Talk:Killing of Trayvon Martin

Request to use a more current photo of Trayvon Martin

The following web site purports to have the original photos before the Photoshopped ones that are always used by CNN & HLN cable channels. If they (the web site) is showing the actual originals, then the photos have been modified so as to intentional miss-lead public opinion. Ref: http://cofcc.org/2012/03/msm-we-control-what-you-think-and-hear/comment-page-1/#comment-9311 SESlabaugh (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I know there are photographs of Martin taken more recently than the one currently fronting on this page. There's one that the Daily Caller and Wagist have used and there's also another one floating out there that shows the guy with a girl and it shows he was a tall guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.250.26 (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Please post links to the specific photographs you would like evaluated. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link to a specific photograph you could evaluate: http://cdn2.dailycaller.com/2012/03/Photo_on_2010-06-17_at_16.05__2_DC.jpg The Daily Caller claims to have uncovered this photo of Trayvon Martin that he used for his Twitter account last year. See the article written by Executive Editor David Martosko: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/29/second-trayvon-martin-twitter-feed-identified/ for details on how the news website unearthed the photo and compared the photo with other evidence. The Daily Caller believes the photo was taken on June 17, 2010, and the article goes on to publish one of Trayvon's tweets that he posted under the Twitter handle T33ZY_TAUGHT_M3: "Plzz shoot da #mf dat lied 2 u!" I personally believe it would be irresponsible for Wikipedia to publish this photo as it flies in the face of how Trayvon's family and community want to remember him. Please find a photo that is up-to-date but less inflammatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.136.159.226 (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

okay, this one is from his Twitter account http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/was-trayvon-martin-a-drug-dealer

and this is one from the wagist blog

http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/misconceptions-in-the-trayvon-martin-case

I would think that the picture of him standing with the girl would be the one that could be used...perhaps with the girl cropped out. It shows him and his height. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.250.26 (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a photo of him with a girl at those URLs,both of them seem to be discussing the gold teeth photo and tattoo photos? Gaijin42 (talk) 02:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

bah, I found it. http://i.imgur.com/h5DUu.jpg this one? I personally would not object to this photo, but we would need to decide on cropping, and gain consensus for the change. The cropping might be complicated. a "face" shot seems most logical, but that is almost the same as the "hoodie" to me. The full photo does indicate height, but we do not have an equivalent photo for Zimmerman, so I am not sure how helpful that is, and the photo including some completely unrelated girl might raise issues. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

How tall is the girl in the above photos vs. how tall Zimmerman is? It's well documented in this Wiki article how tall Mr. Martin was. I'm 6'2"...does that mean that I should be shot? Guy1890 (talk) 04:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Martin's height justifies him being shot. What I am saying is that using a photo of him when he was several years younger gives a misleading impression of the confrontation between the two of those guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.250.26 (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Using a picture of him flipping the bird retroactively makes it okay to murder him.  :) MrBook (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That appears to be an unfounded leap of imagination on your part. The unsigned comment talks about a misleading photo, not excusing a potential murder. LaserWraith (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Please be aware that conservative Web sites and blogs are promulgating a large number of Photoshopped or misidentified pictures they claim, falsely, are pictures of Martin; any new pictures should be carefully vetted before inclusion. Also, it would be wise to use pictures of Martin that do not "skew" one way or the other -- neither depicting him as a wannabe "thug gangsta" or as a pre-teen choir boy. Black Max (talk) 02:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Black Max

Edit Request on 30 March 2012

I apologize if I am doing this incorrectly but I needed to add this information - As a resident of Central Florida who is smothered in the coverage of this unfortunate event, one of the many things that has bothered me is that every article/story introduces, George Zimmerman as the 'Captain of' of 'Member of' the communities Neighborhood Watch Program. The National Sheriffs Association released a statement saying that George Zimmerman was not only NOT the captain of the Neighborhood Watch, he was NOT a registered member of ANY Neighborhood Watch Program recognized by the National Sheriff's Association. I have found dozens of resources on this particular topic but do not know how to add such on this article.

 Not doneThe local neighborhood watch program was not affiliated with the national organizations, which is not required. Indeed, there is a statement from the head of the national organization saying that about 25,000 watches are affiliated, but that many many more than that are unaffiliated. Zimmerman's membership in his local watch is completely sourced by the police department, and other local community sources. We did have some of this detail in the article, but it has been lost over time. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Here are some photos : http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001791912868 and here : http://sadhillnews.com/2012/03/25/the-trayvon-martin-our-government-subsidized-media-wont-let-you-see — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.82.252.137 (talk) 06:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

T-mobile phone records

In about everything I've read, nothing made any mention of actual phone records from the mobile service provider. Nor does reference [11] make any mention of actual cell phone records. Does anyone know where that came from? Darter9000 (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

This story has the phone records and mentions them. I will add it as a ref to that section. http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-arrest-now-abc-reveals-crucial-phone/story?id=15959017#.T2s4idkX5j8Gaijin42 (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I see that there is a screenshot of a phone record, but T-mobile or their phone record is still not mentioned explicitly in the referred article. Is it ok to make mention of something that can't be explicitly found on the reference article?Darter9000 (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

You must have missed it. "Trayvon's phone logs, also obtained exclusively by ABC News, show the conversation occurred five minutes before police first arrived on the scene." Gaijin42 (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Can someone post cell phone records that show exactly when the call from Martin to his girlfriend was made and how long it lasted? This is crucial evidence as supposedly the girlfriend heard a verbal exchange between Martin and Zimmerman, but Zimmerman was apparently on the phone with 911 at the same time. That conversation was recorded and contains no such exchange with Martin. The ABC report showed an image of the girl's phone company record that says the call came in at 7:12 but does not indicate how long it lasted. Zimmerman's 911 call was placed at 7:11 and lasted 4 minutes and 7 seconds, and the last two minutes or so of that is of him explaining how police can find his vehicle and talk to him there. Police arrive at the shooting scene at 7:17 according to the responding officers, and 911 calls by others have been received in the interim, in one of which the fatal shot is heard. This sounds wholly inconsistent with the girl's claim that Zimmerman was chasing Martin and had a verbal exchange with him. 70.233.149.222 (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Did Zimmerman make a 911 call as well? I thought the only call he placed was the one to the non-emergency police line (the ones with the controversial comment and where he said he was following) Nil Einne (talk) 07:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, I meant Zimmerman's call to the non-emergency line when I said 911. That was the only call Zimmerman made.70.233.146.113 (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

-According to the latest updated article that I just read, the Zimmerman call to the police occurred at around 7 PM, not at 7:11 PM. The last call between Martin & his girlfriend was from 7:12 to 7:16 PM. Zimmerman wasn't on the phone with the police at the same time that Martin was on the phone with his girlfriend. The police apparently showed up at 7:17 PM. http://www.metro.us/newyork/national/article/1129631--trayvon-martin-was-on-phone-call-with-girlfriend-moments-before-he-was-killed

Some reports say Zimmerman's call was placed at "about" 7:00pm but the transcription of the call that has been released show it was placed at 7:11 (number of seconds after not stated) and lasted 4 minutes and 11 seconds. 70.233.154.64 (talk) 05:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Where is the link to this "transcription" of Zimmerman's call to the police? I just checked the Wiki article, and it still states that Zimmerman's police call occurred at around 7 PM. Guy1890 (talk) 05:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

here Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanx, but that transcription doesn't have any dates or times associated with it. See my comments below for more. Guy1890 (talk) 05:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

-I would think that someone could put together an exact timeline of what happened based on all the police/911 phone calls that have been linked to in the article & the calls that Martin had with his girlfriend. At least one of the 911 calls pinpoints exactly when the shot that killed Martin was! Does anyone have the exact info on when all the 911 calls (that are linked in the article) were made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy1890 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The log that has been released by police of all calls by Zimmerman to them shows that the call on the night of the shooting was at 7:11pm. 70.233.154.64 (talk) 06:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

What you are apparently trying to refer to is this 911 "Call History" (pages 46):

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/911CallHistory.pdf which states that the call that Zimmerman made was from around 7:09 PM on the night in question until almost 7:14 PM. Guy1890 (talk) 05:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

In the lede, I don't think that level of accuracy is needed. but if we want to put together a timeline section, I think that would be fine. potential problems with the _us_ doing a timeline is 911 vs non emergency clocks may not be synchronized exactly, t-mobile (gf's call) same problem, (possibly even the clocks between different 911 operators might not be exactly synced to the second), we do not know if there has been any editing of deadspace in the calls, or hold times, etc. We are also limited to what we can do via WP:CALC in terms of saying "the call started at 7:11.XX, and YY seconds later Z was said, so Z was said at &.11.XX+YY, but there is some unkonwn amount of lag between then Z1 happened and when Z was actual said (for the calls where you can't actually hear the gunshot, you can only say when they reported someone being shot, not when the shot actually happened). This is a really good idea, but it might be safer to let a secondary source do it first. Gaijin42 (talk) 12:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree on the issue of clocks possibly being set to different times, but that could be stated upfront in any statement in the Wiki article. Guy1890 (talk) 05:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

archiving

As this talk page is growing very quickly, I plan on archiving out any discussions that seem to be not active anymore/resolved, and perhaps setting up automated archiving via MizaBot. Any objections? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Go for it...there really is too much old material on the page. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 15:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Archived several threads, and set up miszabot. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Although Miszabot was moved to the other tool server, Miszabot I at least doesn't seem to be completing (runs to E) so I've moved to ClueBot. I've never used ClueBot before so hopefully I've set it up correctly. Nil Einne (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It took a while to work (about 32 hours) but has finally happened. I'm not sure why it took so long, perhaps that's just the way Cluebot works. A long time later I did notice and fix a mistake in setting it up (after triple checking) but that should have just made it archive to the wrong place. I also removed a few settings I kept at defaults (I put them there in case people wanted to change them in the future) but in theory they shouldn't have stopped archiving working. Also I reduced archiving time to 30 hours (from 36) since the page is still fairly long. Once the page is more regularly archiving, things should be under better control and it can be increased again. Nil Einne (talk) 04:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The bot ran again and the page is getting more managable but I still feel keeping it at 30 hours will be best for now. Nil Einne (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I've confirmed by testing elsewhere that the things I removed shouldn't have stopped archiving (so I reinstated them) and archiving can take very long after the template is first added. Nil Einne (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Trayvon was suspended for marijuana possession

This was just reported by Associated Press and the major news outlets. Should be included towards the beginning where the suspension is discussed. --166.20.224.11 (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)  Done Gaijin42 (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reason why this is relevant? I feel like histories of physical violence by either party is borderline, but fair game. But offenses like this seem prejudicial and without help to article. If this becomes a key piece of the puzzle, sure, let's include it. But right now this looks like a tangential piece of information introduced to make it look like the kid being shot had it coming.LedRush (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, to explain why he had been suspended for 10 days from school. Quis separabit? 18:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

So it is necessary to explain a fact that is itself unnecessary. Not the most convincing argument I've heard...LedRush (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Possession of a bag with trace amounts of marijuana might strike people as a "bad thing," but mentioning the suspension and omitting the reason might lead some people to imagine something worse, or even a "sealed records" situation. If the suspension is mentioned, why hide available facts about it? Timothy Campbell (talk) 03:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Everything from the school teacher should be deleted because she has been caught lying about the cause of suspension. We have only her word about Trayvon's grades. She can testify as to the grades she gave him and not anyone else. True Observer75.21.147.150 (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It is POV to portray trayvon as squeaky clean if he wasn't, (same goes for Zimmerman and getting arrested in 2005) and it is relevant to the case since that is why he was in sanford to begin with. That said it certainly is not an offense deserving of the death penalty. I don't think we can qualify the teacher's statement as "lying", as she might not have been directly involved with the suspension, or the official cause for suspension may differ from the actual cause (they could have but tardy on the records to avoid a permanent record?) In any case, we don't know. But the teacher definitely does know hew own opinion of how Trayvon acted while in her class, and that is a relevant character witness. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think silence on an issue is the same as presenting someone as squeky clean even if they're not. It just seems to me that this information does not add to a reader's understanding of the incident.LedRush (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought the point of wiki was to report facts, not be biased. I could be wrong though. People already view this wiki as being biased against Zimmerman. Now there is a question of if something that has been recorded by multiple sources should be included even though it is a fact? In my mind having the facts stated is what makes wiki different from the media that has already determined him to be guilty. I can only hope that the administrators here decide facts are more important than bias against zimmerman even though it may attract more people. Forgot to sign inLunaspike (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)19:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It would be wrong to selectively remove information that portrays someone in a negative light or removes key information leading up to the incident, if Zimmerman's previous arrest and release without conviction belongs here why not the matter of resulting in the lead up to the events. It is being reported and it was initially suspected in previous blog posts, but those were shot down for OR and unreliable sources. [1] "Ryan Julison, a spokesperson for Treyvon’s family, confirmed reports that surfaced Monday blaming the suspension on a plastic baggie found in Trayvon’s bookbag. When school officials examined it, they found marijuana residue. Under Miami-Dade school drug zero-tolerance rules, that was enough to pull Trayvon a suspension." While it has no bearing to the shooting, it is the reason why he was suspended which is a matter leading up to the event and is currently covered by the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The reasons are simple and obvious: not all facts are relevant, and not all facts are listed in every Wikipedia article. For each fact listed in an article, it needs to be reliably sources. (this one is). It needs to be relevant (this one doesn't seem to be). It cannot put WP:UNDUE weight on an issue (this seems to be undue). Furthermore, this isn't a biographical article, it is an article about an incident. Biographical information relevant to the incident or basic information about the suject is fair game, other information isn't. To me, this clearly falls into the latter category. It is WP:UNDUE and prejudicial. If he had been caught for fighting, or any other "violent" offense or reason, that may shed light on this topic. I just don't see how traces of pot in his bad is relevant at all, other than to smear a dead boy's name. (In case you're wondering, if Zimmerman had been previously kicked out of school for pot possession, or for wearing an anti-abortion tee-shirt, I would not want to include that information for the same reasons.)LedRush (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Then you agree the parts mentioning Zimmerman's past should be removed unless they directly include violence? Lunaspike (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, unless they are things like domestic violence or resisting arrest, they should be removed. We shouldn't care that he has committed IP infringement, violated noise ordinances, or had a ponzi scheme. But for the ones that involve violence, they should remain (assuming all other criteria above are met).LedRush (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It is also POV to just include Zimmerman's original assault charge without including that it was reduced to "resisting arrest without violence", a misdemeanor, in order for him to get into the pre-trial diversion program. Both charges are listed on the Orange County Court of Clerks website where the source originated from.Isaidnoway (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, if he was charged with one crime and it was pleaded down, both pieces of information must be included. You can't say wahat he was charged with and not what the end result was. That would unfairly infer guilt of a charge greater than what he was convicted.LedRush (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

We have other issues that point to assaulting a bus driver that has also been reported which is a violent offense. The problem is that those sources are not as reliable or given the same weight because they were not carried by the media and reported by a family spokesperson, who is recognized to speak on behalf of the family. It leads up to the incident and is not the same as an arrest with no conviction from six years ago, but it does serve to note why he was visiting and that he was visiting partly because he was suspended for 10 days. The suspension is tied to the reason why he was visiting. NPOV seems to be drastically for Treyvon Martin; even including the claim to become an aviation mechanic or engineer. How is this undue in comparision? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If he was there because he just learned that his father had HIV and wanted to be with him, would we say that? No, we wouldn't because it's irrelevent. (unless it became an important part of how the case was being reported, that is. Even then we'd have BLP/BDP issues.)LedRush (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait--are we serious? Are there people here actually maintaining that he was shot because he was walking down the street instead of being in class because he was suspended from school for having weed? Well, then I guess it was his own fault! I'm removing those phrases as undue weight. It has nothing to do with anything, unless, of course, someone wishes to argue that the weed is somehow relevant to his being black and wearing a hoodie, and thus sufficient reason for being shot. Drmies (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The doping suspension explains why the police ordered a toxicology test on Martin but not on Zimmerman. As it turns out, the police had a good reason for ordering that test. The information belongs in the article because for this reason too. 72.37.249.60 (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Really? Do you have some sourcing that says the police somehow had access to why Trayvon was suspended and therefore got them to drug test his dead body and not Zimmerman's live one? (And calling it a "doping" suspension is a bit overboard.) Tvoz/talk 20:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I dont think anyone is saying having pot justifies being shot. He was out of town, at his father's fiancees home due to the suspension, that is clearly relevant to the article as for the reason why he was there. That does not make it his fault. Once suspension brought up, its a small next step to say why, and provides two valueable points towards the article 1) no trouble/squeaky clean image - again not justifying his death, but no reason to make him a mary sue. 2) Zimmerman's police call said "he is on drugs or something" - if MArtin has a history of drugs, then Zimmermans theory becomes more plausible, and could have had an effect on MArtin's behavior during the encounter. Obviously when we get a toxicology, that will be better to validate, but no reason to not give the readers very widely reported information. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not relevent why he was there at all, other than to say he was at his father's. Whether or not you were suspended from school, you aren't in school at 7:30 pm and you can visit your father. It doesn't inform the article at all. (If it turns out that he was actively on drugs at the time of the shooting, then we could reconsider. But it is laughable that if he wasn't on drugs at the time of the shooting, Zimmerman's statement is more justified because of a past pot suspension...like people walk differently once they've gotten in trouble for misdemeanor pot possession). It merely explains information that doesn't require explanation. If we want, we can take this to the BLP/BDP board, but the information should not be reinserted until there is consensus to do so.LedRush (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Gaijin, you are suggesting that his suspension for having had some weed is a possible explanation for his having acted in a way that makes Zimmerman's vague statement sound reasonable? Who are you, Nancy Grace? Zimmerman doesn't have a theory--he had some statements. It is not our job to find and add the information that makes them more plausible. Drmies (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The marijuana is relevant because reliable sources felt it was relevant enough to report it regarding the case. The family attorney said on TV that the marijuana is not relevant and for NPOV that should be included also with a reference. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No. We are not the news. Drmies (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Would you care to explain your comment using Wikipedia policy? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Read WP:NOTNEWS. Also of interest, WP:UNDUE, pars. 1-6, and WP:SYN for the argument for inclusion proposed by Gaijin. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Re "Read WP:NOTNEWS. Also of interest, WP:UNDUE, pars. 1-6" — I read them as you suggested and they didn't seem to be useful here. Perhaps you could give the relevant excerpt(s)? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The reason Trayvon was suspended has no relevance to or impact on why he was killed. Placing speculative, irrelevant information in the article is WP:UNDUE and nonsensical. – Teammm ^{Let's Talk! :)} 20:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Would you care to give the excerpt from WP:UNDUE that supports what you wrote? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

OK; take it to the board then. But please remove the inflammtory and irrelevant information on Zimmerman's five-year old arrest record too. If the accused's past record of physical violence is relevant, as LedRush keeps suggesting, then the fact that Zimmerman has never been convicted of a violent crime, *or even prosecuted for one,* should decisively settle the issue in favor of removing this information. 72.37.249.60 (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to read what I wrote again. Both incidents involved violence and should be mentioned. The article already mentions that he was not convicted of resisting arrest.LedRush (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think it should stay for the same reasons I gave that the marijuana info should stay. We may revisit these points when the article becomes more mature and may need trimming when all the information is accumulated. For now it is a breaking story that has significantly more information to come. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

as this [2] (or [3] one) shows there are 40,000 (12k for second search) gnews sources talking about trayvon and being suspended marijuana. This passes the notability and RS bar by a ridiculous amount. BLP obviously does not apply, and I have never heard of BDP, but assuming it is real, I don't see how it could be possibly construed that this did not pass whatever bar is set. We should certainly not be putting OR/Synth in to the meaning of this (as I did in my talk argument, but note did NOT put into the article), but hiding the information so that readers are not able to make those same decisions/thoughts for themselves is also a form of POV editing.Gaijin42 (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

←Gaijin, something happened to your edit above. This discussion is hard to break into without edit conflicts, but I want to add that I agree completely with LedRush's and Drmies' and Teammm's positions in this thread. ONly include well sourced material that has relevance to the subject of this article, which is the event. This is not a biography of these individuals, we should not be using those infoboxes, and we need to not treat it as a place for "breaking news". Tvoz/talk 20:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Gaijin, read more about WP:BDP. It applies to recent deaths and information that affects living people.LedRush (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you're referring to this part of WP:BDP.

"However, material about dead people that has implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of recent deaths, is covered by this policy. Questionable material that affects living persons should be removed promptly."

AFAIK, no one has questioned whether the marijuana info is correct, not even the Martin family. In fact, the Martin family spokesman is apparently a source of the marijuana info. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I have read bdp, and think it also does not apply. The information was released BY his living relatives, and therefore is not impacting them adversely. and even if it was, I think this information would pass the stronger BLP bar, given the amount of coverage it has. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe it should be reported why he was suspended. It isn't up to the reporters of facts to decide whether or not something is relevant or not. I would say that it is *arguably* relevant, in that it could be considered indicative of his background or 'character' to some degree or for another reason. It is *arguably* irrelevant, in that some may not find it useful at all in understanding the situation. Some may not find it relevant, but some may find it relevant. Who are we to decide for the reader what is and is not relevant? Let the reader decide if its relevant to them or not. This is Wikipedia, not a court of law that needs to decide what is relevant. This applies to things that there is no consensus as to relevance. (Unambiguously irrelevant would be reporting the barometric pressure on Christmas Eve in Mexico in 1931.) Emeraldflames (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Protection

This going back and forth is unproductive. There are suggestions above for taking it to the appropriate venue, the BLP noticeboard, given the WP:BLP/WP:BLD issues. Full protection of the current version, which does not include the material under discussion, is warranted given the dictum of BLD, "Questionable material that affects living persons should be removed promptly." In my opinion, this is questionable enough, and affective enough. I have protected the article for three days, which should be enough time to hammer something out. Good luck to all. Drmies (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Trayvon Martin is dead, so how does BLP apply? Truthsort (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:BDP, a subset of WP:BLP.LedRush (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's not go arguing amongst ourselves and attacking one another. Zimmerman's comment about him looking like he was on drugs is not evidence and carries no weight. The toxicology report I doubt would even mention whether or not he was under its effects when the incident occurred. It would fall under WP:OR to even make the arguement. Wikipedia concerns itself with facts, not making a case. If this article is intent on stating characterizations of Martin and Zimmerman, which it seems to be the case, the suspension for possession of an illict substance should follow the line about his suspension accordingly. The time of the incident was not during school hours, but his visitation was partially due to his suspension. The opening line from CBS is all we need to give reason why he was in the area. [4] "Trayvon Martin was in Sanford the night he was shot to death because he had been suspended from school, and his father wanted to spend time with him about it." The reason why he was suspended which resulted in his father wanting to spend some time about it be filled with the actual reason and not skip over it because it is negative. This suspension and his father's desire to spend some time with Trayvon put him there for those reasons and while he was there the incident occurred; a matter further detailed that Treyvon was not a resident of that gated community. It is important because of cause and effect. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The arguments and rationale being given for not including the marijuana information justify removing this entire passage. These are unproven allegations with no bearing on this incident: "Zimmerman had a previous charge in 2005 of "resisting arrest with violence and battery on an officer"[33] while interfering with the arrest of a friend. He subsequently entered a pretrial diversion program, which is not considered a conviction on his criminal record.[34] Zimmerman had previously been accused of domestic violence by an ex-fiancee (Veronica Zuazo), who had filed for a restraining order against him. Zimmerman counter-filed for a restraining order. A judge eventually ordered them both to stay away from each other for at least one year.[35]." 72.37.249.60 (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I have refuted this opinion above. Short version: Reporing on a violent incident with info about past violence is relevent. Past non-violent info meant primarily to disparage an individual is not relevant.LedRush (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not reporting on a violent incident. It's reporting on *unproven allegations* of one. Were the claims that Zimmerman committed violent acts proven or not? 72.37.249.60 (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Nothing unproven at all. One person shot and killed another one. Even if it were totally justified, it still would be considered violent. Tvoz/talk 06:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I have made a request at WP:RPP requesting unprotection, and a post at BLP regarding the appropriateness of the marijuana if people wish to comment at either. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

We should treat the matter with the same care as if it was BLP, the problem however is that the family actually circulated the statement that his suspension was for marijuana. "Trayvon Martin was in Sanford the night he was shot to death because he had been suspended from school, and his father wanted to spend time with him about it." [5] Policy dictates that it must be verified and reliable, while negative, it cannot be anymore verified and reliable as coming from the family and the school itself. I believe this article should stay semi-protected for the time being. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Isn't Zimmerman having a history of violence important information? Seeing how we don't actually know who started the fight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.161.103 (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

The article at the end of the paragraph re Trayvon Martin to read as it was by revision as of 12:02, 26 March 2012:

Initially Kypriss stated "He was suspended because he was late too many times." His father originally said the suspension was because he was in an unauthorized area on school property, but he declined to offer more details. Later a family spokesman said that Martin was suspended after traces of marijuana were found in his bookbag. Trayvon Martin had no criminal record.

Not really a great application for a !vote (particularly #8 in the linked guideline). There is already a discussion at WP:BLPN as well as a spirited discussion here, and looking over the arguments I would think it is fair to say that a consensus has not emerged. VQuakr (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. It is in the news and explains why Trayvon was there with his farther. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Now that I've seen the article without the mudslinging and veneration on both sides I'd prefer this sort of information not be included in the article. The article should focus on the event. We are not here to put these people on trial. The admin Drmies was right to protect the article and remove this information. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• semi-support I think the information should be included, but am open to different wording. Additionally I am open to the removal of the earlier reasons for the suspension as being now shown incorrect, and the change over time not significant to the story. As I have the post at BLP, I am not sure what the policy is on continuing the discussion here vs there vs both?Gaijin42 (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

*Support The wording should be fixed. From CBS [6], "Trayvon Martin was in Sanford the night he was shot to death because he had been suspended from school, and his father wanted to spend time with him about it." The wording on this is good, but concerns could be that the previous statements were lies trying to portray Treyvon in a positive light. The matter should be handled properly and the misinformation should be removed even if the father's statement was a lie. Keep it short and sweet, no need to cite every statement put forth, replace with the confirmed fact. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Just remove the entire section as it unrelated to the shooting. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per WP:BLP, WP:BDP, WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. It is simply irrelevant why Martin was at his father's, and the implication of a drug possession adds nothing to the article, except to support the POV that Martin must have been up to no good.LedRush (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support I agree that the wording should be fixed, we already have his suspension included in his bio and now that we know the reason, just tack it on at the end of the sentence. "after being suspended from school for 10 days for possessing a baggy with traces of marijuana". No need for excessive detail or explaining it, just keep it simple. I agree it is not relevant to the shooting, but if you know the reason for the suspension, then it becomes relevant to that fact and that fact alone.Isaidnoway (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support including mention of the reason he was suspended. I just saw on CBS Evening News that his family has confirmed that traces of cannabis were discovered in his posession. Cla68 (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Based on my reading of the case it is relevant that he was living with his father - and for that we should mention his suspension. The reason is fairly trivial, and appears a traditional example of muck raking. Also recommend the removal of the previous Zimmerman charges; we almost always remove charges that did not result in a conviction from BLP's unless they are distinctly notable in their own right. It's exactly the same muck raking issue. --Errant ^(chat!) 00:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per LedRush and Errant. It is said a few comments up I agree it is not relevant to the shooting - well, this is an article about the shooting, so it is not relevant to this article. Tvoz/talk 05:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - As derogatory information presented without any attempt at context. Without context most of the information in his bio doesn't belong - his height, weight, parents' marital status and occupations, grades, etc. If any of this is relevant it should be worked into the structure of the article with proper context rather than presented as a mini biography. It seems very unlikely that the accusation of pot use has much to do with his death. However, it may be a link in the chain of events leading to his death, in which case a neutrally worded chronological account of those events would be germane. The leaking of this information by the police, and accusations that the police and community members were covering for the shooter and perhaps acerbating racial tensions by maligning the victim, are part of the aftermath and public reaction. Just how important they are is hard to say while we're in the midst of events. The dirt of the moment reported by the press is often of very little lasting significance, and unless the reportage itself becomes part of the story (as it did, say, in the Centennial Olympic Park bombing) I don't think we have to cover press leaks as part of the story. The article is written in a style I'm not familiar with - large parts consist of vignettes of different things with little by way of connecting narrative. That will make it hard to put this together. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Not relevant.DocTree (talk) 00:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• 'Oppose The time and place of Trayvon Martin's presence and untimely end is, I believe, unrelated to detail of 'why' he happened to in that area. This occurred after 7PM, hardly a time of day that any person's presence streetside would be considered unusual by any stretch of the imagination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darter9000 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support It's relevant to explain the suspension, and RS's like CNN even expound on this. Makes no sense to omit why.--Львівське (говорити) 06:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support If you mention he was suspended, then the first question many reader asks is why he was suspended. Why not answer their question? I think it's relevance can be plausibly argued either way, but I think facts should be included by default, not excluded. Emeraldflames (talk) 03:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Further Comments

To respond to Ledrush's comment, those would be great if not for the clear fact that the information regarding the leaked issue of the suspension and then its confirmation about the family not only furthers the article's background. Which is being noted in further reports by articles as leading up the situation. [7] This one goes into detail from the Sentinel. [8] Given that the information was originally covered up in statements by the father, leaked by an unknown source, confirmed by the family spokesperson and launched an investigation by the police dept is fairly notable. Let alone the fact that said conference and pleas that have received national press itself about 'killing his reputation'. Omission of this fact which is nationally being reported will get its place in the article one way or the other. Its on every major news program! The fact has national attention itself. The statement is true and confirmed by the family; the comments are on every News channel in the nation. Why are we trying to keep the reference to it out? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• • Remove the unnecessary bios and the rest falls with it. I'm withdrawing my support and agreeing with further discussion that most of the bios and lead up to the event need not be included at all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• I see your point and removing the bios could be a short-term fix. But after reading some of the comments by some of the admins at the discussion at AN over the pot issue, I think several valid points were raised. Although this is an article about the shooting, it has developed into a national event because of the shooting and that raises the question of whether to keep this article entirely focused on the shooting itself, or to include all the other aspects of it that have been raised and reported on. The national dialogue and controversies that has ensued because of this shooting has become a story in its own right and it would be relevant and appropriate to include it in this article. They are just as important and noteworthy as the shooting itself. I think it would be wise and fair to document all the aspects of this story, good and bad, as long as they remain unbiased, because this article will not only serve as a reference for the shooting, but also to the national dialogue and the controversy surrounding it that was created by this tragic and unfortunate shooting. Having said all of that, it is also important to remember that this is Wikipedia, not the 10 o'clock news, and a more prudent approach to adding new developments is warranted. We have to recognize that this is a fast moving story with details coming out every day, but there is no need to add new developments until we see if it is really relevant and can be included in an unbiased way.Isaidnoway (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Marvin's Suspension Linked to Pot

Can somebody please add in this fact? Here is the source:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/26/pot-linked-to-trayvon-martin-suspension-his-family-says/?test=latestnews

Thanks. 214.13.69.132 (talk) 08:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

"We maintain that regardless of the specific reason for the suspension, it's got nothing to do with the events that unfolded on Feb. 26," Julison said... --Errant ^(chat!) 09:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Apparently he was suspended 3 times, and there was reason for suspicion of burglary, also: Multiple SuspensionsJimhoward72 (talk) 10:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• If it is verified by a RS that this is the reason for the suspension, I think it is relevant in relation to the way the media has covered this story and could be included in a section about the Media Coverage. I also agree with the above statement that is has no bearing on the events of Feb.26, but not only is this a shooting incident, it is also a national event which should be covered in this article as well.Isaidnoway (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Given that the article quotes someone as saying that he was an "A and B student," but does not also mention that his suspension was for marijuana, I think the article is biased. It should mention both of those things, not just one. To mention one without also mentioning the other makes the article biased, in my opinion. 6ty4e (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed.--Львівське (говорити) 06:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Moot. Tvoz/talk 07:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

MAJOR NPOV Violation

This article talks about Zimmerman's pseudo criminal past, but when evidence of Martin's pseudo criminal past has come to light, it is prevented by the editors from being included in the article. Either remove the portions regarding Zimmerman or include the portions regarding Martin. To claim that one is relevant and the other is not shows extreme bias. 180.94.87.162 (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath, my friend. This article is controlled by editors pushing the "Zimmerman is a right-wing, gun-crazy racist cracka who murdered this poor, defenseless, innocent angel of a boy in cold blood." 67.233.247.88 (talk) 06:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

-Was there any evidence that Martin was caught in the commission of a crime when he was being observed or confronted by Zimmerman? I haven't heard of any myself. If people want to obfuscate the issues involved in the shooting by trying to bring up irrelevant, minor issues from Martin's past, then let them have at it, but Zimmerman's run-ins with the law for violence in the past are extremely relevant to what happened in this shooting, which was a violent act (whether you think it was justified or not). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy1890 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Guy, that is exactly right. Tvoz/talk 07:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Guy also. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 01:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Pushing/Shoving does not equate to shooting and killing somebody, if it hadn't been a law-enforcement officer, his charge would have been a misdemeanor.Isaidnoway (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Splitting the article

If we created a page Reaction to the shooting of Trayvon Martin then we can include all the political commentary & letters from parents & what Al Shartpon/Jesse Jackson said. (because they are not even tangentially related to the shooting, per se) Just a thought, this article is 90% "extra stuff" and only 10% "encyclopedic material" judging astutely by overall lengthiness of what is currently written. After all, the media circus will only give us more pages & pages of superfluous commentary by people who want to build on the momentum of this Trayvon Martin bandwagon. Delineating what is the subject of this article (and what is the reaction to Trayvon's death) would be the most simple way to start separating the chaff from the wheat, imo. 완젬스 (talk) 12:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• • support as the event continues to remain controversial, the reactions are going to continue to accumulate, and some of them are highly notable, and will overwhelm the article. LEave a small stub and a hat-tip in this article, and then we can expand the reaction section in the other article and it wont be undue. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Splitting is a common suggestion for controversial event articles (usually someone tries to write biography in tandem, this is a somewhat unusual alternative). It rarely works out well; leaving two articles with numerous issues. Reactions may be a notable aspect of this; but I fail to see how we - so soon- could have reliable sources identifying the reactions as a notable topic, and covering it in summary. The other problem is that much of the reaction is probably not all that notable - people always react and we can't conceivably cover all of it. A better approach would be work to summarise the content currently on the page and organise it more effectively. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• With all the protest and whatnot, there is certainly enough information to fill another article with just the reaction of that. I support creating this. Its a valid content fork. Dream Focus 14:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• • Errant's point raises a good issue; just because someone says this or claims that doesn't mean it should be on wikipedia. Just the 'notable' people making statements about it will be as much about the media spin during the time it was said and less about a long-term value. Wikipedia policies are pretty clear on the notability and reactions are not worthy of their own article by themselves; just like Zimmerman or Martin probably wouldn't meet WP:NOTE. Its WP:1E.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Errant that more focus should be put forth on the current content and organize it into a more coherent aricle. It is all over the place right now. The media coverage and the aftermath and the subsequent conclusion to the legal proceedings can all be covered later. It is best to wait until the dust settles so it can be fine tuned into a much more cohesive article that can be referenced in the future with all relevant information that arose out of this tragedy.Isaidnoway (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• • • @Errant: No!' It has nothing to do with controversy. I work extensively at the article for occupy wall street, and we did the same thing here which as you can see took a lot of the celebrity reaction, politicians reaction, Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson, parents, etc... I'm not trying to create a POV fork at all. I'm simply saying this article is 90% about the reactions to his death, and only 10% focuses on the actual event which took place on Feb 26th. Anything which is not talking about the events of Feb 26th 2012 is simply political afterthought. The article is a mess and we should just rename this article "reaction to..." if you're unwilling to look at how disproportionate the length of coverage is here. I only came here trying to prevent what happened to the OWS article and we worked out a great solution. Just check out how compact everything is at the OWS article and how everything is scaled proportionately to its desired emphasis. This 90% reaction & 10% direct focus of this article is completely upside down. The way to start organizing the information is to create the reaction page, with your blessing (*hopefully*). Thanks, 완젬스 (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
      • OWS was a massive international movement (which both articles fail badly in documenting, as it happens). This is a just-about-national media storm in the US; as with other articles of this type, we are able to successfully deal with it all together - forking off "Reactions" (a poor, ambiguous name anyway) is not a good solution. The shooting is a small event that kicked off this larger media storm (people are shot all the time in the US, it's not usually notable). What you seem to be proposing is disecting any commentary of the events into a new article, but keep a description of the commentary happening here. This seems non-opitmal for our readers. (also; and I don't mean to pile on too much, it annoys me when people throw out seemingly random statistics, as you have, in support of a point - provide some analysis to support your figures or it's just misleading) --Errant ^(chat!) 00:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• oppose This is a high-profile case that has turned into a national event only because of the media reporting on it and that is why there is so much "stuff" out there at the present time. When the inevitable conclusion of this case comes to an end, then a more comprehensive and cohesive article will be able to be produced. If you look at other high-profile cases on WP like OJ Simpson's murder trial and The Death of Caylee Anthony, you will see that they include comprehensvie coverage on the very same issues that this article now faces and they are very readable and a valuable encyclopedic reference to the case and the intense coverage of the case. Readers wishing to access a reference article pertaining to this case and the events surrounding it should be able to find it all within one article.Isaidnoway (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• strongly oppose I am very much against splitting out anything from this article at this time. First of all, the "readable prose" in this article is 35K, which size guidelines say is well below any threshhold for splitting due to size. Secondly, the reaction to this event is a major part of the story and should not be shunted off to a sub article. Experience shows that sub articles are much less read, and in my view it is important that this material be kept intact in this article as it is a major part of the story - the reaction is why there is any story at all, rather than this kid just being dead and buried without any thorough investigation into the circumstances surrounding his death. So I very much oppose this action. However, the article needs more organizational work - I've been doing some as have others - and editing is always a good idea when so many hands are in an article and some material mentioned in more than one place unnecessarily. I do not agree, though, that we should just wait for the reaction stuff - it's too much a part of the story to do that. Tvoz/talk 01:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. As a story in current events, it is much better to leave the reactions in one place. It does not overwhelm the article at present. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose. article needs to be in one place at this time. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 01:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article is about the incident and the public reaction to it "-the reaction is why there is any story at all." ArishiaNishi (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I've put up the merge tag under "aftermath"

I hope this gets underway soon. This story is about as emotional as it gets. Here is the brief explanation of when to split: WP:WHENSPLIT ~ 완젬스 (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

well, frankly this isnt something that needs a vote. Anyone can make an article about whatever, and as long as it can survive an AFD, thats that. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

True, but splitting off is not the same as starting an article - they're talking about removing sections from here and expanding them to another article, and that is relevant to this one. It is good that we're discussing this in the section just above so we can get the sense of the group of editors who work here. Probably should keep the discussion in one place, there. Tvoz/talk 01:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• support - a split as this incident has recieved so much major national and international attention.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Split' Please see #History in the Making, below. The fact that the incident is an InterNational news story is news in an of itself and cannot be given justice or space here that it deserves. The media/social/entertainment/congressional "hoodie"/international "story-of-the-day quality of responses will eventual burden the article with undue weight. This story will not fade away. Seperating now will lessen the confusion and decrease the amount of work required to maintain equalibrium. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

police video

The latest report by the Martin Family lawyer is that the police video of Zimmerman shows that he had no marks on him to corroborate his story that Trayvon attacked him. A closer look at the video, however, does show that there is a mark on the back of Zimmerman's head. Bear in mind that Zimmerman had already been treated by paramedics at the scene before the video was recorded. Chazzer3201 (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Video of zimmerman at the police station has been released. Video can be seen at URL below. IMO we should NOT link/include the video as prejudicial, as it shows him getting out of the police car cuffed, and getting frisked, but 3rd party analysis of the video is likely to come soon, including information about his weight and medical condition which may be useful in the article (lack of visible blood on face, head, no bandages, etc)

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/40131_Video-_George_Zimmerman_on_Night_of_Trayvon_Killing_-_No_Injuries!#rss

Gaijin42 (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You're kidding us about not linking to the video, right? A key element of Zimmerman's claims is that he was attacked & injured during a confrontation with Martin, and this video appears at least to directly contradict that statement. There's a discussion about this very issue above in the "Some Claims" section (#2 question). Also contained in this same "littlegreenfootballs" article is a preliminary description of Martin's hands that appears to indicate that he may not have been in a fight with anyone on the night in question before he was shot. Sorry about my ham-handed edits on this Talk page...I'm still new to all this. Guy1890 (talk) 05:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

AC360 offered analysis tonight 3/28/12 with Jose Baez, Marcia Clark and a Private Investigator.

CNN has a list of public records released so far and a timeline of the incident http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/27/justice/florida-teen-shooting-witnesses/index.html CNN is also reporting that a congressman was removed from the house floor for wearing a hoodie http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/28/politics/congressman-hoodie/index.html?hpt=hp_c3 Isaidnoway (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree the video itself doesn't need to be attached, since any conclusions would imply a degree of original research; established news articles that review the video are sufficient. On the other matter, a hoodie is not appropriate dress on the House floor according to their rules; he also violated their protocol rules.--DeknMike (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Documents are available on the City of Sanford website. ArishiaNishi (talk) 06:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I think claims should be limited to people involved in the case... for instance, I would say that the Martin Family lawyer claims that the video brings Zimmerman and Sanford police's account of the event (rather than saying that the video does this or does that) and eliminate the Daily Caller bit since they're not in any way involved as one of the parties of the case. I'm not sure speculation by a media source can be considered 'part of the story'.184.56.186.73 (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Clear media speculation should not be added; there has been a lot of speculation just like in the Duke case and we all know what happened to that end. Remember the cries for justice? Jumping to conclusions and allowing everyone who makes said conclusions especially when they are not related to the case in any way is no different then any other commentator. The fact we originally gave so much attention to an extremist and listed hate group was bad enough. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Longer police video released with additional detail/angles. non-RS blog analysis says no additional sign of injury, but of course we will need to wait for RS. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I dunno guys, but from the videos that I've seen that are linked from the above Sanford, FL website, it doesn't look like Zimmerman has a scratch on him. The time-stamp on the videos starts at around 7:52 PM on the night in question as well. These angles look particularly damaging to Zimmerman's claims:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqKSMMEYHxA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuCAHx_s-R0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VaXieC3o5g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WWDNbQUgm4&feature=youtu.be — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy1890 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Martin suspended three times

John Nevard (talk) added this informations here; I removed it here; he put it back here. I'm not intrested in getting in to a slow edit war, but I don't think it should be there. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Trayvon's school history is not relevant to the facts of this shooting. It's speculative original research if we postulate that it somehow has bearing on Zimmerman's action. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not censored, so blocking sourced information requires an extreme reason: Per WP:NOTCENSORED, Wikipedia articles should not censor text, even if considered objectionable to someone's religion, so there needs to be a strong reason to block the inclusion of text backed by The Miami Herald and The New York Times. In this case, counting the 3 suspensions as, "1, 2, 3 makes 3 total" is never wp:Original_research, and because sources already count them as "3 suspensions" then that should be included in the article. Also, the details of those suspensions, handled by campus police and reported to city police, should be included, as well as any parent's replies about those incidents, in fairness to allow the family to offer clarification. All of those details go to explaining why Trayvon was in central Florida, rather than south Florida in the Miami area, on a Sunday night, rather than home preparing to attend the next day's classes, and the length of suspension, as to how many days he was away from Miami, and the fact that his father had brought him to Sanford during the suspension, rather than leave his travels to the scene as unknown. Also, there is no size limit on Wikipedia articles to justify blocking information to reduce size (see: WP:NOTPAPER). I see no justification to block those details from the article. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Why he was not in Miami is of absolutely no relevance to this article. We mention that he was visiting at his father's fiancee's house because that is why he was in that gated community walking home. In other words, it is relevant to establish what he was doing in that location - whether he "belonged" there - but why he was not in Miami is completely irrelevant. The shooter did not know him, was not wondering why he was not in Miami getting ready for school. The facts surrounding his suspension(s) have literally nothing to do with this article - not the reasons for the suspension, not the length of the suspension, not the circumstances. Unless one can show that Zimmerman had reason to be suspicious because of those suspensions - obviously not the case - they do not belong here. This is not censorship, it is NPOV inclusion only of facts relevant to the story. This has been discussed at length on this talk page, and the consensus has been to leave this out of the article, so please don't re-add it without consensus to do so. Tvoz/talk 05:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

If I disagree with prior consensus, then there is no longer a wp:consensus. Beware the old "consensus-means-everyone-but-them" viewpoint. Today, when someone disagrees, then consensus is over. -Wikid77 13:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I would not qualify the current state of this discussion as consensus, but would go so far as to say there is not consensus for inclusion. If you were to do a !vote I think things would come out pretty evenly, and both sides can extensively quote policy supporting their pov. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately an editor ignored our attempts at agreement and added it again, despite the fact that it's being discussed - I agree that there are alot of opinions and not clear how any vote would come down, but yes, there is no consensus to include, so it should not have been added again. I removed the marijuana reason last night, and don't want to violate 1RR on this point, so would appreciate it if someone else would take out the reason for the suspension, and perhaps the whole sentence . Let's come to some kind of agreement and then enforce it - this is not the way to go, and the last time it went this way we were full protected - which I think no one wants. Thanks Tvoz/talk 17:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

This is also being discussed at WP:BLPN#Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, where so far the sense is that we should not include the marijuana residue - it is not looking evenly split over there - so what now? This is now the second round (at least) of back and forth, and it seems to me - although I acknowledge that I have taken a position on this - that no consensus to include, and multiple voices to exclude, would mean that we leave it out until a consensus is reached to include it. We have to remain aware of BLP/BDP concerns, and just because some editor threw it back in without noting any of the many discussions that we've had does not seem to be a reason to leave it in. Tvoz/talk 20:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Leaving aside the current debate, I am unsure how this works in general on Wikipedia. There are no definitive policies prohibiting the information. There are no policies mandating the information be included. There are policies on both sides that can be used to argue the positions. There is no consensus for inclusion. There is also no consensus for removal. There are multiple voices on each side. I think this may be something that flips back and forth depending on who is paying attention at any given time.

Personally, I think (and I think there is general agreement that) the information clearly passes the reliability/notability/BLP/BDP rules. There is not consensus on if it is relevant or not. In such a situation, getting any formal enforcement is going to be difficult. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The default is to allow inclusion, unless there is a consensus to remove. Obviously, if the author wants the text to remain in the article, then there is no consensus to remove the text, and it must stay. However, if a policy forbids the text, then that author cannot override the policy-based consensus, so then the text could be removed. -Wikid77 13:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the relevance of Martin's suspensions and their causes can be plausibly argued for or against. I don't see a consensus on whether to include them or exclude them. The question is whether, by default, Wikipedia *includes* reliably sourced information or *excludes* reliably sourced information. Personally, I think well-sourced information that is at least plausibly relevant (which I think the case has been made for) ought to be *included* by default, and left to the reader to decide its relevance to them. Emeraldflames (talk) 03:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Relevance to school night is clear: A lot of editors get confused about include/exclude. The relevance is clear, as being written in multiple sources about the incident, and also as an explanation as to why student Martin was in central Florida, on a school night, when his home is in Miami Gardens where he should be preparing for classes the next morning. If the reason had been "spring break" then fine. The situation is like having a person drown in their bathtub, and a sourced explanation is added to the text, but another person claims the reason for the drowning is irrelevant to the article, yet multiple sources discuss that reason in reports about the drowning. Oops! Cannot claim "irrelevant" when sources report the reason as relevant to the incident. The sources determine what is notable, what is relevant, what is wp:FRINGE or what is wp:UNDUE text inside an article. -Wikid77 13:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The BLPN conversation is probably where more of this discussion is happening rather than here. I don't believe the "default in or default out" argument has been made yet. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Default in Wikipedia is "include" not "exclude" (where excluding requires a consensus backed by policies). For that reason, many articles still contain awkward phrases written years ago, where no one discussed with the original author to remove or reword the old text. The default has been "include" for many years now. That is why there is the forum for WP:Articles_for_Deletion but not WP:Articles_for_Inclusion, because no consensus is required to add articles or text, only to remove it. However, many people try to ignore that reality and pretend there is a deadlock where nothing is allowed without consensus. That deadlock is a false claim, and no one needs to beg permission to create articles or add text. When improper text is added, then it can be quickly removed, in consensus with written policies, such as for wp:BLPVIO rumors or wp:ATTACK slurs. Local consensus cannot override policies. -Wikid77 13:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

@TVOZ - can you read User:Gaijin42/sandbox#Martin.27s_Suspensions and see if you agree with my summation of the current state of this debate? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

WIA

Just wondering if Zimmerman may have been cleaned up and treated before he appeared in the security camera video. Guess the presence of bandages etc. would depend on severity of wounds. Also, is it standard practice to release police security camera video footage these days? Just curious on that one, I guess as to whether it was "leaked" - think I saw how it was released in an article, now can't find it. Sheesh, that brings up the whole medical record privacy issue. SK (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The videos are linked in the above section labelled "police video". There are available on a Sanford, FL website. There weren't "leaked". Guy1890 (talk) 05:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure we'll find out as part of the next wave. It may have been released in response to a FOIA or Sunshine Act request.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The video is about 2 sections up. It has never been in the actual article as far as i am aware. Gaijin42 (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Multiple reports say he was treated by medical personnel at the scene, which would have included cleaning residual blood to evaluate actual wounds. Video does show possible wound to the back of the head[9]; he reportedly saw a doctor the next day.--DeknMike (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

That was kind of what I was getting at. Man, the iReporting up here is phenomenal. Really good stuff, especially when subject matter experts or otherwise chime in. SK (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Expiration of 1RR

1RR is set to expire in about eight hours and semi-protection is set to indefinite. Things seem a bit tense in the edit summaries, but no one has violated 1RR, as best as I can tell. How do people feel about continuing semi-protection after the expiration of 1RR? Does anyone think 1RR should be continued? MBisanz ^talk 13:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

With the sensitivity of the topic and the fact that so much new information is coming out, often in an inflammatory way by the press, I think it's best to continue the policy. It seems to be working.LedRush (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

absolutely should be continued. We have enough trouble gathering consensus on those that have some level of understanding the rules. The flood of random drop ins editing without reading any discussion on such a trafficked and debated article would be highly disruptive. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Okey, I'll edit the template to make it for another week. MBisanz ^talk 16:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we should keep semi-protection indefinitely and extend 1RR another week. Tvoz/talk 17:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

blpn post

I have made another post at BLPN to try and get consensus regarding the background information (arrests, domestic abuse, alleged racist statements, and suspensions) of the two participants. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Trayvon_Martin_and_George_Zimmerman Gaijin42 (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I posted this over there, but will post it here as well. I agree with Gaijin. Both sides of this story belong in this article, good or bad. As long as the information is presented in a non-biased view, then we have done our job of creating a complete and informative article that a reader will be able to access and come away with their own opinions. That is what WP was designed for was to create a source of information that is presented in a NPOV that leaves the reader with the satisfaction that he was presented with "all' of the information and not had certain information ommited or censored. We leave it to the reader to form an opinion for themselves, after being presented with all of the reliaby sourced facts in this case.Isaidnoway (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Geez, I'm not jumping into that mess...lol... As I've said in the "MAJOR NPOV Violation" section of this Talk article, I'd let people post whatever "background" info that they want about whomever they want to. As long as it's factual, Wiki readers should be able to sift through what's obvious obfuscation & what's really relevant about what happened on the night in question (an unarmed, young, black male was shot by an older, Hispanic male). The descriptions of "background" are bound to get "noisy", but this sad incident has unfortunately stirred up some of the best & worst of us. Guy1890 (talk) 06:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The Daily Caller reports of a second Twitter account of Martin's, with a different picture for his profile.

This article from the Daily Caller cites a second Twitter account of Martin's, with a different picture. In this one, he's giving the middle finger, and reveals a large tattoo on his arm.

Previously, the Daily Caller posted this other article, with Martin's other Twitter account (which contains a racial slur), and a different picture, where Martin shows his gold teeth.

Since these are the two pictures that Martin chose to use for his Twitter accounts, and since everything posted at Twitter is in the public domain, we could use either one, or both, of these images in the article.

6ty4e (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

everything on twitter is absolutely not public domain. That being said, if we can get consensus on switching from one fair use photo to another, that might be possible, but I think your chance of getting such consensus for the finger photo is nil. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Public domain? Not in my lifetime at least. NPOV issues and BDP to have any of the photos with Martin flipping the bird, being gangsta or showing off his tattoos. These are pictures that would not be neutral or proper. The same reason why WP:MUG keeps Zimmerman's arrest one off. Best not to go against policy, we can wait until a proper picture is released for both individuals. Seeing as the previous Martin photo was well... photoshopped. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree Gaijin, it is certainly worth it. Particularly because the picture used is a more edited version. The second wiki one probably won't happen, but the first twitter one might. | HERE picture. I don't think it is considered NPOV to report something accurately? I would say it's worse to keep an image up that we know has been photoshopped with the main idea to give a bias to the reader against zimmerman. Look at the article. That image doesn't show him as a Thug, but he apparently has gold teeth in it. The thing is it doesn't show him as a child, and it isn't photoshopped. So let's either remove the picture entirely, or use one that is accurate. Given a few hours with Zimmerman's photo I could make you think he was an angelic white baby Jesus. That doesn't make it accurate. Lunaspike (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

"This information, which was in the public domain for months before the Twitter account was disabled, fills in some of that information. We chose that photo of Trayvon Martin because it was the picture he chose to represent himself on Twitter—and also because, unlike the years-old photos of Martin that are accompanying most media reports, it represented what he looked like nearer to the end of his life." http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/trayvon-martin-shooting-debate-over-photos-escalates-155103512.html;_ylt=Anc9Jny.6qJpGABufnd9IE7zWed_;_ylu=X3oDMTFoZmVlc3ZhBG1pdANCbG9nIEJvZHkEcG9zAzgEc2VjA01lZGlhQmxvZ0JvZHlUZW1wQXNzZW1ibHk-;_ylg=X3oDMTJyMDhxdmU0BGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDZWIzOTc5ZjEtNTkzZS0zZGZjLThhNTYtYTZlNThmMzE3NDQ3BHBzdGNhdAN1cwRwdANzdG9yeXBhZ2UEdGVzdAM-;_ylv=3 Lunaspike (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The yahoo site is misusing the word public domain to mean "available to the public", not as in "free from copyright burden" in the way wikipedia requires. EVERY (with the exception of some govt photos) photograph is automatically copyrighted in the US, unless explicitly released to the public domain or a CC license, and wikipedia requires proof of such release. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't posting it to say that is public domain, just thought their quote on why they used it might be interesting to the discussion. I have no idea if it's under public domain or not. I'm sure you, and other posters here, are better versed at it than I am. I did want to point out their reasoning for using that photo though. It was the image that he chose to represent himself, and it appears to be far more accurate than the photoshop image that was up. Lunaspike (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I had not thought about the copyright status of Twitter. Now I am pondering: what could you possibly say in 140 bytes that is worthy of copyright protection? But I digress.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

text on twitter is much less likely to be copyrightable (but not impossible, if it is a creative work and not mundane). A picture linked? Well A picture is worth a thousand words. Easily copyrightable :)

Wehwalt: haikus - 14 syllables and easily under 140 chars - are certainly Twitterable! Tvoz/talk 23:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair Use doctrine says to take only a portion and not the main portion. 300 words of a 20,000 word document is usually fine, but 80 characters of a tweet is probably not. However, using one tweet out of a list of a hundred might qualify as 'fair use'--DeknMike (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is actually about pictures which may or may not be usable which were posted on twitpic, not actual tweets. Certainly a single tweet could be fair use, but we would be subject to WP:SPS and debate about which tweets were apropriate content. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me about the public domain situation. Since Martin chose to use those pictures to represent himself, I thought they were notable. Since the consensus is against putting them in the article, I will respect that, and won't put them in. 6ty4e (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The Daily Caller photos are suspect, inasmuch as at least some of the photos they have published of Martin are falsified or misidentified. http://loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/30/irrelevant-dirt-on-treyvon-martin/ Moreover, it seems that some of Martin's social media accounts have been hacked and had false information placed into them by a white supremacist calling himself Klanklannon (link to a Free Republic post is blocked, but Google is your friend). Certainly it is hard to determine the truth about the various photos and information being promulgated about Martin, and hard to determine whether the photos and purported Tweets and FB postings are real or falsified. Best not to use any such information until it is verified that it has not been made public as part of a smear campaign against Martin (or part of a counter-campaign on his behalf). Black Max (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Black Max

Current Photo

The current photo of Trayvon Martin is dated. There ARE more recent photos. If you want to put up a collage of photos of Trayvon... fine. But the current photo by itself is not "Encyclopedia" worthy. It is BLOG related. I will get ready for another ban now. --70.119.53.11 (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

In that the hoodie has become a symbol of the case, showing the victim in his hoodie is appropriate.--DeknMike (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Since when does the clothing one wears make the photo relevant? The hoodie is a symbol of a ideology. This article is about an event, and as such should be a factual as possible. Again, the photo is dated, and a more current photo should be used for a current event. Or, no photo at all.--70.119.53.11 (talk) 06:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The hoodie is not a symbol of any "ideology." Bill O'Reilly and Geraldo Rivera wear them, and Fox News sold logo-emblazoned hoodies until a few days ago. My wife, a middle-aged Reagan supporter, wears them. I teach in a rural middle school, and white, black, and Hispanic kids all wear them. Would you care to expound on exactly what "ideology" the wearing of a hoodie espouses? Black Max (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Black Max

And who has determined that he is a "victim"? You used the term "victim" above, and it is in the box also. For all we know Zimmerman may be the "victim". The facts have not come out yet. Again, the article needs to be factual? --70.119.53.11 (talk) 06:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Trayvon is the victim because he is the one that died. George may or may not have been justified - that is for the courts to decide. As for the hoodie, it was a simple article of athletic and casual wear until this case. Without this case, Congressmen would not have worn it on the House floor. In this case, the picture with the hoodie is especially relevant. (ps - I added indents to your post, which is a common practice within Wikipedia.)--DeknMike (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

If we wanted the most current photo, we could use the security cam from the store where he purchased the items, if anyone could identify which exact store it was.--DeknMike (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

such video has not yet been released (which is surprising with the media frenzy). The police may have confiscated it. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree this is not a current photo and is being used to gather political support. This artical should have a recent picutre of both men. I thought more of wiki than to show clear bias. 68.82.143.169 (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The zimmerman photo has been updated to a more recent one, we will see if it can survive a fair use fight. If you have a specific photo or photos you would like to have evaluated here to replace the current one, then suggest them. But just saying this one is bad, is not helpful or actionable. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Do we need restatement of 'carrying skittles'?

In the #Police_arrival section, a standalone paragraph notes "Martin was unarmed, and was carrying a bag of Skittles candy and a can of Arizona brand iced tea" Noting the food items is a talking point on one side of the discussion. It is sufficient to say he was found to be not carrying a weapon.--DeknMike (talk) 03:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that, especially if we are not including Martin's suspensions because some argue they aren't directly relevant to the shooting. Some argue otherwise. There are a lot of facts and information in this article that aren't directly relevant to the shooting. This is one of them. What's relevant is that he was not armed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.101.18.118 (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely disagree. One of the most frequently cited facts pointing to Martin's innocence of any crime, or posing any discernible threat, is his possession of three main articles: a bag of Skittles, a can of iced tea, and a cellphone earpiece. To expunge that information simply because those items do not constitute weaponry is to censor information that is part of the public discourse. Black Max (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Black Max

Cutting the lead

The first thing that jumped out at me upon reading the lead was that it takes some pains to state the racial identity of each person. This seems to be a case of undue weight. Clearly that Mr. Martin was black is part of the story, but that could be clear in the box on the right, and the race of the shooter can be mentioned in the introduction to that individual, rather than so prominently right now in the lead. This form of aggressive presentation of the race of the individuals seems to preempt an understanding of the case from any other frame; it seems a biased way of presenting this, as a strictly or overwhelming racial issue. No doubt there is that component, but I don't think Wikipedia should be in the business of defining political frames as first order of the day. These frames can be explored in the course of the actual article; Wikipedia should be neutral. Unless there is a policy where the race of each person should be spelled out at the first mention of their names--and I don't believe there is such a policy, since it would make as much sense as the need to spell out an individual's religious beliefs or sexual preferences, i.e. not much sense--then I suggest we consider revising this. A brick to attract jade. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 04:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• I cleaned up the lead and took care of that. The race issue has died down since Zimmerman is not white; but there was no need for race to be such a prominent point in the lead. A shorter, tighter worded lead is best. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Chris, I think your good faith edit to the lead was far more than just taking out the ethnicity, and I think we need to go through it and get the sense of the editors here before wholesale cutting. I know your intention was to make it NPOV, but, for example, by removing the middle part you set up a description that supports Zimmerman's story which is POV. For example, you eliminated "unarmed" - surely that needs to be in the lead. And you removed the reason for the public uproar. WP:MOSLEAD says that The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. Our original version does that - yours takes out way too much for it to stand on its own and accurately reflect the article. Further, WP:MOS#Length expects the lead to be 3-4 paragraphs for an article of this size, and there is no reason to be shortening it. We need to have a larger discussion among the editors here about what, if anything, should be cut from the lead. We already agreed that the bio sections needed cutting because too much irrelevant material had been stuffed in there. As for the race/ethnicity matter, I think Martin's race is unfortunately very much relevant to the article, and we've been struggling with how to describe Zimmerman, but the solution is not to just remove it and hope people get it. Let's talk about all of this some more. Tvoz/talk 06:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• A person's race should not be defined in the opening line including their name. Its bad form to do so even with racial undertones. WP:LEAD and WP:MOSBEGIN are pretty clear. We describe the event with care to specifics. Not confuse matters with the ethnicity makeup of the individuals. I do not know of another article which puts so much emphasis on race background as this. It also should have the location and circumstance; which was not properly done. As for unarmed it is undue; while true given reports that Martin went for Zimmerman's gun and the entire altercation is still being released. He may have been unarmed, but that should not be noted before his activities. It should still be there, it wasn't perfect, but the second paragraph was a section that belonged in the police matters, not in the lead. Shortening it to two paragraphes tightened it by having one for the incident and one for the response it triggers; all of the information to be found within. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the races are appropriate in the lead. Significant accusations of racism are at the center of the notability of this story, and that angle of the story becomes basically unintelligible without identifying the races as much as possible. The lead is supposed to summerize the most important information, the racism angle clearly qualifies as part of that.Gaijin42 (talk) 15:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It's possible to convey the relevant racial information elsewhere. Wikipedia should not be a vehicle for racial politics. We assess the event from an objective standpoint. The fact that race has been an important part of the discussion is to be stated in the page, but the page itself should distance itself from particular frames of dispute, while presenting the different arguments in accordance with their reliability. The fact that race is an overriding consideration should be mentioned, and clear, but Wikipedia is itself not part of the argument about this. The race of the individuals should not be in the lead as it is now. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't cutting the matter of race from the article, I just wanted to give simple facts without making such framing of political or racial divides. The second paragraph was perfect for reactions and coverage of the incident, the first should briefly describe the incident. Since the NBA halftime and 7-11 matter was a story, which some details have proven to be false, I struck those and gave the known interaction and police report version. Now it is bloated with even more speculation and false claims. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Do we have a consensus here that we needn't state the race of each party in the introductory sentences of them? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The Video where we can Apparently See Nothing

On one picture that I've seen is a big stain just to the left of the opening on his jacket.

Another video has a sheriff staring at the back of Zimmerman's head giving an ouch, that must hurt, expression. As they are leaving the room on this video the image on the back of the head shows a dark area.

I think there had to be blood from the shooting victim. We don't seem to see that either. Bad video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.151.24 (talk) 04:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Video details wounds, stills have been shown. Was treated by paramedics on scene. [10] Far as I am concerned, misinformation and spin. Damage is present. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Another source. [11] And another. [12]A quote from that source, "Ron Martinelli, founder of a California forensic consulting firm, said that Mr. Zimmerman was probably cleaned up when he was treated by paramedics at the scene and that in many cases there is no significant visual evidence of an injury." Some state the gash to the back of the head, others don't, but even still we have an expert stating that just because its not obvious, doesn't mean it didn't happen. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Chris is right in that some see it, some don't. That also seems to happen with alot of the other details about this case as well. For every argument for it, there is an argument against it. Most of this will be clarified once the legal proceeding starts to take place and the evidence is released to the public. Until then, I think we should take a more conservative approach when adding new details.Isaidnoway (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

"I think we should take a more conservative approach when adding new details." You do know this is Wikipedia, right? 67.233.242.34 (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I wish that people would please stop removing reliably sourced material from the article which contradicts ABC's claim that the video doesn't show any bruises on Zimmerman. Such removal is an extreme violation of neutrality. 6ty4e (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

We need to be careful around this. The video is a primary source. ABC's commentary is a reliable secondary source. But ABC making medical evaluations regarding what they see in the video, is a primary source again, and we have no knowledge about the medical aptitude of the person doing that commentary, and in any case, such analysis of a grainy video is obviously suspect. I could see very high level commentary, but we have to be clear to separate what is objective fact, from subjective opinion "ABC could/could not detect noticeable evidence of injury" vs "the video showed there was/was not injury". Additionally, there are mutually incompatible analysis of the videos done by multiple sources, so we would have to balance the description, while carefully avoiding our own SYNTH/OR. "ABC said they saw X. NBC said they saw Y". Gaijin42 (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it odd that one says they can't yet others show there is damage consistant with the reports. Also it timeline of the video and police reports are direct evidence he was treated on scene and he wasn't unscathed. A disproportionate amount of evidence mentions he was hurt in some manner versus ABC's 'no visible injuries' which is not equal to 'hurt/bloodied' or anything involving post clean up video. If we go putting in speculation from third parties with recognized POV issues then it is similar to editors putting their own POV into the article. Plenty of attacks on both individuals have taken place lets not confuse reliable sources with neutrality. Do I really need to bring up the cruel comics about Zimmerman again? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The policeman, after searching Zimmerman's pockets, wipes something off his hands that he finds disgusting. Considering the fact that mention is made of injuries that we might guess that it is blood which apparently many don't see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.151.71 (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE issue

This is clear WP:UNDUE. "In a controversial act that some have noted to be in contravention of Twitter's rules regarding privacy,[97][98] Film director Spike Lee retweeted Zimmerman's purported address on his Twitter account. Although it was later reported that the address was incorrect, belonging to someone unrelated to the incident,[99][100] the occupants of the home have temporarily moved out after having received hate mail, unwanted visits from reporters, and fearful inquiries from neighbors.[101] Lee would in turn be criticized for his retweet.[97][102] Spike Lee settled a lawsuit stemming from his mistweet for an undisclosed amount. [103]" It really should be entirely deleted. It has absolutely no basis for the case, investigation or purpose other then giving negative attention to Spike Lee for his retweeting of said address. A lot of useless details are getting added into the article; like Trayvon's amount of money he had on him. Such information is best left out. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Personal interest only, not relevant to article (breaking talk rules, ohno!) where did you see something that mentioned the amount of money he had? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It was under the "Police arrival" section, end of the 2nd paragraph. It was removed during this edit. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It should be left in as it is part of the entire story. It shows the hysteria, myths, and false reactions that have gone on, which IS part of the subject. --70.119.53.11 (talk) 06:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I agree with Chris - that is way, way , way out of proportion and only tangential to the story of the article. I'm in process of trimming it down. Tvoz/talk 06:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I feel more than three people, me, you, and Chris need to chime in on this prior to making a change. It does set a precedence, as there are many items in the article that fall in the same category. Change one, you may have to change all.... to be fair. --70.119.53.11 (talk) 06:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah- I see Chris favored deleting it completely - I didn't catch that and was not taking that position at present. I did not take it out completely, but I streamlined the wording and the sourcing which was far more than is needed. I also removed some wholly irrelevant material from elsewhere in that paragrpah and pared the rest down too. Tvoz/talk 07:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Multiple sources determine UNDUE text, not editors: The judgment of what facts are irrelevant to a topic, per WP:UNDUE, is primarily determined by the sources. If numerous sources state, "5 bullets left in gun" or "no bullets left in gun" then that can be included, and should not be excluded if an editor adds that text. However, not everything in multiple sources gets automatically added. Then, if one source notes, "Besides skittles, there was a penny in his pocket" then that could be removed as UNDUE, unless other sources noted the same detail. Remember: with news events, the reports tend to be very short, and already pruned by the reporters, so that is why such details rise to be included in article text. If numerous WP:RS sources state something, such as celebrity tweeted a notable message, then other policies should be checked to justify exclusion. For example, WP:NPOV could be used to deter claiming a tool is a "burglary tool" or that a person is a "drug dealer" as conclusions which are difficult to prove, because a flathead screwdriver could be a "paintscrape tool" or "lid-pry tool" or "screw-driving tool" or "murder weapon". Such questionable conclusions are where reliable sources often push beyond the facts, and that text can be removed with clear discussion. Meanwhile, if multiple sources state, "$22 in his pocket" then that is valid, because there is not a "questionable conclusion" when counting that money. Also, if only one source mentioned "$22" (after several days), then that is likely a case of WP:UNDUE text, and might be a typo of actually "$77" misread as double-two "22". Multiple sources determine what to allow (as what is not undue detail). -Wikid77 (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Basically, without a license to ∞RR, there's only so much you can do. What worries me is that the article is already up to 70K, and it could be early days yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Many trivial details may be covered in multiple sources, especially in a media frenzy like this. That does not affect their triviality. Spike lee's original tweet is certainly relevant to the article, as showing an example of percieved threats made against zimmerman. A brief mention of alleged vigilantes showing up at their house and harassing them might also qualify Subsequent developments related to that tweet (it was the wrong address, he made a settlement, etc) are more and more removed from the actual event, and not relevant to this article. Perhaps they are relevant on spike lee's article. Unless that couple ends up dead/assaulted/etc as a result of this tweet it is indeed undue. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

+1 to Gaijin's assessment here. The fact that vigilante's showed up a house thinking it was Zimmerman's is important because it shows the highly charged atmosphere around this case. After that, the significance begins to fade. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Which is why I didn't remove it myself, I still think a good chunk of it is WP:UNDUE, but then again it seems a week will pass before it will be cleaned up. I think a one line is all that is required. "Spike Lee retweeted an erroneous address which forced a family out of their home to avoid harassment." We do not need issue of a settlement or that they had a son with a similar name; that matter should be on Spike Lee's article more so then here. Anyone like this line better? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

maybe "Spike Lee retweeted an erroneous address which forced a family out of their home to avoid harassment, after protesters/alleged vigilantes came to their home". how to describe the people that showed up is problematic, (how did sources describe?) but I think the fact that someone did show up (making it more than a hypothetical harassment) is important. Obviously we would need to sprinkle refs at the appropriate places. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that statement is that we have reporters showing up, some mail and reports not confirmation of people coming to the house to take Zimmerman at gunpoint. We do not know the full details or the exact nature of the situation. Vigilantism is different from angry people complaining or sending nasty letters. They obviously were not comfortable, but the attention they received was largely from reporters then armed vigilantes trying to apprehend Zimmerman. We do not even know if the police were called to the scene or the scale involved. Keep it neutral and simple, the sources were limited in detail. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I've condensed it to one line as someone had previously fixed it, and for some inexplicable reason the issue of twitter's privacy was put back up when legal issues were actually brought forth. On grounds of relevancy, its now one line and the rest of the incident should go on Lee's page and not here. Also removed 'vigilante' from statement as no vigilantes were ever reported attempting to take Zimmerman in. Issue was tiny in comparision and importance to the actual detail given. Oh yeah, preemptive nipping before Lee's settlement terms get added in; its private and was supposed to be private. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for Full Protection - Again

This article is still a mess. Can we get an admin to put full protection on for a week? The media circus is overflowing onto this article. Redredryder (talk) 06:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• You are welcome to fix it up. Full protection means no one but admins can make edits; and none happened the last time. It'd only lock the article for a week. Lots of WP:UNDUE here, but I'm not bold enough to wipe it all out at once. Too much is controversial still. That is why we discuss it here before making an edit war. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Full protection is (or should be) only done when there is severe edit warring, and it can be any length the protecting admin decides to do it for. It is not done proactively or for messes however. We do need to organize more, but full protection is not the way to go. Tvoz/talk 08:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

agreed, no active edit war going on, and no admins were involved last full protection, so the only thing it would let us do is talk. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin monitoring the page, I see no need for full protection at this time. I will say generally I am reluctant to do so.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Victim???

Have all the facts come out yet? Who determined that Martin is a "victim" as described in the intro box, and as stated in the article and many times on this talk page. Unless there has been a trial already that I was unaware of, we have no idea who the "victim" was or is. I request all references to "victim" be removed in the article.--70.119.53.11 (talk) 06:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Trials determine guilt or innocence of the perpetrator of a crime, when a grand jury and/or prosecutor believe that a crime has taken place. The definition of "victim" is A person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action. "Victim" does not imply anything more than being the one who, in this case, is dead. Tvoz/talk 06:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

So if a burglar gets shot and killed by a homeowner, the burglar is the victim??? 67.233.242.34 (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, and I stand corrected. I still feel that the term "victim" should not be used until Zimmerman is charged. However, in looking back at the article (constantly changing) someone has removed the term "victim" in the box.--70.119.53.11 (talk) 06:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

He is the victim of the shooting, and the perpetrator of the burglary. A victim does not necessarily imply a criminal on the other side. BEsides what word would you suggest for martin? Target? Subject? Every word is going to have flaws in some way. We already had this debate on the word homicide, which is also technically correct. however, your analogy is flawed. Equating Martin to a burglar is ridiculously biased. He was not in the commission of a crime when zimmerman began to follow him. He may or my not have been the instigator of the physical confrontation. That physical confrontation may or may not have been such that caused a reasonable belief of imminent major injury or death to zimmerman. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

clearly zimmermen is the victim here 68.82.143.169 (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

If Martin was shot without legal cause, then Martin is the victim and Zimmerman is the perpetrator. If Zimmerman was defending himself against an assault in which he was injured, then Zimmerman is the victim and Martin is the perpetrator. Perpetrators are not usually described as victims because their harm was caused by their own criminal actions. For example, a person punished for committing a crime is not considered a victim even though they may be "harmed, injured, or killed as a result of ...[an] event or action" of the state. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Martin is the "deceased". Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Martin is "deceased" not the victem. its not up to WIKI to decided if he was shot without legal cause. the PD sure seems to think so and i am inclined not to belive this is some sort of racist cover up it is abhorrent that this POV nonsense is permitted here Zimmerman was attacked.... Zimmerman is the victem ... PERIOD of course he is now the victim of some twisted viral smear campaign too 68.82.143.169 (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The definition of "victim" is A person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action. "Victim" does not imply anything more than being the one who, in this case, is dead. Tvoz/talk 04:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Do most of the RS's describe Martin as a victim? --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The Washington Post describes Trayvon as a "Victim. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 05:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I just googled Trayvon Martin victim and I found NEW WITNESS CONFIRMS TRAYVON MARTIN WAS THE VICTIM (Mar 29, 2012) on the Democratic Underground site. From this it looks like it hadn't been determined before whether or not Martin was the victim, even though he was dead. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Items that need attention

• Under section of Persons involved in the case;

we have Neighborhood watch, this is not a person Edit done--looks good.

• Sgt. Anthony Raimondo (persons involved in the case) Edit done --looks good with 1 section

Redundancy, also listed below in previous incidents with racial issues

• Detective Chris Serino (persons involved in the case)-- Edit done--looks good

Redundancy, also listed below in police arrival Edit done-removed for clarity and redundant

• Chief Bill Lee (persons involved in the case)

Redundancy, also listed below police arrival, aftermath, against the sanford police

• State Attorney Norm Wolfinger (persons involved in the case)

Redundancy, also listed below investigations and other offical statement

I do realize that some of the statements may be relevant in relation to the event described below i.e. Chief Lee, but when they are saying the same thing over and over, just in a different section for no other reason than somebody just added them, it's redundant.

• Video released on March 28 (police arrival) Edit done-removed for clarity and redundant

Redundant, also listed below zimmerman's acccount of events-- video still here

• Accusation of jumping to conclusions Edit done--thank you

Commentator Thomas Sowell obviously POV

Isaidnoway (talk) 07:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• typo? Under zimmerman's account of events you refer to him once as Robert Zimmerman not George. Bob Dylan has nothing to do with case!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.123.224 (talk) 10:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Note that "Neighborhood watch" is a subsection of George Zimmerman, not intended to be a person - but maybe it can be incorporated into his section without the header. I am guessing that in general the idea was to highlight the major players in the case and identify them, so that people can refer there when they're reading the rest of the article and are not sure who is who. That would be why there is redundancy - I didn't set that up, I'm just guessing as to why it was done. I'm not sure it's needed, but if we decide to keep it, would need, also, to add a section for the new State's attorney so we can find her - she shouldn't be included as part of Wolfinger. And what about the various lawyers? If we remove everyone other than Martin and Zimmerman, have to be sure any relevant material that is not elsewhere, and any sources, are moved to appropriate places. Let's see what others think. Tvoz/talk 08:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The "Who's Who" is a list of people "under suspicion" in the DOJ probe, so Zimmerman and Treyvon for the direct investigation, and on the police side, the lead officer on scene, the officer who contradicts SPD story, and the two officials who've stepped down. --HectorMoffet (talk) 11:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Good idea about incorporating into his section. I agree with the new state attorney as she will become prominent in the days/weeks ahead. Agree with the lawyers as well, Zimmerman's attorney will become more relevant too as the case moves along. The family's attorney was also instrumental in bringing this case before the public. Sgt. Raimondo should be moved down to Allegations of racism--against the police as that is what he is relevant to. Det. Serino should probably stay as his statement indicates he had direct involvement with the case. His statement below in the police arrival section is not relevant to when police arrived at the scene, his interaction with Zimmerman was at the station. The police arrival section needs some clean-up too, it should include information that pertains to the first officers on the scene, and what transpired there. The video wasn't taken at the scene, seems like it was only inserted there to rebut Zimmerman's claim of injuries when directly above that we have statements from police reporting they observed him with injuries--bleeding from the nose and the back of the head.Isaidnoway (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Sowell quote

Of course the Thomas Sowell quote is POV - that's why I identified him as a "commentator" when I put the quote in the article. The comments from Al Sharpton are also POV, but you don't seem to have a problem with having those in the article. Please explain why you have different standards for the two commentators.

For the record, here is what I think should be included:

Commentator Thomas Sowell wrote, "The man who shot the black teenager in Florida may be as guilty as sin, for all I know — or he may be innocent, for all I know. We pay taxes so that there can be judges and jurors who sort out the facts. We do not need Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or the President of the United States spouting off before the trial has even begun. Have we forgotten the media's rush to judgment in the Duke University "rape" case that blew up completely when the facts came out?"

6ty4e (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a minor difference, Sharpton is commenting on the incident itself, and Sowell is commenting on coverage of the incident. But I think they are close enough to be using the same justification. I think your quote could go into the media bias section. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

also, sharpton, etc and their involvement in the case, have themselves been a subject of coverage in the case. Sowell has not been (or not been as much). Same issue with your most recent addition. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I think allowing POV or "commentators" or quotes from editorials or opinion based commentary is a path we shouldn't embark on. Readers come here to reference material that is germane to the case and the events surrounding it, not the opinion of others.Isaidnoway (talk) 05:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Not counting my opinion, it looks like the consensus is split. 6ty4e (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Chronological order

Wouldn't it make sense for purposes of clarity and organizing the article to create a sort of chronological order to this event;

• Location
• Interaction
• Zimmerman police call
• Police arrival
• Sanford Police Department (or something to that effect)

This is where we could incorporate Zimmerman's account of events because the PD is where he gave his account. The video should be here as it was taken at the PD. Statement by Det. Serino would fit here too, as he was at the PD that night. Chief Lee's statement defending PD would look good here. This would be a way of organizing all these accounts and statements into one section.

• Witness accounts
• Aftermath
• additional sections if needed

Seems kind of logical, doesn't it?Isaidnoway (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure chronological is the most useful, but I have no specific objections. If the case proceeds, that will likely become the most important section, as it will determine "facts" regarding what happened, and everyone's testimony will be cleanly documented. at that point a small timeline/chronology section might be appropriate, but the sections should be arranged by affect on the outcome I think. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

My argument for chronological is that it would just seem natural for the reader to want to start at the beginning of the event and then proceed in an order that is clear of the way it went down. I think it would also be easier for editors to decide which info goes where.--Isaidnoway (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Which came first: Martin call to girlfriend or Zimmerman call to police? --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman didn't say on 911 call he saw Martin on phone, only acting suspicious, walking around, looking at me. That indicates to me Martin called girlfriend after, he told her that someone was following him.--Isaidnoway (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

FWIW I also think a chronological presentation to begin with would serve everyone very well. Especially readers new to the topic. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

this is as close as I have seen as to something with the times, and the last call started at 7:12 accoring to tmobile. So that would put zimmerman's call first, except for us not knowing if the clocks are synched. However, the article also mentions being on many calls together, so they could have been on the phone previously. Additionally, we do not know if martin was wearing a headset or not, which would completely invalidate zimmerman's ability to tell he was on the phone. In any case, I don't think it is a huge deal, the calls happened within 1-2 minutes of each other, and are effectively simultaneous, so I don't think it matters a ton which order we put them in in the article, as at this point the order of the calls is not impacting perception of the event at all. If martin's gf comes forward and says "he called me and the first thing he said was someone started following him", then thats a different matter. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Another case of conflicting reports in the media, here's what I found:

At 6:54 p.m., Trayvon received a phone call on his cell from his girlfriend. Phone records show they talked for 18 minutes. Towards the end of the conversation, Trayvon said he was being followed. At 7:00, Zimmerman called police to report a suspicious person. The dispatcher told him not to follow that person. Twelve minutes later, Trayvon's cell phone conversation was dropped. His girlfriend tried calling him back. But five minutes later, at 7:17, police arrived to find Trayvon dead. http://www.actionnewsjax.com/content/topstories/story/Timeline-could-be-critical-in-Trayvon-Martin-case/d5W0hP_OeUC_jxIRGCkIGQ.cspx You are right though, it's not a huge deal.--Isaidnoway (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The first report referred to her as a girlfriend. After that the media just started referring to her as the girl friend. Her story did not come up until one month after the fact. In her introduction, the story said she had given her story to a lawyer. Only later did we learn that it was the Martin family lawyer. If she was the girl friend, you would think she would inquire about what happened to him. But apparently she never bothered. Even the father didn't know he was missing until the next day. There is also no report of when the family visited the morgue to identify the body. It is possible the body was shipped to the funeral home without a family member having viewed it. If they had, we would have heard about it. Also, why is there no commentary on Trayvon's funeral. It's also strange that with a story this sensational, no one has published his 75.21.147.150 (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)official obituary, which would not have any bias in it, has not been published by any source.75.21.147.150 (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Is the idea of a genuine chronology, of known facts of the case, or reported facts, in a time sequence, going to happen? Could we start on it in a separate space, then when it is complete move it into the article? At the moment the piece starts with a cast of characters. Not what I'd consider the best introduction to the facts of the case. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I dont know that a chronology, other than one specifically around the shooting, is a good idea. The chronology of the investigation, and when various witnesses came forth is not very important, unless a particular revelation caused a big flip-flop in someone elses position. I think its more valuable to group the actions and opinions by the person who did them (again, with the exception of what happened immediately during the incident) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

A chronology of the known things that happened surrounding the shooting incident. Not a chronology of the protagonists lives or whatever. The article is at the moment a bit confused and doesn't present a clear set of "facts we know in the order they happened." The facts will have gaps in them that the ideologically inclined can fill with theories, but that is for other sections. A straight statement of all the facts at play, and their order, would help greatly. Are there any objections? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess I see it differently. I think about how a reader would look at this article, rather than how we wish for it to look. For instance, if a reader were to reference this article and find that the section about the video surveillance was at the top of the article, how would they know what events took place that resulted in the surveillance being taken? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaidnoway (talk • contribs) 21:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Interaction

The section title "Interaction" doesn't seem very descriptive. Suggest changing it to "Preceding events" which is actually what is currently in the section . --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: Changed by another editor to "Prelude".[13] --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Ethnicity is wrong

The only way he could be Jewish is if he had CONVERTED. HIS FATHER ISN'T JEWISH. HIS MOTHER ISN'T JEWISH. Why does BLACK AMERICA want to make him Jewish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.41.41 (talk) 00:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The only people calling Zimmerman's father Robert Zimmerman "American White" are journalists or journalists taking their information from "neighbours", when he in fact a German born Ashkenazi Jew. The sources cited for this in the page are not appropriate and the first line of the page should be changed 143.117.49.74 (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Ashkenazi Jew is not a race. There are genetically european. Do you have a reliable source for the jewishness to begin with? There have been several RS reporting him as Christian. In any case, The father's religion, or what the ethnicity of his ancestors from the 11th century is, is really irrelevant. If he is an immigrant, that might possibly be viable for inclusion, but probably not, and in any case would need a reliable source. You should look up WP:RELIABILESOURCES and WP:VERIFIABILITY and how they affect this information. Your opinion that it is incorrect or poorly sourced is not worth much in the face of tens of thousands of people's consensus regarding policyGaijin42 (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Genetically Semitic...so it'd depend if you consider Jews to be white or not. 'Race' can be vague.--Львівське (говорити) 19:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

More to the point, the Police Report listed George Zimmerman as white. --HectorMoffet (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

He is Hispanic on voter registration. His background is not 'white'. Ethnicity is not always reported as race either and police reports can get certain aspects wrong. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman's religion, and Martin's, are irrelevant to this story and should absolutely not be in the article - it is not a biography. As a point of information, Zimmerman has been reported as being Catholic and even a former altar boy, so the speculation that he is Jewish or adopted by a Jewish family is utterly unfounded as well as irrelevant and some of the commentary above is borderline offensive, so let's move on. Tvoz/talk 23:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman is described as a Catholic and a former altar boy. Does not sound particulary Jewish to me. I have read multiple sources describing him as Latino, Hispanic, Catholic, but none that describe him as Jewish. We should not make assumptions because some of us believe Zimmerman to be a Jewish-sounding name. Let's stick to the facts here. If anyone finds reliable source(s) that Zimmerman is Jewish, feel free to add it to the page. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman is a German surname meaning Carpenter. Implying anything beyond that fact is OR. Implying that he is even German is OR (since for all we know he's only 1/32nd German or whatever and it's just a family name)--Львівське (говорити) 00:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

White is not an ethnicity

White is an inaccurate designation for "small amount of pigment." If you compare white & black pieces of paper with human skin, you will see that hardly anyone has white or black skin, not even an albino is white; and most Afro-americans are not at all black. "White" should be deleted from the article, since Zimmerman's appearance would clearly be described to a 911 operator who asked, as Hispanic instead of White. We may argue about the propriety of "Hispanic," but that is the functional term that would be used to id someone to 911 or the police. If the ethnicity of Zim's father is to be given, one must rule out adoption to be relevant, and then instead of calling him white, he should be called whatever he was descended from, German, Jewish or whatever. If an ethnicity is to be given, it should be accurate. It might turn out that Zimmerman's father was of mixed northern European ethnicity; if so, that is what it should be called. But since appearance is what counts in this situation, the correct designation for Zimmerman is Hispanic to reflect common usage in the USA. (EnochBethany (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC))

Two photos of each

I think we should add the photos of Trayvon as a 12-year-old and the more current photo of the thinner George Zimmerman smiling. Can we only have 1 photo of each? The photo of Trayvon at 12 years is the one a lot of people used to jump to their conclusions, and having only George's 2005 pudgy mugshot is prejudicial. --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• I disagree. Replied down below since it was moved down. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the 12 year old picture is misleading if it does not have an appropriate caption clarifying it's date.--Львівське (говорити) 19:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

If photos which have been released to the public domain, or CC can be found, we can have as many as are appropriate for context. As it is there are only copyrighted private photos available (except for the mugshot, which is public domain). The wikipedia rules say only one fair use photo may be used. the young "hollister" photo could be useful in the media/reporting section but as we do not have rights it would be inappropriate to use as the primary image. Martin, as someone who is dead, has slightly less protection in his photos, as it is impossible to get a new photo of him for use. Zimmerman as someone who is still alive, has more protection, and we cannot use any photo that is not properly licensed. The mugshot is the only photo we have, unless he releases a new one. The new croped grayscale photo is much less of a problem, because it is not obviously a mugshot, but it would be better to get a more recent one. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Last I checked, altering with a filter doesn't change that the photo is a mugshot. It is still a mugshot through and through and per WP:MUG it should not be used. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed.--Львівське (говорити) 19:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 March 2012 (Zimmerman Mugshot)

I suggest that the very old picture of George Zimmerman be updated to the one that is available Here. I don't know where we can find this picture that would pass a copyright test, but I think its very important that we update his pic to a more recent one.

The quality of this article is quite low with a picture of Zimmerman almost 6 years old. Having the same exact picture as the major news media is not as important as current and more accurate content to the ethos and credibility of Wikipedia. Visavismeyou (talk) 02:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed the mugshot for now. That other photo might make light of the situation with the big toothy grin. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

TY Chris, I didn't consider that, but I think you're right. I will hunt for another one. Visavismeyou (talk) 02:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Someone put it back up, but might go to a greyscale to avoid the prison oranges. The highschool photo is probably copyrighted as per discussion on IRC with editors. [14] So its probably not okay to use even if edited. No real good picture of Zimmerman has been released; which for the sake of WP:MUG I'd just keep it off because the policy is clear as pointed out by the previous editor. "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots)..." ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Greyscale is a good idea and could be temporarily used until a better pic is found, Trayvon's pic seems to be greyscale as well.Isaidnoway (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Now someone has removed Martin's pic. I converted Zimmerman's to greyscale, but it doesn't change the fact it still is a mugshot. I'll hold off, as anyone can greyscale a picture. Don't want this to turn into an edit war. Just want to meet policy as noted by the editors above. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No, greyscale is not a good idea for the same reason the photo of Zimmerman with the "toothy grin" is not a good idea. The "tone" and "connotations" of the toothy grin photo are inappropriate given the subject. The same is true for the mugshot. The mugshot implies criminality when Zimmerman has not been charged much less convicted. Moreover, even in greyscale, the mugshot is not neutral. It shows Zimmerman at in a bad light, probably at his worst, and with a dour, unpleasant expression. And it's still mugshot, and one taken for an arrest not a conviction I might add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.157.17.243 (talk) 03:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Caption common photo as 5 years old or such: Any photo is likely to be debated or disliked for potential bias, so just counter a major bias in the photo's caption, such as stating, "(photo of 5 years earlier, 2007)". Remember, Wikipedia's wp:NPOV does not strive to achieve utopian Platonic "Fairness" but merely reflects the balance of major opinions in sources, and hence, if many sources show a mugshot, then that's what Wikipedia shows, rather than a recent "glamor shot" by "Photos to Make You Like Mother Teresa in Court". Wikipedia's efforts at fairness should reflect what the sources say, not personal opinions of ultimate fairness. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, there is no RS that dates the photo. If one is made available, we can caption it better. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with the mugshot? It shows him as he looked that night and it is evident from this shot that injuries claimed are not shown. BTW Movies stars mugshots are ALWAYS shown!00:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC) — DocOfSoc • Talk • 00:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The mugshot is from 2005, not that night. If it was the mugshot from this incident, then it owuld be easy to include, but it is too prejudicial considering its from a different event Gaijin42 (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

(forgive me, i'm new at editing wikipedia) but can we use the pictures that Trayvon published on his Twitter and Facebook? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WDLKD (talk • contribs) 02:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

No, we can't. We can only use one picture of Trayvon via Fair Use rules, since the photos are all copyrighted. Additionally, many of the photos posted on his twitter or facebook would be unsuitable for this article, unless they are being discussed by reliable sources, and would cause a firestorm of POV warring. If you believe there is a single photo from the twitter/facebook that would be a better representation, to replace the current photo, you may propose it here, but be warned, if that photo is selected to push a point of view (positive or negative) you will not get farGaijin42 (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I moved this down here and want to clarify that the mugshot is in use because it's the only fair use image available of Zimmerman. The "toothy grin" was from a former employer and is currently copyrighted. Please see this Poynter article [15] for more detail on the subject. Redredryder (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• It is not neutral to have a 5-6 year old photo of his childhood as it does not represent Trayvon Martin properly. For the one of George Zimmerman smiling...well, do I really need to explain the importance of context? It would not be neutral no matter how it would be worked in. The gangsta one is also not exactly 'neutral' in most editors opinions. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you completely, but the current Zimmerman photo is 7 years old. The smiling one would be at least more recent but can't be used due to copyright. And yes, the way the media juxtaposed a 5 year old photo of Martin next to a police mugshot was horrendous.Redredryder (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

FAQ section

Would it make sense to have a FAQ section for commonly asked questions/issues so we don't have to answer the same questions over and over again? (or at least we can just point people to the established answer?)

things like why we dont use different pictures of the two, or why piece of information X is not being mentioned, or why their race is whatever. For most of the issues we have a good consensus, and where we do not have a good consensus (marijuana, suspensions, etc) we can explain the two sides, and say we do not have a consensus. or we can not put any information in that does not have complete consensus, and just deal with it the way we do now. Even the simple stuff would cut down a lot on the repetitive issues.

our archives are ridiculously long at this point, and asking people to read through that is not realistic, but maybe we can cut down on some of the information?

I would propose a FAQ only section, where there is no discussion allowed, at the top of the page, bolded with "READ THIS OR ELSE" type stuff in it. question, and brief summary answer. If anyone comments in it, it gets deleted, or moved down to a new section for response.

Gaijin42 (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that someone do a draft in userspace, then discuss whether to adopt it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd like a faq that corresponds to those issues of consensus and directly deals with the more controversial aspects of the coverage. Zimmerman's mugshot, the marjuana bag and pipe, etc things that come up time and time again and are removed and replaced often enough. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Working on a draft in my sandbox User:Gaijin42/sandbox edits/new sections welcome, but please make sure you include all viewpoints/ are very neutral in your edits. I would prefer only the more "established" editors help edit it for now, until it is in a more final state. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

someone take a look and provide some feedback on what I have so far, I dont want to spend a ton of time doing this if its going to get shot down as not viable. I think it makes sense to add refs to this as if it was the article, so people can see where we got the faq info from as well. Obviously where I am saying what consensus is or isnt, we cannot provide refs. For places where the consensus is lacking (marijuana) I think it would best to only briefly summarize the issue, and tell people to discuss it, because putting the full debate into a faq would be very difficult to do cleanly. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks good so far. Well done. Broad-based, seems to touch on most of the issues that are/willbe brought up as editors plug into the article. Where will it go and how will readers/questioners find it? ```Buster Seven Talk 21:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Gaijin, for starting this. I have a few comments from my experience with FAQs here: I think a FAQ - a simple list of questions and answers - can be useful. We use it on pages like Barack Obama's -Talk: Barack Obama/FAQ - with some success - at least it is easier for the regular editors to point to Qu# 2 to reply to new editors, rather than explaining once again why we refer to him as African American (because, they say, maybe you didn't know, but he has a white mother!). But I have found that having a FAQ is only really helpful to us, the regulars, who get tired of re-typing the explanation - it is useful shorthand. It doesn't on its own deter anything - it's just a place to point to so we don't get burned out, and I guess some responsible souls might check there first, but I have no evidence of that. But here's the other thing: we would only add something to the FAQ if it had been thoroughly discussed and argued and the answer agreed to by the vast majority of the people who edit there day in and day out - only hard-and-fast consensus points go in there. It is not really a place, in my opinion, to outline the arguments pro and con. I don't really think we are at a place yet on this article where we have much that is hard-and-fast - it is changing too quickly, and we don't have the history here yet of established consensus as you know. I think you laid it out quite fairly - that's not my problem with it - but we are still arguing amongst ourselves on many points, let alone with new editors who drive by, about basic matters. So I'm not sure this is the time for it. Just my first thought on this - I can see that there might be value in saying about, say, the marijuana thing, that it needs to be discussed, not added, but I'm just not sure a FAQ will do what we want on that kind of thing. But good start, and let's see what others think. Tvoz/talk 21:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Request to edit inaccurate description "nearby 7-Eleven"

According to the following subsection under the Shooting section:

"Prelude

During a break in an NBA basketball game on TV, Martin left his father's fiance's home in the gated community of Twin Lakes to walk to a nearby 7-Eleven convenience store to buy some Skittles and iced tea."

According to Google maps the estimated travel time for walking from the Retreat at Twin Lakes to the nearest 7-Eleven is around 45 minutes one way. This makes for an hour and half round trip. This is in no way a "nearby" 7-Eleven. Not only is the use of the term "nearby" incorrect, the entire context of the paragraph is misleading with this fact.

http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=Twin+Trees&daddr=2700+West+25th+Street&hl=en&ll=28.788874,-81.313505&spn=0.020536,0.042272&sll=28.78968,-81.31344&sspn=0.020535,0.042272&geocode=FdBTtwEdngMn-w%3BFbpAtwEdXX0n-ymFUr633xLniDEY0bDYGOmO4Q&t=h&dirflg=w&mra=dme&mrsp=0&sz=15&z=15&source=gplus-ogsb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.16.172 (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

an hour walk when you are a kid who has never had regular access to a car is a lot different than what an adult perceives. I walked that far to the store for snacks when I was that age, but wouldn't dream of it now. The work you have done is WP:OR, but I will try and see if there is a way to reword the section to be more insightful about the distance. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

"Nearby" can easily be removed with very little change in meaning. Only those editors already working here will remember that it was at one time referred to as "nearby" in our article. Since the incident happened in close proximity to Trayvon's returning destination, how far he had to go for the skittles is of little bearing or importance. . One may wonder why he still had un-eaten skittles after a 45 minute walk, but there are many viable reasons. If the article was not about THE main page story, removing "'nearby" based on the distance from where he was visiting would be an easy edit. New editors and more importantly readers will not miss "Nearby". ```Buster Seven Talk 21:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Stick as close to the sources as you can.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Gaijin42, I seriously question your judgement. First of all, most if not all of this page is based on unverified hearsay WP:OR and my very simple research was actually more original than most of the page. Secondly, the fact that you rounded down from 1.5 hours to 1 hour (33% reduction) is manipulation. Lastly, considering the position you just stated - my contribution is WP:OR - it is an ironic fallacy for your argument to be supported by a vague reference to your personal opinion; "I walked that far to the store for snacks when I was that age."

Buster, "Nearby" has severe implications. The farther the store is from Trayvon's destination, the entire position that Trayvon was walking back home from the store (as opposed to being engaged in some other activity ---i.e. suspicious activity warranting Zimmerman to take action) becomes less credible...There is a severe lack of logic on this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.16.172 (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

News articles stating hearsay are not original sources. The news agencies protect themselves against charges of fraud because they cite the fact that the information presented is based on someone's statements. They do not explicitly state they are verified facts nor do they state there is reason to believe they are true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.16.172 (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The amount of WP:OR in this article approaches 0. You do not know what that term means in within the context of wikipedia if you think otherwise. Original research performed by reliable media sources, is NOT WP:OR. My point about distance was not dependant on any particular time or distance, just that what is a reasonable walk for a kid, is different than a reasonable walk for an adult. We are very careful to attribute what is fact vs what is allegation, and if you think you can find places where we represent one as another, please point them out so they can be fixed. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a closer 7-eleven googlemaps doesn't know about

Searching with google maps doesn't locate all the local 7-eleven stores. The database is incomplete. There is one at 1125 Rinehart Rd 28.792238°N 81.34142°W / 28.792238; -81.34142 (7-Eleven at 1125 Rinehart Rd, Sanford, Florida) 15 minutes away from the north gate. But this is WP:OR. Do you have a RS that proclaims to know what store he went to? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Handy links: Directions to it from the north gate --and-- Street view where you can see the 7-eleven Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Were people really relying solely on the Google Maps database? If so, an excellent reminder of why we don't allow WP:OR. I thought they were at least using the 7-Eleven website, which while still easily incomplete is at least slightly less unresonable to choose. Nil Einne (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• They were and it was why I removed the section tagging distance because the statements of distance to nearest 7-11 were incorrect, even from google maps info at that particular time. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

New Eyewitness Interview - Anderson Cooper

This is a long interview from a town house in site line. Details what this person saw. It is not included in the eye witness accounts but should be.

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/29/trayvon-martin-witness-breaks-silence/

Description of position suggests Zimmerman was on top - Trayvon was face down.

This witness states that he did not see a lot because it was dark and he also states that there were two gunshots so he is in error. 68.3.103.157 (talk) 02:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)AndyB

This witness??? Trayvon was face down with Zimmerman on top and Zimmerman shot him in the Chest? Pardon me but did he borrow a bullet from Lee Harvey Oswald?

Request to Edit Zimmerman as an additional "Victim"

As Wikipedia and it's editors do not know the facts, and were not there that fateful night, then we need to list BOTH individuals involved as "victims", or neither as "victims". To do otherwise shows a bias on Wikipedia's part. Please remember that this article and it's talk page is being closely followed by the media.--70.119.53.11 (talk) 01:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

 Not doneIt is a fact that martin is dead. He is definitely a victim of a shooting. There is no question that the shooting happened. It may or may not be a justified shooting. Zimmerman is the alleged victim of a beating, but questions do remain about if it happened or not, and if it should be described as a beating. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

 Not done additionally, Martin is not currently described as a victim, so the point is moot. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps... the article changes by the minute. However, Martin was at one time in this article, and we need to be clear on this so it does not reappear. --70.119.53.11 (talk) 02:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe there is a "soft" consensus that if a word must be used to describe martin, "deceased" is best, but that victim and homicide are technically correct (without implying a crime) but since many people incorrectly assume that that implies a crime, we will avoid them. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The Washington Post describes Trayvon as a "Victim. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 05:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Request to Edit Trayvon Martin photo

It is not current, and has been shown as "dated" There are more current reliable photos available. The current photo does not represent the way he looked on the night of the event. Additionally it has been shown that the photo is "shopped". Please replace it with an accurate photo reflecting the Trayvon Martin that was involved in the alleged beating of Zimmerman.--70.119.53.11 (talk) 01:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

propose a specific photo you would like to be evaluated for use in the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

At the moment I would suggest looking at this article.http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state/trayvon-martin-new-photos-details-spark-online-debate-2267235.html

--70.119.53.11 (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

based on elimination, I believe you mean this photo http://www.poynter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/trayvonmartin-grill-crop.jpg commonly known as the "gold teeth" photo. Please elaborate why you think this photograph is better than the currently used "hoodie" photo, and that this photo is not prejudicial (either for or against martin). We can only use one photo of martin, so we must have a full consensus on which photo to use. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The "gold teeth" photo as you call it is more current. The "hoodie" photo that is on the article is shopped. Is there no way to do a collage? --70.119.53.11 (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

We cannot do a collage, there are copyright issues involved. We can have a "fair use" exemption to use one photo of a dead person, since it is not possible to take a new photo that is free.

The hoodie photo was not photoshopped. The people propogating that story are not reading their own sources. The hoodie photo is originally obviously a personal photo of Martin. After the shooting, that photograph was used on protest posters and banners. A photographer took a photo of one of the posters, and cropped it back down to the original photo. A photo of a printing of a photo caused the photo to be dark. This can be confirmed by the caption on the original Miami Herald site, which shows the "darker" photo, where the caption reads that it was used on protest posters, and attributes the photo to Getty Images. Getty Images obviously did not take the original personal photograph. You can confirm this by looking at the photo and caption at the Miami Herald which is linked to by most of the blogs running the "photoshop" story. (I believe the primary one is reihl world view?)

regarding the gold tooth photo, I do not believe there is a reliable source that says that photograph is definitively newer. The two photos are approximately of the same age to my eyes, and both clearly older than the other "hollister" photo. Additionally, the grills do have some prejudcial influence, which we should avoid. (Note we are giving the same deference to Zimmerman, and are using his employee ID photo, rather than the more common mugshot). Gaijin42 (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the current photo of Zimmerman in a tie is copyrighted. I won't take it down, but thought you should be aware. As for not using the Martin picture with the "grills", the fact there are arguments about this are absurd. It's a photo of a 17 year old acting like a 17 year old, it's not our job to say we can't use it because of "prejudicial influence". It's a recent photo and would be perfectly acceptable. There's a reason we write an article and not just have pictures. Having said that, I don't really see a need to change the current photo (it seems recent enough). Redredryder (talk) 05:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

If we're going for consensus, I'm for any photo at the moment that does not appear to be doctored, like the above 'hoodie' photo. Sure, we can argue that it's not "proven doctored" but even then, it's stil a terrible photo due to it's poor quality and jacked up brightness and webcam settings in this case. I'll case a vote for the gold-teeth photo if it's between those two at the moment, and a vote against the hoodie photo.--Львівське (говорити) 16:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm rather offended that you guys would include a picture of the confirmed shooter of an unarmed minor smiling so widely as if everything is great for him. That is ridiculous to me. 99.146.22.217 (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Request to add section

A new section needs to be added "The beating of George Zimmerman"--70.119.53.11 (talk) 01:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

 Not done zimmerman's version of events is already in the article, and there is no proof official decision he was beat. His testimony, and some non-eyewitness testimony. If a judge/jury/etc rules he was being beat then we can qualify it as such, but probably would still not name the section that way. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Not to be argumentative, but under your RMS Titanic article do you have ACTUAL witness accounts that saw the ship hit an iceberg. My point is that it has been reported many times he was beat by Trayvon Martin. This needs to be included as a section of it's own. --70.119.53.11 (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Titanic comparison? You're funny :) TMCk (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It is a section of its own, its called "Zimmerman's account of events", and also other witness accounts which also mention a beating. And yes, the titanic actually hitting the iceberg was at one point sourced to several hundred people who were there and were interviewed by newspapers authors, and radio reportsGaijin42 (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Request Administrators to address deletions on talk page

Many opinions, suggestions, and requests have been removed on this talk page. From my understanding the "talk page" is the place to discuss improvements of the article. Deleting other's opinions, suggestions and requests is very biased. It is requested that the Administrators monitor this, and address the vandals appropriately.--70.119.53.11 (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The deleted comments have been restored. However, sections which have not been updated for 36 hours are automatically archived to try and keep this discussion page manageable. deleting others comments is not acceptable, and will be dealt with. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Could the Administrators continue to monitor please? --70.119.53.11 (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI: Non-constructive soap will be removed per wp:TPG.TMCk (talk) 9:15 pm, Today (UTC−5)

I accidentally removed your comment when reverting your change. Apologies. Please read WP:TPO and note that the comments you removed do not meet these criteria. If you think the comments you are removing violate policy, report the users, but do not violate policy yourself. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

To make it more clear: Violations (which the removed part was) will be reverted on sight. I'm not the first editor to remove those comments so maybe you're not not quite right about your interpretation of the rules?TMCk (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem Gaijin. ------- Magnificent Clean-keeper.... what do YOU consider "Non-constructive soap"? Just because "you" feel that way does not mean that "others" feel that way. That is why there is a talk page. Anything else melts down into dictatorship.

It has nothing to do with "feelings" but with rules we have here at wp.TMCk (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It was actually Magnificent's comment I deleted accidentally. The comments in question, are accusations of bias, and a defense of that bias. That is clearly on topic for the talk page, regardless of if you think there is or isn't bias. However, both commenters could have done so in a more constructive way. But in the somewhat lacking way there were expressed, they are valid commentary, and should not be deleted. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Take it easy Gaijin - no need for edit summaries like that, especially when you're talking to an experienced editor who is obviously aware of policy - I read the comments Magnificent removed as non-constructive attacks too, and it's totally common to remove such attacks. "Showing the true colors of the editors", "liberal bias" - this isn't being said to improve the article, it's just disruptive trolling. Looser rules may apply on talk pages, but they're not anything goes. Tvoz/talk 03:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

map

several people have asked for a map showing some of the locations involved, I have come across http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/evidence-that-trayvon-martin-doubled-back

This blog is NOT a reliable source, and their analysis could have major flaws, but many people seem interested. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

A map of that kind would be for sure a good addition but that blog is less than reliable. If we can find a RS map fine; If not we'll have to do w/o.TMCk (talk) 02:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Ditto - good idea, but totally unreliable source. I;ve seen maps of the gated community on MSNBC and I think CNN, so we can check their websites. BUT we better be sure they are not copyright protected, because they likely are Tvoz/talk 03:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

If we can get a reliable source to produce the map, we can recreate it to avoid the copyright problem, using the RS as the ref. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Its gotta be pretty rare for an article like this to have a map. I don't see what it adds to the article. The discription from the prose makes it pretty clear what is going on. With the coord link at the top of the article, google maps is a few clicks away. Also if we put up a map people will start changing it and fighting over what should be on it. I feel it is a bad idea. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I would wait for the facts to settle further before considering such a thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. If a suitable one from a RS can be found. When I looked at it, I got a perspective that you just don't capture from the 911 calls.Isaidnoway (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

+1 to the map idea. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

against.The map was made to tell someones version of events — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.132.7 (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Observation from 911 tape excluded from this WP article but pertinent to charge of racial profiling is BIASED REPORTING

The 911 call with Zimmerman speaking to 911 dispatch clearly reveals him saying "Those assholes always get away". This is after the fact that he described the suspicious person as "probably black" (or something similar). These two facts in the same conversation constitute a form of making an Inference about the "suspicious person" (JUDGE) and then disparaging the person with a term generally associated with hatred or great dislike (JURY). Thus the charge that he was RACIALLY profiling. This point, though glaringly obvious on the 911 tape, is routinely brushed aside and ignored (with the inference that since Zimmerman is half Hispanic that it precludes racial profiling). So even WP is showing some bias here (in their editor shootouts). Also, the article should not be locked for editing by some self-appointed 'master' editors. Anybody should be able to edit the article and if the point has merit then it should stay in the article. If not then it should be edited out with a reason given on this page (since not everybody is a 'WP guru' used loosly.).

You can edit it too. Just establish a Wikipedia account and wait a few days, making a few edits. But either way, we have our policies. Take a look at WP:SYNTH, which covers putting two facts like that in conjunction to try to get the reader to jump to conclusions. Thanks for your input though.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

(reply==========): I didn't have to do that to edit this talk page. Why so for the main article page? "Jump to conclusions" as in providing a misdirection to imply that no racial profiling could have happened? Iget your point about SYNTH but we're not talking about 'corn flakes' or some other esoterica. We're talking about that since WP is a central hub for information (indulge my delusions -k? )on what could be a 'tipping point' in race relations and especially with regards to police departments and possible resulting violence that it should 'correct' 2+2=4 oversights comitted by biased reporters in the various medias. I don't think providing such a service is outside the purview of the WP mission. Of course, if you wish to nitpick down some narrow hallway of technicality then by all means plug away. Likewise thanks for your input too. Widening your perspective on this particular issue might assist others in defusing the situation in the bigger picture perspective.

Thank you for your insight and suggestions for improving this article. My point would be that Zimmerman was specifically asked by the 911 dispatch what his race was; "white, hispanic, black". It is common for 911 personnel to ask the race of a person to help police identify them after arriving at the scene.Isaidnoway (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

(reply=========): True enuf. However, Zimmerman susequently made a uncalled for presumtious maligning remark and virtually convicted the "suspicious person who is probably Black" by saying "Those assholes always get away". So without evidence in hand, and a trial by peers, and giving Martin a chance too face his accusers, Zimmerman left his vehicle to confront " a suspicious person" in an area where there are no street signs to read. His mindset was clearly negative towards Martin without sufficient evidence. So being asked what race the party is does not imply that because he said he was "probably black" constitutes racial profiling. It is what he said afterward about that party that constitutes or strongly suggests racial profiling. The two toegther are what made the case for that point. T.U. for your reply.

You are not his lawyer or a presiding judge or prosecutor; and this is not racial profiling by the textbook definition. Refrain from putting your interpretation of his mindset as proof of your point of view that alludes to racial profiling and a hate crime. A crime that is committed because of race and no other reason is a hate crime; accounts of the event show that a fight took place and Zimmerman has no previous 'racist' accusations, quite the contrary in fact. Zimmerman wasn't sure Martin was black or not, he could not tell from just looking at him. When he took off running Zimmerman, who previously helped make an arrest in a burglary, stopped another, has had issues with suspects escaping. It is not a matter of race; it is a matter that Martin was possibly scouting possible targets or was linked to the recent crimes in the neighborhood. He was an outsider as well; matching the same description previous suspects. So let's not condemn him for mindset when it is not clear cut. It is for a court to decide. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

(Reply----------------------------------------------------) I never made such claims nor are such credentials needed to listen and understand what was spoken by Zimmerman in the 911 tape. Got a source for your definition? A million people of color disagree with your assessment and that denial is raising the anger level and the future prospects of violence. Do you suppose Zimmerman's phrase "Those assholes always get away" is a term of endearment? You can attempt to foist your narrow scoped definition of what you think racial profiling is however you are merely stoking the flames already started by denying simple facts. The word 'asshole' is a term of hatred and maligning (and is driven by a PRESUMPTION/JUDGEMENT based on WHAT?). Do you disagree? You said: "has had issues with suspects escaping" Police have issues like that and badged and or uniformed at that -- not unidentified parties making agressive maneuvers towards someone in the dark. Your next set of statments are presumptious and contitute PROFILING. Are you aware of that? You said: "He was an outsider as well". Are you making the ridiculous claim that Zimmerman was privy to and memorized all the faces of all owners and legitimate visitors to the place? You said: "So let's not condemn him for mindset when it is not clear cut." What he said is clear cut and is easily listened to on the 911 tape. An objective party would have made no such contemptuous statements to the 911 dispatcher. He clearly made PROFILING assumptions, displayed that with his speech, and then acted on the information. You said: "It is for a court to decide.". That's a red herring freind. My point was that there is a growing large negative momentum building across the country and that mdeia bias is fueling it. They are doing this by denying the claims of those who are justly angered. They are angered because even when they call attention to the "claim of profiling" efforts are made to hide and defuse it (throug reporting bias) thus raising the anger level even more. Editors on this page like to employ cutsie technicalities to sustain the bias while simultaneously (indirectly) fueling the ever growing hostilities between people of color versus police departments and judicial systems which apparently turn a blind eye to what are perceived as dangerously threatening acts and events against people of color. Your response is a text book case of presumptious bias, turning a blind eye to what Zimmerman actually said in the 911 tape, dismissing the profiling claim out of hand and then trying to force feed me to clam up -so the judicial system could handle. Newsflash - that's why this case had gotten so big. This process has failed thusfar in the eyes of many of color. Failing to acknowledge why or how they reached a conclusion of (racial) profiling is merely piling on the anger. As your attitude and perception of ignoring what Zimmerman said on the tape is in line with what has already happened and is fueling an ever increasing scope of anger. BTW, you should research what the old black panther party did to police back in the 1960's. Maybe then you will achieve some perception of the gravity of the situation. Oh - and thank you for your reply.

---

In that the event was at night, "probably black" can just as reliably be an assumption based on looking at a face under a hoodie in the dark - might have been Pakistani or other dark skinned person - we can't say for sure. "those assholes" could refer to suspicious persons of all races that run when asked to identify themselves. I'm making assumptions her, but then so are you. We don't know at this moment what he meant, and you are quoting people with an agenda to make the connection to match their version of the story, again without being certain. Best to leave neutral for now. --DeknMike (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

(reply --------------------------------------------------) Yep - racial profiling against 'people of color'. You said: "that run when asked to identify themselves". Would you answer to some unbadged ununiformed party after dark whose has been clearly tailing you? How would you know what their intentions are towards you ? I'm not making any assumptions. I clearly cited the audio on the 911 tape. What part of the word "asshole" did you not understand? Obviously you are responding to some other post. Obviously the media is not neutral. it is biased and is ignoring the allegations by a growing number of people of color. This continuing bias is fueling even more people to join the cause. What you apparently meant was: "Best to leave 'my stilted view of the situation where the word asshole is a term of endearment' for now. And that my fiend is why people are angry and getting angrier by the minute. Again, media bias of ignoring undisputed facts (what Zimmerman actually said) is fueling a growing anger. WP editors are complicit by failing to see the big picture and the big consequences down the road and are invoking various rules and ploys to disallow statements of what are obvious facts (since somebody else didn't say it in some reference). Well newsflash- Zimmerman said it and it is reference in the 911 audio tape linked to this article. This is what is called "PRIMARY SOURCE" material from the shooter's own mouth. How twisted and contorted does your thinking have to be to continue with this invalid line of thinking? Again, I will cop to the idea, however erroneous, that 'a lot' of people read WP on this topic - though it may just be an illusion. Thus WP should "get it right". They should identify the bias and point it out as a means of reaching a NPOV. Get it now? Oh - and thank you for your reply.

---

Do you have a specific suggestion on how to improve this article? If you do, then please just submit it. Thank you--Isaidnoway (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

This will not be charged as a hate crime. The DOJ must show "specific intent" to charge and there is none for the reasons Chris stated aboveIsaidnoway (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• To the person who posted this: you're probably right, but this is an encyclopedia. We go by a principle of "verifiability, not truth". (See "WP:V") In order to actually add your point of view, all you have to do is find a good source, like a reputable newspaper, which makes this connection. As it is so obvious, that shouldn't be hard to do. But you have to actually come to the table with sources, not just your own take from listening to the tapes. That's the way we avoid having endless political debates where people expect to read an article. Wnt (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Request: In the interest of clarity (for my own gratification) and talk flow, can someone identify the unknown editor above. I have searched the diffs but cannot descern who it was. I know its just a loose string, but my detective radar tells me "its important", or will be. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the good Zimmerman image

I've had a lot of frustration working with the fairuse image upload process. Deletion decisions are made based on knowing the "Secret words" to include an image. I don't know the magic words, so I didn't want to waste my time uploading the new Zimmerman image only to see it deleted.

My thanks to the person that uploaded the new image-- It's more recent and less prejudicial, and it a big improvement to the article over noimage or the mugshot. --HectorMoffet (talk) 11:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

A better picture of Trayvon would be welcome as well.Isaidnoway (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Has a cropped version of this more recent prom photo released by his family been considered? [16] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.71.147 (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

A cropped version, if we can find a better quality source would be good, that one is very grainy imo. Could you describe why you think that photo is better than the hoodie photo? I do not see a noticeable age difference between themGaijin42 (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Any of those photos are better than the doctored black/white webcam one.--Львівське (говорити) 16:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• The pic we have now just looks "haunting", imo. The prom pic is not so grainy when you reduce the size of it. I reduced it to size we have here and it didn't look so bad, but his tuxedo kinda stood out more than his face, so it would have to be cropped, and then re-sized again which would run into the grainy problem again.Isaidnoway (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Photos like [17] (closeup [18]) seem much more proper standard portrait photos for an article Trayvon Martin. But for Shooting of Trayvon Martin, the sort of creepy, less revealing hoodie effect is perhaps justification for using File:Trayvon Martin.jpg due to the cruel context; I would say definitely so if I knew it were the same or a very similar hoodie to the one he was wearing his last day. I would not at all mind using both though, with the portrait style photo leading. Wnt (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The "hollister" photo, is very widely reproduced, but inappropriate for an article about the shooting, as it is a much younger photograph. If Martin eventually gets a BLP article, it could possibly be used there, as it is one of the more famous photos of him. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• The hoodie image is by far the best I've yet seen because it is now iconic. We've seen newscasters and congressmen imitate it. Adding more recent Martin image would be okay if you find a good one, but the Trayvon-in-hoodie image is, effectly, 'part of the story' now. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Email hack

Trayvon Martin's e-mail and social media accounts have been hacked by a white supremacist, according to this article: [19] 173.165.239.237 (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The name might be 'white supremacist', but given the source its obviously a troll trolling trolls for trolling the media. To sum it up, someone got into Trayvon's account with one of a dozen known exploits for facebook, password was probably the same for all services and then released all the info and then changed them all to slurs for the lulz. Its the MO of the group and not of KKK. Call my theory OR, but if you realize their history and the source its all you need to know that it wasn't done by the KKK, least not with their stance on the events. Also... Guardian... Hacking... Early april fools? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Theoretically, the article could talk about the hacking, but I think the hacking itself is not directly relevant to the shooting or investigation. But the IBTimes is an RS if it comes to that, and the story could spread to other RS. The information revealed in the hacking should definitely not be used at this time. It is a known hate group member that leaked the information, and it is very possible things have been taken out of context, or modified to cast Martin in as an unflattering light as possible. The information revealed by the hack would need to be reported in many RS, and have some level of validation regarding the context/authenticity before we could even think about including it. That said, if the information can be verified, and that verification can be sourced to multiple RS, or this hack leads to an investigation that reveals similar information independantly, then I think it would be additional character background to MArtin, as per the suspensions debates which are ongoing. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Are we reading the same source? The actual images are posted from a reliable source and given that they are from the source. Wouldn't those count as they are verified? As for 'hate group member' it is 4chan. To even make a comment that “Today /pol/, tomorrow CNN.” is obvious the intention. Let's not include this attention grabbing stunt. It will only get worse if we do. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The RS is reliable for reporting the story of the hack. They are not reliable for knowing if the photos/text were actually as described, as we have no idea what the hacker may have done, especially a hacker that claims to be from a racist organization. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The posts were not modified or tampered with though. The hacker is not from a racist organization either. He's from 4chan. Its like the Twitter dump. "These were not protected tweets," Martosko said. "While he was alive, these were not outside of the public sphere in any shape or form."" [20] Considering the source posted them, we take it that the RS posted the primary source properly. Multiple sources cover the detail and it is widespread, but critical thinking about it already shows this incident for what it was. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we may be talking about different aspects of the OP's link. But in any case, a RS, reporting about what someone wrote at 4chan, that was put there from an original source that cannot be verified, is not reliable enough for inclusion in the article. If you ahve been following my arguments elsewhere, its pretty clear I am not trying to just whitewash Martin's reputation, but the verifiability of this information is like 4 steps removed from the alleged primary source. We cannot be putting a "telephone game" into the article. That said, this information is controversial enough that it may trigger a more direct investigation of those sources, which could then possibly be more appropriate for inclusion. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Just saw this story. Note however that the Yahoo/Atlantic Wire version of this story is a bare link ([21], citing [22]); the Huffington post mentions them, but does not "present the allegations as true", in BLP-speak [23] - in short, right now, it's knocking around the press but the bottom line is who trusts a Klansman not to have made the whole thing up? Or, even if he did hack in, not to add more than he took away. I'm not going to add a sentence about this unless I happen to be holding some source more reliable-sounding than Gawker to put at the end of it. Eventually I'm sure someone respectable will comment about it, and if we stick very closely to what they say, it should be informative. -- ooops, actually I see your link was IBTimes, not the Gawker story - we're getting there, but I'd still rather see a big name reference. Hmmm, New York Magazine [24] ... closer ... (P.S. for the primary stuff see [25] - not a usable source, obviously) Wnt (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 March 2012

The pictures posted of Zimmerman and Trayvon are as misleading as the ones posted by the Media. Either post pictures of both of them at their best, or both of them at their worst, or don't post pictures.

G50112 (talk) 17:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The article is currently (semi) unprotected, and more sources are better - note, however, that some photos being circulated by Stormfront and right-wing sites are not photos of the boy! (Added [26] myself just now) Wnt (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: The {{edit semiprotected}} template requires a specific request. If you want to identify pictures to add or remove, please upload the pictures and open a new request. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Marijuana and suspended

Why does the information about Martin being suspended because of having a bag with marijuana traces in his possession keep getting deleted. There is negative information on Zimmerman on the page, so why is anything about Martin that's negative being removed. Shouldn't this page be balanced with the positive and the negative about all involved represented? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollo V. Tomasi (talk • contribs) 18:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Given sources like [27] I don't think we have a problem with sourcing. The relevance is more strained, as the story is about the shooting of Trayvon Martin; essentially the provenance is whose account of the shooting we believe <- what is the reason for Martin's presence there, what is his credibility? <- was he a "criminal" <- did he use marijuana? But we don't have to make this decision solely for ourselves; we can go by the fact that sources about the shooting see fit to mention it. Even that someone is cited saying it's not relevant to the shooting is evidence of relevance to the shooting, in the sense of sticking with what the sources do. So I'm in favor of including it. Wnt (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Martin's suspensions (and the causes of them) are widely sourced and believed by many to be relevant for several reasons (listed above and on other pages discussing the topic.) My understanding is that because there is not a 'consensus' among the editors as to their relevance Wikipedia's policy is to exclude such information. Whether that is their official policy or not, that is the de-facto policy at least in this case. I believe the well-sourced information ought to be included, and leave it up to the reader to decide its relevance when editors cannot reach a consensus. This issue is being discussed at WP:BLPN. Emeraldflames (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

While it is certainly not fair, BLP applies directly to Zimmerman, and if there is any fudging to be done here it should be to present evidence that might exculpate him rather than leaving a stronger impression that he is guilty than the known range of facts warrants. Wnt (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

From what I'm reading here in this section, it seems we all agree that the marijuana traces and suspension should be included in the article. But it's been removed again. Anyone care to replace it? By the editing rules for this page (it says 1 revert only), I can't put it back in. Who will? Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus among editors which is why it keeps getting deleted. Furthermore, it has absolutely no relevance to Martin being stalked and killed by Z. If it is replaced, it will be deleted again. Contributing to this article is a merry-go-round of adds and deletes. This is simply not worth arguing about. There are more pertinent facts that need to be considered. Let it go People. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 01:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a consensus here in this section. Who Trayvon Martin was is relevant to the page just as who George Zimmerman is is relevant to the page. Balance is necessary for an encyclopedia page. Painting Martin as an angel by leaving out who he was is irresponsible. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

...and helps to justify his murder. HiLo48 (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That's untrue. Nothing Zimmerman has said or anything surrounding Trayvon Martin's death has anything to do with Zimmerman shooting the boy because of marijuana. And nothing in the information regarding the marijuana was presented in such a fashion that it would give anyone reading the page Trayvon Martin died because he had been suspended from school for suspected marijuana use. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 01:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

If I could understand that I might respond. HiLo48 (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You said that including the information about the suspension and the marijuana helps to justify his murder. Nothing Zimmerman did that night has anything to do with Trayvon Martin getting suspended for marijuana. Because of this, your claim of justification for murder doesn't fly. And let's not forget murder hasn't been established, and neither has a charge of murder been brought against Zimmerman. Add the information about Martin's suspension gives a more complete picture of him at the time of his death. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

There are at the very least 18 editors contributing to this article. The four editors above do not a consensus make! Again, if it is added again, it will be promptly deleted. There is no relevance to this chronicle of (hopefully) facts. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 01:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Of the editors voicing their opinions about this issue, those for outweigh those against. If that isn't a consensus, what is? Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not a consensus. That's a vote. Consensus depends on quality of argument convincing those with open minds that another viewpoint is acceptable. HiLo48 (talk) 02:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Normally one needs consensus to remove reliably cited material. The onus is on the removers to get consensus. At the moment, how far spread is the for/against ratio, because while "a vote" the margin does matter.--Львівське (говорити) 02:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

DocOfSoc is of course right on this - Rollo, HiLo, please read the rest of this talk page, the talk archives, the edit summaries, and the BLP noticeboard where this has been discussed. What is said in one little section of a very active talk page over a few hours by a few editors in no way represents consensus. One last time: George Zimmerman is not clairvoyant. He did not know who Trayvon Martin was, let alone what his school status was. The fact that the kid was suspended from school, or why, had absolutely nothing to do with the shooting. This is not a biography, it is an article about the shooting and its aftermath, so this information has no place in this article. Please don't re-add this unless an actual consensus is reached on it - and I have to say, I don't expect that to happen, so why not work on other aspects of it. Tvoz/talk 03:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm inexperienced with Wikipedia policy. I have heard two different things. You are saying that, by default, reliably-sourced information is omitted unless there is consensus to its relevancy. I have heard others say that, by default, information is included unless there is a consensus as to its lack of relevancy. Which is it, and is there a link that can explain what that policy is to me? Thanks Emeraldflames (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus which says, "In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept."--Львівське (говорити) 03:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That's actually for deleting articles; I think that for normal editing it is assumed a rough consensus or compromise will emerge eventually, and the default (which should be used sparingly) is to the status quo before the big dispute. On BLP articles some Defenders of BLP claim special powers, but here, Zimmerman is the only actual BLP, much to our regret. In any case I think that NPOV and thorough coverage should be our goals, not Wikilawyering. Wnt (talk) 03:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but there is no status quo in this case so I figured that's the fallback. In any case, the suspension is mentioned throughout the media coverage of this event, and this article is on the event. If not in the background, the coverage that exposed his suspension history could just as easily be filed under media coverage of the shooting.--Львівське (говорити) 03:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

@Wnt: Exactly. @Lvivske: We could put it there, I suppose. But to me it just seems more biographical on where Trayvon's mind and life was at the time of his death to put it in the section specifically about him. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Please note that this article is under a 1RR restriction, which means that one person had better not be "promptly removing" stuff over and over again. The way I understand the notice, we each get to make an edit once, and remake the same edit just one more time, before April 6 - after that (if the restriction is extended) I don't know whether there are any more free reverts coming. So it looks like this is liable to be settled according to the majority, not by the person willing to revert the most. Wnt (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Tvoz: What's a "BLP"? Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC) Never mind. I got the answer myself. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 03:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to Wikilawyer, but we've been told not to add reliably sourced information until which time there is a consensus to do so (and, also, that there probably will never be a consensus to do so). Also, if you add it then it will be immediately removed. This has been stated as though it were official in some way and I'm just trying to understand it. I'm afraid that I still don't, but I appreciate the attempts and I'll check back on any further answers later. Emeraldflames (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think "if you add it then it will be immediately removed" was official. It looks like trying to push a bully agenda to me. I'm new here, but I know internet bullying when I see it. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 03:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

← There is no bullying in what DocOfSoc said. What he or she meant by "promptly removed" is that there are many eyes on this article and one or another editor is likely to promptly remove material that either has been determined not to be relevant, or that is under discussion as this is. The matter of the suspensions and their reasons is a contentious point - there are BLP/BDP considerations - Martin is recently deceased, and BLP policies do apply, or might apply, depending on your interpretation. This is also under discussion at the BLP noticeboard and quite a few editors here and there are against adding anything about the suspensions because they are irrelevant to the shooting. That is what was meant. Tvoz/talk 05:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

TY Tvoz. "Immediately removed" was experience, not <gasp> bullying. Your explanation gets an "A". Old teachers never die, but do tend to speak strongly ;-) Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 05:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, to Wnt - I believe 1RR refers to a 24 hour period - the point, as I understand it, of April 6 is that the 1RR restriction will remain in effect until then. And the idea, I think, is that if you revert some text and someone reverts yours, you are restricted from reverting it again in that 24 hour period. Tvoz/talk 05:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

None of us know for sure WHY things escalated to the point of a shooting, but I would assume that material regarding Trayvon's potential drug use or willingness to be a part of illegal activities as well as being suspended speaks to the idea that he might not have been in his right mind that night, or he might be less than willing to be respectful toward those he perceived as authority figures. That said, it is a very tenuous connection. In a court of law, these things might not matter, but I feel that they are relevant to some people more because of the bias we have seen in the media that is against George Zimmerman. I suppose in a way, people feel better if the same tactics of poor journalism are used against both parties and somehow that is more "fair" in the end. Sad situation, but the media has acted pathetically in this situation. Lets just do our best to focus on the facts that ARE relevant and try to decide what to do with yet another example of the media making a mockery of the idea of a "reliable source". -- Avanu (talk) 06:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

911 call transcripts and chronology

I suggest that there be a section with all the 911 calls, the times they were made, their durations, and a summary with whatever more is known about them (i.e., was Zimmerman on foot, in the car, etc.?). It's very odd that this does not exist on the page now. This is a basic set of the known, on-the-record facts about the shooting. Can we work on this? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. Just don't use NBC as a source: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/trayvon-martin-nbc-news-editing-911-call-306359 67.233.247.170 (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

This is detailed out a bit more in the "investigation" article which is linked from the main article. If we do include it, I think it should be a highly summarized one, with only the most crucial "bookmarks" with a link to the longer one. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

9/11 is a date (11th day of September). 911 is the three-digit phone number used to reach emergency services in the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.4.101.80 (talk) 08:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Grammar and a bit more

"After being handcuffed, Smith observed that Zimmerman's back was wet and covered with grass and he was bleeding from the nose and the back of his head.[61][63]"

Later reports indicate that gun was fired only once.[100]... that the gun?

This sentence makes it sound like Smith was handcuffed. In addition, I think it would be more accurate to say that Smith wrote in the police report that "Zimmerman's back was wet and covered with grass and he was bleeding from the nose and the back of his head." It is not certain that he actually observed that, but only that he reported observing that. Police video suggests that his report may not be completely accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LynnieU (talk • contribs) 22:34, 31 March 2012‎ (UTC)

Fixed grammar.[28] --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your insight and suggestions. I see this as clearly an issue of semantics. If you look at the sentence preceding this one, you will see that it specifically states that "Zimmerman was handcuffed", the next sentence begins "After being handcuffed", the logical conclusion being that it was Zimmerman. Why would a police officer handcuff himself? Again semantics, it is certain if he observed it and put it in his report. The police video is not relevant as to what he observed at the scene.Isaidnoway (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Statements by Florida attorney general

See: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/2012/03/27/inside-historical-challenge-obamacare?page=2

Relevant statements: "You know, I can tell you, when you have a 17-year-old boy who's walking home and he's shot and killed, there are way too many unanswered questions. And we have got to have all of those questions answered, and right now, they're not answered."

"FDLE -- they're handling the case, and they are doing a thorough investigation, as well as the Justice Department and the United States attorney, who I've been in constant contact with, as well."

Seems worth including, particularly given it's a direct challenge to those claiming that 1) the Florida government is out of contact with the federal government and 2) the Florida government stands by the local police's decision not to arrest Zimmerman. 129.120.4.3 (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

He admits right in the interview that he has no jurisdiction, so I think his opinion goes into the "knowledgable and important person, but uninvolved", and so far we are keeping uninvolved opinions out of the article. (The president's opinion is 50/50, its mostly an opinion statement, but technically he is in charge of the DOJ and FBI that are both running investigations, so he is directly involved). However, if we do start to widen the net on the opinoins, this would be absolutely one of the first ones I would include. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Orlando Sentinel: Experts say it's not Zimmerman crying for help on 911 recording

Tom Owen, forensic consultant for Owen Forensic Services LLC and chair emeritus for the American Board of Recorded Evidence, used voice identification software to rule out Zimmerman. Another expert contacted by the Sentinel, utilizing different techniques, came to the same conclusion. http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state/trayvon-martin-shooting-its-not-george-zimmerman-crying-2274765.html Chuatlukkz (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

This could possibly be used in the article, as the people doing the testing are recognized experts, but I would like to see more wide sourcing as I think this will be a fairly controversial addition. Of particular note in the article is where he is talking about the S/N ratio, and the quality of the original recording, as I think we would get a large number of objections regarding those points. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know Gaijin, you have two experts, one says Zimmerman, one says Trayvon, one says forensic science, one says forensic experience. Both sides are well represented here and if it was included, both sides would be represented. Who could argue against that.Isaidnoway (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I dont see anyone saying Trayvon in that source, are you talking about an additional source? Are you really asking who could argue? have you been paying attention to this page? :) Anyway, I think we need more sourcing of something like this, which is dangerously close to determining "fact", which really should be reserved for a trial. If it gets wider coverage, then I can see using it via notability. We also need additional sources regarding the "expert" status of the testers (this could be done already probalby, as they may have sources making them an expert already prior to this case). Gaijin42 (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It's on the second page, Not all experts rely on biometrics. Ed Primeau, a Michigan-based audio engineer and forensics expert, is not a believer in the technology's use in courtroom settings. He relies instead on audio enhancement and human analysis based on forensic experience. After listening closely to the 911 tape on which the screams are heard, Primeau also has a strong opinion. I believe that's Trayvon Martin in the background, without a doubt, Primeau says, stressing that the tone of the voice is a giveaway. "That's a young man screaming." Zimmerman's call to authorities minutes before the shooting provides a good standard for comparison, Primeau says, because it captures his voice both at rest and in an agitated state. Yes, I have been reading this page, kinda like these two experts, you find one that says no and I'll find one that says yes. But I'm guessing that this story will be picked up, have to wait and see.Isaidnoway (talk) 02:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Forensic evidence is highly notable, and whatever the experts say should be included. If two experts contradict each other, that is certainly worth including as well. 6ty4e (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Then I think you misdescribed the sitionation in above. " two experts, one says Zimmerman, one says Trayvon", my reading of that article, is one says trayvon, one says not zimmerman (but does not go so far as to identify as trayvon. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You are right, I misread the article. My apologies.--Isaidnoway (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

BTW, since (according to my reading of the article) both are saying either trayvon or not-zimmerman, that makes it in effect a piece of evidence against zimmerman, so quite controvercial within the context of the article. We weill definatley need additional sources on the expertness of the two guys, and hopefully better coverage. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Trayvon's Father states that this was not Trayvon screaming as seen on the news at the 3 minute mark on this referenced video. In the beginning of this video an eyewitness states it is Zimmerman screaming. 68.3.103.157 (talk) 02:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)AndyB

Jahvaris Fulton, Trayvin's sibling, states he was not sure if it was Trayvon screaming. 68.3.103.157 (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)AndyB

I think the family (both families) claims of who it is or isnt should be left out. They are not experts in voice identification, and obviously are not impartial to the results, and are under incredible emotional turmoil and stress on all sides. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Right, the families are not the best sources on either side. Any testing by the FBI will probably be the most objective, as they won't be hired by the defense or prosecution if this goes to trial, but you do seem to be saying that at this point the experts who have been quoted are all lining up as the voice not being Zimmerman's - if this is reliably reported we can consider including it, as it is certainly relevant - but we should probably wait a bit to see what else shakes out and to be sure we have good sourcing. Tvoz/talk 06:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought there was an eyewitness who goes by "John" that SAW the fighting and heard the 'guy in the red sweater' (aka Zimmerman) calling for help. Also, the forensic consultant, Tom Owen, in the story above concedes that his software analysis returned a 48 percent match, and he didn't have Trayvon's voice for comparison. So even this analysis of the evidence isn't conclusive. We have an eyewitness who says it was George, we have another earwitness, who didn't see the events but was hiding in her room that assumed it was a boy's voice. No doubt about it, it does sound young, but people's voices get higher when they are stressed, and George already kind of sounded like a higher than normal male pitch just walking around beforehand. So, really this is super unreliable analysis. -- Avanu (talk) 06:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/01/10963191-trayvon-martin-case-audio-screams-were-not-george-zimmermans-2-experts-say MSNBC says two seperate forensic experts have seperately concluded the scream is not Zimmerman's. Neither could confirm or exclude if its Trayvon's because they don't have a usable voice sample. One does go as far as to conclude that the scream is from a "young" man. 99.146.22.217 (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Request to change race title for Trayvon Martin

Currently it lists him as an African American. Is there reliable evidence that his ancestors are from Africa? If not it needs to read "American Teen". And yes, same goes with Zimmerman. If there is no reliable evidence of his origins, then he needs to be listed as a "American Adult" or "American", or "United States Citizen".--70.119.53.11 (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Dont be a troll. You know very well african american is the common word for black in america. And yes, we have very good sourcing for zimmerman's ethnicity as well, His mother is Peruvian, and he lists his official ethnicity as Hispanic. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I would like for the Administrators to address Gaijin. He has attacked me by calling me a troll. I am merely wanting the article to be as factual as possible. At this time I DEMAND and apology from Gaijin for his "troll" comment. I live where this happened, and most likely know more about it than all here. I am 100% serious about my comment. I travel to London 3 times a year, and they do not address blacks as "African American". There is absolutely zero evidence that Trayvon Martin's ancestors are from Africa. As there is, from what I can tell, zero reliable evidence of Zimmerman's ethnicity. Can someone please tell me how to report Gaijin42 for his nasty, ugly, belittling name he called me?--70.119.53.11 (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

People who are not in America don't use the word American to describe people who live there? I am amazed! How is that relevant? This is an article, about an American, that took place in America. American English and terms are appropriate, as per several wiki policies such as Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Usage_and_spelling No apology forthcoming. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

This is an article about one American being shot by another American. Period. And even Black American Citizens in England are not referenced as "African American". It is relevant because the article is flawed. Please show reliable information that Trayvon Martin's ancestors are from Africa, and we will be done. With the exception of your apology for calling me a "troll".--70.119.53.11 (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I dont have to show his ancestry, I can show about 200,000 sources describing him as an African American though. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

And are any of these 200,000 sources genealogy experts? I can list a bunch, most likely not 200,000 sources that Area 51 has a spaceship from another planet, but none are reliable. Again, I don't mean to be argumentative. But when it all boils down, what does it matter? This is about one American shooting another American. There are people in the world that hate Americans, they certainly don't take the effort to define which ones. There are Americans fighting for the United States. And it does not matter who is who. The United States HAS to be a color blind society (IMHO) or we are doomed. Am I guilty of trying to plant a seed here for equality? I guess I am. But I am not a troll, just someone who wants to bring it down to the truth... On that fateful night, Zimmerman shot Martin, and we don't know all the facts. I plead with Wikipedia to be bold and strike out on a new frontier. Remove race, and report the facts, nothing more, nothing less.--70.119.53.11 (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, this is the last time I am going to respond to this, because you are indeed being a troll, and I will not feed you any longer. African american is not used to actually try and describe ancestry in america. It is a synonym for black. I think you are well aware of this. However, as he is indeed black, there is a 99.9% chance his ancestors are from africa, most likely west africa and were brought over during the slave trade, but its always possible the emigrated later. beyond that, if you want to get pedantic, its a 100% certainty his ancestors were from africa, since that is where our entire species evolved. There is a lot of racial tension regarding this case, and not including their races when it is such a major part of the notability would be non-nonsensical.

I'm sorry you feel that way, and again object to being called a troll. And I "sigh" as well, as this is sad. --70.119.53.11 (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Remove race and you remove the racism that is inherent in this story. "Color Blindness" is a myth you wish to propagate. Remove the race and frankly I believe Trayvon would still be alive. True equality has yet to be achieved. . — DocOfSoc • Talk • 02:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you spoken with Zimmerman, do you know him personally? How can you say that racism is inherent? As for your anti Colorblind comment, I wish the Great Martin Luther King Jr. was around to respond to you. But he is not because of people or a person afraid of a bright future. --70.119.53.11 (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I want a color blind society too. This article is not the place to make that happen, we cant ignore what is the central theme of the coverage. Additionally I will note you did not actually ask to make the article colorblind, you asked for sources to prove their ancestry, which is an entirely different matter. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

EXACTLY!!! C-O-V-E-R-A-G-E! let's not fall in the trap of the media! Let's be on the frontier of putting an article together that speaks the truth! For all I know, Zimmerman liked to track down blacks and "get em". For all I know he was just a responsible citizen. For all I know, Martin was a great kid. For all I know he was a trouble-maker. We don't have the facts, and we need to focus on just that.... facts. Not what the "coverage" necessarily puts out. And race, for now (regardless of what the sensational media says), does not seem to be a part of it. If it is later factually identified that Zimmerman hated blacks, or Martin hated whites, then okay. As for the colorblind vs ancestry.... fine... I am against a Hyphenated American article.--70.119.53.11 (talk) 02:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The shooting itself may or may not have anything to do with race. But there are many many shootings and other deaths some involving race, some not, and most of them are not notable. This one is obviously VERY notable, and racial accusations (in all directions) are major, not just in the coverage, but in the actual objective viewing of the protests and accusations etc. If we ignore the racial components and issues going on, not much is actually notable anymore. This is probalby actually more of a race controversy than a shooting controversy. Is that a negative reflection of our society? Maybe, but pretending it isnt real doesn't get us anywhere. You brought up king before. His dream speech spoke of a colorblind society, but note that he used the colors in the speech, to reflect reality of the situation. Take out the colors in that speech, and the speech itself does not make sense anymore. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. And appreciate you taking the time to explain. I suppose we have to recognize this terrible affliction. I pray for the day race no longer matters. Again, thank you for your thoughtful comment. --70.119.53.11 (talk) 02:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Request To Edit

This sentence under Prelude: "While returning to the house, Trayvon was seen by George Zimmerman,..." Should be changed to "Trayvon Martin". Using just the first name is bias as it familiarizes him to readers. Unless you want to change it to "While returning to the house, Travon was seen by George". --70.119.53.11 (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Gaijin42 (talk) 01:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

TY! — DocOfSoc • Talk • 02:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Request to Include Spike Lee Incident

As this certainly is part of the "aftermath" it should be included. Why it was removed does not make sense.--70.119.53.11 (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI

its already there? Its in the last paragraph of the aftermath section. Extra detail about the subsequent settlement etc was removed as not directly relevant, but I believe we do have consensus that the inital tweet was relevant as a probable call for vigilante response against zimmerman. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Please include the fact that Roseanna Barr also tweeted the address. 68.3.103.157 (talk) 03:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC) AndyB

Ive seen that, but where I saw it was not RS, do you have any sources for the info? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Pix of Trayvon

It has just been reported on KGO news ( San Francisco) that that dubious reporter Michelle Malkin has released pictures of a young black man with tattoos that she is claiming are Trayvon, but it has been verified that these are not he. Does she think that all blacks look alike? How sad. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 02:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

In some (but not very much) defense, they are pics of another kid coincidentally named Trayvon Martin, who lives in Georgia. But they do not look very much like him, so either they didn't examine them closely/at all, or possibly they do think all blacks look alike. I would think Malkin as a minority (and target of racism quite often) would do a better job on that. The pics came up quote a few days ago originally, and I posted about them here (since archived). Gaijin42 (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Request edit: Robert Zimmerman Sr is a retired magistrate from Virgina.

Robert Zimmerman Sr is a retired magistrate from Virgina. The reference to Zimmerman being a judge is misleading as there is a difference between a judge and a magistrate. A judge is bestowed with more powers than a magistrate. This is an important difference between the two terms. It is important to know that the powers given to a magistrate are akin to those given to an administrator. This is the reason why a magistrate handles small and minor cases only.. In addition, it is import to state that his job as a magistrate was in Virginia as people are trying to create the perception that he had substantial influence that prevent Zimmerman from being arrested.68.3.103.157 (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)AndyB

Is Trayvon Martin A Boy

Is there some relevant reason that in the lead, that Trayvon Martin is described as a "boy". Is there some relevant reason that George Zimmerman is described as a "man". Furthermore, is there some relevant reason to say that he was walking to the store "unarmed". Why not include that George Zimmerman was "armed"? Maybe you're not aware that calling a 17 year old african-american teenager a "boy" is considered deragotory by some people. Jeez, people. Their ages are listed as 17 for Martin and 28 for Zimmerman, that is sufficient.--Isaidnoway (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I removed the "boy" and "man" additions. I'll take a look at the "unarmed" addition.--Hamitr (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 April 2012

"Police had been called to The Retreat at Twin Lakes 402 times from January 1, 2011, to February 26, 2012, with Zimmerman placing 46 of those calls." Is a blatant mistruth. Zimmerman placed 46 calls to the police over the period of 7 1/2 years and not all of these calls were in reference to The Retreat. The logs to all of George Zimmerman's calls to police are located at the City of Sanford website.

68.3.103.157 (talk) 03:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)AndyB

This is an invaluable link; thanks! It's a "primary source" which should be used with caution in this sort of situation, but it is definitely googleable to get secondary news reports, namely [29] which says since 2004. The Orlando Sentinel reported apparently the wrong time interval [30] copied at [31]. Now I personally value primary sources highly so I'm going to go with your primary source plus the News 9 report, and perhaps footnote the Sentinel's take on it. Other people on Wikipedia will treat you like you're doing something wrong by so much as mentioning primary sources; we'll see if our boss here is one of them. Wnt (talk) 03:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Since Im the one most commonly responding, I assume you are refering to me? In any case, no i have great respect for primary sources, especially when the information presented in them does not require analysis, and is of direct relevance. In this case, the information is already included, and there is a good case for being incorrect, so im fine with the primary, especially if there is a secondary backing it Gaijin42 (talk) 04:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I was a bit snappy there... anyway, here's the diff [32]. Wnt (talk) 04:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

If we have conflicting reports in sources we should be careful about which is accurate unless there was a retraction - I find the primary source here somewhat unclear (and chilling, when you look at the entry for 2/26), but a couple look to be duplicates, and some number of them seem to have no name, or say "anon. male" or just "George" as the caller, so I wonder how we can be sure that these were all by Zimmerman. This is on an official site, but the report is not explained or identified, so any interpretation or analysis by us, of course, is OR. Is there more than one source identifying this report as showing 46 calls from Zimmerman? This is why we try not to use primary sources here. Tvoz/talk 07:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, all the secondary sources under consideration say there were 46 calls, and even the ones saying 2011 cite the primary source. The difference is that one says 2004 like the primary source. The others are, IMHO, the victim of a bad edit that conflated the time period for the general crime statistics (the thousands of calls since January 2011) with the period over which Zimmerman made his calls. I'm not using the primary source for the number or type of calls made by Zimmerman, only for whether the start date is 2004 or 2011. Wnt (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Although this doesn't seem to be supported by the primary source, it's possible of course Zimmerman made no calls to the police between from the beginning of 2004 to the end of 2010 in which case both are technically accurate but the 2011 claim would be less confusing. Nil Einne (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

This one states, "Zimmerman called police 46 times since Jan. 1, 2011 to report disturbances, break-ins, windows left open and other incidents. Nine of those times, he saw someone or something suspicious.[33] and this one too, "The Orlando Sentinel reports that, in the last 15 months, Zimmerman had called the Sanford police 46 times. So why not begin this latest call by saying, "Hey, it's me, George Zimmerman, from the neighborhood watch?"[34] which refers to the Orlando Sentinel one. Which states, "Records show Zimmerman, 28, called the cops 46 times between January 2011 and Feb. 26."[35] Not sure where they get this from, but it would seem from 2004 then? Under WP:V I'd mention the primary, but many many sources state 46 and the report simply states 46 calls, not all calls. So without retractions then what? We can verify it and it is from a reliable source, so who is to say its not true. Burden is verifiablity, not truth. Mention both because of the dispute. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 April 2012

The statement "Patrol sergeant Anthony Raimondo was the officer in charge of the shooting scene" is incorrect. The ranking officer on scene was a Lieutenant Taylor.

68.3.103.157 (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)AndyB

 Not done This is original research, by Wikipedia standards. We need reliable third-party sources - we don't read police reports and analyze them. Tvoz/talk 07:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Actually standard procedure is that first on scene is in charge until officers of higher rank arrive. Lieutenant Taylor made the call to major crimes. It is not WP:OR, it is common knowledge. Though giving it was a shooting the medical examiner and homicide detectives; then power rests with them until the scene is processed and released. The statement should be made to be more clear as it is incorrect. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done The very next paragraph states, "Chris Serino is a Sanford Police homicide detective and was the lead investigator." According to the sources and statements it was he was in charge. In terms of flow as I mentioned above, Raimondo was no more in charge then he was waiting for the LT to arrive. The LT called Major Crimes who relieved the LT and it was between that group that the investigation of the scene held the power. Raimondo wasn't in charge of the scene. Made the distinction clear and put 'responding officer' rather then 'in charge' because he wasn't in charge. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

CITEKILL

On the 'Latino American' part of the lede regarding Zimmerman, there's some citation overkill going on. I wasn't sure which ones to remove or move, so just wondering if someone had input on what to do with these refs before I got bold? --Львівське (говорити) 03:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• A. It is Wiki policy to never use a link in a header.
• B. I do not see evidence of citation overkill in the article after quickly perusing it. Can you provide examples? Will go back and read again. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 03:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

after carefully re-reading the article, I see no evidence of overkill. Race is only mentioned when pertinent or in a quote. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 03:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Um...as I said, the part of the lede regarding him being a Latino American. Read again. "George Zimmerman, a Latino American man.[1][2][3][4][5][6]" --Львівське (говорити) 04:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Ummm... On second thought, I have no problem with your removing Latino- American in the lede. Z self identifies as Hispanic as is mentioned later on. Anybody else have an opinion? — DocOfSoc • Talk • 04:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an objection to the content - just the citation overkill - we don't need 6 refs in the lede for this one point --Львівське (говорити) 04:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it should be removed. Much has been made in the media of misidentifying Zimmerman as "white" in the beginning. But, if "Latino American" for describing Zimmerman is removed from the beginning of the article, then "African American" for describing Martin should be removed too. A hot-button issue article such as this needs to be as balanced as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollo V. Tomasi (talk • contribs) 04:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

*facepalm* okay I just went ahead and did it anyway. You guys are April fooling me or something...lol --Львівське (говорити) 05:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It is better with both matters of race removed. Previous discussion said the same thing and I previously did it only to have my entire changes removed. Zimmerman is not white and the issue of media calling him white fueled the racism allegations. No other wiki article directly states <name> <race> in the sentence introducing them. It is rather crude to identify the individuals by their race before we even detail the situation that occured. How would it sound to have "President Obama, black man (six sources) is the current President of the US", its just bad form. We are better then this! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, none of the other people involved in this case have their race listed; Trayvon's parents, police officers, attorneys. I don't see why it is necessary to include that he was unarmed either in the lead, that is covered extensively in other sections. Was he known to be "armed" when he made previous trips to the store or went to school or anywhere else for that matter.--Isaidnoway (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Fake photos

Somebody reverted my edit, claiming it was "completely inappropriate", which explained that Business Insider had published some unflattering photos it claimed were of Trayvon Martin, which have been circulated by right-wing websites, which were actually sourced to the Stormfront racist organization and not photos of Martin. [36] I think this is relevant to the media bias news coverage as it demonstrates that the allegations of bias are based on people who are receiving inaccurate information. My sources included Columbia Journalism Review. Anyone interested in discussion? Wnt (talk) 03:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Although your report is entirely accurate, it is not pertinent to the killing of Trayvon Martin. Wiki also demands we keep the article fair and balanced. I personally think, that when it is appropriate to discuss the blatant racism of this killing, an edited version of your edit might be considered appropriate. I did discuss the false pics in a paragraph above. This article has a very long ways to go yet... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 04:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

If thats what you were trying to get across in your addition, I did not read it that way at all. I took it as trying to get those photos/tweets into the record. If you are aiming for the meta-discussion, then I think the greater issue would be WP:SYNTH, as I do not think thre has been discussion about those leaks/hacks and how those relate to bias. Gaijin42 (talk) 04:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The Business Insider article was actually about media bias - how the mainstream press was portraying Trayvon Martin as this sweet little kid when really, as readers of Stormfront know......... (!) Huffington Post also points out that they were circulating around other right-wing sites. This gives a better background on where the "media bias" really lies. Wnt (talk) 04:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd say a comment on the photos would belong in a media coverage section (haven't looked to see if there is one). The fake photos are all part of the aftermath of the shooting and is appropriate to the article since the article is about the shooting as a whole. The shooting has resulted in all sort of media activity, fake photos and everything else. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 04:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Quotation Marks

Quotation marks are necessary when it is a QUOTE, particularly when the information is doubtful.. Robert Z. claiming his family is "Multiracial" is a reaaaaal stretch. It is a quote, NOT a fact, it must be in quotaion marks! — DocOfSoc • Talk • 04:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I think but am not absolutely sure, that the manual of style suggests avoiding scare quotes as a possible POV that we are casting doubt on the honesty/reliability of the quote. In this case I am not sure why you think it is mandatory, his wife is peruvian/hispanic, he is white/european. How is multiracial a stretch? Gaijin42 (talk) 04:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

BTW I think you are terrif!. BUT, Robert is opining about their heritage which is incoreect. Hispanics/ Latinos/ Caucasion/White is all the same race. The father is trying to downplay the racism. Wiki says if it is a direct quote, as this is, quotation marks are appropriate. Thanks

04:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

MOS:BADEMPHASIS is the policy. If it were clear that the word is being quoted it would be alright, but I do not think it will be taken that way. By putting a single word in quotes it's likly to be taken as Scare quotes. If you feel he must be quoted then quote a full sentence. However I do not see the need. If we say Robert says his family is muti-racial, I am sure the reader can tell it is his opinion. We do not have to spell every thing out. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hispanic is not white. And he and his wife are not the same race by extension; multiracial is fine. No need for scare quotes. Self-identification to Hispanic is proper and valid on legal documents. Quote the entire section if you need to, but its not a misrepresentation or lie. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

History in the making

I know this is not a "forum". Please forgive me. But do any of the experienced Wikipedia folks recall another subject that has generated so much discussion. It is actually interesting, and impressive at how things unfold on the talk page, then look at the article as a product of all the discussion on the talk page. I know it can be frustrating, intimidating, and aggravating at times, but it is amazing what can be done when folks listen to each other. I for one have had an almost 180 degree change of opinion since participating here. I know.... not a blog.... just an observation. sorry. --70.119.53.11 (talk) 04:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah tons of articles get attention like this when the subject of the article is new. This has also been fairly well behaved considering how much has been made of it in the media. -- Avanu (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

As a non-American, can I suggest that yes, this could be history in the making. This has been covered in at least three responsible radio discussions I have heard in the past week in Australia. There have been suggestions of cultural and legal changes in the wind as a result of this. The world is watching. HiLo48 (talk) 06:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I am from Germany and this shooting is widely reported in our media. It is rather unusual that a single shooting which happened in another country draws so much media attention. Actually till the time of the Travon Martin shootings several shootings which involved young (minor) victims happened in my area of Germany, but those made it only to the local news. However I do not think that everything is reported correctly, as our media typically write that Zimmermann was a white jew. Now according to the US-media he was a mixed race Catholic. I would like to hear if this event is reported in other countries and if yes, what the discussion is like.

I personally have no idea if Zimmermann acted in self-defense or not. I'll wait what is found out during the investigation. But what I do not really understand is why the opinion people have about this depends so much on the political opinion a person has. To me it seems that anybody on the left thinks that Zimmermann MUST be guilty while anybody on the right thinks that he CANNOT be guilty. Why not wait what the investigations find out before jumping to conclusions.--Greatgreenwhale (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, it is more bias than only absolute belief one way or the other. The United States has a history of racial prejudice, and this an unfortunate side effect of that history. Like the shooting of James Powell in 1964, where many whites immediately assumed that the police officer had acted appropriately, many blacks knew instinctively that the facts were different. Today's society is much better in terms of race relations, but we still have a long way to go, in order to fully trust one another. -- Avanu (talk) 09:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

This case really has nothing to do about race. The media has been the culprit behind that aspect of this case. Unfortunately, those with weaker minds, believe everything they see and hear on TV, radio and the internet. It's sad.Isaidnoway (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the 'actual' case has nothing to do with race, but from what I can tell, the biases around the case are lining up on political and racial lines. -- Avanu (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The World is indeed watching. My Western European relatives have mentioned it frequently and requested my updates from the American Media. If other international editors "chime in" perhaps the "news within the news" quality will show a need to be split off from the main article here. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Re:"nothing to do with race". I strongly disagree. While it is no longer the America of the '50's, everything (in US of America) has to do with Race. The response by people around the world is because of Race. The attempt by some editors to exclude Race from the story, (front story and all the back stories), is futile.```Buster Seven Talk 12:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Race isn't so much of an issue when Zimmerman isn't portrayed as white. Counter to the claim of racism, two white boys were killed by a black man and Obama said nothing. [37] Where is that for hate crime? From the article, "It would perhaps appear that Mr Obama sees no political value in facilitating such a request or that the lives of two British tourists are not worthy of ten minutes of his time." Much worse happens everyday across America, far worse crimes are committed and yet this is an exceptional case because of the media and reduces reality to whether or not media covers it. Its sad, but the race card is a cheap way to get lots of undue attention from the media; this has gotten more coverage then the presidential primaries themselves.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Race isn't so much of an issue when Zimmerman isn't portrayed as white. Not quite sure what you mean. My take on what I have read here and elsewhere is that Race had ALOT to do with the moments surrounding the fatal act of shooting a gun at another person resulting in death. And, bottom line, that is what this article is about: the shooting incident. WE can bicker back and forth about all the fringe theories and observations and blogs about what happened but to ignore that Race was a part of the 'mix of the moment' is unrealistic. Also, this is an exceptional newsworthy case because a "community watch" individual, in a right-to-bear Arms" state, while on his own self-directed patrol of his extended neighborhood made a determination that an individual he saw fit his personal description of a 'person of interest'. He made a radical ill-formed decision based on few facts but many profiling parameters and the result was the shooting of that individual. Blaming the media for the attention is an attempt to deflect the truth of the incident when it happened. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the media coverage of this event, when the local media outlet's were covering this story, race was never mentioned. However, when the Martin's retained an attorney who brought this case into the national spotlight, specifically Al Sharpton, then all of a sudden it became a "white on black" issue. It wasn't until the national media got involved in the reporting of this case, that race became the defining issue. There is no credible evidence whatsoever to believe that Zimmerman targeted Martin specifically because of his race.Isaidnoway (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That is correct. Might as well go on about the newspapers in Germany calling Zimmerman a white jew, which is funny because his religion has never come up and well... he's catholic. So that is obviously incorrect and a lie. Just like that NBC one where they edited the tape to make Zimmerman racist. Buster7 either your sources aren't telling you the truth or they aren't good sources. Race actually isn't a big issue now that the media's lies are being reported back and forth by other outlets and things are settling down for the legal matters. Just need that Grand Jury decision which will once again pick up the news, but if its not controversial then it will probably continue to fade until the courts get it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman looked out into the world he was protecting and saw something. The events that followed were based on decisions he made about that something. The evidence that he acted on his checklist of things to pay attention to is the topic of this article. Everything else is fluff. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence of that. He wasn't even patrolling as you claim. He had no checklist physical or mental that said, "oh he's black. he's up to no good. Better shoot him dead." That is the kind of racism and bias that has been supported by various hate groups. "The New Black Panther Party is a virulently racist and anti-Semitic organization whose leaders have encouraged violence against whites, Jews and law enforcement officers." from SPLC. Last I checked their current version includes all three of those. Wikipedia is not a bastion for extremist hate groups to proliferate a conclusion based on a twisting or crafting evidence to support those views. The racist angle has been inflammed by such fabrications. We even have a section for it! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course this is about race. That's WHY the world is watching. Race may or may not have had anything to do with Zimmerman's actions, and that's for the courts to decide, but without the racial aspect very few people would care about this case. HiLo48 (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That is false. How can you deny the dozens of murders, black on white or white on black that took place this year? How about the hundreds of murders with clear cut circumstances that are of the same race? Do they get the same coverage? Did those two British tourists who were executed by their black murderer get the same coverage? Even when appealing to Obama 3 times for comment? Race is a cheap issue, but it is not the matter of race which immediately makes it worth reporting. They purposefully have demonized, attacked and pushed political agendas favorable to them with this incident. Race was just the hook. Trayvon is a poster child and Zimmerman is the devil, representing all things which further political power and of course money. Do I need to plaster up other crimes for every single other issue in other cases around this incident? Its a media circus with attention disproportionate to the shooting. It has made a mockery of the very laws and protections Americans as a whole are entitled to. The day extremist hate groups dominate the news for their political posturing is a sad day indeed; and that day has come. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the Amanda Knox case got just as much press, and it wasn't even in the U.S. Also, the issue here for many of us has little to do with race, but rather whether we have more or less legalized murder so long as someone says he has fear in his heart. But none of this is much related to the Wikipedia dispute, as I've seen bitterer debates over things very trivial and obscure. Wnt (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It concerns an American who was later cleared for murder, I think that is a big deal, but media typically overblows it. The case I specifically mentioned was with a murderer who had no fear and showed no remorse, with the word 'Savage' tattooed across his chest. How does Trayvon get such attention over this? Doesn't seem fair because it isn't fair. Media chooses what makes the news. Perspective is always a given. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Another sad aspect of this case, will be the media frenzy surrounding the trial, (if there is one). What juror will honestly be able to say they haven't heard about this case in the media. The media's coverage has been totally biased against Zimmerman and that is simply not fair. Regardless of what you think about him, our justice system was designed so defendant's could get a fair trial, without going through a "pre-trial" in the media. I think that one of the most unjust convictions I have ever seen was in the OJ trial. The only person who was convicted that was directly related to that case was Mark Fuhrman, who was convicted of perjury for lying about saying the "N" word in his past. He was absolutely villified in the media, for having the bad luck to be woke up in the middle of the night to go investigate a homicide.Isaidnoway (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That reads like soapboxing to me, and it's irrelevant too. HiLo48 (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

What was Martin doing to get the attention of Mr Zimmermann. Was he walking down the street instead of on the sidewalk, looking into cars to rob as he passed? Was he sauntering in that way that youngsters do today? Did he have gang tatoos that were visible from far away? We dont know but something caught the attention of Mr Z. What had he witnessed? "he looked suspicious" is what he said. What looked suspicious? The hoodie? The saunter? The droopy low-hung pant showing off a butt-crack?>. His Jordon Air $100 sneakers? The pigment of Martins skin? We dont know. But something about him caught Mr Zs eye. I think Z pre-judged Martin and assummed too much about him. What about Martin said he was out-of-place? His actions? Something he said or did? Or something else. We dont know. Did he oooggle some girls that had passed by? Perspective is always a given. Something about Mr Zs given perspective gave him false signals and a young man is dead because of it. Talking about all the other stuff (trial, Black panthers, media coverage, etc.etc.etc) is goobledegook. Will Mette (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Where_does_the_father.27s_fiancee_live.3F

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin/Archive_2#Where_does_the_father.27s_fiancee_live.3F

It's been long enough now for people to find sources for this. Please remove the uncited, and apparently unciteable, suggestion that the dad's fiancee lived in the gated community. Also note the right spelling of fiancee. Thanks. 72.229.0.95 (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. I put a source in days ago - if it was removed I'll have to go back and find it again. I also corrected the spelling of fiancée at the same time. I'll check - I do wish people would be more careful if your report is right. Tvoz/talk 07:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Please look again - the citation is right there in the text where I put it a couple of days ago, in the "Trayvon Martin" section. And "fiancée" is still there, correctly spelled. Your report was wrong, no one took it out. Tvoz/talk 08:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I was referring to the section titled "Prelude" under "Shooting." Perhaps the same citation should go there as well, and also note that fiancee is still misspelled there. Thanks again. 72.229.0.95 (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Ok, now I see the second one - sorry for the misunderstanding. It is now fixed and cited again - I'm not sure it's absolutely necessary, but it can't hurt. Thanks Tvoz/talk 21:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 April 2012 (politics, mitt romney)

Edit by Elliott, Lawrence D. (March 29, 2012). "Trayvon Martin: Not a Symbol for Vigilante Justice". The Huffington Post.

^ "Why are Mitt Romney and his GOP rivals dodging Trayvon Martin?". The Week. March 23, 2012.

Nope. The article is a mess as is, making it a political silly season article would be worse. Collect (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

 Not done additionally, huff post is not an RS, and the week is pure opinion talking about why mitt romney, who is not officially related to this case in any way, hasn't done anything. Pure spin, not encyclopedic. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Let us not be too vociferous in our comments about this new editor. I'm sure his edits were an attempt to add to the discussion. His attempt should not be labelled as "silly" or "spin". ```Buster Seven Talk 14:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, everyone needs to be respectful of each other, please.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I was not refering to the editor's comments as spin, rather that the article itself was spin. I apologize if that is the impression I left. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

What did police/state atty say, when did they say it?

We need to assemble an order list of all 'official' police statements/press releases/interviews on the case. For interviews, we need links to full videos and transcripts (for readers without audio ability). I find lots of short quotes, but we need to link to the full statments as reference for full context.

So, for example, how many press conferences did Chief Lee give, when, and exactly what did he say? --HectorMoffet (talk) 11:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Is the re some significance to the exact timing of the statements? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the police failed a "no confidence" motion, so their collective actions are "under scrutiny" in the DOJ/FLEP cases. But mostly, I just want to provide readers with refs to the "full contexts". As a reader, I wanted to check refs containg the full transcripts/videos, but couldn't find such lists.

Not saying factor the article itself around it-- but we need it for reference. --HectorMoffet (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Where was Zimmerman's truck parked?

Has anyone been able to discover where Zimmerman's truck was parked? How far was Martin found from Zimmerman's truck? Was Zimmerman's truck towed? If Martin was headed from the North entrance at Twin Lakes to the South East back exit of Twin Lakes (Zimmerman's 911 call) he would have almost had to double back to be found where he was found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.66.133 (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

When did Zimmerman first retain atty?

Did Zimmerman retain an attorney prior to March 24? The shooting was on February 26 and his father is was a judge. It's very hard to imagine he wouldn't have retained an attorney prior to the 24th). This edit may be guided by the hypothesis that Zimmerman was without counsel prior to Mar 24, but I'm not if we know this be verified.

Obviously, it was announced on Mar 24 that had retained council, but what happened on the 24? First contact iwth a lawyer or a public statement about having retained one? Do we know? --17:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'd actually like to see another source for it, I'll put the 'announced' back for now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Just a guess, but considering charges were not filed against him at the time and he was released, there would really be no reason to retain an attorney. It wasn't until March 20th. when the announcement's were made about new investigations and a grand jury, so the 24th, sounds reasonable.Isaidnoway (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

March 20th????Will Mette (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman's grandfather was career foreign service and worked for CIA

http://international.loc.gov/service/mss/mssmisc/mfdip/2005%20txt%20files/2004zim01.txt George Zimmerman's grandfather, Robert Walter Zimmermann, who joined the U.S. Foreign Service in 1947 after Harvard. As late as this 1992 interview Zimmermann was working for the CIA in Langley Virginia after his retirement from diplomacy. Robert W. Zimmermann's diplomatic career took him all over the world, as the interview shows, ending as consul general in Barcelona. He married a Peruvian woman named Silvia Brull -- George the killer's grandmother. (George's mother Gladys is also Peruvian born.) Grandfather Robert W. Zimmermann's son was born June 13, 1947: Robert J. Zimmerman. This is George the killer's father -- the man who has not shown his face on TV -- for whatever reason. The grandfather's obituary in The Washington Post 3/8/1999, cites Robert J. as from "Chicago and Barcelona".Stulbarge (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Who is George the killer?Isaidnoway (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Presumably Stulbarge is referring to George Zimmerman, the man who killed Trayvon Martin. Not too hard to follow. That piece is fascinating to read - were we writing a biography of George Zimmerman, and had we verified that this is indeed his grandfather, it could theoretically have some place. Of course this is not that, so it doesn't. But thanks, Stulbarge. Tvoz/talk 23:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I just removed it from the article. There is no RS out there confirming a family relation. The source for this claim most likely comes from this site.TMCk (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman Senior a Retired Magistrate? Is Zimmerman Sr an attorney?

The link to magistrate is not very informative with regards to US or Florida law. Does anyone have the knowledge/expertise to describe what type of magistrate Mr Zimmerman was and if his position could have any impact on how his son was handled? It seems that a "Magistrate" is a type of "judge" who can issue arrest warrants etc. In some states the position of Magistrate can lead to actually being appointed into a District Court as a Judge. How does is work in Florida? Is Zimmerman Senior an Attorney like he would have to be in some other states in order to be appointed a magistrate in the first place? I am new here but just thought it seemed important to know exactly what political power and connections the shooter's father has given the father's comments to the media where he took the comments of the hired attorney "George knew one of them was going to die that night" and attributed those word directly to the dead boy as his last words before his son shot him. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9wiki9wiki (talk • contribs) 21:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Wannabe cop?

One of the main character criticisms of Zimmerman is that he was/is a wannabe cop and that the shooting arose out of his vigilantism (google search for 'wannabe cop' feature Zimmerman prominently). Are there any sources which state that Zimmerman was trying to or otherwise wanted to become a police officer? This information should go well in the Zimmerman section of the article. -Stevertigo (t | c) 21:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The article noted [38] previously but it was removed probably because of the desire to keep unnecessary biographical details to a minimum. The details on his enrollment at the college remain and it may be acceptable to re-add that he was working towards becoming a police officer if it's properly supported by the sources. Nil Einne (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Aftermath

In the 2nd paragraph there is still a clarification needed tag still there, pertaining to Zimmerman's previous charges. Did we ever reach a consensus on including them there?Isaidnoway (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

George Zimmerman's Past

According to reliable sources George Zimmerman's father was a member of the Klu Klux Klan. This is information that should be in the article but wiki has deleted it several times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.3.166 (talk) 01:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

What sources? For something this controversial there would need to be many, and extremely reliable, and show that it was the same zimmerman. He is married to a peruvian, so the KKKs objection to miscegenation would seem to be an issue with this hypothesis. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

To include such an inflammatory claim, you would need to have a strong reason to include it and like Gaijin42 says above, it would need to be supported by many very reliable sources. You say it 'should be in the article', but it might be nice to have you explain the rationale behind that statement, if it is even true. -- Avanu (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I can find no reference to this story in ANY sources, let alone reliable ones. The closest things are people using the KKK as a metaphor for the "lynch mob" against zimmerman, nothing even completely unreliable blogs is mentioning this. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Title of Article

I want to get people's thoughts on the title of the article. The closest example to something like this that I can think of would be the Bernie Goetz[[39]] incident. We currently have that article titled under Bernie's name as opposed to "Shooting of Barry Allen, Troy Canty, Darrell Cabey and James Ramseur" Personally I think it would be better if we retitled the article as just "Trayvon Martin" because I think in it's current state it's a little biased/unclear, especially since we are still waiting on the facts. Just want to know what everyone else thinks about the current title? Thanks Redredryder (talk) 07:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. However, I think the article title needs to stay the same. My reason is that the article is about "The shooting of Trayvon Martin" not about Trayvon Martin himself. As can be seen by my comments here I am the biggest supporter of keeping the article as neutral as possible. But still feel the title is appropriate. I think everyone agrees that Trayvon Martin was shot. So calling it the "Shooting of Trayvon Martin" is not necessarily biased. If there were to be any change, I would vote for, at the very least, "The Trayvon Martin Incident", or "The Trayvon Martin Shooting". --70.119.53.11 (talk) 07:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a conversation taking place about this here - let's keep it in one place. I will move it down so it is easier to find. Tvoz/talk 08:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Change title of article?

Most Wikipedia articles regarding the death of someone do not refer to how the person died, but instead refers to the death. (See Death of Caylee Anthony, as a for instance) The title of the article implies that Martin was shot, but did not die. How do editors feel about changing the article title to Death of Travyon Martin? Angryapathy (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not firmly opposed to the change, but will note that in the caylee situation, the exact circumstances of her death are not known, and the controversy is much more about coverups, trial, etc. In this case, the context of the shooting itself is the subject of the most scrutiny. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I was lazy in providing more "Death of..." examples. Death of Michael Jackson isn't Overdose of Micahel Jackson, Death of Osama bin Laden isn't Shooting of Osama bin Laden, and Death of Diana, Princess of Wales isn't Car accident of Princess Diana. Angryapathy (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that Death of would be more customary, but a name change may be politically charged. "Shooting of" may appeal to some who perhaps want to keep the focus on the gun. Whereas death may be deemed insufficiently precise or impersonal.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree that we should use "Death of" rather than "Shooting of" unless there is a policy argument I am unaware of.LedRush (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that

The Shooting Death of Trayvon Martin ;) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

There is, obviously, a major difference between the way Diana died and the way Trayvon died - to me "Death of" just doesn't capture it. This article is about the shooting and the circumstances surrounding the shooting, but "Shooting of" could sound like Trayvon did not die. We are not going to say "Murder of" - at least not at this juncture - so we need to capture the fact that he was actively killed. That's the point of Gaijin's suggestion, but it's really awkward. So I would like to suggest Killing of Trayvon Martin - the method of his death is not as relevant as the fact that he was killed - he didn't just die. The uproar is not so much about the fact that it was a gun death as that it was the killing of a 17 year old unarmed kid. And "Killing of" is NPOV - even George Zimmerman agrees that he killed Trayvon. What do y'all think? Tvoz/talk 05:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not opposed to a title change, but I do not feel it would be an improvement. The shooting is the event. Even if Trayvon did not die, the shooting would still be the event. "Death of" articles are often spin-offs from articles about notable people. It is harsh to say, but Trayvon Martin was not notable for anything else but getting shot. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Here are handy links for looking at other articles with such prefixes: Special:PrefixIndex/Killing of, Special:PrefixIndex/Death of, Special:PrefixIndex/Murder of, Special:PrefixIndex/Homicide of, Special:PrefixIndex/Shooting of.Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Note some of the shootings (and likely others) are just redirects. The only two which seem to use this specific format are Shooting of Hosie Miller and Shooting of Kayla Rolland. We also have some other similar stuff like Kathryn Johnston shooting, Amadou Diallo shooting and BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant (list not intended to be exhaustive). (I'm ignoring cases like Shooting of the Romanov family and 2011 Tucson shooting as of a somewhat different character due to the fact they involve multiple victims.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW, while I'm not arguing against a move, I don't know if all the earlier examples are great comparisons. As I understand it, the cause of Caylee Anthony's death remains undetermined. Whether she was killed or the cause of death was homicide remains disputed. She definitely wasn't shot. So death really seems the best simple title. And perhaps it's just me but 'overdose of ....' or 'car accident of ....' just sounds awkward whereas shooting does not, even if the person died. Nil Einne (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

"Shooting of..." is ambiguous. "Shooting Death of..." gets right to the point and sets the tone for the reader. "Killing of..." is a bit heavy handed. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

"Shooting of JFK" and "Shooting of John Lennon" are also redirects to "Assassination of"[40] and "Death of"[41] respectively. When it reads as "shooting of", it victimizes the person who died. Considering the facts aren't clear cut and there exists the possibility that the shooting was in self-defense, I think "Death of" would be a much more appropriate title at this point. Redredryder (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I agree with redred. Is there a forum for officially evaluating the options with a new title? How can we vote? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no "vote" per-se, but the correct forum is right here. If consensus is reached, we just change the title. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to go with "Death of Trayvon Martin". Have the current 'Shooting of' redirect to the new page. It is inline with other pages and avoids issues of point of view and the resounding controversy that is taking place. Shooting doesn't mean death either; people can be shot and don't die. The title should reflect that Trayvon Martin is dead in no uncertain terms. If someone is pummeled to death would it be "Pummeling of..." or if it was poison "Poisining of...' we should be clear with the title, "Death of Trayvon Martin." ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Chris, I think we're still talking about this - not clear that consensus is reached, so maybe wait a bit longer.COmments seem to be still coming in, and the last thing we want is an edit war over the title. Tvoz/talk 21:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

What are the serious arguments opposed to "The death of..." Let's hear them. If none are forthcoming then I'd see Monday being a good time to move. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I've been thinking some more about this - despite my initial feeling that it was awkward, I think, as Buster7 said upstream, that Gaijin's suggestion of Shooting death of Trayvon Martin gets right to the point and satisfies both problems: that it be clear that it was a death, and that it was not an accident or some kind of natural cause - this is what I was trying to get at with the suggestion of Killing of. Since that didn't fly, I think Shooting death is the best option. Tvoz/talk 04:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Support "The Shooting Death of Trayvon Martin" ArishiaNishi (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

"Shooting Death" would be a step up from what we have now, but I still think "Death of" would be the best choice, and we can redirect "Shooting of" and "Shooting Death of" to this article. My main arguments would be

• No other articles of similar situations that I could find use "Shooting death of"
• While both "Shooting of" and "Shooting Death of" are technically correct, I feel like "Shooting" is a charged word. Keeping it simply as "Death of" would be much more neutral IMO. Redredryder (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

If the story was just about a death, this article wouldn't exist. It's only because Martin was deliberately shot that this is news. Removing that fact from the title is whitewashing. HiLo48 (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)