see any "blanking" in that edit.  Removal of one sentence isn't "blanking".  Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 16:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More blanking by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FUniversity_of_Florida_Taser_incident&diff=158887015&oldid=158886667 editor who wants this page deleted]

message: Alex Jones's website, Prison Planet, has a claim Mr Meyer is a "a 9/11 truther",www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/180907_student_tazering.htm] for whatever that's worth. CWC 15:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Independent Florida Alligator (his former newspaper) says the same:  128.227.81.252 16:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that article simply says he once held a sign up on a busy street saying George W. Bush was responsible for 9/11. Even many who think that Al Qaeda was responsible also place blame on others, such as the president, for not heeding warnings by the FBI and by Al Qaeda itself. It's also given on that page in the context of him saying that he likes to play practical jokes. That does not mean he's a truther.--Gloriamarie 16:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement "George W. Bush was responsible for 9/11" means what it says, especially when it's placed on a sign. It does not have hidden meanings. I agree that, since Meyer is a practical joker, he may have just been pretending to be a truther. He also has videos of himself pretending to be a woman, that doesn't necessarily mean that's he gay or anything like that. Revolutionaryluddite 21:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there are different meanings for that. Some people think Bush should have taken heed to others' warnings that al Qaeda was a threat and planned to fly planes into buildings. FBI agents were telling their superiors that foreign nationals were learning how to take off and not land at flight school. Responsibility in these ways and responsibility for actually planning the attack are completely different things, but could both lead to that statement.  76.182.88.254 03:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The Prison Planet website is generally not considered a reliable source so we shouldn't be adding their claims without independent corroboration. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 16:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Cheers, CWC 15:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truther? 

message: The Full Transcript of the questions, arrest, comments and tasering incident are available at this URL http://www.godlikeproductions.com/bbs/message.php?display=30&messageid=439335&page=2#6793162
70.105.30.46 16:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Too bad all of it fails WP:V 128.227.81.252 16:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Pretty accurate transcript.  What a shame it's not in a WP:reliable source so that it could be used in the article. Dlabtot 16:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The video itself is a reliable source. \u2014 Omegatron 23:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For your edification: COMPLETE Transcript available! 

message: There is absolutely no call for the uncivil exchanges that have been going on in the recent edit summaries.  I've upgraded to full protection so you will have a chance to calm down.  Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The user has continued to attack me and I have reported him to WP:AIV. If I was in any way uncivil, I apologize but I was trying to be cooperative but the user immediately started name calling and cursing. Gdo01 17:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that the other user was (rightfully) blocked for vicious personal attacks, but I don't think edit summaries like "please give a rationalle or i will treat you as a vandal" are appropriate or helpful either.  That doesn't excuse his conduct, but saying things like that may serve to make a situation much worse.  Given that one user in this dispute is blocked, the edit war isn't likely to continue, so I'll lift the block.  This should not be considered an endorsement of a particular version or a particular user. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That rationalle was in response to this which the user did 2 minutes after I initially removed the categories and links. I think I was in my right to give a pseudo warning if a user immediately starts saying I am the problem. Gdo01 18:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't understand how you could possibly be fighting over whether or not this has to do with Freedom of Speech / 1st Amendment.  It seems to me fairly obvious that it is definitely a Free Speech issue.  More specifically the right to ask questions without fear of arrest is exactly what is at stake.  So why were all the Free Speech-related links deleted??? And without any discussion on this page??? 141.152.54.208 22:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The event had ended. Kerry agreed to hear a few more questions, this guy rattled/rambled on with  his volume of talking points, the police tried to remove him, and he started being belligerent physically. He could have just walked out with the police, but he chose to resist. From what I saw, the police were very reluctant to use force. He didn't suffer any lasting injuries. The police did their job, and I think they did it as well as they could, considering the circumstances. The only reason this is getting so much coverage is because people get a sick kick out of watching someone getting tased on TV. The networks know that it means eyeballs on the screen, so they are milking it for more than it's worth. The Revolution has been televised. Recap at eleven. Oh, one more thing, I endorse full protection. - Crockspot 23:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  I certainly don't agree that it is in any way a free speech issue.  Based on the context it seems more to be an issue with the appropriate level of force to use to control a disruptive individual at an open forum.  Especially considering the fact that Mr. Meyer was given an opportunity to ask a question after the question period was over, it would be hard to make the case that there was an effort to censor his speech. Dlabtot 23:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact his question was actually answered. 128.227.126.157 23:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit war 

message: And if so, are there any transcripts? 153.42.168.174 18:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be kept in mind that although this Wikipedia article gives the false impression that he asked three coherent questions, the video gives lie to that characterization. Dlabtot 20:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could make out three questions-- Kerry just didn't get a chance to answer them. It doesn't matter what either of us think, only what reliable sources report on the incident.--Gloriamarie 09:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you know of any reliable sources that have reported the questions in the re-written form with the numbered list, as appears on this page? Dlabtot 09:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incidentally, did Kerry answer his questions? 

message: I personally feel that the section of the article discussing that the incident was possibly a prank does not have enough conclusive evidence to be included in the article. The section I am referring to is titled "Background." This is an erroneous title, since half of the content concerns the incident, and all of it seems to be supporting the theory that the incident was a prank by Meyer. At any rate, most of the supporting evidence of this theory is based on unrelated pranks, which does not prove anything. Additionally, just because he wanted someone to video tape him also does not prove anything. Speaking personally, If I were a journalism student who appeared to ask Kerry very important questions, I would also want to be videotaped. Being videotaped asking a question is not proof that he came there to create a disturbance, get tased, and call international attention to the incident (or just get a laugh). He had no way of knowing that half a dozen police officers would tase him and haul him out of a speech for going over his allotted time-- such an incident is quite unexpected. Finally, the claim that he was light-hearted and laughing in the car also proves and indicates absolutely nothing. If you watch the video, you see that he has calmed down as he is exiting the building. Who's to say that by the time he was at the police car, he was no longer in pain and thought the whole thing to be funny? (knowing that it would create a lot of attention and sympathy for him) Who's also to say that wasn't an act or a defense mechanism? Cops are not generally the best people for evaluating the psychology of a person.
I'm sorry, but the case made that the event was a prank is extremely weak-- it doesn't need a whole section. The already existent mention of the comment J. Bernard Machen, with perhaps a sentence or two of follow-up, is enough. andrewlargemanjones  \u2014Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.230.135.98 (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Conclusive evidence' is not the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia.  See: WP:V and WP:NPOV. Dlabtot 19:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that the title of the section is erroneous but the rest of the section is verifiable and cited. As long as credible news sources are suggesting things that seem to discredit Meyer, it can be included no matter how much we may try to refute the sources. Anyway, the stuff in that section is likely to reappear in court as counts against Meyer. In court, the reports by a police officer that was there is integral to the case no matter how psychology-inept the officer may be. Gdo01 19:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, fair enough, and the title "Police Response" is a much more appropriate response. I don't know that it needs the first sentence though, about his website, unless the police mentioned it.andrewlargemanjones
All of this stuff is mentioned in the news as well.  It's notable. \u2014 Omegatron 23:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It is possible for a single individual to have both a humorous and a serious side. The "diatribe" against the Iraq War and the U.S. media's coverage of it on Meyer's website, www.theandrewmeyer.com , is not particularly amusing, and does not seem to be so. Thus, the extrapolation that Meyer did this to be funny, because he had previously written humorous articles and skits does not seem to be a necessarily correct one. Badagnani 05:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accusations of the incident being a prank by Meyer 

message: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3ec_1190097717
Request that information from the above video be incorporated into the article.
And for chrissake, let's at least make an effort to be fair and balanced, despite your feelings about the issue.
:Great another video that cuts out Meyer's bad behavior. 128.227.126.157 03:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Request that you do it.  See WP:SOFIXIT. superlusertc 2007 September 20, 03:05 (UTC)
Sure.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.131.224 (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liveleak Footage 

message: Where's the evidence that he 'finished'?  I don't see any indication that he was gonna stop talking before his mic was cut, especially considering that as soon as it was cut, he started YELLING....  there certainly exists no WP:reliable source that says he 'finished'. Dlabtot 03:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He had finished the third question (about Skull and Bones); we know it was his third and final question because after he had asked his first question, he stated that he had two more. I agree that had his mike not been cut off, he probably was going to keep talking, reiterating the third question or whatever, for some amount of time, then wait for Kerry's response. He has apparently stated to friends that he is dismayed by the amount of attention the media and public are paying to his treatment by police and the comparatively little attention being paid to the questions he had asked, and Kerry's answers to them. Badagnani 03:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I'm not sure whether you agree or disagree, since you've kinda said both.  He did at one point say he had two more questions. That does certainly indicate that he intended to ask three questions, but I don't see how the datum that he intended to ask three questions is in any way related to the assertion that he 'had finished' the third question at the point his mike was cut.  Especially considering his rambling, nearly-incoherent behavior up to that point, it seems at least as likely to assume that he was prepared to re-ask and re-phrase his third question at length, as it is to assume that he 'had finished'. Dlabtot 03:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: All I'm saying is that he said he had three questions, then asked three questions. After he asked the third question, he kept running his mouth and the mike was cut off. If there's some better way to phrase that, that would be fine. Badagnani 03:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Good edit; he had made it through his three "questions", but he was def. not finished speaking when his mic was cut. Nosferatublue 16:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  as he finished, his mic was cut? 

message: this user is from the uni's offices and is exclusively working on this artcile and is doing their best to Bias the article in favour of the tasorers I dont particularly care but you should keep an eye on it.58.106.19.162 05:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the ARIN WHOIS; how do you know it's not just some random student, faculty or staff member?
*OrgName:    University of Florida 
*OrgID:      UNIVER-27
*Address:    Computing and Networking Services
*Address:    room 112, ssrb, stadium road
*Address:    PO BOX 112050
*City:       Gainesville
*StateProv:  FL
*PostalCode: 32611-2050
*Country:    US
*NetRange:   128.227.0.0 - 128.227.255.255 
*CIDR:       128.227.0.0/16 
*NetName:    UFNET
*NetHandle:  NET-128-227-0-0-1
*Parent:     NET-128-0-0-0-0
*NetType:    Direct Assignment
*NameServer: NAME.UFL.EDU
*NameServer: LOWER-NAME.SERVER.UFL.EDU
*NameServer: RUTGERS-NAME.SERVER.UFL.EDU
*Comment:    
*RegDate:    
*Updated:    2004-04-14 Badagnani 05:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  user: 128.227.126.157 

message: For what it's worth I watched this first on Nancy Grace.  She tends to take a clip of footage and repeat it over and over again in the background while she gives her (highly editorialized) comments on the legal implications.  True to form she did that with this story, she continually played only the scenes where the kid was struggling, and when they taser him the sound cut off.  I had no idea he was yelling "don't taser me bro" until I read it here on wikipedia.  Long story short, she made the kid out to be a juvenile delinquent with nothing important to say and no other mission then to harrass (actually it looked like he was on drugs or something).  With only that interpretation of the scene, my opinion on this was highly biased and negative toward the kid, until I saw more footage and got the whole picture.
The moral of course is to not trust one news source and check out several, and their editorial styles and political agendas, before coming to any conclusions.Rglong 16:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great point. CelestialDog 21:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The better moral is not to listen to Nancy Grace, period. David Fuchs (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nancy Grace coverage 

message: (Badagnani) OK - I added 'resisted' to "two more officers joined in, and the four officers forcibly removed him to the back of the room as Meyer, once even breaking free." This sentence is incomplete as it is. I think "as Meyer resisted, once even..." makes sense, as he was resisting. I also took out Andrew, since the paragraph has been calling him Meyer up to that point. He's the only Meyer in the story, so there isn't any clarity to be gained by calling him "andrew meyer" when everywhere else we call him 'meyer'. Nosferatublue 17:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was the few previous edits I objected to. Badagnani 18:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Details 

message: I'm not sure why some sentences are capitalized.  I assume to denote yelling, but the decision of what is or isn't a yell is arbitrary, and rather unnecessary.  It's painful to read and if someone wants to know when he yells or doesn't there are many videos widely available.
Jstanierm 00:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random Capitalization of the Transcript 

message: Will someone please explain why this guy is repeatedly referred to as a "kid".  It implies some kind of innocent child.  He's 21 years old and BY LAW as much of an adult as myself and I'm 60.24.7.171.139 02:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What kid? 

message: The "Don't tase me bro" line has become an internet meme in a way. I know on YTMND they're going crazy with it, and 4Chan is probably doing the same (I haven't checked the latter). Do you think we should mention this?
--Kblavie 01:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think a 'wait and see' approach would be a better idea. Revolutionaryluddite 05:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet meme 

message: Check this before youtube removes it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAZATt4tM74
Violence is completely uncalled for! 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roseland,_Indiana
""There was an incident, reported on September 17, involving David Snyder and Officer Jack Tiller. During a heated argument between Snyder and the council chair due to yielding the floor with a 1 minute stipulation, which Snyder said is against the city rules. The council chair ejected Snyder. As Snyder was leaving, he turned to Officer Jack Tiller and remarked, "Oh look, the bully's back". This appeared to enrage the officer, who then proceeded to push Snyder. The video then continues outside with the Officer sitting on Snyder and beating him. The felony charge where the Officer claimed that Snyder attempted to strike him has since been dropped.""
What charges have been brought against the police officer?   AugustinMa 12:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Police brutality, same day, different place (Roseland, Indiana) 

message: Since the Andrew Meyer page became merged with this one, I will repost what I posted before:
Wikipedia Sensationalizing Andrew Meyer
I am ripping mad at Wikipedia. You're supposed to be OBJECTIVE...yet you have slanted statements...favorable statements like this----> Notable credit(s) became an Internet and TV celebrity when videos were posted of police tasering him at a speech by U.S. Senator John Kerry.
Not only is Wikipedia biased in its reporting of the incident on their "University of Florida taser" page by leaving out the facts, but on THIS page they are calling him a celebrity (an individual who hit my sister before she tased him). Calling this cretin a "celebrity" is definitely biased. And there is even more idiocy by wikipeida---> On September 17, 2007, Meyer was subdued by five campus police officers and tasered while asking Senator John Kerry a number of questions during a question and answer period following the Senator's speech at the University of Florida.
First of all, sir, he was not subdued while he was asking John Kerry questions. This suggests what the biased want you to think that he was subdued because he asked a certain question. He was subdued AFTER he was unruly and used the word "blow job" and said other profanity. The subduing part happened after they attempted to remove him from the microphone (the microphone that was turned off by event staff because he was inappropriate) and in the process of escorting him away from the microphone he made a scene and was resisting the officer's instructions. He was only "under arrest" after he made a scene and was physical with the officers. The miranda rights were read when he was unruly. The officers approached this idiot only to get him to stop his inappropriateness and escort him away from the microphone. The "subduing" part happened because he being unruly. So, report the darn FACTS. All I did was try to change that wording to accurate reporting of the FACTS of the case and you would not allow this.
Things like this show you just how biased wikipedia is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedrdrew (talk • contribs) 04:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Senationalizing Andrew Meyer/Wikipedia Bias (No Objectivity) 

message: It seems to be very tempting to add various POV-template to this article. But all such additions have to be clearly justified and its reasons be further elaborated here. --Camptown 20:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The POV templates have been added/removed multiple times, sometimes without discussion. I reviewed the current version of the article, and it seems reasonably NPOV to me, though I could have missed something. Flatscan 20:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I placed or replaced a POV template at least once and have discussed it here on this talk page. But the problems have been long since resolved, imho. Dlabtot 20:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV-template 

message: "The student struggled for several seconds[8] and demanded to know why he was being arrested." This needs to be clearer. Did the police tell him that he was being arrested at that time, or did he just think they were arresting him? From the video, it looks like he first asks "Are you arresting me?" and then it slowly escalates from there. It is unclear exactly when the decision to take him out of the room turned into a decision to arrest, then a decision to tase. Wrad 20:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The text is unclear, in part, because the situation is unclear. We have not identified all of the relevant decision points and the sequence in which they were made, let alone, who made the decisions for what reasons. The decisions, with the exception of Senator Kerry recognizing Meyer (the videos start with Kerry recognizing Meyer so they don't show that Kerry was overriding the event organizers announcements just prior to when the video begins), are not documented on the videos. Some decisions are documented in the individual officers accounts in the Police Report, but the Officers accounts are not always consistent (actually, that is to their credit, if the officers' accounts were perfectly consistent, one would doubt their independence). For example, one officer says ACCENT told them to remove Meyer, and another says the officers decided among themselves to remove Meyer. Since this is controversial, I included both accounts and let the Wikipedia reader decide. Jim.Callahan,Orlando 22:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As to your comment about the officer's accounts not being perfectly in-sync: yes, it's a good thing the reports aren't 'mad-lib' style fill-in-the-blanks, with each officer just adjusting what name is where. But don't you think the cops should agree on major issues like whether or not they decided on ther own to remove him, or if they were ordered to? :sigh: I guess it's best to leave both in for now.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.110.196.19 (talk) 00:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clearer description needed 

message: The article needs to say a bit more about these moments. The police report makes several statements which clarify the police reaction a lot. Wrad 04:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Before the cameras rolled 

message: Why was the name of the fourth officer removed in this edit? Badagnani 05:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal 

message: There needs to be a section talking about how he has become an internet phenomenon on especially on youtube.com and ytmnd.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.36.57 (talk) 08:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold! :) — xDanielx T/C 04:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular Culture 

message: I have not seen any sources based on the police reports, the entire sequence is something like this:
:It was announced that only a couple more questions would be taken, Meyers was far back in line. 
:Meyers barged up to the front of the line, an Accent supervision signaled to the police. Meyers was approached by an officer, asked if he was a student, did he know the rules and was told that if he created a disturbance he would be required to leave. Meyers said he didn't have to answer. An officer began to escort Meyers out. 
:Meyers began yelling and waving him arms shouting he was going to be taken to jail. Kerry tells Meyers to calm down, said he would take the question. He then finishes answering the previous question. Accent director?? or the police decided that after Meyers asked his question they wanted to speak with Meyers outside. 
:Meyers hands a camera to the young women who was next in line to ask Kerry a question and asks her to record. 
:-VIDEO STARTS- Kerry tells Meyers, go ahead,  Meyers began his diatribe, police tried to prompt him to ask his question - he turns and angrily informs him he has three questions etc.  
:Meyers uses the word blowjob, Accent director signals to cut the mic Meyers turn to the police with some words, 
:Police began to escort Meyers out for creating a disturbance Meyers resists being removed. etc
Is this not correct? Ken E. Beck 11:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to reports the police tried to take Meyers out and Kerry told them not to. Kerry told Meyers to calm down that he would take his question, then he turns and finishes answering  the previous question.  - none of this is on any video I've seen. Then he takes Meyers question, which is when the video begin or begin to show Meyers. Ken E. Beck 15:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true, all videos start when he starts his question. We need to tell the story before that point better. Wrad 15:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This is your edit summary associated with this comment: →police reports - In Wise's account, Meyer may have 3 hands, 1) transporter position, 2) book, 3) camera Do you have a source that describes the "transporter position"? I don't know exactly what it is, and I wasn't able to find it with a quick search. Later in Wise's report, he describes Mallo and himself removing Meyer in "a dual transporter position", which is visible in the video. The officers are holding Meyer's arms at/near the elbows, and he is able to retain his book. If one assumes that a single "transporter position" is executed in the same way, just with one officer, both of Meyer's hands would be free to hold his two objects. Flatscan 02:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The interesting thing, in my view, about this incident is that in fact, if someone was to read the police reports, which are confusing, not in chronological order, some what inconsistent as you point out, and possibly self-serving, you would likely be somewhat confused, unsure, but have some idea of what transpired. On the other hand, watching a video, particular the one by Kyle Mitchell  that starts when Meyers begins to talk about the Skull and Crossbones and lack context, you may feel  very  confident that you understand  what happened. Ken E. Beck 13:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Is there a reliable source that claims that Meyer was not properly Mirandized? Jim.Callahan,Orlando, I appreciate your contributions to the article and this Talk page (particularly your transcript), but your incredulity at the police reports in this section seems excessive, more than is appropriate for a POV source. Flatscan 05:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  police reports 

message: First... this is not about questioning the AfD ruling, or re-opening the question of whether this article should be a keep or not.  That issue is settled.  What I want to discuss is whether this event continues to be notable, now that some time has passed.... and assuming the answer is "yes", then focusing at least a section of this article on that continued notability.  I have seen far too many current event articles that get a great deal of attention while the event is going on, only to be left in a horrible state once the news cycle, and everyone's attention, has moved on to something else ... articles that do not contain any information about the subsequent results of the event.  I fear that this will happen with this article.  So we need to discuss the events continued notablility.  A lot of people expressed a desire to keep this article based on its being an "important event".  OK... that's fine... in which case, we need to discuss what that importance is.  I realize that it may still be too soon to judge this. but once that importance becomes clearer we need to discuss it.
Please... do not leave this article in a state where it simply discribes a once-current event.  Stay on top of this story, and follow up.  It may be that those of you who feel that this is the "One of the most important events of our genneration" (as one editor put it at the AfD)... or it may be "much a-do about nothing" (as another put it)... but what ever the ultimate outcome is, let's make sure we address it. Blueboar 18:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The only long-term notability or 'ultimate outcome' of the incident that I can see is that Meyer sues the police officers for damages (and he wins or loses). I disagree that the ythmnd reaction to the incident should be mentioned in this article, except in passing. Revolutionaryluddite 18:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It'll be interesting to see how this changes UF policy, and what the panel decides. Until then, we can't really see what will happen. Wrad 18:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, partly what I am getting at is whether this becomes a "cause celebre" or not... Will this be a three day wonder... soon forgotten, or will it remain a topic of conversation and comment on editorial pages, blogs.  Did the current polularity of "Don't Tase me, Bro" as a catch phrase continue or did no one remember what it was about after a few weeks.  Things like that.  I agree that we will not know the answers to this for a while... but I would like the article to have some follow up that discusses these things.  Blueboar 19:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  continued notability? 

message: I have not seen much good coverage of this in the papers, mostly blogs, here for example is the statement from Online Communications Director for John Kerry  what are the guidelines for this stuff?  Ken E. Beck 23:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm usually against blogs, but this one seems to be an exception, since its writer genuinely know what she's talking about. And yes, it does seem to be largely an internet phenomenon. Wrad 23:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This site has several eye witness and an interesting commentary  Ken E. Beck 13:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sources 

message: Meyer's line of questioning suggested a Skull and Bones conspiracy. While widespread election fraud was going on Kerry conceded the 2004 presidential election on the day, not only to let a fellow bonesman become President of the US but after the election Kerry also refused to vote for impeachment of President George W. Bush on Irak. These facts illustrate the S&B linked conspiracy theory that the majority of the Democratic Party would never support Kerry if he lead the Irak invasion. As a Republican Bush was a much better suited candidate for that. Of course Kerry or Bush would never ever admit to anything concerning S&B influencing US politics. This video (from 1:40 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y90tjV_Va0o ) shows only the beginning of what Kerry answered. Tucker also commented on Kerry's answers (from 2:35 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCBcOQkUNjI ). Peter de Jong 09:03, 27 September 2007
The summary of Meyer's "questions" does not actually represent what he actually said. Meyer was rambling and confrontational; the summarization of the range of topics he touched on suggests he was much more concise and logical. I think that now that we have a good transcript of his questions up, this section is redundant. 
Also, this ("Palast later said that Meyer had referred to a chapter in the book called "Kerry Won. Now Get Over It" and that the chapter has special relevance to the locale of Meyer’s arrest.[10]) is way out of place here. Palast is suggesting that Meyer's arrest is part of a far-flung conspiracy of silence; this is totally extraneous to a description of Meyer's actual "question". Nosferatublue 14:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is an improvement, I was thinking that the commentary and the transcript should be weaved together a little, for example that he was waving the book at Kerry (or the students) and that he turns and address the students at times (isn't that amazing?) and the police at others. Also I believe that at one point Kerry asks "What is your question" I don't see that. Ken E. Beck 14:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the point of this discussion. His questions are given verbatim in the transcript; do we really need Wiki-punditry to try to explain Meyer's motivations for asking what he did? Badagnani 19:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree a good Wiki article should stick to verifiable facts, but you seem to be missing the point. Meyer asked these questions because he believed Greg Palast. That’s verifiable as Meyer specifically mentioned Volusia County and generically referred to minorities being disenfranchised in Florida and Ohio. Palast makes the connection with Alachua County. When Meyer hears he will be transported to Alachua County jail (Liveleak video) he exclaims: “Oh my god, they’re giving me to the government !” After which he does not want to give officer Mallo his name (“I’m afraid to tell you”) and starts asking bystanders to accompany him to the police station (“Ask them where’s the guy that was arrested at the John Kerry rally. Okay ? Ask them where I am, because they’re gonna try and kill me !”). Whether his fear was justified or not, and whether there actually was a conspiracy or not, is irrelevant. The fact remains that Meyer believed there was a (S&B 'pulling the strings of government') conspiracy and this was what promted him to ask Kerry his three conspiracy linked questions. Therefore it should be in the article IMHO. Peter de Jong 23:50, 27 September 2007 
Badagnani - [sic] is a way of saying "This misspelling is not my fault, it was present in the original source". Here the author of the article called a mic a mike, so when we quote him verbatim, I'm just letting the reader know that the misspelling is the fault of the original author, not a wikipedian. Nosferatublue 21:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course I know what "sic" means. As per Dictionary.com, "mike" and "mic" are both widely used alternate informal spellings for "microphone." I don't believe "mike" is an incorrect usage. In fact, most sources list "mike" as the main spelling and "mic" or "mic." as an alternate spelling. Badagnani 21:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Woops, sorry - I didn't mean to be patronizing. I would consider "mike" to be a misspelling, but if Dict.com says otherwise, feel free to ignore me. Nosferatublue 21:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I see, well some people do consider "mike" a misspelling but I think it is the time-honored and normal way of spelling this, whereas "mic" has come in over time. The reason "mic" isn't a good spelling, IMO, is that in English it would normally be pronounced "mick." Badagnani 21:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Good deal :) Nosferatublue 21:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Meyer's questions

message: Awright, peoples. There seems to be some disagreement on wether or not to include commentary by media unrelated to the event in the article. I think this article should stick to solely what was said and done at the time by the persons involved. The title of this article is University of Florida Taser incident - lets stick to describing this incident. Pundits pronounce moral judgment on a situation, something that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Nosferatublue 20:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The response from Palast does seem worth mention, as the author of the "little yellow book." Badagnani 20:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's tempting, but I disagree, for the same reason above. We should limit ourselves to describing the incident itself and its immediate effects. We should include the Kerry quote, since he was present at the incident, and he continues to be affected as it plays out. Palast just provides commentary, something we should avoid. Nosferatublue 21:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Nosferatublue that the blogosphere, Op-Ed, and editorial reactions should not be included in the article-- at least for now. Revolutionaryluddite 23:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is this, Wikipedia lite? Beyond the bare facts what is important about this incident? I propose the following: Incident was widely viewed on utube. It was widely seen as a free speech issue. The actors were criticized including the police, Kerry, and Meyer. Kerry, Meyer and the police were defended. There was speculation of conspiracies. If good sources can be found for theses things I think they should be included, as well as any thing else that rises to the level of inclusion. Ken E. Beck 23:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think that's really a fair comparison. Palast has significant political ties to the incident for obvious reasons. A taser manufacturer wouldn't have those kinds of ties. — xDanielx T/C 16:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And? Palast may have political ties, but TASER International has financial ties. Heck, you could argue that RFK Jr., who wrote a (later thoroughly disproven) article providing evidence of voter fraud, has political ties to this too, but I would argue that quotes from all three (Palast, RFK Jr., TASER International) are mostly irrelevant to this article, unless they happen to have some profound insight into the situation, which I don't believe they do, their opinions are really as valid as Yuri Geller's in this situation, which is to say not at all. -FrYGuY 06:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Which Palast quote is being referenced just above? Badagnani 02:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Nosferatublue makes exactly the point I wanted to make - Palast has no special knowledge of the incident. If we decide that the book somehow merits its own section, Palast's comments may be relevant there. Flatscan 05:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My argument for inclusion would be that it appeared in the Gainsville Sun therefore it should be considered for inclusion in the article. I don't think this falls fully in the category conspiracy, I think it does however full in the category free speech issue. Here Palast says "When you bring up uncomfortable stuff, it's going to create discomfort," said Palast, who reports for BBC Newsnight and writes for Harpers and Vanity Fair. "Obviously, if he was speaking about baseball scores - if he maybe had a different political viewpoint that wasn't seen as combative or outside of what's permissible - then the cops' backs wouldn't have been up." Taser sparks UF debate I think this should go in and no more, unless more is published in an acceptable source. Ken E. Beck 11:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  - I think the Palast reaction section as is should be removed, self published source. Ken E. Beck 12:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Punditry

message: While I think that tase is more apropos, what with the "Don't tase me, bro!" comment, I do believe that "Taser" should be the base for non-quote material. My justification being that TASER is an acronym (Thomas A Swift's Electric Rifle, for those curious), and while it has come into use as a stand-alone word like laser or radar, it's still good form to treat it as such. Thus "Tasered" would be more correct than "tased".
On the other hand, "Lase" is, and has been a word since the '60s, so I'm certain "Tase" will be a word soon enough. But Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or something like that.
Feel free to post differing opinions, after all, evolving language and all that jazz. -FrYGuY 08:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Tase" has been used by police officers in both (UCLA and UF) Taser incidents. Flatscan 13:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tase v. Taser 

message: This section, as a block, doesn't make much sense. The relevant parts should go into proper sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken E. Beck 14:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the section should be restored. POV or not, the police report is a comprehensive primary source. It also appears to be the only verifiable source of the events before the videos start. Presenting it in its own section makes it clear that the entire section should be read keeping POV in mind. Flatscan 17:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point but don't agree. Instead anywhere the reports are used it should be in the blockquotes. (I didn't do it for the Meyer criticisms section because I have difficulty with the editing required.) That way it is clear where it is from. I didn't take it out because of POV issues,I  took it out because it is out of sequence, poorly written etc.  We should help the reader by putting the appropriate section of the reports in the proper place in context. If anyone wants to read the whole reports they can. Ken E. Beck 17:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying your reasons. I think the current narrative of the incident has excessive detail and that adding the police reports to the main text will worsen this. My proposed solution is to lead the Incident section with a summary — I'll propose a reorganization of the article in a new section, when I have time. Flatscan 01:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking to replace the text, not add to it, but I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. Ken E. Beck 18:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not paper and (as with many of our articles) we want to have the most detailed article possible, which people around the world will refer to as the definitive, complete source. The article is not too long. Badagnani 18:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This is what I have in mind, rather then say according to Wise, simply put the text in. My thinking is  it shows what happened but also shows the source, the police reports. I'd support any improved rewrites. Ken E. Beck 20:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I leaned over to Ofc. Mallo and we made the decision that Meyer would be escorted out of the auditorium after his statements/questions due to his overall demeanor and actions. Meyer continued his disruptive behavior at the microphone and made a statement concerning why President Clinton was almost impeached for receiving a "blowjob", at this point ACCENT staff cut the sound off to the microphone. Meyers [sic] threw his hands up in the air in disgust of having the microphone turned off.
 
Officer Mallo says, "Max Tyroler, asked us to take him [Andrew Meyer] out of the auditorium"; while Officer Wise says, "I leaned over to Ofc. Mallo and we made the decision that Meyer would be escorted out of the auditorium after his statements/questions due to his overall demeanor and actions." Both agree that Accent staff turned off the microphone.
Andrew Meyer had handed his camera to a woman.  He had asked her if she was recording him moments before beginning his questions. 
 Police Report, Statement of Officer Pablo De Jesus 
I observed Meyer hand a digital hand-held camera to white female he was present with, and it appeared that he instructed her to film his interaction. 
 Police Report, Statement of Officer Nicole Lynn Mallo 
The man at that point turned to his friend and said, "Are you taping this? Do you have this? You ready?" The man was talking to a woman who was there to film him.
 Police Report, Statement of Officer Amanda Spurlin After the incident, I remained in the lobby while attendees left the building.  I was then approached by a female subject, Clarissa Jessup. She stated that she had been in line in front of Mr. Meyer when he asked her to videotape his exchange with Senator Kerry. She stated that she did not know Mr. Meyer.
The report states that "as [Meyer] was escorted down stairs with no cameras in sight, he remained quiet, but once the cameras made their way down stairs he started screaming and yelling again." Additionally, the report states that Meyer was "laughing and being lighthearted in the car, his demeanor completely changed once the cameras were not in sight." The police officers have said that during the ride, Meyer said that "I am not mad at you guys, you didn't do anything wrong, you were just trying to do your job."
"Both agree that Accent staff turned off the microphone."
In http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7Qef8oPmag at 01:32 when Meyer says 'Skull and Bones', you can see someone in a suit beside the officers, possibly Max Tyroler, make two sharp chopping actions across his throat with his right hand - a standard signal to sound engineers for 'cut'. All three had looked to the back when the 'offensive' (?) word 'b***job' was uttered, as though someone else might have cut it then.
--195.137.93.171 05:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the link supplied above it seems to me Kerry can be clearly asking "So whats your question" but the transcript doesn't show this. Ken E. Beck 15:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The identification of the suited male as Tyroler seems like OR or outright conjecture. He could be someone else relaying Tyroler's orders. Flatscan 02:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Police reports 

message: The University Police offense report contains statements from several University of Florida police officers.
 Police Report, Statement of Officer Nicole Lynn Mallo 
Before asking [Senator Kerry] the question, I had a chance to ask the man [Andrew Meyer] if he was a student and he stated, "I don't have to tell you." I then asked him if he knew the rules to the student code of conduct and he said, "What?" I informed the man that after he asked Senator Kerry the question that I needed to talk to him outside. After asking the question, the man would not let Senator Kerry finish his statement and kept badgering the senator about his beliefs, talking about "blow jobs", and yelling as loud as he could as to sensationalize his presence.
At that moment the Accent Director, Max Tyroler, asked us to take him [Andrew Meyer] out of the auditorium and had his microphone turned off stating, "He had said enough." Officer Wise and I grabbed both of the man's arms and asked him to come with us out of the auditorium to speak with us. * * *" 
 
 Police Report, Statement of Officer William L Wise 
:I leaned over to Ofc. Mallo and we made the decision that Meyer would be escorted out of the auditorium after his statements/questions due to his overall demeanor and actions. Meyer continued his disruptive behavior at the microphone and made a statement concerning why President Clinton was almost impeached for receiving a "blowjob", at this point ACCENT staff cut the sound off to the microphone. Meyers [sic] threw his hands up in the air in disgust of having the microphone turned off.
 
Officer Mallo says, "Max Tyroler, asked us to take him [Andrew Meyer] out of the auditorium"; while Officer Wise says, "I leaned over to Ofc. Mallo and we made the decision that Meyer would be escorted out of the auditorium after his statements/questions due to his overall demeanor and actions." Both agree that Accent staff turned off the microphone.
Andrew Meyer had handed his camera to a woman.  He had asked her if she was recording him moments before beginning his questions. 
 Police Report, Statement of Officer Pablo De Jesus 
I observed Meyer hand a digital hand-held camera to white female he was present with, and it appeared that he instructed her to film his interaction. 
 Police Report, Statement of Officer Nicole Lynn Mallo 
The man at that point turned to his friend and said, "Are you taping this? Do you have this? You ready?" The man was talking to a woman who was there to film him.
 Police Report, Statement of Officer Amanda Spurlin After the incident, I remained in the lobby while attendees left the building.  I was then approached by a female subject, Clarissa Jessup. She stated that she had been in line in front of Mr. Meyer when he asked her to videotape his exchange with Senator Kerry. She stated that she did not know Mr. Meyer.
The report states that "as [Meyer] was escorted down stairs with no cameras in sight, he remained quiet, but once the cameras made their way down stairs he started screaming and yelling again." Additionally, the report states that Meyer was "laughing and being lighthearted in the car, his demeanor completely changed once the cameras were not in sight." The police officers have said that during the ride, Meyer said that "I am not mad at you guys, you didn't do anything wrong, you were just trying to do your job."
"Both agree that Accent staff turned off the microphone."
In http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7Qef8oPmag at 01:32 when Meyer says 'Skull and Bones', you can see someone in a suit beside the officers, possibly Max Tyroler, make two sharp chopping actions across his throat with his right hand - a standard signal to sound engineers for 'cut'. All three had looked to the back when the 'offensive' (?) word 'b***job' was uttered, as though someone else might have cut it then.
--195.137.93.171 05:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the link supplied above it seems to me Kerry can be clearly asking "So whats your question" but the transcript doesn't show this. Ken E. Beck 15:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The identification of the suited male as Tyroler seems like OR or outright conjecture. He could be someone else relaying Tyroler's orders. Flatscan 02:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Police report

message: Is it worth adding a link to the policy ?
HTML version
Maybe as a footnote to "University investigation - review our police protocols" ?
--195.137.93.171 01:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's worth adding as an 'external link', but including it in the 'police' section would be WP:SYN. Revolutionaryluddite 04:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: University of Florida Police Department - "Use of Force" Standards Directive 

message: This video should be worked into the article, as it seems to the first/only one that shows what happened between Meyer and the police *before* he asked his question, at least for a minute or two. Badagnani 03:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that he briefly confronted the police before is somewhat notable, but I don't think think it should be mentioned there. It should be mentioned in proper context. Also, the video itself has been re-edited by someone extremely sympathetic to Meyer. If there's just this single video and no independent collaboration of the events, we should wait. If it has to placed into the article right now, I think the video should be added in the 'External Links' section. Revolutionaryluddite 05:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems that there was agreement that it is acceptable to create a transcript along with a description and the Meyer's questions section is a result of that. It was pointed out that the eyewitness reports were in agreement with the police reports. Is this video any different? It agrees with the police reports and the source "Before the video rolls. It think we should add Kerry's remarks to the transcript. Ken E. Beck 14:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The IP is UF DHCP, so previous contibs are not valid. Some are. 159.178.19.26 22:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very important--video showing what happened before Meyer asked his question 

message: Someone should archive this page. I've done what I can for sections that aren't ongoing, but there are still way too many sections here. Timneu22 16:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Badagnani 17:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ARCHIVE THIS PAGE 

message: The title of this article appears to be incorrect. Why is "Taser" not "taser"? Wikipedia's standards are to capitalize proper nouns. Is "taser" a proper noun? Timneu22 16:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is a brand name. See Taser. Badagnani 18:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But more specifically, isn't it TASER? That's what I get from the taser article. Timneu22 19:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that TASER (like LASER) isn't used any longer, and that the company that produces the item calls it a "Taser" (capitalized, but not in all caps). To call it a "taser" would be like calling a copy machine a "xerox" here or a facial tissue a "kleenex," which would be informal and unencyclopedic. Thus, we've been calling generic weapons of this type "electroshock weapons" and the actual brand name weapon a "Taser." Badagnani 20:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds good to me. Just thought I'd bring it up. Timneu22 20:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the manufactures generally refer to them as 'TASERS'. Newspapers and journals go with a semi-capitalized 'Taser'. Revolutionaryluddite 21:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title - Taser/taser