Talk:Murders of Raul and Brisenia Flores

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

References supporting "see also" links wrt terror, vigilantism[edit]

Alleged "anti-immigrant terrorism"[edit]

  1. Everett, Washington journalist Pete Jackson: (article's dek) "Shawna Forde, a lost soul in Everett and the world of anti-immigrant terrorism, is now accused of murder" [1]

↜Just M E here , now 20:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti- illegal immigration (anti-narco, etc.) "vigilante group"[edit]

  1. Colorado Independent: "Minutemen American Defense — an anti-illegal immigration vigilante group"[2]
  2. Everett, Washington Herald: "Like his mother [Forde's half=brother Merrill] Metzger said Forde had previously talked about creating an "underground" group to rob suspected drug traffickers and also businesses that she believed may be friendly to illegal immigrants. He said Forde bragged of connections to white supremacists and said some in her organization were willing to kill."[3]
  3. Daily Mail: (hed) "Female vigilante 'led drugs raid on illegal immigrant home' where girl, 9, and father were shot dead"[4]

↜Just M E here , now 04:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basic info missing[edit]

Please give a description of the alleged crimes and events rather than just focusing on the immigration aspects. Who was charged with what? Who was convicted of what? What are the actual events that occurred? (they've now been in court) can be found at the following links. [5] [6] [7] --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very Non-encyclopedic tone[edit]

I feel it would be in everybody's best interest to keep this page as neutral as possible (a very common goal among most Wikipedia pages) however; it seems as if this page is very, very slanted towards demonizing certain characters and associations.

Examples: -"Fringe" - While this is (to some people) a great word to use in journalism, as journalism is contextual regarding the time it was printed, it is a very polarizing word in an encyclopedia. It can simply be said that ______ was a member of ______, an organization which _____, of which there are ____ members [doing] _______.

-"Murdered/Murderer/Murder" - Again, a great journalistic word, but in encyclopedic context polarizing. The reason why is that murder is a term of law, and should be used as such; not as a standard (alternate) descriptor.

  • Of course these are a few of many examples, but my point is clear I believe.
    • And of course direct quotes from important, germane individuals should be quoted directly.

I propose the following:

  • Name change to something similar to 2011 Flores Home Invasion Incident -- much more neutral, yet still obviously associated with only this individual incident.
  • Source "Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik"'s statement
  • 911 Transcript need not be directly quoted, and may be summarized accurately (or even just woven into the article itself without labeling it as from 911) with a reference of course.
  • The image's copyright is in question, as I do not see permission given from the photographer of KOMO News (mainly because the photographer isn't even LISTED) and it is granted use under "Unique Historic Image" which I seriously contest.
  • There is no proper OVERVIEW of the incident, nor a detailed explanation of EVENTS, it jumps right to SUSPECTS
  • The "suspects" under the suspects section should be given a much more neutral overview. Also, as with most other articles, the overview of the people given should be more concise and germane to the incident, with a link to "Main Article:"
  • See Also should be expanded to include other unfamiliar concepts like Minuteman (original) and Narcotrafficking

I would like other (nonemotional, please) opinions on the aspect of making these changes. If no one has issues with it, I'll be happy to provide most of the above to the best of my ability. --EDIT--Forgot to sign in and sign my comment Bullercruz1 (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

Oppose re-titling to "2011 Flores home invasion incident," that obscures the fact that two people died. While there doesn't appear to be an encyclopedia-wide standard for use of "murder" (vs. "death") in titles, "murder" is used in enough other articles to assume that there's no problem with it, and reliable sources on this case use "murder."
Keep the image for now - I'd have thought it wouldn't be fair use, but the many pictures on other articles of murdered people seem to prove me wrong.
Some of the problems you're noting are easily corrected by yourself or by other people involved in the article (I'm a drive-by), such as the sourcing of quotes and the proper formatting of the lead.

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly agree with Bullercruz1d's proposal with a couple amendments.
Suggest that now since the case has been tried and a conviction secured against Shawna Forde, the article should devolve to the perpetrator's name: this is a solved crime.
During trial the adult victims were characterized as drug dealers.
There is no substantial biographic information about the victims here, nor is there a need, but I'd leave the pictures until a request for removal.
As far as wording, I would strive for economy. In this case, the victims were killed, and the ring-leader was convicted of murder. If the victims merit a bio page, their having been murdered would be concise. Otherwise, this seems a moot point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artika264 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While many of your edit suggestions are certainly reasonable, I'm afraid I must oppose the name change and removal of the word "murder". Murder is by far the most accurate and significant element of this event. Referring to this as a simple "home invasion" ignores what made this event notable, specifically the premeditated murder of two people. Therefore, the title should reflect such. I also disagree with your assessment that "murder" is polarizing term or even a term of legal art. Murder is what it is and it best describes content of this article. 98.247.53.229 (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Name of group[edit]

Is it "Militiamen American Defense" or "Minutemen American Defense"? -- AnonMoos (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is most certainly "Minutemen American Defense", there is a picture of her sitting in front of a banner clearly stating that name:

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/shawna-forde-trial-will-mainstream-m Is someone attempting to alter the name in this article for political reasons? Gdewar (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vigilante raid or drug/robbery raid?[edit]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/02/14/arizona.double.killing.verdict/index.html says "An Arizona jury convicted anti-illegal immigration activist Shawna Forde of murder Monday in the killing of a Latino man and his 9-year-old daughter during a 2009 vigilante raid she led on their home."

The implication was she raided the home and killed the victims because of their race but that may well be poor reporting on CNN's part or over-reading on my part. At present the Wikipedia article says that the purpose was a robbery and also that Shawna Forde and partners had been robbing drug dealers implying the Flores/Gonzalez were also drug dealers.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/terror-from-the-right says "Forde allegedly orchestrated the May 30 home invasion because she believed the man was a narcotics trafficker and wanted to steal drugs and cash to fund her group." Obviously, we need better sources.

http://omaha.net/articles/arizona-violence-nebraska-immigration-policy implies that this murder has not been receiving media coverage. It also makes me wonder if the event is notable per WP:N or is a WP:ONEEVENT. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is receiving news coverage. I discovered the article due to various news stories today, reporting that Forde has been given the death penalty.Msalt (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
==[edit]

The reason this murder isn't receiving media coverage is cause her last name is "Flores". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.55.32.73 (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary racist comment. Coradon (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What racism? You've never head of white woman syndrome? I'm being an ass with the comment, but there is some truth in what I'm saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.55.32.73 (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona jury sentences border activist to death[edit]

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/02/22/20110222arizona-border-activist-forde-death-penalty.html, but no time to edit page right now hjweth (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it make more sense to keep the focus of this article on the murders themselves and the people who were murdered?[edit]

A lot of the focus of this article is Shawna Forde and the other suspects. Perhaps it would make more sense to move the bulk of those sections into their own pages (Ms. Forde, now sentenced to death, is certainly notorious enough to warrant her own page if she doesn't already have one) and keep the focus of this article on the murders themselves and the people who were murdered. Naturally, mentioning Ms. Forde (and the other suspects) in the article makes sense, I just don't think the bulk of the article should be about them when the article is supposed to be about the murders. We could then link to additional articles about those suspects who warrant their own articles (as mentioned, Ms. Forde certainly does) for additional details about the suspects that don't per se pertain to this particular murder.

In general, I think the article could use a good copy edit as well. Will try to work on some of this stuff if I have time. 66.92.185.212 (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brisenia Flores[edit]

Brisenia Flores' plea to be spared deserves more than an article entitled as an "incident" in Arizona. Murdering a child to advance a vigilante agenda in Arizona - how balanced must the article be before "encyclopedia" quality trumps "humane" respect for this victim of American gun violence? Why will we not be able mention that the court testimony is that Brisenia Flores plead for her life to be spared? Having been in that situation at gunpoint myself, any report of what befell me at the hands of two gunmen would be a gross distortion without that one fact. Being told to get on my knees is a fact which, suppressed, would result grossly distorted report of the event of which I am a survivor and witness. The child's mother is just such a witness. Let it be reported as the mother's sworn testimony in open court. Let this be my en.wikipedia.org testament. G. Robert Shiplett 16:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


The fact that this has happened to you lends you to obvious bias on the matter. I don't mean to detract from your experience, but what I say is true. I wouldn't expect myself to be neutral on something I had an extreme emotional attachment to. For instance, in your talking point you mention specifically 'American gun violence', leading me to believe you dislike firearms and are opposed to their wide distribution throughout the United States. Again, this is fine, but this article is not related to gun violence in general, leading me to question your reason for mentioning it at all. I am not saying, by any stretch of the imagination, that you are an unreliable person. Rather I am saying that your neutrality is highly questionable. You even ask where encyclopedia quality trumps humane quality. I'll tell you where this kind of thing happens: in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia attempts to bear at least some semblance of an encyclopedia, and we should treat it as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesmiter1 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MAD membership[edit]

The two references claiming 14 members in fact say nothing of the sort. One makes no mention of membership and the other says MAD claims 'thousands' (which the article is suspicious about). We have an unsourced claim later in our article that says MAD had 14 members remaining after the fallout from the murders. I reworded the article to reflect that, but in fact, we seem to have no accurate information at all.

--Unicorn Tapestry {say} 00:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Murders of Raul and Brisenia Flores. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murders_of_Raul_and_Brisenia_Flores&oldid=1207251508"