Talk:Sanford, Florida

Where does Zach Johnson live?
2007 Masters Golf Tournament winner Zach Johnson is listed as here residing in Sanford, but his Wikipedia article says he lives in Lake Mary, FL nearby. Anyone know for certain which it is?John ISEM 13:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Selective history and erroneous native history
The history cited is exclusively from its military past, not what one hears and sees through reading or in the town's museums and historic district.

It is stated that "war and disease had decimated the [Timacuran] tribe". There was no "war", only a vicious colonial invasion that killed, enslaved and subjugated a significant tribal group, breaking their spirit and compromising the ability of their immune systems to withstand disease. The last one from the sizable tribal group - up to three-quarters of a million - died 200 years after first contact. Resistance to foreign disease would be expected in the ensuing five-generation span under normal conditions.

Lowell W (talk) 11:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Timucua (at least in historical times) did not live along the St. Johns River south of Lake George. The Mayaca people lived immediately to the south of Lake George, and their close relatives the Jororo lived to the south of them (maybe in the area of Hontoon Island. The Spanish never penetrated the area. In other words, we don't have a name for the people who lived in the Sanford area. We also do not know what happened to them, although we can guess that they succumbed to disease, raids by groups from what is now Georgia and South Caroline (after about 1700), and conflicts between displaced native groups in the troubled period of those raids. -- Donald Albury 13:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

`
 * While the Spanish in the 16th century intervened in warfare between chiefdoms, and put down the Timucua rebellion, by the 17th century they were trying to protect the remaining Indians in Florida, and inviting new groups to move to Florida. In 1743 a Jesuit priest wrote, "The diminutive nations fight among themselves at every opportunity and they are shrinking as is indicated by the memory of a much greater number that there were just twenty years ago, so that, if they continue in their barbarous style, they will have disappeared in a few years either because of the skirmishes, or because of the rum that they drink until they burst, or because of the children whom they kill, or because of those whom the smallpox carries off in the absence of remedies, or because of those who perish at the hands of the Uchises [Creeks]." John H. Hann. Indians of Central and South Florida:1513-1763. In other words, the decline of the Indians had complex causes, most of which trace back to the arrival of Europeans in America, but the introduction of diseases was inadvertent and the sale of rum was not done out of malice. The various groups in Florida were fighting each other before the Spanish arrived. The only deliberate effort to kill off the Indians was by the English in Carolina, who armed and encouraged the "Uchises" to raid into Florida. The other problems of the Indians followed from the breakdown of their society. -- Donald Albury 19:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Demographics?
Hey, so the crime "rate" listed is wrong. Those are the actual numbers of crimes committed, not the rate. The source just lists the numbers of crimes and not the rate of crime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.29.162 (talk) 04:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Funny how the demographics section of this page was removed in light of the Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman controversy. Remember? Because I sure remember seeing the page and saving it five hours ago. This link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanford,_Florida#Demographics

Oops.

Remember, those pesky demographics that show the city is over 50% Black and Hispanic? But I guess that wouldn't be in line with Wikipedia's anti-White agenda now would it?

Wiki: Your bias is showing again!

Jasonridder (talk) 08:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I see no place in the last few days where the Demographics section was removed or otherwise edited. Please do not make baseless charges. -- Donald Albury 10:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Then look between midnight and 1AM last night and stop pretending it didn't happen. I took a screen capture. Now do you want me to post that on here or do you care to retract your statement?

Jasonridder (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * These are the edits made to the article since 17 March 2012:
 * 16:49 19 March 2012 by Carduus
 * 22:59 19 March 2012 by Bubba73
 * 23:00 19 March 2012 by Bubba73
 * 11:16 20 March 2012 by 80.187.201.33
 * 16:35 20 March 2012 by 41.207.96.186
 * 16:35 20 March 2012 by ClueBot NG
 * 21:25 20 March 2012 by Karenandben
 * 4:07 21 March 2012 by Dhartung
 * 7:59 21 March 2012 by Objectivesea


 * Every single change to Wikipedia is saved permanently in the database, and can be viewed in the page history. Even if an edit is removed because of blatant copyright violation or because it reveals personal information about a private person, the time the edit was made and who made the edit still show in the page history. There has been no edit to this article in the past 4 days that touched the Demographics section. -- Donald Albury 01:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Shooting
The current article offers no references, This is an ongoing situation, and only FACTS need to be described. Unless there are reliable references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.53.11 (talk) 03:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please sign your contributions.Ronsword (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to the Trayvon Martin incident, that is covered in Shooting of Trayvon Martin, and does not need to be described in detail in this article. -- Donald Albury 13:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, and the current revision is acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.53.11 (talk) 03:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Remember that this town was here 200 years before this terrible situation, and it will be there 200 years afterward. The page should reflect what is known rather than what we don't know yet. Abe Froman (talk) 05:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

"On February 26, 2012, Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old high school student, was walking home when George Zimmerman, a Neighborhood Watch member, proceeded to follow him. Trayvon, allegedly afraid of Zimmerman, ran away and hid from Zimmerman." Wow! This couldn't be further from the facts as we know them. How biased can you get? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srbowers (talk • contribs) 12:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Made a change to the opening sentence. The original read: "On February 26, 2012, Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old high school student, was walking to his home at The Retreat at Twin Lakes when George Zimmerman, a self-proclaimed Neighborhood Watch member, proceeded to follow him." This is problematic for two reasons: one, the home was NOT Martin's home; he was only visiting. Second, "self-appointed" seems like a biased word to use, given the confusion surrounding the community's actual Neighborhood Watch status. Reference the main article for this event: the National Sheriff's Association claimed there was no official Neighborhood Watch, the local police department claimed there, and Zimmerman's own assessment varied from "captain" to "member" to claiming that he wasn't "on-duty" as Neighborhood Watch that night. What can actually be proven via documentation is that he tried to organize a Neighborhood Watch in the area - whether that effort was a success or failure and his actual status as a member, captain, etc. is irrelevant if we use the word "organizer," which is factual and can be backed up by documentation. 2602:306:375B:9A50:1CC6:7A58:4897:377E (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

21st Century
Sanford, Florida is not a "hub" of opioid distribution and use in Florida; nor can Sanford in the '21st century' defined by an isolated controversy involving a CVS store which has since been barred from selling Schedule II narcotics to its customers, thereby mitigating the "hub" connotation, if that connotation can be considered at all. In fact, the two references attached to the original edit make no mention of Sanford as a current narcotics 'hub'. However, Florida itself, has been referred to in recent news articles as being part of an "epidemic" concerning the dispensing of prescription medications. Therefore, I removed the original paragraph as reflecting a POV that biases toward one news story, and is not historically relevant or accurate. On the other hand, I let several details stand as part of a recent and notable controversy worthy of news.

Please note, the City of Sanford has accomplished a number of pro-city achievements in the 21st century that should be mentioned as part of its historical record. For example, the expansion of charter air traffic to Orlando-Sanford International Airport ranking Sanford among the top ten destinations by tourists/travelers from the UK in the United States, the downtown revitalization project---including a complete overhaul of the lakefront and Boardwalk---the closing of one of Sanford's longtime landmarks in the Grand Romance boat cruise, as well as the conversion of Sanford's two year college--Seminole Community---to a four year college.

Does anyone wish to add the above developments to Sanford's 21st Century status? I would be glad to help editorially.Ronsword (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The passage focused on CVS because they are the best known pharmacy involved but other independent pharmacies were involved as well. They were left out for brevity. The hub comment came from two DEA investigations  that identify Sanford as a locus of diversion. Both the Justice Department and DEA are coming down on Sanford for prescribing painkillers at 8x the rate of other cities. Major news outlets find this is newsworthy. I think it deserves to be included. The Sanford page isn't supposed to be an advertisement from the town's chamber of commerce. Abe Froman (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Reference to the CVS incident is included, but not as a focal point for the '21 Century' section. If you pick and choose news events to define any city's history, who decides what events are included, what are not and what are relevant to the overall concept of that city's history? As a comparison, I would not report on the Danny Rollings murders in Gainesville in a subsection on that city titled '2oth Century', but exclude other historic events in Gainesville's history. In fact, the Gainesville article in Wikipedia makes no mention of what might considered one of the most horrific incidents in American criminal history. (Incidentally, including the expansion of Sanford Airport and the closing of the Grand Romance are not Chamber of Commerce plugs, they are also facts deserving of mention).


 * As a point of discussion, I can't find anywhere in the link you provide that refers to a 'hub' comment. I do find in that article the following (italics mine): "These actions are part of the DEA MFD’s continuing efforts to combat the state’s prescription drug abuse epidemic and its role as a major source to other states of diverted pharmaceutical drugs. On average, seven people die every day in Florida due to prescription drug abuse, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. The efforts in recent years have included arrests and criminal actions against Florida doctors and individually owned pharmacies that operated outside the scope of legitimate medical purposes."


 * "Other DEA MFD efforts include its enforcement operations such as Operation Pill Nation in South Florida, Operation Pill Nation II in Tampa, Operation Medicine Shoppe in Central Florida, and DEA National Prescription Drug Take-Back Day occurring on April 28, 2012."
 * Perhaps you might wish to start a stub on 'Florida drug problem' or 'Florida Drug Diversion' and then include Sanford and CVS?Ronsword (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * CVS is just part of the story. Independent pharmacies are involved also. I think we should add back the Justice Department statement that 8x as many painkillers are prescribed for Sanford than is medically warranted to highlight the fact that this is an area problem, not one bad pharmacy. Abe Froman (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see that as a problem, though I'm not sure it can be conclusively inferred that this is a problem with Sanford residents per se. For example, did only Sanford residents fill those prescriptions, or were the scripts more broadbased? I would have to double check my facts, but I recall people coming from the tri-county area to fill the CVS scripts, so this is an important detail. If you can find out either way, I don't see a problem here.Ronsword (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't do original research to satisfy who from where had what prescription. Wikipedia doesn't allow Original Research. The Justice Department said the 8x-over-prescribed painkiller applied to Sanford, and that is what we have to work with. Leaving this as a CVS-only problem is unfair to CVS and is frankly whitewashing the issue, and I don't think Wikipedia does that either. Also, why were the references for the information removed? Your edit clears all of the sources. The comment about "pill mill," doctors has no support from sources now, along with the rest of the passage. I am going to fix it. Abe Froman (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've removed emphasis on CVS and added back the removed sources and added two more. The hub comment is not present anymore. It sticks with what the DEA and Justice Department say in their press releases and comments to USATODAY and Bloomberg. Abe Froman (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * At this point my changes have been reverted twice, and both revisions removed every source buttressing this information and its claims. I think we need a third party to step in, because we have a situation where information is only being subtracted, not added to the article. Abe Froman (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Third opinion requested. Abe Froman (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Abe, I don't believe this is a 'CVS only' problem. I do think reasonable persons can draw their own inferences as to what might or not be problematic involving a pharmacy that once overprescribed prescription drugs to customers. I would expect to see credible sources that validate Sanford residents were the primary abusers of prescription drugs sold by CVS; otherwise, it's not accurate for Wiki contributors to make that inference. In this regard, I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'original research'? If you are seeing fit to deduce that Sanford has a drug problem, I'm not seeing that mentioned in the article you cite. I am willing to consider that information if you have reasonable sources to back that up. If not, don't include it. The article you reference, however, does refer to Florida, not Sanford, as having an 'epidemic'.
 * Again I reiterate: this information does not belong in a city's '21st Century' subsection and that's why I added 'recent controversies.' You might also wish to consider a separate stub detailing 'Florida's Drug Epidemic'Ronsword (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * By all means, let's put it in a controversy section. That's a good idea. However, removing the passage's sources from the DEA, Justice Department, USATODAY, and Bloomberg, leaving the passage source-less and ganging-up on CVS, did not improve this article. In my opinion. Let's cool off and see what the 3rd party has to say. Abe Froman (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Whose 'ganging up' on CVS? If anything, my recent edit that CVS is litigating the DEA charges reflects that company's possibly unfair treatment.Ronsword (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * When you say, 'off the charts', what chart/benchmark are you referencing? For example, Sanford crime stats compared to neighboring Lake Mary is high, but compared to Orlando, is low. Just trying to clarify here.Ronsword (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sanford has double the property, violent crime, and robberies as compared to the rest of Florida, which is itself ahead of the nation in those crimes. Note that in 2001 the population covered by Sanford looks like it changed, making crime decline in one year to a lower level. As far as the drug diversion, the US Justice Department's lawyer was quoted by USATODAY as saying the rate of prescription was 8x the expected average, indicating diversion to DEA investigators, who then found exactly that at local pharmacies.   Since addicts fuel property crime, it's not hard to see why I think the diversion story is important enough to include in a general discussion of crime in the town. Abe Froman (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're assuming that the drug diversion incident at CVS which is now being litigated, and the presumed drug abuse related to it, is related to the crime statistics in Sanford. That's a presumed inference that has to be substantiated if, in fact, your are now planning a separate sub category on "Crime in Sanford." Are most property crimes/murders in Sanford committed by substance users/abusers, or by factors relating to poverty, by a higher saturation of released offenders, etc.? Please avoid POV, and be careful of drawing assumed inferences unless you have properly sourced facts.Ronsword (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're asking me to do Original Research again regarding prescription drug diversion. Wikipedia doesn't allow that. The Justice Department, DEA, USATODAY, and Bloomberg have found it notable enough to report or investigate. That's not POV, it is fact. Along the POV thread. Unlike some editors I won't mention, I don't live in Sanford. Never visited. Probably never will. That means I have some distance from the topic. If the crime stats linked above, coming in at double the rest of Florida, which is already ahead of the rest of the nation, aren't notable enough but the "Grand Romance Boat Cruise," described as notable above in Sanford is, then we are living in opposite world where romantic boat rides in Sanford are notable but being twice as likely to be murdered, raped, or robbed while in Sanford isn't notable. That is why I invited a third party to look at this. Abe Froman (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stop playing the 'original research' card....it's a false argument. There's nothing 'original' about simple journalistic fact checking, and sourcing for your claims. You've already done that with the references you've provided; continue doing so with your additional assumptions on the drug epidemic and burgeoning crime problem in Sanford. I'll repeat: you can't assume that persons buying prescriptions at CVS are also connected to crime in Sanford without providing a reliable source for that claim; not doing so is 'original research' and that violates Wikipedia's policies. Reliable sourcing on the other hand is fact checking and it is required. And please, avoid ad hominem references to editors; it's not in keeping with encyclopedic professionalism and objective debate.
 * Note: Reference to the Grand Romance is a suggestion, and is also a matter of historic record. In fact, it may signify a downturn in some of the economic status of Sanford in recent years. Of course, we can't pick and choose our facts according to one editor's standards; we can't report on 'rape' and 'murder' in Sanford, but then exclude other historic facts which have occurred in Sanford in the 21st Century because you don't think they're viable.Ronsword (talk) 00:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you think the crime situation in Sanford, along with your suggestion of the "Grand Romance Boat Tour" should be mentioned? Is it notable? Yes or no. I want to see if you deserve to be taken seriously or are just trolling. Abe Froman (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really have to prove my sincerity to you. You're apparently having some difficulty debating my points on a substantive basis so again: desist from ad hominem and argue my points on substance. For any third parties to this discussion, please note: I would like to discuss any and all historic points, pro or con, of reliable sourcing that will accurately add to the piece on Sanford, FL.Ronsword (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is why I don't edit Wikipedia frequently anymore. A few don't want to collaborate, just debate. I asked a simple yes or no question on whether crime is a topic notable enough for Ron to accept for the article, and got no substantive answer. Ron, what will you authorize to include in your article on Sanford, FL in regard to crime? One sentence, two sentences, zero sentences? It's your article. Abe Froman (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

From what I've found online, the city is in the top 3% crime rate in the country. So, it's not a matter of looking at Orlando and comparing its crime rate -- it's a matter of the city having more crime than 97% of the nation. But, I don't see any direct connection to the high crime rate and the CVS prescription drug abuse issue. Yes, the FBI investigated; that's their job, they investigate federal crimes. But, we don't have a Wiki mention for every crime they've investigated or made arrests for.JoelWhy (talk) 12:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with adding a separate subsection entitled "Crime", and listing some recent statistics or trends. And I agree, there is no connection that can be factually made without reliable sourcing. Take a look at Chicago, IL as an example of how such sections are written; generally, they're a paragraph or so. I'd also like to add to the mention of Orlando-Sanford International Airport, the high volume of European/British charter travelers to Central Florida via that facility, and the conversion of Sanford's 2 year college to a 4 year state college, both facts of note for the city's recent history. Ronsword (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please disregard suggestion for Seminole State College; I see it's already mentioned in lead paragraph.Ronsword (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

So, I added the not-especially-flattering crime statistics section. As a side note, I found the source rather amusing -- it has a tab for crime Data (showing some pretty gruesome numbers), next to a tab for crime Description (labeling the city one of the nation's most crime-ridden), followed by a tab for Finding a local Realtor. lol! JoelWhy (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Btw, does that sound right? Bottom 3%? Should that be Top 3%? Or, perhaps, 3% worst? I don't want to violate NPOV, but I think we can all agree that crime is a "bad" thing, right?
 * Joel, can you provide the link to the 3% claim?; not doubting you, but just want to double check that number. Also if correct, I think semantically it would have to read 'top 3%'.Ronsword (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's actually the same reference as the first one. I've added it to the article. This cite uses the FBI's annual reports; I actually tried looking through the FBI report, but it's really difficult to sift through, IMO. I downloaded the ZIP file w/ the report, but it's like 100 different small excel files, PDF files, etc.JoelWhy (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Crime In Sanford
I think we need to revise the reference to Sanford's crime rate as being among "the highest in the nation". Please examine this link: http://os.cqpress.com/citycrime/2010/City_crime_rate_2010-2011_hightolow.pdf. It's the FBI's rankings of crime by city, based on it's "Crime in the United States" report for 2010. The crimes include murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, and motor vehicle theft. There are a number of Florida cities listed in the top 100 rankings, but Sanford doesn't appear to be one of them. I can't find Sanford anywhere on this list, and I invite others to confirm my analysis.Ronsword (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Please also see this link: http://www.bestplaces.net/docs/studies/crime5.aspx. It's the least-to-most crime statistics for the smallest metro areas/citys in the United States, populations =>55,000 people, and again, Sanford is not on this list.Ronsword (talk) 22:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC) Also note, the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Program Crime Index was used as the basis for this link. As for the 'bottom 3%' reference provided in the actual Sanford article, it's from Neighborhood Scout, and I can't find where Neighborhood Scout is procuring its information, nor what methodology it uses to arrive at a score of '3' to depict Sanford's crime rate. I would better trust the FBI statistics, linked above.Ronsword (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Please also see Neighborhood Scout link here for top 100 most dangerous cities in the US: http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/neighborhoods/crime-rates/top100dangerous/ Ronsword (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Neighborhood Scout uses "...mathematical algorithms and municipal crime statistics from the FBI and the U.S. Justice Department." You are correct the city is not on the top 100 list, but being in the top 3% for crime (or even the top 1%) wouldn't get you in the Top 100, given that there are between 20,000 - 30,000 cities in the U.S.


 * As for the link you provided, that is not the FBI's ranking of crime by city. The FBI doesn't do any such rankings. In fact, they specifically say "Each year when Crime in the United States is published, many entities—news media, tourism agencies, and other groups with an interest in crime in our Nation—use reported figures to compile rankings of cities and counties. These rankings, however, are merely a quick choice made by the data user; they provide no insight into the many variables that mold the crime in a particular town, city, county, state, region, or other jurisdiction. Consequently, these rankings lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting cities and counties, along with their residents."


 * I frankly suspect they make this statement based on political pressures. Of course such rankings are going to have some arbitrary attributes, just like best school, best place to work, worst traffic, etc contain some arbitrary attributes. But, if you account for the major factors, such as city size, density, etc, you can come up with a pretty decent ranking system.


 * Still, I agree that perhaps saying "one one the highest crime rates in the nation" may be a bit hyperbolic. I think we need to indicate that it has an extremely high crime rate. So, perhaps just going with the 'top 3% crime rate' would suffice?JoelWhy (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * hi Joel....As you say, it is amusing to find a ‘realtor’ tab next to the crime stats, but I think that’s precisely the problem with using Neighborhood Scout as a reliable source; it’s a real estate resource for those seeking to buy a home, and it appears to partner with commercial interests and advertisers. Thus I don’t believe it can be called a reliable source. I also note, the FBI doesn’t rank cities according to comparitive percentages, e.g., city X is better/worse than XX% of other cities, etc. So I think it prudent to omit such a percentage ranking from an encyclopedic article.


 * Please also note, the first link I provided is from what I believe to be a reliable and independent source, the Congressional Quarterly. See Wiki article and the awards for journalistic excellence given. If Sanford is in the top 3% of most crime, it isn’t on CQ’s list of 400 major and smaller cities which include above average, and below average crime rankings.


 * I propose that we include a section on crime based on known numbers (e.g. robbery, x/per 1,000, rape, x/per 1,000) etc. and let the reader interpret that data accordingly. If you like, you might consider adding---if reliable sources are provided---how Sanford’s crime rate generally compares to the national average (above, below, etc.). Also to remain objective, you might also consider how Sanford generally compares to other Florida city averages such as Miami, Orlando, Pompano Beach, Boca Raton, etc.---which I believe, but not positive, are all higher than Sanford.Ronsword (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. However, I'm suddenly very busy at work so probably won't be on much until Monday.JoelWhy (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

So, I've tried looking for info on the crime rate with good sources. Various sites (including Neighborhood Scout) appear to take the FBI data (and related statistics) to create rankings. However, I can't find anything to attest to their reliability or notability. I found various blogs referencing the 3% figure, but they are doing so based upon Neighborhood Scout's data. Beyond that, I did find a local news article noting that the city has a "relatively high" crime rate, but no details beyond that.

That being said, I don't think you can really compare Sanford to places like Miami or Orlando. Sanford is a city of 50,000 people. Orlando is 4 to 5 times that size, and that's not counting the hordes of tourists who are always there. Miami is one of the nation's Top 50 most populated cities.

So, I'm not sure how to handle this. I'm fine with taking out the Neighborhood Scout data. But, I don't think we can really include the straight FBI data as it's unhelpful. I mean, if we indicate ".067% of the population will experience a property crime each year" (or whatever) I just don't see how the average reader will take away anything useful from that. Thoughts?JoelWhy (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think it best to leave out "high" crime, "low" crime etc., and especially quantitative statements like "top X%" etc., because these are based on interpreted data that may be problematic. Also, it seems such data are not generally endorsed by leading criminologists. See the following newswire: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/criminologists-condemn-city-crime-rankings-59865032.html.
 * What I recommend is simply including crime data per 1,000 per capita population, and per type of crime, based on the best available sources (FBI). Ronsword (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's an example of crime stats by type, and per capita for Sanford: http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Sanford-Florida.html. Also, it is clear that Sanford's crime rate is higher than the national average, though again I would be careful to put this stat into a rating or a category; perhaps it would suffice to say, "Sanford's aggregate crime rate is higher than the national average" and leave it at that. Ronsword (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So here's the edit I'm proposing:

"The crime rate in Sanford is above the aggregate national average. Using averages projected per 100,000 population, the murder rate was 5.7 per 100,000; rape 72.6; robberies 332.5; assaults 269.5; burglaries 1,664.6; thefts 4,368.8; auto thefts 401.3; and crimes of arson, 3.8 per 100,000 projected population. Source: http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Sanford-Florida.html." If this is agreeable, I'll publish it. Ronsword (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC) That language is fine, but I frankly think we should just use your first sentence: "The crime rate in Sanford is above the aggregate national average." Everything else is just too detailed and abstract. I mean, 5.7 murders per 100,000? Without anything to compare it to, it seems meaningless to the average reader. Perhaps if there was a separate Wiki page on "Crime in Sanford" (which isn't warranted), you would include lots of specifics. But, here? I'm thinking a simply 'higher than average' statement, and that's it. If we find a better newspaper article or whatever, we can go into more specifics (e.g. Car thefts have been especially problematic.) What do you think?JoelWhy (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yea, that's fine. Maybe make the sentence a little more detailed like: "Based on the latest crime statistics compiled in 2010, the crime rate in Sanford is above the aggregate national average." How's that sound? Ronsword (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Works for me.JoelWhy (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Goldsboro?
Moved new section from top of page per talk page custom. -- Donald Albury 23:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is the Town of Goldsboro and its forced annexation to Sanford in 1911 against the will of its African-American inhabitants nowhere mentioned? http://globalgrind.com/news/trayvon-martin-killed-sanford-florida-police-violence-details It's highly relevant to the history of Sanford. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karpaten1 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you point us to a reliable source for that? Note that blogs, forums and similar sites do not qualify as reliable sources for use in Wikipedia. Has someone published a book that includes information about the history of Goldsboro? Have there been articles in newspapers or magazines about it? -- Donald Albury 23:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Recent Controveries
I'd like to propose removing the "Recent Controveries" section. I'm not quite sure how a recent news event concerning narcotics being disseminated at a Sanford CVS pharmacy, warrants inclusion in an encyclopedic article about a city and its history. I guess the point is, should an encyclopedic article serve as a news blog for recent events occurring in a city? How, then, do we define what events are included and what are not, and where will such inclusions end? In this vein, one might rightfully ask: why keep the Trayvon Martin reference in the Sanford article? However, I think the latter story reflects a news event of national/global importance, and therefore, should be included somewhere in the article, if only as a brief reference. At the very least, as a link to a more specific article on the Trayvon Martin shooting. By contrast, the CVS news story doesn't refelct a seminal event in the history of Sanford and is only one of many local news stories. What do you think? I'd appreciate feedback:)Ronsword (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yea, I think I agree. Entire section should be removed.    Joel Why? (talk) 12:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should keep this suggested revision open for a week and if no dissenters, go ahead with deletion?Ronsword (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yea, that's fine. This obviously isn't a heavily trafficked page, but we can wait to see if others want to give their input.     Joel Why? (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's 19 July and no dissenting opinions. I will go ahead and remove the "Recent Controversies" section.Ronsword (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 July 2013
Change This: Sanford has been the setting for several recent movies, including My Girl (1991), Passenger 57 (1992), Wilder Napalm (1993), and Monster (2003). The Love Your Shorts Film Festival is held in Sanford.

To This: Sanford has been the setting for several recent movies and a gospel music video, including My Girl (1991), Passenger 57 (1992), Wilder Napalm (1993), Matinee (2003), and Monster (2003); I May Be Hoppin by Win Thompkins and the Stompers (2012). The Love Your Shorts Film Festival is held in Sanford.

Miss Mott (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC) I guess I have to be the source because I was in the video.