Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-19 Martin Anderson controversy

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Martin Anderson controversy
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	Ford1206, Billollib
Mediator(s)	PhilKnight (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[[Category:Wikipedia Mediation Cabal closed cases|Martin Anderson controversy]][[Category:Wikipedia Mediation Cabal maintenance|Martin Anderson controversy]]

Request details

Who are the involved parties?

Ford1206, Billollib, Fconaway

What's going on?

This dates from October, 2007. The issues are POV, primarily repeated deletions and unverified edits. Good faith efforts to secure compliance have not been recognized. See many warnings and blocks arbitrarily deleted from Talk:Ford1206. The first warning was given by ClueBot October 16, 2007:

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Martin Anderson, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Martin Anderson was changed by Ford1206 (c) (t) deleting 29726 characters on 2007-10-16T22:08:02+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot 22:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

What would you like to change about that?

Compliance with Wikipedia guidelines for editors.

Administrative notes

I've protected the article for a month, because of the recent heated edit war. PhilKnight (talk) 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

i was putting in facts about why the kid was there in first place. there are web links on the page descibing the kid as being innocent and a good kid. if this was the case he would not have been there. also billibob has and wants to add his own personnal blog page to this article. this entire article is and has also been one-sided toward the kid. nothing has been added about the defendants other than the were aquitted. thank you...ford1206

I suggest that any moderator review the *entire* set of edits that Ford1206 has been attempting to add to the article, such as "Martin Lee Anderson, was not innocent nor was he a victim. He was a drug dealer and a gang member." and "If his parents did their job he woulds still be alive." and "hIS PARENTS GOT OVER $7 MILLION FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND BAY COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE. THESE TWO DID NOT EVEN CARE OR RAISE THIS YOUNG MAN, HIS GRANDMOTHER WAS RAISINING HIM. BUT HAS SOON AS HIS PARENTS WERE AND KNOWING THEY COULD SUE FOR THIERS SON'S DEATH , THEY WERE BEING SEEN AS LOVED PARENTS. HIS FATHER IS CRACK HEAD AND ARMED ROBBER AND BURGULAR. HIS MOTHER A KNOWN DRUG DEALER AND A KNOWN HABITTUAL OFFENDR OF PASSIN WORTHLESS CHECKS. 'JUSTICE HAS BEEN SERVED.

This is what passes for "facts" in Wikipedia? I have repeatedly asked for citations for Ford126's statements, and they have been refused, with his or her claims that referencing claims is not necessary. The claims, such as those above, deserve citations as falling under Wikipedia's standard of "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable, published source."

He or she has also deleted large portions of the article simply because he or she doesn't like it. He or she deleted specifically cited conclusions by the Florida Medical Examiner on the grounds that he or she did not agree with it.

As far as adding my medical description of the death, I believe that it falls under the criterion of "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sou rces." I am a Medical Examiner who acted as an advisor to Dr. Siebert in this case. The article that Ford1206 objects to is a fully-referenced medical review of the current literature involving the case, albeit with a pro-Seibert POV. What is most amusing about Ford1206's edits is that he or she deleted Dr. Adams' conclusion stating that it had been "proven" wrong, but also objects to me providing the medical basis for the proof he or she claims. Billollib (talk) 01:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

yes i added those remarks after several attempts to put facts about the boy. those facts abut his parents are true.how is Fconaway part of this discussion between me and you. teaming up on me now? just because you say you are an associate of Dr Seibert , where is your proof? you tell me i need to put in my sources, but since you say you a ME you dont have to put yours. little double satndards dont you think. you source is your own personnal blog site. i live here in panama city. this young man was in the news way before he entered the boot camp. all i am doing his putting in of why he was incarated for in the first place, people are treating him like he was innocent. there was a reason why he was there. i delete the aftermath about Dr Seibert after the fact ( the trial ) of not being rehired and moving back to new jersey. this had nothing to do with the trial, which is what the page is bout , martin anderson and the trial. also how come no one has put anything about the defandants in here , their side of ths story. i have tried, then it gets deleted and me being accused of be a vandal. this statement is true, "Martin Lee Anderson, was not innocent nor was he a victim. He was a drug dealer and a gang member." and "If his parents did their job he woulds still be alive." and "hIS PARENTS GOT OVER $7 MILLION FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND BAY COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE. THESE TWO DID NOT EVEN CARE OR RAISE THIS YOUNG MAN, HIS GRANDMOTHER WAS RAISINING HIM. BUT HAS SOON AS HIS PARENTS WERE AND KNOWING THEY COULD SUE FOR THIERS SON'S DEATH , THEY WERE BEING SEEN AS LOVED PARENTS. HIS FATHER IS CRACK HEAD AND ARMED ROBBER AND BURGULAR. HIS MOTHER A KNOWN DRUG DEALER AND A KNOWN HABITTUAL OFFENDR OF PASSIN WORTHLESS CHECKS. 'JUSTICE HAS BEEN SERVED.

 thank you very much ford1206.

Actually, Ford1206, what I have written I have copiously referenced, and I have modified what I wrote in response to requests for further references. I suggest you read my interaction with DieWeissRose regarding the effects of ammonia salts in the discussion of the article. I have modified what I wrote because of suggestions from other editors, and unlike you, have refrained from deleting their comments from the discussion area. I will point you to Fconoway's criticism of what I wrote regarding the COD, and the compromise reached. Further, if you actually look at the discussion of Martin Anderson's injuries on the article you keep deleting, you will find there are around 18 references and reference links. Finally, if you want "proof" of my involvement in the Siebert case, just take a look at the ME open letter to the Medical Examiner Commission published in the Tampa paper (and referenced on the Martin Anderson article, by the way). You will see my signature there as one of the participating forensic pathologists.

Your claim that the article is only about the trial is wrong. It started *before* the trial, and was about the young man's death and the controversy surrounding the death. You cannot unilaterally decide that most of the article is irrelevant simply because it doesn't fit your preconceptions. The trial is just one part of the controversy, and as you well know, many people have not accepted the findings of the trial and are hoping for federal intervention. The death and controversy resulted in multiple firings, not only of Dr. Siebert, but of other state employees, it profoundly affected the lives of the guards, and has a continuing effect on the African-American community. To ignore all of this and say it is just about the *trial* ignores what started the article in the first place.

You ask why nobody has put anything about the defendants. In fact, there is a fair amount about them in terms of their interaction with the controversy. For instance, I added quotes from the guards and their claims at trial (with references, of course). In contrast, you have posted inflammatory statements about the issue and refused to reference your claims. Billollib (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

your site is still opinated and it is a violation of wikipedia, also this site is onesided staying with this kids side of it. if you want this page just to talk about the trial and controversy, then the whole article should be rewritten with parts left out, like the marchs,civil right complaints,and any history before and after the case. still you can not say you were part of the case even if you know Drs involved. if that is the case then i know some of the officers involved and i should be able to put what i want. earlier you said you wanted to meet half way. lets just keep this page strictly about the boot camp and the trial. the web site that should be there is about the video of the non compliant act other wise known as the beating. your referneces then should be listed in the reference section. thank you sweetie...anonymous.

my references are listed it will be the first 2 listed bay county sheriffs office and the clerks office.. thank you sweetie............anonymous

Well, snookums, it is a bit hypocritical of you to complain about POV when you want to write stuff like :"If his parents did their job he woulds still be alive." But, to be frank, that's not a problem. If the mediator decides that my blog article has too much opinion, I'll just write the medical analysis as an independent web page. That's pretty much a technicality. The medicine is what it is, I'm afraid, sugar pie. Your claim that the "marchs,civil right complaints,and any history before and after the case" don't have anything to do with the controversy is simply wrong. The trial is the *result* of the controversy. Surely you understand that, my little sugar plum. Finally, of course, your claim to have inserted references is false; you have never done so, and you do not include links to references in your present claim. Sorry, my little sticky bun, but that doesn't hold water. If you had included references when asked, and had not vandalized the work of others, we would not be awaiting mediation. As far as my references being in the reference section, I will point out that I have added a large part of the references that are there. As far as I can see, you have added none. Perhaps you can point to which references in the citations you have added. Billollib (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

well i do not have add any reference you just asked for references. so you are saying the controversy did not happen until after the trial, well your wrong. the marches have nothing to do with the case nor trial and you cant just change your web page then still add it, thats wrong. it would still be opinated and if anyone should do it should be Dr Seifert himself. you are right about this comment :"If his parents did their job he woulds still be alive." i did put that in there when i getting irrate when someone did not want to hear what i had, not mentioning any names. you know who you are. but the other facts i brought to the table should be added if you want. but i guess you dont want to meet in the middle now? i still believe that what happen before ( why,when,where,who and how for this article before during and after) should be added. but like i said i will meet you in the middle. oh, by the way the sweet talking makes you sound gay, not that there is anything wrong with that. bye for now sweetie.....anonymous.....

"I do not have to add references." Well, yes, my little honey pot, you do. This is Wikipedia. No, I am explicitly not saying that the controversy happened after the trial. Read what I wrote. I wrote that the trial occurred because of the controversy. Being irate is not an excuse for vandalism. I'll be happy to "meet in the middle" too. Reference your claims, and stop deleting links, discussion comments, and broad sections of articles simply because you don't like them. And, honey, nobody needs your homophobia. Billollib (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

where does it say i have to add references? i did tell you which references to fall back onto. then if the controversy happen after the trial then everything else should be deleted. this article is titled controversy. read what i wrote i did not say when i was irrate i was right or wrong, nor was it vandalizing, you just dont like what i have to say. you still think that you are right and it should stay. now how is that meeting in middle when you not even close to it. the links are on sided and very opinated and the one site is personnal blog someone has written just beause they now someone who knows someone involved in the trial.i did refernece my claims i did not say i put them there, bay county sheriffs office and bay county clerks office. the links do not belong here, they are not about the trial or controversy. if you allow the links about the kid which say one side about him, then i should be able to put the criminal life of the kid. i do not remember deleing any discussions, i know others deleted mine and changed in there own words and vandalized what i put. nor did i delete broad sections of this article. i know there are a few people who deleted what i said just because they dont like what is being said and the truth about the kid. so simply put you want your links , i should be able to put about the criminal past about the kid, like why he was there in the first place. also if you dont want to look things up its not my fault. so later sweetie.....oh i never said i was scared of you gays/lesbians. i am leaning to the lesbians. its just that you get irrate and you got well you know a little gay. you should read what you wrote......well anonymous...oh did you know that one of the guards is sueing the bay county sheriffs office to get his job back and was wrongfully fired. once the block is lifted and i find out which officer and when this started i will add. since this is a cause and effect of the trial. well later sweetie.......annonyymous oh there is one person who wants to have a link added which is a personnal opinated blog site. how is that ok to have in the article. thats like me saying what i want to say, right or wrong . well you are the educated one i am sure you can igure that out. late sweetie.........have i added enough yet or is there more......bye for now sweetie......

read what i wrote.............. and you are right this wikipedia. but this is america so i have the right to put forth the truth of thee case and of the kid. trust me the references are there , i do not have to add them if they are already there nor do i have to tell you since they are there. have fun and enjoy looking things up. this is in your own word wikipedia. enjoy sweetie......anonynmous.

"where does it say i have to add references?" Well, lots of places. Such as Wikipedia:About, where it says "if you add information to an article, be sure to include your references, as unreferenced facts are subject to removal." Or here , where it says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." and "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable, published source."

That's where, snuggles.

"i do not remember deleing any discussions" I do. You deleted one of my replies to you.

"nor did i delete broad sections of this article." In fact, you did, and it is recorded in the article history. You really just can't run around denying things that are documented like that.

"once tnce the block is lifted and i find out which officer and when this started i will add. since this is a cause and effect of the trial.he block is lifted and i find out which officer and when this started i will add. since this is a cause and effect of the trial." If you can reference it, that's fine. That's exactly why the stuff about Siebert's firing is included -- it was one of the results of the death, trial, and controversy. Yet you deleted it. Funny, it's OK when you want it, yet everything else should be deleted, eh?

And baby, I don't understand your obsession with homosexuality, but it really has no place in this discussion. Billollib (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

look what i wroteeeeeeee........i told you what the links are. they are already listed on the article page.......you should read the rules wikipedia. so from now on i will tell you this, maybe i am talking to fast. i will slow down. i do know you can read. i hope so. i am not telling you to look it up, i am telling you the links are alreay there in the references. if you cant hit the link or type it, then i am sorry. i will not hold you hand.....bye sweetie....anonymous..oh and beleive me i am not "handwaving". i could be waving something...... i deleted what you put on my talk page yes. becasue that what it is my talk page. i deleted the Dr Seifert firing because it has nothing to do with the trial. but somehow someone got mad and put it back in there and accused me of vandalzing. so if that is in there i will put about the officer wrongfully fired. i am surprised you know nothing, since you are sooo intimate with this article. it still does not say you must reference you material. it says you should. and possiblility of removal or challenged. so you need to read and understand what you read and write. maybe if you talk out loud to yourself might help. so please understand the rules first. so if you are done i will see you later sweetie. also you keep bring up the homosexuality. you have a phobia? well i am done with this.........sweetieso like i said i tried to meet in the middle , but you keep wanting to point fingers and accusing me of vandalizing against your rules.... bye sweetie.....

here is arule for you.....right off the page link you sent....... Abuse of user accounts, such as the creation of Internet sock puppets or solicitation of friends and other parties to enforce a non-neutral viewpoint or inappropriate consensus within a discussion, or to disrupt other Wikipedia processes in an annoying manner, are addressed through the sock puppet policy.

that is what you are doing with your blog site.....thank you very much sweetie....anonymous

Ford, you are not anonymous; please sign your posts. You are also being terribly uncivil, and I warn you that any continued discussion in this matter will likely result in administrative action by any reasonable estimate. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Same to you, Billollib. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

i atired of arguing and bickering with him/her anyway. i have told my side and defended myself very good. all he has done his critzied my edits and i have a good answer for. thank you and  cheers....anonymous.......

Well, certainly, Xavexgoem. But where, exactly, have I been "terribly uncivil?" Billollib (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Billollib, I think Xavexgoem was concerned about the discussion becoming heated. Regarding the current version of the article, could you explain what changes should be made? PhilKnight (talk) 10:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to mediate. Actually, I think the article is pretty good the way it is. I disagree with Ford1206 about the use of my article on the medical basis of Dr. Siebert's diagnosis, but as I wrote above, I am perfectly happy to write a standalone article that is not part of my blog and remove the more egregious POV. My article was written primarily for the Medical Examiner community, which was debating whether or not to get involved as an organization in the case. We eventually *did* get involved, and promulgated an official NAME (National Association of Medical Examiners) open letter. The biggest problem, as far as I can see, is that Ford1206 insists on adding strong POV statements inthe body of the article regarding the decedent and his family, as well as deleting parts of the article on an occasional basis. Essentially, at this point, I (and, I gather, Fconaway) simply revisit the article on a periodic basis to reverse these changes by Ford1206.

Examples of the changes by Ford1206 that have no place in the article, ignoring grammar and spelling issues, include such things as:

HIS PARENTS GOT OVER $7 MILLION FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND BAY COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE. THESE TWO DID NOT EVEN CARE OR RAISE THIS YOUNG MAN, HIS GRANDMOTHER WAS RAISINING HIM. BUT HAS SOON AS HIS PARENTS WERE AND KNOWING THEY COULD SUE FOR THIERS SON'S DEATH , THEY WERE BEING SEEN AS LOVED PARENTS. HIS FATHER IS CRACK HEAD AND ARMED ROBBER AND BURGULAR. HIS MOTHER A KNOWN DRUG DEALER AND A KNOWN HABITTUAL OFFENDER OF PASSING WORTHLESS CHECKS. 'JUSTICE HAS BEEN SERVED.

WAS NOT A VICTIM NOR WAS HE AN INNOCENT KID. HE WAS AN OFFENDER THAT IS WHY HE WAS THERE IN THAT BOOT CAMP. HE WAS LAZY,DEALING DRUGS AND A GANG MEMBER?" IF HIS PARENTS WERE DOING THIER JOB INSTEAD OF BEING OFFENDER THEMSELVES HE WOULD STILL BE ALIVE. HIS MOTHER IS NOT MISSING HER SON. SHE GOT RICH BECAUSE OF HIS DEATH. HIS FATHER WAS NEVER AROUND AND WOULD NOT EVEN GIVE THE KID TIME OF DAY. TRUST ME THE DI'S AND NURSE DID NOT KILL THIS KID. THEY DID NOT KNOW THIS KID AND THIS IS NOT ABOUT RACE. THEIR WERE 2 BLACK DEFENDERS ALSO. SO STOP YOUR PROTESTING AND GET THE FACTS.OR DRINK A CUP OF SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!!!!!

Martin Lee Anderson, was not innocent nor was he a victim. He was a drug dealer and a gang member. f his parents did their job he woulds still be alive.

this is bullshit!

if he has parents he would still be alive. his mother is a known criminal drug user and Passing Worthless Checks. his father his a known drug dealer, criminal and armed robber. His parents did not care for or about him until they were wanting to get money ($7 million from state of florida and bay county sheriffs office). which us tax payers will never see again.

etc, etc, etc

These kinds of statements have no place in the body of a Wikipedia article, and it has been going on for months and months. Since the "controversy" part of this is pretty much over, pending the decision of the feds to bring civil rights charges (and this is unlikely), it's getting a little tiring to have to keep coming back and clean up this stuff. The most recent "edit war" basically has focused on relatively small attempts by Ford1206 to continue this trend, but is part of a long, long process. The three things that Ford1206 has obsessed about most recently has been to introduce the derogatory "who was a known gang member and drug dealer. He was incarcerated because he broke his probation (trespassing and stealing his grandmothers car) " without reference or attribution, the recurring deletion of references to a videotape that was, in fact, important in the public reaction, and the deletion of the "External Links." Ford1206's contention is that references are not required for the derogatory accusations. As far as the "External Links" goes, they all do show POV, but my impression from looking at other articles is that there is more leeway for POV in the External Links section. I actually agree with Ford1206 that the two external links other than my blog are hypercritical of the police and the ME, but that's not really the point -- links should not be simply because one disagrees with the opinions expressed. Thus, the fact that I don't *agree* with them is not sufficient reason for removal, IMHO. Billollib (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we should use the current version as a starting point, and discuss any proposed changes. PhilKnight (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The only change I would make would be to reinstate the medical explanation of exertional sickle death in the External Links. If you were to find that the link is inappropriate as written, I would be happy to write a non-blog page without the obvious POV. As noted above, I believe that it would be acceptable under the provision that "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources." I have specialist knowledge and I reference the literature in the discussion. My primary reason for wanting it in there is that exertional sickle cell death is a significan problem that is clouded in igorance an denial. Many people either do not know the difference between sickle cell trait and sickle cell disease, or believe that sickle cell trait carries no health risk. I agree with the NATA that a continued denial of this syndrome will result in further deaths . However, this is a fairly minor issue. Were you to freeze the article as is, it would be an reasonable representation of the controversy and history until, and if, the feds introduce a civil rights indictment. Having been a fed and involved in these kinds of things, I seriously doubt that will happen because of the medical issues. Another alternative would be to link to the NATA statement instead of mine, which, while it does not address the issues of this case, at least addresses the issues of exertional sickle cell death. Billollib (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

the only link that should be there is of the video. if people want to know more about the sickle cell then they should go to that page and do research there. also if others want to talk more about the trial/controversy before and after, then the kids reason why he was there should be added. there is a reference already there. i did not add nor did i say i did, but it is there. that is what i would like to see. i will even be happy if the only link were there is the one showing the beating. the only thing i deleted was the after the fact about dr seibert not be hired back. that has nothing to do with the trial/controversy. but there should be no reason why and how someone could write a blog in their own words and have it there. thank you for your time.

In fact, the *entire* controversy centered around the issue of the issue of exertional sickle cell death. The outcry arose in large part because of Dr. Baden's claim that "healthy people do not die of sickle trait" after viewing the exhumation, and Dr. Adams' dismissal of that possibility. In the absence of exertional sickle trait death, then death by beating/asphyxiation becomes the only remaining diagnosis by exclusion -- if Mr. Anderson did not die of exertional sickle trait death, then the guards are guilty. Dr. Siebert was called a racist and a tool of the police (and was fired) because he made the diagnosis of exertional sickle cell death. The Florida black caucus called for the firing of Dr. Siebert based on the assertion, as stated by Frederica Wilson "Mr. Siebert needs glasses, he needs eye surgery. We all saw that tape. We know that Martin didn’t die of the sickle cell trait.” Further, the acquittal of the guards, which you so applaud, was based largely on Dr. Siebert's and Dr. Eichner's defense of the diagnosis of exertional sickle cell trait death, requiring the prosecution to tell the jury to *ignore* the medical evidence. Because of the centrality of that diagnosis to the controversy, I submit that *some* link to a discussion of it is appropriate. The reason that one can write a "blog in their own words" is specifically the Wikipedia guidance I gave regarding subject matter experts. Moreover, a quick review of Wikipedia pages shows that blogs are commonly included in the "External Links" section. For instance, if one looks at the "Duke Lacrosse case", it is quite appropriate that the Durham-In_Wonderland blog be listed, since it was an important source of information and commentary during that controversy. However, as I stated, I would be happy to edit it as a standalone page and not part of a "blog," and remove the more egregious POV. As an aside, your numerous deletions are part of the editing history, even if you continue to refuse to sign your edits. Billollib (talk) 00:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC).

just to let you know the guards are not guilty. he did die of the sickle cell trait. also the forms his mother signed for him when he entered the camp she marked that he did not have the trait, which he did have at the time and she knew he had it. for some reason she forgot to let the medical stff he has it. this was brought up during the trial. his mother gave no reason why she did not mark that he did had in fact had the trait. it was proven in a court of law that the guards did not beat the kid to death. if you are able to write a blog in your own wordsthen others should have the right to write what they want.  so everything you said above is controversial on their own. for the trial part of the article only the facts and subjects that were brought up during the trial should be said. thank you....anonymous......thank you.....signed ford1206

All of this is pretty far afield from the original issue, which is that a youngster died in custody. Billolib's commentary is valuable, as are the other "External links", because a full understanding of what actually happened could help to prevent similar tragedies.Fconaway (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

no the other links have nothing to do with this article and if you think they do, they are one sided and very controversial. the beating video is acceptable. so, what other preventable tragedies? also the kid died because of sickle cell , not of the guards actions, this was proven, something everyone wants to ignore. thank you...anonymous......ford1206.....

In fact, the links are directly related to the article. Yes, they all have a distinct POV -- ones I, in fact, disagree with. However, the *controversy* here is all about these differing opinions. The body of the Wikipedia article is not the place for that POV, but external links may be -- just as the POV in the Durham-in-Wonderland blog is appropriate in the Durham lacrosse case. Once again, the article is not *just* about the trial. It is about the *controversy.* While the guards were found not guilty in state court, the federal investigation is still ongoing. Think of the Rodney King trial; the police were acquitted at the state level and convicted at the federal level. Similarly, consider the OJ Simpson trial; he was acquitted at the state criminal level, but found culpable at the state civil level. I was involved in both of those trials, and the idea that controversy disappears with a state verdict is simply wrong.

The importance of discussing the medical issues here is exactly what Fconaway notes. Exertional sickle cell trait death is horribly underappreciated, even in the African-American community. African-American leaders who deny the implications of this threat for the purpose of demagoguery are putting other African-American at risk for sudden death for the purpose of their immediate political goals. Specifically, there should have been protocols in place at the camp to avoid this kind of death. The guards did not "beat" the young man to death, but they *did* kill him. Dr. Siebert himself has told me that he would have been open to calling the case a homicide rather then natural (the reasons for the latter are technical and missed entirely in this discussion). They killed him by forcing him to exert himself to a level of lethal danger; he should not have been coerced into exerting himself once he started to fail. Whether the mother listed sickle trait is irrelevant; many African-Americans are not diagnosed, and protocols should be in place to keep from killing them as well. The US military modified its boot camps to reduce this risk, to great benefit -- not only did we stop killing young African-Americans with sickle trait, but we also decreased the risk of mortality and morbidity among other underdiagnosed risk groups who can suffer catastrophically when pushed to extreme exertion (such as long-Qt syndrome). The one good thing that can come out of this is a greater awareness of an important danger to the at-risk African-Americans who engage in strenuous exercise. Billollib (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

ok walking about martin anderson not oj or lacrosse team. his mo0ther did not report is irrevalnt, his sure is, during the trial the guards even daid that if they had known othere precautions would have been taken. as anyone knows there has not been any civil court precedings, our lovely governor just decided even before the trial began to give the parents money. what notes is fconway talking about? no the guards did not kill him, remeber this was proben in a court of law, they were proven to be innocent. they did not exert him to any lethal danger, remeber his mother did not reprt it on the medical papers when he was entered the boot camp. he was responsive and understood what was being told to him and what the officers were doing. he did not want to run any more. so how long have we known about sickle cell? also i have not heard anything about the us military adjusting because of this trial. also will stop gloating of what trials you say you have been involved with. i am strating to think you want to make a name for yourself. also we did not kill anyone because of sickle ceel. so the only think you should focus on are the true facts before,during and the after math of the so called controversy. thank you very much.....anonymous....ford1206

About the irrelevance. It has been shown over and over again that not all people with sickle cell trait know they have it. The camp needed to learn what the US military learned 20 years ago -- that it is easy to redesign boot camp protocols to protect people who have undiagnosed sickle trait. The irrelevance of the notification thus lies in the fact that this was a death waiting to happen; if it did not happen to Mr. Anderson, it would eventually happen to a different young man.

No, it was not proven that the guards did not kill him. It was found that they were not culpable of negligent homicide, which was the charge. Those are, in fact, two different things. One can kill and not be guilty of negligent homicide.

They did cause lethal exertion. That was their defense -- that they unwittingly did exactly that as opposed to beating him.

We have known about exertional sickle cell deaths since the late 70s. If you bothered to read the post you keep deleting, you would know that. My point was that the military adjusted their protocols in response to knowledge about sickle cell trait, as the penal camp should have done, many years ago.

I am not "gloating" about trials I have been involved with. I am pointing out that there are multiple examples of trials where being found "not guilty" in state court did not "prove" that the person did not do the killing. I will also point out that "not guilty" does not mean "innocent" in the United States legal system.

I am not trying to make a name for myself. Or more correctly, I am not doing it in this venue. I am pointing out that you are not the only one who knows "facts" around here.

"we did not kill anyone because of sickle ceel" So you claim the guards were lying? Either he died of sickle cell or he was beaten to death. You can't deny both. Billollib (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

ok his mother was well aware of him having sickle cell. who can say it was going to happen to another person?yes it was proven the guards did not kill him, they were not beating him, they were using non-compliant procedures when the kid was resisting. the post needs to be deleted because it is in your own words. if i want to know more about sickle cell i will go to the subject, this page is about martin anderson. as far as i know the military has not changed anything. the only thing that has changed because of this , is the sheriff boot camps in florida have been closed. i still think you are gloating, every chance you get. also that last statement you wrote....what? i never once say the huards are lying, i said they did not beat him to death. yes he died because he had sickle cell. i bet you this if he did not have sickle cell he would still be alive. also keep the facts about this case and dont change them now add your own words to them. stay with the facts to this page. thank you...anonymous.......ford1206.......

Sigh. If you agree that the young mad died an exertional sickle cell death, then by definition the guards killed him because they forced him to exert himself to death. Were it not for that coercion, he would not have died. The guards did the coercion. Thus they killed him. They are not guilty of a crime, but that is a different issue. Those *are* the facts. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that the guards didn't kill him *and* admit that he died because the guards coerced him to exert himself to death. Billollib (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

listen for the last time. the guards did not kill him. nor did they excert him in to now more than any other kid that day. he did not want to do it. this kid died becasue he had sickle cell, that the guards were unaware of. remember his mother did not report this , which she should knew. you are not reading what i wrote you want to beleive in something that did not happen. also if you know about the case and a so called expert.  "  also the fact and biggest one is the guards are innocent all of them. dont read one or just a few of the facts read them all and please no more explaining . thank you   anonymous.....ford1206......facts....the kid died in a boot camp in florida . he was there beause of broken probation. he was running and decided not to any more. the guards did their job just like any other time in the past. this kid had sickle cell and breathing in the ammonia capsul later died. he knew what was going on thru out that day.   these are facts not a conclusion, hypothesis, or an idea. these are facts. if you dont like it then leave the case alone and go about your life. this is going around and around with you. i should not have to explian to you or anyone else. this needs to stop.......anonymouss

"he did not want to do it." He did not want to do it because he was dying. The guards coerced him to continue exercising even though it was killing him. That's the point. If the guards were working within their policy and did not know they were killing him, then they are not culpable (and in fact have qualified immunity). If the guards were *not* working within their guidelines and knew their actions could lead to his death, then they are guilty of manslaughter and negligence. Thus, the question at trial was *not* whether or not "the guards killed him." The question was whether or not it was the forced exertion alone (which was within policy) or the direct effects of the coercion and use of ammonia salts (which is not within policy).

"the defense was saying with the sickle cell and forcing him to breathe ammonia capsules in killed him." Er, no. That was the prosecution. The defense claimed that it was the exertion that killed him and that the ammonia capsules played no role in the death. The version you are proposing is the diagnosis of Dr. Adams', expert for the prosecution. The defense, using Drs. Siebert and Eichner, claimed the opposite. Yes, he "knew what was going on." If you were to read the article you keep deleting, this is characteristic of this kind of death, as is the underestimation of the degree of his illness. As one military physician noted when reviewing the death of a recruit with sickle cell trait who died at a military boot camp in the 1990 " After prompt treatment for heat exhaustion, his symptoms seemed mild and he was afebrile." As that military physician noted, these people often do not seem to be all that ill, until they collapse and die. This is what happened with Mr. Anderson. [User:Billollib|Billollib]] (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

face the fatcs dude the guards were working within in their rules and doing what they would do to anyone and what they have done before. remember the trial they were proven to be innocent. this is going around and around with you. this has to stop. the kid did not want to do it, just because he did not want to. he was being stubborn and lazy, just like the guards said during the trial. ok, this enough, this was all explained in the trial, this has nothing to do with the artcile i was deleting. so, here is a question. what about all the coaches in high school who push the kids duing their sport practices that die because there is an unknown heart condition and on kids who have sickle cell. . do they go on trial? this happen every year in all the states thru out the year. this article is done with and over. you can not change the outcome nor rewrite it. stick with the facts with this article and that is it. nothing in your own words or anyone elses. this does have to stop sometime dude. thank you....anonymous....ford1206

"the kid did not want to do it, just because he did not want to. he was being stubborn and lazy, just like the guards said during the trial." No, the guards said that they *thought* incorrectly that he was just being lazy. I hope you realize that you are now arguing the position of the prosecution. If he stopped just because he was lazy, and the actions of the guards killed him, then they would be guilty. They were found not guilty (not "innocent") because the defense argued that he died of exertional sickle cell trait that the guards had not been trained to recognize. I know the facts of the trial; I have been briefed personally by Dr. Siebert as well as members of the MEC at the time. I read their reports. I read their testimony. I read many of their *internal emails* under discovery regarding the case as it applies to the medical aspects and MEC actions. If you are going to edit the page, at least keep the defense and prosecution positions straight. Billollib (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

you are being stubborn and just dont want to listen to the facts. what is the difference between being not guilty and being innocent? dude this is the final straw, the guards did not kill him face the facts regardless if you do not like the outcome. stop glaoting. no one cares what you have read, talked to, or even know of this case or any other case. the kid was being lazy and he knew what was going around. . this kid died. now get over it. all i want is the personnal blog link to me deleted, because it is in someones personal opinion. regardless if they know the facts or evn think they know. if possible be able to add more info about the kid of why he was there in the first place and some back ground. i have also spoken to one of his teachers of the school he went to. this kid was not the nice sweet innocent kid everyone wants him to be. so this it, stick to the facts and enough arguing with you and anyone else. and face the facts and the outcome of the case. this article is done and over with and has ended, regardless of what anyone things.....anonyomous.......

The difference between "not guilty" and "innocent" is an important one. In the US legal system, the defendant enjoys the presumption of innocence, and the prosecution has to prove, usually beyond a "reasonble doubt" in criminal cases, that the defendant is guilty. The defendant does not have to prove that he or she is innocent -- the "burden of proof" lies with the prosecution. Thus, a finding of "not guilty" simply means that the prosecution did not meet that burden of proof, *not* that the defendant is declared "innocent." In the Scots legal system, for instance, they use "proven/not proven" rather than "guilty/not guilty." In other systems, such as those governed by the Napoleonic code, the defendant is assumed guilty and must prove his or her innocence. In those cases, acquittal does carry with it the idea of innocence. But not in the US. Billollib (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

ok lets face the facts andquit being so naive. the gaurds are innocent and not guilty. lets quit badgering and crying over spilled milk as they say. the guards did not beat nor kill the kid. the kid was not a nice innocent kid.  sickle cell killed the boy. this case is over and done with. you need to let it go. if you dont like what i have said or what has been done with this case then dont come crying to me. later......anonymous.........

no i am not forgetting the facts,nor were the gaurds ignorant. there is no controversy. i have not denying the facts about sickle cell, i know what killed, his mother forgot.the gaurds were unaware he had it. you are not sticking with the fatcs. you are trying to turn things into your own words to make you happy. the gaurds are innocent/not guilty. the kid died becasue of sickle cell. if anyone else wants to learn more about sickle cell, then go to that article. not read it in someones opinated blog which they claim to be an expert in. this article should stop with the trial and should start with back ground and why he was in the boot camp. like i said earlier, and also read it this time. the facts are the kid broke the law, went to boot camp, was told to run like every other "good" kid there. he stopped because he did not want to any more and understanding what the guards was telling him. ( the guards and the nurse did not know he had sickle cell  if they did, they would have done things different, all the gaurds said this in their trial), he went to the hospital where it was first diagnosed by the bay county Me thet he died of sickle cell trait, the guards were forced to go on trial because of political pressure, they were proven innocent/not guilty. one guards i sueing the bay county sheriiffs office for being firded unnessarly and wrongly. so these are the facts, others have tried to candy coat some and explode other facts and totally disregard some facts also. but these are the fatcs and face it. this is it the trial is done and over with, move on.  if you dont like it well then that is tought s*@t.

if you were so into the trial and outcome you would know about the guard wanting to get his job back, the reason why the kid was there, and who the new ME is going to be. face the facts and stop bickering and argueing. enough said. ........anonymous......

OK, let's face the facts. Being found "not guilty" does not mean "innocent," any more than OJ Simpson is "innocent" because he was found "not guilty." They are different things, and conflating the two is incorrect as a matter of simple fact. It *doesn't matter* whether or not Mr. Anderson was "a nice innocent kid." He did not deserve to die. He died because of ignorance -- ignorance that you want to perpetuate by your desire to delete sources of information about exertional sickle cell death.Billollib (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

well in this case not any other case but this case, remeber lets stick with this article and the facts with this article. the guards are not guilty/innocent. he did not die becuse of ignorrance. he died because he had sickle cell, remember. no not my igorance of deleting your opinated article. if i want to learn more about sickle cell i will go that page. this page is about trial of guards doing thier job at a boot camp. also there is no reason to get upset again. stick with this article and the fatcs pertaining to it. enough said.............annoymous....

Even this case is subject to the United States legal system. No, the article is *not* just about the trial. It is about the *controversy* -- including the death, the public reaction, the political repercussions, the trial, and the aftermath of the trial. And I *am* sticking to facts -- including the facts about sickle cell trait that you simultaneously refer to and deny the importance of. And yes, he died specifically because the guards were ignorant of the threat that forcing the young man to exercise created. Or are you now claiming that they were *not* ignorant of it and forced him to exercise knowing that it would kill him?Billollib (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

no i am not forgetting the facts,nor were the gaurds ignorant. there is no controversy. i have not denying the facts about sickle cell, i know what killed, his mother forgot.the gaurds were unaware he had it. you are not sticking with the fatcs. you are trying to turn things into your own words to make you happy. the gaurds are innocent/not guilty. the kid died becasue of sickle cell. if anyone else wants to learn more about sickle cell, then go to that article. not read it in someones opinated blog which they claim to be an expert in. this article should stop with the trial and should start with back ground and why he was in the boot camp. like i said earlier, and also read it this time. the facts are the kid broke the law, went to boot camp, was told to run like every other "good" kid there. he stopped because he did not want to any more and understanding what the guards was telling him. ( the guards and the nurse did not know he had sickle cell  if they did, they would have done things different, all the gaurds said this in their trial), he went to the hospital where it was first diagnosed by the bay county Me thet he died of sickle cell trait, the guards were forced to go on trial because of political pressure, they were proven innocent/not guilty. one guards i sueing the bay county sheriiffs office for being firded unnessarly and wrongly. so these are the facts, others have tried to candy coat some and explode other facts and totally disregard some facts also. but these are the fatcs and face it. this is it the trial is done and over with, move on.  if you dont like it well then that is tought s*@t.

if you were so into the trial and outcome you would know about the guard wanting to get his job back, the reason why the kid was there, and who the new ME is going to be. face the facts and stop bickering and argueing. enough said. ........anonymous......

You can't both say that the guards did not know what was happening *and* claim that they were not ignorant of what was happening. The two are synonymous. He did not stop just because he didn't want to continue. He stopped because he was dying. That's rather the point of the defense -- he was dying because of exertion but the guards claimed to be ignorant of it. In contrast, the prosecution claimed that he died because of the application of the ammonia salts (which, oddly, you agree with above). As an aside, why do you believe I don't know about Dr. Hunter? What a strange accusation.

And, of course, there is still a controversy. That you have made up *your* mind about it does not mean that everybody else agrees with you. And guess what, if you have one opinion and other people have another opinion and both speak up that's, er, a controversy. I suggest that were you to go into the black community there, you would find that a number of people also believe that the facts of the case are clear -and without controversy - but a set of facts that are opposite of those you claim are noncontroversial. If you were to Google on the case, you would find stories still published that claim that Mr. Anderson was suffocated (see the North Country Gazette, for instance) as recently as last week.Billollib (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

i can say that the guards are innocent/not guilty. i can also say with no doubt that the guards were not ignorant of what was happening.  he was responding and being lazy of not running. if you know the case like you say you do, the guards said this. he acted like he did not want to do what he was being told to do, but was resoinding back to them and breathing normally. the guards just did not know what was happening to his bdy, this does not make them ignorant. there are things you dont know , does this make you ignorant. who the hell is dr. hunter? and what does he have to do with this case? just because my opinion is not like yours still does not make that a controversy. this would be a disagreement. i will let you look up the word controversy. the black community here is about even. remember this is not about race. there were some black guards on trial about this. why would i google about this when those articles are not even from here. why? wow, this is incredible............

anonymous........